Foreign Policy
National Security
-
Leadership
A Silver Bullet to Solve Sexual Assaults
-
War Dogs
Postcard from Bagram
-
Obama
The Neo-Nixonian Presidency
Posted By Thomas E. Ricks
Wednesday, November 23, 2011 - 7:05 AM
Share
I think that as the United States leaves Iraq and shuffles toward the exit in Afghanistan, we need to think about how to answer that question when veterans of our wars there pose it.
This is a difficult one for me, because I think the war in Afghanistan was the correct response to the 9/11 attacks, but was mishandled for years after that, and I think the war in Iraq was an unnecessary and very expensive distraction from that response. Also, we may well see further violence in both countries that will raise questions about exactly what we achieved.
Also, today's vets tend to have good BS detectors. Recently I walked past a small monument to graduates of a high school who were lost in the Spanish-American War. It stated that they died "for humanity." I don't think so.
I think my response would be along these lines -- but I'd welcome your thoughts. "When your country called, you answered. You did your duty on a mission your country gave to you. In our system, thankfully, the military does not get to pick and choose what missions it will undertake -- that is decided by the officials elected by the people. Those officials are not always right, but they are the leaders we chose to make that decision. No matter what happens in Iraq and Afghanistan, you have the thanks of a grateful nation for answering the call."
Is that enough? I don't know. If someone said that to me, I suspect I would think, Yeah, well where was everyone else? Why did my friends die and yours didn't?
I don't know. Help me out here.
Researching and writing my book on Beirut in the immediate aftermath of the bombing was the experience of a lifetime. I was totally immersed in American hubris for to years, and I remain touch with it all in the contact I still have with Beirut veterans.
As I was completing my book in 1984, I asked a bunch of Beirut vets--all types of people--why we had been in Beirut and what the United States had accomplished there. The answer to the first question was pretty much, "Um. . . ." and the answer to the second was a nearly unanimous, "Nothing."
I write on Beirut from time to time, so I get to think about it again, some more, from time to time. As the years have passed, as the memory fades but fairly uneducated opinions remain in the American psyche--as we have wallowed in Iraq and Afghanistan--I see in the Beirut experience a precise forerunner of the horror of the past decade: the lying, the suborning of a weak Congress, the suborning of a legal system, the callous destruction of the lives of our own people, the paucity of thought by our highest officials, the capture and misuse of our military in service to parochial political agendas, the hubris, the hubris, and the hubris. It's all there. It'd =all= there. No one who mattered took umbrage, no one who mattered made an honest assessment, no one was outed, no one had to explain, no one but the military participants in Beirut paid any price whatsoever. A cover-up continues, overshadowed by another, much larger cover-up.
Dimly remembered Beirut was a template for the ghastly decisions and all the lies made a decade ago, and still ongoing.
A much more thoughtful post as compared to Ricks...lol. Colin Powell commited on this in his book. We came to "keep the peace" in Beirut but our political leaders were chosing sides. This put our troops in danger of the bombing attack. Our political leaders interests are often at odds with what is best for the country and the people who serve in the military.
That said...I have a real problem with Ricks's thoughts as usual... "Those officials are not always right, but they are the leaders we chose to make that decision"
I was born into this system. I never choose it. I quit believing in it at the end of my military service in 1995. It is a farce. When you look at our tax money nearly all of it goes to the feds, a much smaller amount to our state's government, and a very tiny amount is collected locally. This is backwards. If I am angry about the waste of my money I can go bang on my local mayor's door and give him an earful. It is why local politics (as long as you are outside of a major city) is less corrupt and actually has real input from the citizens. If I tried that with the president I would be shot. Our country is corrupt now. Our federal government is beyond our control. They are trying to maintain their power and influence in the world at all costs. It is why Paulson (Goldman Sachs) demanded and got the banker bailouts. It is why there are Goldman Sachs guys running Greece and Italy now. Our "elite" rule and we follow. We have been trained to do this since our childhood. It is what public school education is all about. Making us believe the fantasy that we have a choice...and that we chose this. I don't. It is why I buy Gold and Silver instead of keeping my money in a bank.
Not in analyzing what happened, but in putting their experience in context. How do you thank them for the sacrifices?
