Honoring a soldier.

by Cliopatria

As it does every so often, the war in Iraq came home to me this week.

I am teaching a summer course here at UTPB, and one of my students, among the brightest and most engaged in the class in the first three days, came to me and told me he needed to drop the course because he is a reservist, and his unit had just gotten its deployment orders. He is going to Iraq. I’d guess that he is a bit younger than I am, and he has a wife who is about to have their third child.

I asked him how he felt about the deployment, and his answer was thoughtful, as I have come to expect from him in the too-short time I have known him. “From a patriotic perspective I am proud to be serving my country. But I’ve got a wife and two little kids, and my wife is pregnant, so I am sad and will obviously miss my family. In that sense, I wish I did not have to go.”

Young men and women are putting their lives on the line, making the sorts of sacrifices for their country that most of us never have to consider. People are free to think what they will about this war. (And I think it is loathsome jingoistic propaganda and demagoguery when people claim that vocal opposition to the war harms the war effort – sorry, fundamental American principles, such as the right to protest and speak, are precisely why we are in a place like Iraq. If we shut those down, from where do we derive our claims to be better than the bad guys?) But whatever one feels, we need to keep in mind that there is flesh and blood behind all of the things we see about the war on television and read in the papers. I do not buy that all soldiers are heroes, but I do buy the argument that what many of them are doing is heroic.

Godspeed, Brad. Be safe. Come back soon. Help bring democracy and freedom to a people who deserve it. And I will be honored if when you do return you sign up for another of my classes.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Derek Charles Catsam - 8/10/2004

Tom --
Thanks for this (I love the little chart on the side listing most recent comments so that we can see if someone is participating in a post we made long ago). It seems to me that those who oppose the war and condescend to the complex and often conflicting motivations of the soldiers who are involved in it have learned nothing from the way that those who opposed the war in Vietnam took their frustrations out on the soldiers returning from that war. It strikes me as odd that people whose politics would seem to indicate that they push for tolerance and for not making blanket claims about groups of people can, when it is ideologically convenient, be intolerant about people they lump into one caricatured category.
dc

tom plotts - 8/10/2004

Too bad I came to this community after this posting. This subject gives me gout.

After 10 years of active duty in the Army, I can tell you that soldiers are perfectly brainwashed in a few important areas. My brain got the cleansing of a lifetime! Hooah!

On the other hand, the objections are certainly true. Heck, there I was, an intelligence analyst (of the non-torturing variety, so no snide comments) voting first for Mondale, then Dukakis (that one hurt, lemme tell you), and opposed to both combat operations that I managed through good fortune to land in: Panama and Gulf I. I can also tell you that I was by no means alone.

After my first year, I felt like most full time soldiers do: that soldiering is a job that more often than not pays the bills. Duty, honor, and country certainly comes into play every now and then, but by and large, you stop thinking about the propaganda and start worrying about how you're going to save your own and your buddy's ass.

While I tend to come from the political circus that feels the same way as brother Arnold does about the reasons for this conflict--by the way, some of that conspiratorial goop that my fellow intellectuals dislike is, sadly, true: a whole 'nother post, one that would probably get me an even bigger FBI file--I agree with the other posters that you can't dis the brains of soldiers in terms of their service.

I felt exactly the way Derek does here when I had a couple of my own students summoned after 9-11, and this was after I turned on my former masters. Great people, one and all (students, not the masters), and they generally knew what they were doing and why they were doing it. Fortunately, they're all still walking this earth (but one of my dearest military friends from my days knee-deep in the Cold War sh*t behind the Iron Curtain did not make it, and I'm deeply aggravated about that).

Arnold, we're probably on the same political side of this war, but I would urge you to not assume the brainwashing, automaton model of soldierly obedience. Duty is so much more complicated then that. Besides, some of the most raging lefties that I know are people like me, who once served the state and power with everything we had, only to turn on it with a vengeance after one too many dissonant experiences (check out Stan Goff's work if you think I jest).

