Response to Donald Trump's comment on the Khan Family

Dear Representative Greg Walden,

On July 28^th, Mr. Khizr Khan took the stage at the Democratic National Convention.  He spoke in memory of his son, US Army Captain Humayun Khan, killed in service to this country.  I can only imagine the courage it takes as a gold star family to stoically take the stage at such an event.  As a veteran myself, I have lost several friends.  I attended more funerals before the age of 30 than most Americans will attend in their lifetime.  None were direct family members, yet I still have a hard time talking about them without breaking down.  Watching the Khan family on stage that night, I was in awe of not only Mr. Khan’s articulate nature, but also Mrs. Ghazala Khan’s ability to remain composed while faced with images of her dead child. 

Party conventions are historically a time for pomp and parade, and appeals to patriotism.  They tug at our emotional connection to this country and call upon the values that have allowed America to continue to develop into a truly great nation.  And while you may disagree with Mr. Khan’s endorsement for president, you cannot deny the sacrifices of his family, nor claim that his son was not part of what makes America great. 

However Mr. Walden, the nominee of your party doesn’t see it this way.  Mr. Donald Trump stated that his sacrifice of money is equal to that of a human life.  He ridiculed a grieving mother for her emotion, belittling her faith in the process.  This is a man who believes he is qualified to be the Commander in Chief of armed services, and preserve the Constitution, a document that protects the Khan’s freedom to worship in this country.  If my time serving in combat as an officer in the United States Marine Corps taught me anything, it is that the most important qualities in a commander are humility and empathy.  You must know the individuals you are leading into war and recognize that behind each political decision is a group of human beings required to carry it out.  Mr. Trump has shown time and time again that he lacks both the temperament and the breadth of understanding required to be trusted with our country’s most precious assets – the women and men who have volunteered to protect it. 

Mr. Walden: You are Oregon’s sole Republican voice on the national stage.  You represent a district with one of the largest per capita veteran populations in our country.  Many of us, myself included, have intentionally come here for the resources and community that Central Oregon offers.  I truly believe the State of Oregon represents the best of the country that individuals like Captain Khan and myself fought to protect.

It is why I call on you now to publically condemn the statements by your party’s nominee.  These statements do not reflect the values of patriotism, liberty, duty and honor to country that the Republican Party has historically stood for.  Please take this moment to show the thousands of Oregon veterans – and all the people who support us – that despite the rhetoric of your party’s chosen leader, you still honor us and respect the sacrifices of those who volunteered to protect your way of life.  The world remains an unpredictable and dangerous place.  With thousands of US troops still deployed abroad, the next President will be charged with tough decisions that impact the lives of our young women and men in service.  The unfortunate reality is the President will also have to continue to console gold star families.  Donald Trump’s rash comments show that in no way is he fit to handle the responsibility of commanding our military and caring for the lives of our brave service members.  Oregon, and our nation, deserve better Mr. Walden.  Now is not the time to remain silent. 

Respectfully,

Kyleanne Hunter

Bend, OR

Maj, USMC      

Dear Dan Turner

Dear Dan Turner,

You don't know me.  However, like millions of Americans, I read the letter you wrote about your son, Brock.  And after reading it, I'm pretty sure I know you.  I'm not going to rip you apart for not considering the life of the woman your son raped.  I know you love your son, and that you mourn the fact he will never be the same.  And that is your right as a parent.  I'm also not here to question your parenting.  You clearly gave your son all the best that you could - he ended up swimming at one of the premier athletic and educational institutions in this country after all.  I'm not here to call you names, or accuse you of being the face of rape culture.  I'm not coming after you with pitchforks to burn you in the town square.  That's been done.  I can only imagine what the past few days have been like for you and your family.

So Dan, I'm not here to crucify or to ridicule you, but to talk to you, because I know you.

You see, Dan, I was raped by a man much like your son.  He was a good boy.  He had a promising future.  He was a varsity athlete from a good school.  He came from a good family with loving parents.  He could have gone on to a powerful corporate career or taken a run at professional ball, but he chose to join the military and serve his country.  He didn't have a criminal record before he raped me.  He was a poised to do great things.  But, he decided to rape me instead.

