So You're A War Hero?

You want to talk about war heroes? Then consider a man who unquestionably fit the bill during a war that no one could seriously deny was vital to the survival of the United States. Leader of an attack that captured a vital enemy outpost, twice wounded in battle, recipient of an official letter of thanks from Congress for his accomplishments, and earning the friendship and trust of his Commander-In-Chief, he rose to the rank of Major General and was eventually rewarded with the command of West Point. If any man ever rightfully and unquestionably earned the title of “American War Hero,” then this man – Benedict Arnold – could reasonably be said to have set the standard by which such heroes are measured.

It has been said that, had he been killed at the Battle of Saratoga – where he received one of his wounds – Arnold would be remembered as one of America’s greatest heroes to this day. Yet that’s not how Americans remember him, is it? No, in this nation, his name has become a synonym for “traitor.”

Interestingly enough, when one discusses the treachery of Benedict Arnold against not only his friend George Washington, but also the very country and cause for which he had earlier bled, there are very few who will criticize him and declare that he has “no right to disparage an American war hero in that way.”

By now, hopefully, the point of all this is becoming obvious to the reader. In recent times, the minority party in this nation has chosen to pursue positions and advocate policies that are undermining the efforts of American troops currently in harm’s way in Western Asia. And for their “spokesman” at many discussions regarding the issue, they have chosen men who they continually describe as “war heroes.” Think John Murtha and John Kerry – You did know that John Kerry was in Vietnam, didn’t you?

The idea here is that whatever heroic deeds – be they confirmed or alleged – such men have previously performed while in combat immunizes them from even reasonable criticism. But it is interesting to note that one of the earliest lessons that America’s history has taught its students is that prior valorous acts on the part of some are no guarantee that those same individuals will always have the nation’s best interests at heart.

The simple fact of the matter is that the citing of combat experience as a debating tactic on the part of Democrats who are taking a leading role in the attempt to hurt George Bush politically by undermining his wartime policies is nothing more than an attempt to cut off honest and open debate. It just might make some wonder what it is that Democrats have to fear from such honest and open debate. Some, but not all – this writer feels confident that he already knows what it is the Democrats have to fear.

It is reasonable to suspect that even Mr. Arnold would not have gone so far as to make the ludicrous allegation that American soldiers terrorized women and children in the dead of night. And it is a fact of history that he never tried to cite his prior heroics on behalf of the United States in order to try get back into the good graces of General Washington, or the American people. If there is any honor to be found in Benedict Arnold’s story, it may simply be that he was willing to live, perhaps uncomfortably, with the consequence of his decision to turn against his nation, with no expectation that anyone in that nation would embrace him purely for what he had done in the past. Two-hundred-four years after his death, one can’t help but wonder if certain members of the national Democrat leadership have even as much honor about them as America’s most famous traitor.