A conversation in Bagram, Afghanistan
DATELINE: Bagram Air Force Base, Afghanistan November 9, 2007
Yesterday in Afghanistan an Air Force lieutenant colonel and I started one of those “well I don’t know anybody and I’ve got to waste some time” chats. We were in the midst of a large crowd –a whole lot of chatting going on about life back in Kansas and how great it is in California. I could tell the man was tired. We talked for a bit, about Texas, about the Air Force. Then the momentum shifted, you know, when eyes connect and a bit of soul is exchanged. He started telling. He told me what he was seeing in combat — lots of action in the Himalayas, in the passes, airstrikes everyday on active Taliban. He’d put bombs on target –danger close missions with US infantry in contact– and he’d used his gun in strafing attacks, a Strike Eagle airman’s means of direct action. But it was getting to him, be said, the relentlessness. He’d fly a mission, get hits, lots of hits, successful strikes in the jargon, but the next day there’d be another mission and more of these thugs on the ground. What more can I do? When and how’s it going to end? The American people, how long can they keep it up, sustain this war?
“You’re tired,” I said.
He nodded, a brief nod.
Then I told him there was no choice. There are those bearing the burden — for example, him– and those who don’t. Unfortunately, with a few stellar, brave exceptions, only the US military has shown up for this war, and you’re one of those who’ve shown up and shown up again. But show me the alternative? You show me the alternative, given our circumstances, and we will do it. But consider our circumstances, our planetary circumstances. Afghanistan is a desperate, dusty hellhole with altitude, poverty, and little else. An Afghani expatriate –an LA millionaire in the engineering business who went back as a translator in 2005– told me that his “old country had been poor but beautiful until 1973. ‘73– that’s when the civil war started. Thirty years of war — the worst courtesy of the Russians and the Taliban– had savaged the place. You know, ash and dust. Now, once upon a time we could ignore those suffering in the planet’s hard corners. Oh, we could send them a few bucks and the Lefties could bitch about colonialism and capitalism but the hard corners were isolated. A threat to security? Only nuns and missionaries and you are your brothers keeper types thought so. Well guess what — the nuns were right. 9/11 changed that deceptive calculus. Distance? Colonel, there isn’t any distance. We learned that the destruction of New York and Washington started in the backwaters, of Afghanistan, of Somalia. Technology has done it. We can’t escape one another, for good and for bad. Jet transports, like the ones out on the runway at Bagram, put you on the other side of the globe in 14 hours. The internet doesn’t require description. East Asia shares diseases with Africa within days, if not hours. And special weapons? Nukes and nerve gas make every tribal war an international crisis. Goodbye Tokyo, Moscow, or Miami– because a sophisticated tribesman at war with his eternally despised neighbor decides that demolishing the global economy would make everyone pay attention to his neglected, forgotten grievance. Tyrannies keep breeding this insanity. The only solution is consensus, wealth-producing societies, where everyone gets a say and everyone has a buy-in. If it sounds like democracy then call it that. It’s sustainable stability, ever evolving sustainable stability when people police terrorists and don’t promote them. That’s a long struggle, and struggle may be a more apt word than war. But achieving it is so difficult. It takes more than military power, we know that. he politics and economics will be decisive, but as long as the thugs are willing to kill we must fight. Is there a substitute for courage? If there is, show it to me.
He looked at me, the dreadful nearness of it.
It’s on us, man, I continued. And I don’t like it. I didn’t like it during the Cold War. Remember 1983? The same creeps who’ve quit now, quit then. Reagan was a warmonger, going to start a nuclear war in Europe my responding to the Soviets deployment of theater nuclear missiles. The defeatists said the Cold War was our fault, we were the threat. Then the Berlin Wall cracked and that jackass calumny disappeared as Marxism’s Eastern European wreckage emerged in drab, polluted, horrifying, undeniable color.
This war follows the same arc, with the same defeatists adding new nouns to old verbs and adjectives. But it’s a war of liberty versus tyranny and they’re shilling for the tyrants.
It doesn’t matter if you and I don’t like it. We know the stakes. Here’s one of the ultimate “it doesn’t matter if you don’t like it” stories. I was in graduate school at Columbia in the early 80s. I took several German lit classes taught by the former department chairman, Mrs. Halpert. In several of the classes we had an auditor. He was an American millionaire who went by Fred and sometimes Fritz. In September 1939 when the Nazis invaded Poland he was 19 and in the Polish Army. Poland was defeated, beat to hell. Fritz (”I sometimes go by Fred”) slipped out of Poland via Hungary and made it to Great Britain. In Britain he joined the revived Polish army — the free Polish Army. In 1944 he returned to Europe in the Polish armored division armed by the British, serving in the division’s armored recon battalion. After the war ended he returned to Poland, but in 1948 left after the Communists took over. The man lost his country, twice, once to Hitler and the second time to Stalin. He took up permanent residence in the US and ended up making a lot of money– but he was still waiting, persevering in his own quiet, able way. He took German lit classes as a lark. Dr. Halpert let me and did so gladly. See, Dr. Halpert and her mother were German Jews — Berlin Jews– who escaped in 1940 on the last boat out. She also lost her country to Hitler, albeit in a different way. Fritz the Pole was a hero she understood — a man of her own generation who could audit her class anytime. I was 28 and in grad school after a four and a half year gig in the Army. Over a cup of tea in the West End Cafe, Fritz told me that I was the only student in the class who understood them both. he others? “Maybe some day they will understand,” Fritz said with a wink.
Now that’s a burden nobody wants but Fritz got, I told the fighter-pilot. I think about him and Dr Halpert every time I think we’ve got it tough. Beating Hitler took six years (39 to 45) and beating the Communists took another 34 (45 to 89). Was it worth it?
I don’t draw a direct comparison between the War on Terror and the Cold War, but they are both nasty, heavy, unwanted burdens. If anything, the War on Terror is more intricate. Right here at Bagram — dozens of fighters, lots of transports. transports– this is a war of economic development, of economic connectivity. What a complicated task. But given the technological compression of the planet, can we quit?