The only baggage I really still carry from my military days is the slogan I fell in love with while serving with 7th SF Gp at Ft. Bragg: De Opresso Libre.
And I'll go to my grave trying to make that happen.

Arnold Shcherban - 8/1/2004

The world hegemony for the sake of corporate America
economic and financial domination.

Arnold Shcherban - 8/1/2004

I've never implied that your student has been brainwashed, because he, as you expressed it, wasn't smart enough or was incapable to think on his own. You, being much smarter than I am, should have personally known or aware of many intelligent and otherwise pretty smart folks, who netherless had been brainwashed in one
or other aspect by skillful ideological demagogues or religious gurus.

Even less I ever implied that personally you - Mr. Catsam - been brainwashed; on the contrary I'm sure you are quite capable to brainwashed your students (at least some of them).

I'm always ready to accept your challenge on discussion
of the US foreign policy, but I HAVE TO make a couple of stipulations only. The stipulations are not meant to protect me from the power of your arguments, since I'm capable (and proved this capability repeatedly) to beat,
logically and factually, ANY opponent of your ideological and partisan orientation.
These stipulations target the objective evaluation of the validity of the arguments forwarded by any party in our polemics-to-be.
Since in the polemics of such character every party considers their ideological platform and consequently the mass of arguments followed from it more valid and corresponding to the reality, the polemists have to establish common criteria for the above-mentioned
evaluation. Otherwise, the conclusion about the "victors"
and "loosers" on any particular issue will be completely muddled and impossible.
So, I offer the following democratic (you like democracy, I'm sure) criteria:

1. An argument or/and a conclusion or/and evaluation supported by the INTERNATIONAL MAJORITY is the correct, i.e. valid one; it must be conceeded by any opposed party;

2. Any actions of a country are evaluated based on the measure of their acceptance by the international community and complicity with the internationally
accepted laws, principles, resolutions, and agreements.

The question remains, however: how do we agree on whether such a majority is real, factual, or not?
Your suggestions are welcome.

Derek Charles Catsam - 7/16/2004

Robert --
I agree with you. We are a society that impugns motivations when we should be addressing actions. If you think what Bush has done is wrong, then address why, but do not procliam to be able to see into his heart or sould or motivations. (Of course the President himself claims to see into the hearts of folks, and thus can declare Putin one of the good guys). This is why on the Trent Lott argument, I did not much care for interpretations one way or the other into whether he was a racist, except inasmuch as his public policy positions almost universally seemed hostile to blacks. It's the whole "I have black friends, I have gay friends argument" that people use to inure themselves from when they act like bigots. On the soldier front, I just find the audacity to purport to know better than those who are putting themselves in harm's way what they think and why, and to accuse them of being brainwashed, to be astounding.
dc

Robert Wisler - 7/16/2004

DC, you're right, any one can judge military folks. My assertation was that non-military shouldn't judge how military personnel think. This goes for just about anything. I believe you shouldn't judge, or assume you know, how someone thinks in a particular situation with some sort of inside knowledge of what that person is going through.

Derek Charles Catsam - 7/16/2004

I'd like to thank Robert for speaking up here. I'd take issue with the assertion that only those in the military have the right to judge military folks, not in a society of civilian control over the military -- but I am glad that he was able to speak about his perspective on what I consider to be Mr. Shcherban's really offensive remarks.
dc

