Tom Glenn's Blog, page 168

Robert Reich’s The Common Good (2)

More about Robert Reich’s The Common Good:

When Reich emphasizes the role of leadership in correcting our national move away from the common good, he’s speaking my language. As he puts it, “leadership must entail trusteeship.”

As I’ve stressed several times in this blog, leadership, to be effective, must be focussed on the well-being of the follower. The leader’s job is to support, develop, and raise up his or her followers, to do everything possible for the followers to be the best that they can be. That’s what Reich means by trusteeship—contributing to the common good by helping others.

A genuine leader, in other words, contributes to the common good. Reich quotes Shimon Peres, a former prime minister and president of Israel. He says that leadership is “defined not by personal ambition, but my morality and a call to service.” Leadership is defined by serving.

Good education for all is another factor in the common good. Otherwise, citizens lack the skills to make good decisions for themselves and their neighbors. We Americans have, on the whole, failed to assure good education for all. The data Reich cites makes the point better than I can: “In 2016, one out of every four Americans believed the sun rotates around the earth; a third did not believe in evolution; a third did not accept the reality of global warming, and even among those who did, many did not believe that humans are at least partly responsible. Without shared truth, democratic deliberation is impossible.” (Italics added).

One symptom of America’s education weakness is lack of trust in major media. This is new. As Reich says, in the 1970’s, 72 percent of Americans expressed trust and confidence in the press. But in 2016, “only 18 percent of Americans said they trusted national news media, according to the Pew Research Center. In a Gallup poll at about the same time, nearly two-thirds of Americans believed that the mainstream press was filled with ‘fake news.’”

More tomorrow.

Robert Reich’s The Common Good

I’ve just finished reading Robert Reich’s The Common Good (Alfred A. Knopf, 2018). The book shocked me. In it, Reich offers voluminous statistical data to show that since the 1980’s, we Americans have moved away from our devotion to the common good to a focus on what’s-in-it-for-me. The results have been serious damage to our country.

Reich says that “the Common Good consists of our shared values about what we owe one another as citizens who are bound together in the same society—the norms we voluntarily abide by, and the ideals we seek to achieve.” I’m inclined to equate a concern for the common good with altruism and disinterest in the common good with egocentrism. Reich doesn’t go that far, but he does begin his book with the story of Martin Shkreli who made a fortune by exploiting others. He bought the rights to a drug called Daraprim, the only approved treatment for toxoplasmosis, a disease that can cause seizures, blindness, and death in cancer patients and people with AIDS. He then raised the price from $13.50 per pill to $750.00. He justified his action by claiming the we Americans live in a capitalist society where everyone makes as much money as he can. Shkreli, in sum, exemplified the opposite of devotion to the common good.

The end result of the move away from the common good is the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the top 1 percent. Reich cites the statistics: “By 2016, the typical American household had a net worth of 14 percent lower than the typical household in 1984, while richest one-tenth of 1 percent owned almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent put together. Income has become almost as unequal as wealth: Between 1972 and 2016 the pay of the typical American worker dropped 2 percent, adjusted for inflation, although the American economy doubled in size. Most of the income gains went to the top. In 2016, the annual Wall Street bonus pool alone was larger than the annual year-round earnings of all 3.3 million Americans working full-time at the federal income minimum wage of $7.25 and hour.”

More tomorrow.

The Imminent Danger of a Presidential War (2)

Continuing the text of yesterday from Paul Berg—as you will see, it is a letter to Congress:

Ramsey Clark’s assessment was dead on. Within several years President Bush and Vice President Cheney, both war time service avoiders, got us involved in an unjustified and unnecessary war in Iraq.  Both of them relished in their roles of warrior princes. (Bush’s arrival in combat gear aboard an American aircraft carrier declaring victory is the most egregious example of this.)

Today we have a President who is erratic, incapable of understanding the nuances of international diplomacy, and unable to carry out the responsibilities of his office. He has very little historical understanding and no appreciation for the ultimate consequences of his actions. He appears to have no understanding that words can be a tipping point in a tense situation with another nation.

