In Defense of Freedom
By Charles Rush
July 4, 1999
Galatians 5:1, 13-20
ere was an article in the New York Times a few months back
entitled "Fly Me Away." It was about a travel agency in Milan, Italy,
which specializes in a unique type of a "getaway". For most people,
getting away means taking a relaxing vacation somewhere. For that, you
can use the services of a regular travel agent. But what if the idea
of "getting away" is a bit more literal than that? What if you want to
escape a sticky situation, or to start your life allover again? Then
you want to call the agency in Milan, which is called Happy
Expatriation. Umberto Gallini, the owner of Happy Expatriation,
created his agency to help those people who want to escape their old
life and create a new life for themselves. Not surprisingly, his
agents only have to book one-way tickets. A typical customer at Happy
Expatriation is a person who wants to leave his or her spouse and start
over with a new love, or a person who is running from a large tax
bill. Gallini can obtain a whole new identity for his customer, and
find them homes and jobs in other countries. He leaves no trail
behind. It will be as if the person just disappeared from the face of
the earth. Gallini claims that he doesn't work with criminals, but
admits he doesn't ask his clients their reasons for wanting a whole new
life. He also refuses to discuss the details of how he obtains new
identities for these people. As he says, "I'm an agent for people who
want to change their life. People are bored. They want to escape they
want adventure." Since 1991, he has created whole new lives for over
500 customers.
What a 90's article! I mention it today because on the 4
th
of July we celebrate "freedom". Escape from responsibility strikes me
as a characteristically 90's interpretation of the meaning of freedom.
This is a decade whose two most popular TV stars are Jerry Seinfield
and Ally McBeal. Very different characters. Both independent, both
unencumbered by spouses or children. Both self-directed and painfully
self-centered. Both deathly afraid of giving up their freedom.
That is not our founding Fathers meant by freedom, of course, which
remember on the 4
th
of July. I was reminded of this rather dramatically, when I attended
the 45
th
National Security Seminar at the United States Army War College, the
second week in June.
We spent the week hearing addresses on various topics of strategic
interest to the United States: the threat of nuclear terrorism, the
role of NATO and the United Nations and the importance of consensus
building in a post-Communist era, various issues relating to China,
James Schlesinger (the former Secretary of Defense) gave a lecture on
the challenge of success- suggesting that American arrogance and
imperialism are likely to be among our greatest challenges in the next
decade. We heard lectures on drug smuggling and the role of
international crime cartels that have a para-military structure and
corrupt our borders within and without through the huge money that it
brings.
There were 160 civilians at the conference, 300 officers (06 and
above: Mainly full Colonel's who, by the way are in charge of
approximately 5000 soldiers). Most of the officers were from the Army,
though 35 of them were from the Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard, and the
Reserves. Another 35 were from around the globe. In my seminar we had
a Colonel from the Australian Army and a Russian Colonel, who was
recalled the week I was there as a political protest. There is a hall
of honor at the War College that recognizes 40 other foreign officers
to graduate the College who later went on to become the leading
commander in their country.
Most of the officers were my age, since they had to have 20 years
of service to achieve the rank of Colonel. I was pleasantly surprised
by a couple of things. First, there is a noticeable Pride, in the good
sense of that word, in the Army these days that was not present in the
aftermath of the Vietnam era. Most of the officers I met had earned
medals of distinction in Iraq and did some peacekeeping mission time in
Bosnia. These missions were less morally ambiguous and they were waged
with tactical precision. Furthermore, the Army today enjoys the
respect of the American people, perhaps only second to the end of World
War II in the last 50 years. The officers that I met were
professional, insightful. I must say that I came away from that
experience confident in the leadership of our Armed Services and that
is important. As military historians love to point out, it is not
technology alone that wins wars, it is military leadership.
