Sat 7 Jun 2008
Gordon Phillips ‘08, Class Speaker, “Good Morning.”
Before we get too far into the day, I just wanted to take a minute to recognize those serving in our armed forces. No matter your views on why and how our country has done what it has, men and women exactly our age are fighting half a world away to keep us safe and secure and their daily sacrifice should be appreciated.
A nice start, spoken to 500 of our best and brightest. How many are heading off from Williams to serve in the military? Zero, as far as I know. Corrections welcome!
34 Responses to “ Daily Sacrifice ”
Comments:
Leave a Reply
Trackbacks & Pingbacks:
-
Pingback from Why We Don’t Serve » EphBlog
June 9th, 2008 at 2:10 am[...] when we “support” the troops but have as much understanding for the decision to serve as is given in If you want your kids to do good NOW, have them join the Peace Corp or something. I don’t [...]
June 7th, 2008 at 7:22 am
David, you surely know that it has been for a long historical period and is currently foreseeable that the 17-18 year old kids with the rare combination of both Williams-like academic profiles and also a strong affinity toward serving in the military are almost completely attracted to and (provided that they can pass the physical and have the prerequisite leadership qualities) absorbed by the service academies. Are you insinuating that Williams somehow should attempt (in my view foolishly and vainly) to fill this niche? If not, what is the point of your question?
June 7th, 2008 at 10:12 am
If it was your own kid, would you send them off to join the military right now, only to fight in an unpopular, pointless war(s) doomed to an unhappy end (I add the (s) for Iran if McCain wins) and risk their lives for a President who was himself too cowardly to fight but is only too happy to risk the lives of 18 year olds he does not know because he wants to pretend to be a macho cowboy, and then if they get injured (psychologically or physically) be essentially abandoned by the government who sent them off to fight in the first place? If you want your kids to do good NOW, have them join the Peace Corp or something. I don’t understand why any rational parent with kids who have great alternative options (as almost any Williams grad does) would encourage their kid to join the military so long as this administration is in place. Hence, unsurprising that hardly anyone does.
June 7th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Jeff: Please meet with Dan DiCenzo, look him steadily in the eye and tell him that you believe that his brother’s inferior life was wasted on a pointless cause in part because of the foolish encouragement of his family.
June 7th, 2008 at 11:39 am
“his brother’s inferior life ”
As Jeff would undoubtedly tell you, not “inferior” (in either reality on Jeff’s appraisal of him), and that adds to the pain.
June 7th, 2008 at 11:40 am
corrected
“his brother’s inferior life ”
As Jeff would undoubtedly tell you, not “inferior” (in either reality or Jeff’s appraisal of him), and that adds to the pain.
June 7th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Exactly, Larry. I don’t owe anyone an apology. Rather, it is the administration who deceived all the brave military families with false or incomplete information, who falsely wielded patriotism and honor to silence the doubts of anyone who disagreed with their misguided policies, who sent these beautiful young men into combat without proper weight for, or consideration of, the terrible human costs of that decision, who treated war as a personal macho quest for vengence or for the history books rather than a last resort, and who were so arrogant as to believe no careful planning of that war was even necessary. Don’t ask me — ask Richard Clarke, and Scott Mcclelland, and Colin POwell, and various Generals who dared to disagree or question but were later pushed aside — just how callous and careless and willfully blind to the facts this administration chose to be.
Dying for a cause that is ultimately unjust does not make the soldier who risks his life any less patriotic, any less brave, any less noble. Waging an unjust war makes the person who puts that brave solider’s life at risk, however, nothing but a self-involved coward. Of course the families who lose a love one don’t want to believe the cause was unjust — I can’t think of a more obvious case of cognitive dissonance, and I am sure I would feel the same way. But how many MORE beautiful young people do we have to send to die before we collectively recognize our mistake and act to correct it?
June 7th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
The only question is which will be a greater national embarassment in the long wrong — our treatment of our own soliders both during and after the war, or our treatment of the enemy, either via torture chambers in Iraq or via holding in Guantanamo, without probable cause, indictment, the ability to see a lawyer or their families, or any hope for eventual release, hundreds of men, many of whom are undoubtedly innocent of any war crime. The precedent we have set will allow any country in any future war to torture any American soldier, or to indefinitely hold without charges any American citizen remotely connected to our war efforts, without any legitimate complaint from the US. That is what happens when you cede the moral high ground …
June 7th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Amen, Jeff…incredibly well said.