Like you, Dan, the father of this man loved his son.  So much so that he wrote me a letter.  In it, he detailed his son's dreams.  His son's possibilities.  Like you, he lamented the fact his son would become a registered sex offender, that he would lose his career, that he would cease to enjoy life the way he once did.  So Dan, I know you.  I've met you.  I've heard your pleas.

What I also know about you, Dan, is that you're likely ignorant to your own privilege.  Before recent events unfolded, neither you nor your son had to give much of a second thought to anything you did.  You could occupy space in public without fear of repercussions to your physical, emotional, or economic safety.  By random circumstance of birth, you were both born white males in a country where white males hold the power.  You have the privilege to be blissfully ignorant to what it is to be on the lesser end of that power system.  You have the privilege to have lived your life never having to know what it is to feel weak, helpless, or endangered simply by existing as the person you are.

Dan, I write to you because I know you wrote the letter about your son out of fear.  For once you feared you may no longer have the upper hand.  Your son is no longer free to occupy space in this world in a position of innate power.  Dan, this is the fear that millions of people in this country face every day.  Yet there is one difference between them and you.  Your son made a conscious choice that stripped him of his power.  It wasn't taken from him unjustly.  He wasn't born into a station that denies him opportunity.  No Dan, he raped another human being, and that carries consequences.  You don't have the right to demand that that piece of information be overlooked.

But you do have a right to be fearful, Dan.  And perhaps this is an opportunity for you to better understand your privilege.  That fear you feel?  That ache that your child will be forever stigmatized? That he may never get to live life to the potential you know he has?  That is a fear that millions of parents of daughters have every day.  That is the fear that the black, hispanic, Muslim, and queer parents have every day.  They fear that their child will never be able to achieve their goals, live up to their potential.  But there is a difference, Dan.  Your son chose to give you that fear.

And you, too, had a choice, Dan.  You could have chosen to step back and realize that this is what life without privilege feels like.  You could have gained empathy.  But you chose to fight tooth and nail for your power.  You still refuse to understand that this power given to you by your birth is a privilege, not a right.  Your son abused that power, and you are suffering the consequences.  You have a right to be sad for your son, to fear for him, but not to ask for that power back.

Dan, I will conclude by telling you the same thing that I told the father of the man who made a choice to rape me.  The actions of your son don't make you a bad parent, but your follow up actions prove your ignorance.  I don't expect you to have compassion for me or the woman your son chose to rape.  I have no intention of telling you the impact that it has had on my life.  But it is time for you to have a long, hard, look at your privilege.  Neither you nor your son deserve the status society bestowed on you by birthright.  Realize that as millions of us fight and claw to gain the recognition and access your son had merely by being born a white male, he threw it all away by making the decision to rape someone.

So, Dan, welcome to the side of the powerless.   

Of Bikes and Bias

There are few things I love more than bikes and feminism.  As a racer and rider for all of my adult life, I have been thrilled to see the progress in the sport in the last several years.

A quick down and dirty of some accomplishments:
- The US Pro Challenge launches a women's component to the race
- The first women's cycling club is founded in Afghanistan 
- Amanda Batty launched Proving Possible to get more women into the sport
- The VIDA clinic series and Betti Bike Bash expanded into new states
- Rapha's Global Women's Ride reached record numbers

This list could go on.  Across the country women are mobilizing on the grassroots level to demand equity in race time and opportunity.  From the bottom-up, this change is happening.  As the number of women in all disciplines of the sport grows, so too does the positive impacts bikes have on people's lives.

However, while grassroots bottom-up change is happening quickly and inclusively (this wouldn't be complete without a shout-out to the hundreds of men I personally know promoting egalitarianism because more people on bikes is just awesome for everyone), the top-down change is far behind.