The fighter pilot crooked his finger and said to me “Come here.”
We left the big metal building and the crowd and walked across the street toward the control tower. On the way to the tower he said “You went on active duty in Iraq a couple of years ago didn’t you?”
“Yes,” I replied.
We went into the control tower, a squat Soviet artifact slapped with thick white paint bristling with au courant American electronics. We went up to the second floor. In the staircase the fighter pilot said “We’ve a sign in the squadron that says “The mission, fuckhead, is supporting the 18 year old with the rifle.” We know that we’re here to put bombs on bad guys so they don’t kill American soldiers.”
That sign wasn’t on the door but then we were entering a staff office, not the squadron headquarters.
On the desk was a picture of a young US Army second lieutenant. The pilot picked it up. “That’s my son. He just finished armor officers basic.”
I recognized the patch on the young man’s shoulder. Thirty years ago I served in the same division.
“Some day I may be flying strikes to support my son,” the pilot said, his voice soft steel.
I choked up. So did he.
“Thank you for what you do,” I said. “And for producing a son like that.”
We tracked back down the stair case and into the dust caked street.
“You ever fly in an F-15?” the pilot asked.
“No, but I’d like to.”
“Next year, back in North Carolina. You get to North Carolina and we’ll see if we can get you on a plane. I just want you to tell my squadron what you just told me.”
“The Columbia German class story?”
“The whole thing,” he said. “The whole thing.”
“You got a deal,” I replied.
Austin, You and I both know some Beltway Clerk wannabes who could profit from that discussion! If you see the good Col. again, give him our best. And his son.
Comment by AF Dad — 11/10/2007 @ 6:03 pm
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 11/10/2007 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention updated throughout the day…so check back often. This is a weekend edition so updates are as time and family permits.
Comment by David M — 11/10/2007 @ 6:36 pm
“The mission, fuckhead, is supporting the 18 year old with the rifle.†Inspired.
Comment by sherlock — 11/10/2007 @ 7:22 pm
Maybe, and I mean Maybe, a heavier hand is needed. Recently, there has been all sorts of talk about how we need political solutions to the Islamofascist threat. I’m not so sure there are any political solutions to this threat. I suspect that the only thing that drives the point home to the populations of Southern and Southwestern Asia is to make association with the likes of the Taliban or AQ an unacceptable burden. I don’t think we’ll ever make them like us, but I think we can make them so damn scared of us that they’d fight their own tooth and nail to keep them from attracting our attention. I lean toward Machiavelli and remember that while it is best to be both loved and feared, it is better to be feared than loved if one must choose between the two…at least in statecraft.
Comment by Mark Stewart — 11/10/2007 @ 8:00 pm
The Columbia German class story is great. When I was in high school in the 1980s, my high school was run by Piarist priests who had either escaped from, or been thrown out of, communist Hungary. My senior homeroom priest had successfully escaped over the border to Austria, snuck back into Hungary, then was caught trying to re-escape to Austria. He was imprisoned & then the 1956 Hungarian Revolution took place. He escaped from prison, then over the border again to Austria for good. Our headmaster had been plucked from seminary into the communist Hungarian army, where he was punished ever time his commanders found the tiny Bible he had. Another teacher (layman), was in 1st grade at the time of the Hungarian Revolution. His parents made the split-second decision to flee. While trying to cross the border at night into Austria, the entire family was caught, but one of the border guards must have taken pity on them, as he put them in a room with a door to the outside left ajar. They went out the door & made it over the border to Austria. At my high school, we knew who the totalitarians really were, and many of us were reminded every day just by the presence of our teachers of how lucky were were to be free Americans.
Comment by George S. — 11/10/2007 @ 10:55 pm
[…] on this remembrance of Veterans Day, please also read Austin Bay… […]
Pingback by LeatherPenguin » Semper Fidelis — 11/11/2007 @ 12:51 am
Thank you. I am sitting in my daughter’s kitchen right now, and her husband has been in Iraq for 11 months. He served in the Gulf (Navy) during “peace time” and now he is back there again. He sees himself as one protecting the innocent from those who would kill civilians for belonging to the wrong Islamic sect or religion. We are proud of him and his men. Some people know that a philosophy that justifies blowing up malls and airliners, or bombing markets, or shooting doctors and patients in hospitals, all in the name of their future utopia (whether it be the Thrid Reich, Communism, or the Caliphate) need to be opposed. Isn’t it ironic that the deliberate killing of the innocent is ignored while anything that blackens the reputation of America’s soldiers is headlined? But this isn’t new…I was a missionary in Africa in the 1980’s, the Europeans hated Regan with a passion…while lauding the “liberation” by murderous communist groups in a dozen countries. And, ironically, the same type who funded the “freedom fighters” who shot 37 of my fellow doctors, nurses and teachers are the same type who oppose the present war…
Comment by Boinkie — 11/11/2007 @ 6:42 am
Another reminder of the ‘why’. Remember the mission. And, thank you.
Comment by ML — 11/11/2007 @ 6:50 am
You think the conversation would have been in substance much different at a Mile Fort along Hadrian’s Wall or along the Limes in Central Europe after a particularly bad series of seasons dealing with unrelenting probing and raids by Picts and Germans? There at the edge they see, smell, feel the darkness that threatens to envelope all. They understood. Meanwhile, back in Rome, they posture, preen, position, and back stab for pathetic games of power. Yep, history doesn’t exactly repeat itself, but human behavior seem rather damn consistent.
Comment by Don — 11/11/2007 @ 7:21 am
Rantburg.com has linked to this. Remembering all on Veteran’s Day, thank you for your service Frank G
Comment by Frank G — 11/11/2007 @ 7:47 am
Austin, that’s some of the best writing I’ve seen in quite a while. Thanks for sharing.
Comment by SWLiP — 11/11/2007 @ 7:53 am
Thanks for that. God bless that Colonel and his son and all who wear the uniform to protect this country.
