Veterans Day, 2009

In case you missed it in the Wednesday, April 15, 2009, Japan Times:

The end of the long march
By LESTER TENNEY
Special to The Japan Times

CARLSBAD, Calif. — Sixty-seven years ago this month, on April 9, 1942, I was surrendered to the Japanese Imperial Army on the Bataan Peninsula in the Philippines. At my first prison camp, the Japanese commandant turned to the American prisoners of war (POWs) and told us that we were "lower than dogs" and "they (the Japanese) would treat us that way for the rest of our lives." Then he said, "We will never be friends with the piggish Americans.

For a long time I thought he was right. But we have both changed. This year, I welcomed the Japanese government's first official apology to the American POWs, 63 years after our liberation.

If my fellow soldiers or I had known the consequences of being a POW of the Japanese, we would have fought to the death. After three long months of jungle fighting against a better-equipped invasion force, the American and Filipino troops were starving, sick, exhausted and out of ammunition.

At surrender, we were immediately forced to march 105 km through the steaming Bataan Peninsula without food, water, medical treatment or rest. Today, the Bataan Death March is remembered as one of the worst war crimes of World War II.

I will never forget my buddies who were shot simply for trying to get a drink of water; crushed by a tank for stumbling; bayoneted just because they could not take another step; or forced at gun point to bury alive the sick. I bear a deep scar where a Japanese officer on horseback brought his samurai sword down on my shoulder.

Those who survived the Death March faced over three years of unimaginably brutal imprisonment. Many, like me, were herded into "Hell Ships," packed shoulder to shoulder without food or sanitation and shipped to factories, mines and docks across the Japanese Empire. The survivors were literally sold to private Japanese companies to work sustaining wartime production.

I dug coal in a dangerous Mitsui Corporation-owned mine. Like all POWs, I was overworked, beaten, humiliated and starved. The damage and suffering we endured from these companies' employees were comparable to, and sometimes worse than, that inflicted upon us by the Imperial Japanese military. Among World War II combat veterans and former POWs, those who were prisoners of the Japanese have the highest percentage of post-traumatic stress disorders. To say the least, we POWs had and still have intense feelings about Japan.

Yet the Japanese commandant who belittled his American captives was wrong. The United States and Japan have become friends and close allies — a result we welcome. My anger has been tempered by the many Japanese people who have welcomed me to Japan. Personal friendships and common goals heal many wounds.

Our unfortunate history came largely to closure in a personal meeting with the Japanese ambassador to the U.S. and his wife last November. I was finally able to tell a Japanese official my story. He heard of my humiliations, saw my scars and learned of my Japanese friends who have helped me overcome my POW trauma.

I asked for the ambassador's help in requesting three things from his government so that justice is achieved for POWs: (1) an official apology; (2) an appeal to companies to apologize for their wartime use of POWs; and (3) a reconciliation project.

In December, the ambassador wrote me with news for which I have waited decades. His letter said that Japan's government extends "a heartfelt apology for our country having caused tremendous damage and suffering to many people, including those who have undergone tragic experiences in the Bataan Peninsula and Corregidor Island in the Philippines."

This acknowledging gesture was followed in February by a Cabinet-approved statement to a member of the Diet that extended the apology to all "former POWs." It is the first official apology specifically to mention POWs or any particular group hurt by Imperial Japan.

We POWs accept these long-sought apologies and now ask Japan to state them for all to hear and understand. I trust that my two other requests will be fulfilled soon. It has taken nearly seven decades, but Japan's recognition of its mistreatment of POWs attains historic justice and brings fullness to the U.S.-Japan relationship. A future of a peaceful alliance is what we really wanted in the first place.

Dr. Lester Tenney is a professor emeritus of business administration from Arizona State University and commander of the American Defenders of Bataan and Corregidor. He is a survivor of the Bataan Death March and slave labor in a Mitsui coal mine.

NORAD Tracks Santa

The North American Aerospace Defense Command has begun tracking a flying sleigh drawn by eight tiny reindeer, believed to be carrying gifts for everyone but the leadership of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security's directorate of Security Infrastructure. At this writing, the craft just passed Auckland New Zealand.

Monitoring the flight from Peterson AFB, Colorado, the defenders of our airspace will supply live video feeds of actual real-time satellite footage to a special website.

