Jack Coughlin: Life Behind a Long-Range Rifle

DATE June 16, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER N/A
TIME 12:00 Noon-1:00 PM AUDIENCE N/A
NETWORK NPR
PROGRAM Fresh Air

Interview: Brian Riedl and Isabel Sawhill discuss the federal
budget
TERRY GROSS, host:

This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross.

America is so deep in debt that it's hard to wrap your mind around it. In
fact, the current number has so many digits, it's hard to read. According to
the Treasury Department's Web site, as of yesterday, the total US debt is
$7,786,439,534,447.57. We invited two economists to talk about how we got
into this predicament, what the consequences might be, and how we might dig
ourselves out. Brian Riedl is a fellow in budgetary affairs at The Heritage
Foundation, a think tank with the self-described mission of formulating and
promoting conservative public policies. Isabel Sawhill is director of
economic studies at The Brookings Institution, a think tank which describes
itself as centrist and nonpartisan.

Riedl and Sawhill disagree on many things, but one thing they agree on is
this: Although the debt might not be a huge problem in the short term, in the
long term, it is. Isabel Sawhill says here's one reason why you should be
worried and why the problem is just going to get worse.

Ms. ISABEL SAWHILL (Director of Economic Studies, The Brookings Institution):
I think that the public needs to understand how large interest on the debt is
and what proportion of their taxes are going just to pay interest on the debt.
We did an estimate last year in our Brookings book called "Restoring Fiscal
Sanity: How to Balance the Budget" that showed that by 2014, interest on the
debt alone would absorb all revenues that corporations pay to the federal
government, or to put it a little bit differently, they will absorb more than
one out of every five personal income tax dollars that the American public
pays.

So one of the big costs of not doing something about these deficits is that an
increasing proportion of people's taxes, which they don't like to pay--None of
us likes to pay taxes--is going to go just to pay that interest on the debt.
So this becomes a huge problem out in 2040 or 2050, to be sure, but it becomes
a problem well before then as well.

GROSS: Brian Riedl, how do you deal with this paradox? And here's what I
mean: You support major tax cuts, OK, so in part, because of major tax cuts,
we're developing this huge debt which means that the tax money that we will
spend in the future will go to paying off the tax debt as opposed to funding
social programs, roads, all the things we look to government to fund.

Mr. BRIAN RIEDL (Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs, The Heritage
Foundation): The Heritage Foundation supports specific tax cuts that can be
proven to increase incentives to work, save and invest and be productive,
which, in turn, will grow the economy. Raising taxes, by contrast, will often
hurt the economy and reduce economic growth, which, over the next few decades,
will produce less tax revenue and make the US economy less competitive.

The real crunch over the next few decades is on the spending side of the
ledger. Right now government spending on the federal level is about 19
percent of GDP. We estimate that by about 2040 or 2050, not including
interest, it'll be about 28 percent of GDP. And when you add interest, it
could be double of that. The spending area is the problem. We could raise
taxes more than we've ever raised them in peacetime in American history, and
it still wouldn't be enough to absorb the rising cost in Social Security and
Medicare.

GROSS: Do you agree with that, Isabel Sawhill?

Ms. SAWHILL: I agree that on the trajectory we're on right now that spending
as a proportion of GDP is going to increase by something like 10 percentage
points. In other words, it really is going to balloon out into the future.
That's driven mainly by rising heath-care cost inflation as well as the aging
of the population that Brian referred to earlier.

I don't agree that we don't need to raise taxes. It is true that if you raise
taxes and just spent the money foolishly, it might have an adverse impact on
economic growth. But if you raise taxes for the purpose of reducing deficits,
that should actually help economic growth, because deficits are a form of
borrowing that eventually push up interest rates or require that we become
overly indebted to foreigners. So that's not good for economic growth,
either.

GROSS: Can you explain what you mean about how deficits push up borrowing and
leave us indebted to foreign countries? Give us an example of how that's
working right now.

Ms. SAWHILL: Last year, according to the Congressional Budget Office,
foreigners, meaning other countries, both privately and publicly, lent us
enough money to approximately cover our entire deficit in the federal budget.
So in that sense, we're becoming extremely dependent on other countries being
willing to lend us the money that we need to cover our deficit. We have two
deficits. We have a deficit in our federal budget. We also have a deficit in
trade with other countries. In other words, we are consuming more than we're
producing, and we're making up the difference by importing goods from other
countries. So they have to lend to us for that reason as well.

GROSS: Brian Riedl, do you think our indebtedness to other countries is a
problem?

