Is that why they want the U.S. to lose the war?

So they can falsely claim they were right, that war is wrong, and that the U.S. was rightly "defeated"?

It worked for them the first time around; I see no reason to doubt that the Anti-Vietnam Left thinks it can profit from the same thing in this war.

You're probably right, unfortunately.

So they can falsely claim they were right, that war is wrong, and that the U.S. was rightly "defeated"?

That and they really, really hate America & would like to see her lose.

Even if the anti-Vietnam left has the right to speak for the 60's generation, it surely doesn't have the right to speak for those that came before and after it.

Is it cynical of me to think MSM reporters are casting wide nets, hoping to find another Cindy Sheehan?

There is a lot more at work here. I spent the nineties reading about the Soviet Union and China. One of the things that struck me was how many in our "intelectual establishment" were so convinced that communism was the way of the future that they were pre-aligning with it. A lot of them were boomers. A lot of them were in the anti-warm movement. A lot of them have given their lives to a cause that is now shown not just as hopeless but as rotten to the core. Their reaction seems to be to deny there was ever anything wrong with the Soviet Union or that moral equivalency never operated. The whole "America was bad too", the "the good guys lost", the "at least they were trying" and, of course, my ever favorite "the SU wasn't true communism". (which can be boiled down to 'it was better in my head.') Throughout the nineties they kept saying the US would break apart just like the Soviet Union (like the two had anything in common, really.) Now they're desillusioned in that and see the war in Iraq as a twin chance to recapture the glory days of Vietnam war protesting and "get back at America" thereby proving America was bad too, they didn't live in vain, and they were right all along.
Look -- I'm ten years younger than the boomers (their original ending, as around 59 -- not the revised 'we are still relevant' ending. No one born in the sixties protested the Vietnam war) -- and as a generation I find them very tiresome. I've been hectored, maligned and co-opted by them all my life. But even I never thought they -- as a generation. People like Eric excepted (some of my best friends fall in the demographic)-- would sink so low. It's mid-life crisis and an attempt to make sure civilization goes down with them. All at once. Ew.

Richard R said: "Even if the anti-Vietnam left has the right to speak for the 60's generation, it surely doesn't have the right to speak for those that came before and after it."

They have the right to speak ONLY for themselves: the anti-war left. Period. I'm not a boomer (born in '45), but I'm close. And I'm sick-to-death of the self-absorbed nature of that generation, including the oh-so-vocal left trying to resurrect their "glory days." Feh.

Thanks, Eric, for a great post.

Excellent comments too. Thanks! I was born in '54, which was the post-draft portion of the Boom. The older ones who fought the draft tend towards a more sanctimonious attitude. (Yes, Portia, I too, have been "hectored, maligned and co-opted by them all my life.") But what about the ones who served? They're mostly forgotten or rewritten.

Theron, I fear such thoughts are not too cynical.

Kulick's mom got the news from an officer at the other end of a telephone line.

tweet Is that accurate? My understanding, which may well be wrong, is that the military always informs next-of-kin in person in case of a death, not by phone. Anyone know?

The notification of death is *always* to be delivered in person by a military member of equal or higher rank while accompanied by a Chaplain. The casualty notification duty rotates and a service member goes on that duty with great trepidation that he/she will be called upon to perform that duty.

These last two comments puzzled me, so I returned to the text of the Inquirer article:

Jim Kulick Sr. lay in bed, unable to sleep. A day earlier, his son had told him what would happen if he died.

"You will know it is me when you hear a knock on the door," Kulick had told his father.

That knock came at 6:30 a.m. Aug. 10.

"I am here to inform you that your son, Spec. John Kulick, was killed last night in Operation Iraqi Freedom," the officer said.

"That can't be," his dad said. "I just talked to him not too long ago."

Dazed and disbelieving, he took a seat at his kitchen table in Rockledge, where he wrote weekly letters to his son, always signing the return label "Proud Army Dad Jim Kulick."

Eighty miles away, in Brigantine, Kulick's mom got the news from an officer at the other end of a telephone line.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/breaking_news/13266919.htm

The father was visited in person, and the mother appears to have been at the shore. I don't know the protocol, but it might be that the officer sat down and called her from the father's house with his approval.

Thank you for posting this.

Honestly, maybe it's because the parents are "boomers," but I can NOT imagine my parents (WW2 and Korea generation) would TALK TO THE PRESS about how they would "interpret" the feelings of their son/daughter in death. I know they are grieving, but how dare they? They can't even rely on the "he was too young to know better," excuse. He was 35. For God's sake, respect him!

I think it's time for ALL soldiers to write their own epitaph. It saddens me that a parent, would not respect the memory of their child.

WE may say the Johny K was disillusioned in Iraq, but make no doubt what he and Punchy, Straub, and Detample died for that day. Each other, and there brothers who where out there with them. Thats what we fought for, each other. Those guys where like my brothers. I didnt like that place either. but i would have gladly laid my life down for any of em. If you werent there, you cant understand. John was a hero, and a great friend. He wouldnt have liked his name or his parents name to have shown up on this website, so i had to speak for him.