As President Trump comes under more scrutiny and encounters additional criticism for his erratic behavior, his innate narcissism will motivate him to unify the nation around him against an external enemy. The consequences for the United States may well be thousands of deaths (potentially millions) and the further erosion of America’s moral leadership in the world.

What I am sharing with you is not a vague suggestion of a remote possibility. Rather, this is a warning of the most likely scenario in our near future, given the current situation. Be aware that when the next Presidential war occurs, there will be two causes: 1. an irrational President who has given in to the temptation to become a warrior prince and unify the nation around himself, and 2. the failure of the United States Congress to act as a check and balance, as our Founders intended, to reign in the impulses of an irrational leader.

As one who has served in an unnecessary Presidential war, I urge you and all members of Congress to recognize the severity and immediacy of the danger we are in and pass legislation to limit the powers of this President to lead us into another Presidential war.

“War is sweet to those who have not tasted it.”

Erasmus

End of quote from Paul Berg. I’m anxious to hear your reaction.

The Imminent Danger of a Presidential War

Today, I am posting without comment a text by my friend, Paul Berg, also a Vietnam veteran. He’s the author of Sandra’s Hands: A Reflective Journey from the Vietnam War to the Siege of Wounded Knee (CreateSpace, 2016). I’d welcome readers’ reactions.

The Imminent Danger of a Presidential War

In the year 2000 I worked for several days on a project with Ramsey Clark, Attorney General under President Lynden Baines Johnson. During this time I took the opportunity to ask Mr. Clark about his experiences working under LBJ during the Vietnam era. And I expressed to him my anger at LBJ for sending me and hundreds of thousands of other young Americans off to fight an unnecessary and useless war [in Vietnam].

At one point I asked, “Mr. Clark, what do you see as the major threat to American security in the 21st century?” Without missing a beat he replied, “That’s easy—Presidential wars.” He went on to explain that there are several major reasons for this.

First, according to Mr. Clark, is the fact that most Presidents are aware that it is wartime Presidents who are remembered in the history books. According to Clark, this was an important factor in LBJ’s continuing expansion of the war in Vietnam. Clark related that LBJ was frustrated by his limited three month WWII experience in the backwaters of the Pacific during WWII. “If the Joint Chiefs of Staff had wanted to romp across Eastern Europe, LBJ would have gone along with it.” I protested that this could not be a universal characteristic, because I saw no indication of this in President Clinton’s behavior. Clark agreed, saying that Clinton was very much a part of the peace movement of the 1960’s.

Secondly, Mr. Clark explained that many men who reach middle age and who have little or no wartime experience are prone to relishing the role of “warrior prince” once they are elected to high office and have an opportunity to use the most powerful military in the world.

Clark further explained that the United States was an exception on the world stage by concentrating war making authority in the hands of one man—the President—despite the constitutional restriction on the President’s war making power. He explained that the other major world powers rely on a collective decision making process for going to war and that our concentration of war making power in one person added to the risk of unnecessary war.

Clark concluded by emphasizing that based on his experience, our major threats in the 21st century were not external, but internal and that most prominent among these is the threat of Presidential wars.

More tomorrow.

Grossman’s On Combat (4)

Further on Grossman’s techniques for dealing with Post-Traumatic Stress Injury (PTSI) described in his book, On Combat:

“You are only as sick as your secrets,” Grossman says. “Pain shared is pain divided.” In other words, we need to talk with others about what we went through. But my tendency, for decades, like that of many Vietnam veterans, has been to hide from others the terrible things I witnessed and participated in during combat. There are still some experiences I can’t talk about. But they show up in my writing and my presentations.

The greatest comfort I’ve received has come from other veterans. They read what I have written. They hear my presentations. They don’t say much to me, but the way they look at me tells me they understand. Sometimes, they put a hand on my shoulder. Other times, they give me soft smile. They share my pain, and I share theirs.

“Tactical breathing” is another practice that Grossman recommends. The slow breathing while counting he describes is virtually identical to an exercise I developed early in my bouts with PTSI. The essence is breathing in slowly through the nose, holding the breath, then exhaling equally slowly through the lips. He recommends doing a slow count of four at each step and repeating the exercise. It always brings relaxation, which, for me, is a form of peace.

