A Soldier Speaks [Mar 1, 2003]

Considering that I am a certified wimp who's never seen a gun outside of a police holster, a hunting-supplies store, or just about every movie ever made, I consider myself fortunate to have befriended a soldier. (Note: this entry is not in "character.")

This soldier is an actual working officer in the U.S. military, and as such has many important things to say about our current geopolitical situation. He took objection to something I wrote recently, and I print his response below. I also want to take this space to recommend two excellent books by former soldiers. The first is The Ice Beneath You, a novel by Christian Bauman. The second, just published but almost sure to be a bestseller, is Jarhead, Anthony Swofford's Marine memoir. Read these books, as well as Beneath the Axis Of Evil, my latest offering, which tells the final truth about the War On Terror.

Now, the letter:

"NP,

Usually, I am a thoroughly uncritical supporter of you work. And your most recent blog posting was right-on-the-money in its criticism of the Patriot Act, an evil bill with an equally evil-sounding name. (Explaining why "The Patriot Act" sounds so scary is like trying to explain why little girls are the creepiest characters in horror movies. I just can't, but you know what I mean.)

Anyway, getting on to the Criticism of Neal part of this e-mail, I felt Part II of your post was a little offensive. Speaking as someone who has been vaccinated against BOTH smallpox and Anthrax in the past week, I not only have two sore shoulders but also feel I have a right to weigh in on the whole debate about the mass burial and burning of soldiers exposed to bio-chem weapons.

First off, burning the bodies of such casualties makes a ridiculous amount of sense, and I have consulted experts in the field (special ops bio-chem warfare specialists) on this. We do the same thing (burn the corpes in mass pyres) when Ebola or Plague outbreaks occur in Africa. The idea is to neutralize the harmful agent at the expense of the host body.

Second, we have seen time and time again that the U.S. military will go to any lengths necessary to recover the bodies of dead Americans so they can be buried or cremated in the states. One of the reasons my unit is the most decorated unit in the post-9/11 military is because we jumped onto Takur Ghar in the Ghan to recover the body of a dead Navy SEAL, at the cost of three Rangers' lives. 20 Rangers fought 200 Al-Qaeda for a full night over a fucking corpse. And if you saw/read Black Hawk Down, I need not lecture you that the "Never leave a fallen comrade to fall into the hands of the enemy" credo runs deep not only within the Rangers but throughout the army as well. We do everything we can to bring the boys (and girls) back home. Saying we do anything less is an insult. Thus, it follows that burning the bodies of its soldiers before they can be buried back home is something the military would do very, very reluctantly and only if necessary for the welfare of the living.

Third, I feel you used this issue not out of concern for soldiers so much as an opportunity to needle an administration and war you don't support. And that bothers me, even though I do like to think that you are genuinely concerned for the welfare of the troops (me in particular). But I'm here to tell you: soldiers in the army are sick and tired of anti-war protesters using them as a slogan, as a way to fight a bigger battle with the Bush administration. It reminds us of a mom and dad using their children for leverage in a bigger argument unrelated to the children's welfare. We want to scream something akin to what you said in The Stranger: Shut the fuck up. Stop using us.

Finally, I hope all is well. Sorry for my oft-unintelligent rant there. It's just that we soldiers are tired of being caught in the middle of this ridiculous fight between the powers that be and the protesters, neither of which are rational or mature at the moment.

Peace,

Ex"

Point taken, my friend. Shutting up now.