Friday, November 14, 2014

Fortunate Son IS pro the troops

Re Bruce Springsteen's singing "Fortunate Son" at that big Veterans Day concert HBO put on, from The American Conservative:
The song is not an “anti-war screed”; it is a song protesting the unfairness of the draft, and how the burden of war-fighting fell disproportionately on members of the working class who were not in college, and couldn’t get, say, five Vietnam War draft deferments, like some former vice presidents we could name. In that sense, performing that song last night was perfectly legitimate, even laudatory.

Even if it were an anti-war screed, so what? The lyrics are written in the voice of someone who stands to be sent to Vietnam because of his class. It criticizes those who mouth patriotism, but who don’t want to send their sons off to die in a war they support. I think it was and is a perfectly valid and appropriate song to play at a concert meant to honor veterans. After all, they served. It is not critical of them, but actually defends them.
Absolutely spot on. And so is this, from the same place:
Fortunate Son is not “anti-military.” It is anti-elite. It is anti-politician. It is anti-Washington.

And yes, it is antiwar.

War is bad. This should not be a controversial statement. Most people of any ideology should be able to agree that even when war is necessary, it is a necessary evil. In 1946, General Dwight Eisenhower delivered an antiwar screed of his own: “I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.”

Was Ike antimilitary? He was certainly antiwar.

War is brutal, futile, and stupid. Eisenhower saw battle firsthand. In “Fortunate Son,” John Fogerty asks why middle- and lower-class Americans are forced to see war up close while the political elite gets to keep a safe distance.

“Fortunate Son” is antiwar precisely because it is pro-military. It advocates for regular Americans who fight wars and against elites who make them.
There are all too many people in this country who seem to believe that supporting the troops means cheering the wars. It's good to see that not everyone on the right believes this.

Labels: , , ,


At 4:53 AM, November 16, 2014 Anonymous Picky had this to say...

Interesting to choose Eisenhower – no doubt done because of his conservatism and unimpeachable record. I think I may be right in saying he saw no action before Torch, when he was already a general, of course. (I certainly don't mean he avoided action – quite the contrary.) So he will not have experienced the horror from the standpoint of the private soldier; he will have experienced the horror of command, which I would have thought only those of great strength or great stupidity could survive; the horror that had Wellington weeping after Waterloo.

At 3:34 PM, November 16, 2014 Anonymous Kathie had this to say...

Didn't Ike see battle firsthand during WW I?

At 4:08 PM, November 16, 2014 Blogger The Ridger, FCD had this to say...

Nope. Though he requested to be sent overseas, he was assigned stateside for almost the entire time, and then when he was posted to France, the Armistice happened before he got there.

In fact, his lack of combat experience was frequently used as an attack by people (like Montgomery) who resented his promotion to Supreme Allied commander.

At 6:57 AM, November 17, 2014 Anonymous Picky had this to say...

Yep, Montgomery certainly saw action in WWI, indeed he was seriously wounded. And he turned out to be a remarkable general. Whether Eisenhower would have been any good in action as a platoon lieutenant we'll never know, but as supreme commander he was just brilliant.

At 11:24 AM, November 17, 2014 Anonymous Kathie had this to say...

Thanks for the info.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post

Links to this post:

Create a Link

     <-- Older Post                     ^ Home                    Newer Post -->