NPR’s story about the memoir of a psychologist (who, incidentally, contracted PTSD by treating soldiers with PTSD) contained story about a 19 year old man who had received 3 purple hearts in a month. His psychologist remembers telling him that there was nothing “normal” about it and that his shock regarding it was fully justified.
Three purple hearts in a month. The criteria for being “awarded” a purple heart are such that one can almost be assured of receiving one after being stationed in one of the the two major theaters of the wars in which our country is currently engaged (remember that first war…?). This should not be construed as a statement indicating that a purple heart has no (or a lessened) meaning. On the contrary, it should be construed as an indictment of the wars themselves.
I will not call this soldier a boy, because I remember being 19 and would have been insulted at the insinuation that I was not an adult. I will not call this soldier a boy, because he has seen & participated in actions no child ever should. I will not call this soldier a boy, because he is now a (thrice) decorated officer of my country’s military. But upon the realization of his position, this soldier cried, as well he should for all that he has seen, has done, has experienced, and for all that has been asked or commanded of him. And my heart cries for the boy he might be if he were no soldier, uninjured, undecorated, and undestroyed by the war he is fighting for me.
I will not call him a boy and I will not call for additional restrictions on the age at which a young person can become a soldier. As I said, when I was 19, I would have bristled at the idea that I was not an adult, could not make my own decisions. But the fact that I cannot call him a boy and yet weep for him as I would a child soldier drives home the injustice of the war itself. I do not know what he has or done that he will never be able to forget. I do not know what his three qualifying injuries were (not to mention the injury which does not qualify). But I know that they were unnecessary.
Maybe I’ve hung out around peaceniks like John too much, but the stories of people like this solider remind me that nothing is worth this. There can be nothing that necessitates it.
Yesterday, I was listening to a different NPR story, about whether “waterboarding” counts as torture according to a particular person (who he is doesn’t really matter). I mused aloud to my husband that bickering about whether a particular form of unpleasantness counts as “torture” only makes us look stupid (it reminds me of China’s petulant “you have to ask us first!” statement about reincarnation) and juvenile. Have we really matured no further than the playground (my experience, unfortunately, tells me “yes”)? Really, we should just admit that we’re okay with torture (which we clearly are) or agree to abide by the conventions of civilized (*cough*Europe!*cough*) society and state that unpleasantness that we would not permit our own person/children/soldiers to undergo will not be performed by us. I’d almost hope for the former because it’s simply more honest. Then we can have the debate which starts “here are the pros and cons of torture” and can proceed logically from there. Defining a word whose definition could be obtained from a 3rd grader (whether it be “is” or “torture”) is not rhetoric, it is idiocy.
3 responses so far ↓
1 Elaine // Nov 2, 2007 at 6:05 pm
You write that “nothing is worth this”. In a perfect world, that is true. But it isn’t a perfect world, or maybe I’m just not enough of a pacifist (I’m working on it, but I don’t know if I’ll ever get there), and I do believe that there have been times when war was necessary…something had to be done about Hitler, for example. And, yes, I’m aware that I’ve probably violated someone or another’s “law” about bringing up the little jerk in internet discussion, but…tough.
Still, those times are few and far between, and I’m still convinced that if the leaders of the countries in question are not willing to put their own butts on the line and lead the troops in a literal sense…by being present on the front lines…then the battle isn’t worth fighting. If nothing else, that principle would promote having young and vigorous leadership rather than a bunch of posers who are all gung-ho about sending our young men and women to the battlefield but were too chicken or too arrogant to go when they should have. I won’t mention names, but they know who they are…and so do we.
And while I think the question of “how young is too young” is a valid one (and, damn it, 19 is too young to have those sorts of memories), I’m actually kind of uncomfortable with the assumed principle that goes along with it…that at some age, it’s okay for people to have to have those kinds of memories. I don’t think anyone should have to go through battle except in extreme circumstances (see above about there being a few but not many justifiable reasons to fight) or in the case that they provoked it…and again, those folks know who they are.
Oh, and the story: My father received a Purple Heart…for getting shot during a baseball game. The thing is, he was a “guest” of the Germans at the time, a POW during World War II. Somebody hit the ball over the fence into no-man’s land and, having a rather huge lapse of consciousness of where he was, he started to climb the fence to go retrieve the ball. This was a bad move, since going over the wall was a shooting offense. He was only shot in the leg, and suffered no lasting harm (physical or emotional) from the injury, but from stories I only heard after he died (he wouldn’t talk much about it, as is often the case) I’m pretty sure that he suffered from PTSD for a period of time after he was liberated, although he seemed to have come to terms with his war experience later on.
2 xJane // Nov 4, 2007 at 10:08 am
Elaine—you’re correct, there are times that merit extreme measures but one must agree that they are few (the atrocities in Darfur, Myanmar, Tibet). Unfortunately, these are not the reasons we (at least this country) get involved. We didn’t interfere in WWII because we were being righteous about the wholesale deaths of Jews, Gypsies, and the handicapped; we interfered because we were pissed at Japan for attacking us. So yes, bringing up Hitler was perfectly valid (we’re talking about wars, not abortion or atheism) and your point is well taken. You’re also correct about the “too young”. How old is old enough? I don’t know. But of the two people I know who just got back from Afghanistan one (around 19) is far too young and the other (late 30s perhaps early 40s) isn’t. And I’m not saying that it’s okay for the one Pete (they’re both named Peter, funnily enough) to do & see horrible things but I am saying that he is far better equipped to deal with it than the other Peter. And it’s likely not simply a function of actual age than it is of maturity: one 19 year old might be better suited than another and some 38 year olds are not suited at all.
Maybe the point of my ramblings is closer to a hope that we don’t send our troops unnecessarily to see such atrocities. Do I think we should intervene in D/M/T? Yes. Do I think we should’ve gone into I/A? No. Perhaps I would be better able to conscience the injuries if I thought the reason we were there was correct.
3 Elaine // Nov 4, 2007 at 3:32 pm
…Or at least I think so. And that is that, since the end of World War II, the US government (no matter which party has been in charge) has by and large managed to interfere where they shouldn’t and have found all kinds of reasons not to, mostly, in cases where they should now/should have done. This is not universally true, probably, but has happened more often than not.
Leave a Comment