A rchive Date
[ 14-10-2001 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ U.S ]
|
[A soldier on war
With one foot in the foxhole, West Point grad ponders two battles
By NEAL CARLSON
Oct. 12, 2001, 10:28PM
As a first-class cadet at the United States Military Academy at West Point, I vividly recall film director and decorated Vietnam veteran Oliver Stone poignantly addressing a small cadre of literary students: "In the next war America fights, everyone goes."
This will resonate with those familiar with Stone's politics and his brilliant attack on the Vietnam experience through his movies and writings. But some may be unfamiliar with Stone's peculiar background, which brings this proclamation into a startling relief. Stone was from an upper-middle-class New York family, and he was well into his liberal arts education at Yale University when he abruptly dropped out and enlisted as an Army infantryman.
His frustration with the disproportion of enlistees along racial and socioeconomic lines suggested a call to arms; his translation of the demoralizing experience offered a penetrating insight that has critically defined his work.
I have carried Stone's unexpected quotation throughout my early career as an Army officer: In the next war, everyone goes. So, in our new asymmetric war against terrorism, I eagerly await the bright ranks of literati to join with my brothers in arms. Or do I?
I have always valued the subtle irony of progressive liberalism that buttressed my otherwise conservative college experience. Bob Dylan and Peter, Paul and Mary performing their anti-war hymns at Eisenhower Hall. Camille Paglia preaching about militant women to military men. Two years ago, I picked up a copy of Rolling Stone magazine and was astounded to find the two major articles curiously juxtaposed on the cover - "War and Peace at the New West Point" and "RAGE! The Mightiest Band in Rock."
The first article was an overt reference to the dramatic changes in training and education occurring at my alma mater, and the second was a behind-the-scenes look at Rage Against the Machine, the intellectual heavy metal intifada.
The confluence of these two articles struck me as ironic as both organizations donned military fatigues, espoused firm ideologies and largely recruited passionate activists. However, while West Point graduated their cadets onto the military and diplomatic fronts, inspiring each to a lifetime of selfless service to our country, Rage marshaled its fans into leftist action, introverting its activism against the values and mores of our country. West Point's methods projected critical thinking and decisive action, whereas Rage's lobbed lyrical hand grenades onto the American landscape. Their opening act in Houston was a band called Anti-Flag.
On both fronts, intellectual authenticity was never in question. Critics defaced Rage as a pariah of the left-spewing, un-American vitriol, though I knew better - I thought they were a damn good band. From its vantage point, through its concerts, I could operate within and bridge two profound margins exerting influence on our society and my generation: the bulwark of patriotism as a West Pointer and the bombardier of cultural naiveté as a fan.
The center of gravity of Rage's sturm und drang lay among the brightest of my generation within the corridors of our esteemed intellectual establishments, capturing the interest of students searching for patterns and meaning in why so many citizens of the world resent America's geopolitical posture. Many of those are friends. For me, those individuals seeking enlightenment on the left are the most distant lights on the spectrum opposing America's involvement in our new war. And, it is precisely those individuals that I have in mind when I contemplate Stone's assertion: Everyone goes.
Or will they?
I do not advocate Rage anymore, nor do I expend much effort thinking about their philosophies, but I am still concerned about those on the left carrying the guidon. On Sept. 11, I was finishing up a war-fighter exercise at the National Training Center in the Mojave Desert. Watching the twin pinnacles of New York's steel canyon avalanche into rubble and dust, after the sadness, I could not help but project myself into some type of military response. War. With its imminence, I suppose I focused on all the horizons that we associate with the prospect of conflict: God, duty, honor, country, family and friends.
I thought of all the challenging years of preparation at the academy and in the regular Army - the military training, the intellectual acumen, the physical determination - how well-prepared and ready I am to engage an enemy, and then I sobered up to the prospect of swearing it all away to war. In the words of author Tim O'Brien, with the "absolute and uncompromising allegiance to obscenity and evil."
Yet, I feel that my vicarious exercises for battle, while spurring me for action, have left me ill-prepared for an equally significant fight on the home front, namely convincing my intellectual friends on the left that retaliation is a worthy cause and worthy of their support. Many on the left are far enough separated from the tragedy to avoid appearing unsympathetic, but not closely enough engaged with war to appear unpatriotic. Developing within their ranks is a swell of pacifist demonstrations capturing America's attention as a counterpoint to our new war.
My generation has matured with a dominating vocabulary of individual rights and cultural relativism. We are programmed to distrust government intervention and champion individual liberties; question America's benevolent hegemony and listen to the world's disenfranchised.
It is easy to be critical during peacetime, when your country, values and way of life are not at stake. But, with this sadistic assault on our people, architecture and peace, has there ever been a stronger call to arms for America to respond? And, more importantly, is there a rallying point where everyone goes with our efforts at home and abroad?
There are philosophically sound pacifists who are true American patriots. Yet, most of the opposition appears to be those who believe American reprisals are incompatible with alleged actions our government has undertaken in recent years. Or they believe that our country can negotiate peace with terrorists. Or, perhaps in the most pernicious vein, they accept and justify the attacks as culturally relative.
On all three fronts, the opposition materializes within the brightest on college campuses, as if this were our generation's Vietnam. I propose we disabuse ourselves of any notion that we are not justified in retaliation, that we can negotiate peace with terrorists or that we sympathize with the terrorists' jihad. Our reprisals are not only warranted, but also necessary to realize long-term peace - it is non-negotiable. This is not our Vietnam; this is our Pearl Harbor.
As an active-duty Army officer, I have been called into the profession of arms to defend our Constitution, and I am standing by. But, I still empathize with the left, especially friends who are currently engaged in these arguments.
To them I say: There comes a time when we set aside our books and arguments and appeal to reason and patriotism. This is Stone's "next war," and everyone goes. The clarion call was a terrorist attack on American soil; the resolution will be when we defeat the scourge of terrorism and regain our balance in life. Then we can resume our dialogue on America.
With one foot forward in the foxhole, prepared to execute any contingency mission and glancing back at my friends behind, this is the first bridge I would like to build in our new war.
Carlson, a Houston native, is a combat engineer stationed at Fort Hood. He is a 1998 graduate of the United States Military Academy, West Point, N.Y. He can be e-mailed at aeolianharp@aol.com
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|