Veterans Are Not Victims
Originally posted 1/12/2014
CNN host Jake Tapper has been catching a lot of flak recently, due to a ‘tense’interview with Marcus Luttrell and Mark Wahlberg about the film ‘Lone Survivor.” Many have been quick to jump to his defense, stating that they agree that a decade of war in Afghanistan has made us no better off. Regardless of the truth of this statement, it is irrelevant. Make no mistake, Mr. Tapper is being derided not for his foreign policy opinions, but for his obtuseness.
Tapper questioned the strategic value of the Afghanistan war but while doing so, he implied that the sacrifices of the men in the book were hopeless and senseless. As an interviewer, he should be able to speak precisely and understand the subject being discussed enough to not offend the interviewee. Tapper did neither. This has nothing to do with America’s foreign policy, and everything to do with Tapper’s tactfulness…or lack thereof.
(Note: In addressing this topic, we have employed Hanlon's Razor and assumed that Mr. Tapper is just dense, and not malicious. What is much more likely is that he was deliberately offensive in an attempt to generate controversy and backlash, which is precisely what occurred. Nevertheless, we give the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Tapper - in this article he is presumed to be ignorant, rather than unscrupulous...although it is entirely possible that he could be both).
The problem, which Tapper even admits in the interview, is that he approaches this subject from a civilian perspective. And unfortunately, this perspective is informed by a contemporary culture that victimizes soldiers, demeaning their sacrifices. Meanwhile, Luttrell comes from a warrior culture, that values sacrifices. This lack of cultural awareness gives rise to Tapper’s primary misunderstanding: He doesn’t get that the strategic contribution of a battle, or even a whole conflict, does not in any way determine the value of a soldier's sacrifice. To imply that it does disrespects the contributions of millions of soldiers throughout history. In every single war, not every battle is won and not even every battle won contributes to victory. What is true for battles is true for campaigns and for wars themselves. Whether they are won or not does not mean that there is no honor or value in the sacrifices made. The difference is the same as claiming how one plays the game doesn't matter, only whether you win or lose. There is honor in stepping onto the field. There is honor in a good effort, a noble sacrifice, even if one does not win, or could not win...sometimes there is even more honor in these situations than in victories.
While Tapper has a policy opinion, he doesn't understand how it intersects with what goes on in combat, on the ground, between warriors. He doesn't understand that what at one level could be considered as a waste and senseless, could be viewed as the exactly the opposite at another level – namely the level that Luttrell was discussing, what his book and the movie are about. Due to his lack of understanding and language to differentiate, Tapper implied that because policymakers were wrong, it somehow made the sacrifice, dedication, and duty of the soldiers on the ground meaningless. Tapper made this mistake of confusing the execution of duty, which is in the hands of the warrior, with how that duty was utilized, which is in the hands of the policymaker. Whether the civilian leadership is competent or not doesn’t have any bearing on whether a soldier has done his duty and thus it should not impugn his contributions. The wisdom of foreign policy decision is an unrelated issue when it comes to valuating soldier’s sacrifice.
Luttrell's companions, like others who have written about their contributions, probably weren't thinking of the policy goals in Afghanistan when they gave their lives. They were most likely thinking of accomplishing their mission and taking care of each other, which is a soldier’s duty. Their sacrifices were meant to serve each other, and Marcus survived, no doubt due to the actions of his comrades. I am sure he doesn’t view his comrades’ sacrifices as ‘meaningless'. And I assume that three men who survive because a fourth jumps on a grenade find his sacrifice an honor, regardless of whether the four of them being in that country in the first place would bring about a better world. When they signed up, every one of those men offered up their lives to the nation to be utilized as it saw fit – whether it is right or wrong. That brave and selfless act is what they should be honored for, rather than being told that their dedication to duty, their sacrifice, is a waste.
