Memorial Day

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

- Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, November 19, 1863.

Kool-Aid guzzling of the First Degree and the liberal prism

Contrasting the government's reaction to al Qaeda messages last year to al Qaeda messages this year, Professor Nacos asks, "I wonder about this sea change from public over-attention to al-Qaeda messages to mostly ignoring such communications in public discourse." My answer: "what's changed since last year regarding perception of al Qaeda and the War on Terror? Iraq. But to understand the change, you need to see like a liberal."

Commenter Tony reacted to my assessment, "This an instance of Kool-Aid guzzling of the First Degree". Tony's reaction is typical of the skepticism increasingly directed against the liberalism defining our strategy in the War on Terror. I felt my best response was to remind readers that President Bush's choice is rooted in traditional American liberalism as well as the presidential position he inherited on Iraq:

You could be right - we'll find out. It's a contest. If we fail, this episode will demarcate the limit of the American-led progressive revolution and liberal world order. If we succeed, it will mean the enclave of tribalism you favor will have been opened and transformed.

At least, if we choose to be defeated by the anti-liberal forces against whom we are pitted, we can honestly say we failed while upholding our most cherished principles.

President John Kennedy, 1961:

"Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans--born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage--and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

President Bill Clinton, 1998:

"In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace."

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort."

President Bill Clinton, 1998:

"The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.

The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life."

President George W. Bush, 2004:

"For decades, free nations tolerated oppression in the Middle East for the sake of stability. In practice, this approach brought little stability, and much oppression. So I have changed this policy. In the short-term, we will work with every government in the Middle East dedicated to destroying the terrorist networks. In the longer-term, we will expect a higher standard of reform and democracy from our friends in the region. Democracy and reform will make those nations stronger and more stable, and make the world more secure by undermining terrorism at it source. Democratic institutions in the Middle East will not grow overnight; in America, they grew over generations. Yet the nations of the Middle East will find, as we have found, the only path to true progress is the path of freedom and justice and democracy."

Eric

Cool milblog: Kaboom: A Soldier's War Journal

Kaboom: A Soldier's War Journal belongs to a Cav Scout LT now serving as a PL in Iraq.

Via Intel Dump.

Update: Awesome blog, both in terms of generational flair and insight.

Update2: Slate's milblogs page.

Update3: LT G was ordered to shut down his blog; however, his old posts have been archived here. His fiancee, CityGirl, has taken over his former blog.

Update4: LT G was promoted to Captain. From his mother, in comments to CityGirl, LT G's fiancee: "You're wonderful! And, you're a much better writer than you give yourself credit for! You know that all of my best hopes and prayers are with you, the Gravediggers and Capt. G, formerly known as Lt. G. In the meantime, bless your Grandmother, as stemware selection can be a great distraction. After all, a great woman once said, "My dear, there is something you must always remember. Your bosom can be fake. Your smile can be fake and your hair color can be fake. But your pearls and your silver must always be real." Tee Hee! (though one of the things we all love most about you is your authenticity!)

Love, Capt. G's Mom"

Update5: I already knew LT, now CPT, G's real-life identity because it was stated in several obscure on-line outlets. Now, CPT Matt Gallagher has been fully 'outed' in this Washington Post piece about him. Credit to Blackfive.

Eric

It's time: West Point Supe proposes making Alma Mater and The Corps gender-neutral

Phil Carter at Intel Dump reports that West Point Superintendent LTG Franklin Hagenbeck has proposed making Alma Mater and The Corps gender-neutral. The Supe explains, "this inequity first came to me when singing the Alma Mater at the funerals of female graduates killed in action".

The Proposed Changes

Alma Mater
FROM: Guide us, thy sons aright"
TO: "Guide us thine own aright"
The Corps
FROM: "The men of the Corps long dead"
TO: "The ranks of the Corps long dead"
FROM: "We sons of today, we salute you"
TO: "The Corps of today, we salute you"
FROM: "You sons of an earlier day"
TO: The Corps of an earlier day"
FROM: "And the last man feels to his marrow"
TO: "And the last one feels to the marrow"

I agree with LTG Hagenback that it's the right time to make these changes. The Army's and West Point's traditions are so deep because they are etched in the blood and extraordinary honor of our soldiers who have sacrificed in war. During the War on Terror, female soldiers have earned their rightful place in those traditions. Some have made the ultimate sacrifice. It's time.