Comment by kstills — 11/11/2007 @ 8:20 am
[…] essays for this day, the eleventh day of the elevenths month: First - Austin Bay and second, my own reminiscence of my great-uncle William • General • Ain’t That […]
Pingback by The Daily Brief: Military Musings and Thoughts Less Filtered » Memorial Day Links — 11/11/2007 @ 8:26 am
Thank you for saying this in a way that escapes most of us. I’ve been trying to explain this to the civilians for years and I feel like my words bounce off of most of them. I felt like saying “Amen” at the end.
Comment by cargosquid — 11/11/2007 @ 8:32 am
Thank you for posting this on Rememberance Day. I stood at our local memorial at 11am and thought of all the people who had died for my freedoms. I also remembered those fighting now. Thank You All.
Comment by Tony (UK) — 11/11/2007 @ 9:06 am
Great piece, Austin. One of the most irritating things is that so many of the quitters and defeatists during the Cold War later claimed that they had always been signed on for the big win. The best example is the senior senator from the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, a man who actually played footsie with the Russians trying to undermine the Reagan Administration’s foreign policy. If there is any justice, history will judge him very harshly, and the present day defeatists as well.
Comment by Rich — 11/11/2007 @ 9:06 am
[…] This guy - the Bagram-based Strike Eagle pilot with the son who just finished armor officer’s basic - he might be a good guy to start with. […]
Pingback by A good day to find someone and say, “Thanks” — 11/11/2007 @ 9:13 am
Just a thought, but maybe if we had finished the job in Afghanistan before rushing into Iraq, which wasn’t a threat at the time, although it certainly is now, then the Lt. Col. wouldn’t be flying so many missions against a resurgent Taliban. But identifying threats and figuring out the best way to deal with them is the typical “leftist” and “defeatist” attitude.
Comment by RJG — 11/11/2007 @ 9:42 am
Thank you, both for the post and for your service. That is the single clearest explanation of the WOT I have ever seen.
Comment by Matt — 11/11/2007 @ 10:07 am
Remember 1983? Do you remember the Marshall Plan? You may find it politically convenient to rewrite history and portray Reagan as the mighty hero who singlehandedly crushed the Soviets, but those of us who actually lived through it understand that the Soviets were contained by a sustained national effort that spanned a generation. Designed and supported largely by liberals and Democrats. Simply put, we outproduced them. That had little to do with Reagan. That was us. Take a bow, friends. The same creeps who’ve quit now, quit then. Reagan was a warmonger, going to start a nuclear war in Europe my [sic] responding to the Soviets [sic] deployment of theater nuclear missiles. This is profoundly dishonest. Who “quit then”? No one. There was plenty of debate about the wisdom of the Reagan strategy (how is that Star Wars missile defense thing going, by the way?) because a free and open debate is the hallmark of a liberal democracy. No one suggested “quitting”. Who is proposing to “quit now” in Afghanistan? No one. But you need an internal enemy to account for the failures of leadership. Creeps, huh?
Comment by Benny — 11/11/2007 @ 10:29 am
God bless the U.S. military, not only on Veterans Day but all days past, present, and future.
Comment by Aaron — 11/11/2007 @ 10:46 am
Sir, I served briefly and without distinction. However, in my on way I continue to serve our country by trying to be an informed and dedicated citizen. As such, I must say we love, and support, those serving now and then. My respects to those you have spoken to and will speak to in the future. Please pass my admiration and love to my soldiers. Jeff Riemersma Texas
Comment by Jeff Riemersma — 11/11/2007 @ 10:54 am
Thank you for presenting this story, and the ones past and the ones future. Thank you for your service, the Lt Col’s and his ilk (son certainly included). Hurrah! It’s a teary-eyed story, spine stiffening too, and right on point. Thank you for understanding that the point will have to be made endlessly. Thank you for your part in understanding your voice is like a heart-beat, and bearing the burden of beating.
Comment by BruceT — 11/11/2007 @ 11:18 am
“I eat breakfast 300 yards away from 4,000 cubans trained to kill me.”
Comment by Somebody — 11/11/2007 @ 11:20 am
Thank you Austin. Sincerely. As for Benny and his “Remember 1983″ comments. The Cold War spanned two generations. The first, as represented by Truman, Eishenhower and JFK was fought by a UNITED States of America. I was at University in the early 80s - Ann Arbor - when the second generation of the Cold War was clearly divided. Yes - you really did try to surrender. Yes, I was in the minority on campus protesting against those who decried the entire concept of the Cold War. When I worked in favor of “Solidarity” - remember that? - I was shouted at by those who wante us to just leave the USSR alone, we were wrong to despise such a great nation. Reading the book “1984″, I was never so frightened of Big Brother as I was of the “Ministry of Truth”. Methinks Benny provides a perfect example of why.
Comment by DPR — 11/11/2007 @ 11:25 am
Benny, Since you want names, here they are. In Paul Kengor’s book on Reagan, he reproduces a document from the Soviet archives that shows Teddy Kennedy contacting Gorbachev, with the aim of working with him to undermine Reagan’s “warmongering” policies. The document has been authenticated. That is not quitting, nor is it debate; it is treason. As for current quitters, John Edwards has called the “War on Terror” nothing but a “bumper sticker.” Likewise Nancy Pelosi can’t even describe this as a war. Some of the more left wing Democrats have called for withdrawal from Afghanistan as well. Three weeks into Afghanistan, the late R.W. Apple was already using the word “quagmire.” Too many Democrats want simply to issue indictments and entrust such ugly matters to the judicial system. This was precisely the kind of attitude that got us to 9/11. I call that quitting.
Comment by Rich — 11/11/2007 @ 11:44 am
Sad thing is, the real totalitarians were supported in spirt by many in the West, especially by the left via pres, print, and film!
Comment by Dale Michaud — 11/11/2007 @ 11:54 am
Welcome back, Col. Bay. I’d assumed you’d decided to hang up blogging.
