My mission was to secure two three pronged extension cords shorter than 5 feet in length, and on my way to that aisle in the store, and elderly man asked for some help. Something to do with a large filter screen and how it would be installed. I had a couple ideas, but was mostly just being nice, having sensed that his knowing how to install the part probably wasn’t the reason he initiated conversation. Sure enough, as I was trolling the electricity asile for the cords I needed, he was haming it up with another stranger about the filter, then proceeded to the checkout aisle.
As luck would have it, I arrived just as he was sharing a few facts with the checkout clerk, like that he hadn’t had a headace in his entire life prior to turning 71 years old, that he was 82 years old now and had spent 20 years in the Marine Corps. Stepping aside so I could conduct my business, he lagged a bit and we headed out of the store at the same time.
“So you’re telling me that none of the junior officers you served under gave you a headace over 20 years?” This was a good opening, as my intention when engaging strangers in conversations is generally to extract some knowledge, hear a story that might get me thinking about something other than the mundane bullshit swirling around upstairs most of the time.
His take on life was that it’s been good, and in looking back, his military service was an entirely positive experience. Even when he was patrolling the Yangtzee river during the 1930s, getting poped at by snipers, it was good. Even though the method most often used to escape these attacks was to jump over the side of the boat opposite of where the bullets were coming from, and everyone ducking underwater as long as they could before the ship’s lone gunner took care of the attackers.
Often times during low-tide the bottom of his boat would get stuck in the mud at the bottom of the river, and during those times, when mobility was impossible, he and his shipmates would spend many hours over the side ducking their heads, waiting for the tide to shift again. Was it annoying for him and his buddies? Sure, but not half as bad as the Chinese sniper had it, with rounds for days and nobody above the water or on deck to fire them at!
From there the conversation shifted to Iraq, and that ‘thing’ happens, when two people who have served begin to speak about such a thing, politics suddenly doesn’t exist, but instead what you have is an in depth conversation about the people who are occupying boots we once wore. He mentions the journalists who recently died over there, and we get to talking about the tactic of using improvised explosive devices with remote control detonation. The horror of such a thing, and how training, equipment and teamwork have little to nothing to do with whether someone lives or dies.
This was an indication of why this 82 year old marine has enjoyed such a good life, whereas so many Iraq War veterans take a mental turn for the worse upon coming home. Months spent ducking your head underwater in a Chinese river to excape gunfire must not be as scary as driving a vehicle through the streets of Baghdad. Of course a lot of people would write this generality off, and argue that Americans today are soft in comparison with this man’s generation. Makes some sense, as far as generalities go. I mean, if you want to be a jerk about it.
Personally, I respect the fact that training and preparation equal better odds when it comes to just about everything in life, regardless of what era in history it happens to be. The sense of control these elements provide us, can turn danger and fear into life-affirming tools of empowerment. That’s the military in a nutshell, especially when applied to one’s decision making process prior to enlisting. But what happens when that sense of control is removed? What does all that danger and fear lead to when control is no longer an asset?
“Yea, I’ve had a good life. Now I’ve got colon cancer. Yea, found out a few weeks ago, but I’m not getting it treated, just going to let it run it’s course. Don’t want to end up like a lot of old folks, not able to get around, needing help for everything…”
What a great character to meet.
“Training and preparation” are part of civilization. What kind of species would we be if we didn’t try to make out lives better?
Exactally! So up until Vietnam, military service was ALWAYS a good choice, and by now it’s become the equivalent of someone going to Vegas and betting the value of their harvested organs on a single hand of blackjack. If they win, they may be FORCED to play again. If they lose…
That last part is exactly true.
It used to be that you served your one year in a war zone, and that was it. You did your duty. if you wanted to go back, that was your choice. You might like killing Cong, or you might like Asian pussy on R+R.
I was talking with someone recently about military service. He relished the potential opportunity to go to Iraq. I told him that’s cool, except it isn’t a one time deal anymore. You go back over and over until your luck runs out.
I’d take those odds. I was watching a show on TV detailing the losses from each conflict since the American Revolution and in the current conflict the casualty rate is the lowest of all, after Grenada.
So being a soldier today at war you have the best chance for survival in the history of the U.S. Not too shabby, I’d say.
Right:
Even though the death rate may be low, about .667%(1000 deaths per year/150,000 troops in Iraq)
The rate of injury is pretty high, 6.67%(aboout 10,000 injuries per year/150,000 troops in Iraq) Many of these injuries are not trivial, road side bombs are very good at severing limbs. Advances in batle field medicine have led to a high survival rate in situations that probably would have resulted in death a few years ago.
Comparing survival rates of an armed conflict that took place a century ago with one taking place today is like comparing the engine specs of an Edsel with one from a sports car.
In order to use statistics in that way, you need a lot more constants, and with the technology comparison between and then, you’re truly talking apples and oranges.
Baghdad ER (if anyone hasn’t seen it, why not?) shows us exactally why some soldiers that would have died from similar wounds in the Civil War, end up surviving today. The doctors we’ve got working over in Iraq are amazing.
That’s not a fact one should leverage in any specific political direction. It’s a blessing, not a reason to justify the death of a soldier on patrol down Route Irish in the next couple days.
It think when pundits make comparisons of survival rates as a way to justify the opinion that we’ve made progress, that things are looking up (according to these numbers I compared with wars that took place in ancient Rome…now when Ceasar took out a village in Gaul, the number of enemy killed…)
That’s why they became pundits and not scientists or engineers.
In order to use statistics in that way, you need a lot more constants, and with the technology comparison between and then, you’re truly talking apples and oranges.
That is ridiculous. Combat is more lethal today than ever but the point is it refutes the ealier claim that survival is like playing blackjack, in which the house has a significant advantage.
