Bill Adams, a passionate activist for peace, ponders the death of his son in the Iraq war
It was Thursday evening December 1, 2005. My wife answered the phone.When she collapsed on the floor I knew it could only be one thing. The casualty detail had just left Marilyn, Brent’s wife, and she called to let us know. So when the doorbell rang a few minutes later, we knew who it was. We led the two National Guardsmen to our family room where they told us what we already knew.”
That was how Bill Adams, a passionate activist for peace, received the death of his son, Brent, in the war against Iraq—a war which still rages in spite of a reduction in the number of U.S. troops--while Nobel Peace Prize winner President Barack Obama has stepped up Washington’s participation in the war against Afghanistan. No observers of the international scene dare predict if or when peace will replace war as a priority on Washington’s agenda.
In describing his own upbringing, Bill says his parents “were hard working people who lived through the great depression,” and they were my only role models. They also followed the popular paradigm of child rearing, ‘children should be seen and not heard.’ This set the stage for the slogans from that era such as “don’t trust anyone over thirty;” also causing metaphors in rejection of your parent’s values such as “kill your parents” to hit home. I sometimes wonder what path my life might have taken if that had not occurred.”
A generation later, amid another depression, there appears to be no end to war in sight. In a recent interview with Jaquematepress, Mr. Adams tries to come to terms with the tragic fate of his son and what it means to live in a country in which war is a common denominator of social, political and cultural life.
“How did you react to the death of your son?”
“I was blindsided by it. I don’t live in a world shaped by fear. When we spoke on the phone Brent would tell me not to worry about him. He was a SFC in charge of the motor pool at camp Ar Ramadi. Ramadi was a Sunni insurgent stronghold at that time. The city was under insurgent control--unlike the perception the US Army commander Major General Rick Lynch tried to portray in the media. There is whole story about how my sons’ death was reported to the media to support the propaganda Lynch was spreading. Part of this story has appeared on Michael Moore’s website: http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latest-news-father-stillwaits-for-answers-on-sons-death-in-Iraq
“What information did you receive about the activities of your son in the war?”
“Brent told me he only would go “outside the wire” about twice a week to drive a Bradley on a supply run and if his Bradley ran over an IED most times it would kill the passenger and not the driver. He also told me he could tell when something was going to happen. The activity in the town, people going about their normal business in Ramadi, would cease and all would be quiet. There were few servicemen with licenses to drive Bradley vehicles in Camp Ar Ramadi so when a mission came up for the Marines requiring someone to drive a Bradley, Brent volunteered. The mission was to drive a Bradley vehicle for the Marines to a site where the US was building a camp for Iraqi soldiers. Scott Pew, one of my son’s men, had worked many hours and was tired so my son took his place so he would not have to drive. After returning to the states, Scott named his new born son Brent Adam Pew in honor of what my son did for him.”
“Do you think your son suspected danger?”
“From the lack of activity as he drove down the street my son must have known something was about to happen. A youngster was seen waving a white flag from a rooftop right before an anti-tank weapon was remotely fired. It was the first known incident of a remotely fired antitank weapon being used in Iraq. The round went though the passenger side door of the vehicle passing over the legs of Marine LT. Ray Barone, causing injuries later requiring the amputation of both his legs. It hit my son in the pelvis severing his femoral artery. He died shortly after being hit.”
“What was your initial reaction when told of Brent’s death?”
“I stared blindly into space as my mind tried to process what had happened. My son was dead. As I mentioned previously, I don’t live in a fear driven world. I don’t dwell on what can possibly happen other than to consider the likely hood of its occurrence. The number of US troops in Iraq was in excess of 160,000 and the number killed was less that 4,000 at the time so I felt the odds were low of his being killed. After the initial shock, so many thoughts rushed through my mind it was not possible to focus on any one, it was a blur. It was a surreal scene: the casualty detail refused our offers to sit, preferring that they stand while Pam and I sat on the couch not saying much of anything as our minds raced.”
“But you did have to deal with the details, bringing Brent’s body home…”
“The immediate concern was getting his remains home and organizing the services in Pittsburgh where he lived with his wife and son. The weather was bad at the time and flights were canceled due to snow and the dates of when his remains would be arriving in Dover, Delaware, changed constantly. We thought we had a firm date so services were scheduled with the church and mortuary but then the family received a call saying the weather may delay the flight to a later time and it was suggested we go ahead with the service using a closed empty casket.”
