OUR SPONSORS







Straight Shooter

Courtesy of USASOC

“Let’s fucking do it again!”

A voice called for another round of whiskey shots. My belly still burned from the last toast, so I excused myself from the table. Navigating a maze of chiseled muscles, square jaws, and long stares, I escaped to the pisser.

Waiting in line, I watched two young men with military-style crew cuts and white baseball caps, brims flat and turned backward, argue at the sink. One held the other’s shirt collar.

“Calm down, bro,” he pleaded.

“He can’t do that shit to us,” the other said. “We’re in the Army too.”

“Dude,” the first shook his head and patted his friend on the chest.

“He’s with 2-75. Just let it go.”



• • •


In February, I traveled to Fort Lewis, Washington to write about the redeployment experience of the 2nd Battalion of the fabled 75th Ranger Regiment, just home from Afghanistan. Conventional Army units deploy for 12 months at a time before returning home for another year or so, but the Rangers’ rotations tend to last only 3–6 months, with far less stateside time between deployments.

My old college buddy was in Fort Lewis, back from his last deployment. Captain Ted Janis, a 2-75 platoon leader, had spent seventeen months in Iraq and ten in Afghanistan, leading regular infantry soldiers and then Rangers in combat. I remembered him as a lanky teenager with a black hole for a stomach. Two years with the Rangers had turned him into a brawny colossus.

I asked Janis how Ranger culture differed from that of a regular Army combat unit, such as the one in which I had served.

“We’re elite,” he began. “Everyone had to earn their place here. So motivation is never an issue. The mission set is much more specific. And the deployment cycle is so different, I think that changes everything, from our mindsets to family dynamics to how we interact with the community.”

“How so?” I asked as we drove through the empty streets of Tacoma one late afternoon.

“Some of my guys have deployed nine, ten times,” Janis explained. “With us, we’re always kind of over there.”

“You think that’s a good thing?”

Janis laughed. “It’s just a thing. We’re used to it. Whether people like it or not, someone is going to do what we do. Someone always has.”

Though designed as a light infantry force for airfield seizures, the Rangers have seen their purpose morph over the course of the war on terrorism. As Iraq and Afghanistan have become more guerrilla wars than traditional conflicts, kill-or-capture raids on high value targets have become essentially the Rangers’ sole raison d’être. 2-75ers joked that “vampires see more light than a deployed Ranger,” emphasizing the nocturnal nature of their missions.

Most of the Rangers I spoke to seemed unconcerned about their constant deployment cycle—a part of the profession, they said, and a known one at that. Not everyone agrees. A patron at a local bar described the Rangers as “war addicts”; I asked some of the members of 2-75 what they thought of the label.

“It probably applies to some of the guys,” one said, “but not many.”

A longtime girlfriend of a 2-75 soldier, who asked not to be identified for fear of upsetting her boyfriend’s commander, told me, “Of course they’re all addicted to war.”



• • •


Another night, another bar. This one in the Fremont neighborhood of Seattle. A drunk Ranger officer found out that I was a writer and staggered up to me.

“You’re gonna do a story about us?” he asked.

“Going to try.”

“Write this down,” he told me, so I pulled out my notebook. “Fuck all of these people.” He pointed at the other people in the bar. “They have no idea. No fucking idea.”

I nodded my head in agreement. I was bitter when I came back too, and still am sometimes. “That’s true. But it’s not really their fault, you know? Just a product of the times.”

The Ranger officer shook his head. “Fuck them. Write that down.”




Post this page to: del.icio.us Yahoo! MyWeb Digg reddit Furl Blinklist Spurl

Comments

1 |
Hopefully I can speak for the majority of us when I say that drunk officer does NOT deserve to wear my scrolls. Ask an NCO and regardless of the intoxication level he will say the same.....Yeah, the people all around you don't know what you've done for them, seen in the line of duty, and sacrificed in the name of freedom. That's what makes Rangers ELITE. Lets also take a quick look at the officers. They transfer in and out of the regiment so quickly that many young rangers never even realize they were there. Dont get me wrong, there are a few officers that come into BN and make an impression. Though they are few and far between. Officers, though they go through a selection process, typically come to RGT to add another bullet to their ORB. They come in, do their two years as a PL and then get sent back out to the big army. It does not surprise me one bit to hear an officer who has more than like not deployed more than 3 times, one of which he was the JOC day battle captain.....(does nothing really). Another characteristic well known of the douche bag officers that we sometimes get..... ARROGANCE to the highest degree. Only someone that has been at the RGT for a short time and knows they are on the way out would have the audacity to say "Fuck Them. Write that down." No sir, I say fuck him. He obviously has no idea what it means to be a real RANGER. He may have the Tab, and gotten fortunate enough to know someone to pull strings and help get him to the RGT but he will NEVER know the true meaning of the word RANGER. Other than that ass and the obviously dim-witted girlfriend this was a great read.
— posted 08/22/2011 at 13:06 by Cerberus
2 |
seconded
I'd like to second Cerberus's assessment of the drunk Ranger officer quoted at the end of the article. That guy doesn't speak for us, and in fact, he had probably just finished his first or second out of two short tours of duty with 2/75. Any junior guy or senior NCO would express a completely different sentiment than "Fuck them." I, for one, go to bars just to be around people unconnected with the military and to talk about non-military things. I consider myself a proud member of the general public, not some higher warrior-class.