Second, I was pleasantly surprised to see what critical thinkers
our Military leaders are. They do not follow lock-step but think
through issues, raise important questions. They understand that most
of our problems internationally have to be solved politically. They
understand that economic underdevelopment poses one of the greatest
threats to long term peace in the developing nations. They are more
restrained than most of us in the use of military force and believe
that not having to use it because it is so excellent, is the greatest
victory of all. However, unlike the American people who are surveyed
in public opinion polls, they are much more willing to sustain
casualties and the deaths of American soldiers in a land invasion, if
the cause deems it necessary. Since the crisis in Kosovo was coming to
a head, we had an intimate discussion on all these points. Indeed, we
were supposed to have been briefed on the situation by General Wesley
Clark but the events developed so rapidly that he could not leave
Europe to be with us.
Thirdly, I was struck by the degree of moral discussion that took
place in analyzing any situation. In my parting comments to my
seminar, I told them that they think about ethics far more than we do
in ordinary civilian life and I know that one of the seminar leaders
was moved by that comment because he went elaborated on its importance
in his closing remarks. He said something that struck me that day. He
said that military might and economic clout have never been the measure
of success in and of themselves. He said that if we do not have a
moral foundation as a society that is worth defending, the greatest
threat to our survival will not come from without.
One of the officers leaned over to me and handed me a card that all
officers carry and sign entitled Army Values. (Seven values that spell
LDRSHIP, minus a couple vowels): Loyalty, Duty, Respect,
Selfless-Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage.
If you read the classic political philosophers: Locke, Rousseau,
Montisqeu, these are what they called the positive freedoms. Our
country was founded on a combination of negative freedoms and positive
freedoms. The negative freedoms- freedom from tyranny, freedom from
aristocratic land owners. We are an owner operator nation. We don't
want anyone telling us how to run our business. We tried to design a
system where everyone could get ahead if they worked at it. We don't
want our government telling us how to live. We are our government.
Those are negative freedoms that give us autonomy and opportunity.
Positive freedoms are commitments and convictions that you stand
for. St. Paul has a nice list: self restraint, mastery, discipline,
gentleness. Paul says there is no law against these. They are the
higher moral and spiritual reasons for which we live.
I want to mention a couple that the military has done much better
than our civilian society.
Respect-
"treat people as they should be treated".
Integrity
- "Do what is right, legally and morally." One thing that immediately
impresses a civilian about military life is how much more integrated
they are than we are. It is not just that they are integrated, there
is a mutual respect among the officers that is apparent. It is the
closest thing I have ever experienced since kindergarten to people
being race transcendent. I would imagine that having one unified
standard of promotion is an aid in this regard but it is impressive.
We struggle in Civilian society with Affirmative Action. Somehow,
someway, it continues to be as divisive as it is empowering. The
military has simply achieved what we were hoping for in integration 40
years ago. It is beyond toleration. There is respect, natural
socialization.
My son Ian's best friend when he was a toddler was a black kid
lived across the street named Skyler. Skyler was half again as tall as
Ian. He weighed half again as much. Sklyer was as dark as Ian was
blonde but they did everything together. The first day of
kindergarten, they both showed up at the door with their backpacks,
ready for school. They had been up to something and they wanted to
show their Mom's. They both had on the same football jersey's and they
said "look" with big grins on their faces, arms around each other. All
the parents looked and then we said "What?" And they said "We're twins,
no one will be able to tell us apart." Why can't we get back to the
place where we can't tell each other apart? Racism is learned behavior
and somehow we need to figure out a way to unlearn it.
Another four are
Selfless-Service,
Loyalty, Honor, and
Personal Courage.
It is the higher moral reason which bears true faith to the
Constitution, to other soldiers, puts the welfare of the nations and
your subordinates above yourself and is willing to face fear, danger,
and adversity (whether moral or physical) to accomplish it.
I was standing out on the field at Gettysburg where we were taken
on a tour one afternoon. It is a very reverent place. Just to stand
there and imagine the chaos of those three days fills you with a
certain sobriety. It is a somber place, particularly for Southerner's
because the South was not allowed to bury their dead, so they were just
piled in mass graves- not only at Gettysburg but at other battles that
they lost as well. Neither were the Southern States allowed to place a
monument to any of their fallen soldiers, only a general monument to
the regiment of their state. Of course, Virginia broke rank a couple
decades ago and put up a very large monument to the Virginia soldiers
with a huge statue on the top of a general that looks remarkably like
Robert E. Lee.
