An American Coward Speaks

Darth Rotor

Salted Sith Cynic
Joined
Aug 4, 2006
Messages
38,527
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/homeland.php?id=397352

I have read most of Pat Conroys' books, he is a fine writer. Thirty years from now, no graduate from the University of Wisconson will write an essay of this caliber.

Why?

An Honest Confession by an American Coward
by Pat Conroy

The true things always ambush me on the road and take me by surprise when I am drifting down the light of placid days, careless about flanks and rearguard actions. I was not looking for a true thing to come upon me in the state of New Jersey. Nothing has ever happened to me in New Jersey. But came it did, and it came to stay.

In the past four years I have been interviewing my teammates on the 1966-67 basketball team at the Citadel for a book I'm writing. For the most part, this has been like buying back a part of my past that I had mislaid or shut out of my life.
--snip--
When I visited my old teammate Al Kroboth's house in New Jersey, I spent the first hours quizzing him about his memories of games and practices and the screams of coaches that had echoed in field houses more than 30 years before. Al had been a splendid forward-center for the Citadel; at 6 feet 5 inches and carrying 220 pounds, he played with indefatigable energy and enthusiasm. For most of his senior year, he led the nation in field-goal percentage, with UCLA center Lew Alcindor hot on his trail.

-snip-
After we talked basketball, we came to a subject I dreaded to bring up with Al, but which lay between us and would not lie still.

"Al, you know I was a draft dodger and antiwar demonstrator."

"That's what I heard, Conroy," Al said. "I have nothing against what you did, but I did what I thought was right."

"Tell me about Vietnam, big Al. Tell me what happened to you," I said.

On his seventh mission as a navigator in an A-6 for Major Leonard Robertson, Al was getting ready to deliver their payload when the fighter-bomber was hit by enemy fire. Though Al has no memory of it, he punched out somewhere in the middle of the ill-fated dive and lost consciousness. He doesn't know if he was unconscious for six hours or six days, nor does he know what happened to Major Robertson (whose name is engraved on the Wall in Washington and on the MIA bracelet Al wears).

When Al awoke, he couldn't move. A Viet Cong soldier held an AK-47 to his head. His back and his neck were broken, and he had shattered his left scapula in the fall. When he was well enough to get to his feet (he still can't recall how much time had passed), two armed Viet Cong led Al from the jungles of South Vietnam to a prison in Hanoi. The journey took three months. Al Kroboth walked barefooted through the most impassable terrain in Vietnam, and he did it sometimes in the dead of night. He bathed when it rained, and he slept in bomb craters with his two Viet Cong captors. As they moved farther north, infections
began to erupt on his body, and his legs were covered with leeches picked up while crossing the rice paddies.

At the very time of Al's walk, I had a small role in organizing the only antiwar demonstration ever held in Beaufort, South Carolina, the home of Parris Island and the Marine Corps Air Station. In a Marine Corps town at that time, it was difficult to come up with a quorum of people who had even minor disagreements about the Vietnam War. But my small group managed to attract a crowd of about 150 to Beaufort's waterfront. With my mother and my wife on either side of me, we listened to the featured speaker, Dr. Howard Levy, suggest to the very few young enlisted Marines present that if they get sent to Vietnam, here's how they can help end this war: Roll a grenade under your officer's bunk when he's asleep in his tent. It's called fragging and is becoming more and more popular with the ground troops who know this war is ********. I was enraged by the suggestion. At that very moment my father, a Marine officer, was asleep in Vietnam. But in 1972, at the age of 27, I thought I was serving America's interests by pointing out what massive flaws and miscalculations and corruptions had led her to conduct a ground war in Southeast Asia.
--snip--
When I was demonstrating in America against Nixon and the Christmas bombings in Hanoi, Al and his fellow prisoners were holding hands under the full fury of those bombings, singing "God Bless America." It was those bombs that convinced Hanoi they would do well to release the American POWs, including my college teammate. When he told me about the C-141 landing in Hanoi to pick up the prisoners, Al said he felt no emotion, none at all, until he saw the giant American flag painted on the plane's tail. I stopped writing as Al wept over the memory of that flag on that plane, on that morning, during that time in the life of America.

It was that same long night, after listening to Al's story, that I began to make judgments about how I had conducted myself during the Vietnam War.