And Grossman reminds the reader that a warrior’s purpose is to help others. In combat, we see and engage in actions that leave the soul wounded. But our reason for being there and doing what we do is to help and protect others, usually our fellow countrymen. He ends the books thus:

“You see, it [combat] is not about killing, and it is not about dying. We are not all called to kill, and we are not all called to die, but we are all called to serve our civilization in this dark hour. It’s about preserving and protecting. It is about serving and sacrificing. It is about doing a dirty, desperate, thankless job, every day of your life, to the utmost of your ability, because you know that if no one did that job our civilization would be doomed.”

In sum, On Combat confirmed that I am not alone. All combatants go through what I’ve been through. Our service was honorable. Our families and fellow countrymen are safer because of us. Rather than shame and isolation, we should feel pride and brotherhood. I am at peace.

Grossman’s On Combat (3)

Among the lessons I learned from Grossman’s book, On Combat, is that the bond I felt for the men fighting next to me, the strongest bond I’ve ever known, is universal. As Grossman puts it, “Warriors do not fight for medals, they do it for their partners, buddies, and friends.”

That bond made the deaths I witnessed on the battlefield more searing. I grieve as much today for the men who died beside me as I did the day it happened. That, as Grossman makes clear, makes me like every other man who goes through combat.

I learned that we all weep. Grossman speaks of it as the taste of tears. So my shame at the unmanly act of crying over the men I saw killed is nothing to be ashamed of. The best of us do it.

Grossman stresses that overcoming Post-Traumatic Stress Injury (PTSI) is learning to cope. It comforted me to know that all combatants are profoundly affected by their experiences. We all have to learn how to deal with our memories.

A technique that Grossman recommends for PTSI is “delinking the memory from the emotions.” He describes exactly the technique I have used for years to train my feelings to stay in check when confronted with the unbearable memories of combat.

“Critical incident debriefing,” Grossman says, can help the combatant to come to terms with the horror of combat. He tells of the practice, among police and firefighting units, of requiring those who have been through brutal experiences to talk about them immediately afterwards. This is a technique I’ve never been able to use. I’ve never spoken to others about my experiences in a setting like the one that Grossman describes. But I have found two practices that work as well or better: writing down what happened and telling others about my memories in presentations before audiences.

The latter is particularly painful for me. In an earlier blog, I told of getting tears in my eyes every time I talk to audiences about some events from my past in Vietnam. It still hurts to tell what happened. But that telling has added immeasurably to my inner peace.

More tomorrow.

Forthcoming Appearances

I interrupt my discussion of On Combat to let readers know of public events I’ll be participating in during September.

Between 8:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. on Saturday, 8 September, I’ll be manning a table and selling my books at the Maryland Public Television Flea Market to be held at the MPT studies at 11767 Owings Mills Boulevard, Owings Mills, MD 21117.

Then, on Saturday 15 September, between 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., I’ll be at the American Legion Flea Market. It will be held in the Howard County Medical Pavilion parking lot at 10710 Charter Drive, Columbia, MD 21044.

Finally, on Saturday, 22 September, from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., I’ll be selling my books and talking to readers at the Authors on the Patio event in Burtonsville, MD. It will be just outside the Marilyn J. Praisner Library at 14910 Old Columbia Pike, Burtonsville, MD 20866.

I’d be pleased if any of you could make one or more of those events.

Grossman’s On Combat (2)

As I hope I made clear in yesterday’s post, my years of facing combat in Vietnam left me scarred. Post-Traumatic Stress Injury (PTSI) doesn’t go away. The memories never fade. It is up to the sufferer of the malady to find a way to go on living. Many don’t. The rate of suicide among veterans is roughly twice that for non-veterans.

I learned early on that if I suppressed my grisly recollections, they came back to haunt me in dreams and flashbacks. I had to face them, bring them into conscious memory, and accept them as a part of me. I forced myself to remember. I trained my emotions to constrain themselves. In short, I learned to cope. As I eventually came to understand, coping is the best a PTSI victim can do. It is the only thing he can do.

