Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Senator Kerry's Panel to Call Afghanistan Veterans
No counterparts to the young Kerry at war hearing
WASHINGTON - Thirty-eight years ago today, a soldier fresh from Vietnam riveted the nation by recounting the horrors of a far-away war, famously asking the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"
The speech by 27-year-old John Kerry launched his rise from antiwar protester to presidential nominee to chairman of that very same powerful committee.
Tomorrow Senator Kerry will listen as veterans of the war in Afghanistan shine a spotlight on a conflict that a small but growing number of Americans are beginning to question, even as President Obama increases troops. But in a sign of how much Kerry - and the country - has changed since 1971, tomorrow's hearings will feature few - if any - dramatic calls for withdrawal.
Kerry's committee did not invite any witness from the Iraq Veterans Against the War, the modern-day analog of the antiwar group he represented when he testified in 1971. That group, which includes Afghanistan war veterans, has called for an end to the Afghan war. At least three out of the four Afghan war veterans who will testify tomorrow oppose a US withdrawal.
Kerry himself, now an elder statesman and key ally of the president, has resisted drawing parallels with Vietnam.
"In Vietnam, there was no threat to the United States in any direct form whatsoever," Kerry said in a recent telephone interview. "The consequence of not being in Vietnam was in no way to increase the danger to America. The exact opposite is true in Afghanistan with Al Qaeda. The threat is very real."
Still, the witness list has frustrated those who believe Afghanistan is on its way to becoming the next Vietnam.
"I was a little disappointed that there wasn't any outreach made to hear from veterans who are against the war in Afghanistan, given that he played a similar role in Vietnam," said Perry O'Brien, a medic who served in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and belongs to Iraq Veterans Against the War.
Back in the '60s, veterans who opposed the Vietnam war tried for more than four years to testify about their experiences, but the Senate Foreign Relations Committee called "everybody except soldiers," recalled Jan Barry, founder of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
In January 1971, the group conducted their own hearings, interviewing over 100 soldiers about alleged crimes against Vietnamese civilians and other dark aspects of the war. But the hearings, known as the Winter Soldier investigation, got little media coverage. So Kerry, an articulate Yale graduate who had recently returned from combat, suggested the group take its message to Washington. Weeks later, they camped on the national mall and began contacting members of Congress.
It worked. The State Department invited Kerry and Barry to brief officials and, at the last minute, the Foreign Relations Committee asked Kerry, whom Barry considered the veterans' most articulate spokesman, to testify.
Kerry stayed up all night writing what would become the most famous speech of his life.
"It was a moment to crystallize a lot of thoughts," Kerry recalled. "I was shocked to walk in there and see that I was going to be only witness."
Before television cameras, Kerry accused senior US officials of forcing soldiers to continue an unwinnable war. He said it was the height of "criminal hypocrisy" to say that America's freedom was threatened by what happened in the rice paddies of Vietnam. He recounted testimony from the Winter Soldier investigation, saying that crimes such as rape, beheadings, and random shootings at civilians occurred "on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."
The televised hearings changed the way many Americans saw the war.
"My grandfather, after seeing John Kerry on television, said he finally understood what I was talking about," Barry said.
The speech launched Kerry's career, but also may have planted the seeds of political defeat.
His antiwar stance made him an enemy of President Richard M. Nixon, who undermined Kerry by boosting another Vietnam veteran who accused Kerry of embellishing his war record. That man, John O'Neill, later appeared in the so-called "Swift Boat" ads that helped bring down Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign.
The ads stirred the anger of some veterans who felt betrayed by Kerry's antiwar stance, but Kerry said he has never regretted giving the speech.
"A few phrases might have been more artfully expressed, and there were a few things I left unsaid," he said. "But for an all-night effort, and the passion of the moment, and the honesty of the moment, I'm proud of what I said. I think it had an impact and it helped to save lives and end the war."
Kerry did not become the president in 2004 or secretary of state in 2008, a post many believe that he wanted. But today, he finds himself at the helm of some of the president's greatest foreign policy challenges: marshalling support for a climate change treaty, a ban on nuclear testing, and more funding for Afghanistan.
"He is at a very special moment in his career of public service," said Representative William D. Delahunt, a Quincy Democrat. "If one could write the history of his career trajectory, it is as if he was destined to be where he is now."
But much has changed since Kerry delivered his call to conscience four decades ago.
Anger over the Iraq war has been muted by Obama's pledge to withdraw most combat troops by the middle of next year. Afghanistan remains an escalating conflict, but many still support it as a necessary response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
With military deaths in the thousands, rather than tens of thousands, the two wars have not generated the same public clamor that consumed the country in 1971.
