CONNECTED

Recently, I got together with three Vietnam vet buddies to tell war stories, talk politics and kind of “Be” to use a movie line from my favorite baseball picture, Bull Durham. Kevin Costner says to his love interest, “I don’t want to talk baseball, I just want to be.” I understand. With fellow vets, we often simply want to be.

I like to think of vets as a fraternity, especially Vietnam vets. Our usual line is that we fought a war in Vietnam and then we fought one at home. For at least ten years or so, we were virtually silent, reluctant to admit we were Vietnam vets as for some insane view, immediately after Vietnam, vets were identified with the ills of our involvement in Vietnam. For Iraqi vets, they don't have to face this insult as Americans who pay any attention don't want to make the same mistake again. A soldier we understand is just doing his job.

Being a vet doesn’t mean that we all think alike but there is the idea of the shared experience and trust me on this: there is nothing like combat that creates comraderie. Although the other night, we didn’t see eye to eye on politics or most related subjects, however, we did all agree on one subject; the military is in a mess and we fear for its future. It is an institution that we all loved dearly. And, although most Americans who care today talk about supporting the troops, it is somewhat hollow since so few serve. Most don’t even know anyone who is in the military.

During Vietnam, we had the military draft and the country was more connected to the war and to the soldiers. Helped along by the protest movement, most saw Vietnam as something we were all a part of, right or wrong. I, for one, think the protest movement got too much credit for ending the war, still, they were connected. Not so today. We have a Volunteer Army and most people simply see us paying them to fight for us and so it is "next case." A mercenary force? Close. I am a little reluctant to call it mercenary as mercenary denotes a lack of emotion or commitment, at least in my mind's eye. The Voluntary Force is anything but uncommitteed. From where I stand, they are a superb military, well trained and by in large, well equipped. But and a big BUT: unrepresentative of America--a downer in terms of our democracy.

At the very least, we ought to have some sort of National Service. This is truly something in which us old vets totally agree. It doesn’t have to be the military, it could be Teach America, Habitat for Humanity, any nonprofit or the person could choose their own service. This is no novel idea, it is on the drawing board by a few folks but where it has no attention is on the National Stage. And, I think that either of the presidential candidates could make alot of money figuratively speaking if they were to choose this path. As a country, we have not been asked to sacrifice at all for a war that is draining us. We believe it is going to catch up to us. And, for four old vet, we see it sooner than later and by not giving America’s youth an option to serve hurts them and America. Shame on us.

ATTRACTING SOLDIERS

One of the fallacies of the Volunteer Army is that it is successful as an American Institution. Let's face it, few Americans know much about the Institution and participation very minuscule. It is only successful in terms of a mercenary force paid to fight our wars. I have all kind of examples of how most are out of touch. Here's a recent one. A good buddy, a vet, had not even heard of Stop-Loss, an egregious program fostered upon active army soldiers who have done their duty and are ready to depart the scene. They can't; a voluntary Army suddenly is no longer voluntary. Why Stop-Loss? Cannon fodder so to speak; filling the ranks because of shortfalls and the desire to keep experienced soldiers, even against their will. If my friend had never hear of this, those so much uninterested as most Americans, surely haven't.

The active Army, fighting two wars is pushed to the limits, repetitive tours are more the rule than the exception, trouble is everywhere; if not broken, it is close, in my view. The Army is desperate and one of the programs they are experimenting with to attract soldiers is one called The Advantage Fund. On the surface, this sounds like a good idea and I'm for it: giving deserving youngsters who have joined up, a helping hand to buy their first home or start a business. This is a latest wrinkle of throwing money at the problem. Just as an innocuous and idealistic aside, whatever happened to the incentive of patriotism, serving my country, giving back. Forget it. Those ideals have militarily gone the way of brown boots in the Army.

The Advantage Fund is traded for five years in the Army. It is a bonus.
Although this is a pilot program, it underscores the severity of desperation in today's military: try anything to get in bodies. The Advantage Fund has to be attractive but why it and other incentives have their limitations is that when they become the sole reason for someone joining up, then it is somewhat tainted, not from the soldiers' standpoint but from those who dreamed up the idea. Part of the military is emotion: to fight, to put oneself in harm's way. These soldier emotions will hardly be surfaced by incentives like seed money to buy a house , etc.

We only have to look at the Marines to realize how to make recruiting work. They appeal to "being the best, the elite, the few, the proud while the Army throws money at enticing the hesitant.

This is not to disparage those youngsters who choose the Army way. It is taking a chance but obviously they deem it worth it. And, who can blame them, based on their prospects. WHY THEY JOIN is the subject of a a terrific article in the NY Review of Books that I commend to everyone. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21201

Why do they join? Health care, educational benefits, nothing else to do, run out of options--a multitude of reasons with occasionally some voicing patriotism or invoking 9-11. They are youngsters that at least have to be affirmed for joining. The flip side of the coin is that it is pretty pathetic that we have come to this; offering money for blood and life. God bless our troops.

