Boomers defended and more.

THE BRAVE BOOMERS

I N HIS COMMENDABLE EFFORT to praise the current generation that stepped up to the plate in the wake of 9/11 ("The 9/11 Generation: Better than the Boomers," July 30), Dean Barnett levels a gratuitous slander against those of us who came of age in the 1960s. While those anointed as "the leading lights" of the Boomer generation may have avoided "their moment of challenge," most of us did, in fact, "answer the phone" when "history called."

Barnett buys into the mythology of the 1960s antiwar left. According to the self-image of the '60s radicals, e.g. Tom Hayden, "We of the Sixties accomplished more than most generations in American history." In this view, the sixties were exciting, heroic, and uniquely infused with moral passion, the "Promethean moment," in the words of one commentator, "when the Chosen Ones went through hell to save their souls and ours." These were the ones who opposed the war and who now are presumed by Barnett to represent the Vietnam generation.

On the other hand, those who actually fought the war are, for the most part, portrayed as losers who were victimized by the war. They were drafted and shipped off to fight an immoral war, all too often returning as burned out wrecks. Indeed, the Traumatized Vietnam Vet has become a staple of the popular culture, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

According to the conventional wisdom, those who served in Vietnam were mostly young, poor, and nonwhite. Many, if not most, committed or observed atrocities (thank you, John Kerry). The horrors of the war led many to turn to drugs and a life of crime. Vietnam veterans are disproportionately represented among the homeless and the incarcerated. The Vietnam veteran was and is a time bomb waiting to go off.

The clear sense of Barnett's piece is that he accepts these caricatures as true, and accepts the judgment of American elites that the former are the legitimate voice of the Vietnam "generation." But as Jim Webb, the bestselling novelist who was awarded a Navy Cross for valor in Vietnam as a Marine infantry officer and who now serves as the junior senator from Virginia, has observed, the cohort that came of age in the 1960s is not so much a "generation" as an age-group divided along cultural fault lines, none of which was more important than conflicting attitudes toward the war. Writing in The American Enterprise several years ago, Sen. Webb observed:

"The sizable portion of the Vietnam age group who declined to support the counter-cultural agenda, and especially the men and women who opted to serve in the military during the Vietnam War, are quite different from their peers who for decades have claimed to speak for them. In fact, they are much like the World War II generation itself. For them, Woodstock was a side show, college protestors were spoiled brats who would have benefitted from having to work a few jobs in order to pay their tuition, and Vietnam represented not an intellectual exercise in draft avoidance or protest marches but a battlefield that was just as brutal as those their fathers faced in World War II and Korea."

Webb's point is important. Many of us who went to Vietnam were emulating our fathers and uncles who had fought in World War II. We saw communism in Southeast Asia as they saw fascism in Europe and Japan. The people whom Barnett has in mind certainly did not, and do not, speak for us. Here are some figures that Barnett might wish to ponder: Nine million American men joined the military during the Vietnam years. Of the three million men who served in Vietnam, two-thirds were volunteers. Seventy-three percent of those who died there were volunteers. According to a 1980 Harris Poll commissioned by the Veterans' Administration (VA), acknowledged to be the most accurate survey of Vietnam veteran attitudes, 91 percent of those who saw combat in Vietnam were "glad they'd served their country," 74 percent enjoyed their time in the service, and 89 percent agreed with the statement that "our troops were asked to fight in a war which our political leaders in Washington would not let them win." Eighty percent disagreed with the statement that "the U.S. took advantage of me." And remarkably, nearly two out of three said they would go to Vietnam again, even knowing how the war would end. Most returned from the war and got on with their lives. The "dysfunctional" Vietnam vet is a slander.

I for one came of age in the 1960s, turning 23 while serving as a Marine infantry platoon leader in Vietnam. Many of my men turned 19 there. Too many of them did not see 20. When I think of the men with whom I served in Vietnam, I would be willing to put them up against any other group of soldiers in history. These were the best men I have ever known. In his generalization about the Boomers, Barnett is making an error that I have come to expect in movies, television, and other examples of the popular culture, but one I believe is unworthy of a writer for THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

MACKUBIN THOMAS OWENS
Newport, R.I.