There is one small monument to one Southern soldier, Colonel
Amistad. He fell on the last day of the battle, in the turning point
of the battle. The battle at Gettysburg was pretty much a draw.
General Lee was looking for a decisive victory over the North but
wasn't able to break the Yankee ranks. On the last day, he tried one
last charge and ordered Pickett's brigade in the very middle of a two
mile battle line to charge the hill. As you know, they charged and
were stopped.
I asked one of the Colonel's that day for some clarification of
what exactly happened. "How many men were in Pickett's brigade?"
"About 5000 men."
"How many of them died?"
"About 500". That was interesting news to me. I had a conception
in my mind from childhood in the South that just about all of them
died. Another surprise that day was looking out over the field, a
gentle incline. Because I also had an image in my mind that they had
to charge up a 30 degree hill, almost impossible. I'm sure that image
either came from some drawn picture in a book or the exaggerated
telling of the story as a child or both. You know, as a Southern kid,
we always played Civil War. We were always the Rebels. But we never
finished any battles. And the adults never told us the end of the
story. They would just quit around the turning point. So much for the
bogus glory of battle, it shouldn't be glorified to begin with.
So I turned to the officer and I said, "out of the 5000 men in the
brigade, how many would have charged the hill?"
He said "about 2300".
"2300?" I asked incredulously. "Where were the rest?"
"Well about 2700 stayed on the ground about 200 yards from the
front where they couldn't hit anything and where they couldn't be hit.
They just played it safe and surrendered after the whole thing was
over. And, frankly Sir, that's about the way it is in any battle."
That's when we walked over to the monument to Amistad. When he was
ordered to charge, he was out in front of his men, in the lead. When
the Yankees saw that the South was going to charge, they took out the
canon balls and put in grapeshot. Pickett's men had been asked to
charge 200 yards into a row of canon fire, with a row of infantry
soldiers lying in front of them behind a stone wall.
Colonel Amistad got past the infantry on the wall and died 15 feet
from the canon line.
I asked the officer what makes a man able to make a charge like
that?
He said "Reverend, I've been training men for 25 years for that
kind of heroism in mission. Honestly, I can't tell you why some charge
and others hug the earth. But two things stick out in my mind that
make the difference. First, after you train with these other men for
so long and you know them so well. You depend on them, they depend on
you. The first reason you charge is you don't want to let them down.
And the second reason is that you believe that there are some things
that out live you."
I didn't say it at the time, but I'm sure that it also helps to be a
little bit crazy. It reminded me of a soldier in a very recent
battle. Their position was being overrun and he was lying on the
ground, hiding from all the bullets flying around him. He thought
about continuing to hide and he thought about sitting up, risking his
life, and it came to him "either way, I'm going to get shot." Mark
Bowden writes about it this way. He thought "this is it for me. And
then, in that moment of maximum terror, he felt it all abruptly,
inexplicably fall away. One second he was paralyzed with fear and pain
and the next... he had stopped caring about himself.
He would think about this a lot later, and the best he could explain it
was, his own life no longer mattered. All that did matter were his
buddies, his brothers, that they not get hurt, that they not get
killed. These men around him, some of whom he had only known for
months, were more important to him than life itself... It was heroic
but it also wasn't heroic. It wasn't so much a choice. It just
happened to him, like he had passed through a barrier because the other
guys needed him." (Black Hawk Down, p. 120).
Despite the senselessness of violence, despite the irony that these
were largely kids dying for a cause they didn't entirely understand,
despite all the obvious compromise and ambiguity of battle, it remains
a noble thing that Colonel Amistad led the charge himself rather than
send the infantry ahead of him. He led by example and put himself in
harm's way. It is heroic and it is also not heroic. The point, quite
obviously, is not to glorify battle. But there is some sense in which
it is appropriate on a day like this to remember and acknowledge those
who have fought and died that we might today enjoy peace and freedom.
Amen.
© 1999 .
All rights reserved
