Archives for June 2012

In my June 24 column Daily Camera column (www.dailycamera.com), I let some current military and vets do the talking about why they don’t like to be called “heroes” en masse. In short, they realize that such displays are less about honoring the men and women who serve in the military than soothing the guilty consciences of the 99 percent of Americans who do not serve. This week we take a look at why the “heroicization” of the military is a dangerous trend. There’s a book’s worth of fascinating argument — and counter-argument — on this topic but this will have to suffice for now.

In many ways, the current cultural trend of valorizing the military and costless “support for the troops” is entwined with the American experience in Vietnam.

America certainly turned away from its military after the disaster of Vietnam. The nation inevitably connected that brutal, misguided war with the warriors — and their generals. We felt burned and misled, and known atrocities made our cause something less than noble in most people’s eyes.

But the word “hero” raises all kinds of uncomfortable questions. Conor Friedersdorf said it better than I can in an incisive essay in The Atlantic: “(I)f bestowing the title hero has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of the cause or mission, we’ll have to grant the honorific to individuals who took part in deeply immoral acts… and yet, if the mission does matter, do we really want to deny the heroism of a GI who jumped on a grenade to save his platoon, even if we think the platoon’s presence in country X was immoral?”

And when politicians got ahold of things (don’t they always?) things get sticky. Ronald Reagan explicitly sought to restore America’s pride even as he subtly changed the way we think about the military.

“Reagan was establishing support for the troops — as opposed to actual service with them — as the new standard for civic responsibility. To anyone making that choice Reagan granted the status of patriot, idealist and hero; of citizens he asked only that they affirm that designation,” writes retired U.S. Army Col. Andrew Bacevich, a Vietnam veteran and self-proclaimed conservative.

And, as many have pointed out, if everyone involved in this war or that — Vietnam, Grenada (don’t laugh), Iraq I or II, Afghanistan — is a “hero,” then how can the enterprise be anything less than heroic, or at least noble? The ultimate effect is a subtle (or not so) suppression of a citizen’s duty to question his or her government, especially when it comes to something as sobering as war.

“The benefit of conflating the war and the warrior is to sustain support for the war, or at least create barriers to criticism,” Bacevich says. “The implication is that to criticize the war is to abandon the soldier.”

Bill Astore, a 20-year Air Force vet, has written eloquently on the problems of “heroicization.”

“Yoda says to Luke, ‘Wars make not one great.’ What gets me is that the concept of hero is tied too closely to war. American society tends to see war as theater in which certain men and women can demonstrate their heroic traits, in a way that, to me, dangerously ennoble war,” he told me when we spoke in 2011. “What I fear is, because we see military action as conducive to creating heroes, we tend to prolong it, even ennoble it.”

But valorizing the troops is something that works better for politicians and guilty citizens than military men and women. They are trained to fight, and they will fight as asked. Some even revel in it; combat is a rush. But all in all, war isn’t very comfortable and many of them are cynical about all the cheering when we send them off into battle.

“A very small percentage of Americans are in the military. … When you call everyone a hero, it’s a way of avoiding having to deal with that fact,” says Army Capt. Don Gomez, who re-upped in 2011 after earning his master’s degree (and two previous hitches in Iraq). “It seems like if we had a really patriotic country, the military would be filled by the best Americans. It would be selective, and it’s not that way.”

But even as members of the military look askance at hollow praise reflexively offered up by all us spectator civilians, some admit that they’ve started to see themselves as a breed apart. Better than the rest of us, just as we tell them — and there is a danger in that.

Karl Marlantes, recipient of the Navy Cross for his service in Vietnam — that’s the second highest military honor you can bestow upon a Marine, short only of the Medal of Honor — has written a powerful book, “What It Is Like to Go to War” that every American, veteran, civilian or active military, should read. If the military begins to see itself as exceptional, like the Praetorian guard of Scipio Africanus, dangers loom.

“I believe we have the danger of moving that way. Right now in the current military … there is no danger of a coup. But so far as (troops) are being alienated from the general population, it’s dangerous for the republic,” he says. “If we want to be  an empire, then good, fine, go ahead. But I prefer to live in a republic.”

Army Capt. Gary Stump of Niwot, who calls himself conservative, sees the same danger: “A military isolated from the general population, a disaffected military, can rally behind somebody who comes in at a time of great national strain. Somebody who bucks up and wants to take the military under their wing. They are more prone to doing things that aren’t so good for liberty overall.”

So what’s the answer? People like Gomez, Marlantes and even a few brave Washington politicians agree: It’s time to return to the idea of the citizen-soldier. And that means a draft.

In the pre-Vietnam era, “The rotation of citizen-soldiers through the ranks and the leavening presence of veterans throughout American society obviated the need for myths, indeed, made it all but impossible to idealize war or military service,” Bacevich notes.

Marlantes argues that it’s immoral to force someone to kill if he or she doesn’t want to (see Vietnam). That’s OK, he says: “You can do national service if you don’t want to be a part of the military.” And if not enough people take the military option? “Then that war may not be worth fighting.”

In short, we have separated the military from “us,” and pretended that yellow ribbons and lofty labels are honor enough for their service. Not so, they say.

And the cultural pressure to engage in valorization may actually result in sending those same “heroes” into dubious battle — in too many cases, death and permanent disfigurement, whether physical or psychological.

The answer is to tear down the wall between the military and the rest of us.

Not going to happen, alas. It’s too easy to simply “support” those we send into battle and at no cost to ourselves.

In 2011 I had the privilege of speaking by Skype with U.S. Army Capt. Don Gomez, who was in graduate school in London between hitches. We were talking about his remarkable New York Times blog post, “When Hero Rings Hollow.”

His refreshingly honest piece blew a big hole in the comfortable notion that slapping yellow ribbons on our SUVs, clapping for military personnel in airports and specifically, referring to all who serve in the military as “heroes,” somehow does great honor to the troops.

Wrote Don: “I’m not the only veteran who feels skeptical when he or she is placed in the hero bin along with every other service member from the past 10 years. … (T)hese are soldiers. Soldiers are human beings. There are good ones and bad ones. A few do amazing, heroic things. The rest do their jobs – incredible, unique jobs – but jobs, nonetheless. Some perform happily, others grudgingly. And I argue that most feel embarrassed when lauded as heroes.”

I contacted Don because some of those ideas play a part in a book I’m writing about my grandfather, Alexander Bonnyman, Jr., who was awarded the Medal of Honor after he was killed at Tarawa on Nov. 22, 1943. Like every one of the score of active military or veteran I’ve interviewed during my research, Don believes that the promiscuous application of “hero” has a lot more to do with making us civilians feel better about ourselves than honoring members of the military. They know heroism, and it doesn’t apply to everyone.

But woe betide the man who says so out loud — particularly among men who have not themselves served in the military.

Just ask MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who was bombarded with criticism and threats when he expressed concern about how we overuse the word.

“I feel uncomfortable with the word hero because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war,” Hayes said. “And I obviously don’t want to desecrate or disrespect the memory of anyone that has fallen. Obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is tremendous heroism. … But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that’s problematic, but maybe I’m wrong about that.”

In an eloquent follow-up comment, Hayes wrestled with the question, noting that military volunteers submit “totally to what the electorate or people in power are going to decide about how to use your body, but they do that all of full volition. And if the word hero is not right, there’s something about it that’s noble, right?”

The critics pounced, branding him a traitor and putting words in his mouth. For example, Hayes “thinks our soldiers are suckers and fools at best, brutal sociopaths at worst,” wrote Kurt Schlicter of Breitbart.com. Never mind that he didn’t.

But there are so many problems with the “heroicization” of the military that it’s hard to know where to begin. (The quotes in this column are taken from dozens of conversations I’ve had with active-duty military and veterans in the last two years; not a single one is comfortable with the “hero” craze.)

I begin with a simple question: If my grandfather, who by all accounts conducted himself with “conspicuous gallantry” at Tarawa, is a “hero,” then what does it mean when we apply the same label to a guy who joined the Army to see the world, maybe earn a little college money, and spent his hitch as a cook at Fort Benning?

“It’s cheapened when you refer to everybody as a hero, and it tarnishes the people who truly earned it,” said Tennessee businessman Wes Stowers, who flew P38s and F-4s in the post-Vietnam Air Force, when we spoke in 2011.

And is it any more accurate to bestow honorifics than to apply ill-considered negative labels (think “baby killer”)? The military is a group of human beings. It has its saints and charlatans, liars and truth tellers, thieves and heroes. Those who have served in the military know that better than the rest of us. To call them all heroes is simply a lie.

So why in the world do we civilians feel such a compulsion to commit empty gestures of “appreciation” that aren’t really appreciated?

Every one of my correspondents agrees on one factor: Guilt. After all, less than 1 percent of us serve in the military now and less than 10 percent of Americans have ever served. But boy are we ardent to send our armed forces into war: In 2001, just 22 percent of Americans opposed military action in Afghanistan, according to an Ipsos poll; in 2003 just 27 percent of Americans objected to sending troops to fight in Iraq.

“A lot of the men who are the loudest with ‘support the troops’ tend to be the ones perfectly capable of serving, but don’t,” says U.S. Army Capt. Gary Stump, who recently returned to active duty after earning a master’s degree at CU. “That’s partly why they’re loud.”

Dan Sidles, an Army vet who served two tours in Iraq, notes the plethora of country songs about the wonders of war that crop up when politicians start another war. (Google Clint Black’s “Iraq and I Roll” for a particularly cringe-inducing example.)

“If they’re so ******* patriotic,” Sidles says, “last I heard the Army and Marines are hiring.”

I could write a very long column indeed about other motivations, but I don’t have the space. Still, I can’t resist relating one theory. Air Force vet Andrew Bacevich thinks this may be partly the result of the “everyone wins!” Baby Boomer parenting culture, in which the star player on your kid’s soccer team is deemed equal to the bumbler or complainer.

“The notion of heroism has become so commonplace that in some respects it’s become equivalent of the whole way kids’ sports have been transformed. Everybody gets a trophy, everybody is a winner,” he says. “That idea that to participate, mere participation, as the hallmark of achievement, has become commonplace.”

Ouch.

We can all try to outdo each other with meaningless demonstrations of support for the troops, but trust me, they aren’t fooled.

Gomez said his editors at the New York Times removed the following idea from his post, fretting that it would offend (civilian) readers: The phony praise is “a cop out meant to replace hard time (in the military). When you say military people are all heroes, it’s almost like, ‘Since we have called you a hero, the best thing we can possibly do, we don’t really owe you anything else. I’ve called you a hero, what else do you want?'”

OK. But it’s just a harmless bit of rhetoric, isn’t it?

I’ll let my interviewees take up that question in my next column.

Email: claybonnyman@yahoo.com

I know, I know: In Boulder you never know until you know … but, could it be that we get through the spring without a massive snowstorm or deep freeze that kills off all but the hardiest fruit?

Don’t want to jinx any of this, but our peach tree has a bumper crop for only the second time in its 10-year life (though there was the year with one — and only one — peach). Fingers crossed.

In recognition of a fine spring so far, a few blossoming political thoughts:

Who knew that the Confederate States of America had such a good idea, lo, these 150 years ago?

Not talking about states’ rights — good up to a point — or the distastefully pro-slavery aspects of the Confederate Constitution. We’re talking about an idea whose time has come again: a single, six-year presidential term.

I first learned of this Southern notion while reading “Battle Cry of Freedom” by James McPherson, by far the most comprehensive and detailed history of the Civil War era that I’ve ever encountered.

The idea has gained a little currency as a discussion topic of late, quaint pipe dream though it may be.

Those opposed froth and fret about the horror, the horror of having a lousy president hanging around for six years instead of merely four. But let’s face it, more often than not — about two-thirds of the time, in fact — presidents in the post-Franklin D. Roosevelt era win re-election anyway, so they get eight years, thanks in part to the sheer weight of incumbency. And keep in mind that among the one-term presidents are one who was assassinated (Kennedy), one who did not stand for re-election (Johnson), one who suffered from the sins of his predecessor (Ford), and one who arguably lost due to an insurgent third-party candidacy (Bush pere).

In other words, it’s no use whining about six, long years when what we usually get is eight often-longer ones.

A single term would free the chief executive from having to expend endless energy campaigning, fundraising, positioning and triangulation for re-election. He or she arguably would be less beholden to special interests. Yes, in a dream world, but still.

Some argue that reforming the executive this way wouldn’t go far enough, and would be all but meaningless without term limits for all members of Congress, too. I used to be adamantly opposed to that idea, but at a time when fundraising advantage and transparent gerrymandering have rendered all but a few scattered seats wholly uncompetitive, I’ve become more open to the idea.

Won’t happen — what really does, these days? — but score one for Johnny Reb.

Here’s another swell idea most recently popularized by another feller from south of the Mason-Dixon line. Ah, that ain’t quite right, ponder: Gov’nuh Rick Perry hails from Texas, and as any Texan’ll tell you, they make up a whole region unto themselves.

Perry, dubbed Governor Goodhair by the late, lamented Molly Ivins, mostly made a fool of himself in his flameout of a campaign for the GOP presidential nomination, finally foundering on a relentless series of flubs — on Election Day, the voting age, the Supreme Court. The best was his literal “oops” moment when he couldn’t actually recall the third of three federal agencies he would cut. It’s all right, though; he said just last week that God will forgive his “oops moment,” even if “American might not forgive you for it.”

But he floated a genuinely intriguing idea — not original, but no less good for that — that got little press (what a shock, eh?): How about term limits for Supreme Court justices?

Under the Perry plan — again, not a ghost of a chance of passage — justices would be limited to eight-year terms. Terms would be staggered so that there would be one retirement, and thus one appointment, every two years. This way, no president would ever get to pick the majority of justices, and we wouldn’t have to put up with duds like Clarence Thomas — so impetuous that he has not opened his mouth during oral arguments, because he says his mind is already made up: “I refuse to participate.”

No doubt always tainted by politics, since the 2000 Bush-Gore decision the court has plunged into utter partisan predictability. Under such circumstances, it has become the most authoritarian branch of the federal government.

Finally, what say we return the power to wage war to the Congress, where the Founders said it belongs?

Although the United States has been at war almost continually since the end of World War II, not a single one of those “police actions” or “conflicts” or “armed interventions” has actually been declared a war by the Congress. Not Vietnam or Korea. Not Afghanistan or Iraq (times two). Not Grenada (snork) or Bosnia.

Oddly, there are laws in place that are supposed to ensure that presidents — “unitary executives,” “Big Brothers” or whatever — don’t get carried away with this stuff. But a craven and cowardly Congress has given in, time after time.

First, there is the War Powers Resolution, which forbids U.S. military forces to remain deployed for more than 60 days, plus a 30-day withdrawal period, without a formal authorization of military force or declaration of war by Congress. In many cases, a wimpy Congress has opted for the former. But both President Clinton in 1999 and President Obama in Libya in 2011 ignored the resolution altogether. Every president has dubbed it unconstitutional since its passage in 1973.

Then there’s the Abrams Doctrine, named after General Creighton Abrams, which sought to link the deployment of “weekend warriors” — military reserve units — to major ground warfare. The idea was to get presidents to think twice before committing troops, since reserves come from the general population and their deployment might bring with it a political price.

Nah.

Post 9/11, we’re heaving loads of reservists National Guard members overseas and the vast majority of citizens — the real “99 percent” ; not even 1 percent of Americans now serve in the military — don’t seem to give a hoot, beyond slapping yellow ribbons on the ol’ SUV, shedding a few tears at the latest belligerent/sappy/patriotic country tune and slinging hollow praise at vets, clapping in airports, calling every one a “hero.” Every active military member and vet I’ve interviewed for a book project I’m working on sees right through this hollow praise, by the way, recognizing it for what it is: a balm for our guilt over sending someone else’s kids to fight wars our politicians start and we reflexively cheer.

The end of the quasi-American empire is coming, and good riddance. Casual warfare costs too much in blood (both “ours” and “theirs” ) and treasure. Despite the Paul Ryans and Mitt Romneys of the world, who feel that a defense budget that nearly doubles that of the rest of the world combined isn’t enough, our days of military adventurism are drawing to a close. Too expensive. Good riddance.

So. How about them peach trees, anyway?