Love 2 U
In the words of a broken heart its just emotions
Taking me over
Tied up in sorrows
Lost in my soul
--Emotions, Bee Gees
You see I wanted her real bad
and I was about to give in
that's when she started talkin' true love
started talkin' about sin
--Keep your Hands to Yourself,
Georgia Satellites
You've got your nuclear boots
And your drip dry glove
Ooo when you bite your lip
It's some reaction to love, o-ove, o-ove
--My Best Friend's Girlfriend, the Cars
Self-denial
Is never easy baggage
But come next Monday
I'm gonna give up on you
--Come Next Monday, K. T. Oslin
_____________
A recent RAW post by Lisa discussed the concept of love as imposed by the AP upon Obama's mama's marriage to Kenyan Mr. Obama. Several readers had visceral reactions to the piece, saying Ranger should write about what he knows best. Which leads me to make comment. Without further adieu: Love, a Ranger homily.
Ranger would rather sandpaper his ass and sit in salt than write about emotions. This is written under duress.
The discomfort with even mentioning love is based upon the unwillingness of some readers to examine issues that relate to emotions. Most RAW readers are former military veterans. Ranger would not attempt to speak for these distinguished persons; my comments are personal.
My discomfort in discussing emotions stems from the fact that this is a feature of my person that has been suppressed since my early manhood. That is a large part of successful Army indoctrination -- to use one's reason to make rational decisions, versus emotional ones.
Emotion carries a strong distaste when applied to most things in life, for me. My opposition to the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) grows from the observation that the entire ball of wax is an emotional reaction to a very rational set of circumstances. Ranger would rather be logical and wrong than emotional and correct. A PWOT based on emotion is a loser from Day One.
Wars should be based upon cold, hard reason and objective facts. The reason the U.S. can not succeed in COIN operations and the PWOT is that emotion is not a military construct. Campaigns do not hinge upon emotions. They are based upon objective, verifiable facts and logical thinking. War should not be not an act of revenge -- it is a reasoned national policy leading to an achievable goal.
From the first day of basic training we are taught the things that will help us survive, and they are devoid of emotion: rifle marksmanship, bayonet drill, hand-to-hand close quarters combat, silent kill techniques and explosives. Survival depends on emotionless execution of the subject matter. Accurate rifle fire is delivered in a cool, reasoned manner. Anger or hatred in close quarters combat can get one killed. Snipers deliver death in a calm, reasoned manner.
All military schools remove emotion from the decision-making process. Even leadership is an emotionless exercise. Leadership means maximizing human assets to achieve a realistic military goal. It is not based upon warm fuzzy feelings. It is cold and objective. Leadership is not being a lovable fellow.
We coordinate fires, maneuver to close with and destroy the enemy, do contingency planning for nuclear, biological and chemical warfare annexes to operational orders. Ranger and all Special operations Forces military schooling actually beat the emotion out of our minds and souls. We become killing machines, which is exactly the goal of training. Feelings are irrelevant.
And then what happens? We are belched back into society and our wimmins and others expect us to be warm, feeling beings blissing out on the love in the universe. Some of us return to emotional footing, and some do not. The comments on "Love?" show the divide: Minstrel Boy, FDChief and tw seem to be returnees, to varying degrees. The rest of the Ranger audience is more comfortable navigating the terrain we were trained to traverse.
Ranger's discomfort is with a military, press and politics which have all become exercises in emotion, rather than disinterested exercises of reason. Emotion in the public sphere is not a formula for success. Emotion. . . feh.
[I think what Ranger wants to say is, he's back in control of this ship, and if any emotions (Eeowww!) intrude upon the writing they will not emanate from him. He will remain true to his U.S. Army training, and keep troublesome emotions at bay, at all costs.
My previous point was simply, emotional overlays have no place in formal reportage. --L.]
Labels: emotions, love, military training suppresses emotions
posted by rangeragainstwar at 6:15 AM
9 Comments:
So...Ranger, what you're really saying is that you need a hug?
L, would you be so kind as to deliver one.
;)
I'm not hard core, and I am most certainly not a soldier, nor a "warrior" of any stripe, but I do understand, intellectually, where you are coming from.
I do not think one has to loose oneself by emotional disconnectiveness to the realities of life by training, or trauma; but recognizing that life is what it is and learning to accept that.
btw, that is called being an adult...cue W's attention towards that one if ever he gets curious about what others think, and reads this blog.
I digress...where was I...reality...yes, there we go...so there is a quasi-zen-like view in which one accepts the world as it is, and even in the state of it's imperfection, one can still appreciate the beauty of a falling leaf, the sigh of a pretty girl as she takes in the spring bloom, or the playfulness of a puppy as it pummels a child with it's tongue.
There is no emtional loss of control if one feels saddened by the lost of a family member, friend, or the honor of someone close who made a bad choice.
Expression of sadness through tears or verbal disappointment is perfectly normal, and human.
We are, by nature, emotional creatures, and to not express emotion is to deny ones own humanity.
I think that you are a normal man, and you have learned to govern your emotions...which makes you an adult, and not a child.
Besides, Love is far more than an emotion, and it is far more than girly giggles. Love is a passion, a focus that allows us to express our innermost feelings and beliefs with true honesty, and openness.
I point you to your passion for expressing your feelings about our government, and our nations waste of precious resources, and other observations you have made...these are passions, loves of yours, that are very important to you.
There is no reason not to embrace that which you feel is important, and there is no reason not to call that emotion what it is...love...love for country, love for honor, and love for your fellow countrymen to be honorable.
sheerahkhan,
Thank you for a very human response. I am certain this will make an impact upon Jim.
I also wrote Jim a response, in part:
"Mature people take risks, after applying reason to their choices. If you take the safe route in life, it is not because of what the Army taught you, but what life has taught you. To be emotionless may be the proper approach in the military, but it is not correct in human relationships."
It would appear his writing is a form of love, sublimated or otherwise.
Dreams fly by like a thousand railroad trains
Egos steadfast like mountains in our brains
Those of us who let go will be swallowed
Left here to die
Do not look to the sky
It will not rain for you
Do not look to strangers
They won't help you through
Only chance you got
when you hear the war dogs bark
Is to be one up on your brother
Like a Blind man in the dark
Ranger, MB, and all veterans dropping by this wonderful site, "Thank You" for choosing to serve. Thank you today and every single day.
As the therapist saying goes: If you can recognize it in others, you got it in you as well. As for expressing it in writing, well, then you start crossing the line from blog-reporting and into the realms of literature and poetry, where different rules apply.
sheerakhan,
Let me respond with the fear of being emotional.
There is passion in my writing and life, but this does not imply or dictate that logic takes a seat to emotion. In my world, passion is based upon logic, and can be either negative or positive. Logic should always be positive.
False logic practiced by Nazis/fascists/neocons is negative because it is overlaid with inappropriate emotion. I am opposed to faulty emotionally-laden logic.
One can be passionate without being emotional. the two concepts are not intertwined. My passion is based in logic.
At the risk of sounding emotional; let's not forget that the moral is to the physical as three is to one.
I know I've served with, for and over people I've liked, loved or hated. Some of the commanders who got the best from me were men whom I either loved enough to hazard my well-being for or hated so much I wouldn't let the bastard see me come up short...
And what about the "band of brothers"? The guys you hang with, serve with? Isn't that a kind of love?
There are many things about which I am dispassionate, and many others that I have the passion for or against that stems from logic. But there are some things that have the ability to touch me on the emotional level far below - or above - my ability to clearheadedly add or detract. Most of these things I recognize, and try to avoid when I'm doing things like fire planning or writing out geotechnical reports. But others, like children and lovers, like sunrises and flowers, need no excuses or explanations, and I can just enjoy the emo bits without apology...
I think we should be careful trying to believe that we can seperate emotion and logic. Would that the big decisions like war and peace were dictated solely by logic and calculation. But think for a moment - how many wars can you tic off that started because of anger, pride, revenge, fear, bravado, foolishness? Governments and peoples fight or ally for all sorts of reasons, good and bad, logical and emotional. I'd like to think that we the People couldn't be such fools as to make war based on rash emotion. But history's evidence tells me a different story.
I think Lisa's point was that there are definately places where this sort of emotional glurge needs to be ruthlessly suppressed, and news reportage such as stories about political candidates is one such. Intelligence reports urging war are another...
But I think she makes another good point that, unless we are more ruthless than 99% of the human race, those emotions WILL seep in and tinge, or taint, our reasoning.
I'm not sure if it's better to try and fight this, or rather to recognize and and try and adapt to make our decisions as sensible as we can...given the human tendency towards sentiment and emotion...
Chief,
Fascinating area this congruence of rationality and emotions. Perhaps it's a matter of terminology that has Ranger out of sorts. We tried a discussion earlier but didn't get very far. The terms we were trying to define were "passion," "emotion," "love" and "rationality".
All probably have their place in reason; we are emotional animals. If we can see rightly (as well as we can with these feeble eyes) we are capable of making some fairly rational decisions.
There is always the problem of achieving absolute objectivity; the philosopher Krishnamurti said, "The observer is the observed," and Jung said basically the same thing, that is: we are using our mind to observe the actions of our mind. A sticky wicket.
Probably a stickier wicket is the concept of "love". We mix it up with the carnal, and see it as a temptation which will burn us. So most people no longer teens seek a safe distance, and manage to balance a certain caring with self-protection, then get neither in full measure. Sad.
Maybe Lyle Lovett was right: "I Love Everyone." From that vantage point, use the rational mind to decide who you'll go whole hog with. You're not safe if you dive in; you're not safe if you hold back. May as well enjoy. I'd say I'm an epicurean; Ranger fancies himself a stoic.
FD Chief,
I'll ponder these things and get back with you the next time I smell a flower. :)
I acknowledge your cmts. jim
Post a Comment
<< Home