I am frankly, so sick of the irresponsible and inappropriate labeling–of anyone and everyone who happens to be critical of this deplorable war–as unpatriotic to our country, and unsupportive of our troops.
Enough already with that nonsense.
And speaking of McClelland, I haven’t seen it said, but I daresay that his little expose’ (accent over the e) is an indication that the you-know-what is going to hit the fan in an even bigger way re this administration…and he’s just hoping to save a couple of square inches of his own rear end by coming forward early.
June 7th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Interesting, and quite plausible, speculation — and an angle that hadn’t occurred to me. How very, very sad this all is, especially for those who serve/have served in the conflicts, and their families and other loved ones.
June 7th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
(On the other hand, I heard McClellan being interviewed the other day and thought he was surprisingly naive, clueless and/or tone deaf about how his revelations might be received. It really seemed as though he either had thought his party would canonize him or had thought that he didn’t care how people would react and then was surprised when they came down on him so hard. Anyway, McClellan seems a complicated, perhaps murky, case.)
June 7th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Jeff framed this in a much more articulate manner than I could have given my emotion around this issue. Thanks. What follows is my emotional response so anyone not wanting to deal with that can feel free to ignore it.
My uncle was drafted into the Vietnam war. He came back so screwed up and with PTSD, for which he didn’t receive adequate support or treatment. His entire (far too short) life after that was spent attempting to find some way to make the pain go away. He left quite a trail of other unhapppy people in his wake. Not even to go into the pain it caused the rest of the family. This is one story of one family. There are thousands more. Sure, this war is different - as is every one. But I wouldn’t wish that on anyone and I would (and have) encouraged any young person I can find that will listen not to serve in the military. Ever. And I will continue to do so. Always. Killing or putting yourself at risk of being killed is not the only way to serve this country.
So David, how dare you judge anyone’s decision to serve in the military or not to serve in the military. There are innumerable factors that go into such a decision, as I’m sure you know. If you want to go to war, go. I don’t want to. I don’t want anyone else to either.
I respect those that serve and appreciate that they are willing to sacrifice. That doesn’t mean I’m glad they have had to make it. I know people who have been killed in this war, and I grieve for them. I have spoken with parents who have lost children and it tears me apart. I know people serving now and I fear for their safety daily. I didn’t know that Dan’s brother was killed - Dan was in my entry and family was everything to him. I cannot imagine the pain he is feeling now.
I don’t want others to have to go through that. Especially when so many serving were misled as to why they were put in harm’s way.
June 7th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Where to start?
1) JG writes
Judging is what I am all about, as all we are. When you see a Williams graduate join the Peace Corps, do you not praise her? Do you not congratulation her on that choice precisely because you “judge” it to be praise-worthy? If that same graduate said that she wanted to go to law school to become the best defense lawyer for drunk drivers in the country, wouldn’t you, at least, withhold the sort of praise you lavish on the Peace Corps volunteer? You might not criticize the future defender of drunks — all Ephs have the right to make their own choices and drunk drivers need lawyers too — but you would (I hope!) treat the two cases differently.
Now, you are free to disagree with my praise of military service, free to think that it is a much less honorable and selfless paths than those trodden by other Ephs. But it is absurd to claim that I should not judge. We all judge.
2)Jeff seems confused about what military service means. It means that you swear an oath to defend the Constitution and execute lawful orders. You may not like Clinton, you may think that bombing Serbia is a bad idea, but when the orders come, you do your duty. If your commitment is so shallow that you only want to obey orders that you agree with, fight wars you think worthwhile, and serve Presidents you judge moral, then you don’t belong in the military.
3) Imagine that no Ephs in the class of 2008 were going into teaching. How you feel about that is, perhaps, how I feel about the fact that none (?) are joining the military. I would (almost) never question the choices made by individual members of the graduating class. If you want to join Goldman Sachs, go to Yale Law School, get a Ph.D. in Art History or travel the world on a tricycle, then more power to you! But, given how rewarding teaching is as a career, given how much we need great teachers, it would seem strange and sad to you (I hope) if no member of the class of 2008 were teaching next fall.