VOLUNTEER ARMY-Boon or Bust

This is the anniversary of the Volunteer Army: 35 years. I would not have known it had not the Chief of staff of the Army, General George Casey, called our attention to it. Instead of touting the success of the Volunteer Army, he should have been apologizing for leading us down the primrose path.

What the military is charged with at the higher levels is making sure that we are prepared for any military contingency. The generals have failed miserably. During the cold war, they went for a smaller Army and were literally seduced by high tech. They said we were prepared by producing a gaggle of slogans even as Casey has: sustain, prepare, reset, transform--what the hell does that mean? Some civilians have spent days coming up with it. Every new Chief needs some gimmick. How about this, admitting that a Volunteer Military, even though good, cannot sustain us when we are in a prolonged war.

What we now know is that Casey and other generals have been willing to claim success of the Volunteer Army and by doing so have put us in an incredibly precarious situation. They accepted plans for a war in Iraq with an inadequate force, creating untenable choices for our soldiers.

Multiple tours of duty have become the rule rather than the exception. Problems abound, i. e., suicide, divorce, PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) in varying forms. If our Army isn't broken, it is close. Policies like Stop Loss and forcing Guard and Reserve troops to perform missions for which they are not trained or ill equipped is tantamount to unforgiven--think Abu Grabib. Almost every single difficulty we face with our military today can be placed at the feet of the top Generals , plain and simple.

Although I understand the generals retiring from The Forces and writing books telling their true view: what went wrong, adinfinitum--any way served up, however, comes out somewhat disingenuous. For once, I'd like to see just one general say with clarity and no military speak the real truth is: the Volunteer Army simple is not working, in our present war footing nor will it likely work in the future.

NO SWEET SORRY (From the concept that parting is such sweet sorry)

My 16 year old recently visited China w/ a group of high school students from her High School. She had a great experience and they were given the dog & pony show by the Chinese. Her school has a sister school in China and we will host some Chinese students this Fall. The kids spent time in central China as well as Beijing. They also went to the Great Wall. I was glad for her to go and glad for her to come home. When we took her to the airport, I could not help but think of the thousands of parents taking their son or daughter to the airport for a "trip" to Iraq or Afghanistan. I had the comfort of knowing that my child (just a couple of years younger than many of our combat troops) was going to be safe and under the watchful eye of others. I knew she would be back in a week. How must parents today feel not knowing if their son/daughter will return or if they do, whether they'll be whole in body and/or mind ? May God Bless them all. BRG, Jr.

THE BIG PICTURE

Recently, I saw a group of young California National Guard soldiers coming home from Iraq. They were interviewed: great to be home, they did lots of good, helped the people, think they did the right thing. Hope we won't cut and run. As much as I respect the soldiers and their sacrifices and even understand them, it sounded like an official denial news conference. Drives me crazy.

I always realize that soldiers have to believe in what they are doing, regardless of the facts. Even in Vietnam, I can remember feeling that we are really helping these people. It was only after the war and I began to read and understand that I came to know what a farce it was. It does not mean that we didn't do our duty and many Vietnam vets will see it entirely different. And, these soldiers will see their war from a different perspective in several months or years than they do now. I always think that, like Vietnam, we have to get past the very subjective feelings of young soldiers returning from a traumatic experience--simply, they must believe in that experience. It is human nature. However, those of us who care must see the big picture. It is our job.

This is not easy. The soldier has sacrificed in various ways and cannot be told that his/her sacrifices are in vain. For older military types, especially the officers, they will see it more as their job and many even in advancing their careers; but, the young returning veteran will see it more visceral, more present, he has done this noble thing. And, with so few having had military experience, they don't know how to identify with the returning vet or what to say. "I've just returned from Iraq." The response: "Oh."

Maybe a grandmother, I think, who welcomed her grandson home, expressed it best. When asked about her grandson she said something like, "He served his country and I'm proud of him." Absolutely true. He served his country. Our country sent him to war. Regardless of how we feel about the war, we have to affirm what these young troopers are doing. God bless them.

FELONS IN THE MILITARY

According to an article in Tuesday's local paper, the Marines and the Army are taking into their ranks more felons than ever in their history. As a "second chance" guy, I think it is not a bad thing; many of these guys committed crimes in their youth; much of it was sexual, underage kids having sex with other consenting underage kids. After intense screening, why not give these kids a shot.