Best,
Tom
When talking to my classes at the University of Michigan, I explained how difficult it was to answer this question, either with specifics or in the abstract. However, I always pointed out that the willingness of Americans to die overseas at the behest of the country was a pretty good demonstration that we had values to defend. More important, adversaries bent on our destruction should take our "softness" for granted.
As for Afghanistan and Iraq, I see few specific benefits, but it may be too early to write the whole thing off as a waste of blood and treasure. If there is a civil war in either country after our departure, that may be a hard argument to make.
An indirect benefit, however, may be that the era of American exceptionalism is drawing to an end.
Why not offer apology rather than thanks?
And why equate country with some damn politician when speaking of the country's call?
Overlooked in many such sincere pieces is the nature of the non-declaration of war against Afghanistan. Two facts were known on 9/11: no Afghan wished harm to the United States, or tried to wreak it; 9/11 probably was (later, was known certainly to have been) the guilty achievement of al-Qaeda and his criminal foreign pards, resident in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan continues to be attacked (how else to describe what ISAF is doing there?) on the Bush prescription that he would draw no distinction between terrorists and the country that shelters them, but it seems that sheltering al-Qaeda was not the relationship between al-Qaeda and Afghanistan. It was more like an infestation of a destitute and broken nation by a well-armed and warlike pack of foreigners. The nation offered publicly to arrest and try Osama bin Laden in the first 48 hours after 9/11, which certainly doesn't sound like sheltering to me.
While we're on this "what should we say" topic, who's thinking about what we should say to the Afghans when, absent of victory, we leave their troubled nation some time in the future, and probably somewhere about a decade late? The current occupiers have killed lots of them, and from Day One of the aerial attack, killing terrorists and peaceful civilians indiscriminately. At the same time, we've felt free to criticize them freely as a corrupt pack of thieves. Of such are the blessings of liberty abnd democracy as we've seen them.
____________
PS If this policy of attacking nations that shelter terrorists lingers, ponder what it could lead to in light of the increasing number of successful prosecutions of terrorists -- who have been sheltered for much or all of of their lives by the United States in which they resided.
We fought and bled for each other. At the heart of things we knew we didn't want to answer that question. We did what was asked of us, and as a Marine I have no problem living with that.
We hope that one day this country and our generation understands what a small percentage of us did in Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of their freedom and our way of life.
Sadly, we know that this country will not ever know, and we are fine with that. We have each other, and we have the memories of those we lost. We know as the ones who lived that it is our job to tell their story to honor them through how we conduct ourselves as men.
So to answer the question: How do you thank us for our sacrifices? Don't ask us about our sacrifices, ask us about our brothers.
I don't want anyone to thank me...please, if you see us in the airport or wherever, don't "thank us". I don't know what to say and interacting with civilian strangers is the very last thing I'm looking to do - those returning or recently returned from theater have enough trouble trying to look you in the eye and sincerely respond, as opposed to looking at your facial expression, your body language, your hands, your clothing, how you walk and determining if you are a threat or not.
a) We don't see ourselves as so special that someone needs to thanks us. Just don't screw us over by telling us our job is very important but now that our budget is in trouble, we are all of a sudden less valuable than the paper our money is printed on. In other words - stop lying to us.
b) We don't need a statue. WWII vets needs a monument. We of OIF OEF don't need anything like that.
c) We went voluntarily. Going to combat is a big deal, we all know that. But we made that choice the day we took our oaths.
d) In exchange for our voluntary acts, again - don't screw us. We don't need anything special other than some job security so we can devote our emotional capital on dealing with risk and loss of life rather than "how am I going to feed my family with my DD214"?
Sorry but words are pretty hollow. No one cares. Whether it's Obama, Bush, Rumsfeld, Panetta, or whoever....don't give us "thanks" and then show us you really don't care by gutting the budget, slashing benefits, and discharging thousands.
"Let us rise up and be thankful, for if we didn’t learn a lot today, at least we learned a little, and if we didn’t learn a little, at least we didn’t get sick, and if we got sick, at least we didn’t die; so, let us all be thankful.
Author Unknown
Attributed to Buddha, but this is disputed." Gratitudes Quotes
Then toss it, experience, all over the fantail with the rest of the myths and hubris and deaths that goes with wars or investments or time..... watch it for a short period as it drifts to the horizon and disappears, you, knowing that someone will pick it up for literature or fraud or both...but you with all the others on the ship will have long since moved on to where the compass points following a great circle continuously on a very small globe.
