U.S. Department of Defense/Staff Sgt. Aaron Allmon/Handout
|
Have We Forgotten To Say Thanks?
Recently on a Delta flight, I saw a 1st Sergeant on the plane. He was dressed in his BDUs (battle dress uniform), obviously just back from Iraq.
I always hesitate to talk to soldiers because I don't want to give them the third degree. He looked very tired and I wondered what he might be doing. I discovered, he was on the way home for emergency leave; his wife suffered complications during pregnancy. He didn't go into it too much and I didn't press.
I watched for sometime; and, in the course of a couple of hours, I was the only one who spoke to him. I briefly said how much I appreciate his service and commitment. He said thanks and that was it.
I wondered where are all those feel good stories that I had seen on the internet: the soldier gets on the plane, the passengers give him a spontaneous round of applause and then proceed to ply him with drinks and food, in other words, folks doing anything to reward soldiers for their great service.
AP Photo/Todd Pitman
| What I'm beginning to think is that the stories are all made up; they really didn't happen or folks are not where they were three years ago. They aren't.
In the beginning of the Iraq war, most folks were supportive; and surely, always supported the troops, whatever that might mean. But, Americans appear to be almost ADD in a sense. Something is on their radar screen and they respond, then it passes and on to the next case.
I fear folks are not focused on the war anymore. Young Americans are dying daily and somehow we are not distressed about it. It is business as usual. I don't want it to be that way. I want all of us suffering somewhat. But, without a draft and almost the entire population not having had any military experience; and even worse, not even knowing anyone who has had experience in the military, we are not collectively grieving. We are not hurting. I do hope I'm wrong, but fear that I am not.
It was good to see the young troop in his uniform, a desert uniform, at least maybe it caught the eye of someone. I'm glad to see soldiers traveling in their work uniforms. They are fighting a war for God's sake. And, it does remind me of a war story...
AP Photo/Rodrigo Abd
| I was a a young troop back during the sixties in Washington DC for the March on the Pentagon or maybe the assassination of Martin Luther King. Anyway, it was Easter and I went with a group of soldiers to this fancy Masonic outdoor amphitheater for the Easter sunrise service. There were about a couple of dozen of us.
Suddenly, this well dressed gentleman arrived on the scene and said that we would have to leave. What! Well, the man said we weren't properly dressed. We were only soldiers in our work clothes protecting these people. What the hell! When I voiced my objections not to calmly, he said we could stay if we moved to another location. We did and I've never forgotten it. At least, now, it is not as bad as then.
Maybe we have made progress. One of the legacies of the Vietnam veteran is that he was so shabbily treated after the war and the country over thirty plus years has had a collective, shame, shame. But, now, most people realize the soldier is just doing his job. So, at least for that, we should be grateful. KT
| |
| ABOUT THE TV SHOW THE SHIELD BY KT
|
I resisted watching this show for a long time. Why? Well, I'm not big into cop shows. I never got into Hill Street Blues, was somewhat into NYPD Blue, but not overwhelmingly.
I watched Life On The Streets some. My favorite became Third Watch; but it, like most of them, moved into soap operaville. But, I decided to give the first season of the Shield a shot, no pun intended. I'm hooked.
It is one terrific show. At first you think it is about a rogue cop and his rogue underlings. It starts out this way, but then it morphs into a well-rounded, character-driven show.
It is the cop show's answer to 24. Just when you think how can they get out of this, they either do or they don't. My point is, there is not always a neat resolution to every problem; the show is realistic.
The show is about the good guys getting a leg up most of the time on the bad guys. And, not always very subtle.
Watching The Shield is a way to learn about the streets which few of us have a chance to know. Wired( was on HBO) if you ever saw it, was even more ground breaking for realism. Shield is on FX, a basic cable channel, so check it out if you can or get the dvds like I did.
The main character, Vic Mackey, a cop, operates by his own code of ethics. Just when you think that he's over the top, a soft side emerges; he becomes the champion for the underdog, the Dad with an autistic kid. He's trying.
What amazes me is how he keeps it all together and separated. Bill Clinton must have taught him the "box" theory or something.
But, Mackey is not alone, the show has an entire cast of appealing complex characters. And, this show is not bereft of social issues: religion, haves and have-nots, race, and homosexuality - one of my favorite characters is the struggling gay cop. The Shield is an incredible, believable cop show with continual twists. Excuse me, I have to go and see another segment.
|
| THINKING ABOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT BY KT
|
North Carolina Department of Correction/Handout
|
In one of the local elections, (I'm not telling you where) I got a call asking for support for one candidate; and, after listening, said I would have to think about it. I've always felt that there are some crimes so egregious that death is the only possible way and that is often not enough.
Here's an example of what makes me feel so strongly. Over 32 years ago, this guy rapes this nurse and strangles and stabs her repeatedly. New DNA implicates him. He is now 80ish and sickly.
Remember, this happened 32 years ago. During that time, the culprit had a long history of rape and actually served 15 years in prison. He's been raping since 1954. He was convicted three times for sex crimes: kidnap-rape and kidnap-sexual assault in two different locations.
What is punishment enough for such a predator? One victim's sister had this to say which kind of says it all: "Nothing will make up for my sister's loss. Believe me, this world lost a lot more with my sister's loss than it gained with this man's living."
|
Gen Charles Swannack- AP Photo/Anja Niedringhaus
|
SCREWING UP A TWO CAR FUNERAL PROCESSION PART DEUX
WHO WOULD YOU WANT IN A FOXHOLE BESIDE YOU, THE RETIRED GENERAL OF THE 82nd AIRBORNE DIVISION, CHARLES SWANNACK ? OR DONALD RUMSFELD? OR GEORGE W. BUSH? OR DICK CHENEY?
