My Dad told many war stories, most of which have stuck because they were so vivid. One story was about training he underwent during the Israeli War of Independence. For my Dad, this was a review class, since he’d spent five years in combat during World War II.
The class was about grenades. The instructor had in his hand a glass jar with charges in it, which he shifted back and forth in his hand as he spoke. Meanwhile, the hot desert sun shone down on them. My father found himself mesmerized by the jar as it went back and forth between the instructor’s hands, with the sun glistening on the glass. At the same moment, my father and the instructor had the same realization — the glass was going to blow.
My father, in the back of the crowd, seized the soldier next to him and threw her down out of the line of fire . . . but there was no line of fire. The instructor had clutched the jar to his chest and thrown himself on top of it. He was killed instantly, but every other person in the area survived, free of injury, because of his quick-thinking and willingness to sacrifice himself (especially, one might say, to sacrifice himself to his own error in mishandling explosives).
I thought of this story when I read today’s Press Release from CENTCOM, which involved, not a man correcting his own mistake, but a man in the line of enemy fire who freely gave his life for others:
According [to] Merriam-Webster’s On-Line, a hero is a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities; one that shows great courage.
Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael A. Monsoor, 25, of Garden Grove, Calif., died Sept. 29 while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in Ramadi, Iraq.
Monsoor was a Navy SEAL assigned to a West-Coast based command.
Monsoor gave his life in order to save the lives of his brothers in arms. An Iraqi insurgent threw a grenade into a position occupied by Monsoor and three other SEALS. According to a report in the Associated Press Monsoor was struck in the chest by the grenade. Monsoor immediately threw himself on top of the grenade saving the lives of the other three. Two other SEALs where [sic] injured and the fourth was unhurt.
From Rear Adm. Joe Maguire, USN – Commander Naval Special Warfare Command, “On behalf of the entire Naval Special Warfare community, we mourn the loss of Master at Arms Second Class (SEAL) Michael A. Monsoor, who died conducting some of our military’s most important missions. It’s been said that we cannot decide whether we live or die – we know one day we will die – but as people, as men and warriors, we can only decide what we will die for. This Sailor along with our two wounded teammates chose a life of significant meaning — to defend freedom and protect America and its allies from terrorism. We grieve with and support the family and friends who support our warriors on a daily basis. We hope that in time Michael’s family is comforted in knowing that he died fighting for what he believed in and we will not forget his sacrifice.”
According to The Navy Times, Monsoor was a native of Garden Grove, Calif., and joined the service in March 2001, according to Navy records. He was a member of BUD/S class 250, and had been serving with SEAL Team 3 since April 2005.
Monsoor is the second SEAL to die in Iraq.
Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael A. Monsoor, the definition of the word hero.
I think that it is also fair to point out that, with a name like Monsoor, he was probably of Arab-American descent. Something to think about for those that are a bit too quick to draw cultural stereotypes.
If you’ll pardon my radical!! political ‘meander’– perhaps your Dad’s grenade training story represents the standard that should be applied for those who seek higher office in America. That is, exhibited, proven willingness to sacrifice oneself for the greater good.
Or, contrariwise, removal from office for those who do not or will not.
Here’s more on your heroic story, Bookworm and some pics.
“We sit here at home, safe and comfortable, debating the “rights” of our sworn enemies, embroil ourselves in whose party deserves reelection and TiVo “Dancing with the Stars”.
These men jump on grenades to save their comrades and expose themselves to 1001 different ways of dying brutally, far from home and family.
The answer to the question is here in America. They can be found in our homes, workplace, churches and thousands of other places. They are our sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, uncles and parents…in short, our countrymen.”
http://www.nicedoggie.net/2006/?p=1508
[...] [Read more and discuss…] [...]
The only problem, jg, with have proof of sacrifice as a prerequisite for political office is that you can’t run dead candidates. And Michael Monsoor, sadly, died proving his decency and bravery. And if we’re not talking about ultimate sacrifices, what are we talking about? Giving up Chardonnay once a week? Driving a Ford, not a Beemer? Mandatory military service? As for the last, I’m all for it. Long-time readers know that I think the Israeli and Swiss idea of mandatory military service is a great idea: it’s a wonderful social equalizer, which will do more than all the quotas and affirmative action in the world to help smooth racial relations. It’s also a great way to help young people understand the sacrifices we make for our country, and it would be really good to see people like Nicole Ritchie and Paris Hilton sweat at places other than beaches.
