A Tale of Two "Pilots".

[necso]

(or, "What Did You Really Do During the War, Daddy".)

So let us return the favor.

....

It always irritates me when one man is held to a certain standard (usually invented for the occasion), when others are not. It particularly irritates when this is applied to that most noble, honorable and patriotic form of service to the nation, military service in combat.

While I have often been critical in the past of military practices, which I have found to be backward-looking and wooly-headed, military service in combat sets the standard for service to our nation. It also sets the most telling standard against which to measure a man and a citizen.

Usually, I think that it is enough for a person to merely have served, and I will respect him for it and leave it at that. I do not enquire into the details, and whether poverty, choice, chance or vision landed him there. I do not enquire what role he played and whether or not he served in combat.

However, I do recognize that serving in wartime is something more admirable than serving in peacetime, that serving in combat is something higher still and that volunteering for all this sets yet a higher standard. For what more can we ask of a man than to come forward, join the nation's service, go to meet the enemy, meet him face to face, and kill or be killed?

And if a man performs well under those circumstances, then I recognize that he has proven himself in a way that most men don't and I admire him greatly for it. And if, for acts under fire or because of wounds, his military peers award him medals, then I typically accept their judgment: because it is has been made as much about the man as the acts, and they will know the man much better than I can, having seen him perform under fire. (And yes, I know that in this, I am giving the military too much credit. But, normally, I leave criticizing the issuance of medals to those who have truly earned those medals, out of respect for their courage and selfless service.)

And usually, I just leave it that a man has served and, unless he makes some show of it, do not bother with the details.

But I guess few people share this view, and so perhaps we should examine everyone's military service with a finer glass and see what this tells us about them.

So let us look at two prominent men, (who coincidentally seem to be spending some time together at this hour), and see how they came to enter the service and how they served.

Let us start with a certain prominent (former) naval officer. Coming from a family with a proud and honorable naval tradition, it would be only natural for this man to enter the naval service. After all, many men follow in their father's footsteps, and this is understandable if not exceptional.

That this man entered naval service in peacetime, and not in war, well, that can be seen simply as a chance event, not as just making an easy choice. And, if his career as an officer was helped along by the fact that his father and grandfather were, or became, Admirals, well, that too is only natural and it shouldn't be held against him.

After all, it is the "tip of the spear" service that carries the most weight, and that will give us the best measure of the man.

So what is the nature of this man's service and how well did he perform under fire?

(At the moment I can't really bring myself to go there, so I will leave it to a far better man than I am to say what needs to be said.)

LINK.

But now let us talk about a second "pilot", who stands beside the first. (Whom I do not name out of a certain, obviously mistaken, but lingering respect for the first.)

Consider this man, this scion of a wealthy, elite, politically connected family. Consider how he used these connections to land a cushy, much sought after and envied position stateside.

Consider the fact that, when safely ensconced in this position, he made damn sure that he never got anywhere near Vietnam, much less where the bullets were flying. Consider the fact that he seems to have grown rather casual about his military obligation over time and left the service at, (and at the very least), the earliest possible moment.

What does this say about the man? What does this say about his concept of service? Indeed, did this man really serve his country at all, or did he just go through the motions of serving, making sure that there was no significant risk or personal cost entailed in doing so? And did his "service" really only serve himself. Did it really only serve to ensure that he didn't have to serve in a more demanding form, like going to Vietnam and getting shot at.

And is this man still just serving his own interests now, in the name of, and in the place of, serving his country?

The answers are pretty obvious, aren't they?

....

If we are to apply a standard of military service to a man, other than that standard applied by the military at that time, let us apply that standard to all public men equally... It will make few of them look good.

But let us not limit ourselves just to their military service, but rather let us consider their entire lives. Let us see what their actions say about them, and let us see what causes they are serving: their own causes, or the sacred cause of our great nation.

(I believe that this qualifies as a post about the armed forces, if only in the military service, lies, myths and legends department.)

I am beginning to take this personally....