What I've said all along about the Secretary of Defense is that he is no different from any of his predecessors; all of those guys put their own stamp on the military. But Rumsfeld's policies and edicts have directly caused us to be in an untenable and unwinnable war with no end in sight. And, there are no checks and balances on him.
The Commander in Chief, in his arrogance, (I am the one who decides who goes and stays) has allowed Rumsfeld to drastically create what qualifies as an unchecked disaster in Iraq. There is no decision that I can think of in Iraq which has not narrowed our options and that Rumsfeld's fingerprints are not on.
We have needed fresh minds from the very beginning. To the Generals that I respect, it is obvious that the Secretary of Defense has to go. To many in Congress that voted for the war, and whom I also think are reasonable men, Rumsfeld must now go.
The war in Iraq has been incredibly mismanaged and person after person, with any knowledge or who was a "player" in the Iraq war, has said it: General Charles H. Swannack, General Jack Keane, General Gregory Newbold,General John Batiste, General Paul Van Riper, General Paul Eaton, General Bernard Trainor, General Wesley Clark, ... RUMSFELD MUST GO! The ways that Iraq have been mismanaged are legion and well documented. The fault is at Rumsfeld's feet.
Lack of Leadership
AFP/Getty Images/File
|
And, it is more crucial than ever because we have a Commander In Chief who doesn't know his posterior from a hole in the ground in areas like this.
It doesn't mean that he's not smart, it simply seems he resides in a fog when it relates to Rumsfeld and the war.
We understand that no President is going to admit that he screwed up, but it seems to be more than that with him-he can't get his hands around it. So, what does he do? He defers to Rumsfeld who simply is out of fresh ideas, if he ever had any.
We need somebody new to look at the mess we call Iraq. Will they come to any different conclusion? Probably not, but we need to at least be searching for a creative, innovative leader.
Criticizing The Secretary
Gen. John Batiste AP Photo/Murad Sezer
|
Should the Generals be able to do it? Absolutely, when they are retired. Why not? They are civilians. It is in the best interest of the country even for them to give a critique of where we are with the war.
In fact, I think they do a disservice when they do not. Tommy Franks, who commanded the invasion and is now speaking out in defense of Rumsfeld, for example, is merely a cheerleader for Rumsfeld's ideas. Not good!
The unwritten rule in the military is that the Generals go along. Some of it is their nature, the "can do" mantra. The military's purpose as every General or officer for that matter will tell you is not to decide to go to war; but, when told to do so, execute to win wars when given the orders.
The Generals speaking out now have it right, in my opinion. General Gregory Newbold, who was involved in the planning from the beginning said this, "The decision was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions--or bury the results." We know what that means, a President who was in the National Guard; Rumsfeld, a Navy pilot who did not see combat; and Cheney of course, who, during Vietnam, had other priorities.
Why Do The Generals Go Along?
Gen. Greg Newbold- (AFP/File/Joyce Naltchayan)
|
Few people outside the military, really "get" the military unless they have been a part of it. In a sense, it is a bureaucracy with its own rules and protocols at every level. And, the Generals in particular, have their own rules. As I have often said, the best leaders usually don't get to be Generals.
This doesn't mean that the Generals are not good leaders, it simply means that in terms of leadership, the best usually don't make it. And, why? Simply, really creative and innovative thinkers don't make it to the top very often in the military because the military can't tolerate them, i.e; they are labeled mavericks.
More often than not, some of these guys who don't become Generals are just high intuitives who look at things with different eyes, not afraid to take chances and color outside the lines. They usually get out of the military and become CEOs or carve out careers in other areas that appreciate what they bring to the table.
Those officers who stay in and work the system with sponsors, having all the right tickets including command-all the other things that the system says they should have-get themselves in a position to become a General. Few make it. Those who do become General, more likely than not, are good, but rarely great.
Gen Jack Keane- AFP/Getty Images/File
|
The military is built around the chain of command and it is the one inviolable thing in the military. You follow the "chain of command," often to your own detriment. Meaning, that the chain of command can get in the way of things getting done; it is the equivalent of bureaucracy. But, it is followed!
Why didn't Rumsfeld listen to the Generals? For one thing, with few exceptions, they didn't pound on the table and draw swords. The Generals went along; so, they are not "scot" free, they have to bear some responsibility in this entire process.
To his great credit, former Chief of Staff of the Army, General Eric Shinseki, had warned Congress that occupying Iraq would require hundreds of thousands of troops. He was rewarded by being publicly humiliated and neutralized by Rumsfeld. I would have quit.
Will The Revolt Of The Generals Do Any Good?
Donald Rumsfeld (Yuri Gripas/Files/Reuters)
|
The short answer, NO! To me, it goes way beyond the conflict of civilian and military. This is not an issue; for one thing, modern day generals are not strong enough, they are too interested in their careers.
What I liked about the old time generals like George Patton or Douglas MacArthur, to a degree, they either thought they were right or were bold enough to be outrageous enough to be fired. We don't have any of those in the military now. Or, I don't know any of them.
We're in a hell of a mess in Iraq and will continue to be as long as Rumsfeld stays in place. There's no savior out there to replace him, no magic to be had but there might be someone out there with different ideas which could just help us stop the bleeding. KT
| |
|
|
Now Available: Newly revised paperback General Lee:Father of the Airborne.