Cleared from my unit

My "to-do" list is growing much more slowly. It now has 99 entries, although most are either X'd off as "completed" or at least checked off as "well-started". A couple of those items involved going in to my reserve unit and processing out, which I did yesterday afternoon.

I had to turn in all the equipment they had issued me, most of which I had taken to Korea. Lots of Army equipment is considered "organizational", which means it belongs to the unit. When you join the unit they sign it out to you, and when you leave you have to give it back. Duffel bags, protective mask, web gear, canteen, rucksack, sleeping bag, etc etc. Pretty much everything but your uniform. So I got that done.

I also had to pick up my personnel file and medical records, which they were supposed to have sent with me when I was mobilized and went to my SRP, but did not. I had spent most of Thursday 9/7 and Friday 9/8 at the unit trying to get these records created in the first place, then they made copies of things to send with me, and then when I got to the SRP, the SRP personnel asked "Where are the originals?" They ended up making copies of things and giving me a pile of stuff to put in my permanent record folder when I got back and picked it up at the unit. So now I'll do my best to remember what's supposed to go in it, and it will probably still be missing something when I get to Ft. Benning. Oh, well - same old left-hand/right-hand problem as usual. SNAFU.

One other thing I had to do was to sign my Officer's Evaluation Report (OER), which is basically your report card for how you did in an assignment. Even though I was in the unit only a short time, the people I worked for seemed to think I did a good job. I am glad I was able to get rated for my time in Korea - my last OER was from before I got out of the Army in 1993, and with a promotion board coming up next year it is important to have some more current evaluations in my record.

The unit was assembling for their weekend drill, and it was nice to get to see a few people once again before I left. I didn't get to know very many people very well since I wasn't there that long, but living and working with them in Korea for three weeks, I did make some friends. I got to shake their hands and promise to keep in touch, which was good. I thought I might have to just "disappear" and not see them again, which I hate to do. The Army's web-based email, the so-called "AKO" account (for "Army Knowledge Online") will enable me to find them and keep in touch, which I could have done in any case. But it's still nice to shake hands and say goodbye.

They also did something very nice - the officers in charge of my section gave me a commemorative plaque to remember my service with the unit in Korea. It contains a piece of barbed wire from the Korean DMZ, which is now the last remaining Cold War frontier (seems appropriate somehow, since I am basically a recycled Cold Warrior - a "retread" as they said of WWI veterans during WWII). They said they were planning to present it to me at the unit formation, but because I got mobilized and am leaving, they just gave it to me as I outprocessed. They also said some nice things about me, which is always a boost for your ego! I thought it was a very nice gesture. There will definitely be a place for this plaque on my "I Love Me" wall with the rest of my military mementos. Here is a photo of it:

(Note to self - learn to post photos!)

(Later note - well, I tried their image uploading tool a number of times, and I can't get it to work. I have too much to do today to mess around with it anymore. But I there are other photo posting options that involve outside services - I'll figure out a way!)

(Much later note - here it is finally!):


Korea Plaque
Originally uploaded by hkp7fan.

Well, it's Saturday morning and the list is waiting! Claire has a swim meet today so I'll be going to that later this afternoon. Otherwise it's more packing, sorting, and preparing...

An Army at Dawn

I just finished reading “An Army at Dawn”, by Rick Atkinson. It is a history of the allied invasion of North Africa in 1942 and the subsequent 1942-43 campaign to drive the German and Italian forces from the continent. It is a very good book, and I can see why it won the Pulitzer Prize.

The book actually came out several years ago, and I wanted to read it then but didn’t get around to it. When I saw it at the Camp Walker library in Korea, I knew it was time to read it. Unfortunately so much has been happening since then that I have only had time to read it in small snatches, and couldn’t really set it aside for later because I need to mail it back to the library before I leave. So I did the best I could under the circumstances. While I might have gotten more out of it had I had the time to sit down and read it in peace, I still enjoyed it and learned quite a bit.

