Outlaw Platoon: The Irrelevance of American Virtues
P. Schultz
June 28, 2014
Outlaw Platoon: Heroes, Renegades, Infidels,
and the Brotherhood of War in Afghanistan was written by Sean Parnell about
the American war in Afghanistan that was initiated after September 11, 2001. It
is a revealing and, ultimately, a sad book. It is revealing in its presentation
of what American troopers did in Afghanistan, as well as revealing of their
virtues, their patriotism, their camaraderie, their skills, and their advance
weaponry. But it is sad in that, bottom line, these virtues did not and do not
matter when it comes to confronting those we have labeled “terrorists.”
Sean
Parnell did what, relatively speaking, very few Americans did after 9/11: He
decided to become a warrior in the war on terror President Bush had announced
after the attacks on 9/11. Parnell was in college, fully ready to leave it in
order to enlist in the Army. He was, however, dissuaded by his father, who
convinced him to finish college, while participating in ROTC, and then enlist
in the war on terror. This is what Sean did. He became a second lieutenant in
the US Army and eventually ended up in Afghanistan with the 3d platoon, Bravo
Company, 2nd Battalion, of the 87th Infantry Regiment, a
unit that took the name “Outlaw Platoon.” He was moved to write his book by,
among others, Horace, who wrote: “Many heroes lived…but all are unknown and
unwept, extinguished in everlasting night, because they had no spirited
chronicler.”
As he
presents himself and his men, it is impossible not to be impressed. They are
patriotic, they are courageous, they are well trained, and they are committed
to each other and to their mission. Which only makes their situation – and ours
– sadder.
Why is
that? Because these virtues are, to put it bluntly, irrelevant to the outcome
of the war on terror or to the war in Afghanistan. Would that it was different
but it is not. And this becomes evident very early in the book in two events
Parnell describes.
The first
event is a meeting with Major Alam Ghul, who is the commanding officer of an
Afghan police force stationed at a place called Bandar, a mountain top base
that Parnell and his men use as a base camp while they make forays into the
country side. At this meeting, it becomes obvious to Parnell and his men that
Major Ghul is untrustworthy. He lies about everything, alleged attacks on the
camp, missing weapons and equipment, leading Parnell to write, “How do I work with such a man, let alone
fight beside him?” [p. 43] Abdul, Parnell’s interpreter or ‘terp, concludes
that Major Ghul had sold the missing weapons and equipment on the black market
in order to make money for himself. Parnell comes to agree with this
interpretation.
A couple of
observations are relevant here. When Parnell asks Abdul whether he should press
Major Ghul, Abdul and one of Parnell’s sergeant, Sgt. Baldwin, tell him not to.
As Abdul says, “This is not how business is conducted here.” And Baldwin says,
“No point.” So, in fact, Lt. Parnell is powerless to affect how Major Ghul
behaves, which could be generalized as an observation the situation of America
in Afghanistan: It is pretty much powerless to affect the kind of changes that
would be necessary to accomplish its mission there. Insofar as this is correct,
the virtues possessed by Parnell and his men are, strictly speaking, irrelevant
to the outcome of the war in Afghanistan.
Secondly,
Parnell reacts to Major Ghul as if he, Major Ghul, is an American soldier. That
is, American soldiers don’t sell their equipment and weapons on the black
market, at least not as a matter of course. But Major Ghul – and other Afghanis
– do and do so as a matter of course. Parnell, who seems not aware of this
fact, does not ask why Major Ghul behaves as he does and assumes that he, Major
Ghul, is just a corrupt individual. Once he makes this assumption, others
follow, like with the proper training people like Ghul would not behave as Ghul
is behaving. But this seems a bit naïve, does it not? Is it training that
accounts for the fact that American soldiers don’t sell stuff on the black
market? This seems doubtful.
So what is
it about the situation Major Ghul finds himself in that might explain why he
sells perfectly good equipment and weaponry on the black market, thereby
apparently putting himself and his men at risk? And why do his men, who are
also put at risk, not object? But perhaps that is the point: Major Ghul’s
behavior does not put him or his men at risk. In fact, perhaps his behavior
makes them more secure. Ghul claims that he has received “night letters” from
the enemy, that is, death threats from local enemy forces. And as becomes
obvious later, these threats were probably made against Ghul’s family as well
as Ghul himself. Parnell tells Ghul that he understands Ghul’s circumstances
but, of course, he does not. His family is not being threatened with “night
letters.” However, such threats are simply how “business is conducted” in
Afghanistan and the Americans are powerless to change it, as becomes obvious in
the second event, Abdul’s death.
Parnell is
very much attached to Abdul, considering that they are almost “soul mates” in
that both were motivated by unjust attacks to join the war on terror. Members
of Abdul’s family were killed by the Taliban and, of course, Americans died in
large numbers on 9/11. And Parnell trusts Abdul as a virtuous man, a loyal man,
and a good man.
Abdul then
receives a “night letter,” which threatens him and his family because he is
helping the infidels. After being denied permission to go home to check on his
family, Abdul goes anyway but, on the way back, he is killed, shot through the
head, execution style. Parnell grieves for his ‘terp and even pins his Ranger
pin on Abdul in his coffin. But Parnell does not ask about the meaning of
Abdul’s death, that is, it’s meaning for what the Americans think they are
doing in Afghanistan. Abdul was hardly typical of most Afghans Parnell presents
to us and his death was not preventable. Or perhaps I should say that his death
was preventable but only if Abdul quit helping the infidels. So long as he kept
helping the Americans, the Americans were powerless to keep him or his family
alive. And this helps to illuminate the motivations of Major Ghul while making
them seem reasonable, not to say honorable.
We might wish that in Afghanistan
waging war on terrorists would be a virtue that would be rewarded, but wishing
doesn’t make it so. In fact, wishing it were so makes it more likely that the
virtuous, men like Abdul, would die while those who are not virtuous, men like
Major Ghul, live. We might wish that the virtues of our young men and women who
serve in the war on terror would be relevant to the outcome of that war, but
wishing doesn’t make it so. And, again, wishing it were so only increases the
likelihood that the virtuous will die while those who are not virtuous live.
No comments:
Post a Comment