Trump Not Alone in His Attitude Toward the Military

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"

But it's "Saviour of  'is country"  when the guns begin to shoot

—Rudyard Kipling (Tommy)

Recent reporting by The Atlantic magazine that Donald Trump referred to U.S. Marines killed during WWI as “suckers” and “losers” hardly comes as a revelation to anyone who has followed his comments and actions toward the military. From claiming the late Sen. John McCain was “no hero” because he was captured during the Vietnam War, to disparaging Gold Star parents of service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan along with the country’s senior most leadership, to summarily firing Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and his twin brother for simply performing their sworn duties, Trump has shown nothing but disrespect to anyone who ever served in uniform. (See: Every time Trump has attacked American veterans or military families)

The sad truth, however, is that attitude toward service personnel is not uncommon among the American people, especially rich Americans.

I experienced some of that attitude when, as a young Coast Guardsman, I was stationed in Virginia in 1973 just as the U.S. began its withdrawal from Vietnam. The local population was so jaundiced toward military personnel, we were ordered not to place base access stickers on our vehicle windows. To do so invited baseball bat-toting redneck good ol’ boys to bash in your car’s windows. We also could not wear our uniforms off base for fear of having those same bats used against our heads. Signs saying “Sailors and Dogs Keep of the Grass” spotted the landscape.

While some Vietnam vets complained about being disrespected by hippies and war protesters, my discussions with other vets of the period showed just as many experienced the same hostility I did from the good, God-fearing people of the American South. Apparently, people in the South—the same South that committed treason by seceding in 1860—felt those of us in uniform toward the end of the Vietnam War needed to be taught a lesson for “losing the war.” In fact, David Morrell’s post-Vietnam thriller, First Blood, featured a Vietnam veteran named Rambo targeted by a Southern sheriff and his town folk. Morrell said news reports about the mistreatment of vets in the South gave him the idea for his book. (Ironically, the movie made from the novel moved the story to the Pacific Northwest to spare southern feelings.)

Not Limited to Modern Times

This attitude toward the military isn’t limited to modern times. On March 15, 1783 officers under George Washington's command discussed mutinying because Congress failed to provide them with long-promised back pay and pensions for serving during the Revolution. The mutiny was averted when Washington addressed his officers with a speech about the sacrifices they all made that brought tears to the officers’ eyes.

In the aftermath of the American Civil War, thousands of disabled Union veterans were left hanging while Congress argued over whether pensions or other remuneration should be provided to the former soldiers. It was years before Union veterans received any benefits; Confederate veterans received nothing—notably, not even from the southern states they fought for.

Following the Civil War, soldiering as a career fell into disfavor. If you watch a western movie about the U.S. cavalry, with few exceptions all the soldiers will be white. However, in the real Wild West one out of every three soldiers—cavalry and infantry alike—were black, members of two regiments of the segregated U.S. Colored Troops, the legendary Buffalo Soldiers.

Even among the white troops, there were few patriotic Americans. Most were immigrants from England, Ireland, Poland, Germany, and other European countries because soldiering was widely considered beneath a “real” American. (The same was true about police officers; hence, the stereotype of the Irish beat cop.)

During the Spanish-American War, Buffalo Soldiers—by now professional fighters—stormed Kettle Hill and San Juan Hill alongside Teddy Roosevelt’s untested volunteers, the Rough Riders. Yet it is the Rough Riders, led by a wealthy socialite, who received the most credit for that battle victory.

When America belatedly entered WWI, her soldiers were sent “over there” with parades and patriotic songs. Once home, however, they were less heralded. In 1932, suffering from the indignities of the Great Depression, veterans marched on Washington, DC, demanding payment of bonuses Congress promised them for their service. The veterans were treated as traitorous “Reds” by the Hoover administration, which launched a deadly military attack on them. (See: Nearly 100 Years after the Bonus March, Trump is Making the Same Mistakes)

Veterans of WWII were treated better—if they were white. The GI Bill provided them readjustment and educational benefits. But 1.2 million black veterans were denied the full range of benefits provided by the bill, thanks to racist Southern Democrats who feared it would provide African American vets with a chance to socially advance. (See: How the GI Bill's Promise Was Denied to a Million Black WWII Veterans)

A Deeper Chasm

The end of the Selective Service draft in 1973 created an even deeper chasm between those who serve and those who don’t. According to the U.S. Census Service, 18 percent of the U.S. population were veterans in 1980; by 2016 that was down to seven percent. Some of that decline, of course, was due to older vets passing away. But during the height of the Vietnam draft, there were 3.5 million men and women on active duty; today there are only 1.3 million on active duty, or less than .5 percent of the population.

In the days following the 9/11 attacks, I was discussing whether the draft would be reinstated with a fellow veteran I worked with. I pointed out that if it were brought back, it would have to include women. A young female colleague became horrified at the idea she might be drafted to fight in a war. “Why me!” she shrieked. “There are people who enjoy doing that.” Doing what? we asked. “You know,” she said. “Killing people.”

So, that’s what she thought about us.

In the cluster-you-know-what that became the Bush administration’s response to the terrorist attacks, yellow ribbon magnets with “Support Our Troops” were displayed on cars, and people started thanking us for our service (I was on a reserve Coast Guard boat crew, and later became a medical service corps officer in a component of the California National Guard). Sailors, soldiers, Marines, and airmen were suddenly “warriors,” as if they belonged to a separate social stratum. And still the Bush administration forbade the media from photographing or videotaping aircraft filled with flag-draped coffins bringing home our country’s honored war dead.

It’s gratifying to see America’s outrage over Trump’s reported comments about our war dead, but I wonder how long it will last or if it will have any impact at all. Despite Trump’s multiple Vietnam draft deferments—the last due to a spurious diagnosis of bone spurs—and despite his dismissal of John McCain’s military service, and despite so much more, he was still “elected” president. And the bulk of those who voted for him were the good, God-fearing people of the American South and other rural areas, the same people who treated those of us in uniform so badly 47 years ago.

And that’s why I fear Trump’s slandering those who served and sacrificed as “losers” and “suckers” won’t make a difference at the polls. 

The Myths that Drive America’s Love of Guns

Americans love their guns – love them so much there are actually more guns in this country than there are people. Love them so much that, when dozens of people – mostly children – were slaughtered at an elementary school in Newtown, CT,  the media became filled with politicians and gun nuts defending lax gun control laws by claiming guns are an American heritage, an inherent right – why, even a God-given right. (I must have missed the part in the Bible about the Arsenal of Eden.)

Americans love their guns, though, not because it’s a right or heritage. They love their guns because of a mythology that has grown around them, a mythology inspired by cheap novels and cheaper movies. Most of what Americans think they know of their history is pure myth, and no where else in American history is there more mythology than the history of guns in this country.

Myth #1: The Second Amendment was written to protect the right to own guns.

Fact: The original intention of the Second Amendment was not to protect gun ownership, but to prohibit a standing army. Many of our Founding Fathers felt a standing army would tempt future leaders to indulge in foreign adventurism. In this they were right. Just think about Iraq.

Originally, the first line of the Second Amendment was worded something like, “Congress will make no provision for a standing army, but will rely on the militia of the states for the country’s defense.” Because of this reliance on militias, it continued, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The amendment, as originally written, was strongly opposed by George Washington and his lieutenants. Washington was well aware of the failings of the militia. In 1754, when Washington was a colonial militia officer, undisciplined militiamen under his command killed a French envoy, setting off the French and Indian War. Nor did the performance of rebel militia during the Revolution change his mind.

Because of Washington’s opposition, the wording prohibiting a standing army was removed from the Second Amendment, leaving just the last enigmatic line: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

In the end, the Founders believed each state would maintain its own militia by requiring each male citizen to serve a certain number of years in the organized militia. It was essentially a military draft of sorts. Today, however, there is no mandatory military service in the United States. Less than one percent of Americans ever serve in the military, so a “well regulated Militia” cannot be the answer to America’s love for guns.

Myth #2: A ragtag Patriot militia beat the most powerful fighting force in the world, the British Army.

Fact: After the battles at Lexington-Concord and Bunker Hill, the militia played at best a minor role in the Revolution. It was a well-trained, professional Continental Army led by George Washington – and backed up by the French army and navy – that defeated the British.

Contrary to popular belief, Minutemen were not born of the American Revolution, but were part of colonial forces since the mid-1650s. They were not ordinary militia, but an elite force of well-trained military reservists capable of responding instantly to attacks from hostile Indians or Frenchmen. Some American rebel militia usurped the name “Minutemen” in the months leading up to the Revolution, but the real pre-Revolution Minutemen actually ended up on both sides of the war.

Most Americans are unaware there were both rebel and loyalist militia in the Revolution. According to Thomas B. Allen, author of “Tories: Fighting for the King in America’s First Civil War,” both sides had roughly equal numbers of militiamen at their disposal, though the Tory militiamen were better armed, uniformed and trained. One of the best-known Tory militia units was the British Legion, a vicious, rampaging force commanded by the British officer Banastre Tarleton and, ironically, portrayed in Mel Gibson’s movie “The Patriot” as a British army troop.