Rangers are elite, but they're generally quiet professionals, not elitists. If we go to a bar, we go to blend in, not showboat. For an officer - who has a higher standard of professionalism (and probably a govt funded college education and twice-than-average paycheck) - to say something like that to a journalist is embarrassing and infuriating.
— posted 08/23/2011 at 00:13 by Tacoma Hell
3 |
Ranger "Addiction"
This Ranger was not addicted; he told me, that He was blessed to be able to serve this country after being blessed to be born in it.
I quote a Ranger Brother of William Aaron Barr:
Rick McCuan on my son's memorial (Facebook 8/21/11)
Aaron, yours is truly a story of inspiration. Afforded every opportunity in life to pursue wealth and happiness, you opted instead to join us. You answered a call that less than one-half of one percent of Americans are willing to answer, and you answered it at the tip of the spear. Your service, not to your country, but to your brothers in arms will never be forgotten, and on this night, that is how we will remember you. I count myself fortunate to have had the privilege of both knowing and serving with you and with men like you. My prayers are with your wife and your family. May they find peace in the knowledge that you touched so many in such a short time on this earth. At ease, Ranger. Your fight is finished. RLTW.
— posted 08/23/2011 at 12:07 by Robert Barr
4 |
Curious
curious if Gallagher's full piece contains any run ins with Staff Sergeant Jared Hagemann.

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Widow-says-Army-wont-give-her-husband-military-burial-128213383.html

I am sure there is more to the story, but what a great tragedy.
— posted 08/23/2011 at 13:31 by Old School
5 |
found more on this at Time, here's the link if you haven't seen it - http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2011/08/16/a-rangers-life-between-combat-tours/

Great article!
— posted 08/23/2011 at 15:07 by cheddar bob
6 |
Yeah, and the politicians are addicted to spending.
— posted 08/23/2011 at 23:22 by jorod
7 |
The officer was obviously drunk and despite what others say here, I can understand his sentiment. We often got back from deployment and were sometimes greeted with a "Fuckin' Rangers are back" attitude. Savannah is a good deal smaller than Seattle and you could see us out in mass before and after deployments downtown. I've dated girls that went to an expensive art school, didn't work a part-time job and would spew anti-military jargon. It could get to you sometimes and "Fuck them" was just a knee-jerk reaction. I never expressed this though. Service was just a job, and one I was happy to do, but it was one where buddies sometimes didn't come home and it could get to you when people were less than appreciative of those individuals sacrifices.

RIP SGT Barr, I served with him when he was in A-2 before he left for D co.
— posted 08/24/2011 at 01:20 by Chemlight Battery
8 |
Nice piece, Mr. Gallagher. It's always fascinating to peak into the barracks.

Chemlight Battery: your disparagement of "anti-military jargon" is dispiriting. A lot of people have genuine and well-reasoned concerns about how the U.S. military operates. And those concerns should go to the level of individual service members. We have an all-volunteer military: how much respect can I have for service members who volunteer to participate in warmaking operations that are clearly detrimental to national security, the economy, and the national reputation, not to mention are unjustified by any reasonable moral standard? I appreciate the desire to serve, but I think service members should be held accountable for their voluntary decision to join in needless slaughter. I would like to find something honorable in what U.S. armed forces do—after all, I pay for it—but I'm not going to shut my mouth and kowtow as though service members are not responsible for the wars they actually fight. The sacrifice is self-induced, and it is tragic because the volunteer wastes his higher ideals promoting the will of the greedy and powerful.

Bottom line, because we have a volunteer service, service members are legitimate targets for the anger of those opposed to our mistaken war efforts.
— posted 08/24/2011 at 15:56 by 12345
9 |
An eloquent arguement doesn't make you right.
12345: If you haven't been showered with buzzword-laden, CNN-fueled anti-war slogans from ignorant psuedo-intellectuals that know only what they see on television, then I don't expect you to understand Chemlight Battery's point. Your failure to understand doesn't make him wrong, though. The fact is, the pendulum has swung back, and it is now en vogue to support anti-war sentiment, and many previous supporters of the war effort are now detractors (and they were likely embarassingly ignorant as to their own motivations in both cases). I have been to both theaters, and I have seen ample reason for us to be there. Special Operators kill or capture the worst individuals the insurgency and terror networks have to offer, and based on recovered intelligence that I have touched with my owns hands, I have no doubt that they would be killing us here if we weren't killing them there. As the protector of my family, that is reason enough for me. Our battlefields are homes and neighborhoods, so there is no longer room for idealism in war. Just because our grandfathers' wars were fought on battlefields, that doesn't make those wars any more noble, or this any more unjust. The fact is, the United States has never been entirely forthcoming with the common man about their reasons for entering into any war in their history (see: Civil War, the), and I have no problem with that, since the general public has no sense of personal sacrifice or common good. Take your general, sweeping statements and condescending judgement elsewhere.
— posted 08/24/2011 at 21:00 by Box Of Grid Squares
10 |
"General public has no sense..."
To Box of Grid Squares,

