So i'm going to start blogging again. Haha don't believe me huh. Well tomorrow is my birthday and I'm going to drink this wine. Which is supposed t0 be pretty good
And its 2002 which will mean that the tannins will be nice and mellow.
Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged. -Ronald Reagan
Senator Reid,
I am a US Army Reservist. I was activated in March 2005 and served on
FOB Abu Ghraib, Iraq from June 2005 until May 2006. I was First Sergeant
for a Medical Task Force responsible for all detainee health care in
Iraq. My unit was awarded the Meritorious Unit Commendation for our
accomplishments and I received the Bronze Star for my achievements. I
certainly hope you can sense the pride I have in my unit and my service.
That pride will soon be stripped from me in defeat.
My father is a Vietnam veteran; a Captain in Saigon. Like me, he was a
volunteer and was awarded the Bronze Star. He began his tour when I was
two weeks old. While I was growing up, I heard over and over again in
classes from grade school well into college how the United States lost
the war in Vietnam. I wondered how he could be so proud in defeat. I see
now that it is happening to me how his pride and accomplishments were
stripped from him on a rooftop in soon-to-be Ho Chi Minh City.
The Democrats have wanted Iraq to become a Vietnam for George Bush from
the start. You, sir, finally have your Vietnam parallel. This war has
been pure politics for you and the Democrats. You have now conceded
defeat when the Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and Airmen
have not. And my children will have their parallel as well. They will
wonder how I can be so proud in defeat. The only question that remains
is whether my defeat will be a dramatic airlift off a rooftop or whether
it will be an impotent crawl across the Kuwait border.
From the beginning you and your ilk have sat on the sidelines, our
sidelines, declaring the immorality, illegality, and the futility of
your country's efforts. In emergency medicine there is an old saying; if
your patient believes he is dying, he probably will. Your stance on Iraq
will prove to be just that sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. To my
children, I will have to explain how the war was declared "illegal" by a
bunch of politicians who readily admit they didn't read the
authorization to use force that they signed. And how Hans Blix didn't
really declare that the inspections were working, only that they would
keep Hussein from doing too much. And how Hussein violated every
resolution the UN threw at him. And how the Democrats connived the US
into thinking the war was all about Big Oil and Haliburton without
batting an eye at the corruption surrounding Total Fina Elf, Yukos, and
the Oil for Food program. And that the only shred of illegality
surrounding the war is the lack of sanction by the very institution, the
UN, that sat by idly and allowed a brutal thug to buy their morality.
This loss will be compared to Vietnam, as you wish, but the loss will
not be mine. It will be yours. It will be Speaker Pelosi's. It will be
the Democrats' loss, forever and ever. In fact, since the Democrats'
conceded defeat in both Iraq and Vietnam when we were winning
militarily, the only Vietnam parallel you will likely achieve is how the
Democrats so readily accept defeat.
We are winning this war. Just look at the signs. The enemy cannot safely
wear uniforms, they cannot confront us directly, and instead they hide
amongst and target unarmed civilians. When they succeed in blowing up an
unsuspecting marketplace, they can count on you to dutifully deliver the
big sound bite about how the civilian body count is direct evidence that
the war is lost. Then you tell the same enemy that all they need to do
is kill more civilians and wait, kill more civilians and wait, kill more
civilians and wait. They were waiting for 2009 but, fortunately for
them, "elections have consequences."
This is not the 1960's or '70's. This is the information age and, sir,
there is simply too much information about this war that contradicts
your statements and actions. History will not be kind to you.
--
1SG Steven G. Cotton
This annoying trait has never been put on more ostentatious display than here in James Carroll's memoir about his tortured relationship with his father during the war years. Joe Carroll, who had quit the seminary just before his ordination as a priest, went on to become a lawyer, an FBI agent, an Air Force General, and the first director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Having judged himself unworthy to be a priest, he and his devout wife Mary placed their hopes in their sons, with James, after his older brother Joe contracted polio, becoming the natural choice to become a priest. James did go through the motions of joining the priesthood, though it's never clear from his narrative that he held any genuine religious beliefs, but as he became increasingly involved in the Catholic Left anti-War movement of the 60's & 70's, he eventually quit the Church. He has since become a bestselling novelist, a Boston Globe columnist, written this prize-winning memoir and has just written Constantine's Sword, a "historical" account of anti-Semitism in the Catholic Church (see Orrin's review).