Robert Wisler - 7/15/2004

Being a former reservist (Marine Corps), I can say that it is an insult to say that I, or any one else in the military, reservist or active duty, has been "brainwashed".
First of all, Mr. Shcherban, it is not the military man/woman's job to question, what you call, the "true intentions of US foreign policy". Their job is to protect the United States from any threat foreign or domestic. The politicians, diplomats etc. in Washington are there to determine what is considered a threat, even if you do not agree with their "true intentions", and the President is ultimately responsible for deploying these troops.
Now, you may say that this is a brainwashed answer; I say it is not. ANY person joining the military, active duty or reservists, knows that at any point they can be called up for duty. They also know they have dedicated themselves, first and foremost, to their country. It is unfortunate that many are leaving behind families, and young children. However, it was a conscious decision made long before any of this took place.
Now, I am not saying that Derek's student is not scared or worried about what may happen to him; more than likely he is. Just read what the student said about going.
Secondly, it is quite arrogant of you to assume that this student, or any one else in the military does not agree with the U.S. foreign policy, and to assume that he agrees with you that there are other, "true intentions" for being in Iraq/Afghanistan, etc.
If you have never served in the military, you have NO right to judge any one who has, or assume you understand their way of thinking. Saying that they have been fooled/brainwashed is an insult the intelligence of every member of our Armed Forces who has ever served.
You are calling all of us, whether you mean to or not, mindless robots.

(also, i would like to know what you feel are the true intentions of U.S. foreign policy)

Derek Charles Catsam - 7/15/2004

Ahh, yes, the argument that my student is not smart enough to make decisions on his own. He has been "brainwashed."

Except let's establish a little something, Mr. Shcherban. Implicit in that argument is one that could say that I have also been brainwashed given that in some areas of foreign policy I am hawkish. The problem is, if you want to go mano a mano intellectually, I'll gladly take that challenge. If that mano a mano will involve US foreign policy, I am fine with that. I will take my chances that I am smarter than you, that I know more than you, that I articluate it better than you. I won't let you just step in and condescend to me or to my students or to others just as bright as you who might take issue with your "fooled/brainwashed" inanity.

Have the intellectual courage to come out and say that we are wrong. Don't imply that we aren't bright or capable enough to figure out what we think is right and what we believe in. You have not earned that right. And while my student will be delighted to know that you respect him and his life, my guess would be that he would see your argument about his being either fooled or brainwashed as the nonsense that it is.

dc

Arnold Shcherban - 7/15/2004

Don't you fathom a thought that may be your student, whom I respect and whose life I care about as much as you do, has been fooled/brainwashed in regard to the true intentions and purposes of the US foreign policy, as it happened repeatedly in the history of this country?

Derek Charles Catsam - 7/13/2004

False dichotomy Bill. It is not rights vs. lives. it never has been. We are willing to sacrifice and take lives for those rights. The burden of causality, however (protests lead to deaths) is on those who would deny those rights. You need to show (and let's not suddenly embrace the words of communists who were trying to kill Americans, eh?) the link and not just presuppose them. Which war protests would you stop? Any other Amendments we want to quash? I know the left probably isn't a big fan of that Second one (lives of children who accidentally die as the result of finding Daddy's gun or the Second Amendment. See, fallacious false dichotomies go both ways.) Many on the right want to abandon four through six and maybe a couple more. Nope. I honor all of them. And I understand in that so doing, it sometimes gets messy. It's easy to be totalitarian. But it is also wrong. Indeed, evil.
And yet I do think there may be well times when we draw lines. loose lips sinking ships and all that. I'm not certain that famous folks have any right to show up in war zones and protest, for example. I am certain that newspapers do not have the right to report troop movements. But students protesting wars they oppose? Veterans who have suffered the carnage of war organizing to stop war? I've no problem with it. I may oppose them in what they say. I may think they are wrong. But maybe I am an idealist, but we are better than iraq largely beacuse of our Constitution and how it guarantees those inalienable rights we like to preach about so much to others. Hard to tell the Iraqis who couldn't protest under Saddam that ten years down the road they won't be able to protest a war that they oppose.
I agree, theoretical niceties don't always translate on the ground. I disagree that patriotism is dead. Rebunk has three young men, myself included, whom I believe represent different but equally powerful strands of American patriotism. I know for a fact that there are two amongst us around whom it would not be wise to burn a flag (and that only because I've never seen Tootle inspired to violence). But if i jacked some guy in the jaw for burning a flag, I'd be prepared for the consequences. That too is part of citizenship.
I hope you're exploring Rebunk now that it is really off the ground. Tootle is making life adjustments, but Tom and I are holding down the fort with grace and aplomb and rancor and grit.
dc

Bill Heuisler - 7/13/2004

Derek,
Understanding your wish (one we all share in theory) to be purer than Caesar's spouse as a nation, I must remind you of horrible realities and how they sometimes do not conform to the the confessional, parlor or classroom.

