Questions, comments or a tip? Let us know.
Why Columbia Needs the Marine Corps and Vice Versa
PUBLISHED OCTOBER 29, 2007
I know why I joined the Marine Corps: the pay is low, the training could literally kill you, and some people call my peers a bunch of Neanderthals. I can look at a stranger, tell him or her that I was in the Marine Corps, and hear the predictable, “Wow, I bet you’d be handy during a bar fight.”
I joined the Marine Corps relatively late in life. I was 26 when I commissioned in 2005, five years after I graduated from Columbia. Everyone told me that I was an idiot. I had a master’s degree in electrical engineering and was giving up what many considered a great job.
My friends peppered me with questions and comments like “But you’re so smart, why would you join the Marine Corps?” We discussed the benefits of becoming a Marine and couldn’t think of many. It was a huge pay cut. I was committed for six years of active duty after learning to fly. I’d undoubtedly go to Iraq or Afghanistan.
But I knew from day one that I had made the right choice. Like a lot of us, I had deep questions about what I wanted to do with my life. I knew that whatever it was that I was looking for I couldn’t find between the walls of a cubicle.
Half a world away the war was waging—one could argue that it is the defining event of our generation—and I couldn’t stand by and watch. I had become increasingly frustrated by our country’s attitude toward the war. For too many the war is something that they only see on TV or read about in the paper.
I had friends who had been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, but none had graduated from an Ivy League school. How could it be that so few Ivy graduates shared in our country’s burden? Why was it that we had sent so many of America’s youth to war and so few of its elite were there alongside them?
The last 40 years of anti-military opinion on Ivy campuses has led to a generation of military officers who are not Ivy League graduates. This means that Ivy League universities have had little to no influence in educating the very men and women who are responsible for the planning and execution of the most important political issue of our lives. How can it be that the universities who are entrusted with the responsibility of molding our country’s future leaders have ignored what is arguably America’s most influential foreign policy arm?
The effects of shunning the military will be felt long after the current conflicts are over. The experiences that these men and women bring back with them will continue to influence the American psyche for decades to come. It is from their ranks that our future congressmen, governors and presidential candidates will come. Several Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have already run for political office and were pivotal in the 2006 Democratic takeover of Congress. Their experiences during the war will shape their views on international politics and lead the direction of the country. How can Columbia hope to produce the next generation of American leaders if it refuses to walk a mile in the shoes of those of whom we ask the most?
While it is difficult for me to agree with some of the views that Columbia has of the military, I have sworn to uphold and defend a Constitution that defends their right to express these opinions. For anyone else out there considering a career in the Marine Corps, let it be known: the Marine Corps requires that an individual give up many of the very rights that they have sworn to defend; it is not for the faint of heart, it requires that people die and kill—but in order for our country to remain free and great it must not, and cannot, be a responsibility shirked by Ivy League graduates.
The author is a Marine Corps officer who graduated from the Fu Foundation School of Engineering in 2000.
Article Tools:
View Comments ( 9)
Post a Comment
Mike, thanks for writing that article. I can't count the number of times I've sat down, looked around and wondered how I ended up in GTMO, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Saudi Arabia, when all my other fellow Ivy Leaguers are practicing law, medicine, and banking in cubicles that are blocked out from the world. That is by no means a statement of judgement. However, I have yet to meet another Ivy League graduate who has followed the path I choose to walk.
When I thought about what I wanted to do with my life in college, the only answer that rang clear was "To give back for all that I've been given". I tried to enter the military, but for health reasons was not allowed. So, I took the civilian route. I yearned to learn as much about my community as I possibly good. In order to do that, I had to choose to be on the front line of events, not behind a newspaper. I spent a year in Guantanamo, speaking with terrorists. I spent well over a year in Iraq, learning about democracy, the Iraqi people, war and all the very ugly and very hard things that come along with it. I still spend months traveling to Afghanistan, Africa, Iraq supporting this country in the mission it chose to follow.