Pray that during this Pequod's endless transit your rack space at least improves; the chow remains edible and equal to the wardroom's; the Captain, at least competent and sane; and, the crew, without cause for mutiny.
The stars will show you history back lightyears and GPS will indicate your present tenuous position - if the Navigator desires to post his position report after he compares the chronometers.
....What else is there really to say to them?
When Charles Krohn at the University of Michigan tells his students "I always point out that the willingness of Americans to die overseas at the behest of the country was a pretty good demonstration that we had values to defend," he gives them the perfect Wehrmacht reply. Not that the Wehrmacht invented it, but it certainly did its best to spread its values among foreigners frequently reluctant to share them. Students of history might recall that the brave soldiers of the German army set out to remedy foreign attacks on their nation that had been fabrictead by the late Mr Hitler. Most Americans now seem to feel similarly about why the men went to Iraq to fight and die: a fabrication.
This response to Mr Krohn's offering, due to a technical issue, appears above my earlier comment suggesting that we owe veterans as much apology as thanks and that it's a dopey thing to equate the plan of some damn politician with "the country's call". Mr Krohn does not seem to value the distinction.
If there's anybody in the present environment we should thank, it's Nouri al-Maliki, who graciously and kindly has made it clear that no American in uniform should die in his nation after the end of next month. For this, we do not offer thanks. Mostly, we revile him. The revilers think more Americans should die in Iraq. I don't share that view.
Like Mr Krohn, I don't think all wars are unjust. Invasion of Afghanistan was lawful due to the residence there of the 9/11 plotters. The invasion, however, didn't seem to harm them much. Instead, it has done great harm to peaceful Afghans.
Lawful also was the invasion of Kuwait in 1990 by the late Mr Hussein, in response to Kuwait's mass stealing of Iraqi oil by slant drilling alongside their joint border. Oil is virtually Iraq's only asset. Mr Hussein made several international attempts in international forums to have the thefts stopped, and relied on military action only after all those forums had declined to examine the matter. He cleared his intention with the local US ambassador beforehand -- as released State department files make clear. Whether the Kuwaiti thefts were in the hundreds of billions, or the trillions, nobody seems interested in discussing. That might make the Gulf War seem, well, wrong.
You tell them the truth to the best of your ability. Don't embellish, don't understate. And then listen to them. And hopefully a constructive discussion will ensue.
When it comes down to it, we don't care about our country, or our president, or anything else. When we're over there, when the bullets are flying, we're not fighting for anyone except the guy next to us. You want to know what my buddies died for? They died for me. And had it been the other way around, I'd happily die for them.
Semper Fi
The question was answered by Kipling a long time ago, "Because our fathers lied"
What Did We Fight and Bleed For?
As Jerry Pournelle pointed out many years ago, a soldier's efforts can only buy time. Time for others to work to correct the issues that led to war in the first place.
Perhaps our decade-long involvement in the Muslim world has bought time for technology to create the networks that assisted in bringing about the Arab Spring and 'outflanking' the Islamists. Perhaps not. Perhaps our past and current leaders have squandered the time bought in blood. We don't know. We won't really know until many years have passed.
The soldier must, of needs, take comfort in having done the job to the best of his or her capability, remembering always the men and women who stood together in times of trial - especially those who gave their "last full measure of devotion".
What did we fight and bleed for?
Did you really say "decade-long involvement in the Muslim world"? We've been killing Arabs in the Middle East since the end of WWII -- and the British for decades before that. I do wish that Americans had some sense of what has been, and is being, done in their name overseas.
What a coincidence! Just last night the same neocon bucket shops that sold us a bill of goods on Iraq were posing as "experts" and questioning the GOP Presidential nominee candidates about foreign policy. So just as them. As Cato, Heritage, Addington, and the rest of the neocons.
They fought because a group of civilian leaders at the highest ranks believed that it was in America's best interests to do this. Based on all that is publicly known those leaders were wrong and indeed they may have succumbed to group-think (or worse). It isn't right. It isn't fair. It shouldn't have happened. However it did happen, and once it happened all we can do is try to make sure that the future leaders remember this and avoid this kind of foolishness while still having the resolve to push back against real threats. That isn't right or fair either but it's all we have.
As for the nature of the system, a military-dominated one would be even worse. There's at least some evidence that military governments* are more prone to using force to settle matters than civilian ones, even civilian authoritarian states.