It just isn’t so. Maybe if you played blackjack and you got to see all the cards and count into the deck, sure.
So up until Vietnam, military service was ALWAYS a good choice, and by now it’s become the equivalent of someone going to Vegas and betting the value of their harvested organs on a single hand of blackjack.
See, this just isn’t true, for Vietnam or any conflict before Iraq. Military Service is a BETTER choice now than it ever has been.
Yep, highest chance of survival with the lowest chance for mission success. If that is the trade off then I’d say this is the WORST time to enlist.
And as for the lethality of combat. Talk with WWI vets, British Army lost (KIA) 20,000 men on July 1, 1916 (additional 30,000 wounded, this doesn’t include German or French). Lethal weaponry comprises only a small part of casualty rates.
I’d like to watch Baghdad ER, but no hava HBO. That’s rich folk TV. I did watch a piece on Wounded Warriors. It followed an Ohio Marine reserves unit. Lost quite a few guys, some from small arms fire, and some from IEDs. Good show overall. The worst part was when they talked about these guys families. Very sad.
Mission success???
As far as I know no one has even defined what would be considered “success” in Iraq. Right now the only goal is to make it to 2008 and dump the whole mess on the next administration.
Navy veteran and emergency physician Dr. Paul Phrampas says emergency care for injuries like this on the battlefield is changing.
“The two things, particularly with blast injuries, like we’re seeing a lot of in Iraq right now, become external bleeding from the lower extremities, and breathing problems,” Dr. Phrampas said. “Some things like external hemorrhage and uncontrolled bleeding, if they’re not taken care of in seconds to minutes, can result in a patient bleeding to death right there in the field.”
With medical and non-medical personnel paying more attention to bleeding, and breathing problems from collapsed lungs, battlefield casualties are down by 80 percent.
One of the biggest lessons they’re learning in Iraq is not to spend too much time in the field trying to put in a breathing tube. It’s more important to get a basic one in, breathe for the patient with a bag, take care of a collapsed lung if that’s happened and stop any massive bleeding.
Patients also shouldn’t be moved too quickly either. They have to be well stabilized
The advantage of the house wasn’t what I was thinking of when I wrote that, but instead the randomness of success or failure once you sit down and are dealt that first hand.
You could be a novice or the most tallented card-counting technician on earth, and if your first two cards are ‘2,10’, there’s no relevent application of hope you could apply there.
It’s not because you’re not as good of a blackjack player as the guy sitting next to you…it just wasn’t your hand. Only in a game, you can try it again…when that bad hand relates to an IED blast, there’s a chance you’ll come out disfigured or scarred – and as a BLESSED CAVEAT, the people on hand to fix you are a sample of the smartest, most patriotic and highly skilled doctors around.
That’s a blessing – – – but not factoring in such a blessing, and calling this war “safe”…which is what you’re basically doing, you’re saying that it’s relatively “safe” compared with wars from 50+, 100+ years ago.
Simplifying war…turning it into nothing more than a stream of statistics…it basically strips humanity from the history altogether. It turns the concept of war into something like a stock price, or box score.
That’s the mark of humanity’s struggle throughout history…the urge to kill and steal being so tempting to disturbed individuals who like being famous. Rationalization for the use of one’s population as if it were a commodity like oil, corn or natural gas…
Rationalizations that ONLY come about amidst wars where nearly all ‘human elements’ produce a negative response from the populations of both sides…here it’s the majority of American and Iraqi people who don’t feel the war is right on those grounds…
That’s the historical test of whether a war was just or warranted…not the numbers attached to it. It’s about whether or not THE PEOPLE are happier when it’s over…whereas in real time, it’s all about what the leaders THINK the people should be happy about, but for reasons linked to a horrible conspirancy, these goons just aren’t GETTING IT!
Once that’s the attitude, there’s only one way to go…and that’s down. America’s got a LOT of blowjobs to dish out before the damage of all this is finally overcome.
What are you basing this on? Incentives like college money and the like? Right, there are many wars, history is full of them. Many are identified with necessary sacrifice, followed by a better deal for America and our allies – the Revolutionary War, Civil War, WW2…these three presented the opportunity to break chains and make the oppressors’ understand that they weren’t going to put up with it anymore.
Out of the first we were finally able to direct our own destiny, without the life-sucking influence of a pimp ruling us from across an ocean.
Out of the second we finally had a federal government making laws that the states HAD TO adhere to. Putting aside the moral implications of slavery, when the federal government tells Florida that something is illegal, we can’t have Florida suddenly deciding they’re going to break off and form their own country!
Out of the third we finally had PROOF that one country stealing the land and killing the people who lived on it, basically conquering land by force it had no right to, then the rest of the world WILL band together and make sure it doesn’t stand.
What is the Iraq War doing historically when compared with each of these wars? Since we’re comparing fatality rates, why don’t we compare other things like…relevence, the influence of politics, the influence of industry?
Or is the thing to do – cherrypick what supports one argument, and ignore everything that doesn’t fit?
I think at this point they would consider… “as they stand up, we’ll stand down” as an overwhelming success. Nevermind the realities of a divided Iraq.
Why not? I still have questions about this. Was it right for the Union to force it’s will on the south at the barrel of a gun? Mostly rhetorical, but if 100% of Florida was ready to be it’s own nation tomorrow, would it be right to kill them over it?
Part of the problem with Iraq is no one in charge is being honest about why we are there in the first place. I am reading a book, American Theocracy by Kevin Phillips, where he argues that the main reason we are in Iraq is for the oil. Combined with a belief in certain circles that Iraq will play a role in the end of times. If the main reason for being there is to get access to oil, leaving is almost impossible, of course with the insurgency going strong, oil production is probably at its lowest level in recent years.
As for letting the south out of the union, not a bad idea.