Mr. RIEDL: At this level, our indebtedness to other countries is not yet a
major problem, but as it continues over the decades, it can start to have a
more detrimental effect on our GDP as we have to import more goods, and in
general on our economy. Right now, one of the advantages, however, of other
countries holding onto our debt is that our deficit isn't raising interest
rates as much, because if we don't have to borrow the money out of America's
own investment pool, if we can borrow the money out of other countries, then
you don't see a huge demand pushing up domestic interest rates, which would
have a detrimental effect.

So right now, in a way, the country is benefitting from having foreigners buy
our debt, because it's keeping interest low. However, this can't go on
forever, obviously, without having detrimental global effects.

GROSS: Some economists have predicted an economic meltdown as a result of
this deficit, projecting that we might face the kind of meltdown and rioting
in the streets that happened in Argentina a few years ago. Do either of you
think that that's a realistic projection?

Mr. RIEDL: If current trends continue into the next three to four decades,
the United States projects into an economic and financial collapse on the
scale that Argentina experienced. I'm confident that, at some point,
policy-makers will make some of the difficult decisions in order to avert this
kind of catastrophe. This catastrophe relates only to if lawmakers do
absolutely nothing over the next 30 years. I don't have a lot of faith in
Congress, but I have some faith that, whether it's a good solution or a bad
solution, they'll attempt to address it somehow before something like that can
happen.

Ms. SAWHILL: I think a financial crisis at the level of an Argentina is
possible but quite unlikely, and the reason is because we have a very large
and strong economy. We have deep and broad financial markets. Financial
markets have changed a lot in recent decades globally. International capital
is very fluid. So I think it's possible and, in fact, likely that whatever
the damage, we won't have a full-blown crisis. However, it's a risk. It
could happen, and we should take action to prevent that risk, because if it
did happen, it would be disastrous, not only for the US, but for the world
economy as well. Right now the United States is basically the engine of
growth in the world. And as the engine of growth, if we have a big economic
meltdown at home, then the world is going to follow us down the economic path
to recession.

GROSS: My guests are Isabel Sawhill, director of economic studies at The
Brookings Institution, and Brian Riedl, a fellow in budgetary affairs at The
Heritage Foundation. We'll talk more about the federal debt after a break.
This is FRESH AIR.

(Soundbite of music)

GROSS: If you're just joining us, we're talking about the federal deficit and
how we got here and what we need to do to get out of the problem. My guests
are Brian Riedl--he's a fellow in budgetary affairs at The Heritage
Foundation; and Isabel Sawhill. She's the director of economic studies at The
Brookings Institution.

I want to ask you both, before we get any further, about how to fix the
deficit, how we got here in the first place. Could you each give your point
of view about what got us in the fix? What is responsible for this huge
deficit? President Clinton and Vice President Gore left us with a surplus.
How did we end up with this deficit?

Ms. SAWHILL: It has been a phenomenal turnaround from the large surpluses
that were projected about five years ago and the huge deficits that we face
now. There have been a number of factors that led to that turnaround. One is
the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another is the recession that we had in the
early part of this decade. A third is other spending increases such as the
major increase in Medicare spending that was put in place last year or two
years ago involving prescription drugs and a number of other increased
spending actions that Congress has taken.

But having said all of that, I think the largest element in this picture has
been the tax cuts that were introduced in 2001 and have continued since then.

GROSS: Brian Riedl, how does that compare to your analysis of what caused the
deficit?

Mr. RIEDL: From 2000 through 2004, we went from a $236 billion surplus to a
$414 billion deficit. That is a $650 billion deterioration in our net fiscal
position. Our analysis at The Heritage Foundation shows that the recession,
in our opinion, was the single main cause for the deterioration, because it
both reduced tax revenues and increased costs for entitlement programs.

Second, you had a 33-percent increase in the cost of government over that
time, less than half of which had (audio loss) 9/11 and defense. Much of the
rest of the increase was for spending increases across the board.

And then the third cause of the deficit was the tax cuts which has increased
the deficit to a degree, although not as much, I believe, as some critics
would suggest, because it probably made the recession slightly less severe and
may well be contributing to the surge in tax revenues we're seeing now as it
may be helping increase incentives to work, save and invest and help the
economy. That doesn't mean that the tax cuts have overall increased revenue,
but it means that the loss of revenue hasn't been as great as some feared.

GROSS: Brian Riedl, would you say you're philosophically opposed to taxes and
that, philosophically, you would like to see tax cuts, period?

