Megan had a post today and one of the things she mentioned was LT. Michael Murphy. She also mentioned being worried about me, but that's just silly. I'm a robot. Nothing to worry about there. But what struck me about the article was the quote from Murphy's father. His father said that Murphy was "honest, kind, caring -- probably the antithesis of what you would call a warrior."
We've been active/knowing participants in this war for the last 6 years (and targets in it for the last 30 or so...) and people sure like to speak on behalf of the soldiers/sailors/marines and airmen fighting the war, suggesting that we pull out without asking what we think, but so few have actually taken the time to go out and meet the soldiers (I'm leaving the rest out, but they're implied. I'm just too lazy to type it all.) and find out who we are as people. Not the group "soldiers" but the individuals.
We've definately got our problems. "Honest" is kind of relative. Alot of joes might have problems with romantic relationships, but the good ones are some of the most honest guys I've ever met. Some of the kindest (although sometimes you have to dig through some gruff exteriors) and some of the most caring. Don't believe me? Watch a senior, salty First Sergeant with his baby girl sometime. Or spend some time in Iraq or Afghanistan with us and watch the way we treat one another when the bad news comes.
Maybe I'm just a little sensitive to stereotypes since the week from hell last week...
I don't mean to take anything away from the pain that Murphy's family is feeling, or minimize their sacrifice. Don't take this as an attack on the father. Just a general commentary using that quote as an example. I definately salute Murphy and hurt for his family.
4 comments:
It's early, so forgive my confusion - what you're saying is that being caring and honest and kind is not the antithesis of being a solider, right? I think 1, Dads always say stuff like that when their son gets killed, and 2, he said warrior, not solider or Marine or airman etc, which is different, you know? I think warrior is a word very very different from solider or any of the others. Do you know what I mean? It's ancient and it implies a lot more than modern military service does. It's almost not an occupation but a mindset.
Also I think he, the Dad, is sort of trying to stick up for his son, and all others like him - grief talking. But honestly, how many of us think "warrior" when we think "solider"? To me, warrior is all tied up in ancient archtypes and Japanese guys with masks and big swords.
On another front, I'm not sure meeting soldiers, etc and thinking we shouldn't be in this war are necessarily tied together. Like, I don't know anyone who thinks we should leave who has anything but the utmost respect and concern for our armed forces. My friend E, for instance, her brother is there, 3 tour I think and she wants our involvement to end - she disagress with her brother, but she believes in him at the same time. Isn't that possible? Or is my brain just not awake yet? ;-)
I don't like that quote. From a literary perspective, the warrior archetype had to be honorable and wise, as well as fierce and courageous. Warriors know WHEN to fight; they just don't run blindly in. But, you can't ever expect anyone to be fully in control of what they say during the grieving period. And look EDW and I said the same thing, and I didn't even read her comment!!! I just started to write, but I'll take a break for risk of repeating what she said.
What I think we all have to remember is the old adage, you can't judge a book by its cover. And BDU's are a pretty powerful cover, so to speak. So, does the wearing of the uniform enhance a person's innate personality, mask it, or change it completely? It's hard to tell, and I think it's different for every person. I'm learning, after years of quick judgement, to take people as they present themselves to me, and be slower to form opinions. In my life, I've known a lot of good people who were soldiers. I've known people who were changed by the uniform, both in good and bad ways.
And as for trying to good-naturedly dismiss Megan's worry over you as a solider, don't. I worry too, Sean. But, as I'm still getting to know you as a person, "soldier" still hasn't solidified itself in my head completely. But, people are going to worry.
Anyway, it's the day of rambling comments on your site. Have fun with them.
no matter what you are all heroes.
edw... definately correct. now that i think about it, there are plenty of people who wear the uniform who i probably wouldn't consider to be "warriors". and that's because of their personality, not necessarily their current job. i know plenty of supply guys and desk jockeys and cooks and whoever else who have taken pride in their profession, learned the basic soldier tasks, and if needed are more than willing to throw on their body armor, pick up a weapon and go wage war. however the army (or whatever other branch) has decided that they can best support the effort by being a non-front line troop and so they do that. but they realize their role and still perform that job to the best of their abilities. and then i've known many a person who would turn tail and run if possible, and is more than happy to hide behind rank, position, duty or physical "ailments" in order to get out of serious soldiering. so i definately get what you mean. however i do believe that alot of the guys i know and consider friends embody both "professional soldier" as well as "warrior", and that "honesty", "kind" and "caring" are all words that could be accurately used to describe them. in some ways, MUST be used to describe the good ones. they couldn't do what they do if they were merely in it for the money. the must care about family, friends, God and country to leave them behind in order to fight for them. and they must be caring and compassionate to the people they are sent to defend and protect, and when you think about it, they have to show those traits to their enemy at the right times.
i personally can't say how many think of "warrior" when they think of "soldier". obviously, i thought they were synonymous.
as for the last, i don't mind people being against the war. their right. what i have a problem with is people using soldiers as an excuse to get out of the war wtihout necessarily taking the time to ask us if a) we're willing to continue fighting b) we think the sacrifice is worth it and c) we're willing to make it. of course we shouldn't make or dictate policy, we're not policy makers, merely instruments of policy. having said that though, i do believe that people are using us merely as pawns to get into office or further their personal agendas without really getting to know us and without accurately expressing our needs and wants. i feel we are frequently being misrepresented by them in order to enhance their position and prey on the fears and guilt of their potential followers.
i definately feel bad for the poor father. and i'm not holding any bad feelings against him because of his choice of words in a time of grief. it was just an example (and maybe a poor and insensitive one on my part) that i was able to use.
what it comes down to is stereotypes. this one is no different than of the racial ones we could throw out. but the poor guy's own father thinks of most soldiers or warriors as dishonest, uncaring, un kind individuals and sees his son as the exception rather than the norm. over the last year, i've heard numerous arguments that a soldier's willingness to go war is explicit approval of that war. when in reality, it's explicit support of the current system of government in the united states. we've vowed that we won't do what so many americans do. "he's not my president". bullshit. the system didn't work the way you wanted it to this time. but if you're going to consider yourself an american citizen, then he's your president and you're a sore loser. you can still influence the government even if you disagree with who is in office. washing your hands of it and walking away from the situation does nothing to improve it. soldiers on the other hand have vowed to follow the orders of the leaders over them that are appointed by the american public, whether we agree with them or not, as long as they aren't illegal or immoral. several soldiers have decided that this war is either or both and have taken that argument before their superiors. the rest feel that it's neither illegal or immoral, but they may not agree with it. however, they remember their vows and honor them.
i've heard the "baby-killer" term pop up, something i thought we'd outgrown since vietnam. i've heard some of the rapes and abuses being used to define all soldiers, instead of the few guilty parties.
it's interesting to see how things have changed. reading some historical accounts of how professional soldiers used to be respected for their intelligence and diplomacy skills as well as their physical prowess, to today, where the stereotype of the "grunt" has become the norm.
courtney... i appreciate it, from both of you.
crystal... nope. we're just guys doing our jobs. thanks though.
Post a Comment