Conversation with a Soldier
On the final leg of my trip home last night – a flight from Dallas to St. Louis – I sat next to a U.S. Army soldier, in full fatigues, who was on his own journey home after a six-month tour in Iraq. He appeared to be around my age, early 40’s, so I struck up a conversation, asking if he was headed to Ft. Leonard Wood. He said he was.
I then made a passing comment about the Commander in Chief’s plan to soon announce a new strategy for the war – which led to a brief discussion about the nature of news coverage of the war; about how our papers, magazines, blogs, TV and radio stations depict one reality, while the reality on the ground, according to this soldier, is much different. He didn’t elaborate. I didn’t ask him to.
Instead, I said I found it interesting that the collective opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has been widely reported as outright opposition to one last surge, when the JCS’ position has actually been and remains conditional, i.e., a surge is a bad idea if it’s not part of a larger plan with better-defined goals. The soldier smiled, nodded, and said something to the effect of, “Yeah, it’s a sound-bite world.�
We then talked briefly about how long he expected to be back in the States: 18 months, minimum, long enough for his son, a high school senior, and daughter, a high school junior, to graduate and go on to college or whatever might come next.
We were silent for the remainder of the flight, each absorbed in our own distractions. After we landed, while the plane taxied to the gate, we resumed talking, and he mentioned how much he appreciated the support of the American people; how he and his friends frequently received “care packagesâ€? with treats from people they didn’t even know, while soldiers from other countries, including Britain, often received nothing and were thus resigned to watching in awe and envy as the U.S. soldiers opened their bounty … and then shared it with the group.
Off the plane, walking away from the gate and each other, I retraced the steps of our conversation.
Though he had never committed to a position either way on the President’s presumed “surge strategy,� this soldier’s combined remarks – brief and friendly as they were, decisive but never harsh – echoed the unspoken message, the silent admonition that I sense whenever I talk about these matters with my nephew, the former Marine who served in Afghanistan, shortly after 9/11, namely: Civilians who sit in the isolated solace of comfortable lives, spitting out stark, black-and-white opinions on what should and shouldn’t be done in Iraq, despite the fact that few of them have ever lived in a war zone or engaged in a firefight for their lives – those civilians should re-learn the value, the honor, of discretion.
If you’re one of those civilians and this suggestion angers you, direct your anger to me, not to the soldier with whom I shared a flight home or to my former-Marine nephew. This rant is, after all, my interpretation of what they may be thinking but have not actually said and probably will never say. They are far too dignified, and far too appreciative of their civilian counterparts, to utter such words. In fact, if pushed, they’d probably defer to our freedom of speech, to say whatever we like, informed or not, which is after all a freedom they are fighting and dying to protect.
Accordingly, I will likewise defer to that freedom and limit my request to this one: Tonight and tomorrow, as you evaluate the President’s plan and the responses of Congressional leaders, think twice before you react, especially if you have no first-hand experience in the Middle East, the wars that plague it, and the cultures that define it. If your opinions are based on second-hand knowledge, admit it, early and often, and respectfully drop the pretense that you can lay any claim to certainty on this or related matters. To do otherwise is to be guilty of the same level of fanatical fundamentalism that we so often criticize in others.
[Cross-posted at Central Sanity.]
opinions powered by SendLove.to
26 Responses to “Conversation with a Soldier”
“Tonight and tomorrow, as you evaluate the President’s plan and the responses of Congressional leaders, think twice before you react, especially if you have no first-hand experience in the Middle East, the wars that plague it, and the cultures that define it.”
Well, just like Bush. Doesn’t know anything about Iraq, and, even worse, doesn’t listen to those who do. Why sould anybody respect his decisions who are based on wishful thinking rather than facts?
“If you’re [sic] opinions are based on second-hand knowledge, admit it, early and often, and respectfully drop the pretense that you can lay any claim to certainty on this or related matters.”
Where there is no certainty, most of the time it’s best to err on the cautious side. This means, not letting any more US troops get killed for a ‘victory’ (whatever that means! Is a secured Iraq with an Iranian-friendly government a victory?) that’s not only uncertain, but impropable.
“if you are one of the civilians” and of the age, my suggestion to you is that you suit up. the one thing my generation got right is the universal sacrifice of WWII, none of this special nobility assigned to soldeirs I read so often today.
Back in my day, your number was up you did your duty like everybody else and shut the hell up about it.
As it is now, Iraqi vets are going to serve well and hard, come home and have their butts on their shoulders thinking their gods gift to the world. Shouldn’t be like that. Everybody’s country, everybody espected to do their bid. that’s the way nobody goes around dividing us into those who served and those who didn’t. And nobody presumes to tell civilian what to think and what not to think.
I would proudly serve if they recruited me, but I’m far beyond the age and far too out of shape to do the cause any good.
Certainly, in this post, I did not intend to suggest what civilians should or should not think, only that when we voice our thoughts, we avoid pretension, especially if we lack first-hand knowledge of the situation. I think that’s fair.
