If you wrote that, props to you. Something tells me you have first hand knowledge on what you wrote.
Pride of the Grunt
The average age of the Infantryman is 19 years. He is a short haired, tight-muscled kid who, under normal circumstances is considered by society as half man, half boy. Not yet dry behind the ears, not old enough to buy a beer, but old enough to die for his country. He never really cared much for work and he would rather wax his own car than wash his father's; but he has never collected unemployment either.
He's a recent High School graduate; he was probably an average student, pursued some form of sport activities, drives a ten year old jalopy, and has a steady girlfriend that either broke up with him when he left, or swears to be waiting when he returns from half a world away. He listens to rock and roll or hip hop or rap or jazz or swing and 155mm Howitzers. He is 10 or 15 pounds lighter now than when he was at home because he is working or fighting from before ! dawn to well after dusk.
He has trouble spelling, thus letter writing is a pain for him, but he can field strip a rifle in 30 seconds and reassemble it in less----in the dark. He can recite to you the nomenclature of a machine gun or grenade launcher and use either one effectively if he must. He digs foxholes and latrines and can apply first aid like a professional. He can march until he is told to stop or stop until he is told to march.
He obeys orders instantly and without hesitation, but he is not without spirit or individual dignity.
He is self-sufficient. He has two sets of fatigues: he washes one and wears the other. He keeps his canteens full and his feet dry. He sometimes forgets to brush his teeth, but never to clean his rifle. He can cook his own meals, mend his own clothes, and fix his own hurts. If you're thirsty, he'll share his water with you; if you are hungry, his food. He'll even split his ammunition with you in the midst of battle
when you run low. He has learned to use his hands like weapons and weapons like they were his hands.
He can save your life - or take it, because that is his job.
He will often do twice the work of a civilian, draw half the pay, and still find ironic humor in it all. He has seen more suffering and death then he should have in his short lifetime. He has stood atop mountains of dead bodies, and helped to create them. He has wept in public and in private, for friends who have fallen in combat and is unashamed.
He feels every note of the National Anthem vibrate through his body while at rigid attention, while tempering the burning desire to 'square-away' those around him who haven't bothered to stand, remove their hat, or even stop talking.
In an odd twist, day in and day out, far from home, he defends their right to be disrespectful.
Just as did his Father, Grandfather, and Great-grandfather, he is paying the price for our freedom. Beardless or not, he is not a boy. He is the American Fighting Man that has kept this country free for over 200 years.
He has asked nothing in return, except our friendship and understanding.
Remember him, always, for he has earned our respect and admiration with his blood.
God bless our service men and women.
Wow!
It's been 36 years since I was that 19 year old. I'm old enough now to be pretty jaded but my eyes are pretty damp right now.
God bless everyone of them...every one of them!
Pat J
If you wrote that, props to you. Something tells me you have first hand knowledge on what you wrote.
Legman,
If someone else wrote this I thank you for finding & posting it. If the words are your own, I thank you again & express my admiration for your eloquence. I am not alone in having a close family member in the Middle-East at this time. He is there not because he willed the circumstances that are responsible for his deployment, but because it is his sworn oath of duty to serve his country in that way when called upon. Like all the others with him & those in times past, he left not because he preferred it to be, but at the same time he left willingly & with a certain pride & determination to fullfill his mission.
about mission, duty, and country. So did Confederate soldiers about their "country" (and slavery). And Soviet soldiers fighting for their country (Communism). And all the millions of soldiers who fought and died for a country that represented an evil cause! Why do we continue to honor soldiers fighting for any kind of cause, no matter what? It seems to me, a rational person should examine the cause for which the soldiers fight and humanity should cease to honor soldiers fighting for unjust causes. Pity them, pray for them, urge them to desert, yes, but do not honor them if they fight in unjust wars. The soldier cannot be separated from the Leader, Govt., or Cause he fights for. We must raise young men to question their leaders, their governments, and the underlying reasons for going to war. And not automaticallly honor them for joining a military machine. Thus we should not honor Nazi soldiers, Confederate soldiers, Soviet soldiers, or soldiers about to engage in this unjust war in Iraq.
Hermes, stick a sock in it. Go to France and join your brethren there, so the next time you're invaded you can become someone's bitch, or, stick around here, change the system to your way of thinking, and wait to get butt f***ed by the next wave of terrorists that decide they can kill innocents without paying the price. You think there's a difference between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein, you're a fool. It's the patriots (soldiers about to engage Iraq) of this country that keep it free so that people like you can whine.
Jim
Wars are not created by those who are given the task of actually fighting them. Soldiers of whatever country, in whatever conflict, will likely have similar feelings of duty. Without those feelings no military would ever be effective, regardless of my, your, or anyone else's opinion about whether or not the war is/was "just." And I would disagree with you that the soldier cannot be separated from the political leadership of the country...I feel it is what is in the heart of the individual that he should be judged.
And who shall do the judging? Were the Union soldiers deserving of honor & respect, while the Confederate soldiers not? From what I've read, it's likely that if polls existed in those days the American Revolutionary War would have been unpopular with the majority. So was that war unjust? Should public opinion the criteria for determing if any war is just?
I feel empathy for our troops (& the Iraqis as well) but I do not "pity" them, nor will I ever. Nor would I even think of encouraging them to desert as you suggest. What I will do is respect them for the sacrifices they have already made & will continue to make, & pray for their safety.
And yes, I will definitely honor them when they return. If you choose not to do so, it's your choice to make...a choice made possible by many like them before in other conflicts that didn't always have unanimous support.
Are you suggesting that the citizens, including the soldiers, should not be involved in the decision to go to war? Yes, I agree with you that most wars have been created by Leaders.. who often ignore the will of the people! That is the problem! Ever hear the expression, "A rich man's war, a poor man's fight"? Maybe if the people and soldiers were more involved there would be fewer useless wars. BTW, the last time I checked our Constitution, the power to make war rests with the People thru their elected reps in Congress. Didn't our founding fathers intend for us to get involved in such fateful decisions?
Yes, feelings of Duty are necessary for any military effort, but is that enough to avoid useless wars? Isn't it better for the citizens to really think things through before accepting the Leader's decision to go to war? Do leaders always make the right decisions? Are you saying, for example, that every war the U.S. has been involved in was justified? The Mexican War? The Spanish-American War? The Philippine Insurrection 1899-1902? Some wars are justifiable (WWII) yes, but all wars?
Re: who will judge. Would you rather have one Leader, with all his wisdom, or thoughtful citizens make the decision? Shouldn't the people who actually do the fighting and dying have a say? You can bet your life that there will be very few sons and daughters of Senators and the Bush crowd of chicken hawks that will be risking their lives in Iraq the next few weeks. Yes, we can't take polls (too much democracy?) but at least we can all be more involved and maybe we'd cut down on the vast majority of unjustified wars. You see, waving the flag, and easy phrases like duty, honor, country, stir up emotions, but perhaps don't contribute as much as thoughtful analysis when making such an important decision as if and when a country should go to war. So, who should judge? We the people, all of us, all the time, especially when it comes to war.
Re: Revolutionary War. There were no polls then, but historians estimate that at the start, about 1/5 of the white colonists (excluding Blacks and Indians) supported England, 2/5 were Patriots (or Rebels), and the other 2/5 had no opinion or waited on the sidelines. So technically while it was a minority Revolution, among thoughtful colonists, opinion was for Revolution.
So as a thoughtful citizen, granted only one, I will judge between just and unjust wars. And thus yes, the Union troops were more honorable because they fought for Union and against slavery, and the Confederate soldiers were not deserving of honor because they fought for the preservation of the institution of slavery. I feel sorry for their suffering, their ignorance, their humanity, but I cannot honor them.
Along the same lines, are you really saying we should honor all soldiers? The German soldiers whose duty was for Nazi Germany? Remember, these soldiers swore an oath to Hitler himself! The Iraqi soldiers who invaded Kuwait in 1990? The Soviet soldiers who invaded Afghanistan? Or maybe Turkish soldiers who massacred Armenians? The list could go on and on.
And you know what was probably in the hearts of every one of these soldiers? Duty, honor, country!! Wouldn't the world be better off if these soldiers had gone beyond duty, honor, country, and thought about the consequences of their actions?
Wouldn't it have been better for more Nazi soldiers to desert? If they had fought like the Italians? If the south didn't have such a brilliant Gen. Robert E.Lee who had a sense of Duty to his State of Virginia? And won't it be better if in this war, the Iraqi soldiers have a very weak sense of Duty and give up quickly? You see, you cannot separate a soldier's attitudes from the causes, the issues. Those fighting for Duty, Honor, Country can often do horrific things. Shouldn't we require more before we praise them?
Well, thanks for your response, enjoying the discussion.
First of all the US is a republic which is differs from a democracy, as I'm sure you are aware. And our elected officials within the last few months gave authority to the president to make the decision as it specifically concerns the current situation in Iraq. While I'm not a legal scholar, I think the legality under our Consitution has been met.
But to the point of who "should" be making the decision...I would assume that those entrusted with that responsibility have at least as much information as you or I, regardless of how many sources we might check or facts we might consider before reaching our conclusions. I never made a statement that political leaders always make decisions that I think are best or with which I agree. That assertion would be putting words in my mouth.
It's trivial, but it appears we've read different historical accounts regarding public opinion with respect to our Revolutionary War. But setting that aside, if the will of the people were to be the only determining factor, what sort of a majority should be required? Obviously, unanimous agreement can't be considered a reality. And who will be the judge of what citizens are sufficiently informed? You? Me? If so, why either of us? And how the survey will be conducted & by whom? The framing of the questions alone easily skewer the results. Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who was skeptical about any form of democratic government because it depended upon an "informed populace?"
I made no statement of support regarding each & every conflict the US gas been involved. I merely cited the examples I did as you had cited some yourself. For the two of us to debate each would serve little purpose as I see it, for we may agree with each other wholeheartedly on some, maybe in part on others, & not at all on those remaining.
As to holding each individual soldier accountable for the decisions of his leader & ignoring what he might feel about the task given him, I find that agruement totally without merit. Yes, the German soldiers were forced to pledge alligience to Hitler..they were given no choice in the matter. But is that to day they were automatically in support of all the Nazis stood for? What about those who in their own hearts truly believed they were defending their country or may have been ignorant of the true nature of the Nazi regime? A book which might interest you regarding the subject was an auto-biography of a German soldier during WWII.."The Forgotten Soldier" by Guy Sajer (or perhaps Sager). You might find it illuminating if read with an open mind.
One thing that has become clear to me from all I have read of history is that there is no real separation of religion, politics, economics, & military. There's a common thread linking them in every conflict I've ever studied. So for those who decry America as being the ONLY nation that has always acted with 100% altruism is to ignore facts.
Much has been made in recent discussion here & elsewhere about France. The assistance provided by the French to the colonists during the American Revolutionary War was really more about attempting to weaken England's hold in the New World than anything else, certainly not an endorsement of democracy as France was ruled by a "devine right" emporer who certainly wouldn't didn't want the people to have power. And it was France, together with the British, who after the conclusion of WWI drew the arbitrary boundries on the Middle-East...including those of Israel & Iraq. Done for self-serving interests by both countries with no consideration for the people living there. And when some trot out the "no blood for oil" mantra, what do those people have to say to the fact that Jacques Chirac was a major player in brokering the deal that had France build a nuclear reactor which was shipped to an Iraq already controlled by Saddam Hussein? In return France received an almost free flow of cheaply priced oil. Chirac when interviewd after the fact stated that he thought the reactor was only to be used for research in developing energy for civilian use. I question two things about that: Why such a large reactor? Why would a country sitting on some of the richest oil reserves in the world have such a pressing need to develop nuclear engery for civilian purposes? So "no" I do not believe leaders, including American ones, always make decisions that ultimately have turned out either wisest or best. But only history, not you or I, will be the ultimate judge of them.
There are things in America's history that certainly I take no pride in: Slavery, Jim Crow laws, the disenfranchisment of women for so long, the internment of Japanese citizens during WWII are a few. But does that make me ashamed to be an American or the history of our nation? No! I might as well be ashamed of the fact that my heritage is half French.
But back to the question of the individual soldier...I merely said that each one, as with any other person, should be judged by what is in their heart...not condemned en masse. Obviously I cannot know those answers as to what was in their hearts, but neither can you! I made only the statement, nothing more. Do you want yourself to be judged by some other standard? I might point out something for your thoughtful consideration: I feel you are sincere in your beliefs; & I know I am sincere in mine. That our beliefs are in contradiction is apparently a fact. Does this then make one of us immoral?
for you to compose this, I hope you would enlighten us more with elaborated messages of clear thoughts and sound arguments.
You make some interesting points. I won't respond to your criticism of France because we'd wind up talking about evidence and boring everyone to death. Let's get back to the original question of the individual soldier, his beliefs, and how we should view him (or her). It seems to me it's pretty difficult and maybe useless to try to understand what's "in their heart". The German soldier might have had a good heart, but if he cold-bloodedly murders a Jew, what the hell do I care what was in his heart? Am I wrong to judge him immoral? Shouldn't we judge someone by his actions, and not merely by what's possibly in his heart and mind? Maybe Hitler was at heart a nice guy, maybe Jeffrey Daumer was, or even Saddam Hussein at heart is, or any accused criminal, but where does that get us? No, a person is judged by society by his actions. Society does that all the time, and uses Laws based on Judeo-Christian codes of morality like the Ten Commandments. And then we punish this immorality.
We may not feel exactly comfortable sitting in judgement, but what would happen if we didn't? You don't really believe in moral relativism do you? If a guy got totally drunk, ran through a red light, and killed your child, would you let him off the hook because he had a good heart? We judge people all the time using morality codes, all kinds of people in all kinds of situations. Why should this judging stop with the military? Especially since it directly touches on the "Thou shall not kill" code? Thus, I think we have a right, even a duty, to make judgements, moral or otherwise, about wars, those who lead us into wars, and those who execute the war orders. And the only reliable basis for judgement is what action is taken or may be taken. So thus, if one soldier fights to preserve slavery, and the other fights to eliminate it, can we not say that the soldier who fights against it is the more moral of the two? And if a Leader orders the genocide of a people, and another Leader orders his troops to stop it, can we not make a moral judgement about them? And can we thus judge Leaders, Officers, Soldiers, Campaigns, Wars? Is the common soldier absolved of responsibility because he was "just following orders"? Listen, Grey, the point I was trying to make was that we've got to ask these uncomfortable questions. If we just fall back on the old patriotic slogans and emotions, and honor soldiers who merely do their Duty, for Honor and Country, and ignore the underlying issues, then how can we ever hope to understand war and develop means to avoid wars?
I have attempted to have a polite discussion of our views. However, I've come to the conclusion that to do so isn't possible...a conclusion reached based upon what I perceive to be your propensity of making no attempt to recognize the logic I use, merely to dismiss it as irrelevan or deflect it by moving to hypothetical situations that are so far removed from what I've said that for you even to ask some of the questions you do have an attempt to put words in my mouth so that I have to defend them. I'm quite capable of making my feelings clear & if I intend to say something I will. I don't need you or anyone else to tell me what I meant to say. Am I being blunt enough about that?
No, it's best we don't debate French history. But I hadn'tnot bashed France in any way. The example cited with regard to Chirac was made for only one reason which seems to have escaped your scrutiny: If someone wishes to make statements about the evils & immorality of the US, then let's apply that same litmus test to other nations & see how "clean" they are.
I guess in your mind everyone is guilty by association. Sorry, but the vast majority of German soldiers were conscripts..not death camp guards or Jew-murdering bastards. Furthermore, that average soldier was the product of a closed society where the only information available to the citizenry was controlled by the state. So if that soldier fought for his country in the same way as an American GI or a Frenchman, how is he a war criminal? Sorry, but I consider that view myopic.
I'm not even sure what set you off on this. My original post in this thread had nothing to do with my opinion pro or con to what was happening in Iraq. It said only that I hoped everyone would pray for the safety of all involved. And further that my family member was there was prepared to do his duty. To that you began what I see in retrospect as a diabribe against his (by group inclusion) morality. You don't have to respect our troops..I suppose you're even free to spit on them when they return, you won't be the first individual that has done something like that, but they handled a lot worse.
So you go right ahead & make your judgements. I'm sure it is easy to do for someone who fancies themself as morally superior to those who don't share his views.
And I'm sure you probably want the last word on this, so have it...I'm through with it.
Greywolf, I'm sorry my remarks have upset you so. I thought we were having a pretty good discussion!! I apologize for not fully recognizing some of the good points you made. I agree, for example, on holding both France and the U.S. to the same standards of conduct. I certainly didn't mean to imply that the U.S. policy and conduct was worse than other countries. Maybe I should have underlined some of the points of agreement, but in a discussion people seem to gravitate toward their differences ....I certainly don't hold myself up as being morally superior. I just find some of these moral questions interesting, especially when it applies to war. I certainly don't have all the answers, and actually was appreciating your challenging some of my statements. It helps to sharpen thought... We were both making several points, but I don't think we were straying too far from my original thought, which was, should we honor all soldiers for serving their country? In matters of war, with all its horrific possiblities, is it enough to admire someone merely because he "served his country"? I suppose I believe the country, or the govt. leaders who start wars, should be worth serving. We obviously disagree here, but it would have been really interesting (fun?) for example, to continue the discussion about the WW II German Soldier...Well, thanks for the discussion we had anyway...one last point, I do very much hope your relative gets back safely..take care.
Being a single mother to 4 little boys, I pray for their safe return and for the mothers of them all, may they find peace and have faith that their children will be home soon.
Mara
Thank you so much for this post. Sitting here crying from beginning to end. And how true it is!
Like Fortitude, I spent some of the best years of my life in Army special operations. The thing that always struck me was the size, shape, and temperment of the men in my units. You expect a Ranger or a Green Beret to look like Howie Long in "Broken Arrow" - a chiseled 6'2" stud.
My soldiers mostly ranged from 5'7 to 6'0". A few couldn't have weighed 150 soakin' wet. Almost none of my soldiers were high school athletes. They were never the guys that were "tough" in high school - most were soft spoken guys that most would have called "wimps".
But that sometimes soft demeanor hid a raging fire within their own spirits--a total willingness to accept sacrifice in the name of liberty. The defeat of tyranny and the quest for the freedom of others--almost none of those others being Americans--turned these kids into tough, dedicated soldiers capable of accomplishments that few can imagine. But you would never have guessed who they were if you met them the week before they enlisted.
"I am an American fighting in the forces that guard my country and our way of life, I am prepared to give my life in their defense." -US Military Code of Conduct