A very long time ago I naively thought that, sometimes, war was inevietable - unpreventable - and needed to be fought. I was from a family that had served our country since its founding, ordinary men who volunteered for service.
Ironically I owe my own existence to a quirk of fate on that count. Had my own father gone to Korea as a combat engineer as trained, I doubt I would be here. He had tried to enlist for WWII and been turned down on age as the war wound down. He was drafted for Korea - relatively speaking an "old man" in his early 20's. He spent the remainder of his hitch on occupation duty in Germany. The photos he took 7 years after the war's end show little progress in rebuilding the extensive damage done by US bombing.
For whatever reasons - and they are vague and ill-defined - I always thought of pursuing a career in the military. Perhaps the unending coverage of the last great war one grew up with in the 50's had something to do with it. At this stage in my life I wonder if I had been one of the so many killed in that last war in another life and was simply carrying that on in this one. (a philosophical attitude towards death that deserves its own coverage).
more below
I read a great deal about war - I still do. I was moved by places like Gettysburg and though mourning those that died in such places, felt that they had died as part of a "larger cause".
I thought that death in pursuing a noble cause was honorable - in spite of the pain caused to those left behind to mourn the dead. A life unlived might still have meaning if it was cut short to do some real good.
I grew up with Vietnam. I had doubts about that war but "believed." After all, our leaders would not squander lives in some useless conflict. There must be dominos, democracy must take a stand. And if one felt that way, one must be willing to serve that cause personally.
I entered West Point a naive 17 year old - ready in many ways for what I would encounter. I had hiked more miles that I can remember with a pack heavier than most carried. I could run for miles on rough terrain and had worked out witrh weights for a couple hours a day. I could hold 15 lbs straight out in front of me for an interminably long time - a seemingly useless skill unless you knew that holding a M-14 in that same position would be a regular part of calisthenics. I was a decent shot with a rifle.
I entered USMA with a class that had pretty good odds of NOT going to Vietnam - which may be why we filled all our appointments. We were told that we were the best qualified class to enter in a decade - partially the result of a determined recruiting effort. Ironically, we would set a record in resignations - no scandals, simply a a group of GAP image (Great American Public image - what people think of when they see 1940's movies about West Point - the "ideal") cadets that said "who are you trying to fool?" and quit. Forty percent left in 2 years - 5 of my squad of 12 graduated. The GAO did a study to find out what happened. The answer was simple. It's hard to "believe" when none of those around you do.
In 1972, Nixon was saying he'd end things - though he bombed the crap out of Cambodia shortly thereafter.....lol Our "firsties" entered in '69 - think about that. Who in their right mind applied to West Point after Tet had shown that 'Nam was FUBAR? Well, not many as it turns out. It seemed that most of our 'firsties' (seniors) were there mainly because they were going to Vietnam anyway. Their lottery numbers were single or double digits - they were simply putting off things for 4 more years hoping it might get better and playing the hunch that they might get out of it - or front line combat - if they were a second lieutenant. Yes, a few were there because they "believed" - but not many. One of my firsties I ran into years later was the THIRD alternate for his appointment - eg 3 people had already turned that appointment down. We were told that class actually had vacancies when it entered - unfilled positions for a free college education (well it cost 5 years of your life).
Few upperclassmen actully WANTED to be there. A squad leader from UNC applied when he pulled a lottery number of 4. West Point bought him 4 more years. An awful lot of our upperclassmen were more focused on getting stoned or laid - enjoying what they could before getting shipped out on graduation.
One lesson - learned from one of the best leaders I have ever met (someone who the Academy punished pretty severely for sticking up for those he led)- puts things in perspective:
A good leader respects those they lead and listens to them. He may feel forced to ignore their opinions in accomplishing his mission, but he will endeavor to accomplpish that mission with the least risk to his men. He is responsible for those he leads. If he is a good leader, he will be respected and followed willingly - even when the mission may be near impossible. His men will trust their leader to do HIS best in taking care of them while accomplishing their mission.
This man would do well wherever he ended up. I hope he did well in life. I never tried to find out what happened to him - not wanting to find out otherwise. He was Infantry - and went to Vietnam on graduation.
Well.... I reconsidered and left. I was appalled at the hypocrisy and worse..... USMA actually seemed to punish those that took the best care of their men - those that would be GREAT leaders in combat. It rewarded the arrogant asses - the types that would get fragged by their men. From what I saw and read later, the place did change, along with the Army. It needed to do so. But that took a decade or two and I fear that all the progress made during that time is being undone now.
Something inside of me hurts, a tear wells up, when I think of those that have died in service of this country. It matters not if their deaths were heroic, changing the course of a battle, or meaninglessly random sitting in a foxhole whan a mortar round hits. Death SHOULD inspire sadness, regret, and intorspection - was the cost worth it? I suppose I feel that even more now as a parent - it would be impossible not to think of far more personal consequences after having a child.
My study of history continues but I have become far more jaded as I get older and learn more. Too many wars have been fought without real reason. Too many wars are the result of failures - and not of diplomacy but of ego. When leaders had to LEAD - at the head of their armies, they thought about war differently. When THEIR life was at risk, they had a different perspective. Then you might have someone skilled at combat - a real bad ass killer. But HIS life was still on the line and HE took pride in knowing his actions could back up his boasts.
But now we have leaders who are oblivious to the consequences of their actions. I think LBJ and even Nixon felt for those that died in Vietnam as a consequence of their decisions, but I suspect they were still "disconnected" from it all - concerned as much with their place in history. Others really DO seem to feel the pain. Congressman Walter Jones seems to be one of them. Congressman Murtha seems to be another.
Our current leaders don't seem to show even the superficial concern that their predecessors showed. Does anyone see the SLIGHTEST regret in the face of our current President? He "knows families that have died".... funny how he avoids ANY situation where someone might call him out personally for his actions. It's easy to visit a hospital ward where a cheerful soldier says they're "fine" - a bit harder to face one with their extremities blown off, or hear the mother of a dead son ask you "Why?
If you are going to take action that will commit our military to real risk, you had be damn sure that the reasons for that action are justified. You had damn well better be right, sure that there is NO other option open to you. AND you had better accept the responsibility that comes with the deaths that result. You had better be able to defend yourself to God - citing a higher moral cause that justified your actions. And you should NOT sleep well at night, even if you KNOW the cause you espoused is right and moral. The mere fact that people died for a cause YOU espoused should be enough to disturb your sleep.
After a half century, I have lost the testosterone fueled zeal of my youth. There ARE things worth dying for - but too rarely are wars fought for such reasons.
I am astounded at the arrogance of a President who simply REFUSES to listen to ANYONE that does not support his pov, who ignores so many while showing NO signs of taking responsibility for the end result
of his actions. This President should NOT sleep well at night.
EDIT - While I wrote this unbeknownst to me, another diary was put up -http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/18/233629/13
In a different way, it makes my point more powerfully that I.
I'd like to note -
On a realistic level, most soldiers die not for a cause but for those they serve with - doing their "job", bearing their share of a common burden - that is cause enough for many, but is should not be cause enough.
Nonetheless, those leaders responsible for someone's death should be able to clearly explain why someone's father died, why someone's husband died - and the reason cited had better be worth that life.