Obsidian Wings is a US political group blog that is worth reading. The posts are well written and, by avoiding the usual partisan blogging battle grounds, quite thought provoking.
Unfortunately one of the members of Obsidian Wings was killed recently. Posting under the moniker G’Kar, Andy Olmsted was an Army Major in Iraq. He was killed in action just a few days ago. He had a post ready to be published in case of death while on active duty. This request was fulfilled and can be found here.
Andy’s posthumous post is one of the most moving I have ever read.
Note: Andy requested that his death not be politicized. LP will honour this request so please be mindful of this when commenting.
Very sad news.
Obsidian Wings is one of the few American blogs I enjoy because it’s distinguished by long and thoughtful and well argued posts which appears to be the exception rather than the rule in the US blogosphere.
Yes, Obsidian Wings just lost a key primary feather that kept it flying straight and true.
He was the was kind of thoughtful citizen soldier writer that all countries need more of.
An active armed American in a foreign country ‘killed in action’ : dead; sorry LP I just don’t get it. Tough. Weston fart country…see yah; hope his family & friends are ok but sweet jesus my thoughts are with the towel heads etc.
Shaun:
Thanks.
Everyone:
Please read the post …. His very own words are sufficient ….
Nabakov: He was the was kind of thoughtful citizen soldier writer that all countries need more of.
Reading his final post, he certainly does seem like a man of quality. It’s a sad loss, along with the loss of so many others from so many other wars. Without trying to get too political or specific, I do wonder about one line from his post:
I do wonder whether we, as a civilized society, are best served by turning a seemingly intelligent and devoted human being into a mindless killing machine. I realize that in the heat of battle there is a need for a rigid chain of command, however I do think that each individual still remains responsible for choosing what causes they support. However, conceding all moral decisions to another person or organization can lead to the kind of atrocities we deemed unacceptable in the Nuernberg trials.
He certainly had a way with words and a way with thoughts. It is good to see him honoured as a patriot and a person both.
Thanks for sharing Shaun. It is a shame that I was not really acquainted with the blog until now, but I guess I now have an opportunity to catch up on what I have missed of Andy’s work.
Hilzoy has posted details on how to help Andy Olsted’s family:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/01/how-to-help.html
I have been a frequent visitor to obwi since I first discovered blogs in July 2005 (after the London bombings). Andy was a most thoughtful writer, about many matters. The loss of one known seems to bring home the loss of so many (soldiers and Iraqi’s alike)unknown. Comments like codgers are a little sad.
Desipis (Post 5)
I do wonder about one line from his post:
Soldiers cannot have the option of opting out of missions because they don’t agree with them: that violates the social contract.
I do wonder whether we, as a civilized society, are best served by turning a seemingly intelligent and devoted human being into a mindless killing machine.
If you knew any military personnel, you might understand that the social contract mentioned is based on one’s agreement with that society to protect it from those who would attack it. That is what duty and one’s personal honour is about, when you wear the uniform of your country. We operate within the Laws of Armed Conflict when doing so.
I have included the comment from CAPT Thompson (below) to gently point out to you how much your ‘mindless killing machine’ comment above shows you to be unaware of what you have posted about.
If you are one of the sheepdogs, and the job is to keep the wolves away. The sheepdog works for the flock: his job is to stop “the mindless killing machine”.
Source: http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/iraqiarmy/archives/2007/12/
seeking_support_1.html#comments
Major Olmsted died while attempting to get the enemy to surrender so we would not have to kill them. [Emphasis added]
Captain Casey could not leave his commander on the ground.
They are the bravest men I have known. They are both heroes. We will carry their example and continue the mission.
Captain John Thompson
Posted by John on January 5, 2008 09:22 AM
MarkL
Canberra
Apologies,
Link is http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/iraqiarmy/archives/2007/12/seeking_support_1.html#comments
MarkL
Canberra
Yet also some other soldiers who doubtless accepted the solemnity of the social contract mentioned by Major Olmsted also accepted the proposition that torture was legal if it was ordered by persons higher in the chain of command.
Thus this proposition is more problematic than it may seem at first reading:
When superiors order a soldier to torture aren’t those superiors in fact attacking civil society, based as it is on the rule of law?
And at what stage does the contempt of the rule of law by those superiors dissolve the bonds of subordination previously accepted by fine citizen soldiers like Major Olmsted?
Some interesting comments and happy to let then conversation go on for now. Please remember to continue to keep things civil.
Mark [1] and Shaun [13]:
Suggest a topic for some time in the future: the nature and the future of the social contract, not the legal contract, involved in military service. Since such a topic is likely to become a very robust and thoroughly undignified stoush, I shall refrain form commenting on that issue here.
MarkL [10,11]:
Thanks for the links.
Everyone:
Let’s hope that any discussion here about Andy Olmstead or his fellows – or of his Enemy for that matter – is of them as human beings in the real world …. and not of the shoddy artifacts manufactured by Hollywood and by the news media.
“Suggest a topic for some time in the future: the nature and the future of the social contract, not the legal contract, involved in military service. Since such a topic is likely to become a very robust and thoroughly undignified stoush, I shall refrain form commenting on that issue here.”
Seconded.
I’m prepared to be enlightened about where a social contract could possibly beyond and maybe even in contravention of a framework of laws.
Excellent suggestion Graham. I’ll third it after Nabs.
I’ll put up a post this evening so y’all can stoush away is a dignified and respectful manner.
I’ll fourth the concept after Shaun.
Graham, I see no reason why such a discussion would become undignified or uncivil, even though it involves discussing Hobbes. This thread is not a place for incivility or lack of dignity on anyone’s part. For us, losing a comrade-in-arms may be part of the job, but it is never an easy part of the job.
MarkL
Canberra
We aim to please at LP. I’ve scheduled a post for tomorrow morning based on Graham’s suggestion. You have tonight to work on your opening arguments.
Shaun [19]:
Done earlier today.
MarkL [18]:
Andy Olmsted didn’t want his death politicized; I prefer to honour that request, tempting though it is to make passionate comments; no doubt many others feel the same way – regardless of whether they agree or disagree with posts here so far. Hence my concern that this dignified thread could degenerate into an uncivil knock-down-drag-out stoush.
As I’ve said elsewhere, Andy Olmsted’s farewell, that of a man facing his own mortality, is up there with “A Message To Garcia”; it should be read by every teenager and by every soldier; inspiring yet not jingoistic. My first thought whilst reading it was of the poets of The Great War. It is worthy of being considered for a Nobel Prize for Literature – though some in literary circles would be shocked at the idea. His family and his friends can be proud of him. Surely his enemies can respect him too once his farewell is translated into formal literary Arabic.
MarkL [just now]
It would have been better phrased as ” ….no doubt many others feel similarly tempted to make passionate comments, ….” [Is that clearer?]
A man dies purely for reasons politics – how can anyone (who didn’t directly know the fellow) not make a political comment? Even saying that you shouldn’t make a political comment is one.
Wilful [22]:
Ouch! Sorry, I really didn’t intend it to sound like the traditional RSL stunt of silencing any awkward questions or unwanted comments by calling them “political”.
You’re wrong about Andy Olmsted’s death being political. The Iraq War is political. The shenanegans of the main players is political. However, the death of combatants – on either side – is the RESULT of political reasons, not the political reasons themselves; the difference is important.
There’s a story on the NPR site. Olmsted’s friend, Hilary Bok, who make the post at his request is interviewed.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17990676&ft=1&f=1001
J-P-Z [from the later thread on social contract & military service] …. and to any other Americans reading here too:
In all seriousness. Andy Olmsted’s farewell is inspiring and its power to inspire goes way beyond military service alone. They are the words of a man face-to-face with his own mortality and in that, it is both timeless and universal.
So …. what needs to be done to nominate it for a Pulitzer Prize – or whatever prestigious award – in your country without it being hijacked for promoting a political party or faction? How could it be introduced into schools’ reading lists to inspire young people without every g-d m-f extremist or loony in the country misusing it for their own selfish purposes?
In the US military, for every torturer and murderer there is an Andrew Olmstead or a Hugh Thompson Jnr (the scout helicopter pilot who came to the aid of and saved the rest of the villagers in My Lai). I guess the citizen soldier system, i.e. the reserve, tends to reflect a cross-section of society at large. Thus the dangers of generalisation: about the US, about its military, the words will mean what you want them to mean.
But to make my own generalisation: many gung-ho war makers tend to opt out of any social contractual obligations, when it is their turn to put their body on the line: Dick Cheney, who was of draft age during the Vietnam years said of that time: “I had other priorities in th ’60s than military service”. He successfully avoided the draft with strategic use of student, and marriage deferrals.
Rummy was a navy pilot in the Ready Reserve but did not get posted to Vietnam. He was in his 30s and was a flight instructor so perhaps that’s fair enough. Though he seems not to have volunteered.
And I love the quote from the former Republican House Majority Leader Tom De Lay, who was of draft age for Vietnam: “So many minority youths had volunteered … that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like himself.”
Sir Henry:
Like DeLay’s excuse; shall use it myself next time ….
Still think Andy Olmsted’s farewell needs far, far more recognition than just nice comments on blogs.
“In the US military, for every torturer and murderer there is an Andrew Olmstead”
Olmsted.