I Hate Doing This, But...

[Edited for lack of clarity and plain-old inattentiveness.]

...it has to be done.

The admirable and funny Ben Stein is getting a lot of praise from the pro-war Right for throwing down the gauntlet to those in his “class” in Looking for the Will Beyond the Battlefield. However, I am not among that number--either those proffering praise for this commentary or a rich kid. As a matter of fact I think that Mr. Stein called his fellows a group of "chickenhawks." Mr. Stein spells out his reasoning better than most "chickenhawk"-callers, but that matters not; it's just as erroneous when the Right uses that epithet as when the Left does it.

My longtime pal and idol, Peter M. Flanigan — a former high honcho of Dillon, Read; a high aide to my ex-boss, Richard M. Nixon; and heir to a large brewing fortune — was once a naval aviator. My father left a comfortable job in Washington to join the Navy. The father of my pal Phil DeMuth left a successful career to be an Army Air Corps pilot, flying death-defying missions over Burma. Congressmen resigned to serve. Senators resigned to serve. Professional athletes resigned to serve in the uniform.

Now, who’s fighting for us in the fight of our lives? Brave, idealistic Southerners. Hispanics from New Mexico. Rural men and women from upstate New York. Small-town boys and girls from the Midwest. Do the children of the powers on Wall Street resign to go off and fight? Fight for the system that made them rich? Fight for the way of life that made them princes? Surely, you jest.

And that’s the essence. The other side considers it a privilege to fight and die for its beliefs. Those on the other side cannot wait to line up to blow themselves up for their vision of heaven. On our side, it’s: “Let the other poor sap do it. I’ve got to make money.” How can we fight this fight with the brightest and best educated rushing off and working night and day to do private equity deals and derivatives trading? How can we fight this fight with the ruling class absent by its own sweet leave?

Implicit in Mr. Stein's words is that "the best and the brightest" aren't among the number who are serving right now--that none or even a large part of today's volunteers could have made it in the high-flying, civilian professional world of the type with which he is familiar (in spite of the fact that many do, both before and after their service). Also, left out of the calculation are two factors of Mr. Stein's father's day--World War II and Korea--with one factor being the result of the other: 1) there was a draft, so 2) they were going to go fight anyway, one way or the other. Granted, as Mr. Stein acknowledges, there were many--probably most--of that era who viewed service as a badge of manhood and honor (the two are inseparable). Now, not so many.

"[C]an they do it without the rest of us? Can they do it while we’re all working on our tans and trying to have our taxes lowered again?"

Most definitely, sir. The opinion that some who have become prosperous without sacrificing live or limb for it are “ungrateful” is a seemingly fine sentiment and I agree with it. But you should confer with those who experienced the military between 1975 and 1990. Ask them what kind of military we had at the beginning of that period and at the end. And ask them what it was like to serve in the military next to a draftee who would rather be getting a tan or serving under someone who would rather be doing ‘private equity deals’ on Wall Street. Or in Omaha. The question should be, would they be able to do it in spite of (some) of you. The Vietnam-era and its aftermath told our forebears that the answer was "with great difficulty."

In short, the military is in far better shape now, than it ever was in the days in which men (and a few women) of great dedication had to serve next to men who figured that the military was better than prison or Canada.

“How can we leave them out there all alone to die for us when we treat the war to save civilization as something we can just wish away?"

Those guys and girls aren’t “alone.” They serve next to the salt of the Earth and of this country. It’s not about who they are, what color they are or what part of the country (or the world) they come from; it’s about faith and commitment. And, to a person, none of them wants to be in a foxhole with someone who doesn't have these two qualities--that lack is often a given for someone who was forced or shamed into being there.

As an aside, I happen to know of at least few persons--and Mr. Stein probably knows some of them as well--who could have been flying high in the great financial/media centers of this country immediately after matriculating from elite universities, but chose to do their small parts in this war of civilization. But for those who didn’t make that choice, “I ain’t mad at ‘em” and neither should Mr. Stein be.

I’m wondering whether Mr. Stein viewed the following speech, given at a Ft. Benning ITB (Basic Training) graduation ceremony by the battalion commander of the 2-58 Infantry Regiment, LTC Randolph C. White, Jr. (USA). This rousing call to service certainly would have made me feel (erroneously) regretful and ashamed had I not served and—as many others have noted—it makes me want to salute and go serve again.

In spite of his bashing of the latte-biscotti crew—two treats which I have been known to enjoy on occasion--I don’t think that a man like that wants to try to motivate a person under his charge who doesn’t want to be with him in Iraq when he makes his next trip there later this year. All most people in the military want are a little honor and respect for having served and to not be spat on, called “baby-killers,” condescended to, called or considered stupid, brain-washed or desperate for their choice to serve. I’m betting that it’s here where Mr. Stein and I can agree.

And, trust me, if any of them have the opportunity to make some big dollars and sip some latte afterward, you can bet they’ll take it. You see, most sensible people don't begrudge others the honorable choices they make or belittle them for it. I'm just glad that I was born in a country and during a time in which I can make these choices. It was a close thing for both time and place.

So, relax, Wall-Streeters and Big Media. You're not chickenhawks, not simply because there's no such thing, but because the idea of freedom of choice shouldn't be rescinded just because some are willing to live differently. That goes against the grain of what most of American believe and, as the military figured out thirty years ago, it's more practical.

To put it even more simply, would you ask your foot to do what your eye does?

(Thanks to Blackfive)

Comments

[BeeJiggity]

It is always interesting to me that leftist want to DQ my supportive commentary because I didn't serve, but their "critique" is gospel.

Then they ask why I don't sign up now. How is that even relevant to the discussion?

Infuriating!

[Hank]

AMEN

[John Dunshee]

I was in the Army from between 1975 and 1990 (1967-1989)and I can attest to the difference between the Army I joined and the one I retired from. It was night and day. The volunteer force has its problems but they're nothing compared to what went before. The telephone exchange where I was stationed at Camp (now Fort) McCoy, Wisconsin was bombed in July 1970 by active duty members of the American Serviceman's Union. We not only had the radicals but we had the druggies and those that flat out refused to do anything at all and dared the commander to put them in the stockade. It was more trouble than it was worth. For my money the present force is far, far better than what we had even in the 1980's.

It is interesting that everyone always holds up WWII as an example of how the men rushed to join up and fight. According to my father, as well as the fathers of many of my friends, that was not exactly true. No one wanted to be 4F because you would never get laid again, but there was a mad scramble to be declared "essential" or get into a job that was. Here in Oregon, many farmers, lumberjacks and fishermen were found to be "essential".

[Synova]

My father tried to volunteer for Korea. (His hearing was bad.) But it was because he expected to be drafted and wanted to avoid the Army by joining the Air Force, not because he felt an overwhelming obligation to serve. His father managed to avoid WW1 and WW2, somehow. (He was born in 1900.) My other grandfather was an Army cook for an ROTC program, IIRC. Not a lot of martial history in our family. ;-) (My husband's grandfather died in Europe demining a bridge and his father served 20 years in the AF.)

I was in the Air Force for 3 years and my brother was in the Army for 2. Not overwhelmingly impressive, I know. I think the experience was valuable, though. And because of it I recommend military service. Not out of obligation or shame or anything but just because it is so fundamentally different from anything else a person will ever do and so *opaque* from the outside, that it's worth taking a couple of years and experiencing that world.

Not everyone can, but if you can and if you feel any inclination at all... you should.

[submandave]

Juliette, I think your analysis of Mr. Stein's point is a bit off, as is your equating it to the apocryphal "chickenhawk" accusation. In the vast majority of cases where I've seen "chickenhawk" used it is a very specific and personal charge ("you support the war, so you should volunteer"). Mr. Stein, on th eother hand, seems more to bemoan the fact that many of those who have benefitted most from the blessings of freedom seem least inclined to feel gratitude for it. Likewise, his "best and brightest" comment, rather than a jibe at those who have chosen to serve, is really almost a jibe at those self-assumed elite who eschew service.