Comment by bristlecone — 11/11/2007 @ 12:02 pm
Colonel Bay, this was an amazing piece of writing. Thank you. Thank the AF Lt. Col., his son and everyone else serving as well. I’m forwarding this to my father who was in the Air Force for 20 year and served in Vietnam, he’ll appreciate it. Jan Bussey
Comment by jan — 11/11/2007 @ 1:00 pm
[…] Austin Bay: It’s on us, man, I continued. And I don’t like it. I didn’t like it during the Cold War. Remember 1983? The same creeps who’ve quit now, quit then. Reagan was a warmonger, going to start a nuclear war in Europe by responding to the Soviets deployment of theater nuclear missiles. The defeatists said the Cold War was our fault, we were the threat. Then the Berlin Wall cracked and that jackass calumny disappeared as Marxism’s Eastern European wreckage emerged in drab, polluted, horrifying, undeniable color. […]
Pingback by ricketyclick » Blog Archive » The Mission — 11/11/2007 @ 1:14 pm
Thank you - on Veteran’s Day and everyday - thank you for what you do. Our country would not be what it is today — in fact, it might not BE at all — if not for men and women like you who protect and defend her. I am indebted to you! God bless.
Comment by StarCMC — 11/11/2007 @ 2:04 pm
Very nicely put. Sometimes the essential jobs are dirty, and it comes down to one group of people–if they don’t do the dirty essential work, it won’t get done. Meanwhile on the home front, as in ancient Rome, the backstabbing proceeds apace.
Comment by Al Fin — 11/11/2007 @ 2:26 pm
Thanks for this, Col. Bay. Best thing on the GWOT I’ve read lately, perhaps ever.
Comment by Buck — 11/11/2007 @ 2:49 pm
[…] - David Cameron, Sunday Telegraph Two Lives Blurred Together by a Photo - Luis Sinco, LA Times A Conversation in Bagram, Afghanistan - Austin Bay, Austin Bay Blog The Coup at Home - Frank Rich, New York Times Blair, Bush Not to […]
Pingback by McLean County Pundit — 11/11/2007 @ 3:49 pm
Thanks, Col. Bay for the story. Always amazes me that our country produces men like you and the AF pilot and his son when they are needed. There exists, thank God, a small class of warrior intellectuals who lead, and a bigger class of patriots who follow, when our country is threatened. I’m proud of you all. You’re my heros. Thank you for your service, and your courage. Frankly, the liberals will never get it. We honor warriors because we see the world as it has always been, still is, and will forever be, the other side only as it ought to be, but never was. BTW, as one Columbia alum to another, “Roar, Lions, Roar”. Thankfully the Upper West Side of Manhattan isn’t representative of the best of our country. You are.
Comment by Herbert Rubin, M.D. — 11/11/2007 @ 5:08 pm
Good to see the truth can still sting you a bit. DPR, some college leftist in Michigan called you mean names 20 years ago and it’s proof that I personally surrendered the nation to the Soviets? Wow. I didn’t realize I was responsible for every whackjob opinion on the left side of the spectrum. I assume you are equally responsible for every whackjob opinion on the right? Rich, I’m not overly familiar with the collected works of Ted Kennedy, but if you want to get into article3, section 2, you might want to first google the phrase “arms for hostages”. As for the “War on Terror”, it’s about as accurate a phrase as the “War on Drugs”. Or the “War on Tooth Decay”, for that matter. It’s not rocket science to recognize that one cannot effectively declare war on a tactic. That’s just reality. It’s rather sad that you think bringing terrorists to justice is “quitting”. We need to collectively work around the world to bring terrorists to justice, to deny them the support they need to continue to operate, and to discourage potential terrorists from turning to violence against the innocent. Frankly, you aren’t helping. We disagreed about how best to contain Communism (as it turns out, the liberal Democratic containment policy was exactly the right thing to do). We disagree about how best to eliminate terrorism. Accusing the people who disagree with you of being disloyal or “surrendering” … you should be ashamed. What’s next? I’m unAmerican because I want universal health care?
Comment by Benny — 11/11/2007 @ 5:58 pm
Benny, “We disagreed about how best to contain Communism (as it turns out, the liberal Democratic containment policy was exactly the right thing to do).” Was it the Johnson, Carter or Clinton containment policy (political parties don’t have policies–presidents do) that was most successful? UFB.
Comment by horatio — 11/11/2007 @ 6:43 pm
[…] second comment was made in response to an excellent post by Austin Bay (which I highly recommend) by this lady who goes on to say: But this isn’t new…I was a […]
Pingback by A Contrast in Comments at FauxNEWS — 11/11/2007 @ 7:29 pm
I was hoping that we would have learned our lesson, fighting on two fronts, the politicians here and Vietnam there. Now it has happened a second time, and I am here instead of there (Afghanistan, Iraq). I cannot believe the stupidity and lack of support for our troups from here………….
Comment by LCDR Ron, USN Retired — 11/11/2007 @ 7:45 pm
[…] Go read the rest. H/T to Lex for finding this gem. […]
Pingback by The War in a Nutshell — 11/11/2007 @ 8:27 pm
Viet Nam vet and father of a Daughter in Tikrit whose husband just got back from Diyala. We will ever have to put of with fools like benny. For them it always breaks down to their partisinship…not their country. That’s all right…as long as we keep producing patriots like the Lt.Col., his son, my daughter, her husband and tens of thousands of War Fighters this country will continue to be the “Shining City on the Hill. In spite off little weasles who come on to Military blogs on Veterans day and want to talk about their party…not the Veterans who keep them free or their Country that offers them the opportunity to be so defeatist during time of War. Our War Fighters fight to preserve a way of life…that benny has the freedom to be an ass is a spin off. “…a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.” JSM JC Dugger
Comment by JC Dugger — 11/12/2007 @ 12:27 am
Can’t say I disagree with any of this, but if you’d been incessantly chattering in my grill like you say you did to this patience-of-Job pilot about a bunch of things he knew at least as well as you, I’d have gaffed you off and found something better to do with my time.