*No the U.S does not have one of those, no sarcastic comments please. The military has a powerful role in our government but it is still subject to civilian authority. The military does not control most of our industries. The military does not decide who has what role in the White House or Congress. The military has not shown itself to be inclined towards interfering with elections. That's a far cry from the real military states elsewhere in the world.
We fought and bled because our country asked us to. And for the guy next to us. Nothing more and nothing less.
A cliche yes. But a true one.
Damn, I think you nailed it, "They fought and died because their country asked them to, and for those that fought beside them."
"Why did you go?" Got asked that several times. My first thought was, what a dumbass question, I went because it was my job. It was part of what I did for a living. Plain and simple. The ones that went later may have a bit of a different idea.
The politics is just noise,even when you have your head down in a ditch and you're wondering, 'Why they hell are we here?"
Take care of your people and get the day's mission done, even when it sucks
The first part, in particular, speaks to the "why were we there" question from a veteran's perspective.
The implied question behind it--"why did the civilian leadership of our country ask us to go there"-- is a little thornier, and there's not really a single specific answer. But I would attempt to summarize it as "it was deemed to be in the national interest at the time." Works for me.
Especially, "For the guy next to us." It was also an opportunity to execute the tasks that they had endlessly trained to perform. We should not forget that these troops are professionals with a subset who volunteered because of 9/11.
Joining was an act of volition; not going. If, upon returning, you can say that you did your duty and protected your buddies - then that's what you achieved.
Because my friends were already there.
That was enough for me.....ditto on that comment.
Every day in garrison is a day I'm piece of shit in my eyes, when we have people taking fire overseas.
A: Whatever you wanted it to be
Try as you might, no one alive today gets to place a definitive answer to this question. Ten years in Iraq and Afghanistan are not over and it will take decades to see what the then end result will be.
What's overlooked in Mr. Rick's answer is the element of personal responsibility. Purposefully omitting the rounds of stop loss in the early years there is a clear fact. Not one enlistee signed up to be a cog not knowing the score. If they did, the answer has to include the seemingly bitter statement, "you were also willfully ignorant, probably a result of youth and therein lies part of your answer."
I know a segment argues the line of economic disadvantage and limited choices, blah, blah B.S. Granted a 20 year old might not realize the depths of the undertaking but with limited exceptions (there are always a few) most were savvy enough to understand from the unfiltered lens of the internet, bullets where flying and bombs exploding and it wasn't ending anytime soon. If that's not for you, move along.
I offer this in the interest of a earnest discussion. There are many noble reasons for why men and women join. Most I agree with, some not so much. But veterans fought, bled and watched friends die because they put themselves in that position. Maybe that element increases the significance of their other rationale. (Probably) But this generation of vets has more reason than most to internalize the "For What?"
"Where was everyone else?" Ask them. There is no reason for a vet to think a civilian peer's answer should/will be crouched in veil of shame or guilt. Ultimately they'll need it to be incorporated into the calculation for a honest final answer.
The half I agree with: Everyone knew, or should have known, what they were signing up for. I did, though I put pen to paper pre-9/11. Past performance was plenty indication of future probabilities. Even more so for those who came in post-2001 or 2003. So I agree in the sense of "I do this because I want to, not because I was forced to. I am not an unwitting victim of the policy making elite. And I don't want any goddamn pity."
The half I disagree with: NTFB's post here has some undertones of placing responsibility for the policy/war itself at the feet of the service member. That responsibility, of course, belongs solely to the elected civilian leadership; and responsibility for the overall conduct of the directed policy belongs to the most senior levels of military leadership.
And as for "where was everyone else?" -- I have no problem with those who do not choose to serve, none whatsoever. Nobody should feel guilty about that. But if a civilian's answer to that question isn't at least "in a voting booth every November," then they're part of the problem.
There is a lot to these comments about exactly which mission different people signed up for.
There was the justifiable 9/11 recruiting for a mission defined as either reasonable retribution or necessary self-defense, including by aggressive and effective retaliation.
There is the official blurring of lines for Iraq and Afghanistan which played into the legitimate post 9/11 recruiting. WMD, etc....etc......
There is the perennial recruitment factor of young men seeking to join the military for their own routine reasons (an essential plank in becoming the heroes of their own lives, testing themselves, proving themselves, getting away from home, etc...)
