THOUGHTS ON VETERANS DAY, 2015

Thoughts on Veterans Day, 2015

Veterans Day generated conflicting emotions for me for decades, no doubt due to the residual effects of my Vietnam service. I worked many jobs, both before and after graduating from college, and I don’t recall even one offering employees, let alone those who were veterans, a day off. So the day just came and went for me. Although hard to imagine now, Vietnam vets were considered pariahs by a small segment of American society long after the war ended for the US in 1973. In time, more successful conflicts in Grenada, Panama and the First Gulf War lifted the pall that had hung over the image of the Vietnam veteran. ‘Welcome Home’ parades were held in large cities, the ‘Wall’ was opened in 1982, and a lot of vets were able to come out, open up and move forward. Still, Veterans Day seemed to be for the World Wars I and II and Korea guys, not for us.

Such ambivalence was not uncommon among my generation of vets, and I’m pleased to see that attitude take a 180 degree turn. Vietnam vets are getting old, and the raw emotions of the 1960s and 70s have been soothed. The country has changed and so has Veterans Day.  Indeed, the day is now awash in events, parades and free meal offers that can be, well, embarrassing; not that it stops me from heading to McCormick & Schmick’s every year for my free entree.

Any society that distains its military is in big trouble, and you don’t have to go back to ancient Rome for the proof. France’s failed battles (Indochina, Algeria) to retain its colonial empire resulted in finger-pointing at its soldiers--a contributing factor of the right-left political rift in that society that is even more pronounced than in the US. Soviet abuse of its military in Afghanistan was part of a downward spiral that helped destroy the USSR. British soldiers were “scum” to the Duke of Wellington, even as they, under his command, defeated Napoleon at Waterloo. A society that inspired Kipling to pen, “and it’s ‘Tommy this’ and ‘Tommy that’, and ‘chuck him out, the brute’. But it’s ‘savior of his country’ when the guns begin to shoot.”, came to its senses in time to save itself from the Kaiser and, later, Hitler.

Most ‘civilians’ can’t fathom the emotional baggage that many vets haul around, especially those who served ‘in harm’s way’. Those vets never quite meld completely back into polite society, preferring to keep a discrete mental separation between themselves and those who can’t imagine such experience. Perhaps it’s an overt reaction, perhaps a subconscious one. But I believe the reaction is, partly at least, a vet’s belief that society is always ready to pounce on the soldier when the nation’s foreign endeavors go awry. No one signs up to be a scapegoat. As a result, many vets (not to mention active duty soldiers) prefer each other’s company, if they have a choice. Civilian/business life categorically does not provide that choice, so vets compartmentalize and store away that part of their lives to ‘fit in’. In some cases, vets can drive their military experiences so far down into their subconscious that it becomes almost a shock to have them reemerge decades later.

My dad was like that. Only when I returned from active duty and he felt a camaraderie with me was I (and no one else I’m aware of) told details of his World War II experience. Ed Gritzbaugh took part in the Normandy (D-Day) invasion and nearly died in the crash of his 101^st Airborne Division glider near St. Mere Eglise, France in the early morning hours of June 6, 1944. One of his recollections was of his stretcher being carried by German POWs. Another was being strafed and bombed by German planes while lying on that same stretcher on Utah Beach. He didn’t share those details with me until I was also a ‘vet’. Vets talk to each other because they know what to ask, they know they’ll be understood and they know they won’t be judged.

Both our sons served in the Army after their respective high school graduations; Andrew, with the 101^st Airborne in the Balkans, then with the Oregon National Guard in Kuwait, Iraq and Saudi Arabia; Jack, two tours in Iraq with the 101^st. My Army service in Vietnam allows us to enjoy a camaraderie that can be, at times, (per my wife) far too loud and profane. She’s right, of course, but she does not yet realize that such loud, profane interactions are a celebration amongst peers of (literally) simple survival. It’s tantamount to shouting from the rooftops; an act that surely would be even less acceptable.

That, to me, is what Veterans Day is about, that vets are ‘different’ and need to wear that ‘difference’ as a badge of honor, not as a blemish to be hidden. My sons have joined a ‘club’, of sorts, that I’ve read constitutes roughly 7% of the US population; that percentage being those currently serving in the military (less than 1%) plus those still living who’ve ever served (6%).