I guess I just hear and see too many people claiming to have indisputable truth on their side when they speak about Iraq. And I don’t think that’s fair.
So to clarify, I think everyone should say whatever they want; just have the dignity to qualify your opinion for what it is, and be open to the opinions of others, including those who have been on the ground and witnessed reality first-hand. That’s all.
This is asinine. Keep your mouth shut unless you served in the theater? Fine. Can I keep my tax money in my wallet, too? No? So I have to do as I’m told, believe what I’m told, and pay the bill when presented. How about my dad, the retired soldier? He should shut up too? And our chickenhawk Veep?
You need to take another look at this Pete.
We’re a Republic. We each get a say. We don’t turn health care policy over exclusively to doctors, or education policy exclusively to teachers.
I am vehemently opposed to this war, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t support the troops.
don’t you think it’s safe to say that many americans share my sentiments?! anyone I’ve met who shares my disdain and concern about this war still supports the troops.
I’m curious, is your experience that much different?
“I guess I just hear and see too many people claiming to have indisputable truth on their side when they speak about Iraq. And I don’t think that’s fair.”
Indeed, indeed. Go tell that Bush II., St. John and Holy Joe.
I served in Vietnam. I saw the people up close and personal. I talked to them, walked with them and laughed with those who were SO glad we were there helping them.
The press however was busy portraying every death and screaming at how we are killing maiming and destroying Vietnamese in the name of Freedom. They hated the war and by right they hated the people. I sense that in many opinions I read today.
People are starting to hate the Iraqis because of 10,000 or 20,000 terrorists. They want to hate the Iraqis and leave them to fend for themselves because the PRESS is telling us things are not going good. Well gee things usually dont go all that good in a WAR.
I know a lot of friends, relatives and aquaintainces who say the opposite….They are the soldiers on the plane you talked too.
SHUT UP YOU LIAR!!!! Scream the left, the antiwar, the Bush Haters. And because they hate Bush, Republicans, and WAR they have now become Iraqi haters and anything anyone says to the contrary are Stupid, idiotic, neocon warmongers.
I watched it happen in Vietnam, and Im watching it happen today in Iraq.
Once again, my admonition was not for anyone to remain silent, but to qualify their opinions on Iraq for what they are, and to clarify on what they’re based. My concern is not with those who express an opinion, but with those pass off their opinions as un-challengable truth; and in the latter category, they are legion. As I wrote, my only request is to “think twice” before we speak, and to “drop the pretense” that any one of us has a corner on the truth.
Pete, this kind of post is why I read TMV. The commenters above who misrepresent what you said in order to avoid their own implication by your critique are revealing. You’re not saying that those who didn’t serve shouldn’t comment. You said that those who don’t see the whole picture (and NONE of us do) should not pretend that they do by adopting extremist, purist, judgmental positions.
Debate about Iraq right now doesn’t deserve the name “debate”. All we have is the Bush administration saying that anyone who disagrees is a “cut and run” coward and Sheehan-esque anti-war activists saying that anyone who disagrees with them is a “warmonger” or worse. Practically no one seems to have the integrity to admit their own possible fallibility, the limits to their own knowledge, or even the possibility of legitimate disagreement.
They are wrong. Your post is the exception to their tragic rule.
Incidentally, my last comment was offered in the context of what “m. takhallus” wrote. I should have clarified that. Apologies …
Maybe you really mean bloggers and media types when you say “civilians” People who speak about the war to me are pretty thoughtful, worried, and frustrated. They don’t talk in catch phrases. I have to turn on the TV and to hear that garbage from politicians, generals, reporters and pundits…or go to a website.
Thank you, Jason, for taking time to clarify my post for other commenters, and to read it for what it actually tried to say.
Best book I ever read about the Vietnam was a Bright Shinning Lie. Written from the point of view of a man who believed in that war. Reporters hurt the war by exposing shams. But instead of stopping the shams the war leaders comdemned the reporters. Made no sense to me. they made a bad call. Whose fault is that?
Maybe you really mean bloggers and media types when you say “civilians�
In part, yes. You’re also right, Mr. Jordan, that there are many civilians who speak thoughtfully about Iraq. But there are some — one friend of mine, in particular, comes to mind, who is neither a media type nor a blogger. Just opinionated. And again, that’s OK. What’s frustrating is not his opinion, but his lack of listening to those who have other perspectives, especially those who have informed perspectives. It is the refusal to listen and think that worries me, whether that comes from the White House or civilians or certain categories of civilians, or even soldiers themselves.
I imagine your friend’s ways have been learned. We (meaning most political people) are exactly what political partisans (Rush, Alter, Oberman, Coulter,etc) want us to be–no; trained us to be: Tuff, hardened, opinionated, and who see EVERYTHING through the measuring stick of does it help or hurt “our guy” and “our party” be it Bush, Clinton or whoever.
’cause for many (maybe not your friend, I don’t know) being for or against the war ain’t about Iraq, liberty or none of that, it’s about supporting “their guy”, and “their party” and if their guy had a different opinion…hell, they’d back it too.