Tomorrow, at least three of the four Afghan war veterans invited to testify will say that the United States should stay in Afghanistan, even though there is no guarantee of success.
Westley Moore, a former Army captain, will call not for withdrawal but for "a smart victory," he said. Genevieve Chase, a reservist, will call for longer stints for soldiers so they can learn the culture and language, while Chris McGurk, a retired US army staff sergeant, believes that humanitarian assistance must be greatly improved. A fourth Afghan war vet could not be reached for comment.
But Kerry did not invite O'Brien, who opposes both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, even though Kerry invited O'Brien to stay at his Nantucket home in 2006 during a film festival featuring an antiwar documentary that O'Brien was in.
Last year, O'Brien organized his own Winter Soldier hearings featuring testimony from soldiers about how "extremely loose rules of engagement" and air strikes in Afghanistan kill civilians and alienate the population.
"I think we presented clear evidence that soldiers were being ordered to do terrible things," he said. "But there wasn't much of a response."
Members of the group testified before the Congressional Progressive Caucus, but have never been invited to an official hearing.
A spokesman for Kerry's office said he is "looking for perspectives from troops who have spent time on the ground, without regard to their opinions about the war overall."
In an interview, Kerry said it is important "to let democracy work, in terms of airing differences and options."
Kerry is calling one witness who will urge a dramatic policy shift: Andrew Bacevich, a Boston University professor and Vietnam veteran who lost a son in Iraq.
"The significance of young John Kerry's testimony at that time was that it seemed to capture something very essential about the Vietnam war," said Bacevich. "I do believe that today, there is a fairly urgent need to pose the same essential questions."
- Posted in

12 Comments so far
Show AllAnother loser Neocon-Democrat desperatly trying to build a legacy. Johnny boy, you had your chance in 04. But not even all of Theresa's billions, the nomination of the Democratic party, or the most unpopular and excrable President in the history of the US, could convince you to be anything but a waffling "we just need to manage this war better" me-too Democrat.
You are still just another poor lil' rich boy who when his time came just shook nervously in a corner till he peed and soiled his pants. So change your pants, clean up your mess, and just go home John-boy.
Poet
All USA citizens and agents out of Afghanistan. Go to the peace conference and give them reconstruction money through UN or NGO otherwise get and stay out.
"In Vietnam, there was no threat to the United States in any direct form whatsoever," Kerry said in a recent telephone interview. "The consequence of not being in Vietnam was in no way to increase the danger to America. The exact opposite is true in Afghanistan with Al Qaeda. The threat is very real." - Kerry
This statement is why Chris Hedges' piece touting an open dialogue with Rev. Jeremiah Wright would serve the Nation and humanity so well. With the "Wright" conversation how much of Al Qaeda is NeoCon smoke and mirrors and how much is a valid threat, and why, will be revealed. The "Wright" conversation will also help answer the "Haters" question (who,why, steps toward reconciliation) with in the borders of this Nation.
On to the Wright Conversation...
On John Kerry... sometimes satire says it best:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/kerry_names_1969_version_of
From the article:
"But much has changed since Kerry delivered his call to conscience four decades ago."
Yes. For one example, recall that Kerry shut down the hearings on Ollie North's Central American war games when testimony got too close to the subject of drug running---whether out of fear for his own life or career, or out of complicity, makes no difference.
The John Kerry of Winter Soldier died that day. What's left can't be trusted to hold public office.
"What's left can't be trusted to hold public office."
Can anyone?
Yes. Paul Wellstone---which is why he's dead.
Kerry makes me think of Bill Clinton, who, during the Watergate Era, said you COULD love your country and hate your government at the same time, but when HE was president about 20 years later, said you COULD NOT love your country and hate your government at the same time ...
Flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop ...
Kerry's loathsome decision not to allow Perry O'Brien, a member of the IVAW who is against the occupation of Afghanistan, to speak in front of Kerry's committee speaks volumes regarding how the Democrats are just as hawkish as the Republicans. What Kerry refuses to do is ask the question that he asked almost forty years ago- "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake"-and apply it to Afghanistan. Kerry should ask himself why that question that he posed those many years ago should have been relevant to Americans killing the Vietnamese but not to Americans dropping 500 lb. bombs on innocent Afghans.
