Steve Mellenthin ) writes:
-snip-
Speaking out against a war takes courage but doing so in a way that
encourages
the enemy, raises the level of danger to the men still in the line of fire,
and
denigrates the service record of those who have served is not an act of
courage, it is an act of self serving political gratuity.

How would you suggest that might be done? Just how would one speak out
against the war while simultaneously not encouraging the enemy? Speaking,
but doing so so quietly that no one hears?

Certainly not by hanging out with peple who allow themselves to be photgraphed
sitting in a piece of AAA that was probably used agaist our forces within 12
hours. And not by making comments about how Americans are committing
atrocities in the combat zone, or hurling ones medals at the government only to
claim later it was staged.

One can disagree or speak out without speaking badly of the people who are
still serving and honorably following orders.
Would you rather have the military pick and choose their conflicts or follow
the orders of the Commander-in-Chief.



And the best way to reduce the danger level to those still in the line
of fire was to get them out of the line of fire as quickly as possible.
Especially as the VN conflict was not going to be "won" in any meaningful
sense.

--

That had been happening since 1971 and by 72 the only major combat troops were
air units blunting the North Vietnamese offensive into the south so it is hard
for me personally to see that JFK's actions weren't more for personal political
gain than opposition to the was. Just my opinion.