The killing of 17 unarmed civilians in Afghanistan is a brutal reminder of the true nature of war. The U.S. Army soldier alleged to have committed the crime is under intense media scrutiny. Our court systems, military and civilian, reinforce this individual focus.
However, war – including atrocities – involves society as a whole as well as the troops, a dimension we avoid. The warrior in domestic context is far too little discussed in contemporary America.
Homer chronicled the Trojan War in an enduring classic history presented in two parts. “The Iliad” focuses on the combat between Greeks and Trojans; “The Odyssey” describes the long voyage home of Greek leader Ulysses and his men. They traverse allegorical geography, struggling to put the horrors of killing behind them.
Gen. George S. Patton Jr., the great American combat leader, was intensely mindful of this dimension. He and Gen. James Doolittle, who led the first air raid on Tokyo, presided at a public ceremony in the Los Angeles Coliseum after the surrender of Nazi Germany in 1945.
Patton celebrated the accomplishments of the U.S. Third Army in the victorious drive across Europe. In honoring these troops, he stressed in particular the 40,000 who lost their lives in the final year of the war. Patton made such statements regularly in the few months remaining until his own death.
Such confirmation is particularly important for warriors representing modern democracies. Our egalitarian ethos and efforts to abide by the rule of law contrast starkly with the traditional martial spirit.
In the Second World War, Allied troops were often welcomed warmly by peoples liberated from Axis occupation. Understandably, our media gave special emphasis to this dimension. The Korean War created strong bonds between the U.S. and the people as well as highly effective military of South Korea. The first Gulf War liberated an oppressed population.
The Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq wars have been different. During Vietnam, military personnel were generally discouraged from discussing their service with the civilian population at large. For many Americans, opposition to the war grew into hostility to our own military. There was no collective welcome home.
During and for years after the Vietnam War, association with the military could result in social ostracism and diminished employment prospects. Collectively, our society encouraged both anxiety and shame among veterans. Many middle-aged vets of that war suffer without a Ulysses, troubled – and troublesome.
The Afghanistan and Iraq wars evolved without this problem. Visits to Washington in particular provide visible reminders of the uniformed military, especially on public transportation.
However, constant rotation of active-duty personnel back into danger has been extremely stressful. Enormous psychological strains have been added to physical dangers, and families suffer heavily as well. Too often, needs of military people have been sacrificed for society’s comfort overall.
Additionally, the end of the military draft over the long term has encouraged growing distance between the military and wider society. This makes honoring veterans even more important, but easier to avoid.
To right this imbalance, more veterans should run for public office. Members of Tom Brokaw’s “Greatest Generation” emphasized service in uniform during World War II and in civilian government. Every president from Harry Truman through George H. W. Bush served in our military.
What Washington needs above all is the sort of sensible realism such men and women can bring to policy.
