I remember reading a political cartoon from I believe the 1980s, in which a child was talking to his father about the people on the wall of names at the Vietnam war memorial. He asked his dad about veterans of the next war, and the father said "Next war won't have veterans, son."

He was talking about the threat of nuclear war. I didn't get that. When I read it, at my age, in the years after we sent troops to Afghanistan, I compared the phrase to what I knew about modern wars, and I thought that maybe the father was right, because the whole idea of veterans, to my mind, depended upon the idea of remembering a war that was long OVER. And the Afghanistan war wasn't over. It had only just begun. It had not hit the classic four-year limit for American wars, as established by the Revolution, the Civil War, and World War II.

It still isn't over. But. It's been going on long enough that there's plenty of people who were in it, and now aren't, so it has veterans by our basic definition. There are people who have at last completed their tour of combat, returned home, and retired from active service.

I can't picture them marching in a Memorial Day parade. I can't picture them dressed in their finest dress parade uniform like the old geezers shuffling along behind the World War II banner. The way we've done veterans here in America, the idea is to celebrate the war as much as the soldiers. And there's not much glory to remember in the Afghanistan war, nor great controversy over its atrocities, nor grief for the soldiers caught up in it, as there has been for the veterans of Vietnam. Nobody remembers it much at all.

I never recall seeing Korean War veterans marching. Maybe they do and I don't notice. Few enough people care about the that one these days either. The only Korean War museum I ever saw shut down for lack of interest.

I think the father wound up being right because the next wars that the U.S. fought were not very much like the kind of war that produces Heroic Veterans To Celebrate. The first Gulf War was measured in hours and not years. Not enough time for much of anything. The second Gulf War was a jolly good fight and then a disaster of administration, and over the years it petered out, so there's no dramatic finish to it, like the bells pealing victory all over America or helicopters escaping from Saigon or a sudden hush over all the land at 11:00 on November 11.

The Iraq war didn't have a real victory and it didn't have a real defeat. I keep forgetting whether or not it ended at all.

But I know our soldiers are still in Afghanistan. That war never ended. So I think the father was wrong. The Afghanistan war does have veterans. But not the kind who march in parades when they go back home. Just the kind who have been in so long that they know all the tricks to survive. The kind of veteran who looks at a young fellow straight out of boot camp and says to him, "you have a lot to learn if you want to survive."

The kind of veteran who never wants to hear a fresh young soldier saying he'll die for his country.

More like Vietnam than France.

Maybe the father was right. The wars of my youth can't produce photogenic veterans. There's been no heroic struggle to save my country, or any country really, since the Afghanistan war began. You don't get parade veterans out of Afghanistan. you don't get Remembrance Day or any kind of reverent national anniversary. You get tired men who just want to go home and not worry about being shot.

And the anniversary you get is for the day that you learned your son wouldn't make it home.

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.