“That must have greatly disturbed you.”
Of course we were outraged and about the time I learned this, I received a condolence call from Congressman Joe Pitts’ office so I relayed what was happening to the family in regards to Brent’s remains. Within the hour his office called back with the flight number, times, dates and the name, and cell phone number of the person accompanying the remains. Compounding this terrible time was the report by Major General Rick Lynch, informing the nation there wasn’t any insurgent activity in Ramadi on Thursday. He reported one RPG was fired but there were no US causalities. That directly refuted video shots released by insurgents showing they had free will to do as they pleased in Ramadi on Thursday. My family viewed this newscast and was dumb struck. We had a faint hope it was all a mistake since there on TV was Major General Rick Lynch, the spokesmen for the Multi-Divisional force in Iraq, saying there weren’t any casualties in Ramadi on Thursday. But in our hearts we knew Brent had been killed.”
“What kind of person was your son?”
“We heard stories from several of Brent’s friends concerning the type of person he was. He was a selfless individual, always smiling and friendly,who consistently volunteered to help those who needed relief from overwork (10 to 12 hour shifts were the norm) and was always smiling and friendly. But from my perspective based on our phone conversations, I could feel his spirit being slowly drained away. One of his local friends told us of a conversation he had with Brent at his going away party. He told him he was afraid of ultimately hating Iraqis, as is the fate of most soldiers when they go to war against an enemy and this enemy does not wear a uniform. Brent was the president of his church council and a religious person doing much individual study. I learned much about the type of person my son was after his death through these stories and remembrances of others.
“What impact has the death of your son had on you and others?
Well, I believe it is important because when (ex president) George Bush came to town he invited the parents of five other servicemen whose lives were lost to a private meeting, prior to his public appearance. A reporter, I believe from the New York Times, did a story suggesting Bush’s advance team screened the attendees and I was excluded due to my anti-war stance. Also, I feel many of Brent’s fellow soldiers kept their distance from me because of my anti-war stance. It seems coverage of my anti-war activities made the rounds back in Ramadi, Iraq. The army is simply a tool to be wielded by the commander in chief. Most people can’t make the dichotomy between the tool and the one who commands its use. If you don’t support the war, you don’t support the troops, they say.”
“Who is to blame?”
“The only culpability for my situation resides with Bush & company. My son took an oath to obey the President when he joined the National Guard. He told me he was a man of principle and he would obey that oath. The armed services are probably the archetypical example of an organization that is top down driven. The president is the commander in chief, the decision maker. The objective, the goal comes from the top down. There is no “push back” from below. That was the reason I was skeptical of the significance of the impact the Iraqi Veterans against the War would have. While I was encouraged by their formation and efforts to end the war, I did not think they would play a major role, as many did. The service deeply ingrains that top down, obey your commander type of environment in its ranks. The commissioned officers who display qualities deemed superior to their fellow officers are the ones who get the promotion to the next higher rank. Their hearts and minds need to be in the right place to get those promotions so the whole process has the effect of only allowing those who think and feel the “correct” way to attain higher positions, as is the case of Major General Rick Lynch.”
“Do you think your pro peace views influenced the way you were treated?”
“Being of a pro-peace/anti-war mindset places you at odds with those that believe you hate America and do not support the troops. They simply cannot differentiate between the tool and its wielder. They do not embrace the principle one of our greatest presidents articulated when he said: “To announce that there must be no critics of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American people.” (Theodore Roosevelt, 1918.) Bush set the stage for that type of thinking with his “You are either with us or against us” rhetoric during a speech he made in November of 2001. False dichotomies are one of the rhetorical tools used to manipulate the masses.”
“What sort of impact did this have on you?”
“This impacted me personally by the palpable distance Brent’s fellow service people have kept between them and me. They are much more receptive to Barbara, Brent’s mother, who became the national treasurer and the regional president of Gold Star Mothers. She found a new identity in Brent’s death and devotes most of her time to ceremonies and projects for fallen soldiers. In contrast, my sentiments which originated during the mid to late sixties were anti-war/peace. The most overt incident took place at a motorcycle ride shortly after Brent’s death, held to raise funds for a scholarship fund in Brent’s name at his Alma Mater. I was introducing myself to the attendees, one of them a tall muscular Harley rider dressed in leathers. He told me he had served with Brent in Ramadi and they all knew who I was, as they were updated on my activities here in the states while they were still serving in Ramadi and he didn’t say it in an amicable tone. Maybe this feeling is a bit manufactured on my part but still it hurts because they can’t rise above that “I don’t support the troops” mentality since I spoke out against the war and Bush.”
“It must have been extremely difficult to come to terms with such an antagonistic attitude…”
“Yes indeed. When things would be on my mind I sometimes would have difficulty falling asleep. But I had a “comforting thought” that would never fail. Thinking it would always put me to sleep, a sort of personalized “counting sheep” method.” I was always a backpacker, hiking for days through what is left of the PA state forests. On occasion I used to take Brent along as he shared my love of the natural world. One trip when he was young, around 10 or 11, we were camped on a plateau on the top of a mountain when at night a ferocious thunderstorm passed directly through our camp.”
“That must have been a rather frightening experience.”
“Yes. You have never experienced a thunderstorm unless you are in a tent with the rain pounding and the lightening crashing within a few hundred feet of your location. Brent, obviously scared, pushed his body against mine in the sleeping bag and I placed my arm around him and held him tight. Without a word passing between us we spooned until the storm passed and he and I fell asleep. It was the remembrance of that feeling that always managed to help me fall asleep. His death robbed me of that “comforting thought.” Thank you George Bush.”
“In your opinion what are the political and economic factors involved in this and other wars that have characterized U.S. history?”
“When I was schooled in macroeconomics there was a model, “guns versus butter,” that roughly correlates the country’s GDP in terms of the quantity produced of war and defense materials (guns) varying inversely to the quantity of all the other stuff (butter). I am by no means a person who scrutinizes every bit of news but I don’t recall this concept being a direct part of the national debate either in the recent past nor currently publicized by the corporate media. One possible explanation is both the Republicans and the Democrats at a implicit level recognize the value of keeping war ongoing and tacitly seek to keep the status quo, involving the US in a continual war. Drawing attention to the enormous inequity in this country’s spending by popularizing that model thereby adding that concept to the mix is not in their best interest.”
“That is, the so-called military-industrial complex…”
“I looked at the Wikipedia’s estimate of all military related expense for 2010 and it is somewhere between eight hundred and eighty billion dollars and slightly over one trillion dollars. It is a source of personal amazement that there is little debate accompanying approving spending this amount of money when compared to the all partisan warfare this country experienced with the ten billion dollars per year cost of the health insurance bill.”
“That’s what they call the ‘War on Terror,’ isn’t it?”
“As I pointed out previously, the Bush administration did a remarkable job naming this the ‘War on Terror.’ It accomplished so much in just three words. It defines a war that can never be won, it evokes fear in people to the point they will give up basic civil rights to support it, it facilitates gross inequities in national spending with little or no debate, and it subliminally sets up the false dichotomy in people’s minds: ‘If you are against the war on terror, then you must support the terrorists.’ It was a masterful choice, killing so many birds with just one stone.”
“What about President Obama? Where does he stand in all of this?”
“Obama inherited the war and he needed to provide a superficial action for those who voted for him, because a time table to end the war in Iraq was a major plank in his platform. He officially ended the US combat mission in Iraq but left 50,000 “advisers” there. I have a memory of military advisers in a country somewhere else in the U.S. past. (Vietnam). Apparently perception is reality for so many of us. But Obama added approximately 68,000 troops in the escalation of the war in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is one of those countries that have been almost perpetually at war for the past 200 years, so it aligns itself well with the ‘continual war’ concept. George Orwell’s book isn’t a novel but rather appears to be an instructive text for the management of a nation’s populace. For example, the inheritance tax for estates in excess of $3.5 million is called the ‘death tax’ by right-wingers. I see in that something approximating ‘newspeak.’ So when you pull your perception of this grand pattern up and view it from a few miles high it isn’t hard to connect the dots and see how the strings are being pulled. Not as an explicit plan, but one assimilated by the ones drawn to that level of power, IMHO.
Contact: Bill Adams: badams048@gmail.com
