By Captain Timothy Hsia
This past Veteran's day, several politicians and news outlets discussed the current generation of men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan as the "next greatest generation." By labeling my peers as the "next greatest generation," politicians and the media seek to applaud and highlight the sacrifices of the young men and women fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, the "next greatest generation" is an inappropriate moniker. In reality, many members of my generation do not understand the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This label of the "next greatest generation" is confusing for service members and the American public as a whole because it seeks to describe a generation when in fact it describes only a tiny segment of my generation. The truth is the vast majority of my generation spent their holiday season at the mall oblivious to the war while their military counterparts in the military served in harms way.
Class reunions for most colleges often do not begin until the fifth or tenth year after graduation. However, for my West Point classmates, deployments have served as class reunions. These brief reunions often occur when one's unit replaces another, when they are being replaced by another unit just prior to redeployment home, or in Kuwait when one is either en route back home or heading into combat. Although I have met an abundance of West Point classmates in Iraq, I have yet to meet another soldier who graduated with me from my hometown.
I briefly spent some time with my high school classmates when I returned home two years ago during the holiday season. What struck me the most in my conversations with my peers was that they really did not care or seek to understand what was happening in Iraq or Afghanistan. Granted there are some young men and women who work for NGOs, civil governments, and work as political aides but they are few and far between. The social gap between my peers in uniform and our civilian counterparts seems to have widened due to the war. American young men and women quietly serve and shoulder the brunt of these wars while our civilian counterparts plan their careers and facebook online. Blogs and the internet have enabled those in Iraq and Afghanistan to communicate with their families. However, it has not narrowed the gap between those who are serving in harms way and civilians who live their lives blissfully unaware of IEDs, snipers, and an inability to share the holidays with family.
Hollywood, long seen as a bastion of the left, has actually done more to embrace the ambiguities and complexities of soldiers who have experienced war firsthand than the American people have. Many of the films and television shows produced thus far have sought to be apolitical while also striving to paint a complete portrait detailing the issues, moral tension, and daily difficulties of service members returning from combat. Thus far these war time movies have failed to arouse the American public. Commentators cite the lack of interest in these movies with the rationale that Americans seek to avoid reality when entering the movie theater. In actuality, the real reason Americans have not been drawn by the recent wave of war movies is because the war is not reality. It is as foreign to my generation who are not serving as Bollywood films. Serving in the military is by no means the only way to serve one's country. However, if my generation is to become great, it must shrug off its solipsistic and narrow view of the world if America is to continue as a superpower.
Alan Ginsberg, the voice of the beat generation, will forever be remembered for the observation: "I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness." I would like to reword that line with the fresh memory of fallen West Point classmates to "I saw the best men of my generation killed while others merely looked on." I hope the Iraq war does not define my generation. For those in my generation in the military, these have not been the best years of our lives. But if the war does become my generation's lasting legacy, then my generation as a whole does not deserve to be called great.
Timothy K. Hsia is a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy. He is currently deployed on his second tour to Iraq.
Comments
1. Sorry about late comment.
2. CAPT Hsia's attitude is normal and healthy for a man in his position.
3. Felt similarly, as did my peers, at a similar age and experience level. More experience (aging?)led to different opinions -or indifference.
4. More significant is the gulf between CAPT Hsia and the majority of his generation. Academy graduates are largely elite individuals. Picked for intellectual superiority and already demonstrating high levels of achievement, cadets and midshipmen are taught to function at a still higher mental, physical and moral level. The demands active duty places upon motivated junior officers amplify the effects of the academies.
If combat is involved....
5. Hsia's generation are not his peers. He has very few of those, indeed. He has the intellectual firepower to bridge the gulf with understanding.
V/R JW
Adam L, my "elsewhere" was not referring not specifically to your comment, but more generally to comments in this thread that, to me, seem to extrapolate the commeter's interpretations of motives and attribute them to basic entry's author, rather than provide them as the commenter's own opinion, labeled as such. Pardon my imprecision.
And my pardon my Lazarus move from my prior comment. Out here. Really. This time. Game over.
Before I begin, I would like to make it clear for the record that I agree and disagree with most of you in part and much of what I am about to say is along the same lines of what has already been written if not the same. It is late and I am fatigued. If I forget to refer back to you I apologize.