Hypothetically, let's suppose you are on a long range recon patrol or a special operation inconveniently behind enemy lines and you literally stumble on an enemy patrol. Killing is easy, but what about their wounded? The noise has alerted others. Fast movement will save the patrol, but a wounded fingerpointer will kill us all. What do you do? You say we don't kill prisoners. We do, my friend. Hypothetically, of course.

But perceptions and expectations have changed since the success of the Anti-War movement in the Seventies. Patriotism is no longer chic and our press carries self-doubt to an extended, masochistic art form. Our nation now operates in a sham-dimension where war becomes almost chivalric in theory - even when dealing with bloody thugs.
Keep your illusions if you must, but don't expect me or mine to die for generosity or gallantry when it is not reciprocated - when it is in fact abused.

Consider: When it comes to the more comfortable realities of the Main Streets of fifty years ago, local sentiments would have carried out a series of rough critiques and the war protestors would've been sent scurrying. Imagine the fate of a flag-burner in the Fifties. Are we better or worse for our new-found social enlightenments? Or are bloody noses in Gotham better than corpses in Iraq or VietNam? Rights or body-bags, you pick.
Bill

Derek Charles Catsam - 7/13/2004

Bill --
Good to have you back. Let's be nice to each other. Within reason, of course.
I know you'll be stunned to hear it, but to your question I have a probably not satisfying answer: I do not know. I know I give a lot more leeway than you do. I know I do not give a whole lot of credence to ex-post facto responses (two plus decades later!) from our one-time enemies. I know that just because the enemy takes succor in something that happens in America is not prima facie a case that Americans have to temper our rights. Sometimes being American, being better than others in terms of dreams and ideals, means we have to provide for ourselves a more difficult road to travel than others have to take. We do not murder POW's, not because of whatever is out there in international law, but because we do not do that. Speaking out against a war one opposes, even if the enemy finds some vague sense of support in that, is not in and of itself proof of anything other than that open societies, which are good societies, is a right and even a responsibility. If we went to war wrongly, our leaders do not get carte blanche to hide behind aiding and abetting the enemy boilerplate.
So I do not know where I would draw the line, and of course drawing universal lines when solutions are vague only establishes precision that will get you into trouble when circumstances change the next time.
dc

Bill Heuisler - 7/13/2004

Derek,
Loathsome are those selfish members of the US Left who insist on abusing their free speech rights, knowing full well their rights cost American lives. The question becomes one of degree. Recall when some TV (anchor?) said he wouldn't warn a US patrol if he became aware of an ambush while covering an enemy unit? Yelling "fire!" in a theater's wrong while giving aid to an enemy okay? With members of my family at risk, I ask others to forbear the use of this particular right while we're at war.
Where am I wrong? Or perhaps you think the premise is wrong. Consider:

Here's an exchange between The Wall Street Journal and Col. Bui Tin, one of the first officers of the North Vietnamese army to enter Saigon on the day it fell.
"Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's Victory?"
A: It was essential to our strategy. Support for the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vienamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.
"Did the politburo pay attention to these visits?"
A: Keenly.
"Why?"
A: Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.

"How North Vietnam Won the War," Wall Street Journal, August 3, 1995

Where do you draw the line?
Bill

Derek Charles Catsam - 7/12/2004

A very good point, assuming that implicitly you are making the point that I think you are making. Which is that my student, along with thousands of other soldiers serving, did so out of a whole range of motivations, but one of these clearly is love of country, and they did so knowing that there were risks that they were still willing to take.

Lawrence Brooks Hughes - 7/12/2004

It is well to remember, too, that every single one of them is a volunteer.