Oh shut up

Mon, 07/13/2009 - 11:04am

The Washington Post has a long and unfortunate piece today on how very hard it is to work at the White House.

I know a lot of infantrymen who would love to have the soft life these people have. I think this sort of mewling is what happens when you staff the White House mainly with people who think the hardest thing you can do in life is take the bar exam. No wonder Jim Jones, the national security advisor, looks so unhappy -- he probably would like to grab a few lapels and tell them about his life as a Marine platoon leader in Vietnam.

I think this article in particular irks me because last night I got an e-mail from an officer who, while deploying with a group of soldiers from Mississippi to Afghanistan, was approached by a woman in a restaurant. "You going to Afghanistan?" she asked. "I had a son who deployed there." Think on that "had."

kaparkins/Flickr

Thomas E. Ricks | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

clarification

by waretc on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 12:31pm

Rick,

Did you leave some words out? I'm just not getting what this woman was trying to say:

"You going to Afghanistan?" she asked. "I had a son who deployed there." Think on that "had."

Is "had" supposed to be "hard?" Sorry if everyone else gets this and I am in tha 10 percent.

"I HAD a son who . . ."

by Charlieford on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 12:56pm

In other words, Ricks pointing to her use of the past tense. (If folk would only use quotation marks to quote, and not the poor-man's italics, we wouldn't have all these problems. Or maybe if we'd all voted for Stom Thurmond back in '48 . . .)

Next up: fun with the indefinite article!

Charlie Ford has it right

by tom ricks on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 1:27pm

She no longer has a son.

Mewling Nation

by Charlieford on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 3:00pm

It's not, of course, just White House staffers, who are soft and privileged and petty and complaining. It's all of us (authentic saints excluded).

One of the dangers of having my head stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan so much of the time is it can lead you to some inopportune outbursts. I have students who complain about "test-anxiety," even when I'm giving them a 5-question quiz. I look at them and want to say, "Anxiety? You think you know anxiety? People younger than you are in the streets of Baghdad getting shot at by guys with kids standing around, and you think you have anxiety?"

In a strict sense that's a proper response. We should all be otherwise. The world should be otherwise.

"all have this falling-sickness none withstands . . ." http://www.artmagick.com/poetry/poem.aspx?id=11308&name=autumn

But kids are kids and Americans are Americans, and we can't expect things to be otherwise just because they should. It takes, I've found, empathy, patience and hope, along with a stern insistence that we face the realities out there and see our own lives in perspective, and the job's never done. With myself as much as anyone.

While I agree in theory, I

by jayeslos on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 3:54pm

While I agree in theory, I worry about the mindset that produces these comments. It is the kind of mindset that leads to conclusions that this country would be better off with a draft or another kind of compulsory national service. It starts from the conclusion that military service makes a real adult (as in, "join the army, become a real man, rather than one of those wimps who went to college"), and then finds civilians who do not fit the ideal, and blames this lack on their lack of military service, rather than any other fault. And so, therefore, the solution for any kind of weakness is military service.

This is all kinds of problematic. The first and foremost is, it presumes that going into the military is the key to becoming a better adult, and therefore not only invalidates all other kinds of serving your country, but also spits in the face of the people who would love to serve their country in the armed forces, but are not permitted to. People who are medically unfit, or are LGBT, (in previous years: a woman), or otherwise, may want to serve in uniform, but are not permitted to. Therefore, the assumption that military service is required for better citizenship is itself horrifically exclusionary.

Secondly, not everyone is cut out to be in the military. That's just a fact of life. But not being a good fit for the military does not mean that the person is unfit, unworthy, etc. There are many forms of serving your country, only one of which is serving in the military. By privileging military service above all others, it cheapens all other kind of service. It is not required to put down all other kinds of service in the name of promoting the military.

Finally, it is not the job of the military to raise someone's kids for them. I realize that is not the point of your post, but your message bears a similarity to the idea of "kids these days don't know how good they have it; a tour in [insert country, insert war] would do them well."

You are stereotyping civilians as soft and indulgent and spoiled, sir. It's disturbing.

No I' m not

by tom ricks on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 6:50pm

I'm saying that people who work at the White House have it made--they are on top of the world.

I am not stereotyping all civilians.