Institutionally, the failure of the UCI to fairly address women in the sport has been well documented. This change will be slow, but at least small cracks in the institution are starting to be seen.  What is more disturbing is the lack of top-down leadership in cultural change.

Earlier this year, Pink Bike was the topic of discussion as they were confronted by one of their contributors about fostering rape culture.  The fact that in 2015 we still view women in the sport, not as individuals worthy of praise and respect for their accomplishments, but as stand-in icons for sexual epitaphs, is worrisome.  Both men and women coming into the sport look to industry cultural leaders - like Pink Bike - for their gear reviews and discussion.  Is this really how we want to welcome new comers into the fold?

The latest contributor to this tsunami of bike culture sexism comes from Enduro Magazine.  Oh Enduro, have you not seen the latest market research that sex really doesn't sell?  And, for what it's worth, women like dream bikes and dream vacations just as much as our XY chromosome counterparts.  With Euduro being the fastest growing discipline in the sport, there is a unique opportunity to tap into a fast growing market of both men and women coming to the sport.  This doesn't require sexual pandering to either gender.  However, continuing to perpetuate the woman-as-object bias will do nothing to help growth.      

In the beginning pages of their magazine, Enduro asks, "Who's got the guts to stand up for what they believe in?"  Well, Enduro, if you haven't been watching, women who ride bikes clearly do.  More and more women believe in the fact that the can shred, they can race, they can ride, and are standing up for the equal and accurate representation in doing so.  People believe in bikes, Enduro, and I hope you are willing to come along for the ride as the tide is changing.  

It's easy to point fingers at Enduro and accuse them of belittling the hundreds of women doing incredible things for the sport.  Clearly the calls for featuring photos of badass racers who happen to be women has largely fallen on deaf ears.  Trying to strong arm top-down cultural change is a losing proposition.  However, I hope that Enduro's challenge will be heard by the grassroots masses, and that both men and women looking to grow the sport will continue to advocate for it without bias.  In conforming to stereotypes, they opened the door to change with a challenging question.  Lets show them we have the guts to stand up for what we believe is right in the sport.  

Just Love: Thank you Lux

A woman a greatly admire posted a request for people to post a sexy picture of themselves.  She aptly labeled her thread a "no self deprecation zone."  Her posts tend to trend highly in my Facebook news feed (maybe there's some unapologetic feminist cyber mind meld), so throughout the day I was treated to numerous shots of men and women flaunting their assets.  What I love was the "no shame, no fear, no apologies, just love" (yes, I bought the shirt) attitude that this brought to the day.

But what it also got me thinking about was what sexy is.  I do not have any boudoir-esque photos of myself.  Nor have I ever considered myself "traditionally sexy."  Now, before you get ahead of me, I realize that these were exactly the self deprecating comments explicitly banned in this post.  I have been told that self-deprication is unattractive, yet have always laughed it off in myself.  However, my reluctance to participate in a celebration of sexiness and self love because I didn't believe I fit the mold of sexiness they expected made me realize that my seemingly harmless jokes about myself did not do anyone (including myself and those who love me) any justice.

So, without further ado, the two photos of myself that I consider the most sexy:

Yep... a picture of me and my dog, and one at the top of a grueling mountain bike climb.  No lingerie, no skin, no sultry stares, just life.  This past year, sexiness has taking on a new meaning.  Sexiness is vibrance.  Sexiness is independence.  Sexiness is the strength to choose to life, love, and happiness when all signs point to despair and depreciation.

Why these pictures represent sexiness is not for how I look, but for how I feel, and the choices I made on the days they were taken.  In the past 9 months I have undergone both a major shoulder surgery and a double mastectomy without reconstruction.  Either one of these on their own provide enough emotional and physical turmoil to make one begin to question their identity.  As someone who has always considered her physicality as an important part of her identity, the prospect of being unable to participate in those things I love the most - bikes, adventures with my dog, my gym family - initially left me a bit bewildered and discontent.

Seeing myself covered in bandages and scars, unable to perform even basic physical tasks, I hardly felt like a competent or capable person, let along a sexy empowered woman.  As one surgery bled into another, and I witnessed my once strong body atrophy, I began to believe that I would be resigned to be the sympathy case for those looking to do penance to the gods of sick and weary.  Outwardly I talked a strong "fake it till you make it," game of being fine and strong and taking everything in stride.

What the two photos here represent are moments where I actually internalized and my strong talk, and made promises to myself that have redefined sexy.  The first, with my trusty sidekick corgi, was the first day after my mastectomy that I was able to run.  It wasn't long.  It was snowing.  But I moved - really moved - as myself.  As Agnus and I reached the top of the small mountain overlooking Golden, CO, for the first time I truly believed that I had made the right decisions with my health care.  I moved through the snow with a new sense of life and independence.  Though I longed to be in the desert that day riding bikes, it was the first moment that I truly chose life over conventions of physical sexiness.

The second, taken in Crested Butte, CO, in the middle of a wild-flower filled adventure of new-to-me trails with the most amazing of partners, was the day I accepted the new me.  Prior to this day, the bike had always been a tool for me, a stead I had to push to go fast and win on.  However this day, surrounded by nature, and accompanied by the one who had been by my side through the scare and the weakness, the bike became my freedom and joy.  It took me to new and beautiful places.  It was this day that I vowed to no longer doubt or deprecate my abilities, and to love myself for where I was.

I wish I could say that these two days cured me of any desire to self-deprecate.  There are plenty of times that are still hard, especially when I struggle with things that were once easy.  These two days also barely scratch the surface of the verity of emotions that have flooded my time in physical therapy for my new shoulder or in my decision to not reconstruct post-mastectomy.  However, for now I will celebrate the fact that I can embrace the new sexy.  The sexy that is the choice to live, love, and grow both with myself and someone with whom I'm blessed to have as a partner in this.  My body may no longer be conventionally sexy, but is very much alive, and worth of no shame, no fear, no apologies ... just love.

What Pakistan's Current Elections teach us about Democratic Consolidation

           On March 17, 2013, for the first time in history, Pakistan’s democratically elected regime successfully completed its full constitutionally mandated five-year term. This marked a potentially game-changing milestone in Pakistani political history.  When they went to the polls on May 11, the Pakistani people are now participated in elections that mark the first potential democratic transition of power in the country’s history.  Throughout Pakistan’s 66-year history, it has oscillated between attempted democratic rule and military dictatorships.  Three previous attempts at an effective democratic transition of power have resulted in an assassination, a military coup, or both, and the imposition of martial law.  Institutionally, Pakistan has attempted create the framework for a successful transition for 40 years.  In1973, the Constitution was re-written in an attempt to preserve the democratic system while granting legitimacy and elevated (though regulated) power to the military, and formalized the parliamentary system.  Formal civil-military institutions, including chiefs of staff for each of the services and a join chief bureau, were created.  However, despite these reforms, a democratically elected government has not been able to hold or transition power without military intervention until the present regime.  Through the lens of Pakistan’s history, the current elections provide insight into the debate surrounding democratic consolidations. 

            Scholarly literature is yet to embrace a universally accepted definition of democratic consolidation.  The only agreed upon premise is that consolidation takes place after free and fair elections have occurred.  The classic definition, as described by Andreas Schedler, is a condition in which probability of a democracy’s breakdown is reduced to the “point where [one] can feel reasonably confident that democracy will persist in the near (and not-so near) future.”[1]  However, he cautions that this classical definition of consolidation may lead to an overly narrow a view of failure of consolidation.   While this definition allows for coups (military or civilian) to show a failure of consolidation, Schedler proposes the real danger for consolidating states is a more gradual backsliding, or erosion, of democracy, further developing Guillermo O’Donnell’s “slow death” of democracy.  His definition, therefore, sees consolidation as a spectrum moving away from democratic dissolution, towards advanced democracy.  Along this spectrum are four ideal types – authoritarian, electoral democracies, liberal democracies and advanced democracies[2].  Rather than offering concrete definitions of each, he is concerned with the political “horizon” each is looking towards.  He sees as “hopeful” those countries looking from electoral democracies towards liberal and advanced, and as “with concern” those looking the opposite direction.

            Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan consider a democratic regime to be consolidated when it meets certain behavioral, attitudinal and constitutional conditions.[3]  All three categories are predicated on actors’ belief that democratic institutions as the best way of achieving political aims, and adherence to established institutions.  They argue that consolidation is complete when civil society, political society, rule of law, state apparatus and economic society[4] favor democratic over nondemocratic institutions.  Though they recognize that a democracy can backslide at any time, the authors are primarily concerned with the mechanisms and institutions of the forward trajectories of consolidation, rather than possibilities of backsliding.    

            Schedler’s and Linz and Stepan’s definitions of consolidation both can be tested when applied to the case of Pakistan.  Pakistan’s history of consolidation attempts is full of both immediate and erosive backsliding.  Upon the dissolution of the British Empire’s holdings in Southeast Asia, Pakistan was founded on the principle of democratic rule.  However, it immediately began to fall victim to erosive tendencies.  As Pakistan struggled to gain international recognition, the external pressures of the Cold War international system strained the fledgling democratic institutions. This resulted in a military-led East-West division akin to Germany’s post Word War II partitioning, where elected officials held little, if any, power.  An attempt to unify the country under president Iskander Miza led the country along a democratically erosive trend. Mirza dismissed four elected prime ministers.  Violence erupted in response to his tactics, and he responded greater restrictions on the population, suspension of elections, and ultimately the imposition of martial law.  Ultimately, the military ousted Mirza in a bloodless coup and imposed dictatorial rule.  Pakistan’s initial experiment with democracy fits Schedler’s electoral democracy descriptor as a diminished democracy that “failed to uphold political and civil freedoms,”[5] and eroded into authoritarian rule.    

            This period of military rule (late 1950s – 1970s) was clearly a failure of democratic consolidation.  This period was characterized by the revocation of civil liberties, and marred by both intra- and inter-state wars, while maintaining the trappings of democratic institutions.  Two more democratic experiments (one left-leaning under Prime Minister Zulifkar Ali Bhutto in the mid 1970s and one right-leaning under Prime Ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif in the early 1990s) both declined into military dictatorships. In both instances, Pakistan was unable to deepen their democracy after the electoral phase, resulting in a continual backslide.

            The greatest hope for Pakistan’s consolidation towards a liberal democracy comes at present, as a democratically elected government as completed a term in office. First, a true multi-party system has been restored.  The government formed in 2008 was one built on consensus.  Political parties banned during periods of military rule have been restored. Previously exiled opposition leaders returned to the country.  In the current elections, over 47 parties have registered candidates on the ballet.  Second, institutions have been restored to their constitutionally guaranteed levels of power.  The judiciary has been restored as an independent, yet coequal, branch of government.  Civilian oversight of the military has been formalized.  Additionally, the president’s power to dissolve the parliament unilaterally was revoked. Civil liberties, including the right to protest freely, have largely been restored, and the parliament emphasizes its commitment to being “of and by the people.”  Throughout the whole of Pakistan’s history, the current regime is on the most positive democratic trajectory.   

            Linz and Stepan’s consolidation conditions offer insight into Pakistan’s current regime.  In the current campaign cycle, all contenders for power appear to have acted within the democratic sphere.  There is yet to be an attempt at a non-democratic power grab, and the military has remained out of the political sphere.  Behaviorally, there is at least the appearance of democratic preference on the part of political actors.  Constitutionally, Pakistan appears to be favoring democracy as well.  Per the constitution, the parliament was dissolved without incident in order to call for elections, and a caretaker government was put in place.  Members of the previous military dictatorship have been impartially tried and persecuted for their actions under the law.  With few exceptions, both civilian and military leaders have accepted their standing under the constitution. 

            A measure of attitude, however, is more difficult and offers mixed results.  Pakistani newspapers such as the International Tribune, Khelaaj Times, and Pakistan Today have conducted numerous electoral polls.  These polls show diverse results – based on income, education level, ethnicity, gender and generation – that one would expect in an uncertain competitive democratic election.  Results from these polls all showed an election “too close to call,” generally positive indicator of successful democratic consolidation.  While such polls appeared to point to an attitudinal preference for working within the democratic system, they may have painted too rosy a picture of civil society.  Linz and Stepan assert that a “lively and independent civil society”[6] is necessary for democratic consolidation.  While political organization and differing opinions are certainly indicative of democratic consolidation, the opinion polls failed to capture the uptick in violence surrounding the political campaigns and dampening some of the civil society effects.  Over 50 people were killed while participating in campaign-related activities in the month of April.[7]  The Taliban has claimed responsibility for most of the deaths and violence.  While not a recognized political or civic entity, the Taliban’s ability to recruit and carry out extra-constitutional anti-democratic activities shows that there is still a portion of the population who does not believe that democracy is the best option.  The Taliban may prove to be the biggest challenge to Pakistan’s ability to consolidate.

            Are the Taliban-led actions enough to erode the otherwise positive indicators of rule of law, state apparatus and economics in both civil and political society?  Now that elections have been held, a few key indicators over the next several weeks may hold the answer.  First is the willingness of the incumbent party to peacefully relinquish power.[8]  The mechanics of a democratic transition have yet to be successful in Pakistan.  This will test both constitutional and behavioral adherence to the democratic principles of rule of law as a new ruling coalition with an ideological shift takes place.  Secondly, the military’s willingness to continue to adhere to civilian oversight will also embody a clear sign of success.  During previous attempts to hold democratic elections and consolidate a government, the military has stepped in to authoritatively fill the power vacuum.  Restraint in doing so this time is necessary for Pakistan to continue along a positive trajectory towards democratic consolidation.  Additionally, the willingness of civil society to accept the electoral outcome and use legal means to voice opposition will be a key indicator.  This last indicator will provide the most comprehensive behavioral, attitudinal and constitutional measures of the direction of civil society.  Accepting the results as valid and final will provide the attitudinal indicator, while voicing any opposition in a legal and organized way provides both behavioral and constitutional indicators of a preference for a democratic system.  A reversion to violent or extra-legal behavior, or a sharp rise in support for the Taliban would counter these tendencies. Such non-democratic behavior would be a sign of Pakistan eroding away from democratic consolidation. 

            At present, Pakistan is far from any ideal-type of consolidated democracy.  Its repeated history of erosion and backsliding may be evidence of Adam Przeworski, Michael Alverez, Jose Cheibub and Fernando Limongi’s assertion that attempting to study consolidated democracies provides us with nothing but an “empty set.”[9]  The current elections show a tendency towards enduring democratic rule, at least in the short term.  If it is to succeed, it will provide a new case study for paths to consolidation. In contrast, if history is to repeat itself, Pakistan will remain entrenched in the literature of eroding attempts at transition.      

           

---

[1] Andreas Schedler. 1998. “What is Democratic Consolidation?” Journal of Democracy 9(2): 91-107.

[2] Schedler, 1998. 

[3] Linz, Juan and Alfred Stepan. 1996. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

[4] Linz and Stepan, 1996.

[5] Schedler, 1998. 

[6] Linz and Stepan, 1996. 

[7] Staff Writer.  2013.  “Pre-Election Violence Continues in Pakistan.”  Al Jazeera Newswire.  April 29.  Access at: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2013/04/2013429144211458515.html

[8] Schedler, 1998. 

[9] Przeworski, Adam; Michael Alvarez, José Antonio Cheibub and Fernando Limongi. 1996. “What Makes Democracies Endure?,” Journal of Democracy, 7, pages 39-55.

Guest Blogging

So... it turns out I'm awful at writing my own blog.  But I've guest blogged recently for 

Tyler Hamilton Training

The Sisterhood Network 

Combat Apathy

The Pole Story

Oh yea... and I coauthored an op-ed we're looking to get placed.   

So clearly I write better and more frequently for others.  

What a guest blogger?  Hit me up!  

Cooperating Across Corps - Op Ed

Below is an op-ed that a classmate and I wrote.  We're looking to shop it around so please feel free to recommend places where it would be a good fit!

Cooperating Across Corps

During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the U.S. military was forced to learn entirely new tactics of engaging the enemy. In both countries, an extraordinary effort went towards winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi and Afghan peoples. These new tactics present an opportunity for rich and meaningful dialogue between members of two seemingly incompatible groups, the Peace Corps and Marine Corps.

The benefits of interaction are perhaps not immediately apparent – the Peace Corps and Marine Corps have distinct operational differences, and members of each frequently hold stereotypical views of the other. Peace Corps volunteers (PCVs) are often seen as idealistic, naïve hippies, and Marines as brash monsters, insensitive to the needs of communities in which they operate. Indeed, PCVs often joke that it takes $500 and a whole community to build a school, but requires $1 million and one pilot for the military to destroy it; while Marines snicker that PCVs aren’t tough enough to serve in the “real Corps.” 

These stereotypes, in combination with the geographic distance between where each organization operates, prevent any cross-agency dialogue that could be useful. However, the barriers to communication should not be so insurmountable, as PCVs and Marine Officers tend to have much in common. They are of similar age and have similar motivations – they forgo the paths of their peers to be representatives of the United States abroad in support of a ‘greater good.’ Given such similarities and the wealth of knowledge on both sides, the current vacuum of discussion is a missed opportunity.

Additionally, combat centered tactics are growing ever closer to those that are seen as traditionally Peace Corps. For example, in the latter years of the wars, small unit leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan are operating in remote villages, disconnected form their larger higher headquarters. In addition to stabilizing populations militarily, Marines find themselves conducting peace building operations—they are building schools and roads, facilitating agriculture programs and ensuring infrastructure functions properly. Living in and among the population, they are also exposed to daily interaction with the local civilians. Marines have adapted well to these new tactics, but do not have an institutional memory for such civilian peace operations – the Peace Corps does. Returned PCVs have spent time living in remote villages without much external support. The first-hand experiences of PCVs integrating into small villages cannot be duplicated in a tactics manual. Breaking down the information barriers and incorporating PCVs’ lessons learned has the potential for a positive tactical impact.  

Conversely, PCVs can also learn from the experience of Marines. The Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) has vast experience in operating humanitarian assistance / disaster relief efforts in areas that PCVs currently serve. Through these missions, and their experiences in more remote villages in Iraq and Afghanistan, Marines directly experience the consequences of negative stereotypes about Americans and what happens when such notions grow in intensity over time. These attitudes are just the kind that Peace Corps attempts to prevent. As ambassadors of American goodwill and culture, volunteers can often be the one and only American that people will ever meet. Lessons from Marines as to particular challenges in certain countries will help Peace Corps Volunteers preempt such misunderstandings. The cultural lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan could later prove valuable for future Peace Corps missions.

These organizations will never operate directly in the other's sphere. There are bright lines of separation that must be preserved in order for trust in volunteers and the combat safety of Marines to be maintained. However, a starting point for lessons learned could be feasibly implemented into the training programs for each group. Expeditionary Warfare School (EWS), the Captain career level course, provides a forum for a returned PCV to step in and engage in a dialogue on community integration and needs assessment. Similarly, Pre-Service Training (PST) for volunteers is an opportunity for all incoming volunteers to contextualize their upcoming experience into the long term.

This exchange of information may be slow, but it still remains worthwhile. Over time, the fruits of discussion could help two groups of Americans understand each other, do their jobs, and represent the United States better than before.

Kyleanne Hunter was a Marine Corps AH-1W attack pilot from 2002-2012 who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, Brian Ernst was a Peace Corps volunteer in Madagascar from 2008-2011.  They are both current SIE fellows at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at University of Denver.