The book is a very competent work of military history, with enough detailed maps and descriptions of unit dispositions and movements to satisfy a serious student (certainly much more detail than I could absorb or hope to remember). It is also very well written as a narrative account of the American (and to a lesser extent, the British) experiences in North Africa. Through first-person accounts, cogent analysis, and engaging writing that almost reads like a novel at times, the author conveys a very realistic and comprehensive picture of what it was like for soldiers from the highest levels of command down to the lowest private.

The title “An Army at Dawn” refers literally to the appearance of the combined American and British invasion forces off the coasts of Morocco and Algeria at dawn on November 8, 1942. I believe it also refers metaphorically to the U.S. Army at the dawn of its involvement in the European Theater in WWII.

The U.S. Army that sailed to Africa was inexperienced and unprepared for combat. Made up largely of National Guard and Reserve units, its equipment and tactics were new and untested by fire. One American general commented that if the landings had been opposed by the Germans instead of the Vichy French, we would never have gotten on shore at all.

The U.S. Army that finally rolled into Tunis and Bizerte six months later was wholly transformed. It was lean, mean, and filled with experienced combat veterans who would take their experience and form the nucleus of the much larger U.S. Army that would fight its way through Sicily, Italy, France, and Germany over the next two years.

The book is therefore a graphic depiction of the coming of age of the U.S. Army through the excruciatingly painful process of “trial by fire”. Many tragic mistakes were made and many lessons learned at a huge expense in destroyed equipment, lost lives, and human misery. But the U.S. soldiers learned these lessons. Their leaders learned how to lead and the soldiers learned how to fight and survive. Those who didn’t were weeded out, either by becoming casualties or by being replaced and sent home to non-combat assignments.

"One of the fascinations of the war was to see how Americans developed their great men so quickly," one British general observed. I can't find the exact quote right now, but another British officer said something to the effect that "no one is faster than Americans at learning from their mistakes and putting things right." There were certainly plenty of examples of that to be found in this campaign.

One of the most interesting aspects of the book for me was the focus on General Eisenhower's development as a leader. I suppose I had the typical view of him as kind of a genial diplomat, less of a general than a politician (everybody knows him by his "famous smile"). Eisenhower was a more complex personality than I had realized. Having read this book, I have a much better understanding of how he came to be able successfully to lead the allied armies and later to become President.

I won’t attempt to outline the course of the campaign or the book, other than to make a couple of observations that occurred to me while reading it:

At one point, right about the time I was commenting elsewhere in this journal about the seemingly pointless redundancy of having to go through the same mobilization processing multiple times at different locations, I read a comment in the book that made me smile. An unnamed American general was quoted as saying “The U.S. Army doesn’t solve its problems – it overwhelms them”. I guess not much has changed in 60+ years.

Another comment that caught my attention (as I sit here packing my stuff to go overseas) was by a British officer who criticized the Americans as being too “equipment-heavy”. While this could be interpreted as reflecting a bit of peevishness due to envy of our material wealth, it is can also be considered a legitimate criticism from a military standpoint. The “tooth to tail” ratio of U.S. forces has just about always been the lowest of any major army on earth. We drag along a lot of shit when we go to war, and other professional military organizations tend to look askance at the practice, preferring to travel lighter and leaner than we do. They have not only fewer material comforts, but also rely less on heavy weapons and airpower, and more on “boots on the ground” - infantry.

While this criticism may seem justified when analyzed as simple statistics on paper, it breaks down when you really look at the dynamics of war and what contributes to victory.

I believe that our willingness to support our troops comparatively lavishly in the field, our willingness to expend huge amounts of munitions through air and artillery bombardment before sending in infantry, and our willingness to provide expensive, very high-tech weapons and equipment to our troops are reflections of the relatively higher value we place upon the individual human life. Even when our troops were draftees instead of volunteers, we placed a higher value on them as individuals than do most other nations. I think this is part of the American character. Organizing and equipping our forces with this in mind results in a fighting force with not only a materially better ability to wage war, but a higher level of morale and the resultant willingness to fight.

My father once met a man in one of his classes in London who had been a German soldier in World War II. The man described having captured an American soldier, and upon searching him, finding a combat ration pack. Inside were not only food including meat, crackers, etc., but also toilet paper and chewing gum. This German soldier was only 50 miles from his hometown at that time, and didn’t know where his next meal was coming from. The moment he saw that his enemy, who was 3,000 miles from home, had these luxury items issued to him on a daily basis, he completely lost the will to fight, because, as he said, “I knew we could never beat you”.