It is beyond bizarre why Kerry does not realize that sending in the U.S. military after terrorist groups is like an elephant attempting to crush a flea. An unnecessary instance of vast overkill on the part of the Americans which has resulted in scores of innocent Afghan women and children being sacrificed on the altar of American imperialism. Why has Kerry, the former antiwar activist, not suggested that the United States work with the police and intelligence agencies around the world in order to hunt down and keep track of the terrorists? Has Kerry even considered that the reason why these groups have acted in such a belligerent fashion is because of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East?
Yet so many Americans believed that Kerry, like Obama in 2008, was an antiwar candidate when he ran for president in 2004. The Democrats and the Republicans-basically two sides of the same coin- which has resulted in more people from third world countries being once again exterminated, as in Vietnam, for no justifiable reason whatsoever.
Biden pimped for the war in Iraq and it looks like Kerry is pimping for Afghanistan.
Americans voted for Obama so we could get the hell out of the Middle East. What part of out doesn't he understand.
We are all shocked and horrified by the recent revelations of torture by the Bush administration but war is worse. The Geneva Conventions declare that aggressive war is the most serious crime of all.
I usually do not post something triggered by intuition - but here goes:
During the Vietnam invasion, I happened to be standing next to John Kerry during an anti-war demonstration. He gave off a very frightening vibe. Think Herman Munster, only unfriendly. He avoided eye contact. I asked who is this tall, scary-looking guy and got an answer. He had the aloof patrician demeanor, stiffness and cold chill that you would expect from a member of Skull and Bones. Since it was considered almost treasonous to oppose the Vietnam invasion, most opponents in the military had some passion. The disaffected GIs, mostly working class and Black were becoming an unpredictable group.
Since then I have learned of various operations such as cointelpro. I have learned of the function of secret organizations like Skull and Bones whose members' loyalties are to each other and to their class. I have come to suspect that Kerry's mission at that time was to provide a reliable focus for a controlled and limited escape valve for the rebellion that was heating up and threatening to blow in the ranks of the armed forces. Why was he the ONLY one called to testify before Congress?
During election campaigns since then some of his statements made at crucial times also appeared inexpicably saboteurial in nature.
Perhaps he continues in the role of someone who takes over the opposition in order to draw tight limits on it. How else would you explain that he is holding hearings but not allowing a full spectrum of opinions from vets?
OK, conspiratorial theories aside, the facts illustrate that Kerry objectively acts as a giant wet blanket stifling dissent to which he is supposedly giving a platform.
Joe
Of course it's speculative to say that there are "reformist" Congresspersons who just act as safety valves in order to thwart reform.
Sometimes such Congressional reform efforts seem genuinely sincere, even if they don't go anywhere. For instance, John Kerry issued a report in 1989 on the Reagan administration's effort to aid the Nicaraguan Contra mercenaries while also allowing them to smuggle cocaine into the United States.
Robert Parry describes that noble effort here: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/102904.html
Back then, Kerry seemed to show sense, even courage.
Next, we have Congressional efforts with strong public momentum that just seem to die. One example is Congressman John Conyers' investigation of the Downing Street memos.
The Downing Street memos showed that Bush was constructing lies in order to illegally attack Iraq. Conyers made a strong case, published a book on the matter and had the documents to prove Bush's malfeasance. However, Conyers eventually tried to suppress Congressman Dennis Kucinich when he took up the cause of Bush's impeachment, based on that same evidence that Conyers had collected.
Other Congresspersons also fit this category of the faux reformer. So, you've got Arlen Specter as the author of "the single bullet theory" for the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Later, Specter turns up in a panel questioning former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez about Bush's illegal wiretapping, but it goes nowhere, even though Bush essentially confesses to the crime.
Kerry's contention that Al Qaeda threatens the United States from Afghanistan is just false on its face, and clearly this Afghanistan hearing will be no winter soldier event. So what should we think about these efforts? Are these just escape-valve diversions, with the intent to kill reform?
Maybe it's not conspiracy, but just plain incompetence. After all, Kerry has changed over the years. It would be fair to say he's pretty much a war hawk now. Still, most people who've had a transforming experience, as Kerry did in Vietnam, would be able to maintain their principles - one would think.
The brilliance of the U.S. "founding fathers" (who were property owners that wanted to keep the lands they stole from Native Americans) is that they allowed freedom of speech and a complex representational scheme that seemed to allow change based on the people's will. But maybe it was all just the safety-valve approach to diverting true democratic change. The proof is that very few popular causes get taken up and enacted into law. And when it comes to war, the people's will is just ignored by Congress, the Presidency and the Supreme Court.
Conspiracy, or plutocratic plan?
-TIA