Actually, Book, it would be military training combined with on-call militia duty until the age of 50 (in the case of Switzerland). While I think that it is a wonderful idea, it would never fly. Many U.S. military experts feel that the Vietnam era draft was also associated with a much lower level of professionalism. Also, look at the divisions that it fostered in our society. Many of the Lefties would use military service to undermine our military as they currently undermine our country. Sad but true.
Book, you’re being too literal with me.
What I want to say is that public service entails ideals and morals. A republic, at least by 18c definition, demands moral standards. Most on the Left, as you chronicle every day, insist it does not. Or: IT’S the morals THEY define.
The country should matter more than your personal gain. That’s one way to put it. Simple, right? Not.
I think it does for President Bush. It runs through much of his thinking.
Danny and others can correct me– but different countries and times have found ways to ask that of their leaders. To ensure that the king, or prince, whoever, was worthy of the post. When that stopped, then the leadership and future of that time and people collapsed.
Individual stories don’t affect the stereotype conclusion, one way or another. If you recall, one guy in the 101st if I am correct in remembering, threw a few grenades into the tents of his officers, wounding several. He was protesting the invasion of Iraq, a Muslim state in his view.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,154979,00.html
There’s no point in saying Monsoor represents his culture well or badly. He didn’t join the SEALs because he was out to prove that Muslims were good or Arabs better than what he saw on 9/11. People join for personal reasons. Why would it be fair to bring things that don’t matter, as a way to say this then represents things one way or another for other people? Other people aren’t like Monsoor, and it doesn’t matter if they are Muslims, Americans, or Arabs. What one person does or does not do, doesn’t even translate to another person, let alone a greater culture.
Individuals are always the exception to the rule, especially exceptional individuals. If people want to negate the stereotype, they need to take the average mediocre representative of the sample, and show that it is higher or different than the stereotype. The law of averages. You can always find out if the stereotype of Americans is right or wrong, by finding out how many Americans are compassionate as opposed to cruel and greedy. add them up and divide.
The only problem, jg, with have proof of sacrifice as a prerequisite for political office is that you can’t run dead candidates.
Are you sure about that Bookworm? I’m sure if there is a will ,there is a way.
Many of the Lefties would use military service to undermine our military as they currently undermine our country. Sad but true.
The military service solution, is a weird solution in my view. Because it sort of works in the short term and it sort of works in the long term too. But not completely. Meaning, in the short term, it will negate the esprit de corps of the military, and bring a lot of logistical personnel into the mix, pushing out the combat branch services in terms of purchasing power parity in Washington DC. While doing so, it also fosters a common bond between citizens who have been trained, and have worked together in units. Not as strong as the military bonds we have now, but stronger than normal. This is a good benefit, but does it really outrank the risks?
In the long term, however, you will have the military encountering corruption problems as more and more of the sons of elite and leadership positioned citizens, join and rise in the ranks. Washington already has a patron system. As the military gets larger, it will also adopt a patron system where sons of Senators and what not, are treated better and with more favor. Why? Because now the Senators in the next 50 years, will have been part of the military rank structure, like Murtha. So, they are going to have a lot of influence inside the military, with a lot of military people loyal to THEM. We already see some of that concerning the Big General bash party with Rumsfield, but that’s small peanuts compared to the long term analysis as I see it, of 100% military service in the US.
When every Democrat is a John Kerry, it won’t make them any more virtuous you know. The military cannot instill virtue into you, if you are not open to it. But it will give the Democrats more clout in the military, more say in what gets funded and not. If you can trust those people, not to abuse their positions of power in the military to set up patron systems and corruption scandals, then you could probably get the system working well enough.
The very virtue and elite quality of the military, comes primarily because it is small and select. Putting more people into it, won’t make them all into good people, that just isn’t possible. Some might be helped, but others might be hurt by being forced to live in a military lifestyle. A lot of people can’t take the military lifestyle, in any fashion or form.
The military is sort of like a miniature America in this instance. It can handle a certain amount of immigration, but too much immigration at too high a rate and something starts going bad. If not now, then in the future.
Many Arabs, especially from Lebanon, are Christians, so what does it matter. That this hero is an American is what matters.
I agree fully, erp. That was my point. I know many Arab-Americans and Muslim-Americans who are great Americans and great citizens. We should never lose sight of that during these heated discussions into which we engage on Book’s pages.
That’s not going to be a large problem, since most people in America are already radically different from those in the rest of the world.
There is no comparison. Not even our anti-Americans in the US may be compared to the anti-Americans in Europe. We get the cream of the crop, so to speak, in Hollywood.
Good clarification, jg. Thanks. Considering, though, that we don’t (yet) have a ruling class, I’d be worried that putting “sacrifice” hurdles up front would limit the potential pool of candidates for high office, and create the risk of a ruling class — people whose parents have the power and money to position them early for leadership. I haven’t thought this through too deeply, though.
The US used to have checks and balances on the Executive and the leaders, to make sure that they weren’t incompetent. Back in the early days, it was the fear of being hanged separately that weeded out the weak and cowardly, and rewarded the strong and wise. Then it was the common bond between Americans, the sense of a community, that prevented corruption and decadence, as well as a New Frontier out West.
Congress as well as the Judicial branch kept the worst abuses of each other in check. The Roman Triumverate, in a way. However, if any cracks develop amongst these trilateral balance of powers, then the system starts to go awry.
By undermining one branch of the United States government, they have undermined all branches of the US government.
Bookworm, as with surrender, it depends upon who you surrender to as it depends upon which family is the ruling class. If you can have the Bush dynasty melded with a Marine military family going back 4 generations, then isn’t that the best of both worlds?
There are dynasties in America. Even if you don’t count Bush and Clinton. And since we aren’t an Empire system or have an aristocracy, dynasties don’t really work for our egalitarian society. because the best families, don’t see themselves as fit to rule or even that they should rule. That automatically removes the best families from the pool of candidates.
Another thing that removes the best candidates from high office, is the amount of deception in politics. As with the Democrat tactics, it doesn’t matter what is true or not. The truth might be that a Democrat or two got up a bill for the draft, but what comes out is that the Republicans are bringing back the draft. The truth might be that Bush is a multilateralist, almost as much as his father was, but the thing that comes out is that Bush is a unilateralist cowboy.
This is what de-motivates the best people from attempting office. The fact that “truth” no longer matters, all that matters is how well the Democrats manipulate reality into genjutsu, has put some real reasons not to get into politics.
If we had a truth detector, 95% accurate. Then what would a politician care if someone accused him of being a secret Jew? It wouldn’t matter, because he would just go take the test, and he would be vindicated in the public’s eye, which is all that matters to a politician.
To win at politics now a days, you either have the flare and charisma of an Arnold, or you have the deception capabilities of a Clinton. The people who prefer reality, facts, and results (the no nonsense people you prefer to be in government like Teddy Roosevelt) are totally disgusted with the use of either deception or media manipulation. Arnold is an actor, he knows how to manipulate the camera. But how would someone who deals in reality, know how to manipulate a camera? And why should he learn just so he can play catch up to the masters of propaganda in the Democrat party?
Some things can be done via human institutions, to improve the pool of candidates. Better rewards, and more honorable punishments for example. But when people see the Foley thing, for example. What are they really thinking?
Are they thinking that the punishment fit the crime, or lack of one? or are they thinking that the smallest tinniest thing will get you found out, punished by the Republicans and destroyed by the Democrats? So wouldn’t people see that joining the Democrats would be a better deal? And wouldn’t the people who join the Democrats be the ones who are masters of illusion and propaganda?
And if that occurs, why would any sane person attempt to be elected into the Republican party, so that they may be held to higher standards than their opponents? So that America may be held to higher standards than terrorists, would that make more people join with America or the terrorists?
The institutions in America are getting more and more unbalanced. Grim himself wrote a rather complete analysis of the situation, over at blackfive.
In conclusion, the only thing I see as limiting the pool of candidates, Bookworm, is dishonesty, deception, and unfair standards. The military does not have trouble getting people, not inspite of the fact that they ask for sacrifices, but because of it. Because they promise honesty as well as honor to go with the sacrifice. What honor and honesty is there in politics now a days? Bare few little.
How did this become such a debate of political right and move away from the true meaning of the story? Michael Monsoor is a war hero. We don’t see too many people giving up their lives to save their colleges in many situations these days. Much less have that be their first and only instinct! Who do you think you are turning this into any debate about policy or worth between peoples. This is about his supreme deed and how we should honor it accordingly. So please show him some respect.