Read on for my tribute to one of the female West Point graduates who has earned a place of honor in the Long Grey Line - 2003 (Protectors of the Free) grad Laura Walker.

"The Things That Stay Important to Us" by 1LT Laura Walker, USMA 03, who died in Afghanistan on 18AUG05. The essay was found after her death:

It is not called a hardship tour for no reason. The things the American soldier gives up in service of his country, whether in Iraq, Korea or Afghanistan, are unimaginable to the average citizen. When you ask for volunteers to leave their families and friends, the everyday comforts of home, their entire lives, for something that will be undeniably less comfortable, who raises their hand? What kind of person makes that sacrifice? And for God's sake, why?

Though these are questions that have been asked in patriotic articles for years, when I really stop to think about it, it still amazes me. And I'm in the Army. I stare at these soldiers, covered in dust. I watch them day after day as they consistently go without showers or hot food. They deserve so much more. How can they stand it? Sure, they complain. But they achieve so much with so little in a miserable, monotonous environment. What thanks do they get? What keeps them going?

It is incumbent upon us as leaders to spend every waking minute of every day trying to mitigate those circumstances. A yearlong deployment is taking a significant portion of someone's life. We should never face that responsibility callously. If there is any opportunity to make a soldier more comfortable, take it. If you can arrange better communication with their families, do it. If you can make their job easier by getting better equipment or tools, find the damn tools! That soldier works so, so hard. How can we not work equally as hard to ensure their success? To make their efforts worthwhile, and even more so to ensure that soldier has left his post better than he found it for his replacement. Clearly I am not suggesting that you prioritize a soldier's comfort over mission accomplishment. But every day ask yourself, "Am I doing absolutely everything within my power for this soldier?" They deserve no less.

The things that get us through the day at home should stay important to us here. Families, friends, personal comfort, leisure and a support network; these things matter! I don't care what mud-wallowing, bark-eating, pain-enduring faction of the combat arms you are affiliated with. The point is not that we can all endure that sort of life. The point is, why on earth would you consciously impose it on someone who has volunteered to serve his country during a time of war? It is the duty of every single American citizen, and I don't care how sanctimonious I sound, to put effort into providing the very best for our soldiers.

Eric

Shout-out to my boss deploying to Iraq

My supervisor, Paul, is a USMCR Staff Sergeant and Platoon Sergeant, soon to be promoted to Gunnery Sergeant. He's an infantryman. Yesterday was Paul's last day at work. He's taking a week off to take care of personal matters and relax a bit with loved ones. Then, he's leaving on his deployment to Iraq. He'll be away for a year. I'll miss him. Paul is a caring man and an exceptional leader. I have my job because of him.

When better men than I risk their lives to do their duty in this war, once again, I am challenged on what I am doing versus what I should be doing:

Columbia Spectator: Doing Our Part in a Time of War
By Eric ****
PUBLISHED OCTOBER 24, 2006

In the opening scene of Patton, starring George C. Scott as General George S. Patton, Patton ends his monologue saying, "There's one thing that you men will be able to say when you get back home, and you may thank God for it. Thirty years from now when you're sitting around your fireside with your grandson on your knee, and he asks you, 'What did you do in the great World War II?'-you won't have to say, 'Well, I shoveled shit in Louisiana.'"

Attending Columbia University is hardly shoveling shit in Louisiana. Nonetheless, that's my worry. I have not done my part.

Five years have passed since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks flipped our collective existential state of being from peace to war. Since then, thousands of young Americans have heeded the call from a wounded nation to confront frightening, intolerable enemies. They have put aside loved ones, comfortable jobs, or college to do their part and serve in the war of our generation.

I am not one of them. Since Sept. 11, my toughest battles have been with term-paper deadlines. For the most part, I have experienced the war via neatly packaged segments and sound bites in the media. I have lived comfortably and hardly sacrificed while fellow Americans have literally invested their lives for the sake of a better future for me and all Americans.

