CIA honors Nathan Ross Chapman 13 years later
Our buddy, Thomas Gibbons-Neff, writes at the Washington Post about Sergeant First Class Nathan Ross Chapman, the first casualty of the war against terror and how the Central Intelligence Agency has finally paid their respects to the Special Forces commo sergeant 13 years after his death.
Chapman’s death was a watershed event for a country that didn’t know it was headed into a seemingly endless war, where the news of those lost would turn into a kind of white noise for many Americans. The first of its kind in Afghanistan, his death drew national attention, including a televised funeral.
Much of Chapman’s story and that of the secret agency team he was assigned to has never been told, and the agency continues to say nothing about him.
At a ceremony at CIA headquarters on May 18, 2015, the agency unveiled an engraved marble star to mark his death in the line of service, but like many others in the wall’s accompanying Book of Honor, his name was left absent. The addition of that star for service in 2002 prompted The Post to examine the background to the honor, and why it had taken so long to be conferred.
It’s a rather long article, so instead of me C&Ping it, you should click over and read it.
Category: We Remember
Sadness for your loss, Brother.
Yup, I first posted this in the weekend open thread a few days ago.
Good reading.
Rest in peace, Soldier. You’ve earned it.
“We should thank God that such men lived.”
One minor quibble, Chapman may have been the first military KIA in Afghanistan, but the first American KIA is generally considered to have been CIA paramilitary officer and former Marine captian Johnny Micheal Spann, who was killed in Mazar i Sharif in November 2001.
RIP to both brave men.
“Captian” = captain.
It’s Monday.
I am glad that Chapman has been spotlighted. His father is grateful and that means much. I wish that every single one of our Fallen could be similarly spotlighted, not as a political exercise but as a way to celebrate the lives that once were. As for the story itself, I don’t know that “Chapman’s death was a watershed event” at all. If it was a significant turning point of some sort, how it was goes unexplained. And then there is this from the writer, Neff: “[T]he news of those lost would turn into a kind of white noise for many Americans.” White noise to drown out sound, to lull people to sleep, the therapeutic white noise? I don’t get it. If he means that the American public was largely indifferent to the war that oBaMa said was the right one to fight, the media should appreciate that we are reliant on them for our information. So, if military deaths are ignored or noted on page 16, who, exactly is producing the so-called white noise?
By the way he phrased it, Neff very carefully shifted the blame of the ignored fallen to the American public. The news media types will never blame themselves for anything to do with their profession if they can help it.
Every time I read something like this, I remember the picture from Africa of the starving child with the vulture standing over him, waiting for him to die. The Pulitzer prize-winning photographer took that photo and walked away from that dying child. THAT is the image I get of news media types with stories like this.
Actually, in this case the public shares a huge part of the blame.
After about 2005, the US public indeed pretty much “tuned out” the War on Terror. Only those with a direct military connection seemed to give a damn any more. It was a standing “dark humor” joke in theater: “The military went to war; America went to the mall.”
All the media was doing when they started back-burnering reports from Iraq and Afghanistan during that time frame was give the American public what it wanted. It was the public that demanded stories about the Kardashians and American Idol in preference to actual news. And the press still exists to make money, so they decided to give the US public what it wanted.
That’s not the way I see it. The media have a tremendous influence on opinion. What the media choose to cover and what they choose not to cover is as influential as how they cover those items they do. Benghazi was buried by all but one of the Bigs, Fox. The Clinton email fiasco is not pursued. I can go on with many examples. No one wants to be hit again and again with bad news but some of us who were around in the 60s saw what impact media had on the VN War. That sort of scrutiny seemed to go oput the window after, oh, 2008. To the extent that the TV news is just another show, giving the people what they want, I guess there’s some truth in that. However, as Madison Ave types know too well, people can be taught what they want. Here, have a Coke.
The public “tuning out” of media stories concerning Iraq and Afghanistan started well before 2008, 2/17 Air Cav. It started well before the Iraq surge, and possibly even before Fallujah in 2005.
The media did not create that; they continued to cover the war. The US public – who in general don’t know anyone in the military these days – simply quit caring.
Why? Because they didn’t know anyone affected. No one was getting drafted; few people join the military as youngsters any more. By and large, they simply had no contact with the military.
Sure, they heard that US personnel were getting hurt and killed. But by and large they didn’t personally know anyone affected by the war. So they had no “skin in the game” – and thus didn’t care.
Only a tiny fraction of the US population serves in the military these days. Hell, I’ll go out on a limb and say most younger Americans may not even know anyone who’s served – only about 7% of the population (approx 22M) these days are vets, and many of those vets are now aged.
There are some disadvantages of having a volunteer, standing professional military. One of those disadvantages is that they can be sent off some place far away to fight a war – and promptly forgotten while the rest of the nation gets back to watching reality TV.
Just like happened around a decade ago.
I remember that photo. From what I recall the photographer ended up committing suicide later; partly due to his part in watching the child die and the backlash from it.
According to his bio, the writer of the WaPo piece is a former Marine, and it’s doubtful if he meant “white noise” in a derogatory sense. The intent was probably along the lines of the Stalin quote that one death is a tragedy and millions are a statistic.
There’s also something strange about the idea that the news media has somehow failed because the CIA chose not to reveal the circumstances of Chapman’s death. From the CIA’s point of view, to reveal such circumstances is to risk the revelation of methods which may jeopardize the larger mission. The public may need to know the facts of certain things, but it doesn’t always need to know the specific details particulary if one good outweighs the other.
My own view is that Chapman was probably a stand-up guy who was very good at a demanding and dangerous occupation. He also chose such an occupation knowing that it was unlikely to receive public recognition. In the clandestine world more often than not, if your activities become known, it means you’ve screwed up. Sometimes the reward isn’t a parade.
Possibly. I’d guess it was in the sense of obscuring something else, like noise on an AM radio does to a AM radio station’s signal.
White noise (or other forms of relatively constant noise) is often used as masking agents in certain environments. In particular, it’s used in certain sleep-aid machines to mask background noise (or, alternatively, provide a constant “drone” which some people find preferable to silence). It then lulls the user to sleep.
“There’s also something strange about the idea that the news media has somehow failed because the CIA chose not to reveal the circumstances of Chapman’s death.” Was that Neff’s position?
2/17 Air Cav – “So, if military deaths are ignored or noted on page 16, who, exactly is producing the so-called white noise?”
Pinto Nag – “By the way he phrased it, Neff very carefully shifted the blame of the ignored fallen to the American public. The news media types will never blame themselves for anything to do with their profession if they can help it.”
The failure would be if the news media was aware of the circumstances of Chapman’s death and chose to ignore it. This isn’t what happened. How do you build a story if you have nothing to base it on?
Indeed. Chapman’s death was widely reported at the time it occurred; his funeral a week afterwards received national coverage. What wasn’t reported then were the details of his team’s mission.
By military deaths, I did not have Chapman in mind at all. I was referring to how the media have dealt with the affects of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. Neff’s reference to white noise I do not understand, as I wrote. It makes no sense, given what white noise is. I therefore was forced to speculate that he might be referring to public indifference. If so, I see the media having a big part in that, as I explained in my response to Hondo’s comment, if that helps.
I’m glad SFC Chapman’s family were provided more details regarding his ultimate sacrifice and that he was officially recognized at Langley. You can never have to many SF Commo men.
Rest Well and in Peace
We never forget
????????????
See you at the Joint south of The Point, Brother.
Hot Wings/Cold Beers/Hot Women/Cool Tunes.
Don’t forget to check your Cape and Six Guns at the door.