So now I live with my memories. They are just as vivid today as they were the day I went through the unspeakable events that caused them. I still can’t speak of some things I remember. But I force them into my conscious memory lest they stew in my unconscious and erupt when I’m not prepared to manage them.

So, as a matter of survival, I needed to understand combat and what it does to one’s soul. When I learned of the existence of the Grossman book, I bought a copy. Reading it, it turned out, wasn’t so easy.

Grossman’s portrayal of combatants fits me precisely. As I read his descriptions, I was stunned to see myself in every phase of reaction he detailed. That meant that I couldn’t read for very long. The emotions the book roused were too intense. So I read a dozen or so pages at each sitting. That stretched out the time it took to read the book, but it was the only way I could get through it.

More tomorrow.

Grossman’s On Combat

 

After many interruptions and distractions, I’ve finished reading On Combat: The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and Peace by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman with Loren W. Christensen (Warrior Science Publications, 2008). I read the book because I wanted to understand my own reaction to being in combat in Vietnam.

Background: As I’ve reported here before, between 1962 and 1975, I was in Vietnam at least four months each year. I had two complete tours there and so many shorter trips that I lost count. I kept getting sent back to Vietnam for several reasons. First, as a National Security Agency (NSA) employee, I knew North Vietnamese communications as well as I knew my own body. I’d been exploiting them since 1960. Second, I spoke Vietnamese, Chinese, and French, the three languages of Vietnam. Third, and most important, I was willing to go into combat with the army and Marine units I was supporting. That made me very popular with the military—no sooner would I get back to “the world,” what we called the U.S., than a message would from Vietnam asking for me to be sent back, and back I’d go.

Readers have asked me if I had a choice. Could I have refused to return to the war in Vietnam? Yes. All my time in Vietnam was voluntary. First of all, I loved the work itself. Second, there weren’t many like me, with the skills and training needed to do the job. And third, I saw it as my duty. I knew I could be a great help to U.S. combat forces. I had proven, again and again, that letting U.S. forces know what the enemy was doing, where he was, and what his plans were saved lives. How could I say no?

But that work cost me. It deprived my children of my presence while they were growing up. It hurt me to be away from them. Worst of all, it wounded my soul. I observed and participated in actions so grisly that my psyche was damaged. I had nightmares, flashbacks, panic attacks, and irrational rages—all symptoms of a disease we didn’t have a name for back then. Now we call it Post-Traumatic Stress Injury (PTSI). I use the term “injury” rather than “disorder” because it is so clear to me that the malady is the result of an externally inflicted wound to the spirit, not the consequence of the mind’s internal functioning going awry.

To cope with PTSI, I need all the information I can get about what causes the condition and how to deal with it. So I turned to Grossman’s book.

More tomorrow.

Official Optimism and Vietnam (3)

A footnote to my discussion of misguided U.S. optimism about the war in Vietnam: a reader asks why in my posts I never use the terms “Viet Cong” or “VC.”

“Viet Cong” is an abbreviation of “Viet Nam Cong San,” that is, Vietnamese Communist. The North Vietnamese never used the term. We Americans used it to refer to southern Vietnamese who were communists and supposedly independent of North Vietnam. And the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam was allegedly a coalition of patriotic southerners opposed to the U.S. and allied to the Viet Cong.

Neither group was real. Both were extensions of North Vietnam. Some members of the North Vietnamese forces were southerners, but they were under the firm control and command of Hanoi. And the National Front was a fiction. Indeed, the declaration of the National Front’s formation was drafted by the Lao Dong (Workers) Party—that is, the Communist Party—in Hanoi in 1960 and then promulgated in South Vietnam in an attempt to disguise North Vietnam’s control of southern communists.

Despite all my efforts to point out to the U.S. military the chicanery of the North Vietnamese, my counterparts in uniform went on believing in the independence of the VC and the National Front. We Americans were not equipped by our background and experience to understand an enemy so different from us.