June 8th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Actually, I think that our current President is confused about what it means to be Commander in Chief. It usually means attempting some modicum of concern for those you put in harms way. For only putting them there for your honest belief that it is required. We may disagree as to the rightness of a decision made, but at least we maybe can all agree that it should be made honestly?
I 100% disagreed when Clinton decided to bomb Serbia and said so - and I was so sputteringly emotionally angry about it that I think I probably startled my suitemates as a sophomore at Williams. But he said why he was doing it, and he believed it was right. I don’t recall anyone commenting on an evidence cover up, suppressing contrary opinions, or anything else of that nature. I would happily be corrected if you have an evidence of that.
Jeff’s comment said nothing about selectively following orders or not fulfilling one’s oath of service. He gave honor to those who serve and challenged the basis for the President misleading the country to war. I think you are challenging an argument he did not make.
And again, the question you posed was about those going into the military NOW. At this point those entering service have to contend with the great lie of the Iraq war and what that means. If you do not trust at some basic level the honesty and competence of your leaders, you cannot take an oath to follow their lead no matter what. I would have responded much differently to your post before March 2003.
June 8th, 2008 at 12:10 am
And sorry to post again…to respond to the part of David’s comment directed at me. While I may lament that every single graduate of Williams College does not follow in my footsteps or the career path that I feel is most valuable, I have never written a post about it in a manner implying that anything other than that pre-judged path is not good enough, that they are somehow not fulfilling their duty by doing so.
You can “judge” without being judgmental.
June 8th, 2008 at 12:35 am
Sometimes I absolutely hate blogging.
Inspired by JG’s comment I wrote a long response, posted it…and the darn site froze…my comment lost to cyberspace! So, I writhed and cursed, and then calmed down and sat down to join my frosh in a take-out Chinese food dinner. Quite good…and my fortune cookie had this message:
“Nothing in the world is accomplished without passion.”
So, here I am, inspired by my “fortune” to attempt to recreate my long, and lost, comment. Alas, I am so slow with this process, that there will probably be several responses that will, in the meanwhile, render it meaningless, but nonetheless…
First of all, in response to JG’s comment about emotional responses? IMO, emotion palpably strengthens your argument…and Jeff’s, and also David’s, which has since arrived.
Of course, the military is a worthwhile endeavor. And, it is sad that so few are ready to take it up. And why is that, David? Answering that question honestly, would IMO, put almost all of us into agreement, on several things. Who now signs up? And why?
My comment, inspired by JG’s, had to do with something I witnessed a little over a year ago. I was dropping something off at our local public high school. As I pulled up into the 10 min, parking spot right in front of the office, I noticed a kid, a senior, sitting on the bench, sheepishly hanging his head while an older man, our local recruiter, was standing over him. The recruiter was doing all the talking and the gist of it, which I could overhear was something like this:
“Well…just because your mom doesn’t want you to enlist, doesn’t mean you can’t make that decision for yourself! C,mon, you’re a big boy, now. Be a man!”
As I started to get out of my car, the recruiter turned away from the boy and went into the office. The boy had noticed me (I think smoke was coming out of the top of my head), and he seemed embarrassed. I looked him right in the eye and said something to the effect of…”Don’t you let him pressure you. You do what you feel is right…for you!”.
I swear, I did not misread the grateful look he gave me. I considered following the recruiter and giving him a piece of mind…but what would I say…and which students or administrators or parents etc. would witness my rant? We live in a small town…several local young people are serving…and proud of it…and rightly so. All of this was going through my mind…and ultimately, I let it go.
Should I add here, that this young man was not at the top of the class…that there were no scholarships coming his way…that he had perhaps fewer options available to him than many of the other students? Or is this irrelevant?
Probably, many would say, that the military would bring him more options…and perhaps that is so. But it seemed clear (at least to me) that these were not the options he wanted. And yet…he seemed targeted.
Perhaps we need to take an even harder look at a war, and a military, that needs to resort to these kinds of measures for recruitment.
June 8th, 2008 at 12:48 am
Let me just add here that I know that this phrase of mine:
“Who now signs up? And Why?”…
is subject to attack. And thus I would like to add, that, of course, I am aware that lots of brave, and patriotic, and wonderful individuals do still, willfully and “passionately” choose to serve our country via military service. I respect that, and I am grateful for it. They are not the individuals that my comment is about.
June 8th, 2008 at 12:53 am
I am assuming that these questions are in a Williams context.
1) The largest single category of military Ephs are doctors, including my classmate Paul Danielson ‘88 and my roommate Pat O’Malley ‘87.
2) As best I can tell, the proportion of Ephs serving in the military has been largely constant for 20+ years at less than 1% of a typical class. There were two (I think) non-doctor military Ephs in the class of 1988: me and LtCol JR Rahill. There are (at least) two military (Marine!) Ephs in the class of 2007. Some years are smaller and some (like 1998) larger.
3) From my conversation with various military Ephs in the current generation, my honest answer to your question as to who signs up and why is: The most patriotic Ephs sign up and they sign up because they believe that the US is engaged in a Long War against radical Islam. They believe they have a duty to serve in that war. They do not deal with the petty politics of whether a Democrat or Republican is President or with the larger strategic issues of where we fight. (Do we invade no other country? Just Afghanistan? Just Iraq and Afghanistan? Just Darfur? Also Iran?) They leave politics to the politicians.
I would have hoped that there was at least one Eph in the class of 2008 who felt the same.
June 8th, 2008 at 1:02 am
Oh, David. LOL. I read your mind and anticipated your response before it arrived!! Dang…I have learned a lot in the last few months.
That said…No, my comment, and question, about who serves, and why, was (heaven forbid) not “in a Williams context.”
June 8th, 2008 at 2:05 am
From #12: “Now, you are free to disagree with my praise of military service, free to think that it is a much less honorable and selfless paths than those trodden by other Ephs…”
No one has said they think serving in the military is “a much less honorable and selfless paths than those trodden by other Ephs” or even “a less honorable and selfless paths than those trodden by other Ephs” — indeed, quite the opposite.
Comments like this undermine, rather than contributing to or strengthening, an argument.
From #17: ” The most patriotic Ephs sign up….”
This implies that every Williams student who signs up for military service is much more patriotic than any Williams student who does not (and a corollary that any student who does not sign up for military service is less patriotic than every student who does sign up). Further, although it isn’t explicitly stated, I hear an undercurrent insinuating that every one of a large group of Williams students/recent graduates is or verges on not being patriotic. I don’t personally know many of these people so I can’t know say for certain, but I don’t think these things are necessarily true. Take teaching, for example, as the clearest counter-example I know of: I do personally know recent Williams graduates who are passionately engaged in teaching in sub-sub-sub-par schools out of deeply-held and lived-out principles that both they and I understand to be “patriotism,” and I would find any impugning of that sense of patriotism to be extremely far off the mark, and highly offensive, to boot.
There are many ways to live out one’s patriotism.
June 8th, 2008 at 3:28 am
As a matter of societal responsibility and equity shouldn’t the U.S. citizenry be subject to a fair, broad based system of compulsory military and other national service?
June 8th, 2008 at 7:06 am
A few points, Freudian slip in comment number 7, I meant the “long run.”
Second, JG basically rebutted David’s point but towards me, but I will amplify some more. If you are already in the military, yes you have a duty to follow orders. But shouldn’t the sort of orders you will likely have to follow influence your decision to sign up in the first place? To take an EXTREME example, no one defends anyone who willingly signed up to fight for the Nazis as just mere patriots hoping to serve their country. Of course I am not comparing current military efforts to the wars waged by the Nazis, but the broader point is, it is perfectly appropriate to evaluate the righteousness of your nation’s current and prospective future conflicts, based on current and prospective future leaders, when making such an incredibly important decision. I find it hard to believe that David would encourage his daughters to sign up for the military, or be pleased if they did so, if they graduated under a regime who he believed would send them into a counterproductive, poorly-planned war that did nothing to protect America or advance its national interests. Now I realize the Endless-by-Definition War on an Emotion does not fit that definition, according to David. But what if President Biden said “my policy is to take any country who uses Euros because it helps devalue our currency.” Would you really disparage those who forego military service because they think this is an idiotic foreign policy not worth risking the most valuable thing any person possesses — their life — for? I think you are really questioning my evaluation of this administration’s policy, NOT my methodology for a decision on joining the military.
There is a reason that despite a terrible economy and the largest group of 18 year olds in our nation’s history, the military is struggling with recruiting — because countless kids and their parents have made the exact same calculous that I am advocating. That makes them no less brave or patriotic than the millions who signed up for WW II: it just means that, for them, one cause was far more worthy.
This, again, has nothing to do with the patiotism of those who DO choose to fight, or the obligations of those already in the military. What it does show is that those who choose NOT to fight because they despise this administration’s policies and believe they hurt America in the long run can not be accused of being any less patriotic than you David or your fellow marines.
By the way, if you really think the decision of whether or not we go to war based on false rationales and faulty intelligent is merely “petty” politics, than I am not sure what is NOT petty. Personally, I don’t think the decision to extinguish thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, trillions of dollars that could be spent to rebuild every urban school in the US, and soften our position as a global human rights leader in terms of how we treat prisoners of war and enemy combatants not to mention ignore constitutional limitations on privacy for our own civilians, are “petty” decisions. Unfortunately, our current administration did and does.
June 8th, 2008 at 7:09 am
One more point David: you like to, based one your beliefs, encourage Ephs to enlist in the military. In your view, are I, or Frosh Mom, any less patriotic because we take the opposite approach? Is jingoist militarism the only acceptable way to express love for America? Because that’s what the Bush propoganda machine almost convinced much of America until the media finally started reporting on the human costs of this war.
June 8th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Just to clarify:
I would not discourage someone from joining the military if it was clearly their choice, their passion…and if the decision was made under the right conditions…with an honest portrayal of what to expect, presented to them. As I said, I know several people who have served, and are now serving for which this was the case.
What I take issue with, are the young people who are targeted…then baited and pressured into joining, not only because they are led to believe they don’t have other options, but also because they are presented with a rather idealistic and unreal scenario to ’seal the deal’.
June 8th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
I know of at least two ‘10 Ephs that are doing the Marine Officer Candidate School either this summer and next summer or all next summer and are hoping to be commissioned following graduation. So, maybe, David, this year is just an anomaly.
June 8th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
I guess I am on David’s “side” here. I have always had a certain amount of regret and some guilt that did I not serve. As I sit here today, I would certainly encourage both of my son’s to join the military when they are old enough. (One is now 6, and I must admit I can’t see him in uniform; the other is 4 and I think he might have the right personality. Of course, much can change over 15-20 years). I am certain my wife would disagree with me on this, and I suppose if and when the topic is raised my kids will make up their own minds.
I do think the decision to serve our country in the military is - at least in the abstract - one which should be made with little to no reference to the party or person in power. One of the major pillars of our society, in my view, is that we, as a country, are supposed to have an underlying unity which transcends political and social views. Obviously, this is probably somewhat naive, but it is what I believe. I also think the military - and by extension the country - benefits when Williams students and graduates enlist/are commissioned.
June 9th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
1. Patriotism is NOT (rarely) the reason men/women enlist.
2. We MORALIZE war to satisfy the general population in their SACRIFICE of their children.
3. Soldiers NEVER know why they fight and rarely care.
4. If people SEE the results of war, they RUN from it.
5. Policies govern rank. The higher the rank, the more venal and grave the outcomes of a politicized military.
6. War feeds HATE and HATE drives war.
7. Politics of war fuels PROFIT with promises of GAIN.
June 10th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Perhaps I shouldn’t re-engage this discussion when the one on Jonathan’s post is a bit more thoughtful, but when others refered back to Comment #12 I perused it again. My response isn’t really on the hot-button aspect of this topic anyway.
David, you wrote
And I really had to laugh. I guess this is one of those moments where the fact that we don’t know each other very well personally comes into play. Rory - you probably laughed as well knowing my career history.
I would heartily encourage and applaud an Eph who set out to be the best defense attorney for drunk drivers in this country. The legal system only works if all sides have good representation. That is what keeps faith in our system of justice (most of the time). I have worked on death penalty cases, and helped represent (accused) murders, drug dealers, and worse, most of whom were rightly convicted. I did not do this because I thought the things they were accused of doing were good or decent, but because I think it is fundamental to our society that everyone’s rights be protected. It makes the punishment stronger if the system is administered fairly. I’ve also worked for a judge, and now work for a regulatory agency that pursues some of the same types of people I used to defend (albeit in a different forum). I truly want a strong system on all sides.
So I would applaud someone going into the Peace Corps who truly believed in his/her cause in doing so. I would also support the defense attorney or even a Republican political activist (gasp) - to the point of supporting that person, as an individual, in making a choice to pursue with passion and energy the cause or career path that s/he thinks will make a difference in the world. That includes military service and a whole gamut of other things - research or teaching or writing or microfinance or being a stand-up comedian.
Basically, as cheesy as it sounds, I’m a big believer in “following your bliss.” Passion and belief are key for me. Perhaps that is the area in which I am most guilty of being judgmental. I have little tolerance for people who fumble through life with no passion or love for what they do - or at least for trying to find out what they’d like to do. For some this is a career, others family, others do a job for the job but doing something else they love on the side.
June 10th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
i hadn’t noticed it earlier, but that is quite funny.
June 10th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
“Most patriotic” was not the most artful phrasing, but, please, people, at little common sense. My Eph brother did not serve, but he is as patriotic as anyone I have ever met, including military Ephs. So, I did not mean that every single Eph who has served is more patriotic than every single Eph who has not served. What I meant is that, on average, the Ephs who have served are more patriotic than the Ephs who have not. If you disagree with that claim, then we probably disagree on what “patriotism” means. If you care to define it, then we can argue about it.[JG]So there is no (legal?) job that is any less pariseworthy than any other job? You would be just as happy (just as proud) to have your close friend or child or relative be a genius at helping drunk drivers beat the wrap as you would if she were, instead, bringing needed medicine to desparate villages and saving lives? Hmmm. What about someone who was the world’s greatest subprime loan scam artist, someone who talked poor, ill-educated borrowers to second equity loans at ruinous interest rates that, inevitably, led to them losing their homes. Nothing illegal, of course, just deeply immoral. You would be just as proud of them?
June 10th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
I didn’t think qualifying with illegal or patently immoral activity (what you described is actually illegal as well as immoral in most cases) was necessary. But whatever. I also have not yet met someone whose true passion and goal was doing that. Really. I’d be somewhat scared to meet such a person I think. Most people who do that are actually deviating from something they really were trying to do, or their “passion” is the pursuit of money which is far too broad to count in my estimation as an actual belief or passion.
And if the attorney can help someone “beat the rap” then our silly little justice system presumes them innocent until proven guilty. Perhaps you have forgotten.
June 15th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Jeffz- The US Military is by far the biggest humanitarian aid organization in the modern world. No other organization has the structure or the resources to provide aid like our arned forces does. Look at almost every major humanitarian effort in modern history and you will find our militarys finger primts all over it.
The peace corps and the military are noble ventures that superseed the polity. Our constitution is based on the premise that people are fundamentally good, and that does not change when someone takes an oath to support and defend it.
It makes me very uneasy whenever someone uses personal examples of military service to justify a policy or political position. I do it at times, but it does go against the doctrine of service blind to partisan politics and founded on support of the principles in our Constitution. You can support the troops and oppose the war, in my opinion.
June 15th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
In WWII not much opposition was tolerated before it was deemed to be unpatriotic.
June 15th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
I remember Swart telling me of his 2 years in the Army as a draftee.
Seems it was required and expected back in the ’50’s, Williams grad or not.
Swart said it was an interesting time in Germany with the mark (as it was then) at 4.2 to the dollar. He learned Morse Code and crypto, found self-propelled weapons very large and noisy, and developed his skills in communicating with a lot of good guys you wouldn’t expect to meet on Spring Street or Madison Avenue.
Because he intercepted all messages sent to his Artillery battalion, he learned that the Army was going to ‘retire’ all NCOs who didn’t have a high school diploma. This, he realized was going to present the colonel with a problem since at that time, many senior NCOs had been drafted into WWII and Korea at some tender ages.
He ran to the CO with the message and a solution. He would organize and teach a School for Sergeants. He graduated 90 plus old Sarges with the HS GED by the practical expedient of teaching the test. Everyone was happy and Swart ended his service feeling he had actually done some good, if not for the old Sarges in particular, then for their families. The Army at that time was an honorable way of breaking the cycle of poverty.
And, also needless to say, Swart never again saw an unpleasant duty with his name on it appear on the bulletin board.
Williams war stories from that quiet end of the Phinney Baxter legacy. Not quite what former marines might consider ‘gung-ho’.