Mr. Stein's point echoes a concern I've too had concerning the stratification of American society. While I haven't seen hard numbers to confirm my suspicion, I'd bet a paycheck that well over half the members of the Armed Forces today have some previous familial link to one of the services. Likewise, there are some members of Congress that have grown up in Washington DC and gone strait from college to the Capitol, based not upon proven ability but family connections and their name alone. This dichotomy in the American power structure ws driven home to me in the run up to Clinton's authorization of operations in Bosnia, when a "man on the street" basically said he didn't really care if we did or didn't go in since "they all volunteered anyway, so they knew what they were getting in to."

A society and ruling power that is completely disconnected from the military can easilly be held in contempt by that same military. The stratification of American society into a political class, a business class, a military class and a worker class is just modern feudalism, and that is a dark future to comtemplate.

[Constantine]

Juliette, I think your point is RIGHT ON.

We (who are called to serve by our sense of duty) do not NEED Mr. Stein's "best and brightest" on Wall Street. Like I want some pita fancy pants officer who is serving to make his political resume look good??? Thank you, no.

The military is in excellent shape and morale. It is much stronger now than when we had the draft. The only issue I have is that the NG units I have seen in California are poorly funded and pitifully equipped. But that is another issue.

And I speak from having served regular Army 1982-85, Washington NG 1989-90 and then the liberal press pissed me off with slamming the NG for not meeting recruiting goals so I rejoined back up in 2005 just in time to help out in Katrina. I'm hoping to get my chance in the sandbox next year. I haven't regretted one minute of it.

[J. Mark English]

Hello,

This is a great blog. I'm going to be sure to link yours to mine. Would you mind doing the same for me?

Thank you very much.

My site:
www.americanlegends.blogspot.com

Take care,
Mark

[punchanella]

Ditto to SUBMANDAVE's comments.

Stein's commentary is on the apparent hypocrisy of people :
1. At the highest levels (in terms of power and influence) of non-military government positions
2. At the highest levels of economic resource and freedom.

[pacwaters]

I have no direct knowledge of today's army but I would tend to agree that today's troops are far better equipped for combat than we were in 1967. The training alone is far moe comprehensive than ours was. However shouting Hurrah does not a soldier make. I was RA, 1967-1971, against the advice of my father I might add, a navy and army veteran of WW2 who reenlisted, even thought he was exempt due to his job at the Canal Zone, at the outbreak of hostilities and was on orders to ship out for Corregidor the day before it fell. And yes, there were many during WW2 who tried to become essential but that does not obviate the fact that many, like my father, joined a second time, who didn't have to. Think about it, Jimmy Stewart retired with a star on his shoulder and was a major celebrity who could have avoided combat. Eddy Albert was at Tarawa. The list goes on. How many JFK's are there today? How many of today's celebrities and politicos are willing to lay their life on the line? It remains true, regardless of the exceptions, that the elite served at much greater rate during WW2 than now.
As for Hank's comments about the Vietnam era, since Hank served from 1967 to 1989 I would expect that he did a tour or 2 in "nam. If so he knows ful well the frustations of draftee and RA soldiers during that era. However to disparage those draftees who fought and/or died honorably in Vietnam because of problem troops is reprehensible, especially from a vet of 22 years. As civilian police liason I dealt with deserters and awols throughout the 6th army area, (and before you ask, no I did not serve in Vietnam, I was waiting for the Soviet Union at the Fulda Gap until rotating back to the states). Many had simply become disgusted with the incompetency of the brass and mendacity of the politicians, while in country and the lack of support of public who had turned against the war because of poor reporting (think Walter Cronkite here and Tet) and no readily discernible clear and present danger. But to get back to Ben Stein's article. His point had nothing to do with Vietnam. It had everything to do with the idea that the "ruling class", with exceptions, has turned its back on the dirty work and left it to the middle class and poor. Referencing the comment "none of them wants to be in a foxhole with someone who doesn't have these two qualities--that lack is often a given for someone who was forced or shamed into being there." tell that to the draftees who died at Omaha or any of the numerous engagements in Vietnam or fought bravely and lived to tell about it.