|
So they don't have all their decisions made for them by a total stranger!
(Oops! Hah, gotcha, right? ;))
Of course there's no fairness in generalizing about a person's integrity connected to his height or any other physical characteristics. There are some very admirable people who were quite short in stature, like James Madison, whom I understand was only 5'5" or so, and my own Navy SEAL Mark is IMO a good example.
But tallness in men has long been respected for obvious reasons having to do with basic qualities that contribute to an individual's survival and his ability to keep and protect others for whom he is responsible. My ex-husband Dave was 6'4-1/2" tall, but he was the gentlest of men and absolutely hated fistfights or brawls. He would only defend himself if pushed really hard, but once he did, as far as I know he always won. Most who swung at him seemed to have regretted trying to do so when their hands and arms collided with those "blades" -- the bones in his forearms -- if he simply blocked their punches.
My daughter's biodad, another Vietnam vet, who was 6'6" when I knew him in 1968, was a case of someone who was big, handsome as the devil himself, brilliant, and arrogant as they come -- someone who actually admits to being an asshole, oddly enough. He left me behind pregnant when he shipped out for Nam in '68, after having LIED to me about a mythical vasectomy. He promptly forgot about me then, and I had no way to contact him to let him know I was pregnant. Our daughter finally decided to find him in 1998, and the old fart nearly had a heart attack when she called him up and told him who she was!
Joe had been a doorgunner in helicopter gunships near Cu Chi and then Tay Ninh, 1968-69, and he'd been in 13 crashes -- only three of them hard landings, he said. But those crashes jammed his body so hard that he lost a full two inches in height! He still has more metal in his neck than you would believe until you saw the X-rays. He has also died three times while in the care of medical personnel, but he always came back, so it would seem he's a hard sucker to kill.
Don't know why I'm telling all this, except that I got started on my Vietnam (and related) stories, and I guess I thought some of you fellow vets might be interested. I respect the hell out of alla you guys, assholes or good men, tall or short, for what you sacrificed and how people in this country four decades ago made you pay way more dues than anyone ought to have to. At least they did this until recent years when it seems they've been trying to make up for it. Ashamed, so many folks are, of how they treated you -- and well they should be!
It disturbs me, however, that now we seem to have gone way too far the other direction, feeling we must "support the troops" no matter what they're sent to do. Does anyone agree with me about that, I wonder? I mean, I certainly don't want to see a return to the times when war protesters insulted and spit on soldiers or tried to stop troops trains from taking recruits to boot camp by lighting bonfires on the tracks, sending a crazy message to those young guys -- most of them drafted, of course, and many of them were already scared shitless about what lay ahead for them thanks to Uncle Sam.
But on the other hand, surely we should at least communicate to those who wish to protect and serve our country honorably that what's being done these days in our name and through their actions, under orders from Bush administration criminals, is NOT honorable or desired by most of us. Right? How else will they know? The media certainly aren't putting the word out about that very well.
I've been in a quandary about this for some time now and am no nearer to resolving the troubling moral dilemma I feel -- regarding the troops, not the wars and other covert military actions and "intelligence" operations (often propaganda or fodder for it) which I have no doubt are being conducted far and wide.
Whether they are "led" by short assholes or tall ones, or average ones like Darth Cheney and the Chimperor himself, our men and women in uniform deserve better than what they're getting! It's true that they are volunteers these days, and that as such they willingly take oaths to serve the people, which means they must follow orders they're given by military superiors. I get that. But then it becomes complicated because, as I understand it after a great many conversations with my vet pals and a fair bit of study on the matter, soldiers are also duty-bound to DISobey UNlawful orders.
What I've never fully comprehended is how on earth those who serve are supposed to go about disobeying unlawful orders in actual practice. Every instance in the field is, after all, unique. Yet there's the overall military action (war) being prosecuted, as well -- how do soldiers refuse, say, on a company or battalion level, to follow orders because they believe them to be unlawful?
My heart really goes out to our troops these days, but I have to admit a part of me is starting to resent the fact that they continue to obey orders, not just in Iraq but around the world, which I believe are unlawful and which are putting all Americans AT RISK, NOT protecting us....
Mark resigned reluctantly after a decade of service in the Navy due to his inability eventually to reconcile the dishonorable nature of things he was ordered to do with his own dearly held principles. He was proud of his Navy career, but toward the end of it he could no longer feel proud of what he was doing. Not everyone nowadays has the option of simply resigning, so what DO they do?
|