NORAD's predecessor CONAD (the Continental Air Defense Command) began tracking the annual journey of Santa's sleigh on Dec. 24, 1955, after a series of errant phone calls was made to the CONAD Operations Center in Colorado Springs, Colo. A Colorado Springs newspaper had printed a Sears, Roebuck & Co. ad which provided a telephone number for children to call to talk to Santa. The number was one digit off, corresponding to CONAD's operations center. The subsequent barrage of phone calls convinced the CONAD watch officer, Col. Harry W. Shoup, that Santa was a man worth watching. He directed his staff to monitor the progress of the sleigh, a tradition that is now in its 50th year.

For the last four years, the task has been facilitated by Google Earth. Thanks to Google, busy State Department officials, or those at embassies facilitating Codels, can track the old man's progress on their Blackberries.

One Nation

Today is Veteran's Day in America.

At 1030 this morning, in Arlington National Cemetery, the U.S. Navy Band will strike up, at 11, a wreath will be laid at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, and subsequently, there will be a ceremony in the Memorial Amphitheater.

I will be in Arlington, to place a pebble on my father's grave, and so will Dr. Lester Tenney.

Tank Radio Operator Lester I. Tenney, Company B, 192nd Tank Battalion, Illinois National guard out of Maywood, Illinois. Most recently stationed to Clark Field in 1941, most recently deployed to Lingayan Gulf, on the Bataan Peninsula, in 1942.

Today in Arlington, Private Lester Tenney, the youngest son of Gus and Fannie Tenenberg of 1200 West Sherwin avenue, Chicago, holder of the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, the Combat Infantryman's Badge, three Presidential Unit Citations, and the Prisoner of War Medal, the National Commander of the American Defenders of Bataan and Coregidor, one of the last survivors of the Bataan Death March, will represent that group for the 62nd consecutive time in the ceremonies.

Tenney is 88 years old, and because he lied about his age in order to enlist, is one of the youngest members of the organization. There are less than a hundred left, and they have decided to disband. Tenney was one of the founders of the group, which fought for 63 years to obtain a simple apology from the Japanese. Unlike American POWs of Nazi Germany, who received both apology and restitution, the Bataan Death March survivors (most of whom were also sold into slavery) were neither compensated nor apologized to.

Like many Americans, Lester Irwin Tenenberg (he changed his name to Tenney because that was his nickname in Camp 17) was the son of immigrants. In his case, Jewish immigrants from Germany. Like many former German Jews of that period, his bar mitzva, his Jewish coming of age (normally performed at the age of 13), was delayed by events, and forgotten about.

Last Saturday, at sixteen thirty hours, at Ohev Shalom Talmud Torah Synagogue in Washington DC, I had the privilege of seeing him called to stand at the torah for the very first time. He was accompanied by his stepson and his grandson, and their families. In fact, it was a triple bar mitzva. His stepson Donald Levi (65) and his grandson David levi (39) were called to the torah as well.

It is traditional for the Bar Mitzva Boy to give a short talk on the portion of the torah which was read. In this case, as it would happen, it was Lech Lecha, in which God told Abraham to leave his native land and his father’s house in Ur Kasdim (in Sumaria, now Iraq) for a land that God would show him, and in which Abraham and his family began their long march to Canaan (now in Israel). It was a longer march than Lester's, but, as he pointed out, Abraham had food, water, rest, and his family around him.

The one thing both shared was faith. "A lot of my friends on the death march never came back," Tenney said. "Those of us who survived all prayed to the same God. I never lost my faith in God.”

Nor did he lose his faith in the United States. "We were beaten and starved. We lost track of the time, and of the days, but we knew that one day, somehow, we would get home," he said.

Tenney collects American flags. And he gives them to schools, veterans homes, and other organizations. "The reason we fight is for the love of our flag," Tenney said. "It's a big part of our history and lives have been lost over it. People need to know their history and I intend to tell them."

"When I see our flag," he said, "it still moves me to tears."

Exodus

Digger, in her blog "Life after Jerusalem," shares a recent article from Mother Jones about the exodus of FSOs from the service.

The article touches on a number of themes we have mentioned before: broken promises with regard to the training promised to FSOs who volunteer for Iraq and Afghanistan, failure to reward hardship service, failure to adequately fund our work, and in general, the practice we have described in this blog as making personnel decisions based on "what management can get away with rather than what is right."