You complain about sweeping statements and condescending judgment, AND say "the general public has no sense of personal sacrifice or common good".

You could stand to open your eyes a bit wider.
— posted 09/10/2011 at 12:43 by Joe
11 |
"Legitimate targets of anger"
12345: People are certainly allowed to have their well reasoned concerns about the wars that their country fights. In fact, it's that very idea which we service members fight for.

Your statement that we "participate in warmaking operations that are clearly detrimental to national security, the economy, and the national reputation, not to mention are unjustified by any reasonable moral standard" presumes a great deal. I could argue that the current war enhances national security (quite convincingly), that the economy crashed for reasons outside of our foreign policy (big business practices?), that our national reputation, while hurt in some areas, is enhanced in others, and that your chosen moral standard is less reasonable than you think.

That's the beauty of America. We're all entitled to believe what we wish. Perhaps some believe that the best way to end a war is to fight it well, and seek to achieve that goal by joining the service and doing just that. You seem to assume that they're joining to revel in the war itself, but I think that sort of misses the point of war all together. Wars are fought to be won.

So we find ourselves citizens of a nation at war. Some, like yourself, argue that the war is unjust and we should back out of it, leave it be. Others, like myself and my fellow Rangers outlined in this article, believe we should win the war in order to preserve the very right which you are now exercising. The right to dissent.

So whether you agree or not with what service members are DOING, you should at least be grateful to them for what they are attempting to preserve. That being said, I couldn't care less whether or not you appreciate what we're trying to do for you, I'll do it for you anyway. That's just the kind of guy I am.
— posted 10/11/2011 at 02:08 by PRC E6
12 |
Re
Rangers are elite, but they're generally quiet professionals, not elitists. If we go to a bar, we go to blend in, not showboat. For an officer - who has a higher standard of professionalism (and probably a govt funded college education and twice-than-average paycheck) - to say something like that to a journalist is embarrassing and infuriating.
— posted 01/09/2012 at 05:57 by Kim
13 |
Re
I'd like to second Cerberus's assessment of the drunk Ranger officer quoted at the end of the article. That guy doesn't speak for us, and in fact, he had probably just finished his first or second out of two short tours of duty with 2/75. Any junior guy or senior NCO would express a completely different sentiment than "Fuck them." I, for one, go to bars just to be around people unconnected with the military and to talk about non-military things. I consider myself a proud member of the general public, not some higher warrior-class.
— posted 01/09/2012 at 05:57 by Peter
14 |
Re
They transfer in and out of the regiment so quickly that many young rangers never even realize they were there. Dont get me wrong, there are a few officers that come into BN and make an impression. Though they are few and far between. Officers, though they go through a selection process, typically come to RGT to add another bullet to their ORB. They come in, do their two years as a PL and then get sent back out to the big army. It does not surprise me one bit to hear an officer who has more than like not deployed more than 3 times, one of which he was the JOC day battle captain.....(does nothing really). Another characteristic well known of the douche bag officers that we sometimes get..... ARROGANCE to the highest degree. Only someone that has been at the RGT for a short time and knows they are on the way out would have the audacity to say "Fuck Them. Write that down." No sir, I say fuck him. He obviously has no idea what it means to be a real RANGER. He may have the Tab, and gotten fortunate enough to know someone to pull strings and help get him to the RGT but he will NEVER know the true meaning of the word RANGER. Other than that ass and the obviously dim-witted girlfriend this was a great read.
— posted 01/09/2012 at 06:00 by kim
15 |
truth
2/75 rangers are little boys who get away with murder. The culture is completely immoral. They are known for womanizing, duis, domestic violence, bar fights and enjoying kills. They all need counseling.
— posted 07/23/2012 at 00:18 by anon
Name
E-mail (Will not appear online)
Title
Comment
To prevent automated Bots from spamming, please enter the text you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.



Powered by Comment Script
del.ici.ous  stumbleUpon  Reddit  Facebook    Digg   RSS Feed Icon

About the Author

Matt Gallagher served 15 months in Iraq with the U.S. Army as an armored cavalry officer and is author of the war memoir Kaboom. He is at work on a larger project on the Rangers.

Nir Rosen, Something from Nothing

Tara McKelvey, God, the Army, and PTSD


   



Boston Review Newsletter