Putting the left into the military's left-right-left
By MARY KAY CLUNIES-ROSS
GUEST COLUMNIST
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Sunday, November 23, 2003
"I never pictured you as an Army wife."
Tell me about it. The words scream red-white-and-blue bunting and I'm just not that kind. I grew up in Silicon Valley, so I've always known about defense contractors but next to nothing about soldiers. I knew the stereotype, that an Army wife is a complacent woman blindingly supporting a soldier who blindingly supports whoever is in line ahead of him. Oh, she is noble, but not especially complex. Just like her soldier-husband.
But my soldier-husband is plenty complex, and I am nowhere near noble.
I don't have a flag sticker on my car or a yellow ribbon around the old oak tree. I know gay couples that should be married and straight couples that shouldn't. I want universal health insurance, over-funded public schools and a minimum wage that corresponds to the minimum amount of money it takes to survive. I think there are too many guns and not enough condoms. I wish people didn't have abortions and I wish they didn't commit suicide, but sometimes you have to let the people with the burden decide how to carry it.
When my husband first left for Iraq with his Reserve unit, I had trouble knowing how to talk about it. I was opposed to the invasion, but incredibly proud of his powerful sense of duty. I thought President Bush was at best lying and at worst, foolish, but I still hoped that the troops could bring some security to the Iraqi people. Bush may be traveling on his first passport, but many soldiers on their way to Iraq had served in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan. The troops had experience in building peaceable nations where none had existed before, so I crossed my fingers and prayed.
When the unit's family support group had a car wash to raise money for our Christmas party, I was there to wave a flag and a "Support The Troops Car Wash" sign. Meanwhile, a pack of protesters gathered on the corner. Part of me looked longingly at the protesters, knowing that their objections were a lot like mine. At the same time, I thought they looked pretty silly out there, protesting a car wash.
I do a lot of things other Army wives do. I watch the news obsessively or not at all. I pray a lot more than I used to, and I try to be nonchalant about the danger my husband is in. Sometimes I cry in the middle of the day. When someone else's soldier dies, I am relieved, then guilty for being relieved and then not guilty or relieved, just sad. The grief is something we carry as a group. And while the "No Iraq War" signs in my neighborhood comfort me, so do the American flags.
"Do I contradict myself?" Walt Whitman once wrote. "Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large; I contain multitudes."
Whitmans' quote describes all the interesting people I know; all the great books, the worthwhile movies, the inspiring leaders. It also describes the essential element of our national character. For better or worse, this country is racially, economically, culturally and philosophically diverse. So if we are going to be the Johnny Appleseed of democracy, we need to give our military the benefit of our national diversity.
We need to give Army uniforms to hippies.
OK, maybe not all the hippies. But there's a big chunk of Leftish America that could contribute to the military and the military could gain by having them.
As a liberal married to the Army, I believe the separation between the political left and the military is maintained at great peril. And that peril comes not just to those two groups, but to the nation and global security as a whole.
Nation building is the primary objective of our foreign policy, and it will be for some time. While most Americans, including the president, fear the "entangling alliances" of nation building, too bad. Nations must be rebuilt because broken nations are dangerous. And the United States has to do it because a) we have the most to lose, and b) we're the only ones who can.
It's also inevitable that the military will continue to be the first and largest American presence in any broken country. In order to show the world a kinder American face, the left must seize the opportunity to help create security in places where there has only been tyranny and oppression.
The Pentagon has long tried to avoid such missions, with the plea that "We're not trained to nation-build." But there are people trained to do exactly that, and the Pentagon should start finding ways to recruit them and put them to work.
Where are these nation-builders? They are in the Peace Corps, where they restore basic services and teach independent living. They are in the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, where they install and monitor democratic institutions. They are in the United Nations Development Program, where they volunteer in 132 countries to protect human rights and support the creation of electoral processes.
They are in the political left -- not exclusively, but in great numbers.
If the Pentagon calls, why should liberals listen? If global peace is not reason enough, what about maintaining political credibility? National security issues are at the top of public concerns, and yet the left seems content to let conservatives rule the military roost. While it may be true that the institution will always tilt to the right, it could still be a more equitable place.
If we are going to teach other nations to live peaceably with their neighbors inside and outside their borders, our military must be as diverse as our nation. Our country is not the masterwork of one great thinker. The United States was built by a long line of inventors, philosophers, artists and craftsmen who were citizens and, when necessary, soldiers.
I've come to fall in love with the idea of the citizen-soldier. OK, there might be some transference here, but even before I fell in love with my husband, I believed Robert Heinlein was right in "Starship Troopers": National service should be a requirement of citizenship. This is not a poll tax or a literacy test, and no willing volunteer can be turned away. It just means that if you're not willing to sacrifice for the group, you shouldn't be allowed to make decisions for the group.
The administration has suggested that many of the functions of the reserves should be moved into the active Army because mobilizing the reserves disrupts families, businesses and society in general.
Good -- that's their purpose. Despite the draft, most of the soldiers who died in Vietnam were poor, young and unconnected, and too many deaths went unnoticed for too long. Congress responded by moving some essential functions into the reserves to guarantee that when the nation went to war, everyone would know.
Their strategy has been largely successful. Today, when a reservist is activated, a community loses a police officer, a firefighter, a public defender, a marketing executive or a public relations official. That soldier's absence is felt not only by his or her family, but also by co-workers, friends and neighbors. It's one thing to have your taxes go to defense spending; it's another thing to send your next-door neighbor.
At the same time, I think many reservists' families were right to be angry about Iraq. Poor planning, unrealistic expectations and false promises have left many reservists inadequately trained, poorly equipped and uncertain when they will be returning home. This unpredictable and dangerous situation is much different then "regular" rotations through Kosovo and Korea.
The administration's response to its own poor planning should not be to decrease the size of the reserves. The intellectual diversity of the reserves is essential to global security, and elected officials should do what it takes to attract and retain professionals of all kinds. Most of all, America should not be able to ignore the fact it is at war.
I also have faith that the people we're trying to attract (yeah, you with the humanities degree) will be able to adjust. You won't get to pick the administration you work for, and you may have to go somewhere you don't like for reasons you don't agree with. You'll have to put other people in front of you, and you'll have to ask your spouse and your children to do the same.
In exchange for those sacrifices, we'll get a more effective military, a safer country and a better world. Maybe even a smarter, more involved electorate.
We live in the most amazing of countries. Almost 300 years ago, we started a process of idealism, argument, faith and sacrifice. There is a continuous stream of new people jostling their way to the table, trying to get their voices heard. Conflict and diversity are two sides of the same coin, one necessarily arising from the other. It's hard, and it always has been.
But look around. Not only does it seem to be working, it seems to be catching. Other countries are starting to wonder how different cultural groups can live peacefully together, and we have the opportunity to show them. We should start by ensuring that our military is a reflection of our national diversity -- not an exception to it.
When the protesters showed up at the unit's fund-raising car wash, I felt a little like a communist infiltrator at first. I was nervous about what some of the troops and other Army families might say about the protesters, and about anyone who opposed the war.
I was quickly put in my place.
"It's the greatest country in the world," I overheard one of the soap-covered troops say. "There aren't many countries where you can put your opinion of the government on a big sign and wave it around.
I'm willing to die for it."
We all want peace and justice. It's just a question of what we're willing to do to get it.
_______________________________
Mary Kay Clunies-Ross is a communications consultant in Seattle. Her husband is serving with the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment.
seattlepi.nwsource.com |