Thanks,
Tom

Personally, I have no compunctions about . . .

by Charlieford on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 8:17pm

. . . stereotyping most everyone "as soft and indulgent and spoiled."

How can anyone living in this country think otherwise?

It's not as if everyone read William James's "The Moral Equivalent of War" and said, "Yeah! Let's do that!"

well, that came out of nowhere

by butler on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 4:12pm

Mr. Ricks,

Sir, for someone who's neither taken the Bar exam nor served in the military, you seem audaciously willing to impugn the intestinal fortitude of people whose experiences you've never shared (by the by, I've done both).

While in principle I agree with you, sir, that the overwhelming majority of our nation's citizens do not fully understand (nor appreciate) the daily sacrifices of those in uniform (with the lion's share borne by Army 11x's and Marine 03xx's), I thought this particular post was just a cheap-shot. I read through the entirety of the WA Post article you referenced ("In West Wing: Grueling Schedules, Bleary Eyes") and did not find the kind of self-serving, self-aggrandizing or self-pitying language that claimed a monopoly on hardship or even implicitly compared life in the White House to conditions in Helmand Valley.

This is not to say, sir, that the executive branch has a shortage of pretension, but surely there are other individuals in even "softer" professions more deserving of a solid, put-em-in-their-place, ego-deflating brush-back.

respectfully,
butler
(1stLt, UMSC)

P.S. Despite the criticism, sir, I am a fan of your work -- "Making the Corps" positively influenced my decision to serve, and I think you've done no small service to our nation by writing "Fiasco" (which I've also thoroughly annotated with a red pen).

Staffers Also Think of Those in Uniform

by Tyrtaios on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 6:29pm

I have it on good authority Lieutenant, from a former Marine friend's son, who has a fellowship at the White House, that these staffers dining on fine china in the East Wing cafeteria, do from time-to-time, when looking out the window, muse out loud, as to whether those in uniform in Afghanistan or Iraq also have such a beautiful view!

Toujours Fidele

to Tyrtaois

by butler on Tue, 07/14/2009 - 11:02pm

Ma'am/Sir,

Thank you for your perspective. While there have been, in the past, shameful episodes of contempt by White House staffers for those in uniform (counterbalanced by an equally unhealthy failure-to-criticize-demigod-hero-worship-of-the-armed-services by some in the West Wing), it is encouraging indeed to read that some of today's policy-makers/shapers remember the burden borne by our policy-executors.

respectfully,
butler

Thou doth protest too much, Lieutenant.

by An Old Soldier on Tue, 07/14/2009 - 1:41pm

The whole article was a puff piece about how hard White House staffers work, thereby encouraging an inflated view of how "hard" the staffers have it. I am with Tom on this one.

And what's with bringing your law degree into it? Tom did not single out the legal staff for particular approbation (although they are, as your note circumstantially establishes, particularly prone to the self-aggrandizing shtick). Are you a Marine judge advocate?

Full disclosure: I am a retired Army JAG.

Oh, and as an Army guy, I cannot pass this up: you "misspelled" USMC.

to An Old Soldier

by butler on Tue, 07/14/2009 - 11:40pm

Ma'am/Sir,

First of all, thank you for your service, sir (am presuming a gender for the sake of expediency -- I apologize if I'm wrong). As much as I enjoy a good dig now and then at the Army's expense, at the end of the day I have nothing but the highest regard and respect for the institution -- and for her Soldiers -- that has borne so much of the national burden.

2. Sir, I am quite embarrassed by the typo. Knocking out a few pull-ups now in atonement.

3. To answer your question sir, no, while I have a law degree, I am not a JAG.

4. Sir, if you were rather taken aback by my "bringing [my] law degree into it", imagine then, my surprise when Mr. Thomas Ricks did. I was responding, in fact, to his commentary: "I think this sort of mewling is what happens when you staff the White House mainly with people who think the hardest thing you can do in life is take the bar exam."

As I've suggested before, I thought this criticism came out of left-field and was unwarranted. I'll grant you, sir, that the article was somewhat of a "puff piece" as you call it, but even so, nowhere in the WA Post did I find the kind of self-glorifying language by staffers that sought to elevate their own hardships at the expense of diminishing the work of others (let alone the military).

Surely there's a whiny, self-pitying Hollywood celebrity out there who's complaining about the rigors of her press junkets or an over-paid bench-warmer boasting about how hard training camp is? They're the ones ripe for criticism and a solid "You don't know what the f*** you're talking about! Let me show you some real men and women...."