To start off, I have to address the spark that lit this entire line of discussion. That is the dubbing of a certain generation as "the next greatest generation." Although, I have not taken the time or care to search as to the origin of this, I feel safe in the assumption that it must have come from either a political or media figure. Although I have always found the titling of the WWII generation as the "greatest generation" to be curious and possibly questionable I feel that not only has this issue been raised, but that everyone here is familiar with and understands the arguments surrounding it. As for the titling of "the next greatest generation", I believe CPT Hsia is blowing the entire issue out of proportion. It is merely a catch phrase like many others. Even though I take great exception to it, it is a small part of a greater problem and does not warrant this amount of attention and animosity. This is simply another manifestation of the self-congratulatory attitude of society (mainly its younger portions) today. Whether it is people regaling each other as "heroes" because they ran for breast cancer or donated blood, or it is the endless demand for praise of oneself, there is always and irritant of this sort which we must deal with most if not each day.
I find CPT. Hsia statement, "American young men and women quietly serve and shoulder the brunt of these wars while our civilian couterparts plan their careers and facebook online." to be disturbing and somewhat offensive. (I should note that this is not the only statement which I find to be such.) First of all, it is a gross simplification and generalization. Although we are all guilty of this at times, I believe that CPT. Hsia went too far. I do share LTC Gentile's concerns and echo his statements as well as his appreciation of the irony in CPT Hsia's use of Alan Ginsburg. Although there is no blatant evidence of LTC Gentile's concerns (as Mattc86 pointed out) in this piece, I do share his opinion that it does possess the "tones and underlying assumptions" which present an appearance that warrants such concerns.
I find the piece's statements regarding Hollywood surprising. If there has been a single war movie recently made that was "apolitical", let a lone half decent, I would like to be informed as to its title. I am not going to delve any further into this issue. If I were to continue I fear my fingers would be bloody stumps by the time I finished.
I'm now getting too tired to write so I will stop here for now. I will get back to this tomorrow. Like MattC86 there are numerous issues regarding students on campus these days that I would like to write about, but I am not sure they are pertinent to this thread. I'll decide tomorrow whether I'll include them. I wish I could say that I do not feel that these issues are very important or widespread, but unfortunately that is not the case.
Adam L
ProfHollywood, you are da man. Thanks for reinforcing my point. My little rant was written fast while on hold, so it's a little sloppy and maybe obtuse. But by "inferred extraneous waves of commentary," I meant exactly what you just did.
I initially saw CPT Hsia's commentary as a mundane and largely pointless collateral observation that I thought would rapidly fade behind later more substantive posts. In re-reading it after seeing all the surprising (to me) blog comments, I note that a lot of what he said in his pretty brief commentary <em>could be read</em> any of several ways, but that he didn't <em>write it definitively</em> in any of those ways. I tended to infer fairly innocuous interpretations. Other folks are inferring a lot more. Oh well. Feel free to think what you want. Oops, I forgot, you already have and you're right. :)
Frankly, I'm not entirely sure I understand Ironhorse's commentary at all. What on earth does "inferred extraneous waves of commentary" mean?
Here are some of Hsia's comments to which I took exception: "I saw the best men of my generation killed while others merely looked on." To me, that sentence reeks with what Ironhorse calls a "sense of ego and self-importance."
Hsia writes, "American young men and women quietly serve and shoulder the brunt of these wars while our civilian counterparts plan their careers and facebook online." Let's take that apart -- "quietly," not so much. "Quiet service" and "op-ed in major national newspaper" don't quite go hand-in-hand. Does this sound like a "sense of ego and self-importance?" To me, absolutely.
Hsia writes, "The truth is the vast majority of my generation spent their holiday season at the mall oblivious to the war while their military counterparts in the military served in harms way."
Really? The "vast majority" were "oblivious?" Did Hsia take a survey? What constitutes a "vast" majority -- 99.9%. And what constitutes "oblivious"? Are we expected to believe that the "vast majority" of Americans under age 30 are unaware that there is a war in Iraq? Or is Hsia, in Ironhorse's words, "extrapolating" and "inferring extraneous waves of commentary"?
Hsia writes, "if my generation is to become great, it must shrug off its solipsistic and narrow view of the world if America is to continue as a superpower." At what point does accusing an entire generation of Americans as being "solipsistic" not constitute a "sense of ego and self-importance"? Presumably, those who, like Hsia, have joined the military are NOT "solipsistic" and don't have a "narrow view of the world."
Hsia writes, "In reality, many members of my generation do not understand the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Of course, in World War II, many Americans IN UNIFORM did not understand the war if their memoirs and oral histories are to be believed. Even the near-mythical Dick Winters of the "band of brothers" writes in his own memoir that it took seeing a concentration camp to make him "understand the war," and that was after nearly 3 years in uniform and 7 months in combat!
What Hsia means, of course, is that HE understands the "wars in Iraq and Afghanistan" because he has been there and is, perforce, "great."
More to the point, Hsia is shooting the wrong target. If the majority of Americans don't understand the wars, that's not their fault -- it's their government's fault, which has conspicuously avoided explaining the wars in anything other than the most simplistic, campaign-centered terms (you're with us or the terrorists, support the troops, victory uber alles....).
Hsia writes, "In actuality, the real reason Americans have not been drawn by the recent wave of war movies is because the war is not reality." Let's ignore here Hsia's continued, repeated elevation of himself to the heights of Mount Olympus, where only he can see the "real reason" and the "actuality."
Perhaps Americans have not been drawn to the recent wave of war movies because they've been lousy movies. Or perhaps because the economy is slowing and movies are expensive. Or perhaps because war movies tend not to do well during wars. Sam Fuller's Korean war films did poorly during Korea, though they are now recognized as classics. Vietnam films did poorly in Vietnam. WWII pictures have a mixed record, but then again it was hard to avoid WWII pictures during WWII and you had to do something with all that disposable income. But Hsia admits of none of these possibilities -- instead, it is a generational failure to engage the "reality."
Lastly, Hsia writes of "civilians who live their lives blissfully unaware of IEDs, snipers, and an inability to share the holidays with family." Really? "Blissfully unaware?"
There are 1,270 stories in the New York Times (per LEXIS/NEXIS) since March 20, 2003, in which the term "roadside bomb" appears with respect to Iraq (IED being a bit more technical) and 225 with the technical term, "improvised explosive device." There are over 3,000 such hits in the transcripts of the ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, and NBC news for the same period of time.
What Hsia has is a chip on his shoulder. I don't think that's (in Ironhorse's words) "whining...based on the critics extrapolations." I think it's something readily demonstrable in the tone and content of Hsia's article. I suspect Ironhorse is indeed "somehow guilty of projecting my opinions onto his and your words."
I have tried to follow the critic's criticism of this article with the best will in the world. I can't. I honestly tried to see what is there, and read it for what it is. Perhaps I am somehow guilty of projecting my opinions onto his and your words. However, I am fully convinceed the opposite is true, and that a lot of the whining here is based on the critics extrapolations.
The basic premise, as I read it, is that only a smidgin' of the generation is partaking, and therefore it is inappropriate to project the "next greatest" label onto the generation.
To me, that's pretty basic, close to fundamentally true, not the most earth shattering and insightful comment, but OK, let's move on.
To all of you who have inferred extraneous waves of commentary, whether it be snivelling from the front when he should be filling sandbags, lack of appreciation for the high school grads mopping floors and going to law school, distance from society (part of his point, really), or the military's sense of ego and self-importance, I simply ask: where did he really say that? Was that part of his commentary, or are you just so good at finding what you expect to see that you have laid a veneer of your own opinions and implied it over every mild discontent you see?
I'm struck in reading these posts again by how different and isolated military and civilian understandings of this war are. It's not as if our mass media outlets have missed opportunities to showcase American troops in action, undertaking their missions and the strain such missions have impacted military families. We should therefore have a unified focus of attention in this country. But it seems that we're looking at the same war but through different lenses.
I am curious to know what ideas and understandings our current citizens in the military (or formerly on station) hold about this war. What truths do you hold dear about who we are fighting, why and what progress has been made. I think we may uncover insight through a comparison to our civilian citizens' ideas. It is very hard to solve a problem together when we do not agree on something being a problem in the first place. And it is hard to solve a problem we agree to tackle but diverge in how the problem should be solved. I know it's a bit academic, but this insight should show how large the gap is in our ability to take action together as a society.