The Patriot militia, on the other hand, was much less effective. In a 1776 letter to the president of the Congress, Washington wrote: “To place any dependence upon militia is assuredly resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender scenes of domestic life, unaccustomed to the din of arms, totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill ... makes them timid and ready to fly from their own shadows.”

And fly they did – frequently. At the Battle of Camden, the militia that made up half the Patriot force broke and ran at the first shot, causing a defeat for Maj. Gen. Horatio Gates. Such performance was so much the norm that in the Battle of Cowpens in South Carolina, Brig. Gen. Daniel Morgan used it to lure British forces, including Tarleton’s legion, into a trap.

Morgan placed his greenest militia at the front of his lines and, knowing they would break and run, pleaded with them to fire just two volleys before retreating. Tarleton’s forces chased the militia into the teeth of Morgan’s lines, composed of Continental soldiers, including the general’s famed Morgan’s Rifles, and more experience militia. Tarleton’s forces were annihilated.

In his article, “Militia or Regular Army,” published in the European Journal of American Studies, historian Tal Tovy points out that Washington’s early strategy of hit-and-run tactics was based entirely on his need to rely on militia with unreliable fighting abilities. It was only after he had time to develop a professionally-trained Continental Army that Washington began confronting the British head-on.

It was that Continental Army, with the backing of several thousand French troops, which brought about the surrender of the British Army at Yorktown, VA.

Myth #3: Our Founding Fathers believed an armed citizenry was needed to defend liberty against a tyrannical government.

Fact: As discussed earlier, Washington and his lieutenants convinced Congress that militias could not be relied on alone to defend the country against foreign invaders. Why then would they think the same unreliable force would be able to defend the Constitution against their own government, tyrannical or otherwise?

Furthermore, when the Whiskey Rebellion erupted in 1791 – just three years after the Constitution was ratified – it was harshly put down by an army composed of federalized state militia led by President George Washington. The harsh response to the rebellion was applauded by Americans and proved the new U.S. government would brook no unrest among the states.

Several more such rebellions were similarly suppressed. Most notable was John Brown’s attack on Harper’s Ferry, also put down by well-trained federal forces (U.S. Marines) led by U.S. Army Col. Robert E. Lee.

Myth #4: Gun control is a modern liberal plot to take weapons away from honest citizen gun owners.

Reenactment of the Gunfight at OK Corral.
(c. James G. Howes, 2008)

Fact: Gun control laws date back to at least the 1820s, and they were widespread in the western frontier.  In fact, gun violence was far less tolerated in the Old West than most people think. After all, shootouts were not good for business.

Far fewer cowboys carried guns on the trail than you might expect. In fact, many cattle barons prohibited their cow hands from carrying personal weapons to avoid violence among their workers, and also to prevent an accidental gunshot that could stampede the cattle.

Still, it was conceivable that out on the range, a gun might be a necessity. But once in town those guns had to be turned into the local sheriff’s office. Even in towns without gun control laws, saloons normally wouldn’t serve you until you first turned over your gun to the bartender.

Gunfights, in fact, were relatively rare in the not so Wild West because of these strict gun control laws. The most famous shootout, the gunfight at the OK Corral in Tombstone, AZ, ironically was fought over Tombstone’s gun control law. The Clanton gang refused to turn in their guns and the Earp brothers and Doc Holliday set out to force the issue.

Gun laws in old Tombstone, in fact, were stricter than they are in Arizona today where citizens are allowed to carry handguns nearly everywhere they go. It makes you wonder if the Clanton gang hadn’t actually won the OK Corral gunfight.

So where did all this Old West gun lore come from? Dime novels written in the late 1800s to entertain tenderfoots in the East were notorious for exaggerating the myth of the cowboy and his six shooter. Self-serving books written by or about legendary lawmen like Wyatt Earp and Pat Garrett added to the mythology. A fledgling Hollywood added to it by making idealized cowboy movies a mainstay of its early films.

But the worst perpetrator of these gun myths is the National Rifle Association. The NRA and the gun manufacturers it represents have pushed these myths down the throat of Americans for decades. They call weapons like the Colt .45 revolver and the Winchester repeating rifle the guns that won the West. And the massive amounts of money they give to politicians make many a lawmaker a true believer.

In fact, relatively few people in the Old West owned handguns. They were expensive and hard to shoot accurately. Repeating rifles were also too expensive for most folks. Rejected by the U.S. Army, repeating rifles largely ended up in the hands of hostile Native American warriors. The most widely used gun the in the Old West, in fact, was the unglamorous double-barrel shotgun.

But the NRA has succeeded in making too many Americans believe you can’t be a good American unless you’re heavily armed at all times. And that puts the lie to the last great gun myth.

That the good guys always win.