Last week we had a guest speaker come to my college (the College of Charleston) to speak and sign copies of his book; he also ate breakfast with a few of us the next morning. The speaker was Nathaniel Fick, a Dartmouth grad who served in Afghanistan and Iraq in the USMC.
more after break...
...He is now out and in grad school at Harvard. We all know about the new breed of Fighting Dems (Paul Hackett) who served their country in Afghanistan and Iraq and back in the states decide to serve their country once again by addressing grievances with the sitting government on the War on Iraq and the overall War on Terrorism. Similarly, Mr. Fick has returned to write a memoir (
One Bullet Away) of his time in the Afghanistan and Iraqi theater. He has also written several editorials et cetera in various newspapers, mags, et cetera around the country [
link]. Although I have yet to read it (the book), I look forward to soon. So if a Fighting Dem can be a Fighting Dem without running for office or declaring complete devotion to the Democratic Party, while embracing points of view that appeal to the Dems and infuriate the Repubs. Then is Fick a Fighting Dem?
Anyway, I wrote a short essay on the talk for EC in class, here it is:
Mr. Nathaniel Fick was a refreshing reassurance and is an important addition to the debate in America WRT the wars and the overall War on Terror(ism). As a Marine he has a great perception of what is taking place on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan and in addition he understands the culture of Iraq and isn't ethnocentric. But a common ignorant misconception I have with soldiers is that they embrace some sort of blind allegiance to the powers that send them to war and those powers can never be wrong and called out as and that they are all Republicans. Fick, as do many other soldiers, does not embrace this view although he had me thinking as much when he admitted that the military's propose and specialty was to "kill people" and "break things". He quickly made clear that he is an "anti-war sympathizer". He is because this crowd "cares". I agree, like Fick I totally support the anti-war movement, although I don't agree with their overall message. However, their calls, requests, and protests drive debate and make people accountable for their mistakes or misdeeds. It also assaults the `stay the course' logic that in reality is the logic of waging a war that fuels a war and is waged regardless of time or life. However, I don't agree with everything Fick has said.
When I was very young, during the first Iraq War, I watched along with most of America as Operation Desert Storm roared into Iraq and liberated Kuwait from Mid-East bogeyman man Saddam Hussein. It was great! It was GI Joe in techni-color and I was oblivious to the reality of the situation. The views I held then have little if any influence on my views now towards war, Iraq, and politics. This is the life experience that I will use to suggest a problem with Ficks reasoning. He claims that the most important aspect of the war is the opinion of the younger generations we generate. I think he is wrong to believe that sporadic acts of kindness from coalition soldiers will have much effect on Iraqi youth in the long run. I also don't think it will be enough to heal our tattered reputation in the region even without the civilian casualties, the Abu Ghraib prison photos, or any other various grievances the Iraqi public may have with the occupation. I do realize that these children are observing war from an intimate distance while I view CNN or MSNBC from the comfort of home. The impact on the Iraqi children is many times greater than the influence Gulf War I had on me decades ago. That said; I doubt it will have enough impact to tip the scale in Iraq toward the West. Much like my `flat' world view in '91, the children in Iraq will have plenty of impressions of American supremacy to go beside the Marine who let him/her wear their sunglasses or the soldiers who detonated unexploded ordinance in an Iraqi village. Just like my experience, childhood views may not be enough to create goodwill in the population of Iraqi youth in numbers great enough to affect the collective view of Iraq's next generation as a whole as they mature.
To wrap this up, Mr. Fick spoke of a "policy shift", one that would shift focus from "fighting the insurgents" to "helping the Iraqis". He continued stating that we have done a poor job proving we are better than the insurgents. I think that is a mammoth and honest statement that many will be offended by but few can argue otherwise. Furthermore, when and where the insurgents have controlled space in Iraq, we have been able to clear them out. But then we leave and they return only to have the whole cycle repeated again. Among other things, this shows lack of commitment on our part, poor training on part of the Iraqi security forces, and a popular and/or powerful insurgency. Fick asserted that we have to convince the Iraqi public that we are correct, that we are their future. I think the verdict is still out.
I didn't write this to argue on my behalf but to introduce Nate Fick to the community (if he hasn't been already). In our breakfast last Friday him he came off as coherent and enlightened and while I didn't agree with him totally, he had more to add to the debate than most Vets I meet returning from active duty. I feel we should keep an eye on Fick in the future. He has a brain, charisma, and is a pleasant person to be around. Plus, his contribution to the current debate on Iraq and war in general should be given attention.