Then there was what followed the post-9/11 period----a different war & mission every year, with some serving because they had already signed up, to serve with their comrades, or impressed by unsought extensions, or those, after things became really bad, who joined to stand shoulder to shoulder, including to bring it to an end.
The economic desperation angle is a loss leader, retroactively applied to many who, in fact, left very good economies and jobs during the pre-September 2008 period, or, through long service in the National Guard became subject to deployment after deployment.
The global wars without end spanned many cycles, many missions, and many reasons.
The reasons why people served, are as broad as the time span. Why they were sent is the as-yet-unanswered chapters for historians after the pieces fall in place (and the post-action chapters reveal themselves). Great success? Catastrophic disaster? None of us can know yet....
Citizens should say thanks, take responsibility, and ask to help
I think you're hitting on some righteous notes in your musings. My head has been in similar space the past couple of days, particularly as I began to consider that there are a handful of Gold Star families in "my" former brigade, who are now facing their first or second holiday seasons without a loved one.
I'm also aware that, four months since the "Red Bull" returned from Afghanistan, more than 150 citizen-soldiers are still on active duty for medical rehabilitation and assessment. On paper, that's 5 percent (of roughly 3,000) who aren't yet home. That's more than a company still out there in the administrative ether.
I've always conducted my Red Bull writing/research with the idea that I needed to be able to someday explain to my young kids--later, my buddies' kids--why it was so important that Mommy or Daddy left them for more than a year. Maybe that's a different way to ask the same questions as you.
Now retired and out of uniform, I've taken to considering the world more from citizen side of "citizen-soldier."--it is the voter, not the elected representative, who ultimately is responsible for national policy. I also think that any sentiment needs to go beyond "thank you for your service." Those words have meaning and value, but the social-contract with our soldiers should not end with their utterance. I think you've partially embedded such concepts in your words, but you might want to considered teasing them out more:
"We, through our elected leaders, asked you to do this: We asked you to leave your families and friends, and the comforts and freedoms of home. You did this mission, and did it well. You and your families made sacrifices both large and small. We thank you for this. We honor your service. We welcome you home. Now, you may say we owe you nothing--that you were just doing your job, or your duty. Still, we would like to know: How can we help?"
This is helping me. I think I might try next week to go through all the comments and compile a more complete answer.
Welcome home, again,
Tom
I think that we share an idea of an America that is worth serving and defending. It's not our place to determine which wars are worth fighting: we have a civilian government that makes that decision, and the American people determine whether that government serves their interests. Ultimately, and regardless of whether the war accomplishes anything useful, the big picture answer is that we're fighting for everything good about America and the small picture answer is that we're fighting for the person to the left and right of us.
I also think that we've realized that most civilians don't really know anything about the military, don't really care about the military, aren't really following the progress of the war and don't know enough about the military (or the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, for that matter) to understand what's going on if they did pay attention. So I expect civilians to continue giving profligate thanks for a job that they don't understand, no deeper or more meaningful acknowledgment of the military's sacrifices, and hopefully veterans to take on a larger role in the government, to help bring better sense to future wars.
. . . most of us civilians (or maybe anybody) are qualified to answer the question. Think about what you'd need to know and feel to be able, with any authority, to answer the "what" and "why" questions of these wars. Some hubris there, too, maybe..
But maybe more importantly: riffing on Arendt, it seems to me there is a certain banality to sacrifice (or heroism or virtue or duty) too, and that there's a banality to gratitude also. And I'm not using "banal" in a derogatory way. More like quotidian.
We feel it's not enough, so we call on our powers of rhetoric to puff it up, but that's when things start to go hollow.
Pondering your question gives me more of a feeling than a proposition. I think of Clement of Alexandria. A fine military historian and veteran, and also a priest (Robert Kerby), wrote of him at the end of his life, "he dropped his quill . . . and left it to God to explain things. He waited for silence to speak to him."
Like asking an artist to explain his work. Some will fill the pages, some will shrug their shoulders and say "there it is, make what you want of it."
In most instances, the latter is more honest, and the real meaning is left to its personal impact on each viewer.
Personally, I don’t need anyone’s thanks- it tends to make me feel awkward. I also don’t want any free meals or special recognition just because I volunteered to serve.