And what I learned most was about truth. The media doesn't report even 1/6th of what truly goes on. The men and women in the war zone are outstanding soldiers, but they are also very tired, overwhelmed and without time to focus on more than what they've been trained and sent to do. There is so much room for help, and learning.
I find it depressing that many feel it is only the military's duty to protect this country and the freedoms it offers us. It is everyone's job, and it is particularly our duty, as the academic elite, to help effect change in the way we believe.
How many of your have formed your opinions based off what you've read, heard, or seen on the news? And how many have you have actually gone forward to experience the things you believe and formed an opinon based on what you saw with your own eyes?
Mike, I applaud you for making the choices that you have, and for realizing what an impact and difference you can truly make.
LT Michael Christman - you are a leader, a thinker, and the USMC is lucky to have you. Thank you for submitting your article and for serving our country.
Of all the people that graduated with us in EE '00 class, I don't know anyone else who's making a bigger difference in the world.
Good luck, Mike, and be safe!
I am a veteran of the US Army. I am not an Ivy Leaguer, but I was lucky enough to have the opportunity to go to a university for an undergraduate education and be commissioned into the US Army. LT Christman makes some very good points on service and why that service is important, not only to the military or the individuals in it, but to our country and our society. I have to disagree with many of the statements made by the first “anonymous” post.
People don't join the military to go to Iraq and kill and they certainly do not do it at the whim of the President. Never once when I was joining or serving in the Army was I encouraged to do anything morally repellent. We were taught the importance of making good, moral decisions whose outcomes may have grave consequences and might even, regrettably, end a life. With that in mind, being a good leader in the military demands not only selfless service, integrity, respect, and discipline, but most importantly, thoughtful, moral decisions. The military does not need leaders who are brainwashed, coerced into serving, or “warm bodies” just filling a position. The value of having people from institutions like Columbia serve in the military is having free-thinking, intelligent leaders to make the crucial decisions that affect not only the service members they serve with, but on a larger scale, our military and our country.
Some people may join the military for enlistment bonuses, but from what I have seen, no amount of financial incentive can make up for what service men and women sacrifice. The service, duty, and other “lovely abstract concepts” are the essence of why people join and continue to make those sacrifices. When a person joins the military, he or she cannot do it contingent on which wars are fought. You serve your country, period. The politicians and civilians are responsible for debating and deciding whether the war is one that is truly protecting our freedoms or is in our best interest. The military is a tool that our country’s leaders can use, not on a whim, but with many specific outlines and regulations governing its use. The fact that people disagree with how our country’s military is used doesn’t negate its importance nor does it mean that it can be successful without America’s strongest leaders.
Given the importance of what is happening today and how our military is being used, strong leaders are essential to our success. I admire people like LT Christman who see the value in having the opportunity to contribute in a very real way in one of the defining events of our generation. He and many others who have the desire and the courage to serve are taking action, not sitting back and complaining about it. They are getting involved, seeing it first hand, and making a difference in our world. Not the world as we would like it to be, but the world in which we actually live. The value of his experiences and the contributions that he will make, not only as a Marine, but as a citizen throughout his life as a result of his service combined with his Ivy League education are what our country needs to continue to be great.
This is for the 2nd "Anonymous": I don't even know where to begin. Rather than bandy words with you like we did back in junior high school, let me just point out the following:
o Please reconsider your position on "responsibility and duty and all those other lovely abstract concepts." You may disagree that Michael Christman is properly exercising his concepts of duty and responsibility, but to deride the concepts themselves is not only immature, in my opinion, but it is also utlimately dangerous. Without a sense of our responsibility to others and an obligation to fulfill our duties towards those responsibilities, then where would we be as a society?
o The soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan are not "killing people at the whim of George Bush." Surely, surely, surely you will recall that the Congress of the United States, representing the People of the United States (as does the President) authorized our military action in the Middle East and the Congress can to this day stop such action if it wants to. Furthermore, surely you recall that in 1998, during a previous administration, an "Iraqi Liberation Act" was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. You may not like this and you may believe that there is or was some sort of conspiracy that caused all this, but this is a republic and this is how we make decisions. Such a process is oftentimes "messy," which is why dictators such as Stalin, Hitler, and Hussein don't put up with it -- but I think that I and most Americans prefer a messy democratic republic to the alternatives.
o Mr. Christman was not trying to convince you that killing more Iraqis would make the world a safer place. As I read it, one of his main points is that Columbia and other so-called "elite" schools, by not engaging in the education of military officers and by not participating in the military, are shutting themselves out of a major part of our society, and in doing so are forfeiting their ability to influence this critical part of our culture. Way to go Columbia!
I could go on and on, but (I'm sure most will be thankful!) I'll go ahead and close. Thank you, LT Christman, for your service. I do truly believe that the US military, and especially its "grunts" who engage on a daily basis with the poor and oppressed of the world, contribute more to world peace and understanding than do all the Columbia students who enter the "realms of foreign policy, diplomacy, and conflict resolution."
Anonymous,
Thanks for the comment. As you pointed out, the purpose of the article wasn't to argue the point of whether what we are doing in Iraq is right or wrong. There are plenty of people who are way smarter than me doing that, the world doesn’t need my opinion.
The larger issue is that we are in a tough situation and we’re going to be there for a while, no matter who wins the election. The question that we have to ask ourselves is “What am I doing to make the situation better?” You are right, there are plenty of Columbia students who pursue foreign policy, diplomacy, etc, post-graduation and I truly appreciate their efforts and sacrifice. We would all agree that the solution to the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are political vice military.
However, I would disagree that traditional diplomats are doing more for peace in Iraq than those of the infantryman. The level of violence is so high in Iraq and Afghanistan that traditional diplomats and NGOs cannot do their jobs of going out and meeting people, providing aid, etc. The American soldier and Marine have become the de facto diplomat in their place.
Because Columbia graduates have in large part not joined the military and because traditional diplomatic organizations are ineffective in Iraq, the fantastic training that Columbia provides is not going to anyone who actually meets and works with Iraqis outside of the Green Zone.
Thanks again for your response. I really appreciate that you took the time to comment on the article. I look forward to continuing this conversation.
Mike
Thanks for a considerate and measured reply to my somewhat inflammatory comment. I'll try to be as civil and respectful as you are. While your argument raises a few interesting points, I can't help but retain my previous point of view: that going to war is not the best way for Columbia students to benefit the world, especially the middle east. I would argue that your very response to my comment proves my point: you say that you have no interest in arguing "whether what we are doing in Iraq is right or wrong" and that the "larger issue" is that we are already in Iraq. This attitude, frankly, is why we're there in the first place: too many people were unquestioning and unwilling to look at the larger picture. Since we've gone to war in Iraq countless thousands of Americans have died and *hundreds* of thousands of Iraqis have died. Not as immediately gripping but in the long run almost more devastating is the loss of face America has suffered around the world. The sympathy we had after 9/11 has been squandered because our military has been sent to fight a war that has nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on our soil. The immense efforts of our enlisted men and women are being wasted because the Arab world hates us, and no amount of food drops or alliances with Sunni sheiks or soccer games with kids or purple thumbs are going to change that.
While it's doubtless that many American troops have nothing but the best interests of the Iraqi people in mind, and many of them do good to the population, their efforts have been overwhelmed by a sea of dead bodies: hundreds of thousands of deaths that whether we like it or not, these people place straight on our doorstep. For every food package we drop off, there's a casualty from collateral damage. Our presence there is regarded as a festering wound, and the facts on the ground tell a story that can't be ignored. We've brought nothing but chaos and destruction to Iraq. This is a country that is being *literally* torn apart from the inside: millions of people are fleeing, ethnic cleansing is widespread, and even Kurdistan is in turmoil. The US military may be holding back violence, but it is violence that it created.
We're not going to solve the conflict in Iraq by military power. The "surge" has proved that. Even if we had more troops, which we don't, the violence just keeps on going. At this point, the only thing that has the remotest chance of salvaging this mess is the much-maligned strategy of diplomacy. Whether it's the anthropologists that are working with US troops in Afghanistan to explain cultural nuances and prevent them from shooting the wrong people (something we seem rather prone to doing) or the people in the State Department frantically negotiating with Turkey and the rest of Iraq's neighbors to get them to do something to contribute to regional stability, i.e. help clean up our mess, the fancy-pants intellectuals that the military loves to malign (see: the recent Boylan/Greenwald fiasco) are doing plenty to contribute to peace in the region. If Columbia students want to benefit the Middle East, I suggest they learn Arabic rather than how to use an M-16.
I love it when people talk about "responsibility" and "duty" and all those other lovely abstract concepts. It's a sure sign they're trying to get people to do things that they know are morally repellent. Anyway, while I realize that you people are desperate for warm bodies--to the extent that you're willing to accept hardened criminals and extend the eligible ages--I doubt you're going to have much luck convincing Columbia students to sign up for the military without even ADDRESSING the question of whether or not the wars we are currently fighting are protecting America. You can talk about "rights" and "responsibilities" and "duty" and how you "couldn't stand by and watch" all you like: the fact is, some of us are uncomfortable killing people at the whim of George Bush. Pretending that you are protecting America may make you feel better, but the fact is, the war in Iraq is making the world a MUCH more dangerous place for us, and a considerable majority of the American people want it OVER. What you're doing goes against America's best interests and the desires of its people. I realize that your intentions are good, but more shilling for war is not what this country wants or needs right now. I guess you didn't want to argue that point, which is why you glossed over it, but the fact is that you're begging the question when you make the argument that more Columbia students should serve. Appealing to abstract concepts of duty and patriotism (and lying about enlistment bonuses) may work in inner-city high schools, but you're going to need a real argument to convince us that killing more Iraqis (apparently we haven't killed enough already, or you wouldn't be writing this editorial) is going to make the world a safer place. Countless Columbia students enter the realms of foreign policy, diplomacy, and conflict resolution after graduation--I daresay they do a whole lot more for peace in the Middle East than you do by carrying a rifle over to Iraq and bringing more death and destruction to an already inflamed area.
Could you explain how you came to your first point? I've always seen duty as a "moral or legal obligation" as Webster defined it. In fact, the military trains its personnel to act according to moral and legal duties. Military members are expected to take efforts to do the right thing in every situation. I am interested in your response.
I take it that you see those who take a differing path from you and decide to enlist as only capable of being "warm-bodies." Am I incorrect in that assumption? I hope I am. I bring this up, because I think it relates to your first point. The military is supposed to be made up by thinking, moral people rather than mindless killers. That is why the military spends time training people in ethics and legal principles as well as how to fight.
As far as addressing if the wars are for the good of America, the military does not decide that. Those decisions are left to politicians. While many of us have opinions, it is not our place to impose political decisions. It is our duty to give political planners an effective tool to utilize. The military of the US has been subserviant to civilian authorities since Washington's time and beyond. It must be this way to ensure that there cannot be a military coup. It is also part of the reason that military members swear to protect and defend the Constitution, rather than some temporary leaders.--you can call that shirking the question, but I think that you might agree that it is better for elected officials to decide what is best for America, in accordance with the will of the people and the law.
_____________________
To address the original article-
I agree that people should feel some obligation to improve the world. We need many people to do many things. Some will decide to be lawyers, others may choose to be teachers, doctors, firefighters, inventors, administrators, or businessmen; yet others will choose to serve in the military. I would simply ask that each person assess where they can do the most good and enjoy it, then go on to that career. I think it is unfortunate that many in the Ivy League would cringe at military service, because the military needs educated people more than ever. However, if they feel that they are more prepared to contribute in a different role, I cannot fault them for choosing what they will be best at.
Post new comment