‘Vets’ are simply this: participants in and survivors of a collective ordeal that results from the foreign policy decisions of our two-party political system. Only a small percentage may have been in combat, heard shots fired or fired their own weapon at an enemy. But, unlike their protected countrymen, each felt that sinking feeling as they reported for conscription or signed away their freedom, sat in a chair and winced as a vendor shaved their civilian hair into a pile on the floor, lined up for endless inoculations, lined up for ‘chow’, dropped for pushups for a shrieking Drill Sergeant, lived with strangers in a bunk-filled barracks, trained endlessly, waited for orders, shipped out to god-knows-where for god-knows-how-long, missed home and family, lost young loves to those still in town, lived in conditions that would bring fellow citizens to tears and for pay that would attract few resumes.

A recent survey found that, within the 18 to 34 ‘Millennial’ age group, only 12% admitted to being ‘patriotic’. Yet, military service thankfully attracts enough young men and women who don’t live within themselves, from all walks of life and all sections of the country. In large part, this is due to the exposure of these young people to veterans, some of whom may be family members, job bosses, classmates at the community college or just the guy down the street who’s reached some under-stated level of success and sports a USMC bumper sticker on his Ford F-150.

So to my fellow veterans on Veterans Day, ‘Welcome Home’ and thanks for displaying, to that tiny percentage of our youth that will follow your example of military service, the aura of quiet dignity that you earned while in uniform. I am proud to belong to your very exclusive ‘club’.

Bill Gritzbaugh

November 11, 2015

GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICAN CITIES, A PROPOSAL

An American ‘Foreign Legion’?

Like many cities in the US, Portland, Oregon (near my home) is suffering from a plague of gun violence that is mainly a function of gang activity, but is also a manifestation of personal grudges generated by ‘disrespect’ expressed in Social Media posts, street confrontations or word-of-mouth. Arguments over virtually anything can generate shooting incidents since (primarily) young men are peer-pressured into taking revenge as violently as possible. Guns are, of course, easily available.

So far, community efforts here and elsewhere to find a solution have been very ineffective. Deaths in the thousands nationwide have been the result.

I’ve thought about a solution that would be based on the theory that removing young men from urban neighborhoods would have a huge impact on the problem. That sounds like a ‘duh’ idea, with no feasible legal way to accomplish such a sweeping-of-the-streets, so to speak.

I propose borrowing an idea from the French, namely, their ‘Foreign Legion’ military units. The FFL was formed in the mid-19^th Century as a military force whose main function was to protect French interests in that nation’s far flung colonial empire. Its members were predominantly non-French citizens who joined for money, adventure, travel and/or the potential to hide from a sordid past. It was nevertheless a part of the French Army, but could be used more cavalierly since the blood spilled would not, for the most part, be French.

My version would be 100% American (with the one exception being legal or illegal immigrants), and would essentially be an armed ‘Peace Corps’, but on steroids. More on that to follow.

So, how does this ‘Legion’ sweep the streets of the dysfunctional young urban men who are shooting up our cities?

1st, recruiting advertisements would be directed at the young men causing the problem. Pay, benefits and adventure would be the prime draw. But an unspoken and obvious benefit would be the potential recruits having a chance to escape a dangerous and boring urban existence.

2^nd, the Criminal Justice System would be asked to assist in the following manner: If a non-violent offender is going to be incarcerated or put on probation, that person is offered the opportunity to join the Legion for the same term as their sentence or probation plus the Legion’s training period plus one year. Violate that, and it’s back to the Criminal Justice System with no credit for time away.

 3^rd, individuals (again, non-violent offenders) who are currently incarcerated or on probation could be released into the Legion to serve the balance of their sentences/probation plus Legion training period plus one year. Violate that, and it’s back to the CJS with no credit for time away.

Why would a young man (not including those in jail) pick the Legion instead of the regular military?

1^st. Recruits would not need to meet the stringent enlistment requirements of, say, the US Army, e.g. high school diploma, physical fitness, adequate test scores on entrance tests, etc. The ‘Legion’ would accept nearly anyone, presuming they had the basic intelligence to occupy some Legion job. Physical fitness would be important, but being able to perform a job would be paramount.