I went because I was told to go and I held a glimmer of hope that the decisions I made might keep someone out of a body bag.
I also went with the hope that my children might someday recognize that I simply did my duty to the best of my ability. If that happens that will be all the thanks I need.
People will usually answer this in a variety of ways, using history, military strategy, or foreign policy as a foundation.
But the question, when posed by a combat veteran, is far more deeper, reaching into the soul. Why did my friends die? Why am I still alive? What's ahead on the path?
I wish I had an eloquent answer to a question that begs for a spiritual resolution.
I can't answer "why," but what I can tell you is that many of us who have watched our loved ones from the sidelines have found the most meaningful calling in our lives. From the simple act of sending packages to the troops, to developing programs that help veterans, active duty, and their families, what has been created as a result of the circumstances of war is a close-knit community that really cares. Programs that serve have been developed, as has new technology to aid wounded warriors. And perhaps we've all gained a bit of humility by talking and listening to a veteran --not wanting to speak about his or her experiences, but just learning about what they want to do with their lives now that they are out.
I hope our small efforts can in some way recompense for the physical and emotional toll of war. But to you, I say thank you --not only for serving, but for the inspiration you give us to lead our lives.
-Kanani Fong
http://warretreat.org
It depends on what level you ask the question. Strategically, in Iraq, we fought so that the evil Army of the Prophet (JAM) would not disinherit the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) from its rightful share of power. In Afghanistan, it was different-we were keeping our best buddy, Hamid K., in his position at the center of a patchwork of dysfunction, and keeping those bad Taliban from coming back and making the trains run on time. Also, something about women's rights, democracy and fighting Al Qaeda.
Organizationally, we fought so that a bunch of middle and upper managers from the US military and its civilian counterparts could get bullets on their evaluations, medals and promotions, and so that everybody could get their combat pay. A bunch of cool stuff got bought, too, like MRAPs and such, which was awesome and sometimes even worked. So, we fought so that a large amount of wealth and prestige could be transferred from the private sector to the public sector and distributed according to some arcane algorithm .
Personally, we fought...well, most of us didn't actually fight. Most of us sat on giant FOBs, mini-middle Americas, complete with strip malls, and did menial duties, counting down days and doing as we were told. Many went outside the wire on convoys exclusively, driving from point A to point B at 35 miles an hour and hoping not to get their ass launched into low earth orbit. Many of those who did fight did so to avoid being crushed and humiliated by the organization into whose hands they'd commended their egos and self-respect, and which they depended upon for their daily bread. Others fought to prove something to themselves and to their friends and families back home. There's a reason the book's called "Where Men Win Glory." Many fought because it was fun-we're all chimps with a software upgrade on some level, and as I overheard one infantry E-7 announce to a large group of troopies, "what other job lets you go overseas, kick in a door and kill people?" Still others fought because their friends to their left and right depended on them to do so.
We have to fight for what we believe. We have to remember our values.
kompiuteriu remontas
..."you can't prove the counter-factual." It's a great all purpose remark that most people won't understand. So F' em.
(Seriously, I like Lieber and Charlie Sherpa's answers)
Assessing whether benefits = cost
Some people get fairly quick feedback whether the time they spend elsewhere to support national security was worth it, but many don't. A new guy arriving in Germany 1988-1989 got some instant gratification when the wall came down, but older Cold War vets of European tours waited years and decades to know it was worth being away. I have no doubt that many Korea vets are still waiting.
For Desert Shield/Desert Storm vets it has probably been more incremental. They got some measure of satisfaction when the cease fire came, and more in 2003 when ground offensive operations went spectacularly well, and perhaps more now.
I haven't met anyone who went to Somalia to deliver the pizza 1992-1993 that thinks that operation was worth what it cost in blood and treasure, but hope springs eternal. Seeing that place or its component geographic parts get their act together would help.
Tom, I retired from the Army in 2004 after 24 years service partly because I hurt my back in a parachute jump, but mostly because I just could not support the Iraq War, though I felt strongly about AFG. Many friends and colleagues served in IQ and AFG while I did not, and one of my best Army friends recently lost his son in AFG. My Dad was a 28-year Army man, and one brother served 20 years in the Army - my Dad was a WWII POW and they both served in Vietnam. My other brother served a year on a PRT in IQ as a Foreign Service Officer, and my FSO spouse subsequently served a year on a PRT in the wilds of AFG while I stayed home with the kids and wrote about the nuts and bolts of war as a defense journalist. I dislike the maudlin hand-on-the-heart way so many Americans treat ‘Vet’rans’, and am particularly uncomfortable when someone, usually a well-meaning civilian, ‘Thanks me for my service.’ While I know the intention is good, it smacks of superficiality and strikes me as laced with guilt. I never know how to react.