Unfortunately, it appears that the motivation is not "another chance" rather meeting recruiting goals. Recruiting is becoming more difficult based on the war in Iraq and especially a lack of encouragement from parents to join up, i. e., thus felons who under normal circumstances wouldn't get a chance, now do.

I really get concerned on where the military is heading and is this "more felons" symptomatic of larger problems? The Volunteer Army has been sold to the public to such a degree that there seems to be no question as to simply accepting that it is here to stay. There are at least larger questions, i. e., is our mercenary Army in a position to sustain two wars and be ready for whatever might come. I don't think so.

In the wonderful movie, Young At Heart, a documentary about a bunch of older folks who are developed into a first class musical ensemble--there's one scene that speaks to second chances. They go to a prison to sing. The prison is peopled with all these young adults, whose lives have gone to hell in a hand basket. Why not give them another chance in the military? In this case, we must trust the military to be on top of this potentially explosive issue. We want soldiers who often have the sorts of personalities that don't seem to fit the normal population, i.e., war is no day at the beach. It is about killing, it is war.

YOU HAVE BEEN CHOSEN--Comments on the military draft

It's hopeless to think that there's some way to persuade, wrangle, or force the implementation of the draft to help relieve our Bush-ed all volunteer but now "Stop Loss-ed" military; that's been spread out over 80 countries and fighting 2 wars simultaneously for years with no end in sight. I'm afraid that it's just not attainable by any conventional political means either. In fact, history shows that the draft is instituted only as a last resort and ONLY AFTER we or one of our allies is attacked and suffer grievous enough losses. Then the public outrage leads to the patriotic response of enlisting and the justification for the draft.

Apparently, 9/11 with nearly 3,000 innocent American men, women and children killed on our very own homeland soil and now over 4,000 U.S. Soldiers also killed and 30,000injured in Iraq, still no longer meets the definition of enough grievous losses and suffering. Not to mention the nearly 100,000 VA claims for PTSD and 12,000 deserters and AWOL soldiers who refused to do 3, 4, or 5 combat tours.

Why has our level of tolerance been extended to such an extreme level of cautiousness? Is it just political correctness in order to win the next party elections? Is it our society's desensitization to violence since we've become so accustomed to seeing so much media reporting that focuses on nothing but all the daily ongoing negatives in our country? What will it take to happen for us to act to re-institute the draft?

I say it won't happen until our homeland is once again attacked and not just suffering some losses but very huge losses. To me this is so tragic that it makes me sick to even think of it happening all over again before the military draft is finally implemented. Also, I even have a teenage son and I still think that the draft should have been implemented a long time ago.

Enlisted Sgt. G. P., Class of '67-'69 Vietnam Tet, 101st Airborne Paratrooper


George, a terrific piece of writing. I agree with you: to be perfectly honest, I don't know where we are heading. The lack of realism about Iraq is simply overwhelming to me. I watch lots of news and it is like scores of people are living in parallel universes. Gen Petraeus and Crocker spoke like they simply were delivering prerecorded comments. I thought Petraeus was fairly realistic but simply the "what ifs" were very negating. And, as you know, it is one thing for the generals to talk strategy from a high and lofty perch but another for grunts to have to live it out on the ground. For instance, we had five GIs killed one of the days that Petraeus was speaking. The constant theme of his talk and Crockers and the Congressman who agreed with him was that violence is down. Yes, according to who? Not the five dead GIs or the hundreds of innocent Iraqis killed. I am amazed. I feel like those of us who are trying to face reality are like the apostle Paul, we are kicking against the "pricks."

WHY DO THEY JOIN?

WHY DO THEY JOIN
Why are they joining? I think it's because they have nothing better
in their lives. They're mostly from mid-America where there are no
more jobs for them. No factories or mines and very few small farms
anymore. And most schools don't inspire young people to go on to
higher ed. Comment in a letter to AP


AP REPLIES

I think it's a little more complicated than your comments. First of all, the military has spent and are spending millions of dollars in Madison avenue type advertising, enticing these kids. And, it is true, that most come from socioeconomic categories that as much as we hate to say, are, lower middle class or lower in terms of opportunity. (Wow, we hate to admit that we have a class system in America--I do anyway). And, let's face it, we have developed a caste system in that our military officers are college educated, often from the Academies, paid for by the taxpayer, of course--they come from middle class or upper middle class families, while the enlisted come from the lower socio economic classes.

And, in many ways, the military is a good deal: good pay, perceived benefits, and often just the discipline that kids need. Ask many parents? So, why do they join? I think that some of it is the feeling of their invulnerability. They don't think in terms of war but in terms of adventure. If I were a youngster with maybe not stellar prospects, not knowing what I wanted to do, then the military would definitely be a possibility. All I could see would be, "I want to be an airborne ranger."

