Clinton and Military Service

I was struck by Phillip McMath’s article (“Clinton Would Surely Need the Boys of Quiet Courage,” Commentary, Sept. 25); first, because of its quiet and moving remembrances of individual bravery and grace of many individuals he knew during the Vietnam War, and second, because I think his article misses the whole point of Clinton’s avoidance of service.

McMath extols the virtues of loyalty over all others, including conscience. The overall conclusion of his article is that those who refuse for any reason to heed the government’s call must be in some way disloyal. He cannot understand how Clinton, who, in his opinion has disenfranchised himself from asking for anyone’s loyalty in any future war, can ask for any sacrifice even in peacetime.

I think McMath draws a line in the sand that excludes a lot of us. To McMath, individual conscience seems a luxury we don’t need in our democracy--just loyalty, sir. Never mind that the sacrifice those soldiers made in Vietnam was for leaders who lied to us, who used the blood of those boys for ignoble purposes, and who ultimately betrayed the deepest interests of the country. That’s what the “war at home” was all about--people like Clinton who said, “No thanks, I’d rather die for a reason.” In answer to McMath, I’m in my 50s, and I’ve already found within myself ways and reasons to follow where Clinton leads. And one of the reasons for this is Clinton acted from conscience, which also rates up there with loyalty.

TERRY ROWAN

San Diego