AJChenMPH
Forum Health Inspector
Sunday, Jun 25, 2006
Forget Flag Burning
Debating a ban during war is a waste of time and sends troops the wrong message
By MAJOR GENERAL ROBERT SCALES (RET.)
Some in Congress appear to be taking a sabbatical from the long war on terrorism to introduce a constitutional amendment banning the burning of the flag. The debate over such an amendment may or may not be worth having, but one thing is clear: at a time when the country is at war, now is not the time for such tertiary considerations.
I understand reverence for the flag. It comes naturally to soldiers. We commit our lives to serving intangibles, swearing oaths to a piece of parchment or saluting an expanse of cloth decorated with stars and stripes. We understand symbolism because symbolism is what in large measure compels us to do a job that might result in our demise.
The American flag symbolizes freedom. The Constitution we soldiers are pledged to defend guarantees freedom of expression even when freedom of expression includes the right to deface the flag, however obnoxious that act may be. Of course, I'm old enough to remember flag burning when flag burning was "cool." I was in Hawaii, on R. and R., halfway through my tour in Vietnam. My wife and I were watching television when student war protesters in California--none of whom had the slightest chance of facing violent death in combat--illuminated their campus by torching Old Glory. I was appalled by the sight. A short time later, Walter Cronkite informed the world that my unit, the 101st Airborne, was beginning an offensive in the A Shau Valley. I left for Vietnam the next day to confront an enemy that undoubtedly would have punished those protesters had they burned the North Vietnamese flag in Hanoi.
But that was then. The image of the flag that soldiers see today is different. Instead of flags aflame, we see flags covering coffins of soldiers and Marines returning the hard way from Iraq and Afghanistan. Pushing forward a constitutional amendment is labor-intensive work. I'm concerned how such a diversion during wartime might appear to those who are still serving in harm's way.
Please don't get me wrong. I have many friends in Congress, patriots all. Each one of them has been to Iraq and Afghanistan many times. Although he refuses to advertise the fact, one was wounded there during an inspection tour last year. My concern relates not to the sincerity of Congress but to the perceptions among our young men and women that their overseers are suddenly distracted at a time when attention to their needs has never been more necessary.
Our soldiers want to be assured that Congress is doing all it can to reduce losses in what Lincoln ruefully termed the "terrible arithmetic" of war. They want to know that Congress is doing all it can to give them the weapons they need to maintain the fighting advantage over the enemy. They are concerned that their equipment is wearing out under constant use. They and their families are worried that not enough soldiers are in the pipeline to replace them.
We know from letters and conversations that our young soldiers returning from combat are concerned about the future of their institutions. They want to know who is focused on reshaping our Army and Marine Corps so that both services will be better able to fight the long fight against radical Islam. How will Congress fund the future? Where will the new weapons and equipment come from? They are also worried about more personal issues like housing and health care for themselves and their families.
Dan Brown was my First Sergeant in Vietnam. I was new to war. He had served in two. He gave me a piece of advice then that Congressmen intent on changing the subject should heed: "In combat the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. Otherwise, you die." The main thing today for Congress and the nation should be the war in Iraq. Soldiers are sworn to defend the right to free speech with their lives even if "speech" is expressed in despicable ways. What they want in return is the assurance that our lawmakers will hold their interests dear.
So the message from most of us soldiers is clear: Debate a flag-burning amendment if you wish. But don't create the perception among our young men and women in combat that there are more important issues than their welfare at the moment. Wait a while. At least for their sake, wait until the last flag-draped coffin comes home.
Scales, who commanded two units in Vietnam an was awarded a Silver Star, served 34 years in the Army
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1207804,00.html
Forget Flag Burning
Debating a ban during war is a waste of time and sends troops the wrong message
By MAJOR GENERAL ROBERT SCALES (RET.)
Some in Congress appear to be taking a sabbatical from the long war on terrorism to introduce a constitutional amendment banning the burning of the flag. The debate over such an amendment may or may not be worth having, but one thing is clear: at a time when the country is at war, now is not the time for such tertiary considerations.
I understand reverence for the flag. It comes naturally to soldiers. We commit our lives to serving intangibles, swearing oaths to a piece of parchment or saluting an expanse of cloth decorated with stars and stripes. We understand symbolism because symbolism is what in large measure compels us to do a job that might result in our demise.
The American flag symbolizes freedom. The Constitution we soldiers are pledged to defend guarantees freedom of expression even when freedom of expression includes the right to deface the flag, however obnoxious that act may be. Of course, I'm old enough to remember flag burning when flag burning was "cool." I was in Hawaii, on R. and R., halfway through my tour in Vietnam. My wife and I were watching television when student war protesters in California--none of whom had the slightest chance of facing violent death in combat--illuminated their campus by torching Old Glory. I was appalled by the sight. A short time later, Walter Cronkite informed the world that my unit, the 101st Airborne, was beginning an offensive in the A Shau Valley. I left for Vietnam the next day to confront an enemy that undoubtedly would have punished those protesters had they burned the North Vietnamese flag in Hanoi.
But that was then. The image of the flag that soldiers see today is different. Instead of flags aflame, we see flags covering coffins of soldiers and Marines returning the hard way from Iraq and Afghanistan. Pushing forward a constitutional amendment is labor-intensive work. I'm concerned how such a diversion during wartime might appear to those who are still serving in harm's way.
Please don't get me wrong. I have many friends in Congress, patriots all. Each one of them has been to Iraq and Afghanistan many times. Although he refuses to advertise the fact, one was wounded there during an inspection tour last year. My concern relates not to the sincerity of Congress but to the perceptions among our young men and women that their overseers are suddenly distracted at a time when attention to their needs has never been more necessary.
Our soldiers want to be assured that Congress is doing all it can to reduce losses in what Lincoln ruefully termed the "terrible arithmetic" of war. They want to know that Congress is doing all it can to give them the weapons they need to maintain the fighting advantage over the enemy. They are concerned that their equipment is wearing out under constant use. They and their families are worried that not enough soldiers are in the pipeline to replace them.
We know from letters and conversations that our young soldiers returning from combat are concerned about the future of their institutions. They want to know who is focused on reshaping our Army and Marine Corps so that both services will be better able to fight the long fight against radical Islam. How will Congress fund the future? Where will the new weapons and equipment come from? They are also worried about more personal issues like housing and health care for themselves and their families.
Dan Brown was my First Sergeant in Vietnam. I was new to war. He had served in two. He gave me a piece of advice then that Congressmen intent on changing the subject should heed: "In combat the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. Otherwise, you die." The main thing today for Congress and the nation should be the war in Iraq. Soldiers are sworn to defend the right to free speech with their lives even if "speech" is expressed in despicable ways. What they want in return is the assurance that our lawmakers will hold their interests dear.
So the message from most of us soldiers is clear: Debate a flag-burning amendment if you wish. But don't create the perception among our young men and women in combat that there are more important issues than their welfare at the moment. Wait a while. At least for their sake, wait until the last flag-draped coffin comes home.
Scales, who commanded two units in Vietnam an was awarded a Silver Star, served 34 years in the Army
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1207804,00.html
