| updated weekly |
home - contribute - donate - message board - events - links - contact us - archive |
| March 8, 2007 Editor’s Desk by Aaron Selbig, insurgent49 [Editor's
note: I am taking the week off from 'Editor's Desk'. Please enjoy this
'classic' column from the past, dated December 14, 2006, on the subject
of why soldiers fight.]
Ours Is Not To Question Why
It’s been a disciplined week here at Insurgent Headquarters. Last week, Nova Stubbs posed a simple question to soldiers fighting in the Iraq War: “Why are you fighting?”. Another Insurgent49 columnist, Kevin Morford, examined in his column of the same week the societal influences that glorify war and warriors. Our columnists, along with an experience I had in Fairbanks last weekend, got me thinking about the American soldier and what makes him/her go into battle with seemingly little or no regard for the reasons that they are being sent to fight. It’s because they are taught that way. In Fairbanks to cover the inauguration of Governor Palin, my producer, J.R. Zufelt, and I spent a Sunday afternoon interviewing Stryker Brigade soldiers for our KUDO radio show. They had just returned from a sixteen-month tour in Iraq (one of them still had Baghdad dirt caked on his combat boots), and were, of course, very happy to be back “in the world”. It was a party atmosphere, and the city of Fairbanks had rolled out the red carpet to welcome home their warriors. One of my questions for them was “What was your reaction when you got the news that the Brigade had been extended for four months and was being re-deployed to Baghdad?”. Their answers surprised me. They were not disappointed or sad. They were not angry or resentful of their leadership. They were proud. These Stryker soldiers felt pride, upon hearing the news of their re-deployment, that their unit was elite enough, trusted enough to be chosen for the mission. One of them even said to me, “If they decided to send me back tomorrow, I would have no problem staying for another year”. Sounds crazy, doesn’t it? When I was seventeen years old, I joined the Army. I’m still not exactly sure why, although I remember having a sense of pride and honor about military service, and a feeling that the Army would give me discipline. And it did. The Army wants disciplined warriors. And in order to achieve that goal, they train their young men and women from Day One of boot camp to think and act as one. “Uniformity” is the buzzword they use to instill the idea among troops. I remember the idea of uniformity in action once on a winter training mission in Germany. Although temperatures were in the teens as our platoon headed out on a nighttime patrol, our platoon sergeant ordered us all to remove our gloves. It was a macho show of toughness in his mind, I believe, that all of his young men could brave the cold without gloves. The idea of uniformity, drilled into all of us in our military training, said that if one person (our leader) was going without gloves, then we ALL were going without gloves. A few minutes into the patrol, all of us casually put our gloves back on without the sergeant noticing. He did not, and he contracted frostbite on his fingers (he was eventually relieved of his duty as platoon sergeant and given a desk job). Many of us considered his fate as poetic justice, to be sure, but it illustrated the fact that the Army’s demand for blind, unquestioning obedience could sometimes get you into trouble. Another time, in boot camp, our unit was lucky enough to visit the infamous School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Georgia. Part of the visit included a speech from a military leader of some unnamed country in Central America. He was decked out in his military dress uniform and addressed us all in broken English. As his speech wore on, it became clear that he was not a big fan of the United States of America. By the end of it, he was badmouthing our country and our leaders, using phrases like “capitalist swine” and “great Satan”. To a few of us in the audience, this “speech” was clearly staged. There was no way this guy could be for real (we found out later that he wasn’t, when we saw him at the PX in his US Army uniform). Why would our drill sergeants subject us to this? The answer became clear when the majority of the young soldiers in the room turned on the speaker. One by one, they revolted, standing up and yelling at the speaker, trading insults and threatening physical violence if he continued to bash America. Before any actual violence took place (it was getting pretty dicey), the speech was halted and our drill sergeants returned us to our normal training schedule. This unusual training method was meant to address the second tenet in the molding of a soldier: fierce and unquestioning patriotism … the kind of patriotism that goes beyond the love of one’s country, its people and laws … the kind of patriotism that makes one want to kill anyone who disagrees. Uniformity and Patriotism. The Army recognized long ago the need to instill both of these into their fighting men and women, and they have become exceedingly good at it. I know firsthand how powerful military training is. It borders on brainwashing, to tell you the truth, and it is relentless. Even young people who are intelligent critical thinkers are not immune to the programming they will experience as members of the US military. They are taught to be uniformed patriots. They are taught to be warriors. And they are taught to never, ever question why. Aaron Selbig is an activist and media junkie who resides in an undisclosed location in downtown Anchorage. He is the winner of a 2006 Alaska Press Club award for Best Editorial Writing, host of KUDO 1080 AM's 'The Aaron Selbig Show' and a co-founder of Insurgent49. Aaron may be contacted at editor@insurgent49.com 'Editor's Desk' appears on insurgent49.com every Thursday. |
-
Columnists -
- column archive -
March 1, 2007 February 22, 2007 February 15, 2007 February 8, 2007 February 1, 2007 January 25, 2007 January 18, 2007 January 11, 2007 January 4, 2007 December 28, 2006 December 21, 2006 December 14, 2006 December 7, 2006 November 30, 2006 November 23, 2006 November 10, 2006 November 3, 2006 October 27, 2006 October 13, 2006 October 6, 2006 September 29, 2006 September 22, 2006 September 15, 2006 September 8, 2006 September 1, 2006 August 25, 2006 August 18, 2006 August 11, 2006 August 4, 2006 July 28, 2006 July 21, 2006 July 14, 2006 June 30, 2006 June 23, 2006 June 16, 2006 June 9, 2006 June 2, 2006 May 26, 2006 May 12, 2006 May 5, 2006 April 28, 2006 April 21, 2006 April 14, 2006 April 7, 2006 March 31, 2006 March 24, 2006 March 17, 2006 March 3, 2006 February 24, 2006 February 17, 2006 February 10, 2006 February 3, 2006 January 27, 2006 January 20, 2006 January 13, 2006 January 6, 2006 December 30, 2005 December 23, 2005 December 16, 2005 December 10, 2005 December 2, 2005 November 25, 2005 November 18, 2005 November 11, 2005 November 4, 2005 October 28, 2005 October 21, 2005 October 14, 2005 October 7, 2005 September 30, 2005 September 23, 2005 September 16, 2005 September 9, 2005 September 2, 2005 August 26, 2005 August 19, 2005 August 12, 2005 August 5, 2005 July 29, 2005 July 22, 2005 July 15, 2005 July 8, 2005 July 1, 2005 June 24, 2005 June 17, 2005 June 10, 2005 June 3, 2005 May 27, 2005 May 20, 2005 May 13, 2005 May 6, 2005 April 28, 2005 April 21, 2005 April 14, 2005 April 7, 2005 April 1, 2005 |
||||||||
| Copyright 2005
Insurgent Media.
All rights reserved. in-sur-gent (in sur'jent), n. 1. a member of a group which revolts against the policies of its leadership. |
|||||||||