There are many other questions that have to be answered for the military--the biggest one is that the Volunteer Army has been so sold as successful, that it is hard for the American public that cares to think in any other terms. And, we don't have the moral or political will to do what we ought; institute some sort of National Service. Until we have a crisis truly and another course has to be considered, we will continue on in what we're doing. And, the fact that we have almost no leaders, John McCain, an exception, even if he is somewhat tainted in my opinion, (We surely respect his POW time) not just because he is a Republican but has always been in an elite kind of category, i. e., his Dad/Grandfather were Admirals. I would be more impressed if his Dad/Grandfather were Sergeants.

Maybe one scenario is that if we were to get to the point of overwhelming crisis, repetitive tours that are intolerable, not enough enlistees, cannot afford the Volunteer Army, etc., then we might see another course of action, i. e., the draft.

And, let's don't forget patriotism and tradition for some of these kids: although maybe a small number but they're there: and, these kids who are serving are good soldiers from what I see. And, I for one, appreciate their sacrifice. In the long run, most of the kids who've chosen the military are going to feel that there service to the country, even in a sorry war, was worth it. They did something that many of their peers did not.

WAR DODGERS

When I was draft eligible, meaning 18-26, contending with the draft was simply a way of life. You couldn't do anything unless you figured it out. And, "draft dodging" could be a part of it. Most anybody who had the means and was smart could escape the draft: (at least for awhile) school deferment, married with children and naturally the classification of 4F which was a physical thing. And, the stories of how guys got 4F status are legion. It is hard to know how serious most of us took those who dodged the draft. In many ways, at the time, it was more power to them. From a philosophical standpoint, 40 years past Vietnam: we saw our duty and did it--at least it's what we tell our grand kids.

A new term has arrived on the scene; WAR DODGERS. What this means is soldiers who for whatever reason have come to believe the war in Iraq is not worth it. Or as one put it, when he was halfway into his second deployment, "This is what my buddies are dying for." Noway, he deserts. During Vietnam, Canada and Sweden were havens for draft dodgers and deserters. I had a little personal experience with Sweden.

When I was in Europe during the early seventies, I was in missile battalion and one of our officers was this fine, young West Point graduate. He had "orders" for Vietnam and since I was just back, wanted to talk about how I saw Vietnam and what was going on over there. We had a great talk. He asks probing questions and I tried to answer honestly, not supporting all we were doing but discussing the various party line at the time which I believed. We had a moral obligation to keep the North from taking over the South, had to stop communism, the domino theory. (at that time I didn't know enough or had not read enough to know about the corruptness of the South Vietnamese government or Hoi's determination to unite the country which was little related to communism and had to do mostly about nationalism. I only got this years later). The young Lieutenant stood up. Saluted, did an about face and promptly drove his MGB to Sweden where he asked for political asylum. From then on, it became a joke, "unless you want a guy to desert, don't send him to see the Chaplain."

Something is vastly wrong when you have the equivalent of an entire Division of soldiers deserting--since the war began, over 20,000. This may mean from being gone for 31 days which the military categorizes as desertion or forever. This is awful. And, another example of how everything about this war has been mismanaged.

AFFORDING THE VOLUNTEER ARMY

WHAT'S HAPPENING THESE DAYS WITH THE VOLUNTEER ARMY? For one thing, even the casual observer can tell you that they are to the wall: fighting two wars and political leadership that couldn't find their posterior in a snow storm.

A few things we know: the standards of education have been lowered and we have kids who have been given a pass as to felony arrests. This isn't to put these soldiers down--most perform well and who can be against giving some youngster another chance. However, the fact exists that most volunteers probably come from homes across America who are strugglng; kids who don't have lots of other options. I constantly read where a youngster will say about his reasoning for joining the military, "My parents couldn't afford to send me to college." I know several who are in this category. The very insightful book, AWOL spells this out.

We have an educated officer's corp by in large, to include graduates of the Service Academies (West Point, Annapolis, etc)for which we foot the bill. And, many of them immediately leave once thier obligation is up.

And, for those of us who care and have some knowledge, we applaud our Volunteer Army and the job they're doing which is fantastic. But, the elephant in the room always is the fact that so few Americans are truly invested in our fine young men and women soldiers. So, what can we say about American investment as a whole--yes, really great to support the troops but it is easier when we don't have "skin in the game." Hypocritical? We can't blame those who don't serve as we have a Volunteer Army that we have touted for years as being incredibly successful. Two wars have shown us that there are gigantic holes in the Voluntary Army philosophy, in addition to the fact that our kids who have the fewest options choose the military.

Over the years, I've writen hundreds of letters to politicians, various Captains of Industry with my idea of AllServe. Rarely have any of them responded. It is not politically feasible and they surely don't have the moral backbone. There's really nothing to be gained in what one of my friends called, "forced volunteerism."