No one faults me for using this time to earn my degree from one of the best academic institutions in the world. It's difficult to criticize someone for not volunteering when he has already given the nation four years of honorable military service, albeit before the war-it's not my fault the Sept. 11 terrorists waited until after I was out of uniform to carry out their mission.

I'm not young anymore (I turned 30 this summer), and as my mom often reminds me, it's time to establish my professional career and start my own family. The logical thing to do is parlay my Columbia degree into a safe, upwardly mobile job in the civilian world and settle into the rest of my life. As a veteran, I also understand that a soldier's loved ones pay a steep emotional price for his or her choice to serve. It was hard enough on my mom the first time, and I dread the distress I'd cause her if I went back.

In short, no one I care about would blame me if I didn't return to the uniform. Except me.

I realize I wouldn't feel as drawn to the war if I hadn't been a soldier before coming to Columbia, but because I was, I can't feign ignorance about why it matters. As a member of MilVets, I have the privilege of personally knowing many of the Columbia students who have served in the war. They've done their part, and I envy them that they can go on at Columbia and into the rest of their lives secure in the knowledge that when the time came, they proved their worth.

This war is the litmus test for our generation, and it's made tougher by the fact we can contribute only if we volunteer. We don't have a draft to make the decision simple, like it was for Patton and his soldiers. Frankly, the thought of going "over there"-whether "there" is in Iraq, Afghanistan, or the Sudan-terrifies me. However, not serving during wartime will mean facing the knowledge for the rest of my life that when the time came to choose the harder right, I accepted the easy way out instead.

It's not about politics. I don't claim to know if we will win the war or if winning is even possible. I can only guess what the world will look like in 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, and beyond as a consequence of the war. Defeat certainly is a possible outcome, as is the fate of all great nations when they fall.

However, the story of our generation-the Sept. 11 generation-is clear. Over time, as the burden of America and our children's future becomes ours to bear, we will appreciate the difference between those of us who stepped to the side when the moment of clarity arrived, and those of us who stepped forward to pay the full freight of citizenship. In two months, I'll complete my degree. I have a hard decision to make.

Eric

Professor Nacos on the need for divestment from oil

Professor Nacos talks about the need for America to become independent of oil, especially oil from regions of the world, e.g., the Middle East, that compel us into fraught-filled foreign policies:

In his latest column in today’s New York Times, Thomas Friedman addresses once again our dependency on foreign oil and the “need to do everything possible to develop alternatives…” I couldn’t agree more.

I agree with Friedman and Professor Nacos on the need. It's self-evident that the costs and problems associated with our petroleum-based economy have only risen along with our use of oil. However, I believe when Professor Nacos identifies a youth-oriented political movement as the solution, she underestimates the complete depth of our dependency on oil. Our modern world is built with and based upon oil. In my view, only the market, not political protest, can drive the change she and I both would like to see come about:

Professor Nacos,

I believe, ultimately, the market will be the key driver of change. However, the price of oil will have to become much higher for that to happen, because in our current industrialized civilized world, the consumption of petroleum-based products and fuel has become intrinsic in our lives, expectations, and ideas of progress. (Eg, go to a modern hospital and check out what materials and how much energy is used.) Oil isn't a choice - it's a staple. Weaning ourselves from oil would be like weaning recently past civilizations from wood. Right now, the only energy sources that come close to matching oil are nuclear energy and possibly coal.

I support the liberal premises of the Bush Administration's strategy in the War on Terror. At the same time, I've always understood that our 20th-21st century intervention in the Middle East, with the exception of our support for Israel, has been largely based on the strategic and global economic importance of the region's oil supply. With civilization set up the way it is, oil is actually one of the more sensible reasons to deploy our military; stability and favorable relations in that part of the world matter to us a lot.

The difference is that before 9/11, we sought stability in the Middle East through realism. Realism failed us and on 9/11, President Bush converted to liberalism. Now, we're attempting to build a liberal peace rather than settle for the same realist compromises that contributed to so much harm.

I wonder, if we aggressively try to become independent of oil while our global competitors stay on oil, how will that affect our economy's standing in a competitive global market?