Comment by Dave in VA — 11/12/2007 @ 6:16 am
First, it was the Russian gettting bogged down and ultimately abandoning Afghanistan that had as much to do with “winning the cold war” as any sabre-rattling or other manly posturing by Saint Ronald. Second, I would really like to have someone provide me with one actual quote of a person saying that the “war on terrosim” requires a political solution. This is the ultimate straw man and mixing of metaphors that has been foisted upon the public. The actual “war” in Iraq is not something that we can win or lose. Please tell when we have arrived at victory? Will there be a “truce” with anyone? Will our “enemy” lie prostrate and admit defeat unconditionally? And even more importantly, please define our actual enemy in Iraq (and even more importantly, how that enemy has anything to do with this so-called “war on terrorism”? I will speak slowly: The “war” in Iraq is between the actual Iraqis themselves and we stand around as easy targets for all of the many sides in that skirmish. This actual war will not be decided on the battlefield by Americans, but only by a political solution adopted by the Iraqis themselves. (Interesting bonus side point–the much touted and beloved Kurds have now been unleashed by our “victory” to “fight for their freedom” in neighboring countries, one of which used to be our close ally, viz. Turkey. So who do we support–Turkey (oppressing the Kurdish people as Saddam did once before) or the Kurds, who in any conservatives dictionary would be defined as “terrorists” undermining the sovereignty of estatblished governments. Now to the real crux of the matter: There can be no “war” against the lawless behavior of “terrorists” or extremists, for the very reason that there is no state, there is no cohesive enemy. It would be pretty and easy to think otherwise, but this whole “war” metaphor is simply a pretext for the rape of our constitution, which as individual citizens is our only protection against the actions of the state. Certainly, when the enemy arrives at our doorstep, I say confront that enemy with every appropriate tool and method. But to think that a small cadre of fanatical individuals with no concern for their own lives can be affected by a military solution is simply crazy and irresponsible. The only victory is such a war (on a military basis) is the total annihilation of such an enemy. Is that practical or even possible? Please show me how. Because unless you kill every terrorist and every family member and every remote relative and all of their children and their children’s children, I do not think you will be able to declare victory. And thus we have arrived at the real “post modern” era in which there can only be an endless glorious conflagration and all freedom, liberty and justice become subordinated to the impossible victory in such a war, a victory that is glorious precisely because it is unattainable and remains as the constant horizon against which all other activity is seen. And if you aren’t with us, you are against us, in body and mind. So watch what you think (you know I probably underestimated those that require elimination, because certainly anyone with doubt or a dissenting opinion abouit this final glorious war must also be eliminated (together with all issue and relative and friends). The best veteran is the one who does not need to “get over” the trauma of war, but is able to perform his duty honorably and come back to the embrace of his country and family. So yes, please call me a defeatocrat, traitor, America hater, troup dihonorer, etc. And then please come and get rid of me because of the danger I pose. Because in America that’s freedom.
Comment by eddie — 11/12/2007 @ 12:24 pm
This is one heck of a story!
Comment by Harold C. Hutchison — 11/12/2007 @ 2:31 pm
Mill also wrote, a few sentences away from the passage quoted by Dugger above, “When a people are used as mere human instruments to fire cannon or thrust bayonets, in the service or command for the selfish purpose of a master, such war degrades a people.” Let’s make sure we know which is which.
Comment by sj — 11/12/2007 @ 3:30 pm
Eddie, People said the same thing about the Nazis and the Japanese Fascists. There is no way we can defeat them, they are too fanatical. They were wrong just as you are wrong. You have no faith in the essential goodness of the American people and the American values of freedom & democracy. You have no faith in the desire in the heart of every man and woman (even Afgans, Kurds, Turks, Iraqis Iranians) to be free, to be able to improve his lot and that of his family. You have no understanding of the essential difference between the tyranny of Islamic fascism and the positive outlook of Judeo/Christian thought and philosophy that stands alone in the world against it. You will always be on the wrong side of truth and understanding, but thanks for making me think about it a little bit more.
Comment by Scott — 11/12/2007 @ 3:41 pm
Enjoy that F-15 flight Austin. You’ve earned it, twice (at least). http://www.greensrealworld.blogspot.com
Comment by The Historian — 11/12/2007 @ 5:58 pm
“The mission, fuckhead, is supporting the 18 year old with the rifle.” Out fucking standing! Thank all of you for your service, Happy Veterans day. ED NOTE: Now that is what I recall he said. I heard him say that was a sign either in his office or in the squadron area. I didn’t see it in his office. I hope I quoted him correctly. I know I got the “essence” of it right. I love close air support. I love the pilots who fly close air support.
Comment by rancher — 11/12/2007 @ 6:55 pm
Thank you for a great story. I find it interesting the Benny invoked the name of JFK. JFK could arguably be called more conservative than our current president. I wonder what JFK would make of his party today? I wonder what JFK would make of his party during the Johnson administration? You can seriously disagree with policy and be American. You can not hope for American demise and be American. You can not view America as the crux of world evil and be a realist. I do believe that ‘War on Terror’ is a cop-out phrase. If we were not so concerned about political correctness we would call this war what it is….a War on Islamo-Fascism.