We have 1.4 million active duty soldiers and another 1.26 million in the Reserves, including 456,000 in the National Guard. We have 47,000 American troops stationed in Japan, 37,500 in South Korea, and 116,400 on bases all across Europe. A more practical course is coming, I fear: we will be simply unable to financially afford a volunteer military.

UNIFORMS FOR ALL

I love San Francisco. I originally came out here in the Army in 83 and immediately fell head over hills in love with it. And, the love affair has never ended. However, like a marriage, I have to work on my love and keep it fresh. What invariably happens in marriages is that they become the OMC (old married couple) and the first thing you know, the marriage is headed South. It really is nobody's fault--in some ways, it is the culture. And, the thing that keeps a marriage from being repaired often is the denial process. Well, my love for San Fran does not overshadow the reality of the City. It is the epitome of the left coast and most here are proud of it. Over the years, the City (this is what San Franciscans like to call their town)has been politically wrestled from the Irish and Italians and mostly governed by a contingent of ultra left wingers.

This is a bit of an aside: how did San Francisco become San Francisco? First of all, every weird-do, whatever one's definition might be, in the world has showed up out here. I'm mainly talking about the so called homeless, those who more or less live on the streets, the mentally ill of various degrees, and an assortment of others like teenage run aways and left over hippies. Mind you, I don't view this as all negative. They've got to be somewhere. In some ways, it is what makes San Francisco what it is. And, there are some terrific social programs for those who will take advantage of them.

Here's a relevant question. Why do these marginalized types come to San Francisco? Well, it is a friendly and open and accepting place. And, the climate is tolerable for being outside--never really cold and never hot. And, in this town, part of the charm is that you can be just about anything you want to be. So, why not? And, those who govern the City are by in large, extreme, as compared to the rest of the country. This translates to "way out" only in San Francisco terms. Only Berzerkley exceeds the zaniness of San Francisco.

The flip side of the coin, however, is that it is the most beautiful place in the world. Surrounded on three sides by water. A sun, when it is out, that creates an ambiance of "God is in His heaven and all is right with the world." I have often said that if I ever cross the Golden Gate Bridge and am not awed by the beauty, I am leaving. Thus far, I am not even close.

Sorry to have gotten on this harangue. Sometimes I think that I'm the only moderate human in San Fran and then something happens and I discover there is at least one other following the Biblical admonition of the Apostle Paul of the New Testament and is "kicking against the pricks." The following letter is maybe the best comment that I've ever read on one of my favorite subjects, Community service (The Draft). God bless San Francisco and God bless America.



EDITOR, FAIRNESS WOULD INSIST THAT WE RELIEVE THE MISERY OF THE TROOPS SENT FOR MULTIPLE TOURS IN IRAQ BY CREATING A SOURCE OF FRESH TROOPS. RED MEAT CONSERVATIVES, WHO LIKE TO MAKE SUCH PATRIOTIC NOISE, NEED TO BE COMPELLED TO PUT THEIR BOOTS WHERE THEIR MOUTHS ARE. LIBERAL KIDS NEED TO SEE THAT VALUES ARE NOTHING WITHOUT SACRIFICE; IF THEY OPPOSE THE WAR, THEY NEED TO DO WHAT IT TAKES TO AVOID THE DRAFT AND FACE THE CONSEQUENCES. AND, WHILE THEY'D BE OF LITTLE REAL USE, FAIRNESS WOULD DICTATE THAT THE BUSH AND PELOSI CHILDREN SUIT UP. ONCE THEY'RE IN UNIFORM AND THEORETICALLY IN HARM'S WAY, IT'D BE A LOT HARDER FOR BUSH TO LIE AND PELOSI TO EQUIVOCATE ABOUT THIS WAR. ONCE THE HANDS OF THE MILITARY HAVE FINGERED ALL OF AMERICA'S YOUTH, ATTITUDES WOULD CERTAINLY BEGIN TO CHANGE. WITHOUT THE DRAFT, IT'S TOO EASY TO BE DISTRACTED.

Paul Tominac, San Francisco

BERZERKLY

WE DON'T CALL IT BERZERKLY FOR NOTHING
I was slightly fascinated in reading the news account of Berzerkly ordering the Marines out of town. What was equally interesting is one of the Code Pink protesters is 90. I was impressed, at least she is doing something.

I doubt if anybody with any real smarts or discernment is staying up nights worried about what Berzerkly does or does not do. They are only slightly ahead of San Fran who may eventually catch up. Aferall, Frisco has banned Junior ROTC from the schools. And, from all reports, it is without a doubt the most successful educational program the City has going. The schools are losing population constantly because of an insane school enrollment system (I only know what I've read).

