It
was 12 September 2001 and a friend of mine and I were walking back
to the think-tank where we both worked from the National Press Club
where he'd been doing an interview for French radio. "Tony"
is a devout political type, a former Clinton speech-writer and one
of the most genuinely nice guys that I know.
I
don't know about New York, but DC was downright eerie that day.
It was, well, quiet. I mean, unlike New York, we weren't shut down.
The streets and businesses were all still open, and in fact just
about everyone came to work. It was, in many people's eyes, a personal
act of defiance to the jackasses that hit the Pentagon and the Towers.
So the streets were full, but they were quiet. No honking. No screeching
tires. No pissed off cabbies or pedestrians clipped by a speeding
suburbanite drunk with the urban potential of his SUV. People said
excuse me. True, they said it in about 75 different languages, but
everyone got the point.
Tony
and I worked in the part of the think-tank dealing with Strategic
Studies. In other words, war. I was there because I am a professional
soldier (on loan for a year). He was there because he's a smart
cookie (a Rhodes Scholar in fact) and knew people, which is pretty
much how it works here in DC. The day before shook something loose.
Tony
was a shade over forty, and he wanted to know if he was too old
to enlist in the Army.
I
told him what a massive waste it would be because he's about twice
as old as what we need and at 40+ years old I just couldn't see
Tony carrying a rifle as a private in the infantry. I guess he didn't
quite get the unstated part. I like Tony, but I suspected that what
I said and what he heard were two different things. That was confirmed
a short while later when, upon hearing speculation about the resumption
of a draft, Tony said in a casual conversation of which I was a
part, "I support it but we just have to make sure that the
right people are drafted." I asked for clarification, and after
disclaimers it came down to the idea that it would be a terrible
waste of talent if we drafted men and women with strong educational
backgrounds.
Now
for all intents and purposes I myself am probably to the left of
my friend on a lot of social issues, but his statement brought me
up short. Being on the left is supposed to mean being egalitarian,
and that is supposed to apply to military service as well. At least
in theory. In practice, however, this man who once wrote the better
part of the States of the Union addresses for the President was
demonstrating something different. It reminded me of a letter I
once read. The letter was from a general to a congressman. The letter
was written in 1942 from a general to a congressman in response
to a letter from the congressman. I reprint this letter because
nothing else could make my point quite so eloquently as does this
long-dead and unknown-to-history American officer.
[Dear
Sir]
Your
letter of February 17, to the Adjutant General, concerning Private
Robert H. Lister, Company A, 165th Infantry, has been sent to
me.
You
state: "I am wondering if there has been some mistake in
his assignment to Fort Ord. Robert Lister has a fine education,
has a Masters Degree, is about ready for a Doctor's Degree, is
an expert Spanish student, a skilled archeologist, and had been
an instructor at the University of New Mexico."
In
this division of 22,000 men, I receive many letters similar to
yours from parents, relatives, friends and sweethearts. They do
not understand why the men who had a good law practice at home
cannot be in the Judge Advocate Generals Department, why the drug
store manager cannot work in the post hospital, why the school
teacher cannot be used for educational work. They are willing
for somebody else to do the hard, dirty work of the fighting man
so long as the one they are interested in can be spared that duty.
If the doctors in the future are to have the privilege of practicing
their profession, if archeologists are to investigate antiquity,
if students are to have the privilege of taking degrees, and professors
the privilege of teaching in their own way, somebody must march
and fight and bleed and die and I know no reason why the students,
doctors, professors and archeologists shouldn't do their share
of it.
You
say, "It strikes me as too bad to take that type of education
and bury it in a rifle squad," as though there were something
low or mean or servile in being a member of a rifle squad and
only morons and ditch diggers should be given such duty. I know
of no place red blooded men of intelligence and initiative are
more needed than in the rifle or weapons squad.
In
this capacity, full recognition is given to the placing of men
so that they may do the work most beneficial to the unit of which
they are a part. Whenever men are needed for a particular duty,
the record of all men having the required skills and qualifications
are considered. I have examined the records of Private Lister
and it is fairly complete. I know he holds the 100-yard dash and
broad jump records in the Border Conference; that he was the president
of his fraternity; that his mother was born in Alabama and his
father in Michigan; that his father lives at the Burlington Hotel
in Washington and I suspect asked you to do what you could to
get his son on other duty.
It
is desirable that all men, regardless of their specialty, shall
learn by doing; how hard it is to march with a pack for 20 miles;
how to hold their own in bayonet combat; and how to respect the
man who really takes it, namely the private in the rifle squad.
If
Private Lister has special qualifications for intelligence duty,
he will be considered when a vacancy occurs in a regimental, brigade,
or division intelligence section. You can't keep a good man down
in the Army for long. Every commander is anxious to get hold of
men with imagination, intelligence, initiative, and drive.
Because
you may think I'm a pretty good distance from a rifle squad, I
should like to tell you I have a son on Bataan peninsula. All
of know of him is that he was wounded on January 19. I hope he
is back by now where the rifle squads are taking it, and I wish
I were beside him there.
I have
written you this long letter because in your high position you
exercise a large influence on what people think and the way they
regard the Army. It is necessary for them to understand men must
do that which best helps to win the war and often that is not
the same as what they do best.
Sincerely
yours,
Ralph T. McPernell
Brig. Gen., USA
Commanding
My sentiments
exactly.