Comment by Mekan — 11/12/2007 @ 6:59 pm
Bravo This article should be published in a major news outlet. It troubles me that so many of our fighting men and women are not encouraged by hearing their fellow citizens support and resolve. We have let our soldiers down by allowing our voices to be drowned out by the media’s larger megaphone. Yet, outside of blogging, what can the average citizen do to make a difference? A NOTE to “Benny” First point: I must second Col Bay’s summery of academic environment during the 70s and 80’s. It wasn’t merely occasional student protesters. My political science and history professors frequently argued that we had lost the Cold War during my undergraduate and graduate student days. Several were either Marxists or Communists (I will assume you understand the difference between the two ideologies). In fact, several were actively rooting for the Soviets to succeed in their efforts to control various areas of the world. Communism appeared to be gaining in international power after the resignation of Nixon. The United States efforts to contain the spread of communist governments declined, in part, because our nation lost faith in itself, and began to exhibit rejection of its earlier commitments to the containment policy. International observers noted our Congressional withdrawal of any type of military or financial support for South Vietnam, our lack of responses to Cuba’s military actions in Africa and efforts to spread revolution throughout South America, and our withdrawal of support for the Shah. Allies of the US and democratic governments found little encouragement during the late 70s. Then Ronald Reagan announced that the emperor had no clothes, and millions of beaten-down, eastern Europeans took hope that their desire to reform their governments was a possibility. Yes, there were several factors leading to the fall of the Soviet Union, but historians acknowledge that Reagan’s dramatic turn-around of U.S. foreign policy is counted among the reasons.** *btw, you didn’t notice the recent publicity over the recent success of Reagan’s “star wars†technology which destroyed two attacking missiles simultaneously? Point Two: In reference to your assertion that “liberals†should be given the credit for “stopping the spread of communismâ€; one must acknowledge that the meaning of political terms can make dramatic changes over time.* The party identification of “Democrat†did not necessarily translate as “liberal†in earlier decades. It’s important to make a distinction between an American “liberal†during the 40s, 50s and 60s** and what those claiming that label have evolved into by the 80s and 90s. Certainly Roosevelt and Truman’s military actions would not be considered liberal by today’s standards. (For that matter, until the 60s, southern Democrats initiated and enforced strict segregation in the South for decades. Eisenhower, a Republican President, enforced US laws by sending in the National Guard.) Neither would JFK or LBJ’s willingness to use military force to counter the spread of communism, fit the model of today’s “liberalâ€. All of these presidents enjoyed a unified Congress, regardless of party, backing their efforts to halt the spread of communism. One could imagine the shock and horror of the Congressional members of either party in that era, if they were magically transported to the present to view Congressional members sacrificing the future of a democratic world in the name of political opportunism. **Research the beliefs of an early 19th century liberal and find individuals advocating a government policy of strictly hands-off the industrialists and their labor conditions. The Conservatives, not the liberals gave the vote to the English working class.
Comment by Ragnell — 11/12/2007 @ 7:45 pm
Eddie, normally I treat people like you with the silent contempt you so richly deserve, but this is Veteran’s Day and I’m going to take the time to respond to your nonsense. o yes, please call me a defeatocrat, traitor, America hater, troup dihonorer, etc. No, Eddie. I’ll call you what you are: Short-sighted, stupid and utterly blinded by your own political bile. On the evidence it’s not fair to call you an America-hater. Your hatred seems to run deeper and much more focused than that. What you hate, among other things, is not America, but the things that have allowed America to survive and create the cotton candy cocoon that lets you cling to your pathetic outworn shibboleths. In fact, judging by your post, I’d say you’re largely motivated by hatred to the point where you can’t really understand any other kind of political motivation. There have been people like that all through history. A fellow named Vladimir Illych Ulanov comes to mind, although he was both a lot smarter and a lot more competent than you are. But ultimately it was his hatred that destroyed his vision. Your account of the history of the Cold War is nothing short of amazing as well First, it was the Russian getting bogged down and ultimately abandoning Afghanistan that had as much to do with “winning the cold war†as any sabre-rattling or other manly posturing by Saint Ronald. Can you say “Stinger”? The Soviets sure could, after we starting shipping them to Afghanistan as part of our support for the rebels. According to Russian accounts, those missiles and the other support from St. Ronald — over the vociferous objections of people like you — were one of the major things that turned the tide in Afghanistan. (And what happened afterwards? Well, driven by people with attitudes like yours, we simply walked away from Afghanistan and abandoned the country to its own internal crazies — fed by external elements in Pakistan. There’s a lesson in that, Eddie. One that came back to bite us big, bad and ugly on Sept. 11 — a lesson that you and people like you utterly fail to learn.) Oh yeah. 9/11. That’s what happens when you ignore people like Osama bin Fruitcake who want to wipe us off the face of the earth. You may declare that there’s no war on terrorism. Unfortunately no one has told the terrorists that. They insist on fighting one. Victory conditions? I’ll suggest to you that we will win this war when those people are either eliminated or reduced to utter impotence. There can be no “war†against the lawless behavior of “terrorists†or extremists, for the very reason that there is no state, there is no cohesive enemy. Eddie, can you really be that clueless about what’s going on? For starters let me point out that throughout history nations have fought wars against enemies like that. Some of them have been won and some lost. The war is over when these characters are convinced to stop fighting. Go read some history, Eddie. Real history, not the pre-digested pap your were fed from politically correct books in college. Read about how many wars like that there have been and how a winning solution almost always involved a combination of military force and political action. I’d suggest you start with FM 3-24, the military’s new manual on COIN operations. It also contains a lot of information on the importance of political solutions. (It is also, by the way, a good source for that ‘actual quote’ on the importance of a political solution you want. There are so many others that if you weren’t so blinded by hatred and preconceptions you’d have found a bushelful by now.) The only victory is such a war (on a military basis) is the total annihilation of such an enemy. Is that practical or even possible? Please show me how. My God, you really are that clueless, aren’t you? You’re so full of hate that the only solution you can conceive is the “final solution” — the utter total annhiliation of the ‘enemy’. That’s the kind of attitude that people like Lenin, or Iron Felix Dzerzhensky, or Stalin loved. But as they found out, to the enormous cost of their suffering people, you can’t build a stable society that way. Ironically, those bloodthirsty killers you excoriate on Veteran’s Day understand this perfectly. That’s why COIN strategy is built around a much more humane model, one which has been historically successful. Victory comes, Eddie, when the other side quits fighting and rejoins the civil society. You don’t have to kill them, simply convince them that they’re better off inside the system. That usually means killing a bunch of people that are even more clueless than you are (although they have the courage of their convictions, which I suspect you lack.) But if you’re successful most of the terrorists are going to get the idea that there’s a better way and will lay down their arms. (And no, I’m not going to go into exactly how this applies to extreme elements of Wahabbi and Deobandi Islam.You need to learn to walk before you can run, Eddie, and on the evidence you’re not even in the crawling stage.) And if you aren’t with us, you are against us, in body and mind. Sorry Eddie, that’s not the way it works. Fortunately the people running this show, not only know it, they act on it. That’s why thousands of former insurgents have rallied to the Iraqi government and the Americans. Again, that’s the fanatic mindset, driven by hatred. So watch what you think (you know I probably underestimated those that require elimination, because certainly anyone with doubt or a dissenting opinion about this final glorious war must also be eliminated (together with all issue and relative and friends). That’s called ‘projection’ Eddie. That’s where you ascribe the feelings and beliefs that motivate you to those around you — usually because you can’t conceive of the world working any other way. Are you ignorant? Yes. Are you blinded by your preconceptions? Yes. Are you busy spewing your own hatred all over the people who are defending your right to be a hate-filled ignoramus? Yes. Does that mean we want to eliminate you? Or even silence you? No Eddie. You may not believe this but we do not. We may hold you in utter contempt. But in our world, the real world, that’s a reason to ignore you. Not punish you