However, we are chatting about Berzerkly here. Blaming the poor young Marines for the quagmire in Iraq is like calling your credit card company and blamng one of the lowly India types in Calcutta because your card was declined. Give me a break.

These young Marines, most probably Iraqi vets, are simply making it: some may even oppose the war, how it is prosecuted, whatever but more than likely, they're young kids who haven't given it much thought even while putting their lives on the line. This is a hell of a lot more than Berzerkelites have ever done.

And, they love being a Marine and want to convey the challenge to others and based on a few of the things that have happened in Berzerkly and neighboring Oakland, the murder capital of the U. S., a tour in the Marines might not be a bad thing. I guess the Berzerkly types had rather them smoke dope and bad mouth their country. If I were the Marines, I'd be happy to be away from the crazies. Sempi Fi.

SOLDIER TESTIMONY

Getting to know Christ in Vietnam is the greatest thing to ever happen in my life. I volunteered out of pure love for my country. Where else can an orphaned kid and High School drop out, end up working for the richest company in the world, serve with dedicated and decorated fellow paratroopers, have 4 Grand-kids, 2 daughters and one son, survive the Tet Offensive with 2 bullet holes in my steel pot and even have our own Arty dropped on me, fall into an uncapped well at Chu Chi, get shot at nearly every day and still live to tell about it all and then to still be able to thank God and still increasingly love God with all my heart, spirit, soul, feelings, emotions, subconscious, mind, will power, strength and intensity.

Only in America !!! Even with all our hangups, we are a blessed by God nation with limitless opportunity for even the poorest of the poor to succeed--I know as I used to have to sleep on other people's couches and even on the floor at foster homes. GOD BLESS ALL AND GOD BLESS AMERICA gp

Lions For Lambs

The movie, Lions and Lambs, spoke to me. Good ethereal movie! It had various stereotypes which were probably necessary to tell a story or to have a point or points of view. The usual implied stuff is there: bad intell that led us into Iraq; basically doing what the Preident wanted anyway, along with Rumsfelt, Pearl, Wofowitz; and, of course, no real consideration to what could happen and surely not an exit strategy. But, we know all this.

The movie is basically three stories and a little or a lot implausible--could this happen? There were no real heroes in Lions and Lambs other than the soldiers. Robert Redford, a college professor, (political science, I think) uses one of his disillusioned students to make his point. The disilusioned student is the prototype for the ipod or X generation.

Much of this seems contrived but for the purpose of the story is irrelevant to me. In the course of this amazing dialogue about all the issues of the war, we discover that Redford is himself a Vietnam vet and yet became a "John Kerry" type after the war, i. e. antiwar.

Two minority students from his class decide that they can make a difference but only in being directly involved; by serving--in this case, the military. Redford's character is taken aback because this is not what he intended. What makes it a little, "come on" is the idea that two minority students would opt once they are already in college, some place like UC, Berzerkerly, to go into Special Forces and suffer all that just to make a point. I don't think so. But, this was the movies and they can make anything happen they want too. The movie is done in many flashbacks, one being where the two minority students are making a presentation in the class. The class has to be about making a difference in society. They actually present my idea of National Service.

The politician, played by Tom Cruise, was really a stereotype of someone like, choose any: bombastic, a world view that is meddling in other countries, the cliches, etc.; didn't give one much confidence in politicians or politics, even if we needed any encouragement to think they were self serving.

The soldiers were part of a small A Team of Special Forces soldiers which represented a supposely new strategy in Afghanistan, fight and operate in small groups and be a force. This was a strategy that the Senator, a West Point graduate, finished 1st in his class, helped develop. A concept, which, by the way, we used in Vietnam. And, I believe would have worked there had we not introduced conventional forces into the mix--might work in Afghanistan or Iraq if we were willing to stay there for years and years, which we aren't.

The soldiers died, ran out of ammo as they were fighting the Taliban, we assume. It didn't seem that they had much ammo, no grenades, anything like that. Actually, they had fallen out of the back of a hook, close to the ground when it took fire and turned around, thus leaving them on the ground.

The critics panned it and I can understand but I don't think they saw the larger picture. One critic called the movie a "talkathon" and it is mostly. However, I think critics are jaded themselves mostly and have lost their sense of seeing soemting for its greater good. (I saw August Rush and loved it. Now, this is an implausible movie but you shoudl take your grandchildren).

I think the most striking thing to me had to do with the concept of those whom this country has given the least are in fact those most willing to serve, i. e, at least as this movie portrayed it. But, too, I think that it is much of the Volunteer Army concept even if soldiers are serving for different reasons.