The best way for someone to interact with our many veterans of IQ and AFG is treat them as regular fellow citizens – honestly, with dignity and intellectual integrity. By that I mean take the time to learn a little something about the military experience and about the realities of war, as opposed to foolish video game war and TV movie war. Read a couple of the many excellent books out now detailing life ‘at the front’ as we’ve known it since 2001. Have honest, straightforward discussions with military people/veterans using the insights gained from reading and meeting real life soldiers, etc. Being in the military or being a veteran does not automatically make someone a hero. Heroes are those few who display extraordinary courage at the risk of their own lives in order to save their comrades or ensure the mission succeeds against overwhelming odds. Treating every military person or veteran as a hero cheapens the value of the title and makes most of us uneasy. The ranks of service members and veterans contain just as many losers and frauds and bottom-feeding self-promoters as the rest of society. Judge those you meet the same way you judge anyone else and give them the space to make their way in life. As for the unavoidable awkwardness of Iraq veterans, that is something every veteran has to resolve for him or herself first and foremost, though it’s imperative that the military as figures out where they stand as institutions – particularly the Army and Marine Corps. I think that process has already started. The Army has working histories for the Indian Wars, the Philippine Insurrection, the Moro War, etc. Vietnam is still a work in progress 35 years on. Iraq will likely take at least as long, though hopefully veterans of the Iraq War will have an easier time of it than their brothers who fought in Vietnam.
Very well said. The hero stuff and thanks for your service are just throwaway lines meaning little or nothing. Rarely do we become aware of our genuine heroes unless it's the MOH or the service member has been killed in action.
Every once in a while I'll meet a fellow Vietnam veteran and we seem to experience an instant and special bond. Often one of us will say "welcome home." Although that phrase has special significance for us, I believe that is a good thing to say to a serving soldier or veteran who has returned from Iraq or Afghanistan. You are welcoming them back into the fold and the relative safety of their country.
A great bit to add to Leiber's idea
It's really a relief to hear you say this. I've felt like I was being a semi-dickhead because I don't thank vets for their service when I meet them.
I won't do it because in most cases I have no idea whether the veteran in question was busy hauling the injured to safety under fire or if he was hit by shrapnel while in the process of deserting (like one of my grandfathers). He or she could even be one of those people who executed Iraqi teenagers and there's absolutely no way for me, as a civilian, to know. It also seems wrong on the basis that every veteran I know who is still alive volunteered to be a soldier. They all knew they might die and decided to serve anyway. There are lots of people who choose dangerous professions that we don't thank for contributing to society. I couldn't imagine thanking a crab fisherman for his service, for example.
As for Tom's original question, if a veteran asked me I would just try to be as honest as possible. Something like this:
"From my perspective you went to Afghanistan/Iraq because we were embarrassed and angry and wanted revenge."
Where was everybody else?
"Somewhere that didn't involve making the same career choice you did. The vast majority of us sacrificed nothing. I'm sure you sacrificed a lot."
Why did my friends die?
"Because you were a soldier."
...having this conversation with non-vet.
Or with a pogue, for that matter.
Thanks or no thanks is not determined by whether you "know" something or not. Unless you're there then you're not going to know, period. Who the fuck are you to determine whether my experience is worthy of your thanks, as compared to someone else's experience? How could you possibly know, or be able to make that decision? What kind of sanctimonious jackass are you?
Seriously....how many cases of executing Iraqi prisoners are there out there? Like 2? 3? 1? Get off the hyperbole and the nonsense.
Your comments, especially the fact that two of the three examples you give to characterize one's deployment are negative, speak of someone that has an axe to grind against the military. Particularly, it reeks of someone with jealousy or contempt based on some unknown cause.
We deployed because the country was embarrassed and angry? OK....that's your response? Embarrassed? We go to combat because of embarrassment? Really....could you be more cynical or jaded? What the hell, did mommy not hug you? We went to war for real or perceived threats. It really is that simple. We can dissect how real those threats were, but to say we went to war because of embarrassment speaks rather poorly of your intelligence, emotional and otherwise.
Why did my and others' friends die....because we were/are Soldiers. Yeah, no shit. Thanks for that awesome display of cognitive badass-ness. Seriously, you should refrain from talking to vets simply because you're an idiot.
I have to amend my earlier comments...don't thank us simply because, engaging in any sort of conversation may expose you to be either an idiot or someone that has something against the military. Both of those are likely to create a conversation you're not happy with.
Charles, Are you having fun with your righteous indignation?
Who am I to judge whether you deserve MY thanks? Who else is going to decide what deserves MY thanks? Going up to a vet and assuming he's a hero is every bit as silly as assuming he's a rapist. When I meet a vet, I assume he's a regular person and proceed accordingly. I'm not going to thank him for doing things I don't know about and I'm not going to assume he's a hero. In the same vein I'm not going to assume he worked at Abu Ghraib.
And yah, embarrassment. Most countries would not react the way we did, particularly in Iraq. We were patriotic, we were embarrassed and we were scared. If you want to call the American public cowardly, I certainly wouldn't disagree. So yes, we were reacting to perceived threats. Looking back, we perceived these threats because ... Well if you don't like my answer, figure out a better way to characterize wasting trillions of dollars and an entire decade's worth of foreign policy on a problem that has killed fewer Americans in the last 25 years than bathtub accidents.
You chose a career where people die. That's why your friends died. I'm sorry, it sucks, and I'm glad there are people who are willing to do that job, but you knew the dangers and you chose it anyway. Soldiers die.
As for your bit of parting advice, my veteran friends seem to like the fact I don't judge them as either better or worse for being soldiers.
. . . you need to find a way. These are America's wars, not just the military's. If the nation/society/civilians aren't brought into the conversation, the military will continue to be taken for granted, used, abused, neglected.
Not going to be easy, but what that's worthwhile ever is?
...the next time I see a car wreck I'll just mention "Well, that sucks, but you knew the risks when you chose to drive."
I've never personally confused hero worship with politeness...or even empathy.
You seem to have backed off your earlier sentiment. Can't believe I didn't see your comments long ago.
Your comments are still idiotic and speak to a lack of intelligence - although you're probably a smart person but some emotional bent distorts your reasoning here.
To say any nation goes to war due to embarrassment is jaded, cynical, misguided, and idiotic.
Why do I bother.
OUT.
How did our fighting in Vietnam change the world? What did we affect? Had we never gone, would things be different? Perhaps Laos and Cambodia would be part of or firmly under the control of North Vietnam. I wonder how China would view that expansion by North Vietnam.
After all these years, is the picture any more clear? I think that the eventual outcomes for Iraq and Afghanistan are just as unclear. The further into the future we try to see, the less clear the results become.
I know why I went.
In Spring 2007, I was reading each byline under the two page Washington Post spread---so many were the same 19 year olds I had under me in the 1970s.
As a very old soldier, there was nothing I could contribute to stopping the flow of these young souls from the Earth until I saw that civilians were needed to bring basic Iraqi governance on line so that we could expedite US departure.
I went for that purpose, and was one of the last civilians out of the Presidential Palace in December 2011 (they were rolling the CHUs out one section at a time, and got mine as soon as I vacated it). The ink was dry on the SOFA before I left.
I understand why I went, and what my little part played in completing my mission. I understand why the soldiers died in support of my mission which was clear, unambiguous and, however roughly, accomplished.
Like so many US participants, we had no say in the big picture decisions, and had no choice or opportunity but to take the missions assigned, or those we were uniquely suited for. The military people I worked with, including senior generals, worked hard and imaginatively to align with and support my mission (civilian transfer/departure).
While I do not regret my piece, the lessons which remain unlearned from the prior pieces, and the risk of repeats are, in my opinion, inexplicable and indefensible.
Tom: I greatly appreciate the important pressure brought by you and your peers in shifting the forelorne mission of US Protectorate-Iraq to the later one which I was able to contribute to.
From arrival in December 2007, I fought for a rough peace, and our most rapid departure.
In that light, I celebrate the SOFA, and its results which are scheduled to be achieved on or before January 1, 2012.
Sure is bittersweet, and, as we all know, hard to explain to those not directly involved.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(123)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE