Reid Responds

Questions/Comments from Jan for Reid:

I think it's possible to serve one's country in a variety of ways. Reid has obviously done this through several types of public service: Peace Corps, working in a medically under-served area and military service in Iraq. I'd like to hear his thoughts about whether one's sense of duty to country could be met through service other than the military.
I was surprised to hear you (Reid) say that you question whether the liberal left learned a lesson from Vietnam. In my mind the liberal left were among the first to recognize the mistakes in Vietnam. Would you help me understand your thoughts about this? As one who was part of that generation, I wonder sometimes whether all that is remembered of the anti-war demonstrations is the irresponsible bombing of buildings, etc. There is much about our immaturity during that time that is embarrassing (such as inadequate appreciation of the troops), but I also recall heartfelt sadness, concern, outrage and dedication to social justice.
I fully agree with you that those who voted for this Admin twice (as well as those who didn't vote at all) do not deserve airtime for complaints about the gov.
The bear story made my heart race. I'm definitely ordering the book and will watch for the new one.

Sincere thanks, Reid, for your service in Iraq, as well as elsewhere.


Jan, et al.

Thank you for your comments, and your questions. I firmly believe that every one has a duty to serve their country, whether or not they personally realize it. I think anyone who has traveled outside of Europe and America should have a pretty good idea as to why that is so. I don't believe that military service is the only legitimate service however, by any means. It is only one of many (I consider my Peace Corps work and my work in remote Alaska to be legitimate national service). I do think, however, that given the unique risk and demands of service through the military, we should all recognize that such service carries a distinctly higher price than any other form. No other form of service requires that you give up your legal right to freedom of speech or freedom of assembly. No other service legally removes you from the protections of the American judicial system. And, most importantly, no other service requires you to serve (to give up your freedom to say "No") even when you decide that the objective of your service is one you disagree with. In sum, no other type of service requires you to fully and legally subjugate your personal freedom and constitutionally established rights and privileges.

So while I don't think military service is the only legitimate form of service, it is unique. Other legitimate forms of service simply do not equate. In my opinion then, the answer to your question depends on the circumstances: In peacetime, all legitimate service is probably fairly akin to military service in terms of meeting our obligations to service (although even then none require so much). In wartime there is no equivalent. If our country goes to war (regardless of our support of that war) we have an obligation to serve our country within our ability. Service does not have to be combat service, but the military has two or three non-combat (support) positions for every combat position, so there is certainly no shortage of work. For philosophical reasons, I would have had a problem doing combat work in Iraq, but I have no problem providing medical care. My work in Iraq was all the more important because I believed the war was wrong. We owe our soldiers our support all the more when we have denied them and their families the knowledge that their tremendous sacrifice was at least for a noble cause.

In reply to your second question, I agree with you that the liberal left was among the first to recognize the mistakes in Vietnam, and heartfelt sadness, concern, outrage, and questions of social justice were important aspects of the antiwar movement. In my opinion however, no amount of justifiable concern for social justice trumps the abandonment of those American soldiers who paid such an incredible price in Vietnam at our behest. I’ve treated a lot of Vietnam vets who never came home from Vietnam. I’ve never treated a protestor who never came home. The embarrassing immaturity of many of the antiwar protestors from the Vietnam era may have left them bad memories and some guilt, but it contributed to the tens of thousands of soldiers catastrophically scared for life by PTSD. It is my personal opinion that the abandonment of our soldiers in Vietnam (instead of just the war) by the American public (warm and comfortable in America) was a travesty far greater than any carried out by any soldier in theatre trying to do his duty in Vietnam. However, the genesis of my comment in the interview had little to do with what happened in Vietnam, but had more to do with my experience since I returned from Iraq. I have attended a number of community projects on the war and have had many conversations on the war, many with very good and very liberal friends. I have heard way to often for comfort comments akin to “this war would end if the soldiers would just refuse to fight”, thus placing the responsibility for ending the war on the soldiers who have gone to fight at “our” behest. There is this underlying current of disempowerment and blame in such ideas. There is also this common and disturbing tendency to deny that our government is our responsibility (“he’s not MY president”). It is a denial of one’s fundamental obligation in a democracy to take responsibility for your citizenship, a refusal to take personal responsibility for your choices (or lack of choices). Most importantly, and most insidious, is that it reflects an expectation that the same people who are risking their lives in our war are somehow also responsible for risking their livelihoods, careers, and families in order to stop the war (this doesn’t even begin to touch on how silly it is to ask the world’s most powerful military to make their own decisions as to when and against whom they should unleash their arsenal). We expect them to go to jail and lose their livelihoods for the wars we disagree with, and yet we don’t go to jail and give up our livelihood as well. I think the American left has a lot to be proud of, from voting rights for women to the migration of industrial workers to the middle class. But this tendency for the left (in my experience) to expect the military to risk their lives for wars we agree with, and risk their incarceration, their careers, and family welfare for wars we don’t agree with, all while we take no personal risk at all, is a tendency that should have been shamed out of us in the Vietnam era.

Those are long opinions for a short questions, and I appreciate your asking.