Comment by chiropetra — 11/12/2007 @ 8:31 pm
Outstanding piece. My hat’s off to the Colonel and his son. I’d buy that man a bottle of his favorite anytime, anywhere. GreyEagleO6 a.k.a. GEO6
Comment by Anonymous — 11/12/2007 @ 8:38 pm
50 Ragnell is absolutely right. What happened — and what Republicans and conservatives in general don’t like to acknowledge — is that the Democratic party, and the ‘left’ in general, underwent a profound change in the 60s. The traditional American liberal was swept away by the political tsunami of the 60s. From World War II until the 60s, anti-communism was a bedrock of liberal belief. In fact presidents like Truman and Kennedy were staunch anti-communists and were not the least bit shy about saying so. Even liberal scholars like John Kenneth Galbreath trumpeted their anti-communism in their books and articles. The liberals strongly disapproved of McCarthyism and were open to social democratic solutions, but in no way did they support communism, or for the most part Marxism. There was a tiny radical movement which was much more open to Marxist and Trotskyite theory, but in general they hated the Stalinist-Leninists of the Soviet Union even more than the liberals. Ironically, when the sea change begin, the first targets of the new generation of liberal-radicals were the establishment liberals who had proceeded them. All this is well decribed in “The Troubles”, a book on 60s radicalism by radical historian Joseph Conlin (http://www.biblio.com/details.php?dcx=48762848&aid=frg) Conlin, himself a radical (and throughly disgusted with what went on the name of “radicalism” in that decade and afterwards) describes the destruction of the old liberal establishment and its replacement by something. One of the distinguishing characteristics of the new liberal establishment was a greater or lesser degree of Anti-Americanism because, well, it was anti-American. Another characteristic was the sacrifice of rationality to what was politically useful — often quite explicitly. In fact if you weren’t explictly Anti-American it was hard to claim that you were a liberal after the 60s. This changes makes arguments like Benny’s incoherent nonsense. Yes, we called these people ‘liberals’ in the 40s and 60s, and yes, a great many of them were Democrats. But the meaning of the terms “liberal” and “Democrat” have changed so much it is well-nigh impossible to credit any of the achievements and attitudes of those pre-60s liberals to today’s liberals — who would violently disown them. Benny is utterly wrong and Ragnell is only partially right on another issue as well: The influence of Ronald Regan’s policies on the collapse of the Soviet Union. Reagan was apparently the first president to explicitly recognize the effect of technology, especially military technology, on the Soviet system. His foreign and military policies played on that recognition and eventually put the Soviet Union under intolerable stress. The policy didn’t begin with Regan, but be applied it much more vigorously than any of his predecessors and certainly greatly hastened the downfall of the Soviet system. (As a side note, it had become an article of faith in government circles by the 1950s that the Soviet economy would surpass ours in a couple of decades. This was based partially on the glowing and utterly unrealistic view of Soviet economic progress under the Five-Year Plans — and there’s an entire book in that subject as well — partially on the country’s great economic surge after World War II as it rebuild from the devastation, and partially on the fact that apparently no one in the West understood just how throughly the Soviets were cooking the books. Some of my books on Soviet economic history from the period are bitterly ironic in light of what we know now. So there was a lot of ammunition for professors like Ragnell’s who claimed the Soviets were pulling ahead of us.) In any event, after World War II, military progress increasingly depended on technology produced in large numbers. Those were things the Soviets simply couldn’t do. For example in the period from the end of WWII until the collapse of the Soviet Union our progress forced the Soviets to rebuild their air defense system at least and probably four times (depending on how you count it) and each time the new system required better command and control, better radars, better jet engines and better organization. This, by the way, explains the Soviet’s frantic efforts to keep the US from basing cruise missiles in Europe. On the face of it, it was silly. After all what could those missiles do that our existing missile arsenal in Europe couldn’t? The answer is they could tear through the Soviet air defenses like wet toilet paper. They were, if anything, less destructive than the existing missiles, but they were much more accurate, which put the Soviet’s weak command and control systems at higher risk. So the Soviets pulled out all the stops and put huge pressure on the ‘peace’ movements of Europe to keep the cruise missiles and Pershing missiles out of Europe. They not only lost the campaign but they came dangerously close to disclosing publically just how deeply they had infiltrated the peace movement. Star Wars can be viewed in much the same light. Even if its critics were right (and they weren’t) and it never could possibly work, Star Wars was a brilliant move toward ending the Cold War. It faced the Soviets with another technology and economic race they could not win. And by that time that was increasingly obvious to even the most hidebound apparatchiks. So Gorbachev was chosen to lead the country because he promised new ideas, and he quickly came to the conclusion that the system was beyond hope — with the historic results. Now is that the whole story? Did Reagan single-handedly topple the Soviet Union? Not only no, but hell no! First, Reagan was building on decades of work by people of all parties whose policies people like Benny despise. Second, and much more important, were the Soviet people, both the masses and the individual heroes who were willing to stand up to an increasingly corrupt, repressive and failing system. And third, let us add, Jimmy Carter’s quixotic focus on human rights as the touchstone of his foreign policy put pressure on the Soviet government which helped to protect those dissidents. (The effects of Carter’s policy on our present situation in Iran we’ll leave for another discussion.) Of course you’ll learn none of this from listening to people like Benny. One of the tenets that came out of the 60s is that history is only true insofar as it is poilitically useful. Inconvenient facts are to be swept under the rug, explained away or denied outright — and the person who presents these facts is to be counter-attacked viciously. In fact this attitude got so bad it alienated a number of the radical icons of the 60s — among them Eugene Genovese, the (self-described) Marxist history professor at Rutgers University who caused a national flap by saying he welcomed a Viet Cong victory. For leftists, even professional historians like Howard Zinn, history becomes not a recounting of what happened, but an ideological weapon. A procrustean bed on which events are to be laid and then stretched, twisted, truncated and distorted as necessary to produce a narrative which supports whatever is politically convenient at the moment. I don’t know if Benny is such a distorter of the truth or merely the dupe of such people with a conveniently elastic memory, but one thing is abundantly clear. Neither his history or the lessons and theories he draws from it are to be trusted.