The result, according to the article, is an exodus from the Foreign Service, causing a brain drain which can hurt our ability to advance America's interests overseas.

I am a bit older than Digger. Most of my age-mates are in the senior ranks, and one thing I can say for certain. More than half of the FSOs who entered on duty when I did have retired, most on the very first date they were eligible to do so.

They speak not only of promises broken to them, but of a failure by the current administration to use their expertise properly. This has been the first administration in years that, rather than treat FSOs as experts and expert advisers, treats them instead virtually as servants, as pawns whose sole function is to follow orders and carry out policies devised, in many cases, by people with far less Foreign Policy expertise than even a junior-level FSO would possess. A number of those retiring at the first opportunity have gone so far as to let it all hang out in angry speeches on their last day of service. It is sad that, for many senior officers, the only time they feel comfortable telling the current administration what they think is when they are literally hours away from an approved retirement.

During last night's presidential debates, both candidates mentioned the seriousness of situations affecting our relationships not just with Iraq and Iran, but with North Korea and Pakistan as well. In fact, in an era of global trade and regional alliances, when a person on a boat on a Swedish lake can dial a number and talk to a person on a mountain path in Waziristan, when one can walk into an internet cafe in virtually any country on earth and communicate with someone else in virtually any country, every relationship we have with any foreign government or population is serious.

The past eight years have shown us what happens when one ignores some relationships in favor of others, and when one makes decisions based on short-term political goals or narrowly focused political philosophies rather than seeking to build permanent relationships of peace, cooperation and respect with as many countries as possible.

I watched the debate last night with a group of people, most younger than I, and realized again that there are millions of Americans who literally do not remember when America was, as it was in my youth, a universally respected and trusted leader of the world community.

They do not remember when America was truly secure, because even most of our enemies respected not just our military strength but the values we actually stood for.

It is sad when the candidates of both parties have to address an American audience that is more concerned with protecting ourselves from those who hate us than it is with preserving our stature of respected international leadership which many Americans (and even some junior FSOs) literally no longer remember.

Either path (protection by military supremacy or the more difficult path of returning our country to a position of leadership by example)will require more than soundbites and politically correct rhetoric. It will require using the tools we have, letting our experts be experts, and investing money and resources in the agencies which can guide the leadership of our country along a path that both candidates claim they want to follow:

To do what is right for the American people, and not merely what is desired by a percentage of the population.

Every Foreign Service Officer is sworn to serve our nation, and not just our president. We need the resources and leadership to allow us to do that.

Every departing FSO that I have ever seen expresses anger and frustration among their reasons for departing the service. But without exception, every one also honestly regrets that they have been prevented from using their skills to serve our country; which was, for nearly all of us, our primary desire and motivation in joining the Service in the first place.

September Eleventh

Today is September 11, and on this day seven years ago, two thousand nine hundred and seventy three innocent American citizens lost their lives. People died, families lost their loved ones, friends lost friends and colleagues.

It is a day to be remembered for all time. A day for reflection, and introspection, and memory. A day to consider the loss of people from our national life, and a day for their friends and family to know that our country is with them in their grief.

But at the risk of angering many of our readers, I would like to suggest that the nation must move on. This is my opinion. It is not a policy statement by Concerned Foreign Service Officers.

Psychologists like to speak about the five stages of grief: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance. And as a nation, we must continue our path through those stages.

For the past seven years, many of us have been locked in anger. Like the divorced person who harbors a bitter hatred for the opposite sex, we have let that anger affect our dealings not only with other nations, but even with their descendants in our community.

It is not constructive, and in the end, it is harmful to ourselves.

To be very honest, I think, our political leaders have facilitated us in our anger. It is easier to agree that "men/women are all pigs" than it is to be the one who says "it is time to get on with your life." But somebody has to say it.

It is time to get on with our lives.

That does not mean that we forget the loss and horror of this day, or that we should not honor those who died for no reason. This day should always be remembered.

But it is time for America, I think, to look around the world, and to relate to our friends, neighbors and other members of the international community of nations, in a way that is unaffected by the despicable actions of a small number of cowardly murderers.

