Skip to comments.
How To Make Sense Of Military Service In A Culture That No Longer Understands It
The Federalist ^
| 05/25/2020
| Casey Chalk
Posted on 05/25/2020 8:34:53 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
A couple years ago, I took a red-eye flight from Washington Dulles International Airport to London. Standing in line to board, I suddenly spied one of our nation’s most notorious military leaders, David Petraeus. “King David,” as he was known during his tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, curiously walked up to an empty kiosk not far from the gate where we were boarding for London.
Within less than a minute, an attendant appeared and started checking him in, ostensibly for our flight. Special service for the former commander, I thought. “Look,” I exclaimed to those nearest to me in line. “It’s David Petraeus!” Within minutes, everyone was pointing at him, commenting on his presence, and taking pictures of him on their iPhones. “How did you recognize him so quickly?” asked the woman behind me. “Because I’ve briefed him,” I replied, with a smile.
Indeed, during my first and second tours in Afghanistan, I had helped assemble briefings personally directed to him. That might lead readers to wonder why I would be so willing to embarrass a man under whom I had once served. The answer is simple.
While we were working our rear ends off enabling him and his staff to make decisions to further our nation’s strategic objectives and save American lives on the battlefield, he was sleeping with his biographer, U.S. Army reservist Paula Broadwell. Apparently during or after that fling, Broadwell got access to classified documents from Petraeus, or, as we began calling him, “General Betray-us.”
For those of us who worked for him, it felt like a betrayal, not just of U.S. military regulations regarding sexual relations, but of everyone serving in Afghanistan. That the affair didnt come to light until Broadwell started harassing another woman was all the more damning. I suppose King David was an apt nom-de-guerre, and not just because of Petraeus military brilliance.
I thought of that anecdote while reading the chapter on honor in Scott Beauchamp’s recent book Did You Kill Anyone?: Reunderstanding My Military Experience as a Critique of Modern Culture. The series of essays are inspired by Beauchamp’s service in the U.S. Army.
Honor, says Beauchamp, has to do with “the deepest sort of fidelity, or attunement, to a higher and anti-utilitarian moral purpose.” This sense of honor is certainly inculcated in the military, but one finds it plenty of other places: family, faith, and nation. Honor fosters devotion for goods that transcend our individual desires and bind societies together. Yet, as Beauchamp also rightly diagnoses our culture, it’s “most alien to contemporary Western (particularly cosmopolitan) sensitivities.
Beauchamps reflections on the intersection of the military and contemporary culture are most welcome. His thoughts on boredom, ritual, community, hierarchy, smoking, tradition, and honor are both interesting, and to varying degrees, counter-cultural or with a conservative bent.
Yet the subjects are addressed in novel and intelligent ways that should be accessible to a broad audience. I imagine many liberal elites would find themselves persuaded by Beauchamps indictment of technocracy, materialism, consumerism, social atomism, and utilitarianism. This is a testament to the authors ability to swim in common American waters, as well as those that are highly academic.
Unfortunately, some aspects of Did you Kill Anyone? proved annoying. Beauchamps seven essays are overstuffed with quotations. Many are interesting and relevant, but they tend to drown his voice. Indeed, I often found it hard to locate Beauchamps thoughts amid the seemingly hundreds of people he cites in the course of a 130-page book. That was frustrating, especially because every time I succeeded in identifying the authors voice, I was increasingly interested to hear what he had to say.
This gets to my larger frustration with Did you Kill Anyone? Each essay was engaging and thoughtful, but I wasnt sure what held them together. His postscript is short and amorphous. Nothing at the end of his last, seventh chapter connects with the previous six.
Certainly Beauchamp has offered a credible critique of many aspects of modern American culture. Yet there is no unifying coherence and no clear alternative. He writes in his postscript that he has a skepticism towards unfettered capitalism and materialism, a skepticism that I share, although Beauchamp offers little as an alternative.
Beauchamp writes of a longing for values which gesture toward transcendence. Such milquetoast phrasing is inadequate given the threats facing Americans fed up with a global economy that has left them behind and a meritocratic elite who condescendingly sneer at their traditionalist beliefs and cultural practices. We dont need gesturing toward transcendence, whatever that means. We need transcendence itself, which our forefathers found in abundance within the worship, liturgy, and sacred truths of biblical religion.
