That perennial: Flag burning

What is the single most pressing issue for veterans today? Health care, housing, education and access to disability benefits? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and against terrorism? Or flag burning? According to some members of an election-year Congress, the answer is - of course - flag burning.

To be clear, I have no patience for those who defile our national standard. It is wrong, it is un-American and it is deeply offensive to those of us who serve or have served in uniform. But in an era of global conflict, should this issue be taking up Congress' time?

This month, the Defense Department is coordinating the largest troop rotation since World War II. The operation is so dangerous that regular Army truck drivers received elite special forces training in Kuwait, learning, for instance, how to fire accurately from the wheel while evading an enemy ambush. This spring Task Force 121, the unit that found Saddam Hussein, will launch a newly concerted campaign to capture Osama bin Laden in the mountains of Afghanistan. Lying on the border with Pakistan, the area is fraught with hidden peril, so much so that the terrain itself played a big part in defeating the Soviet war machine in the 1980s.

On the home front, our military receives laurels for its splendid achievements in Iraq, but our veterans are still fighting for richly deserved access to medical care, mental health services, adequate housing, disability assistance and other essential services. The president's 2005 budget would cut funding for veterans' nursing-home beds, reduce the number of people dedicated to solving the federal backlog in processing disability claims and force veterans to pay a fee just to access their health-care system. But instead of addressing these travesties, Congress is spending time debating flag burning. It sounds a risk-free patriotic note that the members believe will appeal to veterans. It's free.

However, the amendment would also subvert the principles for which the flag flies. The amendment wrongly answers the chicken and egg debate - it assumes that America is special because of the flag, not that the flag is special because of America.

It is our unparalleled amount of personal freedom and opportunity that makes America what it is. What would we be without the right to gather with whomever we want whenever we want; the right to worship however we like; the right to be free from an invasive or meddlesome government; and, perhaps most important, the right to speak our minds, regardless of what anyone else thinks?

But if the amendment were enacted, for the first time the Constitution would tell us what we cannot say. It would create a class of illegal nonviolent expression - abhorrent expression, yes, but nonviolent - punishable by criminal sanction.

Worse, it would do this so vaguely that deciding what actions are criminal would be completely subjective. Would it be OK to let the flag on your car antenna become soiled and weather-beaten? Could you get wet in a flag bathing suit, or wear a flag T-shirt or cap?

Secretary of State Colin Powell recognized this danger when he wrote in 1999, "I shudder to think of the legal morass we will create trying to implement the body of law that will emerge from such an amendment."

The flag is not a trifle. Objecting to the amendment does not mean that veterans are not entitled to their shaking rage when they see somebody step on the banner that led them into battle. It does not mean that we should not revere and honor the flag and remember the sacrifice of those who died to keep it on our flagpoles.

However, with all the other challenges and hardships facing those who serve today, this is an inappropriate piece of legislation to push in Congress.

True patriots face difficult choices head-on; they do not wrap themselves in the flag every time their electoral meal ticket comes due to be punched. I salute those in Congress who oppose this measure, and I salute those in Congress who are willing to deal with the really important issues for veterans today. Let's bring our men and women home safely, and make sure that they've got a roof over their head, access to an education, health care when they get old and support when reliving the traumas of their service. This amendment is just camouflage for politicians unwilling to address the most important issues.

About the Writer
---------------------------
A graduate of West Point and Harvard, Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard Jr. retired in 1981 from the U.S. Army after 31 years of distinguished service, including combat duty in both Korea and Vietnam.