Wrestling with Demons

In 1991, I was a slow boat back to the United States from the Persian Gulf.  Having dispatched Saddam Hussein and his army, the Allied forces were going home and without much to show for it, so were I and my unit.  Still, what little we did do, we were offered counseling on the transport back but being young, in our early 20s, we had little use for a shrink.  So, I and many of my cohorts said no and went about our business.  Steven Watkins, a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq has figured out his own way of coping.   

The trained engineer has seen some harrowing things while serving in Afghanistan and working in Iraq.  I’ve done nothing compared to this man.  However, Mr. Watkins was a man in search of a mission and a purpose.  He signed up for everything he could and though not actually needed, he would join patrols and the like.  He saw the worse of war and then sought more.  When he left the military, he signed up as a civilian engineer in Iraq.  In short, Mr. Watkins was trying to scratch an itch and burned himself out and was injured in the process.  Upon returning home, he attended counseling and group therapy but in his words, it had little effect.   

Then, he had an epiphany.  Challenges are what drove him and made him the happiest prior to his injuries.  Challenges could also be his salvation.  He contacted the son of the man who began the famed Iditarod race between Fairbanks and Nome, Alaska to be trained for the challenge.  He is currently in the beginning stages of his first Iditarod and is seeking to finish.  Upon completion of that race, he will fly to Nepal and a week later, climb Mount Everest.  He is healthier than he has been since returning from Iraq.  He is emboldened with a spirit to push himself physically and mentally.   

In a video published by The Washington Post, Mr. Watkins said he felt that treatment for soldiers are too soft and not challenging enough.  Given that we are talking about men and women who chose as their profession a challenging and arduous path, having them sit and share their feelings is a limited but not useless strategy.  I can appreciate, in a Nietzschean way, the concept of pushing recovering soldiers to tap into what drove them into the military initially.  However, Mr. Watkins is flirting with a fine line.   

Mr. Watkins will finish a difficult race and climb a previously-thought insurmountable peak.  Yet, what happens when these challenges are not enough?  Soon, he will traverse the gap between doing something for the purpose of self-growth and actualization to doing something just because it is dangerous and potentially, suicidal.  For him, the challenges are a verification of life.  I can understand this.  What I did in the military put me in such a rarefied air of existence, my life since has been, while good and rewarding, not “challenging.”  It is hard to feel as alive as moments when your life is in danger and therein lays the difficulty for Mr. Watkins. 

I do not profess to know an answer on how to treat veterans suffering the effects of war.  I do not think that counseling should be ruled out but it is not enough.  There must be something more, something harder, something more challenging.  I wish Mr. Watkins luck in his endeavors to complete the Iditarod and to climb Mount Everest.  However, at some point it will not be enough and I hope he is able to find a more permanent answer.  If he cannot, I fear he will only finish what someone started in Iraq.    

 

Effectual Man, Ineffectual President

The Presidential Series – Jimmy Carter, the 39^th President of the United States
                                         Democrat, 1977-81

Let us learn together and laugh together and work together and pray together, confident that in the end we will triumph together in the right.

            President Jimmy Carter, Inaugural Address, 20 January 1977

In committing to do a series on various U.S. presidents, it might seem odd and ideologically backwards (considering my blog’s orientation) to begin with the 39^th president.  However, Jimmy Carter as president from 1977 until 1981 is one of our more interesting chief executives.  He was a one-term governor of a small southern state who promised to bring a more decent and morally guided focus to the job of the presidency.  His administration is equally considered one of unprecedented diplomatic success and an abject failure.  Love him or hate him, I’ve met few who are indifferent regarding President Jimmy Carter. 

Most presidents are products of events beyond their control – Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War; Grover Cleveland and the Panic of 1893; Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression; Jimmy Carter and…well…pick one.  Upon entering office, he swore to bring honesty and integrity back to the White House after the tumultuous and frequently illegal administrations of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.  He said that if he were ever caught in a lie, he wanted to be escorted out of the White House immediately.  He was true to his roots as seen during the 1976 campaign when he would return to Georgia every weekend to teach Sunday School class at his home church.  He was different from any other president who took that mantle of responsibility.    

As president, he struggled with domestic issues.  The energy crisis that first perplexed Richard Nixon caused increased grumbling and discontent with a population waiting in line for gas.  He further aggravated the masses with a speech that lectured the Americans on their role in the crisis.  It did not go over well.  His “malaise speech” is one of the defining moments of his presidency.  Later, his presidency was challenged with a nuclear power plant meltdown on Three Mile Island in the middle of the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania.  Much was made of his navy training as a nuclear engineer but his hands were largely tied as various experts desperately tried to determine what was wrong.  Bravely or foolhardily, he went to the nuclear power plant to speak with experts, giving the impression that things were under control.  A core meltdown was avoided but nuclear energy would suffer a setback it is only now crawling out from under.

Yet, it would be President Carter’s actions in foreign policy that would cement his legacy.  While he was instrumental in the historical Camp David Accords, bringing together Egypt and Israel, a point that cannot be dismissed lightly, and pushing through a divided Congress the Panama Canal treaty, he is remembered by historians as being weak when Iranian revolutionaries took 56 American hostages in Tehran and the Soviet Union invaded and occupied Afghanistan.  He attempted to negotiate with the Iranians but giving asylum to the former shah of Iran poisoned the negotiations.  It seemed Mr. Carter could not muster a response other than strongly-worded missives.  His one attempt at rescue was an overthought, overcomplicated plan that fell apart in the Iranian desert.  Threats and boycotts of Soviet action in Afghanistan had little impact.  The Russians were simply not listening. 

President Carter’s trouble was on display this past week during an interview with Charlie Rose.  Commenting on the situation in the Ukraine and responding to the question of whether President Putin would make a grab for eastern Ukraine, the soon 90-year-old President Carter said it would not happen.  “Mr. Putin said he would not move on eastern Ukraine.  Why would he lie?”  Nothing could better illustrate the president’s naïveté – an attitude that hampered his efforts as president.  His moral compass failed to see the duplicity in others.  Why would they lie?  Why wouldn’t they?  

Reading a list of his achievements prior to and after his presidency, it is easy to see what a decent individual Mr. Carter is. Indeed, if that alone were enough, he could have been one of our greatest presidents.  Yet like Woodrow Wilson, he thought his moral paradigm would influence others – it did as less scrupulous men took advantage of what they perceived as weakness.  Jimmy Carter was trounced in the 1980 campaign by Ronald Reagan and he soon left the lime light.  However, he did not stop working.  President Carter is a good man.  He was just an ineffectual president.