Beauchamps language, whatever his noble intentions, is reminiscent of Philip Larkins Church Going. In it, the poet recounts stopping at a country church not worth stopping for, but that retains value, if nothing else, because so many dead lie round. America will need a much heartier view of transcendent truth to weather the storms that confront us today and inevitably tomorrow.
Id embarrass Petraeus again, if given the opportunity. His arrogant indifference to his role as a senior officer in the U.S. military coupled with an incomplete apology and his continued enjoyment of lucrative senior positions gained from his military and intelligence experience is a violation of so much that Beauchamp rightly commends in his book.
A lack of ritual, community, and respect for traditional forms of hierarchy, tradition, and honor are all contributing to the unraveling of American society. Im grateful for Beauchamps penetrating analysis of all these subjects. I just wish he had given the reader a more coherent, complete narrative to unite these disparate themes and orient us towards an alternative future focused on human flourishing.
Casey Chalk is a columnist for The American Conservative, Crisis Magazine, and The New Oxford Review. He has a bachelors in history and masters in teaching from the University of Virginia, and masters in theology from Christendom College.
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: military; militaryservice
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 next last
To: SeekAndFind
The ‘culture’ only knows what Hollywood shows them and ONLY the WAY Hollywood shows it.
21
posted on
05/25/2020 9:30:59 AM PDT
by
SMARTY
("Nobility is defined by the demands it makes on us - by obligations, not by rights".)
To: SeekAndFind
I agree with the Betray-Us image.
It has never ceased to amaze me, in the human experience be it sex drive, loneliness, lack of discipline, how men mostly, powerful men use their position to attach themselves to women. I often wonder if I were not married would i have sucombed to the temptations.
I saw that as i moved up through management. One of my bosses even commented on it, why do managers “prey” on lower level women.
The answer is some cases was they were in love, in others in lust, in others mid-life crises and sometimes loneliness.
Whatever they do wrong, these people are human and some cannot avoid the human feelings inside of them. Even at the cost of their reputations.
It’s a pity, but it is understandable.
To: Alberta's Child
Thanks for the (already known) history lesson. I dont think you really know what a mercenary is but the definition is in my post above.
23
posted on
05/25/2020 9:35:38 AM PDT
by
suthener
To: SeekAndFind
"...why I would be so willing to embarrass a man under whom I had once served."
No matter what one thinks about Petreaus, this makes the author look small and petty.
To: Alberta's Child
Ridiculous statement on so many levels. The military is for projecting force and defeating our enemies in battle. You have the Guard that operates domestically. We have laws to limit the military acting as law enforcement on our own soil. Be damn glad we have those laws and stop making ridiculous statements. If Trump could deploy a squad of Rangers to protect a barber, Obama could have used that same squad to Shut down gun shops.
25
posted on
05/25/2020 9:44:58 AM PDT
by
OldGoatCPO
(No Caitiff Choir of Angles will sing for me)
To: SeekAndFind
In the early 70's we were told not to wear our uniforms off base and to fly commercial in civilian clothes. Many in the barracks bought wigs to hide their regulation cut. When you went home on leave, you told everyone that you "Worked for the government" at risk of being spit on or verbally trashed if you told them you were in the USAF. Then, you were a SAC trained killer.
I served because it was my duty as an American. We suffered for that physically and got a bonus dose of crap from those who stayed at home...or ran to Canada...protected by their social status and their politics. They got pardoned, we got PTSD.
Don't tell me now that the military is politicized when the whole culture is defined by the lefties that hated us then and have been in charge so long their attitude is mainstream now and unfortunately, long ago, crossed party lines. They have proven goebbels right, their lies repeated often enough, have become the truth.
26
posted on
05/25/2020 9:47:06 AM PDT
by
pfflier
To: SeekAndFind
If this chump of a writer wants to look for someone dishonorable, he should try looking in the mirror:
While we were working our rear ends off enabling him and his staff to make decisions to further our nations strategic objectives and save American lives on the battlefield, he was sleeping with his biographer, U.S. Army reservist Paula Broadwell. Apparently during or after that fling, Broadwell got access to classified documents from Petraeus, or, as we began calling him, General Betray-us.