In the darkness of the sleeping Kroboth household, lying in the third-floor guest bedroom, I began to assess my role as a citizen in the '60s, when my country called my name and I shot her the bird. Unlike the stupid boys who wrapped themselves in Viet Cong flags and burned the American one, I knew how to demonstrate against the war without flirting with treason or astonishingly bad taste. I had come directly from the warrior culture of this country and I knew how to act.

But in the 25 years that have passed since South Vietnam fell, I have immersed myself in the study of totalitarianism during the unspeakable century we just left behind. I have questioned survivors of Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen, talked to Italians who told me tales of the Nazi occupation, French partisans who had counted German tanks in the forests of Normandy, and officers who survived the Bataan Death March. I quiz journalists returning from wars in Bosnia, the Sudan, the Congo, Angola, Indonesia, Guatemala, San Salvador, Chile, Northern Ireland, Algeria.

As I lay sleepless, I realized I'd done all this research to better understand my country. I now revere words like democracy, freedom, the right to vote, and the grandeur of the extraordinary vision of the founding fathers. Do I see America's flaws? Of course. But I now can honor her basic, incorruptible virtues, the ones that let me walk the streets screaming my ass off that my country had no idea what it was doing in South Vietnam. My country let me scream to my heart's content - the same country that produced both Al Kroboth and me.

Now, at this moment in New Jersey, I come to a conclusion about my actions as a young man when Vietnam was a dirty word to me.
--snip-
I have come to a conclusion about my country that I knew then in my bones but lacked the courage to act on: America is good enough to die for even when she is wrong.
I looked for some conclusion, a summation of this trip to my teammate's house. I wanted to come to the single right thing, a true thing that I may not like but that I could live with. After hearing Al Kroboth's story of his walk across Vietnam and his brutal imprisonment in the North, I found myself passing harrowing, remorseless judgment on myself. I had not turned out to be the man I had once envisioned myself to be. I thought I would be the kind of man that America could point to and say, "There. That's the guy. That's the one who got it right. The whole package. The one I can depend on."

It had never once occurred to me that I would find myself in the position I did on that night in Al Kroboth's house in Roselle, New Jersey: an American coward spending the night with an American hero.
It is OK to be a pacifist, and OK to object to the war. The question is, can you answer John Kennedy's challenge without mental reservation or purpose of evasion?

I don't expect non Americans to understand, nor non warriors. I will suggest that the average Iraqi gets it.

DR
 
The question is, can you answer John Kennedy's challenge without mental reservation or purpose of evasion?
I assume you mean, "Do not ask what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country" ?

If so, I would say that most can answer that challenge without mental reservation or purpose of evasion --- but the answers may not be ones you like. Clue: there are very different ideas on just what is good for the country.
I don't expect non Americans to understand,
This seems both way off-base to me, and also gratuitous baiting. Do you really think Americans have a monopoly on idealism, patiotism, nationalism or selfless service?
Or is this some narcisstic preoccupation with the USA, as though other countries did not exist, or somehow the USA is the only country worthwhile?

Oh, and BTW, other countries still have national service -- compulsory service of up to two years -- while the USA doesn't, largely as the result of precisely the cackhanded war in Vietnam. So do those countries actually reflect Kennedy's expressed ideal better than the USA now?
Just asking.
nor non warriors.
Having been a warrior myself, I'm impervious to put-downs of this kind; but questions do raise themselves. Was Ghandi a "warrior"? Was Martin Luther King? IMHO, they most certainly were in all the important ways.

And taking it from the other side of criticism: would the Waffen SS have "understood" your question? They definitely would have thought they did; what they called selfless service was most certainly part of their ethos.
And that is a very important point, isn't it? At what point does patriotism become mindless ultra-nationalism? And a regress to the worse aspects of childishness?

After all, it's so very, very childish to sit around and endlessly chant all the time, "My country is better than yours. My country can beat your country up", yes? And that is what so often this kind of approach on a bulletin board devolves into: "My daddy is bigger/richer than your daddy".
Somehow I can't see that as worthwhile in the slightest, nor can I see such ersatz-nationalism primping itself and strutting on a bulletin board as reflecting Kennedy's expressed ideals in the slightest.
I will suggest that the average Iraqi gets it.
Doubtful, these days; Kurds might feel a great ideal of an Iraqi Kurdistan, and many of the Ba'athists would, but the Ba'athists hardly count these days, having become too identified with a minority Sunni group wanting to keep its privileges, while the Shi'ites are still searching for what they would like to see as a future. Seeing as to how their country has been taken over for the meantime and they get only to follow foreign orders in all really important decisions (rightly or wrongly), and seeing as to howmany of the educated and the idealist have been driven out of Iraq recently precisely because of the wave of violence, the question might seem rather moot for them at the moment.
 
Darth, do you believe 40,000 dead Americans and a couple million dead SE Asians was good for our country? That would make you an extremist, so I will not assume that is your position. Your rational is similar to those of suicide bombers. No, nothing that is good would ask of you that you die for no reason. The line you bolded is chilling; "America is worth dying for even when she is wrong." Your veneration of war above all else is not the answer to the "what can you do for your country" line, its the answer to "what can you do to reduce your country's (literally) life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?"
 
Last edited:
Hindsight is always 20/20, although there are a few notable exceptions to that observation. And everyone of us can certainly look back in time and quail in our boots at what we did (or did not do) that we thought was absolutely right at the time.

Gurdur is right about patriotism - it is not the sole province of Americans. It is the surfeit of patriotism leading to the denigration of the patriots to other, possibly conflicting causes that can lead to worse things happening. And so proceeds to jingoism and beyond. So it would seem the brave patriot is the one that takes care to ensure that his own patriotism does not cloud his judgement.

Note this also: I'm proudly patriotically Australian - true blue dinky-di, as we say. But does that mean I'm also proudly patriotically not American? Anti American? Don't care? It's actually none of the above. I believe the world is too small now, technically and in outlook, to build national fences too high to see over.

So perhaps when Kennedy asked "Do not ask what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country", that may have meant having the courage to tug insistently on the hem of the national psyche and say "No, please don't do this - my friends and countrymen are getting abused, tortured and killed for this, and it's not worth it!" Sanity check...
 
It is OK to be a pacifist, and OK to object to the war.

I sometimes wonder. I grew up in a world where it was taken for granted that Vietnam was wrong and that protesting it was a great thing, but I sometimes wonder how things would have been different if we'd been in that fight to win.

The question is, can you answer John Kennedy's challenge without mental reservation or purpose of evasion?

If the challenge you're speaking of is the "...ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country..." you could certainly argue that Pat Conroy and others like him were doing for their country, at least as they saw it.
 
I sometimes wonder. I grew up in a world where it was taken for granted that Vietnam was wrong and that protesting it was a great thing, but I sometimes wonder how things would have been different if we'd been in that fight to win.

Go on, how do you think things would be different? Do you think making Vietnam a democracy would have saved our country from injury or do you mean that wars should be won for the sake of winning them and nothing else?
 
I sometimes wonder. I grew up in a world where it was taken for granted that Vietnam was wrong and that protesting it was a great thing,

... but which abandoned the millions of Vietnamese forced to live under communism to their fate with a shrug.
 
Darth, do you believe 40,000 dead Americans and a couple million dead SE Asians was good for our country? That would make you an extremist, so I will not assume that is your position. Your rational is similar to those of suicide bombers. No, nothing that is good would ask of you that you die for no reason. The line you bolded is chilling; "America is worth dying for even when she is wrong." Your veneration of war above all else is not the answer to the "what can you do for your country" line, its the answer to "what can you do to reduce your country's (literally) life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?"

I was scratching my head too. If your country is wrong, it's wrong. It's not necessarily you who will die for it, but someone else from another country.
 
... but which abandoned the millions of Vietnamese forced to live under communism to their fate with a shrug.

Your patriotism and loyalty to Vietnam are commendable (if very weird) but I have to question your loyalty to your countrymen when you imply that Americans should die not even for Vietnamese lives but for Vietnam's political system.
 
Your patriotism and loyalty to Vietnam are commendable (if very weird) but I have to question your loyalty to your countrymen when you imply that Americans should die not even for Vietnamese lives but for Vietnam's political system.

Vietnamese lives and the Vietnamese political system are not separate things.

I find your assumption that an American life should be inherently more valuable than a Vietnamese life unacceptably racist.
 
Vietnamese lives and the Vietnamese political system are not separate things.

I find your assumption that an American life should be inherently more valuable than a Vietnamese life unacceptably racist.

I'll ignore the opinion of the Vietnamese people about that war for a second.

It's not American policy to kill millions of people in order to stop small scale murder of dissidents that falls short of genocide. That wouldn't even make sense.

It's also arguably not even necessarily American policy to go to war over actual genocides, as in Rwanda, Darfur, and Iraq. Furthermore America did just the opposite in supporting the Shah who's policies were every bit as murderous and brutal as communist Vietnam, if not more so. If you think it that America should sacrifice troops to stop brutal practices that fall short of genocide that's a different discussion and does not relate to the current discussion.
 
America is good enough to die for even when she is wrong.
America - this incredibly fortunate piece of geography we call home - did not send soldiers to southeast Asia to die; people in positions of authority did that.

The question above completely misses the point, and I have to wonder why the author, after all his years of immersing himself in the study of totalitarianism, still does not have a clue.

America is good enough to defend, even to death - that America is home and friends and family. But being somewhat skeptical of the motivations of the leadership (then and now), I don't buy that America was what the dying was for.

The real question was always: Are mistakes or mismanagement or self-serving greed good enough to die for?
 
Your patriotism and loyalty to Vietnam are commendable (if very weird) but I have to question your loyalty to your countrymen when you imply that Americans should die not even for Vietnamese lives but for Vietnam's political system.

Using your definition, WWII was wrong--why should Americans die for Europe's political system, or to save the lives of Europeans?
 
I sometimes wonder. I grew up in a world where it was taken for granted that Vietnam was wrong and that protesting it was a great thing, but I sometimes wonder how things would have been different if we'd been in that fight to win.
Which begs the question of what "win" means. In the context of Vietnam, what would that imply, Mycroft?

And it is a central question to our present situation in Iraq (if I may indulge in a derail). The neocons, Bush, and others talk about "winning" or "complete the mission" or similar phrases. But I cannot figure out what this "winning" means in military terms.

So we are, in some sense, back in Vietnam again and back to Mycroft's "wonder". Mycroft, do you now wonder about "winning" in Iraq? What do you conclude? What do the lessons of Vietnam hold for you?
 
Last edited:
Using your definition, WWII was wrong--why should Americans die for Europe's political system, or to save the lives of Europeans?

This type of thinking is the same thing that skeptics accuse parapsychologists of doing, of getting negative results and then shoe-horning afterwards the results they get to fit the their previously held biases. America did not go to war so Europe could have a better political system. This is the same kind of thinking that's led the American public to be so easily manipulated by the Bush admin into thinking we're in Iraq for fateful altruistic reasons instead of for no reason. You're comparing a civil war in a small now provenly irrelevant country to an entire continent being invaded by a power that declared war on America. That's 'woo' that's a bit more consequential than using a stick to search for water. It's unfortunetly like what Hitler said, that people will sooner believe a big lie than a small lie.
 
It is OK to be a pacifist, and OK to object to the war. The question is, can you answer John Kennedy's challenge without mental reservation or purpose of evasion?

I don't expect non Americans to understand,

Why? Unlike yours my country has a real history of honest imperialism. I can spot old men trying to get young men to die for their beliliefs

nor non warriors.

Are you posting this from Iraq or Afganistian?

I will suggest that the average Iraqi gets it.

No I really rather doubt it.
 
I guess we abandoned many more millions Chinese to their fate of living under communism by not invading China? How do we live with ourselves?

A country's first duty is to its own people. Helping other people is nice, but not at the expense of its own. You don't let your child go hungry because you donated all your food to a charity drive. You can only do so much.

As for Conroy's essay, I'm reminded of the friends and relatives of people who suffer from terrible diseases. Yes, they suffer, and yes, they're brave if they can bear it, and yes, it's tragic that they have to be in that situation. And sometimes it's natural to feel guilty that you're standing there in good health when someone else isn't. But sympathy shouldn't extend to the point that you wish you had the disease, too. He sounds like he'd prefer to have shared their hell in Vietnam merely because that would assuage his guilt at not having gone through it--even if it were wrong.

The phrase "courage of your convictions" has always meant to me that you do the right thing even if it does make you miserable. For some people, that's why they went to Vietnam. For other people, that's why they didn't go.
 
The question is, can you answer John Kennedy's challenge without mental reservation or purpose of evasion?
Less remembered than his, "Ask not" challenge was this promise (and I wonder if this wasn't what DR was actually referring to):
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
I wonder how many people would still subscribe to that. Precious few, I'm afraid.
 

Back
Top Bottom