Dead Guys Talking

Ignorance Was Bliss

2011-12-30T16:26:00.002-05:00

"Theologians of all ages have looked out admiringly upon the material universe...and demonstrated the power, wisdom, and goodness of God; but we know of no one who has demonstrated the same attributes from the history of the human race."

What do you know about James A. Garfield? Probably not enough. A remarkable man, Garfield served as the 20th President, despite his personal reluctance to accept the nomination. Candice Millard chronicles much of his story in Destiny of the Republic in which she describes President Garfield's many personal qualities and the series of events which led to his surprising nomination and election to the office of President. His humility and reluctance to serve in this capacity are nothing short of remarkable, particularly given the hubris so often associated with those who seek the power of the office. The Republican Party and the Nation recognized his wisdom, education, and leadership ability on display through his rise to the presidency of Hiram College at the age of 26 and the skill with which he served as a Union officer and brigadier general in the Civil War and service of Ohio in the Senate. The nomination was not to be his but John Sherman's and Garfield addressed the Convention to urge his nomination. But in the end it was Garfield the Convention chose.

Candice Millard portrays many excellent virtues of President Garfield. A Republican president, he made it his aim to see that former slaves and African-Americans were not only given the promised freedom but the same dignities afforded all Americans. In this, he was both a visionary and advocate. He was beloved by African Americans for his stand and actions pressing for genuine racial equality after the sorry legacy of the first 100 years of our country.
But she takes the reader on a heart-breaking journey through the events surrounding Mr. Garfield's assassination. And, hence the title of this post. She tells of the intersection of lives and events, including Alexander Graham Bell and his telephone, as well as other inventions; Charles Guiteau's warped mind and extraordinary self-centeredness leading to his crime; and one Dr. Albert Bliss, mired in the ways of medical practice proven archaic and ignorant by the discoveries of microscopic organisms and antiseptic remedies.

She weaves together the compelling story of Garfield's personal qualities and rise and the twisted world of Guiteau. Simultaneously, Alexander Graham Bell pursues his dreams of a telephone and providentially makes contacts at the World's Fair giving his invention much-deserved notice. But tragedy strikes as the slug from the assassin's pistol strikes down the President. His medical care falls to Bliss, not by Garfield's request but Bliss's insistence. Bliss refused to allow other doctors with excellent credentials to assist or offer counsel regarding the medical care given Garfield. Infection wormed its way from the wound, otherwise not fatal, through Garfield. Bliss refused input which would have saved not only Garfield's life but would have spared him incredible suffering caused by the ignorance and pride of Bliss. Antiseptic practices were available, though new, but because the doctor was renowned he did not see the need to keep learning. His pride kept him from the advice of others who proved more learned than he but he was the one of reputation. He sought the growth of that reputation through the care of President Garfield.
The character of Garfield shined brightest in the face of his agonizing trial which proved his demise. He remained steadfastly cheerful and encouraging to all even as his life needlessly ebbed away. The following obituary headline obscures the truth that the infection was steady in its progress and could have been stayed through simple procedures and through a second or third opinion regarding the the path and resting place of the bullet. But pride is not open to other perspectives. Ignorance is Bliss.

THE PRESIDENT DEAD

HE EXPIRED AT HALF-PAST TEN LAST NIGHT.

THE END COMES SUDDENLY AND WITHOUT WARNING.

GEN. ARTHUR TAKES THE OATH AS PRESIDENT.

When Perspective, Restraint, and Character Intersected

2010-12-26T20:50:00.000-05:00

This does not represent a broad character defense for for John F. Kennedy. But upon completing ONE MINUTE TO MIDNIGHT Kennedy, Kruschev, and Castro on the Brink of Nuclear War (Michael Dobbs; Vintage Books; 2008), character shines through - particularly exercising leadership with the long-term welfare of others at the center of his thinking. Dobbs' compelling look at the Cuban missile crisis and the unfolding events of those tumultuous 13 days portrays the intersection of perspective, restraint, and character in President Kennedy as he wrestled with the momentous decisions facing his administration resulting from the placement of Soviet R-12 nuclear missiles in Cuba. The placement of these missile with an effective range covering both the Nation's Capital (and my boyhood home...) and New York city forced Kennedy and the U.S. to act. The pressing question of those days - not quite two full weeks - brought the world perilously close to the onslaught of the unthinkable. Nuclear war.
The major American players included the hawkish Joint Chiefs, the ambiguous younger brother Robert Kennedy, the ever-analytical Robert McNamara, the ever-analytical, but unimpressive C.I.A., and a host of others. In the end, JFK understood, and understood deeply, one man or two men, or even a group of men, should not decide the fate of the world for generations. Add to the tension of confrontation the random or haphazard event or decision by a pilot or ship or field commander which could itself ignite a powder keg.
Consider the following.

   "Mistakes were an inevitable consequence of warfare, but in previous wars, they had been easier to rectify. The stakes were much higher now, and the margins for error much narrower. 'The possibility of the destruction of mankind was constantly on Kennedy's mind,' according to Bobby. He knew that war is 'rarely intentional.' What troubled him most was the thought that 'if we erred, we erred not only for ourselves, our futures, our hopes, and our country,' but for young people all over the world, 'who had no role, who had no say, who knew nothing even of the confrontation, but whose lives would be snuffed out like everyone else's.'"
   Kennedy's perspective went beyond his able counselors and he appeared to consciously make effort to force his thinking out as far as it would go - to consider the consequences and implications of decisions upon all who would bear them. He thought historically, noting in his own crude way, "There is always some sonofa..... who doesn't get the message." Wars can start unintentionally. Mistakes happen because communication will fail. Given the voice and experience of history, he walked carefully.
   He exercised restraint when so many called for swift action. Nuclear missiles aimed at the U.S. sit 90 miles from our coast. Action would be justified, A Soviet SA-2 downed a high-flying U-2 spy plane. Action would be justified. But what comprised justifiable action? Where would the responsive actions lead? How far would the responses go? Would West Berlin be targeted - an isolated city, surrounded by the communist East Germany? Would the NATO missiles in Turkey become targets - justifiable to Russian reasoning? Kennedy understood that actions would lead to reaction. Events could easily and quickly spiral out of control.
   He demonstrated the character of keeping himself in perspective. What if he had yielded to the temptation to see the confrontation as personal? If he had seen it as an affront to his leadership? He could have spun the story in national terms, even international terms and donned the sheriff's white hat while responding militarily. He chose instead to look for ways to resolve and settle the issue knowing history would judge those 13 days and the men who found themselves on the brink of unleashing events which would have devastating and world wide consequences beyond calculation or analysis. His perspective, restraint, and character, whatever other flaws he may have exhibited, worked to bring a reasonable and peaceful result to the Cuban missile crisis.

Great Discernment

2010-05-20T16:23:00.000-04:00

Some men tickle ears while others speak truth. Ear-tickling men act as though they make history and act as though they are discerning while, in fact, the opposite is true. Great leaders discern the times and speak the often unpopular truth in effort to serve the greater cause - that is the cause which is greater than "self." Ear-tickling men serve only themselves while putting on the guise of public service. These men do not stand the test of time and disappear when history demands greatness.

Consider the words of Mr. Churchill from 25 November 1936: "Europe, and it might well be the whole world, is now approaching the most dangerous moment in history. (Gasp! Ear-tickling man cannot believe the audacity of this comment!) The struggle which is now opening between rival forms of dictatorships threatens to disturb the internal peace of many countries and to range them against each other. That alone would bring us into grave danger. Yet I feel that danger can be surmounted and kept within bounds if it were not that in this self-same, ill-starred epoch men had learned to fly. The aeroplane (sic) has put all countries and all parts of every country simultaneously at the mercy of sudden blasting attack."

Please note that at this point no large-scale air operation had been conducted in wartime and the idea Churchill expounded existed only in the minds of military planners - and those were few. This radical idea was not widely accepted as a viable military strategy in 1936. Of course, this is inconceivable to men of this current generation - but the prophetic insight of Mr. Churchill is astounding. England would experience the "Blitz" - Germany's effort to bring England to her knees through air attack - within five year's time.

A great leader offers direction - and so Churchill added later in the speech the following encouragement. (While times change and circumstances change - issues seem to remain the same.) "...we are bound to support all well-considered necessary measures to enable the country to defend itself and bear its part in a combined defensive system against aggression. We view with strongest reprehension activities like those of Mr. Lansbury and Canon Sheppard, who are ceaselessly trying to dissuade the youth of this country from joining its defensive forces, and seek to impede and discourage the military preparations which the state of the world fores upon us.

His seemingly lone voice sounded the cry of alarm in the face of steady opposition - that is, until it was nearly too late and the truth about Hitler was painfully obvious to all. Churchill stands as a great example of a man who did not cave in to fear and stood fast in the face of both the times and the men of the times.

Expedient or Principled?

2010-04-06T20:04:00.001-04:00

One doesn't have to listen long to the current president before one is told to "Listen..." or "Hear me..." It should make one nervous when one is always having to be the one listening. This puts the "listener" (if one actually agrees to listen) in the position of one instructed - like a student or possibly small child.
When someone is always saying, "Listen..." it comes across as, well, arrogance. It seems clear a leader, especially, must be willing to "Listen..." and to understand, and to weigh, and to contemplate in order to be an effective leader.

      I am not totally sure I have the word I want but expedient comes to mind when thinking about the agenda being pushed upon America. The word carries the meaning of speed and has positive meanings with respect to making right decisions and when speed is appropriate. But it also carries the meaning of serving "one's own purpose." That's the meaning which is close to the mark. Is it right for a leader, particularly a president, to act with determined haste and, in that haste, with disregard for others trying to be heard, and with such a feel of "one's own purpose" at the center of the talking and activity?
      Compare expedience with what William Lee Miller calls Abraham Lincoln's moral leadership. "The dominant mode of expression of his mind was not quickness, speedy analysis, rapid-fire response. He did not use his extraordinarily good memory to reproduce what he remembered with eclat. He did not characteristically do what Samuel Johnson tried to restrain himself from doing: "talking for victory" - scoring points on others, displaying what he knew, winning contests of knowledge. He did not aim to be, and never became a learned man... Lincoln's mind instead cut deeply, perhaps slowly or at least with effort and concentrated attention, into a relatively few subjects. It was purposive - personally, politically, morally.

     Lincoln was not facile or glib, nor could he call up an immense range of knowledge. Faster talking products of a later urban world would have interrupted him while he was pausing for his first semicolon.
     He would become a thinker in particular about moral ideals as they intersect with politics. And his qualities mind meant not only that facts and ideas, once acquired, stayed with him, but that political and moral positions, once he worked them out, would not be lightly abandoned. (Lincoln's Virtues: An Ethical Biography; Vintage; 2002; p. 13-14
     He once responded to a public charge brought by Frederick Douglass, calling Lincoln "slow and vacillating." In effect - he told Douglass it was fine to call him "slow". But with respect to vacillating, Lincoln could not bear that charge. He told Douglass it was an unsubstantiated charge and did not believe it could be shown where he had retreated from a position which he had taken the time to reason through.

      This is an outstanding quality of a fine leader - arriving at positions not by speed and a course which best serves one's own interests - but digging to the moral marrow of the matter. Arriving at principles which are substantial, proven, timeless, and perhaps slow-moving under-gird a reasonable, careful, thoughtful, effective leader.

Substance Over Style

2010-03-16T15:25:00.000-04:00

Much was made of comparisons to Abraham Lincoln in the last Presidential election. One wonders why. Abraham Lincoln boasted an unseemly image - not one preferred by the careful crafting of political media experts who do things like make sure the candidates sleeves are rolled up just so to create a "let's roll up our sleeves," "problem-solver" image. They craft the image - knowing that image and sound bite define the man in the public's perception. And they bombarded us with images and words. So many words. The bombardment continues.

As I said, Lincoln would not be well-served by the camera - and we would not be either. The camera could not define Abraham Lincoln. His image does not fit our current definition of presidential image. If Nixon wore the wrong suit in his famed television debate with Kennedy, Lincoln got everything wrong. Descriptions of him by friends included words like gawky, lanky, homely. One of his closest friends, Joshua Speed, described him as "a long, gawky, ugly, shapeless man." His clothes did not fit his unusual frame. His pants ended well north of the tops of his shoes. He apparently cared not about his appearance - even when tailored clothes fell easily within his means.

The human tendency to make judgments on appearances drives those crafting images. Images deceive. Lincoln's looks communicated "intellectual ordinariness" (at best). This man was not an ordinary man. Would we miss someone of Lincoln's stature because he was ugly and awkward? Would anyone take him seriously? What would SNL do to him in a skit?
Would we hear the depth of the man in this "sound bite" world? Would his moral fiber stand out and attract us or be torn apart by the hazing of a late-night pundit or blogging know-it-all?

A man of thoughtful and substantial insight, Abraham Lincoln towers above any on the political landscape today. No human agency crafted his character, his leadership skill, his power to persuade and convince. Consider the words of a fellow legislator, Robert Wilson, observing Lincoln at about age 25. "He was, on the stump, and in the Halls of Legislation a ready Debater, manifesting extraordinary ability in his peculiar manner of presenting a subject. He did not follow the beaten track of other Speakers, and Thinkers, but appeared to comprehend the whole situation of the Subject, and take hold of its first principles...his memory was a great Store house in which was Stored away all the facts, acquired by reading but principally by observation... Supplying him with an inexhaustible fund of facts, from which he would draw conclusions, and illustrating every Subject however complicated with anecdotes drawn from all classes of Society, accomplishing the double purpose, of not only proving his Subject by the anecdote, that no one ever forgets, after hearing Mr. Lincoln tell a Story, either the argument of the Story, the Story itself, or the author. (Lincoln's Virtues: An Ethical Biography; William Lee Miller; Vintage Books; 2002)

The Language of Leadership

2010-02-10T17:39:00.000-05:00

When one considers the indomitable spirit of the English people during the crisis in Europe after the fall of France and the threat of invasion, the German blitz and terror bombing of London and other English cities, the question is begged, why? Why did they remain steadfast? They, an island nation, stood alone with but a sliver of water between them and the enemy sworn to crush them. They with few resources - a tiny army, an air force hurriedly trying to catch up in materiel and training of pilots, no place for retreat - stood immovable and determined.

Consider the words of Winston Churchill - the force of his leadership coming through his oratory and moving the very will of the people and stirring a courage in their hearts.

Steven F. Hayward, in his book, GREATNESS: Reagan, Churchill & The Making of Extraordinary Leaders, offers the following.

"...Churchill is recalled for his stirring oratory.; in Edward R. Murrow's memorable phrase, Churchill 'mobilized the English language and sent it into battle.' Robert Rhodes James offers a good summary of the powerful effect of Churchill's early wartime speeches: 'It is often said that speeches do not affect votes in the House of Commons; this almost , though not quite, is true... What will always be remembered as the "blood, sweat and tears" speech was a real turning point... It was Churchill's outstanding quality as a war leader that he had made the struggle seem not merely essential for national survival, but worthwhile and noble. No one - not even a child, as I was - who was in England in the summer of 1940 will ever forget the cheerfulness of the people. One caught Churchill's infectious spirit that this was a great time to be alive in; that Destiny had conferred a wonderful benefit upon us; and that these were thrilling days to live through.'"

Words are powerful tools. What we say makes indelible marks on others. Let's choose carefully, then, our words, and use them for good. Churchill understood truth is the best kind of speech and he unabashedly called evil " evil" and did not water down the realities. But, grim as those realities were, he understood his words would inspire courage and grit in the face of those realities. He and the British people forged an alliance, linking arms to stand in the face of tyranny and not blink, not back down. And they won.

For the Greater Good

2010-02-08T19:36:00.000-05:00

I spoke with a friend - a fellow history lover - who asked about favorite people. History offers the opportunity to see the triumphs and trials of the great and small alike and the subsequent repercussions. Wisdom is available for the taking.

But his question brought many figures to mind. Our conversation taught me about Mr. Churchill and the two-volume William Manchester series which includes a work called The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill, Alone 1932-1940 chronicling the dark years out of the public eye. I look forward to reading this.

George Washington came to mind, however. As mentioned previously, Washington never commanded my attention because the time period never grabbed me. But David McCullough's portrayal of his leadership in 1776 demands attention for the outstanding leader he was. In fact, his apparent failures and his his grander vision which compelled him in the face of those failures, are a study in leadership.

One incident McCullough records (from memory) involves the criticism of some of his closest generals/advisors. They created an undercurrent of fault-finding and would have led lesser men to quit. Washington mistakenly received letters written to one of these men from another. He read them, thinking they came addressed to him. They did not. The letters contained harsh words directed at Washington and he would have been right to discipline the men or be angry. He was neither. He simply returned the letters to the rightful recipient without a word. The greater good and unity demanded, in Washington's view, to let the issue pass. The greater good and unity - we must weigh carefully the affect of our decisions and responses to perceived wrongs. Washington showed the true meaning of considering the needs of others (to keep going forward againt the greater enemy - the British) before his own (for vindication). History took care of vindicating General Washington.

2010-02-04T18:12:00.000-05:00

Seventeen years ago this month, an al-Qeada operatives, including Ramzi Yousef, executed a car bomb attack on the World Trade center with the intent of destroying the twin towers. The attack killed six and injured more than 100 people. The towers did not come down, though the powerful bomb extensively damaged the parking garage.

According to The Looming Tower al-Qeada and the Road to 9/11, by Lawrence Wright, the F.B.I. agent most keenly aware of al-Qeada's desire to finish the job was John O'Neill. O'Neill tenaciously pursued the then little-known al-Qeada connection in his investigation of the USS Cole bombing.

Wright says this of O'Neill: "O'Neill was right about the threat of al-Qeada when few cared to believe it. Perhaps in the end his capacity for making enemies also helped al-Qeada by destroying the man who might have made a difference."

He felt strongly there was a pending attack with the onset of the millennium. No one else saw things the same way - at least not then F.B. I. Director Louis Freeh who "repeatedly stressed in White House meetings that al-Qeada no longer posed a threat. Bin Laden did not even make the F.B.I.'s most wanted list until June 1999."

Wright tackles a detailed and difficult subject in a compelling way and tells, among many other stories, the story of O'Neill's eventual retirement from the Bureau in the summer of 2001. As would be expected for a man of his tenure and skill, he had several offers for security work. The one he settled on was Chief of Security for - The World Trade Center. He retired knowing "they'll never stop trying to get those two buildings." He started the new position in the last week of August and was on his post when the 9/11 attacks occurred.

I don't know if ABC's The Pathway to 9/11 is available, but it followed Wright's book fairly well and portrayed the intelligence and diplomatic failures which contributed to the success of the endeavors of Bin Laden, to the chagrin of some of the key players who did not shine.

The Pistol

2010-01-31T19:30:00.000-05:00

Yesterday was the anniversary of Pete Maravich breaking the NCAA scoring record set by the Big O - Oscar Robertson. He ended with 3,667 points and an unbelievable 44.2 points-per-game - both records still. No one conceives of the per-game record being broken.
Pete played college ball when freshman were not allowed to play varsity in college though he started for his high school varsity as an eighth grader. Those who saw him play speak with incredulous glee as basketball has never seen the likes of the Pistol. He sold out the LSU " Cow Palace" for freshman games because he every game was an exhibition. He scored 50 in his first game. The LSU varsity arrived as the freshman game wound down and saw the packed house. Those numbers dwindled quickly with the close of the freshman game.

Two stories from Mark Kriegel's The Pistol. Pete, 11, was at a basketball camp where Lefty Dreisell, then Davidson's coach, instructed. "'I've never seen a player like that. He was the hardest working athlete I've ever been around. It'd be 110 degrees, and he'd be dribbling or throwing the ball against a cement wall hours at a time.'
'Pete,' Dreisell would say, 'you're working too hard.'
'I'm gonna be a millionaire, coach.' The boy kept going, throwing all those fancy passes against the wall.
'I ain't never seen Oscar Robertson throw nothing but a plain old chest pass,' said Dreisell.
'They don't pay you a million to throw a plain old chest pass.'"

LSU played Lou Carnesecca's St. John's team in the Rainbow Classic in Hawaii. Pete scored 40 points in the second half to St. John's 39. Lou Carnesecca called it "the best performance in basketball I had ever seen." Kriegel writes, "The passes were more memorable than the shots, as they were thrown in ways the city-slick Carnesecca had never even considered: blind, behind the head, off the wrist. Upon his return to the mainland, Carnesecca alerted the New York basketball establishment. 'You talk of Jerry West or Oscar Robertson or any of those great ones. Maravich is better.'"
Check out the passes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVnJeKX5OeY

Russ

2010-01-30T18:32:00.001-05:00

Sports books captured my attention as a boy, along with history, probably to supply fodder for my imagination. I imagined myself to play, for example, with the Boston Celtics' many championship teams. It wasn't that Boston demanded my affinity, it was Bill Russell's Go Up For Glory (out of print).

It provided an eye-opening journey into the racist world facing black players in the 50's and 60's. It introduced me to the great players and coach of the team that won 11 championships in 13 years and eight straight.

Mr. Russell faced the most dominant player of that era, Wilt Chamberlain. The Celtics got the best of Chamberlain more often than not and Russell got the best of Chamberlain. They were different players and different men. Chamberlain was offensively minded - the only player ever to score 100 points in a game and earned a reputation for being difficult to coach. Bill Russell was a defensive specialist and a great rebounder. Possibly the best shot-blocker in NBA history, he made sure his teammates got the ball off of a block rather than sending it to the stands.

Red Auerbach relished beating the Warriors/76'ers and Lakers (Chamberlain's teams) and Russell's edge over Chamberlain. I believe it was 1965 when Chamberlain commanded a contract for the then unheard of sum of $100,000. Auerbach stood firmly behind his man and got Russell $1 more - $100,001.

The team team blended not only the unique talents of the players - Bob Cousey, Bill Sharman, KC and Sam Jones, Russell, John Havlicek, Tom Heinsohn, etc. - a reflection of Red Auerbach's ability to recognize those talents and to weave them into an effective unit. It is not easy to get men to lay aside their egos but Auerbach effectively cast the vision of what might be if they would work together. The real mastery may well have been pioneering a racially diverse team during those years. Ironically, those Celtics represented Boston which divided along racial lines. Russell became the first black head coach in the NBA.

A memory of one of Russell's stories: if memory serves, the team played one night with a heckler sitting courtside wearing out the Celtics. They set up a play to deal with the man. One of the players ran to the sideline in front of the man. The ball swung round to the same side of the key. A hard two-handed chest pass flew towards the Celtic perched on the sideline. At the last second, he side-stepped, the ball whizzing past him...into the face of the heckler.

A Life of Service

2010-01-27T19:19:00.000-05:00

     James Bradley followed his successful and moving Flags of Our Fathers with another World War II work, Flyboys. At times disturbing, Flyboys takes a different tack on the Pacific war. He confronts the reader with much more of the Japanese perspective, which naturally runs cross grain to the American understanding of the war, motivations, and right/wrong.
     The tale of the exploits of the 41st American President, George H.W. Bush, reached out and grabbed me by the collar. President Bush lives a life of service and that life includes not only serving as President, but also two terms as the Vice President with Ronald Reagan; congressman, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and Ambassador to the United Nations. This does not touch the life of post-Presidential humanitarian service he continues to live. Why such a dedication to public service?
     His service as a Naval aviator in the Pacific offers a clue. Bradley tells of the operations against the Japanese radio station on the island of Chichi Jima in which President Bush flew a Grumman Avenger with a crew of three. The plane took anti-aircraft fire and Bush struggled to keep the plane on course. After delivering the payload, he then struggled to allow get his crew free from the burning plane. The efforts failed.

Wounded, Mr. Bush floated alone, wondering if he would be captured. His remarkable rescue by and time aboard the USS Finback etched a sense of purpose on his heart as he reflected on what had happened.
"I'll never forget the beauty of the Pacific - the flying fish, the stark wonder of the sea the waves breaking across the bow. It was absolutely dark in the middle of the Pacific; the nights were so clear and the stars so brilliant. It was wonderful and energizing, a time to talk to God.
I had time to reflect , to go deep inside myself and search for answers, People talk about a kind of foxhole Christianity, where you're in trouble and you think you're going to die so you want to make everything right with God and everybody else right there in the last minute.
But this was just the opposite of that. I had already faced death; and God had spared me. I had this very deep and profound gratitude and a sense of wonder. Sometimes when there is a disaster people will say, 'Why me?' In an opposite way I had the same questions: why had I been spared and what did God have in store for me?"

A Sad Part of the Augusta Legacy...

2010-01-23T14:14:00.000-05:00

    A friend and I met to hit some balls at a driving range some months ago and he pulled out an article clipped from, I believe, Golf Digest. It disturbed me. The content disturbed me and the lack of editorial comment disturbed me as it seems clear something should have been said.
   The article concerned, loosely, the Masters. As spring quickly approaches, so does the golfing highlight of the spring - The Masters. The course is unmatched for beauty and the design offers opportunity for drama and dexterity. It punishes mistakes. History speaks from every hole and every hole location. But I digress.
    The subject of the story was the boxer called Beau Jack, a one-time lightweight champion. He got his start at Augusta National. In fact, the legendary Mr. Bobby Jones, known as the greatest amateur ever to play, gave Beau Jack his start, staking him $2500 he'd raised from club members. Why would they invest in the career of this man?
    Beau Jack earned a reputation among the members of the club through "entertainment" he and other young black men provided. Here is a piece of the same article from Sports Illustrated:
    "IN THOSE days wealthy sportsmen would pit half a dozen blindfolded black men against each other, all at once, in a bloody spectacle called the battle royal. The last fighter standing was showered with coins. Fifteen-year-old Beau never lost a battle royal after he figured out a trick. "I stayed in a corner with my back to the ropes," he told Sports Illustrated years later. "Those other bigger fighters were busy trying to knock each other out. Whenever one of them backed up near me I slammed him good and knocked him out. One time my brother John Henry was in a battle royal with me, and we were the last two left. So I knocked him out, too."
    His biggest battle came during one of the first Masters. "All those rich people who'd come to Augusta to see the tournament had to be entertained at night," Jack said. "So the club put on this big battle royal in the dining room of the Bon-Air Hotel." The brawl came down to "me and one last big feller." Jack threw a long, looping bolo punch that knocked the man out. Now the men around the ring threw not coins but 10- and 20- and 50-dollar bills. He took $1,000 home that night.
    The steward at Augusta National gave Jack a job shining shoes at the club, where many of the golfers treated him as if he were invisible. "Only Mr. Bobby Jones had time for me," Jack told boxing writer Harry Zambelli."
    The story was told from the perspective of Beau Jack's boxing career, but the more important story is the sad and painful legacy of racism and hypocrisy behind the history of the Masters. I don't think CBS will touch it for fear of losing the television rights for the event. But I think it would be right for the club to openly acknowledge the shadowy and racist side of it's legacy and distance itself from a past where the veneer was never to be pierced lest the substance be open to genuine scrutiny.

The Right Stuff

2010-01-22T23:35:00.001-05:00

Recently, a special aired featuring the operations and an inside look at Air Force One. The presidential transition from Bush to Obama was a feature. It was not flattering to Mr. Obama's understanding of military protocol (Commander-in-Chief) as he did not seem to grasp the type of man who would serve him as his pilot - a full-bird Air Force Colonel who obviously earned the position through a distinguished flying career. As Obama came on board, he said the following: "You're exactly what I want the pilot of Air Force One to look like. You look like Sam Shepard [the actor who played Chuck Yeager] in The Right Stuff."
Why the president would not have been briefed on the Colonel's name and appropriate ways to honor the uniform was not disclosed. But to relate to him that he looked like an actor who played Chuck Yeager belies the substance of both the Colonel and the man Yeager himself. Why not honor him for carrying on the fine tradition of courage and service set by General Yeager and so many others?

"Who's the greatest pilot you ever saw?" The theme of "The Right Stuff" was the sheer love of flying best demonstrated by the amazing career of General Yeager.
Briefly, he was shot down by a German FW-190 shortly after he began his service in Europe as a P-51 pilot. He managed to evade capture and was taken to a French safe house. The woman in charge said to him upon looking him over, "Why, you're just a boy... My God, has America run out of men?" Well... he did just fine, ma'am. Thank you.
Upon return to the 8th Air Force, he was told he could not return to flying missions because he knew too much about the French Underground and were he to be captured, it would not go well for him as the Germans kept record of who had been shot down. He relentlessly pressed against the regulation until he was back in the cockpit. He became the 8th Air Force's first "ace in a day" with five kills. Donald Miller describes him in Masters of the Air in this way: "Yeager was a born aerial killer, with matchless vision and reflexes, and, in one flight leader's words, 'more (manliness) than brains." In World War II he flew 64 missions with 13 downed enemy planes to his credit. And he was just getting started...

Perspective

2010-01-16T18:49:00.001-05:00

Most people don't know the name Ralph Guldahl. He is in the Golf Hall of Fame. You've probably heard the names Johnny Miller or Greg Norman. Mr. Guldahl won more major championships than either of them. He won three majors, as many as Ernie Els and Phil Mickelson currently have. Guhldahl was, from 1936-1939, perhaps the hottest golfer in professional golf - winning two U.S. Opens, a Masters (with another in his grasp until missing a short par putt to lose to Byron Nelson) and three Western Opens - the only player ever to win back-to-back U.S. Opens and Westerns. At the time, the Western was considered on nearly the same level as a major. Known as a cool customer on the course, Sam Snead once said, "If Guldahl gave someone a blood transfusion, the patient would freeze to death." Snead also complimented Guldahl's swing saying he went back on line and through on line "near as perfect as any player I've ever seen."
But his success disappeared seemingly overnight - from being a brilliant ball striker to one who could barely play - mystifying his fellow competitors. Fellow Hall of Famer Paul Runyon (two PGA championships) is quoted saying, "It's the most ridiculous thing, really. He went from being temporarily the absolute best player in the world to one who couldn't play at all."
Why? While the reason may not be certain, Guldahl may have let a faulty perspective undermine his swing and his confidence. He apparently did an intructional booklet featuring a series of photos that, if they were flipped through, would look like a moving image of his swing (high tech for the time!). He made the mistake of studying his own swing. The problem was one of perspective. You see, the photographer stood slightly forward of Ralph shooting, not straight on, but at a slight angle. Fooled by the perspective of the photos, he tinkered with the ball position in his stance and soon lost not only the correct position but his swing and his successful playing career.
Isn't it the case that a wrong perspective can deeply affect so many things - our relationship with God for example. Do I view myself, my circumstances, my future through the lens of the promises of God's word or my perspective? We must continually be reminded of the undying and unchanging love of God for us in Christ and not yield to a faulty view.
Perhaps if Ralph had a friend or teacher who could have corrected his perspective, things might have turned out differently.

Pressing On

2010-01-15T13:59:00.001-05:00

We looked briefly at Henry Knox, the prominent Revolutionary War general, in a recent post - a remarkable man whom history linked with other remarkable men, most notably George Washington.
David McCullough referenced a quote from General Knox at the opening of a chapter in 1776. It caught my attention.

" We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged."

Given his exploits, he was not a man easily given to discouragement. Neither was his senior, General Washington. McCullough does not water down the numerous, and seemingly constant challenges faced by our first president. Those challenges came from every side. He faced a well-armed and seasoned British army who also additionally employed the mercenary Hessians to aide their efforts at putting down the rebellion. Logistical issues pressed in the form of an army lacking necessary training, equipment, provisions, clothing, ammunition, and food. The winter weather decimated the ranks of the Colonial army along with sickness and disease. The morale of the army needed constant attention (Washington shines here). The terrain varied widely as the war traversed the mountainous of the northeast down through the coastal swamps of New York and New Jersey. Internal strife ate at the chain of command as orders and decisions were questioned and Washington's authority endured constant challenge.
Fortune, to use Henry Knox's term, frowned constantly on these men. Yet, in the light of history, their greatness shines.

Its in the Trying

2010-01-13T17:08:00.002-05:00

David McCullough's 1776 (the audio version, narrated by McCullough, is excellent) commends itself on several levels, but the leadership of Washington and his contemporaries, examined by McCullough, shines against the dark, and near hopeless, background of the revolutionary effort.

    Briefly, consider Henry Knox. A bookseller by trade, he used the time on the bookshop to study, of all things, artillery. He did not possess a military background, just the desire to learn and an opportunity presented itself to put his knowledge to use in 1775. He offered his service to George Washington. McCullough describes the events leading to the Colonials achieving the high ground on the Dorchester Heights above Boston, where the British and their navy were firmly entrenched. The problem they faced was no artillery. Knox offered to retrieve the more than 50 guns previously captured at Fort Ticonderoga.
    Leadership often means facing a need and determining how to meet it. Ideas are good. The challenge is what is the right idea? What idea is worth the effort? Knox saw the artillery retrieval as doable - not without logistical issues, but doable. His challenges took a different form than he anticipated.
     The weight of the guns and mortars totaled at least 120,000 pounds and the journey was 300 miles. The trek began in December, with snow and ice dominating the land. He and his team of men gathered more than 40 sledges to begin the backbreaking trek requiring the use of logs, horse, chain, rope, provisions. It would have been easier to say the task could not be done.
     The work was difficult and dangerous, requiring ingenuity to find ways to check and balance the great loads as they traversed over and down hills using rope and chain. At one point all of the guns had safely crossed a frozen river, when a large gun fell through thawing ice. It would have been easier to be content with the cargo already across the river. Retrieving the gun demanded great patience, tenacity, and strength. It required an engineer's mind to calculate the loads and angles. Yet Knox and the men persisted working in the freezing water.
     The group found the going grew more difficult due to an unexpected thaw which turned to hard-frozen ground to mud. The pace slowed to a crawl. They persevered. Finally the ground froze again, and the journey eased. All in all, it was February when the guns arrived.
     Knox decided to try. He overcame incredible difficulty by utilizing a team of men and their collective persistence and tenacity. They ignored the hardships of winter. Knox urged the men on when it is likely they would have been happy to quit. Because of Knox the British had quite the surprise finding Colonial artillery on the heights above them, with the precious navy, perched at docks, within range.
      There are always reasons not to lead, not to decide. Decisions aren't always right. One might fail utterly. One can be paralyzed weighing the options and seeking the best alternative. Questions cry for attention - "What if careful analysis misses something crucial?" "Is the time right?" "Can it be done?" "Will anyone follow?" Knox decided to try - and not give up.

Amazing Grace

2010-01-09T11:50:00.000-05:00

    At a time when golf news is dominated by Tiger Woods' turbulent personal life and questions about his return, let's briefly breathe some fresh air as we look forward to April's first major.
    How sad to read much of the commentary trying to navigate through the news of the latest revelations. Writers and broadcasters and fellow golfers stumble over themselves trying to find a way to make sense of what happened without appearing to condemn. Much effort is made to separate the public life of the golfer from the private life of the husband/father. Let's briefly consider another way - let's look at a man who saw no separation between his public and private life. In fact, it was his goal to live a life which was consistent on and off the course. Let's consider Byron Nelson.
Nelson competed against, to name two, Sam Snead and Ben Hogan, some of the best. He knew well what it takes to be a champion golfer - concentration and consistency. It requires a singular focus. Even more when playing with clubs that were small with sweet spots smaller still and with balls needing to be checked hole by hole for roundness. Contemporaries Snead and Hogan were known for their focus and competitive fire. Neither man was know for his graciousness. Snead, when asked by a guest at the Homestead Resort in Snead's hometown of Hot Springs, VA, for a quick look at his grip in the lobby, billed the man's room for a golf lesson. Hogan, whose playing partner one day made a hole-in-one on a par three, told the man as they left the green, "You know, that was the first time I ever birdied that hole." No mention was ever made of the ace. Nelson was different.
     Was he good? He won 11 straight tournaments - a record most think will never be broken (Tom Watson calls it "the 40' pole vault) - and 18 total in 1945. His career victory count stands at 54, sixth all-time, and five majors. He never won the British because he did not like boats and there was no air service to the U.K. during his playing days. His ball striking still captures the respect of the entire golf world and his 68.33 scoring record which stood for 55 years. He retired at age 34 to be with his wife and purchase the ranch that was to be their home. He died at 94, at home.
      What made him really stand out, despite being a recognized golfing great, was his gentlemanly demeanor. "I think the thing people will always talk about me is my degree of consistency on the golf course, winning money in 113 [straight] tournaments, but I want to be remembered as a good man and a Christian man. That's all that really matters," Nelson said in 2001 interview with Sports Illustrated.
"Not many golfers live as long as I have," Nelson said. "I have a young wife [his first wife, Louise, died of a stroke in the 1980s] and I don't smoke or drink or run around. In 2000, when the United States Golf Association had all the former champions back at Pebble Beach for the 100th anniversary of the tournament, there were 31 former champions there (Nelson won in 1939), but I was the only one from 1954 back to the beginning of the event. I was the only one still alive."

     "I don't know very much," Nelson said in a 1997 interview with The Associated Press. "I know a little bit about golf. I know how to make a stew. And I know how to be a decent man."
Consider the words of his peers.
Ken Venturi, who played on the PGA Tour with Nelson for years and remained one of his closest friends, offered this final summation, which would have most pleased his mentor."Byron is golf's greatest gentleman," he said.

Arnold Palmer said, "I don't think that anyone will ever exceed the things that Byron did by winning 11 tournaments in a row in one year, but I suppose that is not the most admirable thing that he did, although it was certainly tremendous. He was a fantastic person whom I admired from the time I was a boy."

PGA.com's Grant Boone wrote, "Byron Nelson wasn't randomly respectable, not generically good. He was a follower of Christ, and his discipleship dictated his decency, demeanor, decision-making, and the way he dealt with people. ... But Nelson never brandished his faith as a weapon, choosing instead to extend an empty and open hand in friendship to all comers. And did they ever come. Wherever the debate over which golfer is the best of all time ends, Byron Nelson was the game's finest man, hands down."
Cleveland Golf put together a tribute piece you can see.
     A man is a man. He is not separate pieces - what he is as an athlete or a business man, or any other walk of life, does not tell the whole story. Success as a whole man is success. One must view the whole man. Check out more of Byron Nelson's story.

A Sad Response

2010-01-08T21:15:00.001-05:00

Herbert Sobel gained notoriety through the publication of Band of Brothers and the following HBO production of the same name. This man, too, bore the consequences of his military experience long after the war ended. Compare and contrast James Stockdale and Herbert Sobel.
Bitterness destroyed his life rather than memories of combat or lost friends. His experience could be anyone's - that is what makes his story sobering. What will we do when wronged by others?

     Sobel commanded the training of Easy Company of the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment of the 101st Airborne Division at a place called Toccoa in the Georgia mountains. Sobel earned the reputation of a hard driving and strict leader who arbitrarily dispensed discipline and harsh treatment of the men with seemingly no regard for them either as fellow men or fellow soldiers.The Company's website reports the following: "Sobel was a strict disciplinarian, handing out cruel punishments for seemingly harmless infractions of the rules. During training in England, he threatened to court-martial Lieut. Richard Winters for his alleged failure to inspect a latrine at the appointed hour. In response, Easy's non-commissioned officers offered to turn in their stripes out of loyalty to Winters. Shortly before the company headed to France on D-Day, Sobel was reassigned and became commander of a parachute jumping school. Despite Sobel's unpopularity, many credit Easy Company's success in battle to the rigorous standards that he set for his men."
     He carried bitterness towards the Company relentlessly through his post war life. The success of Dick Winters, and the regard the men had for him, may have paricularly eaten at him. He refused attempts at communication. He refused invitations to reunions. One member of the Company paid his annual dues for membership in the 101st Airborne association. His marriage failed and his two boys were estranged.
      The end was not pretty. He botched, according to Stephen Ambrose, an attempt to shoot himself. Neither his family nor any member of Easy Company attended his funeral.
      Contrast the bitterness at perceived wrongs which were no wrongs to the response of those men who emerged better men, not bitter, from their imprisonment in the Hanoi Hilton (prior post).
      Consider the words of Christ from Matt 6.14-15: "For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins."

Personal Aftermath

2010-01-06T17:51:00.000-05:00

I wondered as a boy why my father remained completely uncommunicative regarding his war experiences. He could not hide the scars near his waist as he cut the grass. That he'd been horribly wounded was clear, though I couldn't comprehend the significance or sacrifice.
I did not understand why something so fascinating and compelling to me as World War 2, remained taboo through nearly his whole life. His war experience proved to me an unsolved mystery... It wasn't so much a conversation informing me not to bring it up. It was one flash of anger when I vaguely recall pressing him for information during a car ride when I was about six. And he never got angry. I recoiled and withdrew. I probably took some other stabs along the way, but the island remained impenetrable.
I can never fully understand as I never served on combat. I read. I watch. I listen to interviews. I study photos. But it will never be the same. I am grateful to friends who shared their experiences and what it is like trying to bear the great weight of memories. Perhpas the story below explains one reason some men find it difficult to discuss combat experiences. Certainly the names and situations and circumstances vary widely but this is insightful and hopeful.
A story from the Epilogue of Band of Brothers: (Photo: Sisk on Left)

Sgt. Skinny Sisk also had a hard time shaking his war memories. In July, 1991, he wrote to winters to explain, "My career after the war was to try to drink away the truckload of Krauts that I stopped in Holland and the die-hard Nazi that I went up into the Bavarian Alps and killed. Old Moe Alley made a statement that all the killings that I did was going to jump in bed with me one of these days and they surely did.I had a lot of flashbacks aft the war and I started drinking. Ha! Ha!
Then my sister's little daughter, four years old, came into my bedroom (I was too unbearable to the rest of the family, too hung over or drunk) and she told me that Jesus loved me and she loved me and if I would repent God would forgive me for all the men I kept trying to kill over again. That little girl got to me. I put her out of my room, told her to go to Mommy, There and then I bowed my head on my Mother's old feather bed and repented and God forgave me for the war and all the other bad things I had done down through the years. I was ordained in the latter part of 1949 into the ministry and believe me, Dick, I haven't whipped bu one man since and he needed it. I have four children, nine grandchildren and two great grandchildren.
The Lord willing and Jesus tarrys (sic) I hope to see you all at the next reunion. If not I'll see you on the last jump. I know you won't freeze in the door."
The Rev.Wayne Sisk passed away to be with his Lord on July 13,1999.

Out of the Furnace of Affliction

2010-01-04T17:08:00.005-05:00

"There's no such thing as a bad day when you have a doorknob on the inside of your door." CDR Paul Galanti, former resident of the Hanoi Hilton.

The story of the men inside Hao Lo - the Hanoi Hilton - amazes on many levels. Do you find it at all uncomfortable to think about confinement, torture, inhuman conditions, solitary confinement, etc. producing anything worthwhile? Their experiences teach the lesson that suffering can bring about great good and make us better - more like Christ. No one would prescribe suffering for themselves, even as these men would not have either. I wonder whether any of them would trade what he gained if could rewrite his own history and erase the time in the prison cell.
Let's be specific - and I don't mean to be deliberately grotesque - but torture for these men meant (one example) no treatment for serious wounds like dislocated joints and broken bones; it meant their arms being taken behind their backs and tied together so the wrists would touch - the full length - and then they were hung from hooks in the ceilings. The prisoner's arms and shoulders cruelly rotated forward, forcing dislocation and incredible pain. Their tiny cells without beds housed them, alone, for years - up to eight years.
But out of this emerged not bitter, unproductive men. They learned about what is truly important and how to persevere. Many found, at the end of themselves, a waiting Savior to help bear their burdens. Most flew fighters and a certain breed of man flies fighters. They were self sufficient, cocky, aggressive to a fault - and this fit the bill for Naval and Air Force aviators. In their prison, they learned to be different. Determination looked very different and proved more elusive over the duration of captivity. They came to appreciate fellowship with the others through deprivation. Lessons were learned about true servant leadership - leadership which transcends rank and culture; unity which grew stronger in isolation as the thirst for communication brought innovation. They learned how, even in the most humiliating conditions and treatment to not yield to humiliation but maintain their God-given dignity.
Consider these statistics from "Leadership Lessons From the Hanoi Hilton" by Peter Fretwell and Taylor Baldwin Kiland in the November 2009 Proceedings magazine: "The Hanoi Hilton POWs were an unusual and remarkable group. Instead of returning home unraveled from years of abuse, isolation, and deprivation, about 80 percent of the 591 men that Operation Homecoming returned continued their military service. Many later became leaders in government, business, law, or academia. Twenty-four attained the rank of admiral or general; 18 have served (or are serving) in elected or appointed political positions at both the federal and state levels, including as senators, U.S. representatives, Federal Trade Commissioner, and the first U.S. Ambassador to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Numerous others served in executive positions in corporate America and small business; many also continue to serve in their local communities for scouting, religious, and civic organizations. Eight received the Medal of Honor.

Despite being the longest-held group of POWs in our nation's history, they brought home most of their comrades without major incidents of long-term mental illness. According to the Robert E. Mitchell Center for Prisoner of War Studies in Pensacola, Florida, 96 percent of the Hanoi Hilton POWs were free of post-traumatic stress disorder. By comparison, a 1997 American Psychiatric Association report found more than half of 262 World War II and Korean War POWs studied had symptoms of lifetime PTSD."

Old School Tough Guys

2010-01-02T20:36:00.002-05:00

Tom Callahan's Johnny U captures football in a generation where working class athletes filled the ranks of pro football teams. These men worked jobs during the off season and defined the tough guy male.His story captures "the life and times of" John Unitas, Hall of Fame quarterback of the original Colts - the Baltimore C-O-L-T-S - from the original cheer. We Redskin fans often wondered if spelling this proved difficult for the Baltimore fans... but I digress.

The story demonstrates the determined athleticism of Unitas who played both ways in college and came into the pro ranks after being cut by the Pittsburgh Steelers - who also notably passed on Lenny Moore and Jim Brown...oops.

Lenny Moore describes what he saw in his first scrimmage against the Eagles in Hershey, PA (1956): "For most of the game, I just sat ont he bench and watched. I couldn't believe what I was seeing." It seemed to Moore that absolutely nothing was illegal. "Chuck Bednarik and another Eagles player didn't just tackle Ameche out of bounds. They carried him out of bounds and slammed him against a table behind the bench. I said to myself, Man. I can't do this. These guys were beating on guys like you couldn't believe. I thought, Am I strong enough to take this kind of punishment? I had my doubts." Sitting next to Marchetti on the bench was a rookie tackle. "I forget where he was from," Gino said... "He looked at me and asked, 'Is it like this all the time?' I said, 'Hell no. Wait until the league games start. Wait until the season starts.' Honest to God, I never saw him again." (Johnny U; Tom Callahan; Crown Publishers; 2006; pgs.75-76)
Johnny Unitas demonstrated a remarkable toughness, courage, and determination in a very different time. Callahan captures the times and the changes the nation and football would undergo over the next 20 years.

Others Over Self

2010-01-01T13:52:00.004-05:00

During the last presidential campaign, the American people were reminded of the unique, individual heroism demonstrated under the most intense pressure. John McCain was captured as a downed pilot during the Vietnam war and sent to the now notorious "Hanoi Hilton" prison.

One reason so many of the men survived the outrageously brutal conditions in the North Vietnamese prison was a man - James Stockdale. Stockdale, an outstanding pilot, graduated from the Naval Academy a rising star. In 1965, at age 40, he commanded VF-51 on board the USS Oriskany and took off in his A-4 Skyhawk on 5 September. His plane drew antiaircraft fire, was hit, and Stockdale was forced to eject, breaking a bone in his back while doing so. When he landed in a small village, he badly dislocated his knee, and injury from which he would never fully recover.
For seven years, he remained a captive in Hoa Lo Prison, the highest ranking American officer in captivity. He was not passive. He organized the prisoner's resistance against the Vietnamese attempts to use them for propaganda purposes. He developed a communications code for the men made of a simple five-by-five matrix with the letters of the alphabet filling the rows and columns. The men used the code to tap messages on the walls or even when sweeping with a broom. For example an "e" would be tap-tap, tap - Row Two, Column One.

He endured four years of solitary confinement, two years in leg irons, and fifteen torture sessions. But it was his determination and organization which carried the men through. He organized a code of conduct centered around the acronym US (unity over self). His determination and refusal to break ultimately led to the easing of torture and improvement of conditions. For his steadfast courage in the face of seemingly impossible odds and his determined leadership and care for the men in his charge, he received the Medal of Honor. No other three-star admiral in U.S. Naval history wore both the aviator wings and the Congressional Medal of Honor. Check out RETURN WITH HONOR, PBS movie DVD.

2009-12-31T09:22:00.003-05:00

Tom Brokaw said it was the "greatest generation." That WWII brought out the best in many of those who served is unquestionable. Consider the Princeton honors graduate, drafted at age 32, who initially failed the weight requirement for the Army Air Force. He weighed in at 143 lbs - falling five pounds short of the weight requirement for his height of 6' 4". He remained undeterred. Over the protestations of his boss - he was a valuable employee - he convinced an enlistment officer to "forget to weigh me" on his next test after winning an appeal for another chance. He accepted his salary of $21 per month with out complaint, though it fell significantly short of his civilian salary of $12,000 per month. Despite being a Princeton grad, he entered service as a private, but his flying experience soon landed him in training as a flight cadet. That cadet was Jimmy Stewart. His story is compelling - but no more so than the stories of so many others.

Brokaw said, "They faced great odds and a late start, but they did not protest. At a time in their lives when their days and nights should have been filled with innocent adventure, love, and the lessons of the workaday world, they were fighting..."
I grew up, with my contemporaries, unaware of the sacrifices and the great personal price so many of our parents paid. I watched my generation with youthful arrogance declare, "if it feels good, do it." We only wanted a life of freedom while having no real conception of what real freedom is or the cost paid by those in our home or next door or down the street to secure the freedom we enjoy.

War is Hell

2009-12-30T14:06:00.004-05:00

Possession of secret information burdens the holder. Consider the burden of prosecuting war. Decrying war from a distance (done often by those who were not directly affected or many years after the fact) avoids the complexity and true moral dilemma faced by those actually forced to decide. For example, the firebombing of Dresden - a horrific event late in World War Two - garners criticism even from participants. When one is confronted with photos or first-hand accounts of the flesh-eating firestorm created by Allied bombing, criticism comes easily.

Moral complexity emerges when a peaceful people are attacked or are forced to decide to defend others who are attacked by a nation or people with evil intent (evil can be gauged). Should there be a response to evil? Should the strong protect the weak? Did the U.S., for example, along with the Allies, have an obligation to put a stop to Hitler who was bent on genocide and the domination of Europe?
If yes, how much force was required to stop a nation bent on destroying others and materially and economically aligned to do so? Can a little force, a little war stop a juggernaut like the Nazis?

Hermann Goering executed a plan to destroy London by air and bombed indiscriminately with the goal of creating chaos to pave the way for an invasion force. The Germans used incendiary bombs in the destruction of Coventry and other cities. They attempted waging a terror war through the use of the V-1 and V-2 rockets.

Moreover, the German people supported and embraced Hitler and the Nazi party. They were not innocently caught up but were the very means (election) by which Hitler came to power and they did nothing to stop him when he began to act (speaking generally of the multitude, not of the few who tried and failed). No German cry for help or deliverance was heard.

I am nearly finished my journey through Donald Miller's Masters of the Air. He removes any glamor associated with flying a B-17 or B-24 on missions over the European Theater of Operations. He captures the horror, the hardship, the hellish nature of war. He draws the reader into the moral questions of the bombing of civilians - either purposely or by virtue of proximity to military targets. The technology of the time did not include means for precision bombing. Bombs were often off-target because of weather, smoke, and anti-aircraft fire. Those in charge of strategic decisions and those working out those decisions tactically faced the awful weight of the moral questions of warfare: What is right? What is necessary? What is immoral? Where is the line? How does one wage limited warfare with blurry lines between military and civilian?
Another reason to read history and reflect on the wrestlings of those who've gone before us...

The Awful Weight

2009-12-29T11:37:00.003-05:00

"Be careful what you ask for." Sage advice.

I often wonder, perhaps now more than ever, whether those who serve as president or prime minister, or other significant positions of leadership - even down to the tactical levels, really knew what they asked for when pursuing the position. Leadership means engaging real problems and making decisions - decisions which history may prove ill-advised or wrong.
Yesterday we explored the subject of intelligence - the "ultra" secret - the decoding of the German Enigma machine. Were you to be asked,
if you served as Prime Minister of England, "would you like to the ability to read the German correspondence during this war?", what would you answer? Certainly yes!
With that knowledge the weight of leadership would greatly increase on Mr. Churchill, who already bore an immense load. Why? Shouldn't this information make the job easier, not more difficult?
Consider one dilemma brought on by this new knowledge. Your intelligence branch intercepts messages from the German air forces indicating plans for bombing English cities. This in itself is not new information, as the Germans have been bombing for some time. What is new is information indicating attacks on a location previously untouched by German air assaults.
The dilemma: should you, as Prime Minister, take action in that previously untouched city to protect it and the people living there? If you do, you can probably save lives and precious property. If you do, you will also tip your hand as to the knowledge you possess.
Is it worth saving lives now but losing the means to save lives and make strategic decisions down the road? Or, is it worth (if words like "worth" can be used here) sacrificing lives and parts of a city now to keep the knowledge secret for lives and cities and battles in the future?
Thus, the awful weight of leadership.
F.W. Winterbotham wrote in The Ultra Secret, that such a decision faced Mr. Churchill about the city of Coventry on 14 November 1940. He was privy to a German message which accidentally, according to his book, broadcast the word "Coventry" in the clear. He said he passed the message to Churchill's personal secretary, warning of the pending attack several hours before its occurrence. The city was heavily bombed with minimal RAF resistance, destroying the famous cathedral pictured here along with hundreds killed.

It is not certain Churchill knew and could have done anything to spare Coventry. Others have disputed that Churchill had the information and made a decision to let Coventry be destroyed. This has been debated for many years.
The possession of a secret nonetheless makes demands upon the possessor to weigh and measure carefully each response, each public statement, even when one's actions are questioned. It is even more important now as television and the internet allow for dissection of every word spoken by a leader to see if what is said reveals the source of information informing a particular decision.