The "General Betray Us" moniker had nothing to do with the 2012 revelation of the Broadwell affair. It was started by MoveOn.org in a 2007 ad campaign in opposition to Petraeus' support for the surge in written documents he submitted to Congress. They called a general "Betray Us" because he didn't want to tuck tail and run.
Rather ironic that an author who professes that "honor" is so important to him would so blithely lie about the origin of the term.
To: suthener
...but criticizing politicians who set policy and military members themselves are two different things. With our system of government, there is no gap between the two. Our military thankfully and brilliantly conceived serves civilian, and by its extension, political masters.
Taking a different view of mercenary is fine, but when I see a standing force of American troops being paid (underpaid, actually) to stand in the place of a European army against outside enemies who dont threaten our shores, I would say the line of definition to the term mercenary is blurred indeed.
To: SeekAndFind
I just finished reading a two volume history of The Mexican American War.
My biggest takeaway is that people havent changed much in 170 years.
People are just bags of emotions walking around.
I have been a businessman, a Soldier and a teacher.
I much prefer the company of Soldiers and Veterans.
I think the more proper term is warriors.
I prefer the company of warriors.
That leaves out a lot of people who just wore uniforms.
29
posted on
05/25/2020 9:55:56 AM PDT
by
blueunicorn6
("A crack shot and a good dancer”)
To: OldGoatCPO
'You have the Guard that operates domestically. '
Except they don't. Massive amounts of illegals run over our borders and kill and rape our people, and we sent/send our Guard to Iraq and Afghanistan. Your answer is exactly why we have the problems of today. One would think that after all of crap sold by special interest lies in the form of curveball and crossfire hurricane that there would be some form of skepticism in the air concerning our use of military around the world.
30
posted on
05/25/2020 9:57:49 AM PDT
by
Theoria
(I should never have surrendered. I should have fought until I was the last man alive)
To: Theoria
Your argument is worse then the original statement. Do you even know what Posse Comitatus Act is?
31
posted on
05/25/2020 10:02:21 AM PDT
by
OldGoatCPO
(No Caitiff Choir of Angles will sing for me)
To: OldGoatCPO
You understand what invasion is? Glad our boys were keeping Afghanistan and Iraq safe.
32
posted on
05/25/2020 10:13:11 AM PDT
by
Theoria
(I should never have surrendered. I should have fought until I was the last man alive)
To: suthener
Nor were 28 years in the Coast Guard.
This is Memorial Day, remember those who served and those who died in service.
Thank all of you who served and are serving.
God Bless,
Gunner
33
posted on
05/25/2020 10:14:26 AM PDT
by
weps4ret
(Republicans are suffering from Testicular Atrophy, The Continuing Saga!! Still!!)
To: Alberta's Child
Perhaps today is not the day for making this very important, and true, point.
34
posted on
05/25/2020 10:15:24 AM PDT
by
Jim Noble
(Think like youÂ’re right, listen like youÂ’re wrong)
To: stuckincali
It has never ceased to amaze me, in the human experience be it sex drive, loneliness, lack of discipline, how men mostly, powerful men use their position to attach themselves to womenOnce you join the 20% of men to whom a lot of women seek to attach themselves - your chivalric concept that this is a one-way street will crumble.
This is not something men do TO women - it's a much more complicated dance. Men want the most - women want the best - and for men of David Petraeus' standing, it is unnecessary to attach [himself] to women, "using his position" - all the women any man could ever handle just come WITH the position.
Most men, certainly most married men, don't take what's on offer - but the idea that it's some sort of exploitation or even a form of aggression is just wrong.
Check out the stampede of 9s and 10s charging up Capitol Hill after graduation to take up all the gofer and intern positions - same thing. Congressmen who take the view that the job is "money for nothing, chicks for free" are absolutely correct.
I'm not saying they should be taking it - but they certainly don't have to do any heavy lifting to get it.
35
posted on
05/25/2020 10:26:50 AM PDT
by
Jim Noble
(Think like youÂ’re right, listen like youÂ’re wrong)
To: suthener
Thank you for your service.