Eric

I support the updated GI Bill.

Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette discusses the GI Bill for the 21st Century, sponsored by Virginia Senator Jim Webb, here and here. I commented:

I forget the exact quote that's commonly used to say this. Basically, how veterans are treated and rewarded for their selfless service has a direct bearing on how the American public (including potential young recruits) regards the military - more specifically, the actual prospect of joining the military. Moreover, the better that veterans are equipped to compete with their generational peers who haven't served, the more attractive military service will look in the long-term life planning of people considering military service. After all, a veteran may honorably serve 2 years, 4 years (as I did), 10 years or even 20 years, but he or she will be a veteran for the rest of his or her life and reside in the public for the rest of that life as a tangible product of the decision to serve. If the issue is cost/benefit analysis, how about the smart, experienced E4 or E5 who is considering re-enlistment, but doesn't plan to make a career of the military, and worries about his not-yet-started post-military career? What can convince him that a later start to that civilian career is affordable after all?

On the flip side, all the Army Strong ads in the world can't counter the 1st hand evidence of a recent veteran entering the competitive civilian marketplace who, while proud of his service, has received a 'raw deal' from the military and little to take away from his time in uniform beyond lost prime working years.

Finally, I'm a graduate of Columbia University and a founder of the US Military Veterans of Columbia University (or MilVets; see http://www.alumni.gs.columbia.edu/owlnet/Owl_Spring08_web.pdf to learn more about the group). After WW2, veterans flooded Columbia with the GI Bill. Today, Columbia still boasts the largest number of veterans in the Ivy League but it's nothing like what it was 60 years ago. Unfortunately, the current GI bill amounts to no more than petty cash; it hardly dents the Columbia tuition, which discourages most otherwise-qualified veterans from even applying. The question then is, in a competitive civilian world where an Honorable Discharge only goes so far, do we want our recent veterans reasonably financially equipped to consider degree programs like Columbia?

MilVets' current President is Luke Stalcup and an advocate for the updated GI Bill. Luke is a former Army SSG, EOD team leader, and OIF veteran. I recommend you look him up (try his Columbia e-mail or luke.stalcup@studentveterans.org); gather the input of a student-veteran leader who's in the thick of this debate.

Eric

Funny youtube: The Empire Strikes Barack

Three posts in one day - that's gotta be approaching a record for me. Check out this hilarious pro-Obama take on the Democrats' nomination race. It's incisive and funny like vintage South Park.



Discovered via Neptunus Lex.

Eric

USMA CDT Caleb Campbell chooses football over soldiers

Phil Carter at Intel Dump comments on the service exemption for Caleb Campbell, West Point cadet and NFL draftee. My response:

I saw Cadet Campbell featured on a news show - I want to say 60 Minutes [Eric note: it was ESPN's E:60, not CBS' 60 Minutes]. It bothered me a lot and I felt sorry for Cadet Campbell that he's been placed in this position by Academy leadership. I know it's hard for USMA to recruit football players, even compared to the other service academies, but is building a winning football program at West Point so important that they need to set this double-standard? I can't believe that the institution that calls its sports teams "Army" and considers itself the cradle of Army leadership would downplay service within the very Army it represents. When I was at USMAPS, there was a parable posted on a wall explaining why officers receive relative benefits over enlisted soldiers. The answer boiled down to one simple reason, captured in the opening Omaha Beach scene in Saving Private Ryan: when everyone around him is frozen and frightened, as is to be expected in war, it's the officer's duty to rise up and call out 'follow me'. That's not to say only Army officers at the tip of the spear qualify as leaders. It is to say that officers, among other things, are the moral compass, spirit, intent and will around which soldiers coalesce and orient. As a former enlisted soldier, I can say that the officers who are responsible for and to the best men and women this nation has to offer have a higher responsibility of leadership.

I'm not against officers moving onto other things, like the NFL, after they've fulfilled their service commitment, but I would rather West Point lose to Annapolis by 30 points every year in the Army-Navy game, if that means USMA produces a football team full of good officers, than beat Navy and see West Point graduates exempted from their sacred duty.

