Clinton’s Loathing Letter
by Lt. Col. Michael Mark (Reprinted with permission of Military magazine, 2122 28th St., Sacramento, CA 95818. A sample copy of Military may be obtained by writing to the above address)
The story on page 6 about Bob Dole as a young man during World War II contrasts dramatically with what is known about Bill Clinton when he was called upon during time of war. Bob Dole served in the infantry with courage and nearly died from wounds received.
The Bill Clinton story is one of cowardice and deceit. . . of a 23-year-old man, not some terrified and confused 18-year-old boy manipulating the system to avoid his duty. One can read the level of his smug contempt for the military and those who served in his letter. We will never know which mother’s son took his place on the battlefield and if he ever came home. Because we feel character does count we offer both pieces for you the readers. Incidentally, Clinton was never graduated from Oxford, yet he allows himself to be referred to, as a Rhodes scholar, giving the inference he’d graduated, just another glimpse at his lack of integrity. It was party time and anti-war demonstrations for Bill while at Oxford; then on to Moscow, a subject that remains a dark secret and may just involve his wartime service. . . but for which side?
When his undergraduate draft deferment ran out and he went off to Oxford he sought further protection from the draft by promising the ROTC Commandant at the University of Arkansas that he’d return in the fall of 1969 and enroll in ROTC.
He had already received and ignored a draft notice. An ROTC deferment was granted, yet it shouldn’t have been because he wasn’t enrolled, but Bill had connections with the powerful Sen. Fulbright of Arkansas. He mailed this letter to Col. Holmes, ROTC Commandant, after he was awarded a draft number that assured he wouldn’t be called to serve.
Following is the text of the letter that Bill Clinton wrote to Col. Eugene Holmes, director to the ROTC program at the University of Arkansas on 3 Dec, 1969:
Dear Col. Holmes,
I’m sorry to be so long in writing. I know I promised to let you hear from me at least once a month, and from now on you will, but I have had some time to think about this first letter. Almost daily since my return to England I have thought about writing, about what I want to and ought to say.
First, I want to thank you, not just for saving me from the draft, but for being so kind and decent to me last summer, when I was as low as I have ever been. One thing which made the bond we struck in good faith somewhat palatable to me was, my high regard for you personally. In retrospect it seems that the admiration might not have been mutual had you known a little more about me, about my political beliefs and activities. At least you might have thought me more fit for the draft than for ROTC.
Let me try to explain. As you know I worked for two years in a very minor position on the State Foreign Relations Committee. I did it for the experience and the salary but also for the opportunity, however small, of working every day against a war I opposed and despised with a depth of feeling I had reserved solely for racism in America before Viet-Nam. I did not take the matter lightly but studied it carefully, and there was a time when not many people had more information about VietNam at hand than I did.
I have written and spoken and marched against the war. One of the national organizers of the VietNam Moratorium is close friend of mine. After I left Arkansas last summer, I went to Washington to work in the national headquarters of the Moratorium then to England to organize the Americans here for demonstrations 16 Oct and 16 Nov.
Interlocked with the war is the draft issue, which I did not begin to consider separately until early 1968. After a law seminar at Georgetown, I wrote a paper on the legal arguments for and against allowing, within the Selective Service System, the classification of selective conscientious objection, for those opposed to participation in a particular war, not simply to “participation in war in any form.”
From my work I came to believe that the draft system itself is illegitimate. No government really rooted in limited parliamentary democracy should have the power to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may oppose, a war which even possibly may be wrong, a war which, in any case, does not involve immediately the peace and freedom of the nation. The draft was justified in World War II because the life of the people collectively was at stake. Individuals had to fight, if the nation was to survive, for the lives of their countrymen and their way of life. Viet-Nam is no such case. Nor was Korea an example where, in my opinion, certain military action was justified but the draft was not for the reasons stated above.
Because of my opposition to the draft and the war, I am in great sympathy with those who are not willing to fight, kill, and maybe, die for their country (i.e. the particular policy of a particular government) right or wrong. Two of my friends at Oxford are conscientious objectors. I wrote a letter of recommendation for one of them to his Mississippi draft board a letter which I am more proud of than anything else I wrote at Oxford last year. One of my roommates is a draft resister who is possibly under indictment and may never be able to go home again. He is one of the bravest, best men I know. His country needs men like him more than they know. That he is considered a criminal is an obscenity.
The decision not to be a resister and the related subsequent decisions were the most difficult of my life. I decided to accept the draft in spite of my beliefs for one reason: to maintain my political viability within the system. For years I have worked to prepare myself for a political life characterized by both practical political ability and concern for rapid social progress. It is a life I still feel compelled to try to lead. I do not think our system of government is by definition corrupt, how- ever dangerous and inadequate it has been in recent years. (The society may be corrupt, but that is not the same thing, and if that is true we are all finished anyway.)
When the draft came, despite political convictions, I was having a hard time facing the prospect of fighting a war I had been fighting against, and that is why I contacted you. ROTC was the one way left in which I’d possibly, but not positively avoid both Viet-Nam and resistance. Going on with my education, even coming back to England, played no part in my decision to join ROTC. I am back here and would have been at Arkansas Law School because there is nothing else I can do. In fact, I would like to have been able to take a year out perhaps to teach in a small college or work on some community action project and in the process to decide whether to attend law school or graduate school and how to begin putting what I have learned to use.
But the particulars of my personal life are not nearly as important to me as the principles involved. After I signed the ROTC letter of intent, I begin to wonder whether the compromise I had made with myself was not more objectionable than the draft would have been, because I had no interest in the ROTC program in itself and all I seemed to have done was to protect myself from physical harm. Also, I began to think I had deceived you, not by lies-there were none-but by failing to tell you all the things I’m writing now. I doubt that I had the mental coherence to articulate them then.
At that time, after we had made our agreement and you had sent my 1-D deferment to my draft board, the anguish and loss of my self regard and self confidence really set in. I hardly slept for weeks and kept going by eating compulsively and reading until exhaustion brought sleep. Finally, on 12 September, I stayed up all night writing a letter to the chairman of my draft board, saying basically what is in the preceding paragraph, thanking him for trying to help in a case where he really couldn’t, and stating that I couldn’t do the ROTC after all and would he please draft me as soon as possible. I never mailed the letter, but I did carry it on me every day until I got on the plane to return to England. I didn’t mail the letter because I didn’t see, in the end, how my going in the army and maybe to Viet-Nam would achieve anything except a feeling that I had punished myself and gotten what I deserved. So I came back to England to try to make something of this second year of my Rhodes scholarship.
And that is where I am now, writing to you because you have been good to me and have a right to know what I think and feel. I am writing too, in the hope the my telling this one story will help you to understand more clearly how so many fine people have come to find themselves still loving their country but loathing the military, to which you and other good men have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best service you could give. To many of us, it is no longer clear what is service and what is disservice, or if it is clear, the conclusion is likely to be illegal.
Forgive the length of this letter. There was much-to say. There is still a lot to be said, but it can wait. Please say hello to Col. Jones for me.
Editor’s note: Emphasis added is ours.
For William Jefferson Clinton:
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of teeing free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.. (1868)
-John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)