The 9/11 Generation
Dean Barnett has a nice piece about our troops in the Weekly Standard. It tells the story of some young American men and women who joined the military after 9/11. I met members of the 9/11 Generation in Iraq much like the ones Barnett features, and correspond with many of them every week who serve our country all over the world. They are brave, smart, dedicated, faithful, and committed to protecting our country’s best interests.
The execrable Ted Rall doesn’t deserve to clean their latrines.
Here’s a snippet of Dean’s piece. Read the whole thing:
In the 1960s, history called the Baby Boomers. They didn’t answer the phone.
Confronted with a generation-defining conflict, the cold war, the Boomers–those, at any rate, who came to be emblematic of their generation–took the opposite path from their parents during World War II. Sadly, the excesses of Woodstock became the face of the Boomers’ response to their moment of challenge. War protests where agitated youths derided American soldiers as baby-killers added no luster to their image.
Few of the leading lights of that generation joined the military. Most calculated how they could avoid military service, and their attitude rippled through the rest of the century. In the 1970s, ’80s, and ’90s, military service didn’t occur to most young people as an option, let alone a duty.
But now, once again, history is calling. Fortunately, the present generation appears more reminiscent of their grandparents than their parents.
I’ve spent much of the past two weeks speaking with young people (and a few not-so-young) who have made the decision to serve their country by volunteering for the military. Some of these men have Ivy League degrees; all of them are talented and intelligent individuals who–contrary to John Kerry’s infamous “botched joke” (”Education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq”)–could have chosen to do anything with their lives. Having signed up, they have either gone to Iraq or
look forward to doing so. Not surprisingly, the mainstream media have underreported their stories.
Dean’s piece reminds me of the trailer for Outside The Wire. A refresher here if you haven’t already bought the DVD.
***
See also Michael Fumento’s moving Tough Americans, on soldiers injured in Iraq.
On a related note, those who try to tell the military stories the MSM doesn’t want to tell are getting attacked again. Matt at Blackfive blows the whistle on a Harper’s writer sneering at milbloggers.
On another related note, there are updates to the “Scott Thomas” story. See Michael Goldfarb’s latest blog post via Matt Sanchez, which includes an e-mail from FOB Falcon’s public information officer. More at Power Line, BP at Hot Air from Howard Kurtz
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Bill's Bites
- Right Wing Nut House » THE NEW REPUBLIC NEEDS TO SET UP AN INDEPENDENT INQUIRY
- UniversalUpdate.com
- Donklephant » Blog Archive » The Old Breed. The New Breed.
- BlogKripa
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Iraq, Scott Thomas Beauchamp
Patterico
» The Newest Senators
JustOneMinute
» Susan Rice To The United NationsBelmont Club
» Good enoughGateway Pundit
» Change... Obama Continues Boycott of FOX NewsBelmont Club
» Crusader RabbitRight Wing Nut House
» THE INCREDIBLY STUPID THOUGHTS OF DEEPAK CHOPRANewsBusters.org
» MSM Ignore India's Strict Gun Control LawsWeekly Standard
» Canada Plans to Save the Big 3, TooTigerHawk
» Blame America firstDavid Frum
» Will the Harper government collapse?NewsBusters.org
» MSNBC Anchor Frets: Why Hasn’t Obama’s Election Ended Terrorism?
Thank God for these young men. Say a prayer everyday for them.
Michelle, your post reminded me of something, that old song “America the Beautiful” by Katharine Lee Bates written around the turn of the last century. The third verse (which I had to look up) I think fits in here…
O beautiful for heroes proved In liberating strife.
Who more than self the country loved
And mercy more than life!
America! America!
May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness
And every gain divine!
Thanks for reminding me. And May God continue to Bless our great country and our troops.
As a “young person”, I’m proud to say this post is inspiring. Of course, not nearly as inspiring as those of my peers who have personally answered their calling and are defending every generation’s rights and privileges.
