Jim George, an American soldier, was shot three times during
a firefight in Laos in 1971. He lay for days waiting to be evacuated. It was
probably during this time that a germ invaded his immune system. Years later,
after an infected ingrown toenail failed to respond to treatment, he underwent
surgery. Twelve operations later he had no legs.
One day a few years ago, George sat talking with a group of
old-timers at a soldiers’ home whose latest wave of residential patients included mentally
tormented veterans from Afghanistan and Iraq.
“I mean, all wars are the same,” George said.
“Only the landscape changes,” a buddy added.
As I read this anecdote in Thank You for Your Service, David Finkel’s heartbreaking new book
about the traumas afflicting many veterans of our country’s most recent wars, I wondered if
this was true.
Actually, this is not exactly what I wondered. What I
wondered was: What made these recent wars different? And: Why did so many soldiers
return from them with such severe mental issues?
Thank You for Your
Service suggests how mental wounds from World War II, Korea and Vietnam
affected veterans’ behavior. Finkel writes of a father who is silent about his
service but takes out his anger and frustration on his son with a belt. He describes veterans tormented by flashbacks. From my own research I know what
gruesome events combat soldiers witness and experience in all wars.
And yet Afghanistan and Iraq seem somehow different.
It is a volunteer army now. As I read the wrenching life
stories Finkel wove together, it struck me that once combat broke these men,
they had no Plan B. After they came home with recurring nightmares of comrades
blown to bits or guilt over buddies they could not save, they had no next act
to divert them, no calling, no alternative job or profession.
In this regard the global economy offers limited help.
There are ever fewer manufacturing jobs, for example, and in a buyers’ market,
such jobs pay less and offer fewer benefits than they used to. The economy separates
the wealthy from the toiling masses very early in life.
When I was an enlisted soldier in a mainly conscript army 45
years ago, our second most popular topic of discussion was what we were going
to do when we got out. In my case the answer turned out to be college by day
and work by night. I had a wife and son, and my salary was paltry, but with the
GI Bill and frugal living, we saved nearly $5,000 by the time I graduated at
age 26.
The combat soldiers in Finkel’s book seem to have almost no
thought of what might come after the military. When their fighting is over,
they struggle financially. They have too much time on their hands. Their
troubles don’t just seep into their lives; they dominate their lives.
I’m not suggesting most soldiers face this situation, nor am
I diminishing the very real problems some soldiers bring home or the difficulty of
treating them. But veterans of America’s 20th century wars served mainly in conscript
armies and came home to healthy economies. They expected to make a transition
to civilian life, and society was accommodating. Those differences seem
significant to me.
Thank You for Your
Service is, of course, an ironic title. Finkel alludes not to the warmth
of the phrase but to the slightness of it and the distance it suggests between civilians
and soldiers in the post-9/11 wars. One consequence of the volunteer army is that
as a country we’re not all in this together anymore. For returning veterans
with mental trauma, this division only adds to the alienation.
David Finkel's earlier book, The Good Soldiers, is one of the best I've read about the soldiers' experience on the ground in Iraq. |
One story Finkel follows is the military’s approach to
confronting and reducing a suicide rate that spiked during the recent wars. He
chronicles this effort at the highest levels as generals examine each suicide –
what happened, why, what lessons they can take from it. Increasingly the
emphasis is on the last question, as it should be, but the campaign goes
nowhere. The suicide rate defies their good intentions. (Here and here are excellent commentaries on the suicide rate.)
In short the army has taken on this challenge as it does every
challenge – through mandatory suicide training and accountability throughout the chain of command. But there is something counter-intuitive about
an institution that depends on young people’s false sense of immortality also
trying to get them to take the risk of suicide seriously. And, as Finkel’s
account shows, a cover-your-ass mentality and a frequent changing of the guard undermine
accountability.
This is not an easy problem. Soldiers come home with demons –
always have. I interviewed a World War II naval veteran once who told me about the aftermath of a Japanese attack on an aircraft carrier. As he stood on the deck of his nearby ship manning his machine gun, body after body slid over the side of the carrier in an endless series of burials at sea. When he told me this, the old sailor began to sob. “This is my nightmare,” he said.
Our conversation took place 65 years after the war. It was
part of a series of World War II oral histories that I did with Meg Heckman.
These became a book, We Went to War. This
navy veteran, and the infantryman who shot his napalmed buddy to put him
out his misery, and the airman who survived the Bataan Death March – all these
men brought home the horrors of war, but they also brought home a sense of the
future.
Thank You for Your
Service should be required reading for every American, but I especially
hope former President George W. Bush reads it. In Days of Fire, Peter Baker’s new book on the Bush-Cheney presidency,
Bush often exhibits a genuine interest in speaking with veterans of Afghanistan
and Iraq and the families of soldiers who died in the wars there. Finkel’s book
would give him a good idea about how these wars affected veterans and families he is unlikely ever to meet.
*
[A note about David Finkel: In 1977, half a lifetime ago, I was David’s first city editor at the Tallahassee Democrat. He wanted to be a feature writer. Right out of college, he brought with him remarkable writing talent and a reporter's skill for noticing the details with which to enrich a story. He also had a habit I looked for in young reporters: He turned in clean copy, almost daring an editor to touch it. My only contribution to his future was to ease him gently away from features toward news. I can’t pretend this required a lot of convincing.]
No comments:
Post a Comment