It must be supposed that lots of people want to establish their credentials, perhaps to impress other people or to solicit business for their enterprises. In the top drawer of my desk, there is a collection of calling cards with all sorts of abbreviations representing the higher credentials of the owners. There are M.D.’s by the dozens. There is a medical technician who lists B.S., and R.V.T. after his name. He was not asked what the “B.S.” stood for. There is a D.O. and several R.N.’s and B.S.N.’s. The fellow who took the veins from my legs for the heart by-pass operation is listed as PA, no periods and no exclamation points. Joe Patti, an ophthalmologist, says he is an M.D. and a P.A., with periods. One fellow is a DPM and a FACFAS. He is in podiatry work. Ophthalmologists list F.I.C.S. after their listing as M.D.’s. Others list F.A.C.S. after their name. Neurologists don’t seem to belong to a higher society; hence, no initials. A fellow who used to run the Hungarian telecommunications service in Budapest is called “Dr. Techn.” And that is only the English version of his calling card.
On the other hand, there are Sal Manto, who sells Mercedes cars, and Rich Wilson who sells fine wines. They do not list any organization to which they have been elected or appointed. They are good men. The brevity on their calling cards is well received.
But if this plethora of credentials should overwhelm you, we have the military services coming to your rescue. Typically, when a high level officer completes his hitch, that former soldier or former naval officer seems to always keep his rank and to add a symbol of retirement after signing his rank and name. Typically, these lofty officers sign their names to pieces they have submitted to newspapers and magazines, as “Col. Joe Blow (Ret.).” Now that is something that deserves a comment from an old enlisted man, namely me.
Since the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq by United States forces in 2003, newspapers and television news programs seem to have sought out all kinds of high level military people for their commentary. Most of these former military people had generally completed their service many years ago, but they are still commenting. It must be assumed that retired generals and colonels are easier to acquire as opposed to active high level officers whom we must assume are too busy to write op-ed pieces or to talk to television news programs. Presumably, when a general or a colonel begins to collect his pension, he or she may now be looking to say what he thinks of the current situation. Perhaps the commentary is submitted in exchange for a fee. But because the piece is signed by an admiral or a general who speaks from retirement, don’t take his comments to the bank just yet.
There are several cruel ironies here. In the Army, one does not become eligible for a normal service pension until 20 years of service have been delivered. Now if we have a West Pointer, for example, he or she will reach the 20 year mark at about the age of 42 years. There aren’t many prospective candidates who will present themselves to the non-military job market at age 42 saying that their previous experience was in directing close order drills or in killing people. At his point, the Army can do anything it wants with the 42 year old soldier who has served long enough to qualify for a pension, but not long enough to be a general or an admiral, for example. If he is wounded from previous combat, the Army can say it doesn’t want cripples to be on the roster, so the relatively young man is told that his military career is finished.
Similarly, if there is a report of conduct unbecoming an officer, or if his or her superiors simply don’t like the officer, he or she can be told to prepare for the final formation to mark an officers retirement. As far as is known, there is no appeal from such a rejection, unless the officer has friends in high political office, in which case, he or she may be permitted to hang on until another opportunity for separation occurs.
As military careers work out, there are very few generals and admirals at the 42 years of age mark. Generally speaking, those jobs come when the military lifer reaches the age of 50 or beyond. The rank of general is what the people such as the West Pointers are aiming at. At age 42, some are not even full colonels. The rank of general is a distant hope, so they usually try to stay in military service hoping for a latter day promotion.
So here are the bed rock facts. The Army can terminate an officer’s career any time it wants to. There is no such thing as a “no cut” contract in the military. As you can see, the Army holds all the cards. If an officer expresses an opinion that the top brass disagrees with, that officer will be let go at the first opportunity. So the man or woman who has 20 years invested in the military and who has years to go to reach higher rank, simply remains silent or he espouses the current line of the incumbent administration – even if it is a total lie. In Iraq, for example, where we are suffering grievous losses, the officers in the plus 42 year gap are forced to remain silent or to proclaim that losing more than 1,060 soldiers is mighty good news.
The best example is Colin Powell, the current Secretary of State, who retired as a general. When it was time in February, 2003, Powell was sent to the United Nations Security Counsel to state the case about why the U.S. should go to war over the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq allegedly had. As time went on, Powell and the Bush administration have been repudiated on nearly every point he made. But Powell stated the case even though he would soon come to realize that it was totally false. But as a soldier, he stated not what he knew, but the prejudices of George Bush and his neo-con advisers. Ladies and gentlemen, that is whoredom at its finest.
While we are discussing debauchery, attention must be paid to a former hero, John McCain, the Senator from Arizona and the man who was held for five years in North Korea prisons. In the 2000 primary campaign where he was pitted against George Bush, his opponent circulated two malicious rumors. The first was that McCain’s years in prison had caused him to be irrational. The second was – and this was in segregationist South Carolina – that McCain had fathered a black child. For all the intervening years, McCain had loathed Bush. The reasons for his disdain are understandable to any rational person. Now we find McCain embracing Bush in the 2004 campaign. It goes without saying, that whoredom is far from dead.
It was said a page or two back that this situation is freighted with cruel ironies. Two obvious ones are the degradation of Powell and McCain. A second one has to do with what the talking heads have to say. In normal circumstances, the generals and colonels have very little to say about anything other than the party line. On those occasions when Colin Powell has ventured an opinion about the non-existence of the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) or any other subject that failed to conform with Bush’s neo-con line, he has been hauled up short and forced to issue a “clarifying statement” which takes him into compliance with administration policy. Powell disbelieves that Iraq ever had WMD, but he states that fact at his peril. And he does not have the integrity or the guts to resign.
So to all the readers of these irreverent essays, when you read an “expert” opinion by a general or a colonel who has (Ret.) after his name and rank, deal with it with a great deal of skepticism.
Two interesting thoughts occur here about the quality of statements from lesser ranking members of the military. In the first case, newspapers and television news programs all seem to believe that there is a direct association between a top general, for example, and believability. It is for this reason that only on rare occasions will a piece be signed by a Lt. Col. (Ret.). Presumably, the testimony of a lieutenant colonel is worth less than the testimony of a general, or what is known in military terms as a full bird colonel. Newspaper and TV commentators have yet to seek comment from majors, captains and lieutenants. As a member of the Army of the United States in World War II, please be assured that wisdom does not reside exclusively in the brains of eagle colonels and the four classes of general. On many occasions, men of lesser ranks have expressed ideas that far outweighed those expressed by the top brass. There were many men who entered the service with no inclination whatsoever to make it their life’s work. Their views were not hidebound and are, in my opinion, superior to the thoughts emanating from the generals who sometimes carried swagger sticks.
Secondly – at this late point in this essay on military discipline, it will be noticed that all my references have been to officers. There are those who say officers do the thinking while enlisted men do the dying. If you look at the casualty lists from the disaster in Iraq, it would seem that enlisted men and women are dying at about 300 to one officer’s death. So in the four or five wars since my war, the facts on the ground haven’t changed. Sometimes enlisted men are called “dog faces.” In every war, dog faces do the dying.
In case there is any mistake, my service was as an enlisted man, Army serial number 17077613. If someone should call me a dog face, they would be told, “Yes, that’s right.”
In the previous pages, everything that was said about officers of a lesser rank such as captain or major, as distinguished from colonel and general, applies also to enlisted men. In between dying, enlisted men often have ideas that are far better than the ideas of the so called “Field Grade Officers.” Just because a soldier holds no commission, is no reason to believe his thoughts are without merit. Ah, but that is how the grand army of this country treats them. And so we are left to run on an army of “yes” men who would not dare to tell the administration that their ideas are worthless and will result in soldiers being killed. The Bush administration seems to think there are plenty of enlisted men who will be glad to get killed.
Did we have plenty of troops for the Iraq occupation? Bush and Rumsfeld say “absolutely.” They say that if more troops are needed, all the commanders in the field have to do is ask for them. In truth, the first one to ask for more troops will find an exit being prepared for him as in the case of General Shinseki or General Zinni. Even a lowly dog face might be able to tell the world that more troops in Iraq were desperately needed long ago. But dog faces don’t count and dog faces don’t write op-ed pieces saying that they are retired.
As a matter of fact, most enlisted men, whether retired or not, do not submit articles signed with their rank and the “Ret.” label. That is a shame. The colonels and the generals have nearly worn out the R, e and t letters on their computers and typewriters. As a matter of fact, surviving enlisted men – the dog faces – outnumber the colonels and generals by a factor of probably 4000 to one. Accordingly, it is herewith proposed that all of us have a suffix to add to our names, much like the doctors whose cards are in my desk. And the addition should not be (Ret.).
Not many of us hung around the Army to rack up 20 years or more for a pension. When whatever action we were in was finished, we got out as fast as we could. In my own case, my enlistment lasted three and one-half years. And it ended with Army pleas to join the Reserves or the National Guard. There was no intention on my part whatsoever to have anything to do with any military organization, including the American Legion.
So very few of us old dog faces can use the suffix, “Retired” after our name and rank. But that is absolutely not a problem. Virtually all of us received honorable discharges to end our military careers. Popular demand now proposes that all of us should have a suffix to anything we write, whether it is a letter to the editor or an op-ed piece. That gives the piece gravitas.
So Sergeant Carr of the Army of the United States (AUS) herewith proposes that henceforth, all dog faces add the AUS or USA to pieces submitted for publication, followed not by “Retired” (Ret.) but by “Honorably Discharged.” This is a little long, obviously, but abbreviations exist for a reason. So all of us may sign with rank, name, either the USA or AUS, followed most importantly, by “Hon. Dischgd.”
This will make our credentials equivalent to doctors, technicians, car salesmen and wine sellers and almost equal to the head man of the Hungarian Telecommunications Authority. Finally, at long last, we have the means to deal with the (Ret.) syndrome.
Now that this major problem is settled, it is hoped that all of us – dog faces and civilians and majors or captains – will feel better, which will result in a spring in our steps and a large smile on our faces.
Sgt. E. E. Carr
AUS (Hon. Dischgd.)
September 23, 2004
~~~
Re: Whoredom, watching Ted Cruz kiss the Trump ring has gotta take the cake. Trump accused Cruz’s father of being involved with Lee Harvey Oswald — among tons of other disparaging remarks about Cruz himself — and yet months later Cruz is phonebanking for the guy.
I like the idea presented here though, that the people who have gotten furthest up the chain are increasingly incapable of thought that diverges from the party line, since those go hand in hand. And even once you retire, that mindset has been so beaten into you that you’re never going to question what you’re told, or at least never publicly question that since your brain has become hard-wired to balk at the prospect.