Is there a military caste in American society that thinks so differently from the political and general civilian castes that this thinking perpetuates the large gaps in the ability of our ideas to come together? (ex. Civilian's may put a strategic time limit on small wars of one presidential term, whereas the political and military castes have different temporal lenses.) Again, if we as a society are to respond to threats together, perhaps documenting our undertandings and expectations of the conflict are valuable. Seems to be the question the original Captain's post was begging.
This entire op-ed baffled me. I am an Infantry Officer who has done three tours in Iraq. I was stuck in Bosnia in 2001 and felt that I had missed the action in Afghanistan. I was terrified that I would MISS the invasion of Iraq back in 2003. I was afraid that I was reporting to my new unit too late and that I would be stuck on rear-D. The thought of complaining about people back home not being deeply enough involved or not spending enough time agonizing over my fate never crossed my mind. I felt privileged that I got to deploy and others did not.
So, what is the author's issue? People back home are not directly involved in the war effort? They are not spending enough time reading about it?
I agree with just about all of the comments above regarding the op-ed. But the information about the author was what really jumped out at me: <I>"Timothy K. Hsia... is currently deployed on his second tour to Iraq."</I>
It seems strange that a Soldier in Iraq would focus his attention on the homefront and complain that Americans back home are not focused on Iraq. Irony? Hypocrisy?
There are legitimate complaints that can be made about the homefront. However, it takes a lot of nerve to write an op-ed to the LA Times while you're in Iraq and then complain that people back home aren't sacrificing like you are. How deep are you in blood and guts if you're writing op-eds?
His complaints remind me of the complaints commonly voiced by Soldiers in patrol bases, in regard to Soldiers who live on FOBs. Those complaints are due to the perception that Soldiers in patrol bases are focused on the mission, while the FOB dwellers are focused on Burger King, Pizza Hut, and other mission distractors - like writing op-eds to the LA Times.
I don't doubt for one moment that CPT Hsia loves his country. He reminds me of some fired up 2LTs that I have worked with who were just chomping at the bit to get into the fight. I quickly learned that the best way to utilize those 2LTs' boundless energy was to point to them during a mission brief and state, "your platoon is the main effort." Likewise, I hope that somebody in CPT Hsia's chain of command finds a more useful way to utilize his energy.
egibbon, with all due respect, speaking as a member of the "other" segment of this generation, who "figured it out for themselves," no, I don't think he would revise his opinion. There's far too much interest only in ones' self. The suggestion that a serving officer understands less than someone in the States with "perspective" is absurd. And that's what I see at an Ivy League school, home of the stateside "best and brightest." Facebook generation indeed.
Matt
There seems to be a big picture point missing from the arguments above. Those engaged in the frivilous activity of careers and material gain are providing the economic weapons that enable our military efforts as well as diplomatic efforts (ex. economic aid). I'd go out on a limb to say those civilian Americans are contributing in their own way, whether they recognize it or not, just as effective tools for fighting this kind of war (a war of ideas) as our military.
There's a third contribution civilians are making in this war - though the only one who seems to be talking about it is Bush of all people - and that is this ambiguous "freedom" of ours the enemy is purported to hate. By publicizing our American myths - the self-made man, land of opportunity, material comfort for hard work, equality of sexes, the ability to debate religion (or not) - we reinforce to our allies the reasons we fight and add continued enticement pressure to the masses of people our enemy seeks to recruit. By showing these undecideds the potential reward for participation in the many types of modern, democratic societies we deny our enemy new soldiers. Our communication of these myths could use a boost, in my opinion, but that is another story.
So to turn back to the vaccuous and career minded in our society, I urge you to charitably recognize their role in how we as a people are best able to fight this type of war. They are none the less appreciative of our military personnels' efforts than it appears our uniformed soldiers are of the civilian role in fighting modern hotspot wars.
Fascinating. It is stated that CPT Hsia and his peers do not understand what is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq and by implication, that others do...
Further, CPT Hsia's education and experience are extremely narrow and he is accused of being patronizing. All that in one of the most narrow and patronizing comments I've read in some time; and all that while attacking the messenger and not addressing the problem -- if their is one. Which I doubt. Other than narrow and patronizing views...
Captain Hsia,
Thank you for your service. I respect your choice to go to West Point and pursue a career as an officer in the U.S Army. The news every day reminds us that the choices you have made can lead to your premature death and/or serious physical or mental injuries. As an American, I believe you are entitled to my support and the assistance of our government as you dutifully go about the sometimes awesome responsibilities you have voluntarily undertaken.
