Memorial Day

They went with songs to the battle, they were young,
Straight of limb, true of eye, steady and aglow.
They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted;
They fell with their faces to the foe.

Robert Laurence Binyon - For the Fallen

Liberty sometimes requires sacrifice and our freedom is purchased with the blood of others. Those who are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice deserve our respect. Yet here is one of the most difficult areas for commentators on life such as myself. How to both give those who serve the honor that they deserve whilst still highlighting things which we feel are wrong? Ultimately though I think we have a duty to the truth that over-rides all else.

I remember a discussion I had at college with a left-wing supporter of a particular movement. He explained that his stance could be summarized as "unconditional but critical" . That is to say he supported the group without reservation but would comment on their strategy where they disagreed with it. On exploring it turned out he fundamentally disagreed with the group's approach even to the point of believing that they could never be successful, however he would continue to support them no matter how badly he felt their tactics went awry. Whilst I can respect his sincerity this was not a purely theoretical discussion about politics. The tactics which he was supporting, even though believing they were not working, involved killing innocent people including children. In my view, by continuing to support the group and not pressuring them to find a different approach, he was betraying not just the dead innocents but the group he claimed to be in favor of. If people like him withdrew their support, the group would be forced to find alternative methods which might actually be successful. Sometimes it needs courage to speak up but it is a friend who will let you know your flaws when an enemy remains silent.

Back in my country of birth we did not treat our military with much respect. Politicians mouthed supportive platitudes at the same time as cutting essential resources such as body armor. The controversy of recent conflicts led to a withdrawal of popular support for the military which was undeserved. The armed forces go where they are told to and carry out the operations they are instructed to by their superiors who are usually under the direction of civilian politicians. It is this latter group which deserve our wrath not the brave souls who actually fight. Yet because the soldiers are more accessible than the politicians, and are the more visible face of the unpopular policy it is they who face the moral indignation. A story which made my heart go out concerned one of our equivalent of the National Guard, back from Iraq, who wounded was dumped at the door of a civilian hospital and immediately told by a nurse to take off his uniform before he offended someone. What a terrible way to treat someone who had been fighting in the name of his country.

As an immigrant attitudes towards the military prove particularly challenging. It has to be realized that the US military is not always regarded with affection around the world. This can be as true of its allies as its enemies. Whilst I understand why the Department of Defense wants to protect its personnel, one area that proves extremely controversial is the US attitude towards friendly fire deaths. When other countries hold inquiries into these deaths, which are normally required by law when any of their citizens dies overseas, the US military is generally seen as highly obstructive. Usually these investigations are not about apportioning blame but understanding what happened and helping to prevent it occurring again. The families of the victim know that in the theater of war sometimes split second decisions are needed and mistakes can be made. The deceased son or daughter is probably of a similar age to the person who killed them and they faced a common foe and issues. Indeed it is only circumstances that their positions are not reversed because in war it is so easy for there to be accidents. However there is a parent bereft of their child and they have a right to know the circumstances in which they died, it won't give them any greater comfort but while there are unanswered questions it is harder for them to have closure. The inquest into the death of UK corporal Matty Hull was sadly typical. The US military initially refused to release the cockpit tape and was only persuaded when a national newspaper took up the issue.

When you have had one perception of the US military, it is not easy to shift gear, simply because you are now in the country. Another common perception of the US military is that they are too gung-ho, shooting first and asking questions later. Some years back, I remember talking to a young US soldier who was being deployed to Iraq that week. He was very enthusiastic, particularly about finally having the opportunity to kill people. He gushed how he wanted to shoot Arabs. A Vietnam veteran tried talking to him softly "No son, you really don't" but he couldn't be dissuaded. He gave the impression that he didn't really care about the innocence or guilt of his victims, he just wanted people to be in his gun sights. In these circumstances I can respect the uniform but not the person wearing it. There may have been some bravado, covering up fear of what he would face overseas but the picture he portrayed of a US soldier was a depressing one. It confirmed why even allies often have concerns about the US military and the attitudes they display.

I read an account by a foreign commander describing the difference in how his forces and the US troops entered an Iraqi city after the fall of Saddam Hussein. In his view the US troops behaved like conquerors not liberators. They drove through the city, firmly ensconced in their tanks and military vehicles engaging the people in no way. Arabs are a proud people and in keeping their distance the American military appeared to scorn them and opened the way for the insurgents. Though the strategy was supposedly "hearts and minds" the US military approach seemed to show little sensitivity to either. When this commander ordered his troops in, he had them remove most body armor, opened the tanks and had his troops sit on top of the vehicles where possible. Food and candy was handed out to the crowd. Looked at objectively he took a risk, his troops were exposed to the threat of potential snipers and had there been an ambush things would have gone very badly for his men. However by making it clear the people of the city should not regard his troops as a threat, he felt that he suffered much less trouble in the subsequent days. Certainly insurgency levels in areas of Iraq controlled by non-US forces were often significantly lower than those held by the US military so his strategy may have worked, at least initially.

 I can understand why the US military entered the city in the way they did. Protecting US troops was their commander's highest priority and he did nothing which brought them into danger. However at the same time the troops seemed remote from the local inhabitants of the city. It may even have seemed the entry convoy was a display of US military might, a threat of what might happen if people did not fully co-operate. Often there is neither one right nor one wrong answer when it comes to situations of perception. There are many possible answers each of which have different consequences. The tactics applied in an active war zone may be very different from those needed on a rescue mission or when helping to rebuild a country after its defeat. It is easy to fall into the stereotype of seeing the military as only about war without recognizing the many other areas in which they serve this country and others. Whilst researching the "Don't Act, Don't Tell" blog post I came across a very emotive picture of a US soldier cradling a foreign baby in his arms. I was very tempted to use it, because of how it helped to challenge portrayal of the military illustrating perfectly how sensitivity and humanity is often as much a part of the role as ability to shoot accurately, reflecting how soldiers are often used after disasters such as earthquakes to help bring aid to areas where conventional civilian forces cannot reach or dare not go.

The poet Gerard Manley Hopkins wrote that the "just man justices" meaning that each of us brings out that which is most integral to our nature. As a writer, I write. Yet I must recognize that the pen, or nowadays the keyboard, is a weapon, just like a submachine gun ,and just as easily used inappropriately. I have never served in the military and am too old now to do so. It is easy to scatter invective but the writer must be cautious when criticizing those who are prepared to put their lives in danger in a way he is not. The young US soldier I described earlier may well have learned from the hardships of conflict the error of his earlier opinions, and come to realize how precious life is, and how it should be shed only when there is no other option.. or he may himself be dead. I have no idea. Many in the US adopt the same unconditional approach to supporting the military as did my college friend and his liberationist group, however I cannot accept that for the reasons already given. I can criticize the institution of the military whilst still retaining respect for the individual soldier or vice versa depending on circumstance. To question is both a right and a duty. The military buy us freedom with their blood and we should never forget or dishonor their sacrifice. However the best way that freedom can ever be used is to challenge injustice, to cast light on areas that some would rather remain shaded and to seek to make society better. Thus I do not think we should be afraid to ever apply critical facilities even when those being analysed are those who won us the right to question in the first place.

Don't Tell, Act!

The policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was a peculiarly American compromise. It satisfied nobody and it was inevitable that it would not be able to continue long term. Meanwhile the military did what they always do, namely their job, protecting these shores. The military, like the police, are a cohesive body which successfully functions, regardless of what is thrown at it by its political masters. They simply adapt and move on.

Anyone who has served in any kind of coherent team in civilian life where total reliance on each other is essential, knows that you trust your team members totally. You don't stop to ask the person holding the rope lowering you down what type of genitalia they prefer. Sex has no place in the workplace and should not affect team performance. When your safety is in the hands of other team members, a bond inevitably forms and in my experience declarations of religious belief or sexual orientation do not change this. People are respected for who they are, and when the moment comes, all are expected to perform their role appropriately.

In truth, sexuality is much less of an issue than it once was. There are many nations where it was illegal within living memory and where the repeal was once hugely controversial. Most young people do not have the prejudices of the older generations and are much more open and tolerant towards all forms of diversity. This is largely because they have grown up with the access which the internet provides and exposure to many more people than would once have been possible. Hence many young people know at least one, and generally more than one, person within their circle of immediate acquaintances who is of a different sexual orientation to theirs. It is therefore regrettable that policy is generally made by much older people, whose attitudes were established long ago, and are often one step behind the rest of society.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was introduced under the Clinton administration. Previously it was illegal to be gay within the military and all forces personnel were required to affirm that they were not. Under this new policy military members would no longer be asked if they were homosexual and unless they did anything to bring attention to their sexuality they would be permitted to serve even if they were gay. It was a step towards allowing gay personnel to serve in the military but definitely not enough to satisfy the lobby which wanted this.

When it comes to issues of equality sometimes great courage is needed to legislate. There is only so long that people are prepared to accept denying who they are and feeling they are unfairly treated. Slavery proved an extremely divisive issue in this country's past and it took a war to finally resolve it. Racial segregation was another extremely controversial area of civil rights and it took a Supreme Court ruling, considerably in advance of where public opinion was at that time, to initiate a process which brought it to an end. That ruling probably saved America from much future civil unrest and few people would now question it was the right thing to do. In contrast to the decisiveness of the Supreme Court in this situation, the way in which Congress handled the issue of gay people in the military was one of constant buck-passing.

Gathering information is a necessary part of the legislative process however it should be used to inform decision making not to replace it. Once you have established in your mind what the moral position is, there is only one ethical thing to do, which is to act. Anything else is simply a failure of backbone. I have more respect for those who always argued against the inclusion of gays in the military on religious grounds and voted consistently, than those who denounced the inequality but were content to do nothing on the issue.

The way in which the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" vote was handled by the House of Representatives was particularly unfortunate. Having established a consultative exercise and impact study which had only just got underway, Robert Gates (Secretary of Defense) reported, among others, that this timing was not good and had the potential to cause confusion and concern. Service personnel had been promised the opportunity to have their say and while the consultation would continue the conclusion had already been reached making it appear largely worthless. In an ideal world it would not have been handled in this way however the confusion was due to a surfeit of timidity in those same politicians who now only rushed to a form of legislative conclusion only due to their fear that they would be penalized for lack of action by their electorate, having been previously more than happy to delay indefinitely.

Having said I have respect for the consistent opponents I must acknowledge there was some duplicity on the part of some of the opposition. There were some who were content to hide behind the problem with the review without admitting whatever the conclusion of the final report was they would still oppose it. The House of Representatives vote illustrated the worst of American politics. The politicians were dragged kicking and screaming to a vote they had long sought to avoid making, what will be depicted as a moral position was nothing of the sort, though it appears to be a repeal the final decision is actually left elsewhere which is an abdication of responsibility. Moreover the vote was heavily divided on party lines with only 5 Republicans voting in favor and only 26 Democrats voting against. It is very sad that some greater consensus could not be reached. In addition the repeal was one of many amendments tacked onto the end of a military funding bill. This practice of burdening legislation with often last-minute amendments, in many cases only partially-related at best to the theme of the bill, merely to satisfy lobby groups, should become unacceptable. An issue of this national importance deserved to be a piece of primary legislation not an appendix and had politicians got their act together earlier it could have been. Instead one messy compromise was repealed by another messy compromise. Hardly the lifeblood of history.

So if the Senate votes the same way, and its Armed Services Committee has already done so, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" will ultimately become history. Will it be missed? I don't think so. Many countries, including the one of my birth, now have openly gay people serving in the military and the impact has been minimal. I have great faith in the professionalism of the US military and no doubt they will adapt appropriately. This was the view expressed by Congressman Joe Sestak, the highest ranking military officer to ever have been elected to the House of Representatives, who enthusiastically spoke in favor of the repeal. Watching this whole debate I have come to the conclusion it tells us less about the military than it does the state of contemporary US politics. What is undeniable is that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" had a negative effect on the US forces. It led to the discharge of many personnel who were needed for operational effectiveness, including a number of experts in Arab languages and culture, at a time when with operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, these were a precious resource in short supply. There were also suicides which can hardly have been good for morale. Yet rather than tackle head-on this difficult and controversial issue, with the many problems it was causing, the politicians preferred to do nothing. Yesterday I commented on a former governor's inability to make decisions but I am not sure this was limited to just him. Decision-making is no longer a skill required on Capitol Hill. The objective is to appear as busy as possible whilst achieving as little as possible. Only a political establishment which had itself abrogated moral responsibility could believe it was ever acceptable to implement a policy which punished people for telling the truth.