To dress up again in our good clothes, put a smile on our face, and be the America that we were before that date. To assume again a true place of leadership in the world community.

Before everyone forgets why they used to like us.

And before we forget who we are and what we stand for.

Anger, bitterness, xenophobia and fear, were never before attributes anyone could have ever attributed to the America I grew up with.

Let us put those things back in their place, and move on.

Patriotism

Patriot: From the Greek "Patris," fatherland and "iot", a native person. A person of the fatherland.

In common use these days, a person who defends the fatherland. But it could be anyone who defines him/herself as being of the fatherland and assumes the responsibilities of a native.

It is sad that the current meaning of the word has become narrow and divisive. As if there were rules defining who can and cannot call themselves a patriot. It should not be a club that is difficult to enter.

A soldier is certainly a patriot. But so is anyone who does anything, in any way, in a purposeful effort to improve, advance, develop, protect, feed, educate, house, clothe, or even entertain America. Or to protect the values that our country represents.

Today, on the 232nd anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, America stands more divided than it has ever been in my lifetime.

This might be a good day to reflect on what America really stands for, and what values we want to present to the world.

This might be a good place to start: click

Happy Birthday America.

Why We Don't Just "Soldier Up"

There is a TV show I like called "House." House is the last name of a TV doctor who is brilliant and relentless in his efforts to diagnose the rare and unusual medical conditions that are brought into his life each week.

His intelligence and experience enable him to see things that are not always evident to the hospital administrators, or even to other doctors, and his relentlessness causes him to do things that the administrators do not want him to do. Like order costly tests when there is little evidence that the condition they test for exists. The tests, of course, always confirm what House has already intuited. House has once again saved the patient's life.

In every episode, the hospital administrators are infuriated, and tell House that he is not a team player. Not following their rules. Not getting with the program. Which is that the hospital is a business, in the business of making money, and avoiding lawsuits, and House can't simply waste money or violate protocol chasing every hunch on the off chance that he might save a life.

House, on the other hand, suffers from the delusion that the hospital is in business to save lives. And that the oath he took to save lives means that he is supposed to save them. And he saves them.

If the Washington Times, the second largest newspaper in Washington, were to review "House," they would say this:

"House forgets who he works for. He doesn't understand the terms of his employment. Why doesn't he get another job?"

It is easy for most viewers of the show to understand that House is doing his job, and doing it well. Few would side with the idea that a doctor should do only part of his job, in order to cost his boss less money.

The reason that most viewers side with House is that every viewer has a pretty good idea of what it is that a doctor is supposed to do. And nearly every viewer has personally benefited in some way from what it is a doctor does.

The second annual "let's bash the Foreign Service because of statements made in what was supposed to be a frank and open town hall meeting" festival has begun, and among other the things, the Washington Times has printed a truly disgustingly ill-informed editorial, which is nicely dissected and exposed in the blog "Consul at Arms."

The Times' editorial does not even correctly identify the Director General by his correct title, referring instead to an earlier position he held (although, in fact, during the town hall meeting he did act more like the executive secretary than the DG, I must say.) If the author can't even get the titles straight, that says a lot about the lack of effort that went into writing this drivel.

But the drivel is less important than the fact that enough people believe it to enable the Times' senior editors to want to publish it under their name.

The facts, of course are these:

The concept of directed assignments is not new. It has existed for decades. Every Foreign Service Officer knows that the Department can choose to send them anywhere it wants to.

Directed assignments have never had to be used to staff Iraq, or any other war zone in my memory. Enough FSOs have volunteered for Iraq that there has been no need for directed assignments, and it does not appear that it will be necessary this year either.

What really bothers the Times editors, however, is the idea that there are some FSOs who do not want to go. Although there are enough volunteers to staff Iraq, there are some who do not want to go there. And those FSOs had what the Times editors consider the "unbecoming" gall to actually express their opinions to State Department leadership at a town hall meeting.

They actually told their bosses what they thought, at a meeting that was supposed to involve a frank and open exchange of ideas!!!!

Putting aside the fact that there are enough volunteers to fill our embassy in Iraq, how dare anyone in the employ of the State Department put their own personal safety over our wartime objectives in Iraq?

Why, the Times wonders, do these people simply not "soldier up"?

Well, the short answer is that FSOs are not soldiers, and the Department of State has a great many other priorities besides the war in Iraq.