Mr. RIEDL: The Heritage Foundation supports a limited government that
assesses the minimum taxes necessary to carry out a limited amount of
functions well. Increasing taxes places a difficult burden on families. It
discourages economic growth. And unfortunately, it gives politicians more
money to spend. And I have less faith in tax increases, because I've seen
over the years that members of Congress who often raise taxes with the best of
intentions end up squandering the new revenue on wasteful programs rather than
using the money most effectively.

GROSS: Brian Riedl, just to sum up, to what extent do you think that the tax
cuts affected the size of the deficit that we have now? How much are tax cuts
the culprit here?

Mr. RIEDL: The tax cuts have increased the deficit, but because they have
helped economic growth, they have not played a large role in the increase in
the deficit, especially not as large of a role as the recession and the
massive increases in spending we've seen since 2001.

GROSS: Well, I think we've hit here on a very fundamental difference in your
points of view in terms of taxes, both the role that tax cuts have played in
the creation of the deficit and the role that tax increases should play in
dealing with the problem.

Isabel, what do you have to say to what Brian Riedl just said?

Ms. SAWHILL: Brian is right that the recession in the 2001 period in
particular had quite a large impact, and that it was a good thing that we
reduced taxes during that period. But my view is that those tax cuts should
have been temporary, not as permanent as they have been and as the
administration is now arguing they should be. If you look out into the future
deficits that we've both been talking about as opposed to the deficits that we
had back in, say, 2002 or '3, then I think it's very clear that the tax cuts
are the single most important source of those future deficits as opposed to
our past deficits.

So you can't sort of say, `How important have the tax cuts been?' without
talking about which deficits you're talking about. And as I said before, I
think it's going to be very necessary to raise taxes as well as cut spending
to eliminate the deficit. If you tried to do it on the spending side alone,
it would require such draconian cuts that you would basically be eliminating
many functions of government. And it is not politically realistic to think
that we could get there. It would require spending cuts, for example, on the
order of $600 billion a year, just to pick a figure. Those are cuts of about
10 percent or more.

GROSS: So what programs do you think would be slated in these draconian cuts
that you project?

Ms. SAWHILL: Well, you would have to eliminate things like housing programs,
training programs, education, the environment, criminal justice, many, many
functions of government. And if you did that, I think there would be a
political outcry of a sort you haven't seen before. And I think the current
administration and the current Congress would be turned out of office very
quickly, so that's why they're not doing it. There's been a lot of talk about
spending cuts recently, but there's been no action or very little action on
that front. The congressional budget resolution this year actually makes the
deficit worse, not better.

GROSS: Brian Riedl, Isabel Sawhill isn't projecting that we cut pork in order
to get us out of the deficit. She's saying that if we don't raise taxes,
we're going to be cutting the government's role in the environment, criminal
justice, education. What do you have to say to that?

Mr. RIEDL: Bel is correct that it is politically infeasible to balance the
budget in the next couple years on spending cuts alone. It would require
approximately, as Bel says, about $600 billion in spending cuts out of a $2.4
trillion budget, about 25 percent of all federal spending. That's politically
infeasible.

However, the better solution would be, in my opinion, to reduce spending
slowly over the course of a longer period of time, allow tax revenues to grow
as the economy grows, and attempt to move to a balanced budget, not tomorrow,
not by 2006 or 2007, but slowly and gradually over the next 10 to 15 years as
Social Security and Medicare are reformed, as wasteful spending is reduced and
as tax relief allows the economy to create wealth. That would be, I think,
more stable than if we came out and tried to cut $500 billion or $600 billion
out of the budget tomorrow, because Bel's right. That's obviously not going
to happen.

GROSS: I have a question for both of you. Do you think--you know, Americans
have to make a lot of hard choices, obviously, about what they want their
government to do, what services they want the government to provide, and what
they're willing to do in order to phase down the deficit. How do you think
the question should be posed to Americans when they think about tax cuts in
the future, of the amount of taxes that they pay? What larger context do you
think that should be put in when politicians talk about taxes and offer that
choice?

Ms. SAWHILL: I think it's quite simple. I think people need to understand
that either they're going to have to pay much higher taxes, or they're going
to have to do with less help from the government in their old age.
Particularly the elderly who are comfortably well off or more affluent are
going to have to pay more for their own retirement and their own health care.
If they don't do that, then the working-age population, which mostly means
their own children, are going to have to pay much higher taxes. Those are the
choices, and I don't think anyone is facing up to those choices right now.