These are the bare bones of the story and they suggest a young man whose opposition to the immorality of the Vietnam War causes a crisis of faith. In point of fact, the War seems to have had little to do with Carroll's personal crisis, certainly its morality had nothing to do with it, instead the story he has to tell is that age old tale of youth rebelling against authority. I'm loathe to engage in psychoanalysis, being both unqualified and not much of a believer in its efficacy, but Carroll uses the term Oedipal so often and the book is cast so clearly in the form of an Oedipal drama that it's hard to avoid doing so. Start with the fact that he outdoes his father by actually becoming a priest, where Joe fell short; continue with the way that this profession figuratively wed him to his pious mother, whose entry to Heaven would be virtually guaranteed by virtue of having borne a priest; move along to his utter rejection of his father's profession and an eventual adoption of complete pacifism; then conclude with his decision to leave the priesthood after his father had been forced out of government and crippled by disease. It's hard to see how Vietnam actually matters to any of this psychodrama : had his Dad been a butcher, Carroll would have become a vegetarian, had he been a fireman, Carroll would have been an arsonist. This is a mere story of generational tension dressed up in the ennobling guise of a great moral struggle.
The most revealing aspect of Carroll's self-portrait and the account of the moral dilemma he supposedly faced as a result of the War is his complete failure to consider the consequences of peace on the Vietnamese people. His opposition to the War, as he himself depicts it, is almost exclusively a function of the fact that he's made uncomfortable by the means that were being used to conduct it. There is not a single word of consideration here of what would, and did, happen to the people of Vietnam once America withdrew. The moral calculus at work seems to be that it is better that Vietnam be destroyed by Communism than that a single American have to commit an act which will trouble his conscience. That is a perfectly honorable argument to make, and a necessary corollary of pacifism.
Even this shortcoming would not be so bad were it not for the impact it has on the rest of the book. But one result of his failure to treat this issue is that he ignores what was certainly a central motivation of Cold Warriors like his father. They certainly prosecuted the War because they had considered the consequences of not doing so and found these consequences unacceptable. While it is possible, perhaps even accurate, to argue that they were wrong in their determination, simple fairness requires that Carroll give them their due and look at their legitimate motivations. Deprived, by the author, of the beliefs that drove them, they are presented as one-dimensional characters whose sole purpose is to stand as convenient villains in Carroll's little morality play.
At one point in the book Carroll places the "blame" for American involvement in Vietnam on the Catholic Church and the advocacy for intervention of folks like Cardinal Spellman. Though delusional, this assertion is of a piece with his blaming the Holocaust on the Catholic Church, as he does in the aforementioned Constantine's Sword. One has, first of all, to be troubled by a man who attributes such power to an institution which after all represents a minority of the citizens of Germany and the United States and which has proven incapable of influencing those nations on such issues as birth control, and the like. Secondly, one can't help noticing that there's an element here of reenacting the Oedipal drama with his biological father, his rebellion now directed towards the figurative father, the Church, perhaps even God. The cumulative effect of these two books is to suggest that the greater problem lies not in the sins, real or imagined, of Joe Carroll and the Catholic Church but in the psychological conflicts of James Carroll.
Finally, Carroll claims to have arrived at the viewpoint that war is always unjust. How then would he square his concern over the Holocaust with this position ? He makes much over his obsession with the threat of nuclear war : but if we'd had the bomb in the late 30's or early 40's, or better yet, if Churchill had it, would Carroll really oppose dropping it on Hitler and the high command of the Nazi Party, no matter how many innocent civilian lives it would have claimed ? Would he really be unwilling to sacrifice 30,000 or 40,000 or however many in order to save the tens of millions who ended up dying during the War ? For an author who writes with such smug self-certainty about the purity of his own moral vision, and who is so eager to judge the moral failings of others, he somehow manages to avoid the really hard questions that his newfound philosophy raises. For all that these books are about the author himself, they ultimately reflect fairly little deliberation over the ramifications of the moral choices that he's made.
Which brings us to the final legacy of the Baby-Boom generation. They have succeeded brilliantly in rebellion, in rejecting the institutions, the morals, and the beliefs of their parents and the other generations that came before them. The problem they have left behind is what should replace the Judeo-Christian culture which they've done their best to destroy. Perhaps in this sense James Carroll's book is a signal text for his generation : just as he speaks eloquently about rejecting the faith of his fathers but falls silent about what has replaced it, his generation stands amidst the rubble they have created and have no idea what to erect in its place.
GRADE : D-


