The Anger Blog, Two Conflicting Messages on War (by a Pro-War Draft Dodger)

Many of us living today were directly affected by the war in Viet Nam or had friends or family who were. Back then, some young people volunteered because they believed that our military was fighting a just war for democracy. There were other young men who opposed the war but were drafted to serve in the armed forces. Still others were given deferments for various reasons, such as college attendance, having small children at home, shouldering conscientious objections, etc. Quite a few young males fled the United States to Canada or other countries to avoid being drafted. All of these positions can be understandable. Even though we might disagree with the choices some made in those days, their reasoning in arriving at their decisions at least made sense to us.

What angers me today is the position taken by Mitt Romney, possibly the next Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces, regarding the war in Viet Nam. The young Romney was in those days a hawk for the war. He is shown in photos (taken in the 1960s) carrying signs denouncing those persons who opposed the war. He thought that the young people involved in sit-ins to protest the war were unpatriotic and was very outspoken about it. His actions would have been more acceptable (even though he shouldn't have chastised the protestors for their opinions) if he had put his money where his mouth was. But he didn't.

You would think that a young man of draft age who supported the war effort (albeit with rhetoric and sign carrying only) would be the first to volunteer; wouldn't you? Well, we, of course, would have been wrong. In the Viet Nam war years, Governor Romney received multiple deferments: Three years were deferred for college attendance plus two and a half years while he carried out his Mormon overseas ministry. Thus, he was able to avoid the war altogether. The 2½-year ministry in the name of religion, by the way, was carried out in France, where he stayed in what some people describe as "a palace" with two servants (a chef and a "houseboy"). While he was "suffering" through this church ministry, the war raged on, resulting in 58,000 U.S. military deaths and 350,000 casualties, demonstrating the philosophy that some say he lives by, i.e., taking care of #1 at the expense of others. Incidentally, neither Romney's father, nor any of his five sons has ever served in the military.

Romney didn't see any conflict or inconsistency with promoting the war effort while circumventing any action or participation in the war himself. Is this what we're looking for in a leader? Should Mitt Romney become the leader of the free world?

Related reading on this subject: Post-traumatic stress disorder treatment.