AS A MIDSHIPMAN at the Naval Academy, I was flattered by Dean Barnett's praise of "The 9/11 Generation." However, the article downplayed the contributions of the Baby Boomers. We shouldn't forget they were responsible for raising us and teaching us the values that inspire us to defend this country.

W.T. DOOR
Annapolis, Md.

DEAN BARNETT'S otherwise admirable article states, "In the 1970s, '80s, and '90s, military service didn't occur to most young people as an option, let alone a duty." He was right about the '70s, but the combination of Ronald Reagan and the first Gulf war made the '80s and early '90s a golden age of recruiting. The high standards and high quality of the modern American military were born in those years. It's also when most of the current senior leadership of the Armed Forces, enlisted and officers alike, went into uniform. The fact that post-9/11 troops are highly motivated and highly professional is gratifying, but it's not new.

CHASE UNTERMEYER
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, 1984-88
Doha, Qatar

VALIANT VOLUNTEERS

WILLIAM KRISTOL'S EDITORIAL, "They Don't Really Support the Troops" (July 30), deftly exposes the hypocrisy of those on the far left claiming to support our troops while at the same time vilifying everything our troops represent. One point Kristol did not make in his article that I feel should be pointed out over and over again is that all of our troops are volunteers. There is not one conscript or draftee in our military. My son is a Marine, and he, like all of his comrades in arms, is where he is because he believes in the cause he is fighting for.

MICHAEL HUNEKE
Waco, Tex.

AL QAEDA ON THE RUN

THOMAS JOSCELYN's "Iraq Is the Central Front" (July 30) was refreshing. Many in the antiwar crowd erroneously imply that the war should have been confined to Afghanistan and that expansion into Iraq was unnecessary and foolhardy. Any map shows that Afghanistan is landlocked. Essential resupply (at least 20 pounds per man per day) must come by sea. Extended combat operations simply cannot be sustained by airlift. In the early '80s the Soviets tried to add Afghanistan to their Evil Empire, and the Islamic world responded by pouring thousands of volunteers into the fight. Even though the Soviets shared a border with Afghanistan, they still found it difficult to supply their forces. Having learned from the Soviet debacle, America's campaign in Afghanistan was tailored to remove the Taliban regime and avoid putting down a big footprint. Policymakers realized that to successfully prosecute the war on terror, we would have to fight in areas where we could establish lines of communication to support the tremendous flow of resources upon which success depends. Iraq met those all-important logistical criteria and was ruled by a dangerous thug hostile to the United States. Were the United States to have made Afghanistan the primary focus of our efforts, jihadists from throughout the world would have met us on terrain that is a guerilla's paradise and put us in an untenable situation similar to that which led to the Soviets' failure.

As Joscelyn shows, the jihadists who would rather fight American flight attendants than our soldiers, sailors, and Marines are now in Iraq, where we can defeat them. And now we've got them on the run.

FRANKLYN J. SELZER
Colonel, USAF (Ret.)
Fairfax, Va.

EQUALITY IN SUFFERING

ANN MARLOWE has performed an important service in pointing out our wrongheaded post-Taliban focus on Afghan women through the lens of naive American feminist agendas ("Understanding the Afghans," July 30).

But she has erred in repeating the false claim with which Afghan Communists have tried to rewrite the record: that they were "the first and only rulers to treat Afghan women with a semblance of equality." By the time Marlowe was in Kabul in 1974, the Communists were already in control behind the scenes, so that may be what she heard--but it was not true. The reformist constitution of 1964 laid the foundation for a constitutional monarchy with equal rights for men and women. By 1965 women in Kabul were teachers, office workers, doctors, nurses, and members of parliament.

The Communists who seized power openly in 1978 imprisoned and tortured women; demanded sexual favors for party members, and shot down protesting girl students in the streets. That was the equality they granted to Afghan women--equality in suffering.

The Afghans always liked Americans, but we have, alas, undercut that traditional friendship with our errors since 2002. If we are to undo any of the mistakes we have made in Afghanistan, it is important for Americans to develop an even greater understanding of Afghan society and history. Thankfully Marlowe has at last kicked open the door to that essential discussion.

ROSANNE KLASS
New York, N.Y.