My son retired last year after 20 years in the Navy. He couldn’t tell me many details about his deployments to the Persian Gulf. But from what I gathered, those submarines were were doing something more than serving as a mercenary force for globalists and Islamic royal families.
36
posted on
05/25/2020 10:50:38 AM PDT
by
rwa265
To: All
The author of the book reviewed in this article is the liar who wrote defamatory pieces about US personnel serving in Iraq for The New Republic.. The last person who should be writing about honor. From wikipedia:
The Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy concerns the publication of a series of diaries by Scott Thomas Beauchamp (b. 1983 St. Louis, Missouri) a private in the United States Army, serving in the Iraq War, and a member of Alpha Company, 1-18 Infantry, Second Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division.[1][2]
In 2007, using the pen name “Scott Thomas”, Beauchamp filed three entries in The New Republic (TNR) about serving at forward operating base Falcon, Baghdad. These entries concerned alleged misconduct by soldiers, including Beauchamp, in post-invasion Iraq.
Several publications and bloggers questioned Beauchamp’s statements. A U.S. Army investigation had concluded the statements in the material were false. The New Republic investigated the statements, first standing by the content of Beauchamp’s articles for several months, then concluding that they could no longer stand by this material.
37
posted on
05/25/2020 10:58:40 AM PDT
by
pluvmantelo
(If elected, Biden will be the first President subject to the 25th amendment upon taking office)
To: marktwain
I agree with post 16 by marktwain. Our military still is and represents duty, honor and country. The young recruits who step up become good soldiers and when they leave show good charactership/skills. The political correct chickencrap movement has hurt the military’s efficiency and makes the personnel operate under irritating conditions.
I regret those who served since Korea have been sent to places such as Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan on missions that were impossible goals considering the dysfunctional culture & religion there.
Iraq was poorly planned, the victory was quick but the occupation had not enough troops to find the weapon stores. We decapitated Saddam’s leaders but failed to use Iraqi lower level military and technocrats who knew how to police and run the electric, water and other necessities.
Afghanistan had a good start as we removed the Taliban but our rules of engagement while humane were thought by the bad guys to be signs of weakness so they came back to harrase us endlessly.
38
posted on
05/25/2020 11:12:54 AM PDT
by
RicocheT
(Don't argue with an idiot; people watching may not be able to tell the difference.)
To: joma89
“Great points. The US military has become a mercenary army paid for by the highest bidder and in its most recent cases, those payers have been islamic countries.”
Were you in the military, and if so, when? I was an REMF in Desert Storm. The Saudis sure thought they hired us, but I thought I was defending an allied country. Not that I thought they deserved our defense, but our President ordered us there. I enlisted during the war in Vietnam. Not dodging the draft, as my number was pretty high, and it was late, less than two years before our final withdrawal, and the fall of Saigon. I was looking for a meaningful job, and training, and something useful to do with my life. I found it for 24 years, and for the 24 or so subsequent years I’ve not regretted it. You blame the military, when it looks to me like the politicians are the ones who should bear any blame. So I also ask, “Who were YOU voting for all those years?”
WRM, MSgt, USAF(Ret.)
39
posted on
05/25/2020 11:18:23 AM PDT
by
Old Student
(As I watch the balkanization of our nation I realize that Robert A. Heinlein was a prophet.)
To: pfflier
“In the early 70’s we were told not to wear our uniforms off base and to fly commercial in civilian clothes. Many in the barracks bought wigs to hide their regulation cut. When you went home on leave, you told everyone that you “Worked for the government” at risk of being spit on or verbally trashed if you told them you were in the USAF. Then, you were a SAC trained killer.
I served because it was my duty as an American. We suffered for that physically and got a bonus dose of crap from those who stayed at home...or ran to Canada...protected by their social status and their politics. They got pardoned, we got PTSD.
Don’t tell me now that the military is politicized when the whole culture is defined by the lefties that hated us then and have been in charge so long their attitude is mainstream now and unfortunately, long ago, crossed party lines. They have proven goebbels right, their lies repeated often enough, have become the truth.”
Amen!
WRM, MSgt, USAF(Ret.)1973-1997
40
posted on
05/25/2020 11:25:58 AM PDT
by
Old Student
(As I watch the balkanization of our nation I realize that Robert A. Heinlein was a prophet.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson