I respect Conroy, his decision for himself (and his right to judge himself), and his friend who went to Vietnam.

I am utterly confused as to how loving one's country is necessarily linked to going to Vietnam.

"Remember, son-
I didn't sell out,
I bought in."

Scott McD, It often took real effort NOT to go to Viet Nam. It was not a volunteer military. My husband went to great lengths to avoid the draft, managed not to go, and regrets his choice even as Pat Conroy does.

One day, looking back, men who are young now will regret not helping in the military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Think about it as the biggest thing the country is doing. In retrospect, the effort becomes about American intent, not about relative success. America's national intent is to share freedom and prosperity with the needy. Wouldn't it be nice if it worked?

Also, in retrospect, you wonder whether IF all had contributed to the effort, pulled in the same direction, instead of so many tugging the other way, the project might not have gone better in the altogether.

"And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."

There's nothing new in a man's regret that he did not join his countrymen in battle.

Kate,

Not to make it a quoting war, since our snippets can be used towards any end, but this one has come to mind throughout:
"But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place;' some swearing, some crying for a surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left. I am afeard there are few die well that die in a battle; for how can they charitably dispose of any thing, when blood is their argument? Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the king that led them to it; whom to disobey were against all proportion of subjection."

It then, of course, goes on to the king countering this point.

It IS the American way, it IS national pride which fuels pulling the other way. This completely ducks out of the question whether the cause was just and right. You nailed it - American (government) intent - which I and others continue to find it either suspect or horribly wrong. As one who dismays at the choice to go to Iraq and the conduct there, I question how worthwhile it is, and am not enamored by the war as being the big event of the nation. The protests and resistance, the questioning and speaking out, are part of the big event, inherent in the event, and however noble the cause, thank G_d for that. I cannot go along with something simply because it is a national trend.

I will not debate here in the question of if Iraq was right (it'd become quickly pointless in either direction), and of course people will question their decisions - especially through the lenses of time and age. The honest connection is that for questionable wars, the questions cannot be brushed aside simply because it is the inclination of the country as a whole. We are all accountable to follow our consciences, and no flag waved will entice me to approve of what I believe to be wrong and ultimately harmful to the world.

"Remember, son-
I didn't sell out,
I bought in."

And was Henry's war right? Well. We could probably just play with Henry on issues of wars and the responsibility of the statesman.

We can't exactly call the war in Iraq a national trend, nor any American war. And we are all grateful for the American's right to disagree with whatever policy we do not like. It is exactly the sort of thing we wish to share. And no, I am not sure we can do that. It does not always seem to go well. You do, we do, have every right to protest and complain, as much as you like. I am just suggesting that it is not in the practical interest of America as a nation in pursuit of a national objective when that happens. As a wife, I have a right to make my complaints known against my husband, but it is not always politic to do so. I don't see how the protests have saved a single life in either war nor made the country a better place. Sometimes not standing on your rights is the better, wiser course.

Kate Pitrone

Conroy's point is that, even if the cause might be unjust, Americans should still serve because the country is right in so many other ways.

Conroy's point, applied to Iraq, would be that even if the "Bush lied" Americans should still serve. Conroy never says Vietnam was right, just that he should have fought and THEN protested.

(Applied to another area, we might disagree with individual spending decisions of the government, but we still pay our taxes because the country provides us with so many other benefits.)

I also suspect that many of the soldiers now serving in Iraq believe that, even IF "Bush lied", they are personally doing good work in Iraq. They know they are making a different in Iraq.

You don't have to buy into all the reasons Bush gave to believe that the individual soldiers on the ground are doing good things. In other words, you can hate Bush (as many do), but still support the counterterrorist and reconstruction work the military is doing in Iraq. You can even believe that Iraq was a tactical and/or strategic mistake and still recognize that the individuals serving on the ground are accomplishing positive things. What I sometimes hear is that people hate Bush so they won't support "his war". The implication is that if they liked Bush, they would support our intervention in Iraq. By taking this stance, they are putting their own partisan feelings above the interests of the nation.

My dear, I still pay my taxes because I will go to jail if I do not. I do and have done without many government benefits on principle. However, my daughter-in-law would be dead without a lifetime on Medicaid, so I am becoming unprincipled through gratitude.

Your last paragraph is interesting to me. I did not know there were people who hate Bush and therefore hate the war. I usually hear it put the other way round. My sense was that there are politicians who publicly denounce the war, because it seems politic to do so, to gain political leverage.

Maybe I should go back and reread the Conroy piece, but my impression was that he is doubting that his protest was right at all. I might be reading that in, because it is how I see my protest of Viet Nam. I was just plain wrong and knew it after our military pulled out and I saw that debacle and the horror of what followed. We WERE fighting an evil.