Yes, we are a country at war.

Yes, Iraq is a very high priority country for current foreign policy.

But we do have embassies in every other country with which we have diplomatic relations, and they need to be staffed too.

The Foreign Service is not the military. We do something completely different. We have a completely different mission to perform for our country.

The official Mission Statement of the State Department is to "Advance freedom for the benefit of the American people by helping to build and sustain a more democratic, secure and prosperous world composed of well-governed states that respond to the needs of their people, Reduce widespread poverty and Act responsibly within the international system."

In plainer English, the State Department has a worldwide mission to advance American interests by promoting peaceful resolution of conflicts; supporting and encouraging governments that respect their citizens; providing aid that enables people of other countries to survive disasters and improves their health, education, and economic situation; assisting American citizens overseas; promoting understanding of the United States; and helping combat destabilizing influences. We promote American trade, we help Americans who find themselves in trouble, and we promote understanding of America through cultural and educational exchange.

That is a different mission than that of the Department of Defense.

The mission of the Department of Defense is "to provide the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of our country."

Period.

I did not write that. It is the official mission statement of the DOD.

So why don't people understand the difference?

Because unlike doctors, and soldiers, we do not directly touch the lives of many Americans, at least not in ways they can see.

Nearly every American has a relative who has either served in the military, or is currently serving. There are certain age groups in America in which nearly everyone of that age has either served or seen most of their friends serve.

The military is visible in every American city and on every college campus, and in many high schools as well. And we have numerous holidays to honor them. Including National Donut Day, which was last Friday, and honors the Salvation Army "Donut Ladies" who brought home cooked meals and donuts to the boys at the Front during WWII.

In contrast, unless they travel overseas, or work in a business that does business in other countries, or have a business that depends on foreign tourists or foreign skilled workers, many Americans simply never think about the State Department at all.

And when they do, apparently, they do so in the context of something far more familiar to them, and often painfully personal. Military service.

If my son, my daughter, my husband, my wife has to go to Iraq to risk their lives for their country, why can't those cowards in the Foreign Service?

Do they consider their lives more precious than that of my son?

No, we do not.

But we do have a choice. And that choice is much, much larger than "either serve or quit."

We can fulfill the mission of the State Department, and serve the American people, and do the jobs we were hired to do, in one of the 270 other embassies and consulates that are not in Iraq.

Unlike the military, and particularly the military of your youth, or of your father's days of service, our normal assignment system is based primarily on individual preference.

We are not usually assigned at the discretion of our leadership. They have the right to do so, but it occurs very rarely, and only when necessary.

There is a reason for this, and it has to do with more than personal safety.

We serve America best by being experts in certain subject areas. We speak foreign languages. We know foreign histories and politics. We are able to move easily in foreign cultures. We can interact with counterparts in foreign governments.

Believe it or not, though, very few of us can do all of those things in every country on earth. Few of us speak more than three or four foreign languages. Many of us are experts on one culture, or one part of the world, and not on others.

The skills required of a soldier are roughly the same no matter where that soldier is sent. While it may be helpful for a soldier to know the local language or be familiar with local customs, it is not an absolute requirement.

For those who are serving in the armed forces, service in Iraq is the fulfillment of everything they are trained to do. Their job, their real job, is to fight America's wars. And service in a war zone is the price they must pay for their training, and their peace-time employment, whether they want to go there or not.

There are many FSOs, experts in Arab countries, possessing of some military experience, able to speak Arabic, for whom Iraq is also the ideal post. The post that makes the best use of their skills, for the benefit of the American people.

For many other FSOs, however, service in Iraq would be a waste. Not of our lives, but of our skills. Forcing us to serve in Iraq would take us away from postings where we could use one hundred percent of our skills, and where those skills would most benefit the American people, and force us to go to a post where we have far fewer skills to contribute. Where we are less able to serve at the level we might serve somewhere else.

So, given that Iraq has been, and will continue to be filled by volunteers, many of whom possess directly relevant skills and abilities, why not let those who have other skills and abilities serve where they are more useful?

The Foreign Service is not the military. And comparisons to the military are ill-informed.

It is unfortunate that our leadership has not stepped up to clarify that fact.

It is appalling when the second largest newspaper in our nation's capitol is incapable of telling the difference.