Is Being A Veteran Enough To Be An Authority on War?

Sen Lieberman suggests that to question Sen McCain's position on war is to question his service and experience.

McCain should be subject to the same level of scrutiny as was Kerry, Murtha, Inouye, Webb and Hagel. None of them were given a free pass to pontificate about the strategy for the Iraq war simply because they are veterans. Nor does the fact that a family member served in Iraq or Afghanistan ease the outcry of dire consequences for the troops from their suggestions.

This nation has a mentality that the war and the troops are one and the same. Mullen's recent comments requiring service members to remain apolitical should serve as a reminder to the civilians of this country that, in theory, the troops have no choice in the wars they are sent to participate in. Their responsibility is in how the wars are fought.

Wars are the responsibility of the civilian leadership and population alone. When a war is unjust it is the responsibility of the people, through their representatives, to do something about it. The armed forces will follow their orders.

Being a veteran should i theory provide a person with insight to the true cost of war. For all the powerful tools present for a US president military action should not be an option until all other means have been exhausted or in the face of a dire situation.

Americans should be aware of the veteran's search for meaning. No one wants their service and sacrifice to be in vain. Admitting that the civilians that sent you to war were wrong (Vietnam, Iraq) can be a hard thing for a veteran who has built an identity on their honorable service in that war.

Some Vets accept reality and move forward from their experience while others harbor ideals and notions and are lost to opening their minds. We should respect past service on its own merit and not confuse that with present and future understanding. Service in a war does not inherently mean knowledge and understanding of all wars.