However, since you raised the issue, I must tell you that I do not believe that your tiny group of West Point graduates represent the "best," the "brightest," the "greatest," the most "knowledgeable," or even the "bravest," segment of your generation.
Since you raised the issue, I must tell you that I seriously doubt that your tiny group of West Point graduates really understand what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe you are too busy trying to do your job every day, accomplishing your never ending missions and trying to watch after the health and well being of the men and (maybe) women under your command.
I respect the way that you are going about your very difficult and dangerous job under exceptionally trying conditions. But, in my view, your service as an Army office does not equate to any heightened geopolitical insight into what is happening in the GWOT. In fact, you are a member of a vast bureaucracy which is not distinguished for the bravery of its leadership or its willingness to face either truth or change.
In contrast to your tiny group of West Point graduates, there are many in your generation who have embraced being responsible individuals not beholden to any organization to make important decisions about life for them. No one told them in college when to get up or what they were going to do that day or during the summer. They learned to figure it out for themselves. And they did.
Many in your generation graduated from college with degrees in history, political science, education, engineering, law enforcement, the sciences and business. Then they found jobs in those areas and went to work and/or went on to get graduate degrees in law, medicine, teaching, etc., with subsequent responsibilities commensurate to their training. At the same time, many of them began raising families and learning about not only taking care of their children but, also, sometimes their aging parents. Believe me, Facebook is the least of their concerns and your reference in that regard was patronizing.
Since you raised the issue, I must tell you that I think you, in fact, know too little about your fellow Americans (in your generation or even mine). I think your education and your subsequent responsibilities have isolated you and denied you a deep understanding of America, its institutions, and its people. Your education and experiences are extremely narrow and, accordingly, your judgment of others in your generation is predictably way off the mark.
Commendably, you are a thoughtful man striving for a better understanding of our mutual predicament as Americans. You are young, healthy, and intelligent. I hope you stay that way and get to experience what it is like NOT to be an Army officer, obsessed every day with accomplishment of critical missions and the safety of others. If you are ever so lucky, I predict that you will rapidly revise upward your opinion of the non West Point members of your generation.
CPT Hsia, I share your unease with the divide that seperates those in military from civilians. As a reservist, I'd suggest I see this more glaringly than those on Active Duty. The Active force now resides mostly on posts or bases, and in military communities. The Guard and Reserve live in civilian communities. There has always been a large gulf. The values and norms of the military are different from the civilian world. And have always been so. I suspect those who served in Viet Nam must have a sense of deva ju with the current gulf between the military and civilian worlds.
I would suggest that this is a return to our historical past. The US has maintained a large standing military only during the Cold War years. So we have simply returned to what was "normal" prior to 1941. Our defense has always fallen upon the shoulders of a few. The only real alternative is a return to a draft. While that spreads the sacrifice around, it also means a less professional force. And, even within the military, the sacrifices fall more on some services and branches than on others.
ProfHollywood has pointed out the "next" Greatest Generation is a political slogan. As such a healthy skepticism is required as to its real relevance. We often forget that most of those who served in WWII were drafted. That does not make their sacrifices any less real. But we need to be cautious when ascribing nobility to a entire generation. I always thought Brokow was over the top on that. The generation who served in Korea or Viet Nam were every bit as great. But they were different times. WWII is seen as more black & white and as such, those who participated are deemed "more noble' as the cause is perceived as more just. The truth is always that only a small number in any generation actually gets "into the ring" and does something. We have chosen to become a soldier but that does not necessarily mean we are any more noble than say a cop. Other civilians will become doctors, nurses, etc and improve the human condition. Each of those professions have sacrifices.
The current administration has chosen to minimize the shared sacrifice of the American populace. We happen to be the segment of the population who carries most of the burden in GWOT. But not all. There are intelligence personnel, law enforcement, diplomatic, and others who have their respective sacrifices. Ours just happen to be the heaviest & most visible right now.
It is not fair or legitimate to judge one generation against another because those of military age have no real control of their fate in these matters. They serve in larger or smaller numbers because of the force of circumstance or the force of law, neither of which is greatly influenced by the generation that serves.
The men who served in WWII went because the country was attacked by powerful nation states. And they went because they were drafted. The international state of affairs that caused the US to be attacked was created by the generations preceding theirs. The draft law was created and enforced by their elders.
During the American Civil War men went because they were expected to serve in a noble and important cause, a social expectation me-thinks was more the creation of the older people. They were helped along by the draft, definitely the creation of the older people.
The older people now don't think the fate of the nation is at stake currently so nobody is made to serve, just those who care to do so. This won't change until the next big, really dangerous war is on our doorstep. That only a small percentage of military age citizens want to serve does not seem to me to evidence of a generational character flaw. It just seems simple human nature. Most people don't care to fight and risk getting killed if they can avoid it.
Maybe that is the tragedy of military service now. Those who die, except for their comrades, die mostly alone in their generation. The nobility is their service keeps that big, really dangerous war at bay for a little while longer.
Kipling was the guy who really understood all this.
LTC Gentile,
I understand your concern and appropriate unease over the dangers of a moral superiority complex among the military. As a non-military academy college student and officer aspirant, however, the gap CAPT Hsia is referring to is even more readily apparent to me, and perhaps even more dangerous.
The gulf between, say, ROTC cadets and your average student on my campus is enormous. The conversations about starting salaries, new cars, nice apartments, and more are endless. I have the not-so-good fortune to witness some of America's wealthiest, most privileged, and talented youth choosing their career paths, and the number that want anything to do with service as a whole, let alone the military, is infinitesimal. Not all, but a frightening proportion, are concerned mainly with the pleasures of college life, and then making as much money as rapidly as possible once out so they can return to such a lifestyle. The dangers of this divide are almost impossible to exaggerate.
However, you have a valid fear, though I do not see evidence of it in CAPT Hsia's entry. Military personnel, or anyone pursuing public service cannot adopt any morally superior attitude towards the population at large. That kind of attitude would lead to resentment, and a further divorce of the military from American society. America can do a lot more to re-emphasize selflessness, sacrifice, and service of all kinds WITHOUT adopting a resentful attitude that looks down upon others. As you said, the military is subordinate to the government, and, by democratic extension, the people of the United States. The military may no longer be made of true citizen-soldiers, but it is not, and must not be, a separate caste either.
Like I said, that is a very real danger; but I do not think CAPT Hsia really displayed that attitude.
Matt
Dear Captain Hsia:
I dont know you personally or at least I dont recall our paths every crossing; although they might have crossed inconsequentially in the halls of Thayer or in the 62 room at West Point a number of years ago.
But I do know your approximate cohort of West Point graduates and very closely I might add. I had a number of them with me in my Squadron in west-Baghdad in 2006. The names that come to mind most readily are John Moris, Mike Cooper, Ehren Reid, Shawn Weiley, Tom Laroux, Aaron Miller, to name just a few. Some of these names might strike a bell with you. I shared danger and the feeling of accomplish during my three years with these men. And even though I am senior I consider them my brothers in arms. Today I look into the eyes of the current cohort of cadets in history classes at West Point knowing that some of them will soon be your platoon leaders.
I understand the angst and frustration that you write about in your short piece, "My So-Called Greatest Generation," posted on the SWJ blog. I too become deeply resentful when I see such frivolous things as the drama of Britney Spears plastered all over CNN and local news; I think why on earth we spend one minute of energy worrying about such things when brave American men and women die everyday in Iraq and Afghanistan. I further my anger and despair when I think of the frivolity of such ridiculous popular dramas when compared to the real and never ending despair and silence of the families left behind when American service men and women fall in defense of their nation.
But with all of that, I do have to tell you that I am uncomfortable with the tone and underlying assumptions that premise your piece. They at least appear to me to ones of militarism; that in a democracy like ours the military is not only different but better--better--than the rest of American society because of the sacrifices it makes. While for those of us few who have experienced the sting of combat and the loss of comrades we can appreciate such feelings, but they can not become operational in our American military if we expect it to maintain its position of subordination to the American system of government and ultimately to its people we purposefully exist to protect.
So I ask you with the greatest amount of respect for your service, courage and commitment; what do you want? In writing this piece what do you expect to happen?
Finally it is ironic that you conclude with a quote from an Alan Ginsberg poem since your piece represents angst as expressed in one of Ginsbergs most famous poems from his generation: "Howl."
A few hundred years ago and then some a small group of angry American veteran officers in Newburgh, New York during the closing months of the American Revolutionary War howled at their commanding general, George Washington, that their country owed them for their service. Washingtons brilliance was to show these officers that even in the face of improper care from their own government and people the fundamental duty of these officers was not to them but their country and their people. Washingtons point to his officers was that in all things the American nation and its people--in whatever its form, in whatever its most frivolous self consumed form--come first. The minute that we adjust this priority by placing the military first is the point where we are no longer the greatest military in the world.
CPT Hsia: As a former enlisted Soldier and Reserve officer (20 years), an OIF vet, and as both a citizen and academic, I have to disagree with the presumption of your essay -- namely, that military service is the sine qua non of a "great" generation or, indeed, of full citizenship.
Let's begin with the implied comparison -- the OIF generation to the WWII generation.
Largely lost to the mists of Spielbergian history is the fact that G.I.'s in WWII were incredibly disdainful -- and, to a degree, resentful -- of those who did not serve in uniform, avoided service, or were exempted from service. It is a recurring theme, for example, in Bill Mauldin's second "Willie and Joe" book, _Back Home_. It is an undercurrent in the essays of former Infantry platoon leader Paul Fussell. It fed the Zoot Suit Riots of Los Angeles. It plays a role in the character arcs of Fred Derry, Al Stephenson, and Homer Parrish in the 1946 William Wyler film, "The Best Years of Our Lives."
In short, those in uniform are always disdainful (and resentful) of those out.
That's why it's called a "sacrifice."
But unlike the WWII generation, the OIF generation has volunteered to make that sacrifice, so it's hardly fair to turn around and condemn your fellows for not joining you.
Among other things, and at the risk of politicizing the discussion, let's recall that the sacrifice asked of Americans in the wake of 9/11 was to not sacrifice, but to go shopping. So the Facebook Generation is simply doing what was asked of it, loyal Americans that they are.
Let's also recall that what made the Greatest Generation -- a term, incidentally, that I despise -- great was not simply that it went to war, or even that it won at war, but that it rebuilt the world AFTER war.
Indeed, a careful reading of the original Brokaw book makes this plain -- it was that generation's behavior before, during, and after WWII that made it "great." What differentiates them from those that followed in Korea and Vietnam is not simply the clarity of the cause and the victory, but the wider impact of the victory on the global system.
The problem with naming the OIF generation the "next" greatest generation, is that the act of naming is a political act, intended largely to validate choices made by politicians. The Greatest Generation never anointed themselves that way; many, perhaps most, never even bothered to talk about the war.
Why not let the Tom Brokaw of the year 2060 decide how to name those who went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq?
I guess it all just comes down to a Clintonesque discussion of what the meaning of the word "is" is. :)
Actually, very pedantic there, old chap. Perhaps I infer too much. But given your apparent desire to go toe to toe, I would have expected a bit more of a blow to the chest rather than the strained scatter shot marked as a deuce too high to mark. I will be declarative and state that I have no such desire, particularly on such a trivial matter of individual interpretation, not ground truth of any import.
For my part, I do not buy into the greatest generation piece, for all of it (a la Hsia) or really even for the better part of it, whichever that might be. We are surrounded by greatness, and not. Concur w/ Adam L that the sound bite is being tossed around lightly and often with ulterior motives. Some good points elsewhere, others that I don't connect in what I'm reading here. But so what. I have no more to say on this matter. Out here. Have a nice day.
I want to be sure I'm not inferring any extraneous waves of commentary in what you wrote, Ironhorse.
In your understanding of the English language, writing a declarative sentence (it is, he is, she is) is not -- repeat, not -- writing "definitively," is that correct?
So the sentence, "The sky is above us" is not definitive as you understand that term because, if "read any of several ways," one might take that sentence to mean that the sky, in fact, is below us.
I ask for clarification because Hsia's op-ed is chock-full of declarative sentences, and I (perhaps because I have been inferring extraneous waves of commentary lo these many years since the 2nd grade) have always been under the impression that "declarative" means, as the Oxford English Dictionary has it, to "make clear, manifest, or evident; characterized by making a declaration."
If this is true, I wonder if you would clarify further what does in fact constitute a "definitive" statement?