Another Voice & View From A Veteran Of Iraq
Sgt. Michael Kelly
354th Civil Affairs Brigade, Army Reserve
As a veteran, I know that there is a whole lot of "group think" and group cohesion drilled into the process of being a member of the Armed Services; a particular regiment, brigade, division or elite unit; and while in pursuit of the "mission" assigned to a unit. From the time a service member enters "boot camp," officer candidate school (OCS), one of the service academies or even Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) programs, there is a concerted effort to remove individual thinking and replacing it with concerns over unit cohesiveness and accomplishment of the mission. Additional training, participation in maneuvers, and counting on the fellow members of your unit for your very life builds a sense of belonging, identity and, to a larger degree than one suspect, a definite "group think" situation.
Now, let me tell you. That "group think" is definitely motivational. Going to a theater on the base, onboard a ship or in a makeshift rec hall in the field is an experience one does not forget. At the beginning of the movie, before the "Coming Attractions" trailers are played, there is a very patriotic display of the flag and patriotic images reminding the members of the audience of American values, the National Anthem is played, the entire theater is at attention, and as the final notes of the Star-Spangled Banner are echoed in the movie hall, heartfelt cheers erupt. There is no feeling like it.
Sure, the National Anthem is played at baseball, basketball, football and hockey games... and for the most part people stand and do cheer or applaud when the song is finished, but it is not the same. Not even close.
So to hear a member of the military state that they thought the mission was the right thing to do is not the same as asking someone not caught up in the fervor of the military experience what they think of the same situation. It's not even the same asking a career member of the services... because they can be disciplined for speaking out against the mission, the unit, the division, the regiment, the brigade, the service or even the government. Stating an opinion about the civilian or military leadership can lead to non-judicial punishment, courts martial, administrative action or more subtle discouragements (like getting assigned all of the dirtiest, riskiest or stupidest assignments). For a career service member, speaking out is career suicide, unless it is in a staged event like those we have seen involving President Bush and a select group of hand-picked and coached soldiers on the front lines.
I do not give the comments of an active duty member of the services much credence in terms of the current, ongoing experience of a conflict. There are just too many influences that suppress individual ideas on the topic. I can say this because of my own experience in the US Navy and US Army National Guard. It was some ten years after I left the services completely before it really donned on me how much I was influenced by that training and "group think" experience. Given that I was considered a sort of rebellious soul according to my superiors and peers, this is some statement and recognition of the profound experience. By military standards, I was a difficult to manage. I dared to question authority and ask questions about my assignments and missions. I even had the audacity to expect excellence from those that I supervised, worked with and worked for... But still I was a product of that "group think." Although I was "rebellious," I still followed my orders, completed my tasks and was my own harshest critic. Even service members with a sense of ethics and standards of excellence have a large portion of their day-to-day active duty time regulated by the "group think" indoctrination.
That is another part of the issue and picture. The average age of enlisted personnel is somewhere between 21 and 23, depending upon recruitment and retention conditions at any given time. The vast majority of enlisted personnel are in their first "hitch" and are between the ages of 18 and 24 years of age. The average age of officers is somewhere in the range of 30 to 35, with most junior officers (O-1 to O-3: [Ensign, Lieutenant JG, Lieutenant] or [2nd Lieutenant, 1st Lietenant, Captain]) being between the ages of 22 and 26. Most of these folks are thrown into a history-making event that is confusing, awe-inspiring, overwhelming, value-shaking, and wrought with strife, pockets of inhumanity, pockets of humanity, and daily hardships. The experience, like almost every military experience--combat-related or otherwise--is intense, fast-paced and filled with awesome responsibilities.... and a lot of boredom in between intensity.
Young men and women seeking alcohol in a setting where they are deprived of most creature comforts often associated with living in America, separated from their families, and confronted with life- and limb-threatening experiences on a dialy basis, is not shocking. Veterans of every branch of service, of every era, will tell you that is par for the course. In the past, this was so much the norm that it was even promoted by the military, as was smoking. It is, however, noteworthy that this report is distinctly different than other reports that indicate alcohol use was minimal.
This too colors the active duty experience and the types of reports likely to come from those still on active duty or just out of the combat. The loss of lives or injuries to members of one's own unit--whether they were close or not--changes the experience and perspective. Is it worth the effort to be in Iraq? It has to be worth it or we are confronted with the reality that the loss of our comrade's life, or the permanent disabling of a comrade hit by an IED, may have been for nought. No one on the front lines, or just coming from the front lines, is going to readily state that the mission is useless. Doing so would be dishonorable and disrespectful to the service of fallen comrades, injured comrades and those that make it through the experience.
Assessments of this type requires some distance from the military experience and a willingness to examine that experience away from the built-in fervor and cohesiveness that is absolutely required in the military context... especially the military combat experience.
We send our troops into harm's way too comfortably these days. Our political leaders--most of whom do not have any real risks associated with the order to go into combat--wave the flag, congratulate and salute those on active duty, ignore the real facts of combat, and consign lives to combat without any real thought as to why, how, when and where... and the members of our military are duty bound to go without question, hesitation or voicing any reservation... and go they do. And when a political dignitary visits the troops they are protected with secrecy and a security force that offers the best possible protection in the world... while our troops on the ground are in vehicles still not equipped with proper armor and the body armor they wear is, according to our own internal studies, eighty percent ineffective.
We need to have a military that is cohesive and willing to go where our political leaders point. We should support our military troops without reservation, but not necessarily the decisions that put them in harm's way. What we really need to do is to make sure we have fully thought through the process of military action and the follow through... and the consequences... President Bush and his gang have not thought Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, India, Palestine, Israel, Pakistan or other international issues through carefully or thoroughly. The entrenched ideology that led us into combat in Iraq is still a mindset in the administration.... facts, events, assessments, analyses or opposing views be damned.
354th Civil Affairs Brigade, Army Reserve
Michael Kelly, a former active duty soldier, was a student at Catholic University Law School when he signed up for the Army Reserves. "It's not necessarily patriotic. I don't call it patriotic. I was never sold on the war. When the war was building up, I just thought this was the right thing to do."
As a veteran, I know that there is a whole lot of "group think" and group cohesion drilled into the process of being a member of the Armed Services; a particular regiment, brigade, division or elite unit; and while in pursuit of the "mission" assigned to a unit. From the time a service member enters "boot camp," officer candidate school (OCS), one of the service academies or even Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) programs, there is a concerted effort to remove individual thinking and replacing it with concerns over unit cohesiveness and accomplishment of the mission. Additional training, participation in maneuvers, and counting on the fellow members of your unit for your very life builds a sense of belonging, identity and, to a larger degree than one suspect, a definite "group think" situation.
Now, let me tell you. That "group think" is definitely motivational. Going to a theater on the base, onboard a ship or in a makeshift rec hall in the field is an experience one does not forget. At the beginning of the movie, before the "Coming Attractions" trailers are played, there is a very patriotic display of the flag and patriotic images reminding the members of the audience of American values, the National Anthem is played, the entire theater is at attention, and as the final notes of the Star-Spangled Banner are echoed in the movie hall, heartfelt cheers erupt. There is no feeling like it.
Sure, the National Anthem is played at baseball, basketball, football and hockey games... and for the most part people stand and do cheer or applaud when the song is finished, but it is not the same. Not even close.
So to hear a member of the military state that they thought the mission was the right thing to do is not the same as asking someone not caught up in the fervor of the military experience what they think of the same situation. It's not even the same asking a career member of the services... because they can be disciplined for speaking out against the mission, the unit, the division, the regiment, the brigade, the service or even the government. Stating an opinion about the civilian or military leadership can lead to non-judicial punishment, courts martial, administrative action or more subtle discouragements (like getting assigned all of the dirtiest, riskiest or stupidest assignments). For a career service member, speaking out is career suicide, unless it is in a staged event like those we have seen involving President Bush and a select group of hand-picked and coached soldiers on the front lines.
I do not give the comments of an active duty member of the services much credence in terms of the current, ongoing experience of a conflict. There are just too many influences that suppress individual ideas on the topic. I can say this because of my own experience in the US Navy and US Army National Guard. It was some ten years after I left the services completely before it really donned on me how much I was influenced by that training and "group think" experience. Given that I was considered a sort of rebellious soul according to my superiors and peers, this is some statement and recognition of the profound experience. By military standards, I was a difficult to manage. I dared to question authority and ask questions about my assignments and missions. I even had the audacity to expect excellence from those that I supervised, worked with and worked for... But still I was a product of that "group think." Although I was "rebellious," I still followed my orders, completed my tasks and was my own harshest critic. Even service members with a sense of ethics and standards of excellence have a large portion of their day-to-day active duty time regulated by the "group think" indoctrination.
Kelly was based in Baghdad during his 6-month tour. "I was in the Green Zone before it was the Green Zone. I was there when there was a broken-down Presidential Palace with two guards from the 3rd [Infantry Division] guarding it. Remember that neighborhood behind the palace? We were just out in the middle of this area; there was no protection, no housing. No one in there. We just commandeered 10 houses."
Kelly was tasked with setting up the Humanitarian Assistance Coordination Center, which was established to field complaints and requests from Iraqis. "I would process all these people. I had interpreters sitting beside me. These people would come and tell me their problem. I'd have to find out essentially why are you here, what do you need. Every day, I would talk to at least 30 to 70 Iraqi civilians. I remember one day this guy came in and pulled up his robe and his intestines are hanging out. I'm like, he's walking? I had never seen something like that before. I said, 'What's wrong with you?' They said he was injured. I said, 'You need medical attention.' He said, 'no, I need a job.' He wasn't there for the intestines."
Still, Kelly said he had a "sense of doing something so heady. You're in Iraq, serving your country. It's that sense of pride and accomplishment and sense of history. You're actually there making history."
That is another part of the issue and picture. The average age of enlisted personnel is somewhere between 21 and 23, depending upon recruitment and retention conditions at any given time. The vast majority of enlisted personnel are in their first "hitch" and are between the ages of 18 and 24 years of age. The average age of officers is somewhere in the range of 30 to 35, with most junior officers (O-1 to O-3: [Ensign, Lieutenant JG, Lieutenant] or [2nd Lieutenant, 1st Lietenant, Captain]) being between the ages of 22 and 26. Most of these folks are thrown into a history-making event that is confusing, awe-inspiring, overwhelming, value-shaking, and wrought with strife, pockets of inhumanity, pockets of humanity, and daily hardships. The experience, like almost every military experience--combat-related or otherwise--is intense, fast-paced and filled with awesome responsibilities.... and a lot of boredom in between intensity.
One thing that shocked Kelly was that soldiers found a way to get alcohol. "Nightly these guys would get drunk and party on. I drank in college, and I don't have a problem with drinking. But my goal was to get out of there alive. Once I got over there, and I realized it wasn't a joke, I just wanted to get home alive. The sex over there was incredible. ... Soldiers sleeping with soldiers, and not just lower enlisted [personnel]. You feel like you can die any moment. You throw morality out the window. I can understand."
Young men and women seeking alcohol in a setting where they are deprived of most creature comforts often associated with living in America, separated from their families, and confronted with life- and limb-threatening experiences on a dialy basis, is not shocking. Veterans of every branch of service, of every era, will tell you that is par for the course. In the past, this was so much the norm that it was even promoted by the military, as was smoking. It is, however, noteworthy that this report is distinctly different than other reports that indicate alcohol use was minimal.
Three people from Kelly's unit were killed in the first couple of weeks of his tour, two colonels and a specialist. He knew them, but not personally. Their deaths rattled him. "You just knew it could be you. You felt bad for their family but bottomline, you just knew it could be you."
This too colors the active duty experience and the types of reports likely to come from those still on active duty or just out of the combat. The loss of lives or injuries to members of one's own unit--whether they were close or not--changes the experience and perspective. Is it worth the effort to be in Iraq? It has to be worth it or we are confronted with the reality that the loss of our comrade's life, or the permanent disabling of a comrade hit by an IED, may have been for nought. No one on the front lines, or just coming from the front lines, is going to readily state that the mission is useless. Doing so would be dishonorable and disrespectful to the service of fallen comrades, injured comrades and those that make it through the experience.
Kelly said the biggest misperception about Iraq is the belief that Iraqis want what we have. "I'm not sure that's what they want. Personally, I feel Bush is a moron. I don't like anyone to tell me anything in a definite yes or no manner like when Bush tells me we are going to win this war on terror. You just want to say, please stop. Everything looks so black and white from the Bush White House and you get over there and you realize it's not black and white. Whether or not this policy is going to succeed -- no, I don't think so. If it will work out for Bush and his team, great. I would love to see it turn out. At the end of the day, I'd love to eat my words."
Assessments of this type requires some distance from the military experience and a willingness to examine that experience away from the built-in fervor and cohesiveness that is absolutely required in the military context... especially the military combat experience.
We send our troops into harm's way too comfortably these days. Our political leaders--most of whom do not have any real risks associated with the order to go into combat--wave the flag, congratulate and salute those on active duty, ignore the real facts of combat, and consign lives to combat without any real thought as to why, how, when and where... and the members of our military are duty bound to go without question, hesitation or voicing any reservation... and go they do. And when a political dignitary visits the troops they are protected with secrecy and a security force that offers the best possible protection in the world... while our troops on the ground are in vehicles still not equipped with proper armor and the body armor they wear is, according to our own internal studies, eighty percent ineffective.
We need to have a military that is cohesive and willing to go where our political leaders point. We should support our military troops without reservation, but not necessarily the decisions that put them in harm's way. What we really need to do is to make sure we have fully thought through the process of military action and the follow through... and the consequences... President Bush and his gang have not thought Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, India, Palestine, Israel, Pakistan or other international issues through carefully or thoroughly. The entrenched ideology that led us into combat in Iraq is still a mindset in the administration.... facts, events, assessments, analyses or opposing views be damned.
posted by Jim Downey at 10:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home