2^nd. The Legion would not be a ‘Combat’ unit, e.g. its function would be altruistic assistance to Third World populations that have invited the Legion into their countries. It would be armed, but for defense only.

3^rd. Enlistments would not be of a set duration, say, 3 or 4 years as the traditional services require. A recruit could stay as long as they serve effectively with their unit, or leave whenever they want. Such early departures would have monetary consequences as a deterrent e.g. pay accumulates in a Legionnaire’s account until his unit returns to American soil. Quit, and some pay is forfeited.

4^th. Obviously, incarcerated or probationized individuals would not be welcome in the traditional military. Were they to serve honorably in the Legion, it could serve as a ‘cleansing’ pathway into the military should they wish to go that route at some future date.

So, I mentioned the Legion as the Peace Corps on steroids. Here’s a mission I see the Legion conducting. Assume a Sub-Saharan African nation’s population is suffering from drought. The US government offers that nation a Legion unit that will build a desalinization plant to provide fresh water to local farmers. “Great,” says the host nation, “but we have a guerilla group in the area and can’t guarantee their safety.” That's where the ‘steroids’ come in. The Legion will be an armed unit, capable of defending itself. It will take casualties. It would not be equipped for offensive operations, but would be adequately armed for its own defense. Regular US military units would be on-call should the Legion come under heavier assault than their weaponry can handle.

Or how about a Central American country asking our State Department for help with a highway between two important towns? Bandits have prevented free passage on the current dirt road, not to mention disrupting repairs. A Legion unit is deployed to build the highway and defend its construction workers during the project. Possibly the Legion could maintain local freedom of movement as long as they’re welcome in the host country. Again, it’s the ‘turn-key’ aspect of doing a job and providing its own security that makes the Legion appropriate.

Thus, the Legion would be a construction unit (think the Navy’s ‘Seabees’) but with its own protection. The recruits who join the Legion would be trained to operate heavy equipment, vehicles, welders, generators, not to mention the picks and shovels of micro labor. If they prefer, they could select the armed component in lieu of the construction side, or alternate between as the missions allow. Of necessity they’d need to be trained in light weapons use and care. As in Army/Marine Infantry units, weapons training is a right-of-passage and imparts to the individuals a huge dose of espirit de corps and self-esteem.

Where would they be trained? Pick a community that has suffered due to the closure of a military base. The facility need not, and should not, be new and state-of-the-art. Think the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) model of the 1930s. Old wooden barracks and dusty streets are fine. Large lots for driving D-8 Caterpillar tractors, road graders and dump trucks will be needed as will ranges for rifles, machine guns and grenade launchers. Should a community be unsettled by the proximity of young men, some of whom from the Criminal Justice world, being trained with weapons, emphasize the Legion’s structure, raison d’etre and invite them to tour the base. Indeed, an ideal situation would be for the community to ‘adopt’ the camp and its trainees. Imagine young men from hostile ghettos in large cities coming in contact with small town American warmth and hospitality. Naïve? I don’t think so. Also emphasize that weaponry is only employed for self-defense once the Legion is deployed on foreign soil.

The Legion’s status as a non-‘force-projection’ component of the US military could make it more politically correct for host governments. After all, many nations including the Chinese, Russians, Saudis, etc. are providing such services to underdeveloped countries around the world, although with ulterior nationalistic motives.

This Legion structure would, first and foremost, be to help Americans, but would be directed where the unit’s efforts would be most needed by those populations in need.

How would it be paid for? Take money from the current Foreign Aid budget, ask host countries to contribute, make the Legion a cause that Americans would support by specific bond purchases. Funding ideas could fill a page.

Now, such a unit would need leadership that would combine a traditional Drill Sergeant with Prison Guard and Probation Officer; a very tough position to fill. However, I’ve no doubt there would be ample, qualified applicants for all positions given the number of Iraq and Afghan veterans in the population that are un or under-employed. If the French could make their Legion work, we should have no problem.