Mr. RIEDL: What Congress won't tell their constituents is that, as a result
of the policies enacted both in the 1930s, the 1960s and even most recently
with the Medicare drug benefit, that taxes are going to need to be raised by
about $10,000 to $15,000 per household in order to keep the level of
government benefits that people are expecting over the next couple decades.
The citizens have a choice. They can either accept permanent $10,000 to
$15,000 per-household tax increases, or they can come back and address what
has become the geriatric state. Government has evolved from a welfare state
that generally, you know, attempts to give benefits to the poorest in society
to a geriatric state that generally exists to transfer money from the working
to the elderly at a much higher cost than Americans are used to.

And so it's a simple choice for taxpayers: Do we want to reform the programs
for the elderly, or do we want to raise taxes to levels we've never seen in
peacetime?

GROSS: Brian Riedl is a fellow in budgetary affairs at The Heritage
Foundation. Isabel Sawhill is director of economic studies at The Brookings
Institution. They'll be back in the second half of the show. I'm Terry
Gross, and this is FRESH AIR.

(Soundbite of music)

(Announcements)

(Soundbite of music)

GROSS: Coming up, a top-ranked Marine sniper talks about what he describes as
his peculiar profession. Gunnery Sergeant Jack Coughlin has a new
autobiography in which he describes fighting in Iraq. And we continue our
conversation about the federal deficit.

(Soundbite of music)

GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross.

Let's get back to our conversation on the federal debt. My guests are Isabel
Sawhill, director of economic studies at The Brookings Institution, a think
tank that describes itself as centrist and non-partisan, and Brian Riedl, a
fellow in budgetary affairs at The Heritage Foundation, a think tank with the
self-described mission of formulating and promoting conservative public
policies.

Now I know that there are many critics of the Bush administration tax cuts who
say one of the things that got us into the deficits were the tax cuts, and
particularly the tax cuts that are benefiting the wealthy, for example, tax
cuts on capital gains and tax cuts on the inheritance tax. And there are
critics of the Bush administration who would like to readjust those tax cuts.
What do you both think? I mean, the argument here goes--and I'm sure you've
heard President Clinton talk about this. He's saying that he's gotten this
big tax cut, and that's one of the reasons why America is suffering, because
people like him, who are wealthy, are getting, you know, tax cuts, and look
what it's doing to the country. So what's your reaction to that argument?

Mr. RIEDL: Many of the tax cuts, which are the most maligned, the reducing of
the top rate and the cuts in capital gains and dividends taxes, are the very
tax cuts that are best encouraging working, saving and investing, and helping
the economy grow. Since the capital gains and dividends tax cuts, the stock
market has grown, I believe, by approximately 20 percent. A lot of the
individuals who we look at as the top 1 percent are actually small businesses.
They don't pay the corporate income tax. They pay the individual income tax.
So we're seeing a lot of small businesses reinvesting money into the
economy--working, saving, investing in ways that's creating the economic
growth. Keep in mind, this year, the IRS is reporting that tax revenues are
coming in way above schedule, at a pace well above last year, well above
projected numbers, because productivity has--productivity increases have
followed these tax cuts. So there is a positive effect on the economy.

It's also important to note that since the president has taken office and
enacted his tax cuts, the percent of income taxes paid by the top 1 percent
has actually increased. Now why is that? Two reasons: First off, because
the president's tax cuts included lowering the bottom rate from 15 to 10
percent, getting rid of the marriage penalty, and adding to the child tax
credit, which helped the poor a lot. Also, although the president reduced tax
rates on the rich, incomes have increased fast enough that a lot of the rich
are actually paying more money in taxes now than they were before because
their incomes have increased. As a result, the Bush tax cuts have actually
made the income tax code slightly more progressive, in terms of the percent of
taxes paid by what income rank.

So I think, you know, we're seeing the economy doing well, we're seeing tax
revenues come in at a fast rate, the economy is growing--and while it's easy
to just say, `We shouldn't give tax cuts to businesses,' and `We shouldn't
give tax cuts to the--to rich people,' and `We should only give rebates to
low-income families,' these are the tax cuts that are right now helping the
economy grow.

GROSS: Isabel Sawhill, agree?

Ms. SAWHILL: This is an area where Brian and I probably disagree the most. I
think that the tax cuts have been heavily tilted to the very wealthy and that
there is no offsetting gains from that of the sort that he has described--or
very little offsetting gain--and that it's quite amazing the extent to which
people have accepted the fact that we are now cutting programs for low-income
families, asking people to sacrifice in all kinds of ways, so that we can
afford these tax cuts that have overwhelmingly gone to those who are already
doing extremely well.

