Once again, marc's story highlights that all of our common enemy --
GI/protester -- of the time was our government and it's confederates.
I had the FBI hassling my family as well, not however to the extent
which marc's seems to have been, so I know the pressure he and his
father must have been under.
marc is not the first Vet to write that <the anti-war movement folks
rejected me out of hand>. I am both surprised and deeply troubled by
those assertions/facts(?). I am surprised because from my first-hand
experience, Vets were always welcomed and embraced as brothers in the
anti-war/govt. struggle. My running buddy for a couple of years was
a Vet named Jerry. We organized together, got busted together, got
beat-up together, got high together, etc. and Jerry was not alone.
There were many Vets and not necessarily VVAW guys who were with us.
I am so deeply troubled that this was the experience of marc and
others that in the absence of someone to offer an "official" apology,
I very presumptuously apologize for the peace movement that you were
all not made to feel wanted. I don't know if it was the paranoia of
the time which caused anti-government activists to be wary of
potential govt. infiltrators, or whether you guys just came up against
jerks -- whatever it was -- it was wrong.
> so what? i do not believe the anti-war movement was anymore than a
> public relations "issue" for the two administrations. i see no
> evidence that it helped end the war. the death of 58,000 kids did
> that.
I think it was both the anti-war movement, which by then was
encompassing great and growing chunks of middle America, and the death
of 58,000 kids that ended the war. marc, after seeing that the feds
would have had no compunction to destroy your family, do you really
doubt that "they" wouldn't have let the death toll rack-up to whatever
it took, if it had not for the existence of an anti-war movement. In
my heart of hearts, I truly believe that the lost lives of 58,000 kids
meant nothing to anyone of those MF's (accept maybe LBJ) and that they
would have kept on going... and going...and going.
>for the most part antiwar folks in the
> u.s. failed to rise to the level of self-sacrifice they needed to
> match their rhetoric. the antiwar movement never rose to the level of
> sacrifice, commitment or courage of those who suffered so the war
> might end.
For the most part I think marc is correct. But I don't think it was
that we lacked courage or commitment. We were young, unorganized,
disorganized, naive, unskilled, and undisciplined, among, I'm sure, a
multitude of other faults. However, we were effective -- although not
as effective as we should have been nor wanted to be. And we
certainly weren't effective as fast as we wanted to be, not until
58,000 of your comrades and our brothers had fallen.
Miles