I went to college at UC Santa Cruz. The overwhelming majority of students I met there had no connection to military life. There were times when this was a little disorienting because growing up in Coronado, to parents who were of “that” generation, not to mention during the Viet Nam War, my perspective, if not upbringing, found me set apart from my college peers in ways I could not understand very well, regardless of my positions on war, society, or the economy. For example, I would reflexively say, “Yes Ma’am” or, “Yes sir.” That did find me looked at strangely in the bursar’s office or signing off with a librarian.
Even without a love of military history, which I retain to this day, there was a military tradition in my family. Louis Puller, son of Chesty Puller was a family friend and the family stories included one of young Louis being sent to Coronado on a Navy launch so he could play with my brother. Chesty and my namesake grandfather, General Raymond Anderson were friends since the Nicaraguan campaigns of the 1920’s. I had a friend and acquaintances who aspired to and attended the Naval Academy. Who could relate to that in my dorm that fall of 1970, just three years after the summer of love?
When asked over the years if I had seen military service, I would smile and say, “No, but I got it by osmosis.” I am the only male for generations in my family to not enter military service. Not a veteran, yet I am more than just book learned on military culture and matters. I am a civilian, but not a straightforward civilian in this respect. This wonderful book, written by a Marine Veteran of the Iraq war, asks us some difficult questions regarding our endless conflicts and the passivity if not indifference found in most of the voting public with respect to making a difference or change in how the nation does what it does.
I am as guilty as the next citizen.
We should all read this book—-twice.
His opening essay covers how young he was after his four years of duty and he reflects on how young those replacing him seem. He came to know many who would deploy ten times in ten years and weighs in on the toll that takes. Do we care if our people die in these conflicts? Of course we do. Do we care if our soldiers are killing lots of people? Mostly, not so much. Most of us can’t name all the places we can find our soldiers deployed: Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Pakistan, Libya, Niger, Mali…… He points out that to a veteran, Ashli Babbit’s death looks crazy but at least it was definitive after two deployments where the mission, accomplishments, and progress were hard to see. As crazy as her beliefs seem to many, it is not so unreasonable for a veteran to distrust American elites sending our soldiers out on missions. Maybe her behavior reflects a reaction to that. My libertarian friends call such elites, “neocons.” I don’t think it is that simple. To his point about Babbit: how does one stop this mindless leadership re wars that don’t end? He points to mismanagement and lies and cruelty, institutionalized and then reflects on veterans who voted for Trump, not so much because of his belief system as the understanding the Hilliary was a “Hawk.”
He asks how many civilians know that one sixth of the federal budget is for the military and it feeds the infrastructure for 800 bases which can be found in 85 countries? He points out that the Biden-Trump presidential debates barely touched on foreign wars…..Regardless of who is president, “America First” is the reality on the political ground. I never thought of it that way.
And the reality in the Marine Corps? The Marines are part of the larger American culture, and yet…… For example, one can run a soldier out for a variety of behaviors such as overt racism or in his day, being gay. He tells a story of a Southern racist who supported the KKK but his team, which included soldiers of color, could steel themselves to this behavior given that in field exercises, he proved a reliable member of the team. The belief was held that he would come for them under fire if they were down. That trumped their anger with his expressed beliefs. In one case, after they both were civilians, the racist asked a black member of his unit to friend him on Facebook. As a civilian, rules are different. The request was not accepted. His bottom line? You can trust a Marine with your life, but not your money or your wife. For me, two corollaries follow:
The Marines are a family with very clear traditions, ceremonies, and agreed upon norms. Those do not exist in our society at large any more. This is divisive when in a more unified culture, it would not have to be as in the cases he raises.
If the mission for Marines (or sailers, or soldiers) is ambiguous or unclear, this unity of culture erodes and that is bad for both the system and the end results not to mention the soldiers themselves.
He struggles with the loss of a credible mission plan and our relationship with the armed forces. He was critical of liberals who derided the surge in Iraq as he saw the surge work: police forces expanded, people could walk the streets and go to concerts again, the death rates came down as Al Queda was put on the run. But he thinks the liberals questioning the strategy with a longer view has held true ie he notes there was more than one battle of Faluga. What is our long term goal again? Are we satisfied with just, “taking scalps,” as the standard was set back in the late 1960’s Vietnam with no credible plan to end it all?
The lack of a credible mission gets political. He expressed anger at General John Kelly declaring that “…service members hold in disdain those who claim to support them but not the cause that takes their innocence, their limbs, and even their lives.” Congress is supposed to debate the merits of America at war. That is important. If you think the Mission sucks, you are obliged as a Congressman to say so. That civilians are beneath contempt for not agreeing with the policy that leads to the loss of limbs and lives—inferred by General Kelly? He suggests that General Kelly, “Pound Sand.”
The incredible fire power our armed services brings to the field is easily misused. If our Mission is taking scalps, it is potent. But to end a two decade long conflict? He sees a role for non military tools as financial aid, health aid, and diplomacy. All of these resources were dropped as we pulled out of the active wars under both Obama and Trump.
Going to war out of a sense of duty is a poor mission: after the second battle of Fallujah, a Marine could only muster this: “This war is stupid. Well so what? Our country is in it.” This could easily have been quoted in 1970. We should, as a voting public, know better. And for the soldiers? It is depressing to think of the most advanced professional army in the world has to consider that it isn’t really ISIS or Al Queda trying to kill you, it is your own country sending you into danger without a credible plan.
He points to the Marine culture and treatment of wounded enemy in the field, receiving medical care that he witnessed. It validated Marine culture in his mind as something better than what most civilians are capable of. Training, discipline, and experience matter with moral questions.
He takes on citizen soldiers joining our armed forces and the choices they deal with. When he was in training as an officer candidate, a drill instructor asked him pointedly, “so if you call in an air strike and following it up you find no enemy, but a father dying in front of his child who is trying to wake him up, what are you going to say to that child?” If civilians want to criticize decisions by soldiers in the field, ask yourself if any senator or congressman committed suicide because of the burden of the results of what they had done in the same conflict. None of course. We can’t judge soldiers without judging ourselves.
Are soldiers forever damaged? He points out how delicately he is treated by civilians who cannot imagine what he went through. He points out that for the majority of soldiers deployed, you can: boredom, heat, restricted ability to move, bad food. He compares that to families on limited budgets with hard choices, physical abuse, robbery, rape, and so on. You have to talk about it if you want to understand it. People often treat the veteran gingerly, perhaps because they don’t want to know. He notes vets often join NGO’s and refugee assistance programs. So while the stereotype is of a damaged veteran beneath the exterior surface, census data shows that compared to peers, vets volunteer more, give more charity, vote more often, and are more likely to attend community meetings or join civic groups. THIS IS NEEDED FOR A FUNCTIONAL DEMOCRACY. Given that a small minority of our population are veterans, we civilians should take this up as a call for an equal response.
Related to this is our role as civilians, more broadly: he addresses the oath given as a marine and finds it elsewhere—in government for example and the divide between the military and civilians does not have to seem so wide. The person who shirks working for their country in time of peace is just a shade better than one who shirks during war—-qualitatively they are the same. We can vote but that is the bare minimum for the democracy to work well. ”Ideals are one thing; the messy business of putting them into practice is another. That means giving up on any claim to moral purity. That means getting your hands dirty.”
As to getting our hands dirty—He writes of the killing of general Soleimani and how this approach ripples out to affect the lives of tens of thousands of civilians in Iraq. We use technology to take scalps and make points internationally, and another round of brutal violence wracks that society—- to what end? We Americans vote in administrations that reliably make decisions in Iraq and elsewhere that treat these countries like blank slates without historical context or national pride and who will respond to our actions as we wish them to. He points out that we have been victorious taking Fallujah down twice and are likely to do it a third time as we are very very good at doing that, and so far, not much else.
I find Mr. Kay very thoughtful and he raises the right questions. Many of his observations could easily have applied during Viet Nam and the political squabble that would have raised is not unlike what we have now. All of us have to confront the problems of an army that is well trained but in jeopardy because of the leadership gap providing a reasonable and do-able strategy. Sunsetting a war as voting blocks will predictably withdraw support after X time is not a military or national policy worthy of the name. We citizens are morally responsible for that reality and all of us have to look at elections and leadership and the problems we need to solve differently.
Comments