Can I get a AMEN?
Mr. Jordan — To your last request, yes, I’ll give you an “Amen.”
You infer a lot from your little anecdote. It’d be easier to assume you aren’t just filling in your own opinion, if you’d bothered to ask the soldier what his was.
In any case, if by learning the value, the honor, of discretion you mean the rest of us should just shut the hell up and applaud, I’ll remind you that one doesn’t earn the right to an opinion only by becoming a soldier any more than one becomes a moral person only by joining the clergy.
upinsmoke
Did you kill any civilians that didn’t deserve to die?
Mikef,
Perhaps I should have asked the soldier his opinion; perhaps I am reading my own through what he did and didn’t say. I don’t know.
To your last point, no one should shut up; all should express opinions, freely, and in doing so, all should be as discrete, as reasoned, as tempered, as possible.
I don’t have much sympathy for you being misunderstood here, Pete.
Your post implies that the media are losing this war in Iraq, and that those of us who criticize it, without being in the battle, simply don’t know what we’re talking about.
We’ve spent the last 4 years listening to the president’s supporters attack all critics of this war, beginning with Ari Fleisher’s admonition to “Watch what you say, watch what you doâ€? to John Ashcroft telling Senators that their questions were aiding and abetting the enemy and now we’ve got Sean Hannity’s “Enemies of the State”.
In that environment you ask us to “re-learn the value, the honor of discretion”.
What did you think the reaction would be.
The fact is that civilians by and large did sit by and respectfully defer to the wise men of Washington, despite severe misgivings before the war, despite the lack of WMD, despite the discovery of torture, despite the increasing violence and the rise of death squads. The time for discretion is over.
Pete, the emotion is so high here that I think I will just shut up. Almost. The media is not making up the death and destruction. They did not fabricate the American dead, nor the Iraqi dead.
No, it is the administration that so wants to hide the horror of this war that we can’t even see military funerals. And to glorify Vietnam, where we DID have a million boots on the ground and lost 60,000 American youth, poisoned an entire country with chemical warfare, burned civilians with napalm. pffffft. I’m outahere….
I respect our troops. But when it comes to the opinion of the soldier on the ground being superior to civilians, no matter how well informed they might be the phrase “can’t see the forest for the trees” comes to mind.
We personally killed no civilians because our unit was basically a LRP (long range patrol) which spent our time way out in the middle of no where scouting villages and looking for and ambushing VietMinh supply lines. No believe it or not we were NOT baby Killers. We actually WERE there to help the civilians who needed it.
Forget Rambo and watch Good morning Vietnam. Robin Williams helping the kids in school is more along the lines of what we were doing in Vietnam then Rambo blowing up everything that moved including Water Buffalos. Until you walk a mile in the shoes of a Veteran stop listening to the GD press. They want to sell magazines, newspapers and advertising. Joe soldier teaching Iraqis to read is not going to do that. Accusing marines of killing civilians WILL…….which do you think gets the press?
Im opposed to this war. Was from day one because I fought in a war and I know how ugly they are. But I also advocate getting the job done now that we are there (The initial reason we went there is no longer an issue) or face mindboggling consequences for not getting the job done later. Thats not a talking point……..thats reality.
I agree pretty strongly with that concept (more on that in a minute), but I didn’t really think that was what Pete was getting at. I don’t think he is saying that we should believe the troops’ perspective more than anyone else’s, just that we should acknowledge that each of us only has our own little piece of the truth so we should humbly acknowledge that the opinions we’ve based on these perceptions could be incorrect.
On the issue of perspective of those who’ve experienced something, though, a few pet issues of the left come to mind. Does Cindy Sheehan have more moral authority about her anti-war stance because of the loss of her son? Should the opinions of the 9/11 widows and families have a greater influence on anti-terrorism policies? Should victims of chronic disease be allowed to dictate policy direction on stem cell research? Should women experiencing unwanted pregnancies decide whether or not it is morally acceptable to terminate these pregnancies?
I say that all of these voices should be heard and their interests should be respected, but that they shouldn’t be the absolute decision makers simply by virtue of their experiences.
I’ve talked with troops in this war and I’ve read a lot of their blogs. I plan on joining the Guard in a few years so I want to see what it’s like.
I find them to be extremely honest and even handed in what’s going on. Most of them aren’t ignorant and know exactly all the facets of the conflict. Most of em are very proud and optimistic about what they’re doing.
That said reading them makes me more against continuing the war. The reason why is pretty simple: since our specific tactical goals seem to going great but the country is going to hell I have little confidence that there is much we can do. It’s a corallary of the “forest for the trees” where our tactics are great but the strategy is doomed.
Exactly, CStanley. Well put.
And thanks to Mikkel for his comments, as well, particularly for adding your summary of the perspective of multiple soldiers on the ground. I found it very helpful, and your re-nuancing of “forest for the trees” to be a smart and important distinction in this larger discussion.