Also, what is equally interesting to me is why the war movies aren't doing any better at the box-office and not just the Iraq ones: even Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima, didn't do well. Americans or those who ordinarily give a whit, maybe tired of war, uninterested, uninvested, adinfinitum.

I think that what we are seeing or beginning to see are the early stages of the same things that Vietnam vets saw. There is already an apathy out there. I see it with comments from soldiers. Let's face it, people in America have little interest in hearing soldiers experiences. And, the few Iraqi vets that I've talked too seem to feel that since there is little sacrifice in America, this adds to the lack of interest. I think so but the soldies don't really objectively know this, simply they think it which is equally important. And, now, of course, the poor attendance at the war movies bear this out.

There's only so much to be said. But, still, these guys, like us, have participated in the event of their lives and they'd like folks to be interested. Even to see the movies. With the exception of one I haven't seen, Redacted, which is the first movie that is critical of soldiers, at least I hear it is. Bill O'Reilley, supposedly railed against it.

To be honest, I don't know: when I've tried to engage people about Iraq, not much traction. What most don't get either for us or for Iraqi vets, the war doesn't end when someone comes home. God bless them.

HYPOCRISY

Thanksgiving morning, I was following my yearly tradition of watching the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade and as an introduction there were several stories about the troops, to include greetings from them to their families back home. I was moved. In watching those youngsters say how they missed home, my first thought: amazing the sacrifices of these kids. One white soldier reached over and put his arm around an African American and said, "This is my family now."

This war has divided our nation and surfaced what I view as a kind of benign hypocrisy. It is easy to support the troops when we are so little involved. As I watched those kids, it was obvious to me that they are from struggling families across America, many single parents and lots of female soldiers. To confirm my view, I goggled the demographics of the Army and came up with all sorts of stuff. There were a couple of articles by some guy who is in the politician mode. If asked a question a politico doesn't want, he/she will choose to answer the question he wished they'd asked. For this guy, he used statistics to bolster his claim of how well the Volunteer Army has worked to include why the draft was so awful.

And, as all of us know, you can do anything with statistics you want. My counter to the argument is very simple and illustrated by a guy I don't even like (nothing personal) all that much but his last movie, Sicko, illustrates a point: Regardless of what you think about him or our health care system, we cannot deny that there are 45-50 million Americans who don't have health insurance. The same with the Volunteer Army--it works, relatively speaking. (We don't truly know if Iraq lasts for ten years) Like, Sicko, however, we can say we support the troops until the cows come home, but the fact exists that only a small portion of Americans make the sacrifices of war by serving in the military.

WHAT WAR?

When the Iraq war was in its infancy and we were thinking we'd be out of there as soon as the parade was over, a few of us thought naively that based on the good we'd done, we could put aside our earlier misgivings. Forget it.

Now, we find ourselves heading toward five years with no end in sight and here come the movies. This is really amazing. The war is still going on and we have all sorts of ink which is a little more acceptable than movies, yet baffling to those of us who tried to publish Vietnam stories for years to no avail. It was years before the writing market opened up and Vietnam didn't find any real movie audience before 78 or 79; first came Deer Hunter and the satire, Apocalypse Now.

SPATE OF NEW MOVIES

I guess it's a sign of the times. There's already been a slew of documentaries and I just saw one on HBO hosted by Tony Soprano--heart rendering about wounded Iraqi vets. Later on this year comes a movie about the rape of a 14 year old by American soldiers. Who's going to want to see this movie? Muslims?

I doubt the new movies will look favorably at our involvement in Iraq. Robert Redford, both writer and actor in one of the coming attractions, Lions For Lambs, hardly will. From what I've read, his movie wants to give movie goers a chance to engage in dialogue. OK!

Another one has to do with FBI counter terrorism unit called The Kingdom and then there is one starring John Cusack as a stay at home spouse whose wife goes to war and doesn't come back. Now, that is going to drive you to the movies.

SHOW ME THE MONEY

Hollywood has to do with money, always and I think there's something else, actors who have a name like Redford, often like to make movies with a message.

I'm still a little in doubt about it all. My real feeling is that these movies are not going to do very well overall. I'm not sure that people want to engage viscerally on Iraq--it is not like it is ended and the movies can paint a picture of what happened or can be. We don't know yet.

ENTERTAINMENT VS REALITY

Movie goers want to be entertained not beat up with reality. Going to the movies for entertainment and getting political statements, I don't know. We have some past evidence: I saw Flight 93, which I thought was super but it was not very popular. Clint's Letters from Iwo and Flags of Our Fathers didn't knock anybody's financial socks off. And, even now, Ken Burns is getting beaucoup face time for his upcoming, The War. Maybe, enough already.

