I came across a remarkable letter to the editor printed in Philadelphia’s neighborhood paper, The Northeast Times. It is a rebuttal to a three page love note printed by The Northeast Times hightlighting the organization Iraq Veterans Against War.
For your perusal and commentary, you can view the original article HERE.
Below is the rebuttal to this article:
The July 24 cover story A battle cry to end the war by staff writer Jon Campisi is a flattering account of the anti-war group Iraq Veterans Against the War, which lacked a great deal of critical information needed for the Northeast Times readers to reach an informed opinion of the group, its origin, efforts and goals.
Though Campisi noted that the Iraq Veterans Against the War were formed under the patronage of the Veterans For Peace, unexamined is who are the Veterans For Peace (VFP). The leadership of VFP is almost exclusively members of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). Vietnam Veterans Against the War are veterans who unfairly smeared their own generation of military, calling them baby killers and war criminals at the Jane Fonda-funded “tribunal” called Winter Soldier. The real story is that IVAW is really a re-enactment of the Vietnam era protests under VVAW. A lack of originality can be forgiven, but the Iraq Veterans Against the War’s decision to hold their own Winter Soldier smear is absolutely reprehensible.
This time it was the AFL-CIO who played the role of Jane Fonda and hosted Winter Soldier 2.0 at its National Labor College in Silver Spring, Md.
Similar to the original attack on the Vietnam generation, none of the “testimony” was under oath and hearsay was permitted, violating basic constitutional rights afforded Americans accused of crimes. Names of perpetrators were not required, but the “witnesses” told the world war crimes are routinely committed by our troops with the awareness of all levels of command. Additionally, the scope of IVAW’s Winter Soldier 2.0 included Afghanistan as an illegal and immoral war.
The profiles of the IVAW members featured in Jon Campisi’s account contained disingenuous elements. T.J. Buonomo was described as having five years of service. In fact, four years were at the U.S. Air Force Academy. Consider that those four years of college-level education does not count towards military retirement, and you will see his service was exaggerated. A great deal of the time left was spent in training and he never deployed — not that there’s anything wrong with that, but it was presented in a way to imply more experience and knowledge than exists.
Kelly Dougherty is described as enlisting at age 17, in a Guard unit. Other than her deployment, the commitment per year in the Reserves or Guard is one weekend a month and two weeks of active duty training, 38 days.
Shalom Keller is cited as six months in Afghanistan and 12 months in Iraq, but the writer fails to note that his experience is stale, as the situation on the ground in Iraq has dramatically changed. That is a recurring fact when looking at what many IVAW vets bring to the debate. The reality of the Iraq war has changed, but their views have not.
Overall, the anti-war movement seeks to sell as military experts, junior enlisted personnel who lack the training, experience and skills to provide a strategic opinion. They can speak to their experience, but keep in mind, their responsibilities in this war were limited to three city blocks and a dozen people. Yet, they are sent out as someone who can speak with authority, because their leaders exploit the American public’s genuine awe for our troops.
These Iraq vets posture that though they are against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, they are as patriotic as mainstream America. That claim breaks down quickly when you look at the beliefs of the groups they support and work with, such as ANSWER, Code Pink, Vietnam Veterans Against the War and even Veterans For Peace.
ANSWER is a front for the Party for Liberation and Socialism, whose leaders preach unconditional support for the insurgents they call “the resistance,” even as they kill American troops. Code Pink has contributed $650,000 to “the resistance.” Both are endorsers of the World Tribunal on Iraq that declares that the insurgents have the moral high ground, so much so that they are entitled to commit terrorist atrocities to force the Americans out of Iraq.
Ignored in the article were initiatives prominently featured on the IVAW Web site. Tactical strategies such as “Befriend A Recruiter,” in which IVAW hopes to “shut down recruitment for this war,” participants are encouraged to not reveal their connection to IVAW or this initiative. Honest addressing of the issues, right? In the Active Duty section of the Web site one can find information on being a war resistor, appealing for redress, and conscientious objector information.
Based upon the contents of the Web site and the facts presented, it is fair to say that supporting the troops through subversion is a good characterization of this IVAW.
Print This Post
Trackbacks
57 comments so far
Leave a reply
Identity Verification: If you wish to verify your commenter identity, so no one can steal it, click the below button: