Twofer

I’ve just finished two books.

The first is called The Airmen and the Headhunters by Judith Heimann. She’s a career diplomat who picked up on the true story of how several downed WWII airmen (navy and air force)survived when their planes went down over the inner island jungles of Borneo. The good news was that the interior wasn't as thick with Japanese troops as the edges of Borneo. The bad news was that the interior was known to be inhabited by fearsome indigenous peoples. The jacket cover says, “Would the tribesmen turn the starving airmen over to the hostile Japanese occupiers? Or would the Dayaks risk vicious reprisals to get the airmen safely home? The tribal leaders’ unprecedented decision led to a desperate game of hide-and-seek and, ultimately, to the return of a long-renounced ritual: the triumphant and bloody taking of heads.”

I found it a fascinating examination and fastidiously researched by a woman who spent many years in that part of Asia. By the time she picked up on the story many of the involved had died…but it’s a wonderfully detailed description of the many months the Americans spent there, the grace and bravery of their hosts, and a bygone era in terms of American and Bornean (?) cultures.

The second story is Mary Tillman’s “tribute” to her son Pat in Boots on the Ground by Dusk. This was on the hurry-up-and-read shelf at the library, so I imagine it’s just come out. She is incredibly angry, and there is a lot to be angry about. I was aware of the basics: Pat Tillman football star (and ASU alum) leaves the NFL to enlist (ay yi yi!) in the Army, was shot and killed in a fratricide incident in Afghanistan. The book switches gracefully from the story of how she investigates her son’s death and flashbacks to his childhood. The beginning is full of wonderful memories of his baby days and growing up. I didn’t remember that he and his brother enlisted together, and I don’t think I was aware that they served in the same unit, even the same platoon! Anyway, Pat certainly was a remarkable young man and his death is shameful.

The family wasn’t told for many weeks that his death was due to fratricide, and then as they learned more details they had more questions. At this point I guess the family has forced two congressional hearings in addition to two formal “big” Army investigations (CID & another) (which were in addition to the local unit’s own investigations) and Mary is still furious that she hasn’t gotten answers/the truth/justice/I’m not sure what? She includes a great deal of detail and studies of documents—she certainly has become an expert on the event as much as anybody could. There are glaring errors in judgment and operation –things like his platoon getting separated causing a disruption in communications that meant one element didn’t realize the rest of the platoon was just beyond and so they were shooting at their brothers, and his body and uniform weren’t processed properly for autopsy or investigation. The idea that the Army was trying to formally investigate and discover details before letting the news go to the family seems reasonable to me, especially given that Pat’s brother was actually present at the scene. Still I would opt for much more transparency in this age of immediate information transfer. I sure hope the Army has at least learned that lesson. Apparently the family didn’t like President Bush or this war well before Pat enlisted, and she rails against this administration and thinks there is responsibility for covering up details about Pat’s death all the way up to General Abizaid and the White House. One of the documents describes an involved officer objecting to the general performing the fourth or fifth investigation saying, “look, it’s awful. How many times are we gonna have to drag our troops through this process?” and I have to sympathize. I don’t think soldiers “get over” having killed their own buddy—and it’s hard for a mother to recognize the intensity of the love in a brotherhood like that. I also don’t think it’s surprising that over three years and several repeated investigations there were many discrepancies and changes in details. The congressional hearings turned into a partisan debacle---ugh. She also left an omission in the tale—Bush has personally written every single family of the 4000 plus lost Americans and called and met many of them. She does talk about her conversations with some people--Schwarzenegger and McCain attended and spoke at Pat’s memorial service-- yet she never mentions contact from the White House.

In the end I feel for her, and think what she’s done to push for truth is amazing, but I also think she’s mired in the anger phase of grief. Pat should not have died in that manner, but what else besides more transparency can a mother or the American public demand?

So this book has hit a nerve with me, and been quite thought-provoking. Do I have the right to say somebody’s stuck in the grief stage? How would this compare to a sentinel event at the hospital? Why do I think that her stance on politics has made it harder for her? (never mind religion, that comes up in a painful manner) The contrast between the two stories also resonates with me---why do I think Americans are more likely to demand answers and make a scene in today’s generation than in WWII, and where do I rank that phenomenon on a good-to-bad scale? Why am I having such a hard time separating the political stereotypes from what I’m reading? It disturbs me that the stereotypical conservative supposedly doesn’t value an indigenous culture like the Dayaks, for example, and Mary Tillman’s Bush-hating stance colors my perspective of her perspective—at some point I felt my heart hardening toward her bitterness and I think it’s because I don’t have the moral objection to the war that she does.

This is heavy stuff, I would love to discuss this sometime…

Olga