I think most of Hollywood is pretty much anti the president and will probably try to convey the war as Bush's war. And, using such a movie as a way to protest or as Redford claims, maybe to educate, might be over reaching. Whether or not movie goers will go for it, we'll have to wait and see. Watching the Iraqi war as a movie seems a little unseemly. Out of every war comes thousands and thousands of stories, most untold. But, to try to tell even a few of them while the real thing is happening seems somewhat misplaced. We don't have to see a movie about Iraq. The tragedy of it is right in front of us.

OUTSOURCED THE WAR

It took Doonesbury to help me grasp a concept. With most Americans having no "skin" in the game in terms of the war in Iraq and what I believe to be feigned interest, Doonesbury came up with this statement, "emotionally, we outsourced this war--to a professional class that mainstream America has almost no contact with!"

The comic strip is a takeoff on one of the characters who happens to be in Iraq and is questioning the support at home. The players in the Doonesbury strip are dialoging over how to say yes, you are supported when they don't understand or believe.

One comes up with a way to at least let the soldier know they're thinking about him; give him some medals. This is the cruel joke: soldiers get medals for achievement, bravery, for serving. These characters in Doonesbury know nothing about the military as they are the mainstream who have outsourced the war.

From a comic strip comes this great and sad truism.

THE BEST WAY FOR US TO SUPPORT OUR TROOPS IS FOR ALL TO SERVE

Recently, I met with a book club to dialogue about my book, Gun Totin' Chaplain. This is the first book club I've done face to face. I had done a few on speaker phone. Lots of fun but nothing like this one. Absolutely delightful.

Most writers who have penned something they feel noteworthy and with a message, are thrilled beyond means when it is actually read. It was read totally with this group. They asked penetrating questions about some of the things I'd said in the book; they wanted to understand what motivated me to go to war when I didn't have too. Did I achieve my goals? Did I think that the church condoned war.

The questions went on and on--we all determined that war is awful and yet while admitting that fact, accepted the premise that most Americans are untouched by our present conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And, then we started on my favorite subject: AllServe. Would these mothers be willing for their children to serve our great country for 18-24 months if their children had a choice in what and how they would serve, i. e. Peace Corp, Teach America, Habitat for Humanity, Americorps, military or designed their own. Since they had read about the idea in Gun Totin' Chaplain, they understood the concept. Absolutely they were willing for their children to serve.

The session ended with them giving me a cake they had made with AllServe on it. This has spurred me renew my letter and email writing campaign. I'm going to start with Paul Soris and Warren Buffet. These two guys are naturals to me. They've got more money than God and they are willing to give it away (Everybody and his brother's writing them a letter asking for money I'm sure). Plus, it appears that they want to leave some sort of legacy. What greater one than something like a national policy of AllServe.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that we don't have the political will to make choices for the greater good which AllServe is. However, the will to make AllServe a reality sparks a "hope springs eternal" commitment in me. The time is now.

WHAT ABOUT A REAL CHALLENGE?

The Military. No, this is not a recruiting comment but a reaction to a book I recently read: The Trap. The thesis is that educated young people have practically no choice but to go into the corporate world and become everything they hate. What about an alternate, some kind of National Service. Why couldn't they do it. Well, according to this book, they could but won't: they want a lifestyle that working in corporate America would afford them while inwardly wishing they could pursue some altruistic course.

The book to me is almost beside the point but a realization that there are scores of young people out there who don't even consider they have a choice. WHY? The reasons are many. My personal favorite is that most of us need a push to do the right thing. National Service would need a push. Lamentably, based on the performance of our Congress in the last several years of both parties, this a far fetched hoped.

Some of these upper middle class kids do obviously choose a different course based on the statistics that come from nonprofits like Teach America. But, there's not enough of them. If National Service was a requirement, it would be a kind of forced volunteerism and why not? For all the benefits of being an American, why not have to give back from 18 months to two years in some kind of National Service: Peace Corps, Teach America, Habitat for Humanity, anything they might design and God forbid, even the military could be a choice.

One fascinating thing about The Trap is the fact that it is written by a twenty something. He's a good writer and has good ideas but imagine what a different book he might have written, had he served a tour in the Marines.

The King is Dead

One problem in our culture today is that Americans don't have a shared experience. There was a time when you could go into any bar or Church and say, "When I was in the Army (Navy, whatever) and there would be instant rapport. Most of it was positive and vets love to tell about their experiences/war stories. However, few Americans have military experience today and this is sad.

Here's a posting of exactly what I mean: 30 years ago today was my first day of Navy boot camp...time flies. I remember in August of 1977 while in boot camp my company commander (Freed was his name...never smiled-he was gung-ho), walked into our barrack and the only thing he said was "the King is dead" and walked out. We all kind of looked at each other dumbfounded...found out later it was Elvis Presley....we got a big laugh out of it!!!!