I am pleased to see some credit being given to the fine men and women in our military …
I do wish however he would have made it a lot clearer that the Woodstock crowd was a minority of the Baby Boomer population … they got all the press but they did not represent the large numbers of us that did serve …
Anyone who doubts that to be true can just go count the names on the Viet Nam Memorial Wall
My son is continuing the family tradition of service in the Navy. I never pushed him into it. He made the decision on his own a little over 2 years ago. He’s done a tour in the Persian Gulf, and is very proud of what he does, as am I.
I never really asked him about his stance on the war. But one day the last time he was home on leave someone made the mistake of saying we needed to get out of Iraq now. Shortly thereafter, I was clearly aware of his stance, and that poor schmuck wished he’d never opened his mouth. If even half of the young men and women in uniform today feel as strongly as he does about this, we’re in good hands.
What a great series of articles. Very inspiring, especially Dean’s piece.
Bill Kristol also has strong editorial condemning the left for abandoning even the pretext of supporting the troops using the Scott Thomas piece and this piece in The Nation as exhibits.
BTW - I’m surprised conservatives haven’t jumped down the throat of The Nation for that story. It’s crap from beginning to end, 7500 words of utter baloney.
I am proud to have served with the 9/11 generation, as a Marine. God bless the troops!!!!!!!
josetheguerilla
Semper Fi from a fellow Marine
So the “Me Generation” begat the “We Generation”? People for whom shoulder to shoulder is a means to face a challenge and not simply remain drunkenly vertical? Does the MSM know about this?
Oh wait, that’s right, anyone who follows the news knows who Lynndie England is, but can any reporter even name a Medal of Honor winner from this war?
There, fixed for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomer
1946 to 1964 …as a baby boomer myself I take exception to the
Course.. I am female and was only 12 you when it ended.
However my father, also a ‘boomer’ tried to enlist dispite previous non-combat duty and they told him to stay home and take care of his wife and 3 kids.
I object to all of our reputations being trashed because of a few. Liberals love to classify people. I expect better from our side.
I was talking about this with a friend of mine from work.. He is a retired vet and he told me that it takes a special kind of person to go out and fight for a concept and a principal. That being a fight for our security in the US and for a free nation of Iraq.
I’m just barely starting to grasp that myself and I’m in my mid 30s..
Ted Rall and his like minded ilk won’t ever understand that.
God bless all of our troops.
In two hours my brother will fly to Mississippi, and in a month’s time, will be on the ground in Iraq. He joined because of 9/11 and I have never questioned his decision because it is noble and right.
God bless these great Americans.
Dean’s piece. Read the whole thing:
In the 1960s, history called the Baby Boomers. They didn’t answer the phone.
Most calculated how they could avoid military service
Dean speak with slanderous and forked tongue and he should be ashamed of himself. VERY ASHAMED! What a Foxtrot Hotel!
During the peak of the Vietnam war, there were about 1,500,000 guys in the U.S. Army. Two thirds were enlistees. That means 1,000,000 enlistees. Those figures are just for a given time, not for the whole length of the war. And I know for a hard fact that there was at least one of the draftees who volunteered for the draft, probably a lot more.
Today with a MUCH larger U.S. population, there are about 500,000 enlistees in the regular Army and the U.S. Army has failed to meet it’s very modest enlistment quotas for the last two months.
Do the math.
At it’s peak they were about 550,000 guys in RVN (all services, overwhelmingly Army and Marines).
Now there are about 160,000 guys in Iraq (all services, overwhelmingly Army and Marines).
Again, much larger U.S. population now.
Do the math.
Approximately 60,000 guys died in RVN. Approximately 58,000 KIA and 2,000 MIA (also dead).
In Iraq/Afghanistan approximately 4,000 dead.
Again, do the math.
And that is not even the half of it as unlike then, mainly the same guys are sent over and over again to Iraq.
Spit on again.
And I thought that had ended with John Kerry.
Silly me.
BTW, I believe that Hugh Hewitt never served a day in any branch of the service.
How about Dean Barnett?
Is he a Huhnerfalke like Hugh Hewitt?
Dean Barnett - “Having signed up, they have either gone to Iraq or look forward to doing so.
This guy has got to be Foxtrot Delta!!!
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dean Barnett (b. July 13, 1967)
There was NO mention of any military service in his short Wikipedia entry.
