The
Semantics of Prepositions
Donovan sang about
him. Everyone has given it some thought, what goads him along, what
he is really fighting for. They may even ponder how he sleeps in his
bed, what words whisper to his prayers after he has fought an
unpopular war. “He's five-foot two, he's six feet-four.” All
revere the universal soldier fighting for his country. He'll—or
she'll—fight for Canada, France, or the USA. They'll fight for Iraq
or Afghanistan. For 10 solid years the USA fought for South Vietnam,
and before that France fought for them. As Americans increasingly saw
Vietnam for what it was and some left for Canada, the Canadian
soldier fought with the USA for South Vietnam.
Australia, New Zealand, and the Philippines fought with the USA for
South Vietnam.
Two years into
WWII, on December 8, 1941, Congress declared war on Japan in response
to their attack on Hawaii the previous day. From 1898 to 1959 Hawaii
was a US territory. Those brave, loyal, dedicate soldiers were,
without hyperbole, “fighting for the USA.” They did give their
lives for their country. On December 11 Hitler, with little
consultation (sounds familiar) declared war on the US for what he saw
as “a series of provocations by the US government when the US was
officially neutral during WWII.” Those soldiers were, by extension
from repelling the Japanese, fighting for the USA, dying for their
country. They were also fighting and dying to stop Hitler and
Mussolini from annexing most of Europe. They were fighting to halt a
genocide of Jews and other ethnic groups. They were fighting with
Russia, France, and Great Britain.
Wars are owned
sometimes. The devotion to them is increased, loyalties more fierce.
Obviously every minute man fighting at Lexington and Concord, at the
siege of Boston, at Ticonderoga, straight up to Bunker (Breeds) Hill
was fighting to have a country of their own. Every corpuscle of blood
spilled, every musket loaded and cannon ball shot from 1775 to 1783
was for America, not the United States of America, not yet. Men
fought for their country—either the 13 American colonies or
Britain. Loyalist, or Tories in revolutionary terms, remained loyal
to the crown. They were colnists, but not dissidents. Apparently they
would have been happy to continue to, for instance, pay taxes to King
George III. What was said for these people? They comprised about 80
percent of the colonists who went to Canada, the Bahamas, or back to
Great Britain after the war. During the American Revolution wars with
Native Americans continued. They were small battles or uprisings,
skirmishes that were more or less contained. From 1777 to 1794
history notes the Cherokee-American (Chickamauga) War. I guess one
might say the blood of former Englishman was spilled for their
country, for its expansion, for MANIFEST DESTINY. The Cherokee were
just fighting for their land. Consider this. If loyal Americans,
determined to concieve a nation in liberty two and a half centuries
ago, had not fought the natives the phrase “for his (or her)
country” would not be worn on the sleeve of every recruiter,
senator or Commander in Chief who casually watches soldiers go in
harm's way. The words could not bear their hyperbolic residue as
solemnly, so committed, so honorably.
Shots rang out,
signaling men to fight for the USA, on April 12, 1861. Seven states,
LA, FL, AL, GA, TX, MS, and SC were NOT fighting for or with the USA.
The Confederate States of America was never recognized as a North
American country. From that first battle at Fort Sumter, which they
won, until they lost the Battle of Palmito Ranch May 13, 1865, those
“rebel” soldiers fought for their unrecognized country. They
fought for slavery, to be able to enslave Africans whose unpaid labor
was vital to their states' economies. Their flag waves, free of
wrinkles (along side a swastika), ironically because people fought
for our country, 152 years later. The Union, the 25 states and
territories, was fought for, in every sense of the words. In the four
years of the Civil War 365,000 men died for their country, for our
country. Had they not, America would be, well, a lot worse I'm sure.
Over 600,000 gave their lives to settle the question of slavery. The
Confederacy lost and, with it, slavery. The victory did set in motion
the freedom for decades of marches, violent and non-violent protests
that ultimately secured rights and legislation. Those small,
arduously crafted victories, leading all the way back to the big one
in 1865 (the defeat of the Confederacy and the 13th
Amendment), have lost much of their initial impact, if the laws
remain at all, in the last nine months.
It is noble. It is
honorable. It saves face and adds humility to a service man's loss.
It is consoling to the grieving to know their loved one did not die
in vain, to say banally “he died for his country.” In one sense
it is true, not in a literal sense though. All those who chose to go
to Vietnam, who went when the draft notice came, or their lottery
number came up were serving their country, and whatever your politics
or views on that war are, that is honorable and worthy of a lot more
respect than what I've heard many of those guys initially got. They
went when their government called them, when questioning presidents
was just becoming popular and necessary. But to say they were
fighting for the USA is really a false statement. They were, as was
France before them, fighting for South Vietnam, they were
fighting with the ARVN army. And, if you give credence to the
domino theory, they were also fighting for Thailand, the next country
in the line. In one case I heard a kid, barely 18, ran to enlist in
the army in 1964. He hungered for a real taste of war. He got it
after intentionally screwing up a relatively safe position he was
sent to the front lines. He was killed in 1966. By 1968, after Tet
and the bulk of America realized the quagmire Vietnam was, when they
realized the lies and corruption and hopelessness this kid's sister
fought her own dissonance. She knew the war was wrong, illegal and
immoral, but did not want to dishonor her brother. She could not let
him die in vain. In the end she found a way to honor her brother
while making her objections to the war clear. To say any of the
58,220 military fatalities were for America, in the sense America was
defending itself (as was the case December 7,1941) is wrong. It
sounds good, it would have sounded better than what the current POTUS
was finally UN-empathetically compelled to say to the grieving mother
of a slain soldier in Niger, but it is technically not true.
Maybe it is just
easier to say that. It is simpler to boil down the logistics,
motives, outcomes, and ethical implications of war into one easy to
recycle interchangeable phrase, “he died for his country, fighting
for the USA.”
No comments:
Post a Comment