I don’t want to discount the bravery or determination of today’s enemy, nor the value of sheer grit and determination to success in war. But other nations and peoples have consistently misunderstood Americans, thinking that because we are materially wealthy we are necessarily soft and weak.

This was not true in 1942-43, and I don’t think it’s true today. From what I have seen so far, the Army is in fighting trim and doing a good job over there. I only hope that our nation as a whole is waking up to the real threat of militant Islam and that the experience we are going through now might be characterized by future generations as having been a sort of “dawning of awareness” that we are in a war for our national survival.

Rough Riders

I had been wanting to watch the movie “Rough Riders” again for awhile, so I broke down and bought the DVD yesterday. For anyone who may not know, it is the story of the First U.S. Volunteer Cavalry, the regiment raised by Teddy Roosevelt and led by him and Colonel Leonard Wood in the Spanish American War.

Teddy Roosevelt is one of my heroes, and I am enjoying watching the movie (as I have several times in the past). But I had forgotten the beginning, which seems especially relevant to me now. The movie opens with this dedication:

To the American citizen soldier
Who answered the call
Climbed the hill
Paid the price
And never let us down

After the opening credits, it shows Teddy Roosevelt giving a speech at the Naval War College on March 9th, 1898. I don’t know if it is a genuine TR speech or not, but I’ve read enough of his writing to know that it certainly captures the essence of what he believed. It also captures my own feelings very well:

“The time has arrived for this great nation of ours to step out upon the world stage. So let the spotlight fall on us. I am reminded today of the words of George Washington, who said: ‘To be prepared for war is the most effectual means to promote the peace.’ We ask for a great navy, because no national life is worth having if we are not willing to defend it. All the great masterful races have been fighting races, and to lose the fighting virtues is to lose the right to stand at all. There are higher things in life than the soft enjoyment of material comforts, and it is through strife, and the readiness for strife, that a man or a nation must win greatness. So let the world know we are here, and willing to pour out our blood, our treasure, our tears, and that America is ready, and, if need be, desirous of battle.“

The warrior ethos and the martial virtues have not been in fashion in the U.S. for quite some time. They are certainly not “PC”. In my opinion, the feminization and socialistic bias of our public school system have contributed to their decline. If a boy fights back against the playground bully and teaches him a lesson with a bloody nose, he is often castigated for fighting because “violence” is bad, regardless of the context. For many years we got the same kind of message from many people in positions of prestige and authority – violence is bad; when attacked, don’t fight back; “don’t sink to their level”, etc etc.. And many of our so-called national leaders are a complete disgrace when it comes to issues involving the defense of the nation. Sometimes I can’t help but wonder if our national culture is weakened beyond redemption. (For more thoughts on this, see “A Nation of Cowards” by Jeffrey R. Snyder, The Public Interest No. 113, 1993). http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html

I don’t think a majority of people ever really bought into this kind of fuzzy thinking, and I’ve heard enough complaints from other dads at scout meetings, etc. to know that what kids learn at home and what they are forced to endure when in a public setting are not necessarily the same thing. I’ve also observed an encouraging trend towards self-reliance and individual self-defense against crime over the past ten years or so as more states have passed concealed carry laws and more citizens have taken a stand against violent crime by arming themselves. And the U.S. public reaction to the 9/11 attacks was unambiguously in favor of going after the perpetrators, regardless of what the “PC” and media elites tried to do to “spin” the events. Nonetheless, we remain locked in a national debate about what is proper and improper to do, while our enemies just laugh at us and try to think of new ways to take advantage of our liberal values and open society to destroy us.

Fortunately the U.S. military is a strong and vibrant subculture, separate and apart from this kind of nonsense. Regardless of what the popular mood of the country happens to be at the moment, and regardless of whether it’s “PC” or not, the professional military establishment preserves the knowledge and promotes the virtues necessary to succeed in battle. Given the necessary material support and the political will to employ them effectively, they will do just that.

So – back to the movie….