As it were, while I'm usually a fan of Mr. Rick's incisive analysis and stinging criticism, I thought he pulled the trigger a bit too quickly here.

respectfully,
butler

"had"

by nmiller on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 7:08pm

Do you know the rest of the story about that woman's son? I ask only because in my world, one could easily say "I had a son who served in Iraq" and it could (and most likely would) mean "my son served in Iraq."

Gen. Jones

by acallam on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 8:51pm

I like the irony that General Jones puts in some of the fewest hours at the White House: he bikes home for lunch every day and leave work by 7.

Well, they shouldn't whine

by jjh722 on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 9:27pm

Well, they shouldn't whine about it, but it's also a valid point that we shouldn't have zombies making important executive decisions.

General Jones' Schedule

by JDShepherd on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 9:36pm

One should not necessarily confuse length of workday with productivity or intensity. It is said that General George C. Marshall maintained a schedule like this throughout World War II:

0630 - Arise, ride horseback for 6 miles
0745 - Arrive at office
1200 - Lunch with Mrs. Marshall in quarters at Fort Meyer
1700 - Leave office for the day
2100 - Retire for the day - after riding or canoeing

No one can argue that Marshall didn't pull his weight.

this post reads like sour grapes

by Tim C from NYC on Tue, 07/14/2009 - 1:16pm

Who's whining in the WaPo article? The people interviewed are very frankly discussing the way working 18 hour days without rest makes them feel, but merely saying that "you feel like a heavyweight boxer lying on the mat" after such a grueling schedule is simply telling it like it is. Inserting a comparison to how tough infantrymen have it rings as false here as when Sarah Palin invokes "the troops" when she criticized David Letterman (or every time she opens her mouth).

overreaction

by total on Tue, 07/14/2009 - 2:22pm

I read the article, too, and think, frankly, that Ricks overreacted to it. Nobody in the White House compared themselves favorably to the troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. They were asked if the work schedule was making them run down and tired and they answered honestly. It's a dumb article, but no one in it was putting airs about themselves.

Do we have to follow everything we say now with "...but it's not as bad as the troops have it..."? "I feel kind of sick, but it's not as bad as the troops have it"

I did not note whining in the

by R.Howe on Tue, 07/14/2009 - 3:48pm

I did not note whining in the article you reference. Certainly, they spoke of the long hours. You know, I want the people making decisions on the course to follow in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc, etc. to be at their best. The soldiers you (and I)are concerned about depend on clear-headed leaders. Your complaining is misplaced.

Can there be a more empty argument?

by BcdErick on Tue, 07/14/2009 - 4:13pm

Last time I checked all of our service men and women were volunteers. Being in the military means that sometimes you are going to have put your life on the line. But no one has forced these individuals to do so.

Working in the White House seems, to me, to be tremendously overrated. Maybe there are some nice perks here and there but it strikes me as a purely social thing. The power and prestige of the White House or government in general is wildly overrated.

And who can doubt that the government is filled with mediocrities starting, first and foremost, with "The One". Who really cares what happens in Washington D.C.? Certainly what goes on there is irrelevant to the lives of the overwhelming majority. Incompetence combined with arrogance and ignorance has always been the rule.

America is not a great country because of its government; it's a great country despite its government.

When I was young I lived on

by beihai on Tue, 07/14/2009 - 4:45pm

When I was young I lived on Pohnpei sleeping on a concrete floor with a tin roof, no electricity, no running water, etc. and I loved every minute of it. If I ever had the money to fly back and visit I am going to stay in a nice hotel in the capital. Does that make me soft? Maybe, but I am not that young as to think that is fun anymore. It is one thing to be a 20 something with no kids to deal with grueling schedules, it is another to be a 40 plus woman with 2 kids that you don't get to see much of working those same hours.

I have also spent the past 12 years in the third world, 7 in rural China and 5 in Latin America. I spent some time in Heilongjiang and knew my fair share of North Korean refugees. Any soldier in the worst condition where ever they are have it better than an average North Korean, so lets just hold back on the whole "who has it worst" department. Even when things were at its worst, I knew it would one day pass, that being an American meant I have a place I can go back to (except now of course since there are no jobs, but still I have the idea)