Eric

Professor Nacos on 'Swiftboating' Obama

Professor Nacos posted (excerpt):

While the North Carolina ad and similar ones elsewhere are part of congressional contests, the Wright-Obama association will become the predominant theme of this fall’s “Swift Boat” version. Under-the-belt campaign ads like the Willy Horton commercial and similar attack ads that derailed Governor Mike Dukakis presidential chances and the “Swift Boat” offensive against Senator John Kerry are typically financed and placed by groups that do not have official ties to the benefiting campaign.

Because I knew years before the 2004 election about Senator Kerry's controversial actions during the Vietnam War, I disagree whenever the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" are painted as a slanderous Republican invention. I responded to Professor Nacos:

In both the cases of Obama and Kerry, the Democrats invited controversy upon themselves.

The enmity by many in the veterans community toward Kerry due to his actions during the Vietnam War had an established history before the 2004 election. As a young soldier in the late 1990s, I learned that the collective memory of the Vietnam War defeat still causes psychic pain in the military. I didn't consider the Vietnam War when I joined the Army - it was old history - yet I was surprised in Basic Training when a drill sergeant, who probably wasn't born yet when the last American soldier was withdrawn from Vietnam, passionately talked to us about the Army's changes since the Vietnam War. Among soldiers, the wound from that war still felt that fresh, and associated with the wound, I heard about John Kerry. Even so, I didn't think about him until a lazy, web-surfing afternoon in 2001, soon after I had left the Army, when I came across a veterans against Kerry website. The material they posted, much of it 1st hand from Kerry, disgusted me as a recent veteran. It would be hard to characterize young Kerry as other than a traitor, and a foolish harmful one at that. So, years before the 2004 election, even as a casual observer, I understood that Kerry's relationship with the veterans community was problematic, at best.

Fast forward to the 2004 Presidential election. I was a volunteer on GEN Wes Clark's campaign, who had a long and distinguished military career, including as a combat officer wounded in Vietnam. But, Clark stumbled on the range of domestic issues and Kerry swept the nomination. Fine, I thought, it meant that Democrats didn't value the military reputation of the next Commander in Chief like I did - fair enough. So, I was surprised when the Democrats made the obvious strategic blunder of front-lining their campaign against Bush with the marketing of Kerry as a war hero based on his Vietnam War record. I thought, if the Democrats wanted an unassailable combat veteran, why didn't they pick GEN Wes Clark as their candidate? By marketing Kerry as a war hero, the Democrats practically challenged anti-Kerry veterans to push back with a passionate response.

Did the GOP help amplify and broadcast the message from the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth"? No doubt, but the message was pre-existing and long-standing, not a Rove-ian invented slander as Democrats like to imply. It's hard for me to believe that the Democrats didn't know about Kerry's reputation among veterans when they made the obtuse decision to market him as a war hero in the 2004 election.

Similarly, Obama has a long, public, and uncommonly close affiliation with Reverend Wright. I have to qualify that by saying I'm not religious, so I can't speak with authority, but it seems that Obama's relationship with Wright goes beyond the usual pastor-congregant relationship. After all, Obama cites him as a major influence in his life, and named his book meant to define him as a Presidential candidate after a Wright sermon. In addition to the relationship, Obama's disjointed attempts to disassociate from Wright only raise more troubling questions. Is Obama not a transcendant figure, but merely just an ordinary expedient politician - as Wright implied in the Moyers interview? Can we believe Obama today about Wright when Obama only disassociated from Wright in hasty reaction to media scrutiny and public outcry? Is Obama a liar or a chameleon? What are his core principles - just what does Obama believe in and stand for?

In the end, Democrats can only blame themselves for making two very winnable Presidential elections harder than they should have been. They legitimated the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" scrutiny by marketing Kerry as a war hero candidate for war-time President. They legitimated the Wright-based scrutiny by marketing the powerfully attractive promise - symbolically and explicitly - that Obama is a post-Civil Rights era, post-racial progressive uniter.

Like Kerry's controversial history related to the Vietnam War, Obama's relationship with Wright is long-standing and a matter of record. I have to ask again: how could the Democrats have failed to anticipate the controversies that these problematic associations would cause?

Eric