Kerry's Purple Heart

I recently had an exchange with someone on an email list about Kerry's Purple Hearts being undeserved as "fingernail scrapes," and how she knew people who'd refused Purple Hearts for cutting themselves on ration cans.

My response (on the list and here):
" A few differing perspectives on this:

http://www.johnjemerson.com/zizka.kvietnam.htm

http://blog.johnkerry.com/dbunker/archives/001341.html

http://philcarter.blogspot.com/2004_04_01_philcarter_archive.html#108264741967201111

http://conservativesforkerry.com/cbushkerry.html

http://www.awolbush.com/kerry-vs-bush.asp

Note that the requirements for a Purple Heart do not specify that a wound must be severe in nature. There are many veterans who have received Purple Hearts for relatively minor injuries. Two of Kerry's Purple Hearts were, indeed, for quite minor injuries (the third injury has caused him pain for years). There is no ethical requirement to refuse one, although certainly it is laudable to do so if you feel it is undeserved. Personally, I consider disappearing from your sworn duty for 18 months a bit more severe than accepting a minor medal for a minor injury. Both (Republican senators) McCain and Hagel have come out in strong support of Kerry's military record. And let us not forget that, as a child of privilege, he could also have tried to wangle a cushy stateside assignment in some champagne unit; instead, he volunteered for combat duty and served his country honorably.

It's also rather ironic to use the example of someone being offered a Purple Heart for cutting himself - the criteria for the award specify that it must be received as a result of enemy action. Clearly, this did not qualify and the person in question was correct to decline the award. However minor Kerry's wounds may have been, they do meet the qualifications for the awards. Does a person have to lose three limbs, as Cleland did, to be considered as qualifying for the award in your eyes?

Look, I can understand that some people aren't that enthusiastic about Kerry, although being a staunch environmentalist, I personally am (that's my #1 issue and he's been very strong in his environmental voting record). However, I truly hope people who are considering not voting at all remember there are many, many important positions on the ballot other than President. Please consider voting even if you abstain from a Presidential vote; meet your local state reps/senators and candidates and decide which to vote for (the best way to do this is to go to your local party (Republican, Democratic, Green, what-have-you) legislative district monthly meetings (most major parties have them once a month) - many candidates and officeholders come to these meetings regularly. It's amazing how empowering it feels to embody the change you'd like to make, when one gets to know "those politicians" in person and gets a chance to bend their ears about things that are important to you. No candidate will be perfect, nor should we expect - or even wish! -them to be - perfect to one person is perfectly awful to another. As witness our differing reactions to the same information - some people regard it as scurrilous rumor and slander, others as gospel fact, and the majority probably delete it unread because they're sick unto death of the entire topic.

Even if one doesn't like the Presidential candidates, there are Congresspersons, judges, Governors, and others to elect. Remember the rest of the ticket! I understand that most folks aren't political junkies, and there's limited time in a day and limited amounts of emotional energy to give to causes and issues. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater and give up on the democratic process. Without all of us, we don't HAVE a democracy. If we don't have a democracy, we'll have more serious problems than worrying about whether the word "hero" is misused by all parties (it is)."

There was another exchange, in which it was mentioned that a lot of Republicans were serving, voluntarily.

My response:
"I have a cousin and a nephew in Iraq right now, and another cousin in Afghanistan. While they are voluntary enlistments, none of the three signed up to be in a shooting war; all three are peacetime volunteers. The stop loss in place now is acting as a defacto draft, preventing them from coming home when their normal terms of duty end. There's a difference between their enlistments, and, for example, my husband's - my husband enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1968 fully intending to go to VietNam and see combat.

He did. He's a member of Veterans for Kerry and VietNam Veterans Against the Iraq War now.

My cousin in Iraq just returned there from a 30-day furlough. He was very reluctant to return; he wants to do his duty, but he's also extremely unhappy with the way the war is being prosecuted and the way the field troops are being treated by the brass and the contractors. We don't know where my nephew is; he's in Military Intelligence and isn't allowed to say. We did hear from him, for the first time in several months, just a couple of weeks ago. My cousin in Afghanistan has been there for over a year, in perfectly miserable conditions. He says they feel like they've been forgotten. Not by us, not by the ordinary civilians - by our leaders."