How large would the Legion be? I’d suggest roughly 10,000 Legionnaires to be divided into Brigades, Battalions and Companies that would be deployed based on the job at hand. Imagine the effect on the crime and shooting stats for major cities if, say, 10,000 late-teen to 20-something men are no longer loitering, gang-banging and gathering without hope of jobs or, indeed, any constructive activity. They’ve wasted their high school years, many barely literate, and haven’t the vaguest idea how to prepare for or even apply for employment. Then one day, they’re offered a way out via a unique American Experiment patterned on the French Foreign Legion. Once trained, Legion members leave US soil for the duration of their service, returning only for annual leaves, if they choose. Otherwise, they can take their time off wherever their money (dispensed specifically for that event) will take them.

Imagine these same young men returning to their homes at some point with such vast experience gained then trickling back into those communities. Eventually, there’d be a cultural shift that could transform and rejuvenate entire sub-sets of our population. Thoughts?

ROSEBURG, START NOW TO PREVENT THE NEXT ONE

The ‘Selective Service System’ as Mental Health ‘Filter’?

Tragedies like Roseburg have become all too common in the last few years. Columbine, in 1999, seems to have started a cascade of events that seem to hit the headlines with an almost predictable regularity. The political parties use each occasion to pressure the public to choose between ‘blame the availability of guns’ on one side, versus ‘control the mentally ill’ on the other.

I lean towards the ‘control the mentally ill’ side and offer the following suggestion: Expand the Selective Service registration process to include a mental health assessment of the 18 year olds who are legally required to register. Currently it collects only Name, Gender, Date of birth, Social Security number and current mailing address.

The Selective Service System is used by the Federal Government to identify the pool of age-appropriate males for conscription in the event of a national emergency. Up until the early 70s, Selective Service did conscript hundreds of thousands of young men who helped fill the ranks of the Army and even the Marines (Navy and Air Force to a lesser degree) during WWII, Korea and Vietnam. Its continued use, notwithstanding the lack of an actual ‘Draft’, makes it perfect as a research process to help with the current ‘national emergency’ of mass shootings.

If one Googles ‘Brain Maturity’, or some version of that, one will find many articles and discussions about the brain’s maturation during a person’s teens and twenties. Male and female brains both ‘mature’ during this period, with the females reaching full maturity a few years before males. Most males who’ve reached, say, their forties can recall making bone-headed, irrational, stupid and self-destructive decisions and actions that they’d dearly love to reset. Thankfully, most of these males did not physically injure other people. But in extremely rare cases, they do.

Obviously, females are not the ‘shooters’ in these tragedies, and I believe that a statistically predicable glitch in male brain maturation is producing these psychotic young men. It just makes no sense that such horrendous acts are caused solely by a young man’s exposure to family, peers, the natural environment, social media, etc. If such factors were to blame, we’d see far more such events. However, a mentally dysfunctional mind creates an isolated and paranoid man who could, over time, reach a critical mass of anger that results in an explosion of suicidal violence. Indeed, it’s clear to me that these acts are in fact suicides whether the final bullet comes from the shooter’s gun or the police.

In the USA, all males are required to register for Selective Service (the Draft) between ages 18 and 25. The law requires even illegal immigrants to file with the promise that the registrant’s status won’t be shared with ICE. This registration process could be expanded to include an on-line mental health questionnaire that could be assessed by healthcare professionals who might identify clearly troubled and/or dysfunctional young men. At that point they could be summoned for detailed, in-person interviews. Should they refuse to register at all, refuse to take the on-line assessment, refuse to show up for further in-person assessment, or if they are assessed and deemed problematic, they would go on a national list that restricts their purchase or possession of firearms. Or, deferring to states-rights stalwarts, the Feds could release the list to the States who could enforce the purchase/possession restriction. The individuals could request reassessment on a yearly basis, e.g. an acknowledgement that brain maturation does progress over time.

As far as I know, there is no formalized ‘filter’ in place in the country that seeks to identify young males who may be mentally impaired and in need of treatment, or some basic monitoring of their welfare. The Selective Service registration process, already in place as a Federal law, could now be used as that filter. Though those males who will eventually cause havoc with a gun are a statistically tiny percentage of the entire population, the possibility to find even one before he ‘goes off’ would make the effort worthwhile. Thoughts?