This was over Tapper’s head. He was trying to read more into the movie than what was there. It is not a film trying to make a political statement, it is a story made amazing by the men who lived it. The book and movie, to Luttrell, were clearly a tribute to those men who gave their lives in the conduct of their duty. It is an attempt to honor their sacrifice. And trying to politicize that is probably the most offensive thing one could do. This is what makes Tapper worthy of the hate mail he’s receiving in response to his tactless remarks.
People often seem to forget that a soldier's job has always been to fight, to kill and to die. There is an honor in sacrifice and in doing one's duty. And a soldier is not a victim for doing his duty, nor are his sacrifices meaningless. We must certainly be wary of how we spend the lives pledged to our nation, but however they are spent, we should remember that they have meaning. That Tapper does not understand this doesn’t surprise me, him being a civilian. What does surprise me, however, is when I see the same attitude being displayed by a veteran, like Paul Szoldra does with his article, "Tell Me Again, Why Did My Friends Die In Iraq?" It is an article with a similar theme, stating the glaringly obvious truth that Iraq was a mistake, but has a tone that can only be described as pitying. Szoldra laments the fall of Iraqi cities for which his friends fought, assuming, much like Tapper, that who rules in Fallujah has any bearing on the nobility and honor of the sacrifices made by those friends. Paul, our friends died because they volunteered and swore to do so when called. That is admirable. That is honorable. That is worthy of praise, not pity. They should be respected for that, not exploited and demeaned by treating them like victims.
That treatment also facilitates the type of behavior we see when service-members forget their purpose, as exemplified by soldiers in uniform, holding signs over their faces, protesting political decisions in violation of their oath.
This victimization mentality is a cultural issue, which goes far beyond foreign policy. It is inherent in anti-bullying campaigns, the everyone gets a trophy crowd, the cries against victim blaming, the restriction of free speech in schools, and yes, also in the shameless exploitation of veterans and casualties to push one's political beliefs. This is precisely the kind of politics the military is supposed to be above and disconnected from. The military has a culture, a tradition, regulations and policies designed to keep it apolitical. Its mission is to remain focused on doing its duty, regardless of the party running the country, whatever course of action is chosen, whatever policy is pursued. Whether the military views a policy decision as unwise or not, it executes to the best of its ability - that is its duty. That is honorable. But there are people who use that very sacrifice to push a political agenda. These people use troop deaths to do what the military refrained from doing in life. This is shameless. And it is easily evidenced in the common habit of victimizers who paint enlistees as naïve 17 year-olds that have been brainwashed by ideals and suckered into being cannon fodder.
People so cynical, jaded and bitter that they cannot put ideals before self-interest often complain about the appeal to ideals in recruiting campaigns. They decry the use of words like duty, honor, and loyalty, as tools to get people to “sign on the dotted line.” This is because they cannot understand that these ideals have meaning to men far beyond the dotted line, and are often the metrics by which men judge and inspire each other on the ground. They are no more irrelevant than the idea of "commitment" or "loyalty” in a marriage, or the ideas of "compassion" are to a religious figure or to a medical doctor, and how those ideals contribute to behavior. Ideals give life meaning beyond the impulse to survive that drives animals. And a life lived in commitment to an ideal, or given in commitment to one, is most certainly an honorable thing, far more so than the base desire to eek out one's existence just a little bit longer. These victimizers act as though advertisements inject something that is not there into a person's head. But what if they merely provide the appropriate outlet for something that is already there? Ideals are used in advertising because they work - but they work because men aspire to them not because men are rubes.
No one is unaware of what war is, what an army does, and what a soldier places on the line. When a man signs up, he doesn't do so with the caveat that "as long as I think Congress is right, then I'll go fight." He doesn't have that luxury. He understands what he is signing up for and he understands why he is doing it - he places his duty first. Rather than insult him by treating him like a dupe, we should grant him the respect his sacrifice deserves. We should appreciate and admire it rather than try to discredit.
I know plenty of young soldiers who may not have been able to eloquently extol the virtues of duty, honor, courage, etc. yet demonstrated them every day. The victimizers do not give America's warriors enough credit. I think they deserve to be treated like adults, and respected for their sacrifices.