Comment by chiropetra — 11/12/2007 @ 11:15 pm
This was a great story. I also had the pleasure of taking a german class with someone who escaped communism and lost thier home country. Nothing is more sobering than hearing how thye escaped or having seen the Berlin Wall and the Soviets patrol the and we can carry it to the end.
Comment by Defendusa — 11/13/2007 @ 6:06 am
I’ve been asked repeatedly why I think what we are doing is so important. This sums it up better than I ever could. As a side note…I’ve spent time working with aviators and at times asked them, “Who do you work for?”. The answers were myriad and usually off the mark. My reply was always, “A 19 yr old LCpl kicking in a door with a fixed bayonet.” Most times I got blank stares and sometimes the light bulb went on. To be fair, this was in peacetime. I’m heartened to hear that these jet drivers “get it”.
Comment by Imin — 11/13/2007 @ 8:36 am
I’m in awe of the original story. But everyone has lost sight of the original prize due to some witless pretenders to humanity. We were here to celebrate Veteran’s Day/ Rememberance Day(for my Canadian brethern, lest we forget). The trolls will be there rest assured, the nay sayers also, but we are stronger for we have seen the elephant and have grown stronger for it. So those who belittle us as warmongers, should do the same as they tell us “walk a mile in my shoes”. What’s he that wishes so? My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin; If we are mark’d to die, we are enow To do our country loss; and if to live, The fewer men, the greater share of honour. God’s will! I pray thee, wish not one man more. By Jove, I am not covetous for gold, Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost; It yearns me not if men my garments wear; Such outward things dwell not in my desires. But if it be a sin to covet honour, I am the most offending soul alive. No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England. God’s peace! I would not lose so great an honour As one man more methinks would share from me For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more! Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host, That he which hath no stomach to this fight, Let him depart; his passport shall be made, And crowns for convoy put into his purse; We would not die in that man’s company That fears his fellowship to die with us. This day is call’d the feast of Crispian. He that outlives this day, and comes safe home, Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam’d, And rouse him at the name of Crispian. He that shall live this day, and see old age, Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours, And say ‘To-morrow is Saint Crispian.’ Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars, And say ‘These wounds I had on Crispian’s day.’ Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot, But he’ll remember, with advantages, What feats he did that day. Then shall our names, Familiar in his mouth as household words- Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter, Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester- Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb’red. This story shall the good man teach his son; And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by, From this day to the ending of the world, But we in it shall be remembered- We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he to-day that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile, This day shall gentle his condition; And gentlemen in England now-a-bed Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here, And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day. It’s a pity I have to qoute Shakespeare to get the feeling across. But every October 25 I do celebrate St. Crispin’s Day in my own meager way Sgt S. Humphrey 1/327th 101st AA
Comment by Sgt S. Humphrey — 11/13/2007 @ 8:45 am
[…] nominations process. Here is the most recent winning council post, here is the most recent winning non-council post, here is the list of results for the latest vote, and here is the initial posting of all the […]
Pingback by Dodgeblogium » Blog Archive » Another puzzled muzzled — 11/19/2007 @ 11:19 am
[…] winning non-Council post was Austin Bay Blog’s “A Conversation in Bagram, Afghanistanâ€. Tied for second place honors were The Elder of […]
Pingback by The Glittering Eye » Blog Archive » The Council Has Spoken! — 11/23/2007 @ 10:03 am
Howdy Austin! I try to check out your blog every so often and just had to comment on this one. You see I was born on Novemeber 11th, back when most still called it Armistice Day, and every year the American Legion came out and fired a salute (they broadcast it over the loudspeakers in my elementary school) and we faced east standing for five minutes of silence. OK so it was a small conservative town but we were brought up to appreciate and thank those in uniform. My high school history teacher was the daughter of a member of Norway’s underground. Nowdays I don’t run into as many military people as I used to but I do have a veteran WWII bomber pilot on my staff and he is still a little starled when every day, on my birthday, I thank him….
Comment by Clark — 11/28/2007 @ 3:42 pm
Good post. You make some great points that most people do not fully understand.
“Then I told him there was no choice. There are those bearing the burden — for example, him– and those who don’t. Unfortunately, with a few stellar, brave exceptions, only the US military has shown up for this war, and you’re one of those who’ve shown up and shown up again. But show me the alternative? You show me the alternative, given our circumstances, and we will do it. But consider our circumstances, our planetary circumstances. Afghanistan is a desperate, dusty hellhole with altitude, poverty, and little else. An Afghani expatriate –an LA millionaire in the engineering business who went back as a translator in 2005– told me that his “old country had been poor but beautiful until 1973. ‘73– that’s when the civil war started. Thirty years of war — the worst courtesy of the Russians and the Taliban– had savaged the place. You know, ash and dust. Now, once upon a time we could ignore those suffering in the planet’s hard corners.”
I like how you explained that. Very helpful. Thanks.
Comment by Evaine — 4/21/2008 @ 8:47 am
I have no words.
You have already said the most important words: Thank them for their service and their sacrifice.
And thank you for bringing these stories to our attention.
Comment by Steffan — 2/5/2009 @ 12:06 am