Maybe we should leave the decisions of war to the men and women who have fought them
I am not nor have never been a soldier. I have no idea what combat is like. I have never aimed a weapon at a person nor had my friend die in front of me from enemy fire. So I am not sure if I have the right to talk about our past and present veterans. All I can do is relate to what others have told me, what I have read, or the films and pictures of combat photographers.
There are many like me. There are men in power who have never lifted a wounded comrade, or suffered the horror of seeing another cut down in their youth. But men in power, who like me have never been in war, still feel it is their right to send the sons and daughter of others off to war. And they somehow find a way to justify it.
I was born just before the Vietnam War broke out. I remember watching every night Walter Cronkite and the combat journalist tell us, and show us what was happening in that small country that no one really knew much about. The men who sent them there told us that we if we did not fight in Vietnam, then communism would take the whole world over. So it had to be stopped. That was how this war was justified.
Then we invaded Granada. That one was to save the American students. Reagan’s little war that returned some respectability to our military. Then there was the invasion of Kuwait. The 105-hour war in which few soldiers were lost and the enemy was sent to the slaughtering fields. This was justified because the little country of Kuwait was unjustly invaded. Yet we all secretly knew it was about oil.
Now we have Iraq and Afghanistan. These wars are justified because of 9-11. First we needed to liberate Iraq and give it our perception of what a democracy should be. And of course we are in Afghanistan because that is where the terrorists hide out. For some it is so simple. But I am not so sure that it is that simple to those in the line of fire every day. However I don’t know what it is like because I am not in their combat boots. Yet neither are the ones who sent them there.
My father-in-law is a surviving veteran of World War Two. He was in the South Pacific. He was 19 when he went over. He never talks about it.
I had an old boss who was a fighter pilot, also in the South Pacific. He taught me that it was better to turn the lights down on your dashboard so as to not hinder your night vision. He learned that flying night raids on the Japanese held islands. He told me that some pilots who were too worn out would get very drunk the night before so that they would be puking the next day. This would get them out of flying a mission because they would be put on sick leave. Everyone understood. They were not cowards, just plain worn out. The father of a dear friend of mine was a sailor, again in the South Pacific. He was a humble man who would do most anything for you. Yet he carried a lifetime of hate against the Japanese Kamikaze pilots who sank several ships around his task force. He could not understand how a people could do such a thing. Of course, he knew many on those ships. Men who watched his back and he watched theirs. As he told me this the tears of sadness and anger on his face was a reflection of when he watched it happen oh so many years ago.
These are men who have the right to talk of war. For they have experienced it. Not one of them glorified it. Not one of these men felt it was an unjust war. And not one of them would want me or their sons to fight in a war. Why is it that men such as these don’t have a say when it comes to sending others sons and daughters off to fight?
Michael J. Patterson is a licensed psychotherapist based out of Chelsea. He received his graduate degree from the University of Michigan. He is married and has a 10-year-old daughter.
Comments
AlphaAlpha
Fri, Nov 12, 2010 : 11:42 p.m.
It's interesting that you don't actually address most posted concerns; valid points they are. Ignore that which is uncomfortable, if that's what you want to believe, OK.
bedrog
Fri, Nov 12, 2010 : 12:39 p.m.
Alpha...As one who is hardly irony impaired, there is indeed irony...and absurdity... in assuming,per goering and you and ian, that ALL leaders inevitably ALWAYS lie and ALL wars are about nothing more than power and resources...(except, that is, when conspiracy theory and jihadist thought-mavens say otherwise to appeal to the contrarian fantasy minded!!). Alot of the world may indeed be critical of us...including much of the pakistani, and sectors of the european, populace,for example, all as they continue to get blown to smithereens (or are targeted for such) by those for whom they are finding excuses. One can recover from a bad economy. Recovery from death is a tad more difficult ---even for those who believe in reincarnation (or "paradise"). Thankfully our president and even most of his enemies on the other side of the aisle ( the Pauls and their crowd excepted!!) recognize all of this.
AlphaAlpha
Fri, Nov 12, 2010 : 11:19 a.m.
Do you get the irony of using a Goering quote? It seems not. It's to reflect how evil people can appear benevolent, how evil people can appear to be doing 'God's work', how evil people can come to dominate a government, how evil people can fool and then abuse their subjects. Effectively managing information dissemination is a key part of the strategy; US citizens, and those of the world, have been and are being asked to accept "on faith" that our undeclared war policies are just and correct. Well, many believe otherwise, for the very reason that too many have been fooled, too often, before, and often with disastrous consequences. Many to most dissenters are questioning the veracity and authority and honesty of their leaders, and that is a just and noble cause. Too many facts don't compute in the recent 'war' efforts for some to idly accept the status quo. Your 'point' on question 2 relates to strategy; the key issue for many is whether there should be any engagement at all. As an aside, it would be interesting to know to what extent the US funded your academic research in that area; difficult to prove, not worth pursuing. Much of the world laughs at us for behaving as though we misunderstand the recent Soviet Afghan engagement, which also had disastrous results. We are no different. We will leave humiliated, which will embolden our enemies. The US will effect no long term changes whatsoever in that region. None. Even if they go broke trying. Oh wait. We are broke. If anything, these foreign excursions leave the 'homeland' less secure.
Ian
Fri, Nov 12, 2010 : 10:01 a.m.
It is very simple for those of us that are informed. We are in Afghanistan for natural resources (oil, opium, lithium, etc.) and control over the Middle East. Iran might be next on our agenda.
bedrog
Fri, Nov 12, 2010 : 7:46 a.m.
alpha alpha..Although only you and i seem to be on this thread now, you seem like a bright person so i'll try again for the last time( keeping in mind that a2.com has word limitations!): My #2 point is simply that many of the people best informed about 'on the ground' matters ( and many are in mutual disgreement as to actual strategies to be followed!!)describe an afghanistan that nowadays is a toxic source of internationally dangerous activity that cant be ignored. Were the place left in isolation, as it was in the post soviet invasion decade, groups like the taliban and al qaeda would once again have the capabilities to attack outside the country's borders as they clearly want to do, and have done ( uss. cole, kenya embassy and 9/11...all pre our necessary invasion). Post invasion we have shoe and underpants and times square would-be bombers in the u.s alone, while london, madrid and bali were more lethal( and yes i know that some have emanated from growing al qaeda franchises in, say, yemen....but all the more reason to not be head -in -the- sand isolationists!!) If i was sure the place ---absent american involvement--would once again become a picturesque and quaint backwater with no capability to effect other countries (as it sort of was when i conducted nearly 2 years of research in tribal regions adjacent to it!!) id be the first one urging disengagement. sadly,reality intruded...for some of us anyway. And again, Herman Goering???...hardly a source of policy or sociological wisdom!!
AlphaAlpha
Thu, Nov 11, 2010 : 11:37 p.m.
You did not answer question 2; it's OK if you can't; most cannot; and you hedged nicely in your second paragraph; that's OK also. SOP. Very telling though: if you don't know, likely not one in a thousand knows. You implied answer to question 1 is: the statement is correct. Irrespective of statement attribution, it is an accurate reflection of current events. The States have wasted hundreds of billions of dollars on political folly; you can take it to the bank that within 6 months of the inevitable US withdrawal from both regions, chaos will return, and, much as it did in Viet Nam. Every life, every dollar, will have been wasted, just like it was in Viet Nam. Perhaps the fall of Saigon could be your next area of 'academic specialty'. A horrible lesson; one about to be repeated in stereo. Eisenhower was right. So was Washington. Lessons unlearned are costing dearly.
bedrog
Thu, Nov 11, 2010 : 3:10 p.m.
alpha...re your question #2: i think the president has answered that quite well, informed as he is (me too actually, being a former academic specialist in the region, but admittedly not as up to date as obama/petreus/dexter filkins of the n.y. times/ jon lee anderson/ steve coll of the New Yorker etc etc).. although the issue of actual strategies ( troops vs. drones vs. ancillary 'hearts and mindsy' efforts etc.)necessarily remain evolving works in process, as do other venues of needed attention...e.g. yemen, pakistan,somalia etc etc. And yes, i guess even Goering could occasionally, if accidently, say something sensible, although why ian ( and you?) would be so enthusiastic about it,and yet so dubious of everything more reliably rational/decent /informed folks say is indeed a source of bemusement.
AlphaAlpha
Thu, Nov 11, 2010 : 2:30 p.m.
Two questions bedrog: 1. Is anything untrue in the quoted statement? 2. Why is the 'war' in Afghanistan necessary?
bedrog
Thu, Nov 11, 2010 : 2:05 p.m.
ian (and alpha alpha)...how unsurprising that the wit and wisdom of herman goering is more believable ( and presumably commendable) to you than the 'mainstream media'...on say the realities of 9/11 ( and perhaps the holocaust too, given your conspiratorial bent and willful blindness toward contemporary dangers). Suffice it to say that if you had your isolationist way herman g. and company would have run the world instead of being happily defeated in a necessary war..as is the one in afghanistan.
AlphaAlpha
Thu, Nov 11, 2010 : 10:43 a.m.
"...the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders...All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Herman Goering" That is such a good quote. So true; so timeless. Maybe we could create a couple new national holidays, the day after Memorial Day, and the day after Veterans Day, each called They Lied Day.
Ian
Thu, Nov 11, 2010 : 10:05 a.m.
Wars are all about money and power/control. Since the masses will not approve of invading nations to steal their resources, our government lies or create an incident (9/11) and tells us that we are being attacked. The populous, under extreme fear, approves and allows our government to do what ever they want. Go to illegal wars, take away our freedoms, etc. Looks like the American people fell for it again. "Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Herman Goering
a2citizen
Thu, Nov 11, 2010 : 8:44 a.m.
@Bear: You state FDR had no choice. I'm not sure what you mean. Assistant Secretary of the Navy is not a conscription, it's a political APPOINTMENT for the connected. In his case, by Woodrow Wilson. But to my original point: The writer suggests that "Maybe we should leave the decisions of war to the men and women who have fought them". I observed that FDR did not fight in a war.
packman
Thu, Nov 11, 2010 : 8:23 a.m.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stuart Mill English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)
Top Cat
Thu, Nov 11, 2010 : 8:19 a.m.
There are a few things we stopped doing a long time ago that we need to do again. First, if a war needs to be fought, Congress should debate and pass a formal declaration of war. Second, if a war needs to be fought, there should be some means to pay for it other than "we'll figure it out." Third, if a war needs to be fought, Americans should be asked to sacrifice in some way to support it. We did all this for World War 2 when our security was directly threatened. In addition, when a war is over, we should bring all our forces home. We will not again prosper until we return to the principles of being a constitutional republic.
bedrog
Thu, Nov 11, 2010 : 8:15 a.m.
A thoughtful op ed piece, and the first comment is a thoughtful rejoinder to it. Many of the others, predictably, are the usual pastiche of conspiracy theory nonsence and ignoring of the existential dangers of islamic extremism and their 'motherships', "oil" aside. Wisdom is what is needed in war. If a wise current or ex-warrior is available, great. If not wise civilians, with a knowledge of history, cross-cultural psychology and social organization, and tactics are also fine. Petreus seems a good match on all fronts...especially since he knows what he doesnt know ( unlike some posters here) and is tapping some of the right non-military resources.
Bear
Thu, Nov 11, 2010 : 4:01 a.m.
The reasons for war are simple. Some make money off of it at the expense of others. Look up 'War is a Racket' By Marine Brigadier General Smedley D. Butler, one of only 19 to win 2 medals of honor. He named names, times, dates & places. And he gave an unvarnished view of war after having served honorably for most of his adult life. Then you tell me that those who hadn't been there have just as much a right to make decisions about war as those who have put their necks on the line. The things I bring to bear in these two small messages only scratch the surface. Maybe some of you civilians might find the courage to look a little deeper with open minds and open eyes. You might just learn a thing or two.
Bear
Thu, Nov 11, 2010 : 4:01 a.m.
a2citizen - FDR had no choice.
Bear
Thu, Nov 11, 2010 : 4:01 a.m.
Forget about it... Just remember the vets, who served, who put themselves in harms way, who came back, a lot of them, casualties that were never counted....
Bear
Thu, Nov 11, 2010 : 4 a.m.
Forget about it... Just remember the vets, who served, who put themselves in harms way, who came back, a lot of them, casualties that were never counted....
Bear
Thu, Nov 11, 2010 : 3:56 a.m.
a2citizen - FDR had no choice.
Bear
Thu, Nov 11, 2010 : 3:52 a.m.
The reasons for war are simple. Some make money off of it at the expense of others. Look up 'War is a Racket' By Marine Brigadier General Smedley D. Butler, one of only 19 to win 2 medals of honor. He named names, times, dates & places. And he gave an unvarnished view of war after having served honorably for most of his adult life. Then you tell me that those who hadn't been there have just as much a right to make decisions about war as those who have put their necks on the line. The things I bring to bear in these two small messages only scratch the surface. Maybe some of you civilians might find the courage to look a little deeper with open minds and open eyes. You might just learn a thing or two.
Bear
Thu, Nov 11, 2010 : 3:39 a.m.
Johnnya2, I believe that the examples you bring up as evidence are like comparing apples to oranges. It isn't the same thing. In going to war, a soldier isn;t merely a tool to be used, as is popularly thought. The soldier is brought up to speed on what is happening and why we are there and what the mission is. We aren't privy to all the details, but we do not serve blindly. It is an easy mistake to make for those who haven't had the privilege or the challenge to be there, do that and put their own personal safety on the line for others or an ideal. I call the evidence that you put out as bogus and not relevant to the situation. It is like comparing Barney Fife of Mayberry RFD. to a Marine, Army and National Guard on D-day. Most civilians, even those most educated on the subject from the safety of our shores, cannot come close to even touching what that is all about. It is not that simple, cut & dry. Ask any NCO who has been in the mix...
David Briegel
Thu, Nov 11, 2010 : 12:01 a.m.
DonBee, "It takes a special person"..... Or a NOT so special person. With not so noble motives! Alpha, These current "conflicts" have absolutely nothing in common with 9-11. The "Chicken Hawk NEOCONS" left OSAMA to scare the populace for their future endeavors. And then they left "the good war" for their folly in Iraq! Had Obama "cut and run" (as Bush did) he would have been mercilessly attacked by the very right wing that attacks him today no matter what he does! In ALL instances there is a group that desires conflict. The Perpetual War Profiteers! They will wrap their ignoble cause in anything that can be sold to the sheep who will be stampeded to their cause. There is after all a profit to be made! And we must demonize that evil enemy as we "neutralize" them!
seldon
Thu, Nov 11, 2010 : 12:01 a.m.
"Now we have Iraq and Afghanistan. These wars are justified because of 9-11." Right. Because the 9-11 hijackers came from Iraq and Afghanist - wait, no. They didn't. They mostly came from Saudi Arabia, which oddly enough we didn't attack. Yeah, Bin Laden was operating out of Afghanistan, so that war actually does have a causal connection with 9-11. But Iraq? None. Let me repeat that: NONE. No connection to the 9-11 attacks. So why are we there? I'm honestly not sure, but anyone who says it's because of 9-11 is lying, confused, or really needs to explain the connection here.
Ian
Wed, Nov 10, 2010 : 11:46 p.m.
@AlphaAlpha, "And why, after voting for change, we have precisely the same war policy?" Very easy. It is because both Bush and Obama are controlled by the same people. Yes, nearly all presidents are chosen puppets. Watch "The Obama Deception" and see how it is done.
Ian
Wed, Nov 10, 2010 : 11:41 p.m.
"Maybe we should leave the decisions of war to the men and women who have fought them" It does not matter since nearly ALL wars are started based on lies and manipulation. Better to have people that are honest, have integrity, care about humanity, and abide by the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, these people never become presidents or they end up like JFK.
a2citizen
Wed, Nov 10, 2010 : 11:20 p.m.
@Tom Drake: Double check your facts. What years did FDR serve in the Navy. He was appointed Secretary of the Navy. Secretaries of the Navy do not serve in the Navy. And by the way, I served in the Navy. Four years, 3 and a half overseas in the Pacific. So I guess that puts me in front of Hannity, Nugent and FDR when it comes to opinions on whether we should commit our men and women to fight.
tom drake
Wed, Nov 10, 2010 : 11:05 p.m.
fdr at least served in the navy and had been in the far east so he had a little more worldly-ness than many of our hawks today. sean hannity and ted nugent never served but they think our young people should be sent off to fight their fight. yes the vets should be involved in the process and their opinions are always relevent.
a2citizen
Wed, Nov 10, 2010 : 10:25 p.m.
AlphaAlpha asks: Can anyone explain why we are in these foreign lands? Answer: Oil Observation: FDR never fought in a war, but committed American men to war.
Speechless
Wed, Nov 10, 2010 : 10:24 p.m.
Any decision involving military action should be made in as democatic a manner as possible. Since the end of World War II, we've had a problem with Congress gradually ceding war powers and decision-making to the executive branch. That makes it even harder for people on the street to be heard, and easier for a president to wage war for political brinksmanship or to promote special interests such as big oil. In contrast, the wider the degree of democratic involvement, the fewer wars there will likely be. Still, there is a certain aspect of Washington's wars that I think Michael Patterson touches on here. White House decision-makers, past and present, seem to largely ignore or discount the war experiences of military veterans and current infantry soldiers. It's as if policy is kept quarantined from reality. The government and the corporate media do not try, and often do not wish, to inform the larger civilian population of what it is really like on the ground during an armed conflict. What does get shown or described to the public tends to be heavily edited to fit the government's preferred war narrative. Forty years ago, as the bloody Vietnam occupation dragged on, Americans were more directly exposed to the day-to-day reality of war than at any time before or since. As a new media phenomenon during that era, raw reports from the battlefield, complete with color video and images, arrived nightly on the network news and also appeared in popular periodicals. That was critical to shifting national opinion against Vietnam policy, and since that time the government has placed increasing restrictions on media coverage. One lesson here is that veterans and enlisted soldiers need the opportunity, and a mass media platform, to tell their stories or relay experiences openly and honestly to other Americans. Then a better infomed public can apply pressure on Congress and the White House to clean up their act — which in practice will mean ceasing military adventurism and getting serious about promoting peace.
Ram
Wed, Nov 10, 2010 : 9:48 p.m.
I agree with AlphaAlpha. I am don't like hearing a link between 9/11 and the current conflicts being described as common knowledge. It is definitely debatable. Imposing Democracy on the largely Islamic people of Iraq is NOT directly related to 9/11, in my opinion.
tom drake
Wed, Nov 10, 2010 : 9:36 p.m.
i also disagree. i'm a vet, army infantry vietnam and i don't think that just because you have experienced the horrors and confusions of war that yuo are qualified to send someone else into harm's way. if more returning soldiers, marines, airmen and sailors would talk about their experiences, more civilians would aware of the dangers and maybe try diplomacy to the maximum effort. some, or most returnees,say "oh you wouldn't understand"thats a cop out, it's not important that our families and friends "understand" whats important is that they know how terrible things were and realise why we act the way we do sometimes. wars are to be avoided when possible and those who serve are to be supported always.
dannarbor
Wed, Nov 10, 2010 : 9:31 p.m.
"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering
AlphaAlpha
Wed, Nov 10, 2010 : 9:02 p.m.
"Now we have Iraq and Afghanistan. These wars are justified because of 9-11." Many believe otherwise. Can anyone explain why we are in these foreign lands? And what it costs? And what will happen within months of our departure from those places? And why, after voting for change, we have precisely the same war policy?
DonBee
Wed, Nov 10, 2010 : 7:04 p.m.
Michael - Thank you. You missed several conflicts since Viet Nam, many of them small and short. I did a few years in the military and followed the National Command Authority orders without question. Most who join the military do. Many of us don't talk about what we did or saw. Frankly most people don't want to know and won't understand. My son followed me into the military and is home now. I don't feel comfortable making a decision that may or may not put someone in the line of fire. It takes a special person to make those decisions. I feel for everyone who has to, regardless of their prior service. I want to thank all the folks who have served this country.
johnnya2
Wed, Nov 10, 2010 : 7:04 p.m.
I strongly disagree. Just because you served in war does not make you more competent to talk about it. Based on your logic, the only people who should talk about the dangers of smoking are smokers. The only people to talk about STI's are those that have them, and the only ones who should talk about being over weight are fat people. Quite honestly soldiers are not trained to think for themselves. They are trained specifically to follow orders. Going to war and different strategies SHOULD be debated by those who have a background in discussing issues and coming out with the best possible outcomes.