He is 40 years old.
The Army’s age limit to join is now 42.
When does he go in?
BTW, Bill Kristol is a Huhnerfalke too.
Another example of someone trying to tell us what went on during a time he only has heard about from the liberally biased education (?) he received … I wonder if he has ever even talked to someone that served then to hear the other side of the story … NAH … that would mean he would have to think there was another side to the story … can’t have that now … can we?
Dean Barnett reminds me of John Kerry.
Spiting on the RVN troops.
Although at least Kerry served, sort of anyway.
I Have two sons that carried on the family tradition (I was AF ‘72-77). One was serving in Kuwait with the Air Force when we enterd Iraq in ‘03, the other is on his second hitch with the Navy (currently headed “somewhere but I can’t say where Dad” on a carrier), that was on a carrier in the gulf during the first push through Fallujah.
Both entered out of high school looking for a little adventure and training while figuring out what to do with thier lives. The AF guy is now a top notch diesel mechanic and my sailor is an EA6B Prowler aircraft mechanic just about finished with a degree and husband to a great wife that also supports the mission is spite of many months apart and father of 3 really great grandkids.
These “Kids” renew my faith in the future of this country if we can survive the leadership of the babyboomers.
Why can’t Dean just go out and get a real job that actually provides something of value to society. This gibberish he writes is just propagand for the enemy as far as I’m concerned.
I don’t think that Mr. Barnett or anyone else is negating the contributions of our Vietnam Vets.
Readers need to avoid that knee jerk response and take a closer look at the article itself:
“Confronted with a generation-defining conflict, the cold war, the Boomers–those, at any rate, who came to be emblematic of their generation–took the opposite path from their parents during World War II.”
Please note that Mr. Barrett is not being all-inclusive here.
“Sadly, the excesses of Woodstock became the face of the Boomers’ response to their moment of challenge.”
This is absolutely true… unfortunately. But again, Mr. Barnett is not being all-inclusive.
“Few of the leading lights of that generation joined the military. Most calculated how they could avoid military service, and their attitude rippled through the rest of the century.”
Again, absolutely true and Mr. Barnett is not being all-inclusive.
I am beginning to have doubts about an all-volunteer army. While they make a superb fighting force, yet they seem too much a loyal tool of the executive. I’m sure drafted and potentially drafted young people and their parents would long since have gotten us out of Iraq, especially with the Vietnam war and its resistance as a not yet forgotten template.
How obedient is a professional, all volunteer military? If a million Mexicans massed at the border faced by a million Minutemen, would the Bush military follow his orders and fire on the Minutemen, or mutiny and fire on the invaders?
1) You have never been in the military..
2) Voluntary service does not equal blind obedience.
3) Vietnam is a prime example of what happens when you let politicians fight a war and not the people trained to do so.
4) If there were a million Mexicans massed at the border facing a million Minutemen, the military would be too busy taking care of the Mexicans and their supporters massed on our side of the border supporting the illegals. I’m also betting you would be in that group.
I hope Michelle’s not mad at me still; but I had to log in on this one. I agree with feralcat 100%,and I’d like to point out to the pinhead who said, “When the phone range for the baby boomers no one answered”,there were 243 Medal of Honors awarded in Vietnam. I’m enjoying my 50 something birthday today because of one of them; and I don’t take kindly to anyone who denigrates thier service.
Alphonse - “How obedient is a professional, all volunteer military? If a million Mexicans massed at the border faced by a million Minutemen, would the Bush military follow his orders and fire on the Minutemen, or mutiny and fire on the invaders?
I think that they would fire on the invaders.
Enlisted men take an oath to the President.
Officers take an oath to the Constitution.
There is a reason for that.
We’re going to continue to look into this matter until the New Republic either issues an apology to the soldiers it has disparaged, or is flat out discredited.
Matt Sanchez
The only reason TNR printed this nonesense in the first place is because they WANT to believe it.
The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:
“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
ref #21
Irish Rose, I do not want to “beat a dead horse” here too much, but you are in the position of a lawyer who is trying (And you did about as well as anyone could considering what you had to work with in Dean Barnett’s screed. I will give you credit.) to argue the strongest part (but still weak) of a weak case.
1) Dean Barnett - “The 9/11 Generation Better than the Boomers.” [The VERY title of his screed!]
2)Dean Barnett - “In the 1960s, history called the Baby Boomers. They didn’t answer the phone [Totally self explanatory and then some.].”
3) Dean Barnett - “Confronted with a generation-defining conflict, the cold war, the Boomers–those, at any rate, who came to be emblematic [Pertaining to, containing, or consisting in, an emblem; symbolic; TYPICALLY REPRESENTATIVE] of their generation–took the opposite path from their parents during World War II.”
4) Dean Barnett - “Sadly, the excesses of Woodstock became the face [Barnett thinks that they were the face, I think that they were the a$$. Profound difference of opinion I would say] of the Boomers’ response to their moment of challenge.”
5)Dean Barnett - “Fortunately, the present generation [Good generation.] appears more reminiscent of their grandparents [Good generation.] than their parents [Bad worthless RVN generation.].”
6) Dean Barnett - “It is surely a measure of how far we’ve come as a society from the dark days of the 1960s [Bad worthless RVN generation.] that things like military service and duty and sacrifice are now celebrated.”
7) Dean Barnett - “Just because Washington and Hollywood haven’t noticed this generational shift doesn’t mean it hasn’t occurred. It has, and it’s seismic [The only thing that is seismic here is Dean Barnett's shear number of blood libels and his ASTOUNDING separation from reality].”
I think that I will call Dean Barnett, John Kerry II.
OK, I feel better now. I’ll shut up.
Yes, a few Baby Boomers were called and they did not answer the call. Probably because ‘they had better things to do.’
As for WWII the citizenry were enlisting in droves. There were 14 year olds pretending to be older so that they might serve. The threat then was far more recognizable. It was intuitive.
Immediately following 9/11 the intuition was immediate and the citizenry recognized their responsibilities. No one had to be told, just like no one had to be told during WWII.
In the years since 9/11 the intuition has be lost and recognition has become less so. Our troop’s tours have been extended from 12 months to fifteen months. Why? Because the citizenry is not participating. The more who serve the less time each individual troop has to spend in the fight.
Many hands make light work.
Support the Troops. Enlist!
Actually, feralcat, as you have shown, we both take an oath to support and defend the constitution.
And, trust me, officers follow orders just like we enlisted do (from higher ranking officers and the President). Officers issue direct orders. I as an NCO, I issue lawful orders in support of the mission stated in the direct order.
feralcat,
I’m going to assume (I know, I know) that Barnett didn’t mean to malign the volunteers of Viet Nam, however, he does owe you guys an apology. I’m from Barnett’s generation, the so-called “Baby Busters” and our memories of Viet Nam are from our childhood and unfortunately the anti war people DOMINATED any air time there was. There was no blogosphere to counter them.
Please don’t start throwing around enlistment numbers. You cherry picked the last 2 months and of course only choose the Army. The Army is ahead for the year and all other branches have been way ahead for the last 2 months.
The size of the Army was bigger during Nam because of the cold war, I served in Desert Shield/Storm and our Army was way bigger then too. It is smaller now because we have downsized it dramatically every year since the end of the cold war. The downsizing started under George H.W. Bush and continued through Bill Clinton.
As I said, I’m making an assumption here, but Barnett was maligning the hippies, not the vets. When you complain of him painting with too broad a brush, you yourself are guilty of said painting. (cherry picking enlistment numbers and comparing the size of the military)
All that said and Dean Barnett still owes you and yours an apology.
zyzzyg
You compare the 9/11 generation to WWII generation and then talk about length of deployment….WWII soldiers spent YEARS in theater to earn the points to come home. You only earned points based on how many times you got shot at, not how many months you were there…..
Kevlaur said:
Actually, feralcat, as you have shown, we both take an oath to support and defend the constitution.
And, trust me, officers follow orders just like we enlisted do (from higher ranking officers and the President). Officers issue direct orders. I as an NCO, I issue lawful orders in support of the mission stated in the direct order.”
I did not word my comment #25 as well as I might have as it may seem to imply that enlisted men do not take an oath to the constitution and they of course do, per my comment #28.
Enlisted men take an oath to the President (and to the constitution).
Officers take an oath to the Constitution, but NOT to the President.
There is a reason for that. It was not left out of the officers oath by accident.
Old Tanker said:
feralcat,
I’m going to assume (I know, I know) that Barnett didn’t mean to malign the volunteers of Viet Nam (I believe that it is 100% clear that Barnett maligned the RVN and RVN era troops, enlisted and drafted, that he did it in the extreme, and that he meant to do so. I do not see how ANYTHING under the sun could be any clearer. Although I do not believe that he has much else going for him he does seem to have a reasonably good command of the English language and he maligned REPEATEDLY. See a number of comments above including my #29. It would be far easier to defend the “other John Kerry” with his remarks about the troops “If you work hard and get a good education, blah, blah, blah”. Much easier to argue that he did not really mean it the way that it sounded.)
, however, he does owe you guys an apology. I’m from Barnett’s generation, the so-called “Baby Busters” and our memories of Viet Nam are from our childhood and unfortunately the anti war people DOMINATED any air time there was. There was no blogosphere to counter them.
Please don’t start throwing around enlistment numbers. You cherry picked the last 2 months and of course only choose the Army (I did not cherry pick. The last two months ARE the last two months (e.g. most recent, most indicative of what is going on now), not months picked at random from a year or two ago. They are what they are. I choose the Army because the Army took the most KIA in RVN and are now taking the most KIA in Iraq. I was also in the U.S. Army so it is the branch that I am most familiar with. Side bar - The much smaller Marines, proportionately usually take as many, or more, KIA as the Army). The Army is ahead for the year and all other branches have been way ahead for the last 2 months.
The size of the Army was bigger during Nam because of the cold war (I do not see how that would change what he said or what I said, and in fact the size of the U.S. Army was doubled during and BEACAUSE of RVN), I served in Desert Shield/Storm and our Army was way bigger then too. It is smaller now because we have downsized it dramatically every year since the end of the cold war. The downsizing started under George H.W. Bush and continued through Bill Clinton.
As I said, I’m making an assumption here, but Barnett was maligning the hippies, not the vets (He was clearly maligning vets. Nothing, I repeat NOTHING could be clearer. Nothing under the sun.) When you complain of him painting with too broad a brush (What I “complained” about was him maligning the troops which he clearly and repeatedly did. If fact he pretty much maligned a whole generation.), you yourself are guilty of said painting. (cherry picking enlistment numbers and comparing the size of the military)(As I said above I did not cherry pick. I choose the most recent months as they are the most indicative of what is happening now. I did not choose some months from a year or two ago. Comparing the size of the military, then and now, CLEARLY shows how many more were serving then compared to now. Do the math)
All that said and Dean Barnett still owes you and yours an apology (I see no reason to think that he was not honest in his opinion so I do not see any relevance in any “apology” that he might conceivably make.).
BTW, if John Kerry the Second wanted to praise those serving today, and had not wanted to malign RVN troops and basically a whole generation, he should have praised those serving today by saying that they are more “special” than those serving yesteryear, as so MANY fewer serve today.
I am astounded that you would defend him.
I would also be interested to know why he has apparently never served in any branch of the armed forces. He is 40, I believe, and the U.S. Army’s new max enlistment age is 42. He obviously believes in the Bush plan in Iraq, so what is he waiting for?
Old Tanker -
“You compare the 9/11 generation to WWII generation and then talk about length of deployment….WWII soldiers spent YEARS in theater to earn the points to come home. You only earned points based on how many times you got shot at, not how many months you were there…..”
True. Though I am talking rotation, time in theater vs. time not in theater.
The point I am making is that we need more citizens to participate in the war effort. Pres Bush has extended the tours of duty in Iraq from 12 months to 15 months. This would not be necessary if we had more troops to draw from.
One very good way, among others, to the Support the Troops is to allow them more time at home with their families. To do this requires more people enlisting.
Support the Troops. Enlist!
Not just a Bumper Sticker, something a president should ask of the citizens.