GROSS: So I'm interested in this disagreement between you, which is
representative of a larger disagreement in our country now about tax policy.
Brian Riedl, you're saying the tax cuts, they've really helped the economy
grow. And, Isabel Sawhill, you're saying, no, the tax cuts are helping the
deficit grow and they're hurting the poor and they're helping the wealthy. So
is this like a philosophical or an empirical difference? I mean, you're
seeing this same data and you're interpreting it differently or what? Like,
what accounts for the difference between your points of view and for this
larger dispute in our country?

Ms. SAWHILL: Some of it probably is philosophical. I mean, we all have
different views of what's the right or fair distribution of income in our
society. My own view is that the distribution of income in the United States
is highly unequal, has been becoming more unequal over time, does not compare
well to other advanced countries, and that given the fact that we're a strong
and wealthy country, we could afford to do more for ordinary middle class and
working families, who are struggling hard to raise their families and make
ends meet--in my view.

Mr. RIEDL: On the issue of how President Bush's budgets have treated
lower-income families, I think it's important to note that the president's
spending spree over the last four years has not excluded low-income families.
From 2001 through 2005, anti-poverty spending increased by 42 percent. That's
an average of 9.2 percent a year, which is must faster than the 5.5 percent
annual average growth in anti-poverty programs under President Clinton.
Medicaid is up 46 percent, food and nutrition programs are up 56 percent,
housing is up, the EITC is up, the child tax credit has increased through the
roof, including its refundable portion--spending on low-income families by
President Bush has actually gone up faster than under President Clinton.

I think it's also important to make two other points. First, that one way to
help low-income families is by helping the economy. When the economy is in a
recession, when people aren't working, low-income families are often hit
pretty hard. If we could help the economy grow, I think we can help families.
And on income and equality, you know, overall, one wonderful thing we've seen
in the numbers on incomes is the mobility of incomes. But when we talk about
the top 20 percent or the bottom 20 percent over the years, people assume that
we're talking about the same people. In reality, people move up and down
from--you know, people start out young, near the bottom. As they age, they
move up. But over a lifetime, there isn't as much inequality if you account
for movement between different income quintiles from year to year.

GROSS: Isabel Sawhill?

Ms. SAWHILL: Well, again, we could get into a debate about data here, which
I think wouldn't work very well. But I don't agree that this administration
has been friendly to the poor or to lower-income families. In fact, the
refundable tax credit that has helped those families, that Brian just alluded
to, was not something that the administration proposed; it was something that
I and a colleague at Brookings proposed and that Olympia Snowe insisted be put
into the 2001 tax-cut bill so that those families would get a little bit of
help. But, overall, those families are not doing well. They do get Medicaid
and they do get their earned income tax credit and food stamps, and all of
that is helpful. But they are still earning less per year or getting less
total income per year than the wealthy are getting in tax cuts alone. And so
we could have used those resources in ways that I think would have had a much
fairer and broader impact on the American public. And I think that the other
thing to worry about is, that as income and wealth become increasingly
concentrated in this country, people at the top are going to begin to have too
much influence, including too much influence on the political system.

GROSS: I want to thank both of you very much for talking with us. Thank you.

Ms. SAWHILL: Thank you.

Mr. RIEDL: Thank you.

GROSS: Isabel Sawhill is director of economic studies at The Brookings
Institution. Brian Riedl is a fellow in budgetary affairs at The Heritage
Foundation.

Coming up, a top-ranked Marine sniper describes his work and some of his
experiences fighting in Iraq.

This is FRESH AIR.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Interview: Sergeant Jack Coughlin, author of "Shooter: The
Autobiography of the Top-Ranked Marine Sniper," describes his
experiences as a top Marine sniper
TERRY GROSS, host:

The life of a Marine sniper is described in the new book "Shooter," the
autobiography of my guest, Sergeant Jack Coughlin. He recently retired from
the Marines after fighting in Iraq. He also fought in the Gulf War, Mogadishu
and other hot spots. Journalist Peter Mass, who traveled with Coughlin and
the 3rd Battalion in Iraq, wrote, `He's one of the best snipers in the Marine
Corps, perhaps the very best. When I asked one of his commanders about his
skills, the commander smiled and said, "I'm just glad he's on our side."'
Sergeant Coughlin was one of the creators of a mobile sniper strike team,
which he says enabled snipers to roam the battlefield and take the fight to
the enemy, instead of maintaining stationary positions.

What do you see when you look out the sights of one of your sniper rifles?

Sergeant JACK COUGHLIN (Marine Sniper; Author of "Shooter: The Autobiography
of the Top-Ranked Marine Sniper"): When you look through the scope, you see a
narrow view, obviously, because it tries to channelize your optimum view.
But, you know, if I'm looking at a target at 700 yards, I can pretty much
distinguish what's on that target's face, the expressions and stuff. And the
closer you get, the more you see.

GROSS: So when you're shooting someone, you could actually see the expression
on their faces when they get the bullet and die?

Sgt. COUGHLIN: Yes, I--unfortunately, I've seen that.

GROSS: And what impact does that have on you, seeing this magnified view of
them through your scope?

Sgt. COUGHLIN: I mean, I've come to a way that when I'm in a fight--you know,
in a combat situation--I don't think about it. I mean, it's a different
situation. My brain slows down and I'm just concentrating on doing the
job--you know, protecting my fellow service members. After everything's done,
and we're in a safe area, and the battle's over, that's when I get nervous,
and then I have time to reflect on what I've done, and I take no pleasure in,
you know, ending somebody's life.

GROSS: Well, you describe in your book at least one example where, after the
battle was over, you went into a private place and had a very short, little
nervous breakdown and let loose with all of the things that you have to keep
really under tight control when you're actually in battle.

Sgt. COUGHLIN: Yeah, that's the way I've learned to deal with it. I, you
know, keep everything inside and don't even really think about it until after
the fact; and, then, you know, the wave of emotions just flood in. You know,
you get rid of it as--and then, you know, you get ready to go back to work.

GROSS: You're trained to see the people who you shoot at as targets, not as
people who you're going to empathize with. You can't--I guess you can't
really afford to have a lot of empathy when you're a sniper. You wouldn't be
able to do your job effectively.

Sgt. COUGHLIN: It's hard enough seeing them as people, but when you think of
them as people, it--I don't know what--I don't know if there's anybody other
than a homicidal maniac that can pull the trigger thinking in that. So, you
know, I dehumanize them and think of them as a target. I don't give them the
respect they deserve as a human being until after it's done, and then, you
know, I certainly reflect. And, you know, I don't take--like I said, I don't
take any pleasure in shooting anybody. I'm--just unfortunately something that
had to be done.

GROSS: What was your first battle? Can you tell us what that was like?

Sgt. COUGHLIN: The first kill, you're talking...

GROSS: Mm-hmm.

Sgt. COUGHLIN: You know, you put your eye in the scope--it's
really--actually, the first time was probably the easiest because you don't
know what the repercussions are. You know, you don't have the
what-I've-just-done feelings. And, you know, just like every other time I had
been--you know, practiced so much. It was a target to me. It wasn't a human
being. It was a 623-yard shot. I centered it right on the chest and, you
know, then right after the bullet went through and I realized the target was
dead--and then the situation permitted itself where it was safe and everybody
around us was all right, that's when, you know, it really hit, that it was,
like, `Oh, my God. I just killed somebody.'

GROSS: Would you describe the battle that you were fighting in?

Sgt. COUGHLIN: It was an urban environment. I was in a hide site, which is,
you know, places where we try to stay out of the enemy's view and be able to
observe them at the same time. I was inside a third-story building in the
back of a room, so it was com--I was completely in the shadows. And the enemy
target was moving up from right to left into an area where we had friendly
troops that were moving, and he had a RPK light machine gun and was getting
ready to engage the--our people with it so I had to take the shot.

GROSS: Now you say in your book that you actually met someone who you'd shot
twice. I think this was in Iraq.

Sgt. COUGHLIN: Yeah.

GROSS: You'd seen him fall; you didn't know he was still alive. How did you
meet him, and did he know who you were?

Sgt. COUGHLIN: Yeah, it was for the battle of Ad Diwaniyah. He was running
from--another right-to-left shot. I shot first round, could've swore I hit
him, but he just kind of buckled a little bit. Took another shot; he went
down. But he was in the defilade. Because of the terrain, I couldn't see him
when he was laying down on the ground. It's a fast-moving battle. You look
for other targets. You know? He was no longer a threat.

Then I went over. We were coming back through, and they reported they had a
POW right there that was wounded twice. We went over there. I mean, I saw
who I shot in the scope, and it was him. And I used the translators to--you
know, you have a chance to talk to him, and we brought him over and got him
treated by our medical officer. And I actually gave him an Iraqi gas mask
that we had picked up along the way, 'cause he didn't have one. And at that
time, you know, we were pretty sure that there was weapons of mass
destruction, so I wanted him to be taken care of, too.

GROSS: What was...

Sgt. COUGHLIN: I had no...

GROSS: ...that conversation--go ahead.

Sgt. COUGHLIN: I had no animosity towards him. I mean, I was glad that he
survived. He was no longer a threat to us, and it was the first time that I
had ever shot somebody that I knew they lived. So to me, it was actually a
happy moment.

And, you know, he was a little strange, talking to him, because he knew I was
the guy who shot him. And he--at first, I think he was--you know, he thought
I was mad that he was still alive, you know. But after talking to him and
giving him the gas mask and, you know, he saw the treatment I was--you know, I
was pushing--not that they wouldn't have treated him anyways, but I was
mak--you know, I was looking over him like a, you know, guardian or something,
make sure he--you know, I was taking care of him. So he was actually kind of
joking about it after.

GROSS: Were you surprised at your reaction?

Sgt. COUGHLIN: No, 'cause, honestly, I know the type of person I am. I mean,
no one values human life more than I do. And, you know, to me, there wasn't a
threat anymore, and I just wanted the best for him. I mean, I was there to
help his country. I wasn't there to hurt them.

GROSS: You described in your memoir the story of the Diyala Bridge in which
Americans did shoot some civilians, and you witnessed that. What happened?

Sgt. COUGHLIN: We had just taken the last bridge before we would actually
get the chance to get into downtown Baghdad, so it was basically their last
stand. It took us a whole day prior to take it. The thing was, it was an
unstable division, so we couldn't set up roadblocks or anything, 'cause we
were taking a lot of fire. So what we had to do is, as these vehicles started
running down the road, we'd shoot into the engine blocks when they were about
700 yards away to warn them to stop.

But, you know, there was a war going on. They're trying to get out of
Baghdad. They don't want to be there when we hit Baghdad. You know, we're
trying to get to Baghdad. We don't know if they're suicide bombers, too.
Like you said earlier, you know, we have to defend ourselves, too. And as
they got closer, which we called a break point, once they were within 300
yards, you know, they're a legal target. So, obviously, people--they kept
going forward, and they got engaged.

And it's the thing about war. I mean, war is a most horrible thing; people
get killed in it. Innocent people get killed. And it's--no matter how much
you try, it still happens. We didn't even use artillery to go across the
bridge, 'cause we were worried about civilians. I mean, we had taken steps
and put ourselves at risk to limit the chance of civilians being killed. I
mean, that takes--to us, that's a really big thing, 'cause we went in there
with the notion that we're there to, you know, liberate these people. They're
our friends. We're not there to hurt them.

GROSS: Do you find yourself almost getting angry at the civilians who are
shot in situations like the one you just described, because--you know, angry,
because they didn't follow orders to...

Sgt. COUGHLIN: Oh, at the time...

GROSS: ...or they didn't understand orders to not proceed?

Sgt. COUGHLIN: At that specific time, I blamed them just as much as I blamed
myself. I was, like, `Wow, are you people stupid?' If people--if I shoot--if
I'm getting shot at, I'm not going to drive at the person shooting at me.
But, you know, you--I mean, that's a split-second thought I have, and they
have a split-second decision. They don't know. They don't understand. And
when you reflect, you know, you understand. They were scared. You know, they
didn't know what the heck was going on. They weren't sure where they were
getting shot at from--you know, a lot of different aspects. But at the
split-second time, I was so frustrated, it was just tearing me up.

GROSS: You write in your book that after this incident, in which you watched
through your scope as civilians were killed, you write, `My only thought was a
faith-shaken prayer, "Oh, my God, what have we done?"' Did you and the other
Marines who were there that day talk about it afterward? Is this the kind of
thing you reflect on with people afterwards, or that you just reflect on
privately?

Sgt. COUGHLIN: Oh, no, we reflect on it, because we try to learn. I mean,
we're trying to figure out how we could avoid that in the future. You know,
we're always trying to better ourselves in that area. You know? And,
fortunately, for 99.9 percent of the people that were there that day, nobody
had the view that I did. You know, I had the telescopic view, and they got to
see the aftermath, but I got to see the live thing. And I don't explain that
to them. They don't need to know that.

GROSS: You say that when you're actually in battle, that things slow down.
Could you describe that sensation and when it's likely to start?

Sgt. COUGHLIN: Well, the sensation is--what you're feeling is a--it's almost
like a total control or a concept of what's going on. Everything around you
slows down, and the thing you're focusing on is, like, really clear and really
sharp and really vivid. You know, everything explodes on you as far as the
smells, the--you know, what you're seeing and hearing. And it starts, like,
right when danger is imminent. As soon as the--it doesn't--you know, it's not
like I'm walking around the country, doing this every 20 seconds. It's as
soon as I feel danger is imminent, all of a sudden, things start to slow down.
Sometimes it's a false alarm, too. I mean, it doesn't mean that I always have
action when it happens, but when I feel that imminent danger is coming, things
really get, you know, a lot more clearer.

GROSS: My guest is Gunnery Sergeant Jack Coughlin. His life as a Marine
sniper is described in the new book "Shooter." More after a break. This is
FRESH AIR.

(Soundbite of music)

GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guest is Sergeant Jack Coughlin, and he
has a new book called "Shooter." It's a memoir of his life as a Marine
sniper.

As you say in your book, `The eternal question is: What do you do with the
warrior once the fighting is done?' You actually retired from...

Sgt. COUGHLIN: Correct.

GROSS: ...being a sniper when you came home from Iraq. So what do you do
now?

Sgt. COUGHLIN: I'm retired fully from the Marine Corps, about two months ago.
And I'm basically just learning what it is to be a dad, you know, a single
dad. I stay home. I'm a stay-at-home dad. I raise my children. I'm
writing. I enjoy spending time with them. To me, that, you know, is the
essence of life. And what--I've traveled a lot during their young lives, so I
owe them a lot of time.

GROSS: Do you still have guns, even though you're not at war anymore?

Sgt. COUGHLIN: I haven't fired a weapon since I left Iraq. I didn't grow up
firing guns. I never fired a rifle or a gun before I joined the Marine Corps,
which is why, I think, I can shoot pretty decently, 'cause they have a certain
way of teaching. Well, I didn't have any bad habits, so I learned the right
way the first time. I don't recreational shoot. To me, that was a job. I
take no pleasure in it. You know, I play golf. And the only aspect I can use
is the range estimation. I'm really good at telling you how far you are away
from the pin. But I always tell my friends the wrong one, and they still beat
me.

GROSS: I know a lot of soldiers in battle dream of coming home to their
family and how happy that reunion will be. When you came home, you came home
to a divorce. Now--and--I mean, did that hurt a lot? You know, you dream of
what it's going to be like when you get home. And what happens when you get
home, the news isn't good?

Sgt. COUGHLIN: Yeah, I'll describe it as my homecoming was taken away from
me. I didn't have a homecoming. I did get to see my children. I mean, I
obviously got to live with them again, and that was great. But immediately
when I got off the bus at home, you know, there was no joyous reunion. It
was, you know, more problems. You know, life doesn't deal you the best hand
all the time. You got to play it the way you're dealt. And I was cheated,
you know. That's something that can never be replaced, that initial feeling,
when everybody has that great joy when they jump off the bus. I had nothing
but sorrow, and, you know, I regret that, and I feel cheated over that. I
missed that.

GROSS: You were very well-trained, and it sounds like you've been really
effective over--during your years as a sniper of not letting your emotions
interfere with the work, and not letting empathy interfere with being able to
shoot the people you had to shoot. Now that you're retired, is any of that
coming back at you? Is any of those feelings that you were able to put to the
side kind of surfacing either in waking moments or in dreams?

Sgt. COUGHLIN: There's not a day that goes by that I don't think about the
people that I've had to kill, and that's when I was on active duty here, so it
hasn't came up any more. It hasn't gone away any less either. You know, I
have dreams frequently, but they're not nightmares. I mean, I remember, you
know, what I've done. I see them in my dreams, but they're not haunting me.
It's kind of like we're all there together and, you know, just trying to
figure things out.

As far as daydreaming and stuff, you know, you think about it. You reflect.
I mean, this whole hour we've been talking, obviously, I'm reflecting on
everything I've done. But you know, I'm not haunted by it, I think, because I
don't feel pride in what I've done. I don't--I'm not happy with myself for
doing it, so the guilt might be a little less there because of that.

GROSS: I understand what you're saying, but it sounds like, I mean, you're
proud of your skill. You're proud of having been effective at what you've
done, but not proud that that--not glad that that entails taking other lives.

Sgt. COUGHLIN: That's per--I mean, that's right. I am. I mean, I am proud
of my status as a Marine. I'm proud that I was a Marine. I'm proud that I
defended our country. I'm proud that I'm good at what I did in battle,
because it saved lives. Unfortunately, the downside of that is the way I
saved lives, I had to take lives, and so that--I take no pride in that.

GROSS: Sergeant Coughlin, thank you so much for talking with us, and I wish
you good luck.

Sgt. COUGHLIN: Thank you. Thank you for having me.

GROSS: Sergeant Jack Coughlin's new autobiography is called "Shooter."

(Soundbite of music)

(Credits)

GROSS: I'm Terry Gross.
Transcripts are created on a rush deadline, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of Fresh Air interviews and reviews are the audio recordings of each segment.