Recently in Military Category

For the past few weeks Michelle Malkin has been documenting the attacks--in both word and deed--on America's military recruiters:

Ideas have consequences. Inaction has consequences. For the past several years, I've chronicled the Left's escalating war on military recruiters-and the apathetic, weak-kneed response to it. In Unhinged, I devoted a sub-section of my chapter "They Don't Support Our Troops" to the organized campaign of harassment against recruitment offices on college campuses nationwide. The anti-recruiter thugs have thrived thanks to a combination of public indifference, law enforcement fecklessness, and left-wing ideological apologism.

While it's encouraging to see Malkin and others take up this cause, there is a greater concern that is largely ignored. The biggest challenge for military recruiters is not the heated battles with Code Pink protesters but the cool indifference of mainstream Americans.

If you want to see the contrast between what people say they believe and how they live, spend a day with your local military recruiter. You'll be amazed by the number of people you'll encounter who go out of their way to tell you how much they "support our troops" and how they appreciate our service. Then you casually inquire about their son or daughter and when they will be stopping by the recruiting station to learn more about serving their country. The reaction is palpable: their spines stiffen, they smile blankly, and a coldness comes over them. If they are quick-witted they will find a way to jokingly dismiss the question. More often, though, they will simply blurt out honestly that there is no way they'd let their own child enlist.

Since I spent my years as a Marine Corps recruiter in Aberdeen, WA -- the hometown of Kurt Cobain -- I had hoped my experience was an isolated case. But then I talked to others who told the same tales about being brushed off by school counselors and dismissed by parents. Often times, when I would call a student's house and tell the parents I was with the Marines they would hang up on me. Imagine how different the reaction would be if I told them I was a recruiter for Harvard.

If Americans valued and respected the institution and the troops as much as they claim the military would be more difficult to get into than any Ivy-league school. We wouldn't be able to take everyone who wanted to enlist. The "elite" would be lined up around the block, letters of recommendation in hand, hoping to serve in the greatest military in the history of the world. Rather than having to bribe "scholarship mercenaries" with a generous college fund, recruiters would be forced to turn away highly qualified applicants.

But for all the talk, most Americans are willing to support the troops only insofar as they are not expected to add to their ranks. We are more than willing to leave our country's defense to the "military types" and lower classes who need the employment. We have other priorities: advanced degrees to pursue, careers to build, money to be made. Besides, we pay our taxes. What else should we be expected to do?

Yes, Americans support our troops and respect their service. We just don't want our own sons and daughters to be the ones to serve. And if, like the citizens of Kyrgyzstan, we have to pay out of our pockets to keep our children out of the military we'll have just one question -- "Who do we make the check out to?"

In 1915, a Canadian medical officer named John McCrae published what is probably the single best- and popular poem from the First World War, "In Flanders Fields":

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

After reading this poem Moina Michael, a college teacher and YMCA War Worker, was so moved that she was inspired to write a response. Hastily written on the back of an envelope, she penned the lines to We Shall Keep the Faith:

After Noah Shachtman, of the excellent Danger Room blog, about the Army's stringent new regulations for online communications, the conservative blogosphere exploded in protest against the order. I propose that these bloggers consider how they would react upon hearing the following two statements:

1) The editors of the Washington Post released details about operational security in their newspaper that may have led to the deaths of 14 American soldiers.

2) A group of milbloggers released details about operational security on their blogs that may have led to the deaths of 14 American soldiers.

Imagine the reaction if the editors of the Post were to justify such an irresponsible move based on their right to "freedom of expression" or the American public's need to "know what's going on in Iraq." We would rightly consider such rationalization indefensible. So why are the same arguments being used to excuse milbloggers who are able to have a far more deleterious impact?

Operations security is necessary to protect "critical information from adversary observation and collection in ways that traditional security programs cannot." As the Army regulation explains, "the OPSEC process identifies the critical information of military plans, operations, and supporting activities and the indicators that can reveal it, and then develops measures to eliminate, reduce, or conceal those indicators." Maintaining OPSEC has always been essential to winning wars and preventing unnecessary casualties.

My friend Ed Morrissey acknowledges that OPSEC is important but claims that "no one has any evidence that milbloggers have violated Opsec orders in their communications." This is a stunning claim, for anyone who understands what OPSEC entails and has read enough milblogs knows that isn't the case. In fact, the Army has an unclassified PowerPoint presentation that provides an example of what they are trying to prevent [emphasis and commentary added]:

The Marine Corps Birthday makes me nostalgic for the good ol’…well, maybe good is too strong a word. In fact, I can't say that I miss being on active duty; but I do miss being with my fellow Marines.

Thinking about my friends who are getting shot at by ungrateful Iraqis reminded me of this list, an old Corps favorite, on how to act in a gun fight:

1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns.

2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life is expensive.

3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.

4. If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough nor using cover correctly.

5. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement are preferred.)

6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun and a friend with a long gun.

7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.

8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running.

9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more dependent on "pucker factor" than the inherent accuracy of the gun.

10. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.

[Note: In honor of Veterans' Day and the 231th birthday of the Marine Corps, I'm reposting a story that reminds me why I love my fellow Marines.]

During the late ‘90s I served a three year sting on recruiting duty in Olympia, WA. The long hours and tedium of dealing with teenagers was wearing me down so on a rainy October day my partner and I decided to take a trip out to Evergreen State College. Our area of Washington wasn't exactly friendly to recruiters but that particular school had a reputation for being so unwelcoming that it was rumored that no one from our office had visited in the past ten years.

Evergreen, considered one of the most liberal schools in the country, prided itself on being one of the first schools to hold protest against the first Gulf War. The only thing that we shared in common was that our organizations both had Latin mottos. (For the Corps: Semper Fidelis, "always faithful"; for the Greeners: Omnia Extares, "let it all hang out.") As we stepped on campus in our dress blue uniforms we prepared ourselves for what was sure to be an interesting visit.

In 1915, a Canadian medical officer named John McCrae published what is probably the single best-known and popular poem from the First World War, “In Flanders Fields":

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

After reading this poem Moina Michael, a college teacher and YMCA War Worker, was so moved that she was inspired to write a response. Hastily written on the back of an envelope, she penned the lines to We Shall Keep the Faith:

"I don't support our troops," admits LA Times columnist Joel Stein. "This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on." Stein adds,

And I've got no problem with other people — the ones who were for the Iraq war — supporting the troops. If you think invading Iraq was a good idea, then by all means, support away. Load up on those patriotic magnets and bracelets and other trinkets the Chinese are making money off of.

But I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they're wussy by definition. It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward.

For having committed the unpardonable sin of saying what many believe but few have the courage to say in public, Stein is paying a dear price. He's taking a beating in the blogosphere and and on talk radio. While being interviewed for Hugh Hewitt's radio show, Stein admitted that the "world is coming down on [his] head." Yet through it all he stands by his comments.

Stein may be an ingrate but at least he isn't a hypocrite. He may not support the troops but I certainly support his honesty. After all, what do anti-war protesters mean when they say that they oppose the war but “support our troops?”

[Note: I left active-duty seven months ago, but in honor of Veterans' Day and the 230th birthday of the Marine Corps I wanted to share a story about why I love being a Marine.]

During the late ‘90s I served a three year sting on recruiting duty in Olympia, WA. The long hours and tedium of dealing with teenagers was wearing me down so on a rainy October day my partner and I decided to take a trip out to Evergreen State College. Our area of Washington wasn't exactly friendly to recruiters but that particular school had a reputation for being so unwelcoming that it was rumored that no one from our office had visited in the past ten years.

Evergreen, considered one of the most liberal schools in the country, prided itself on being one of the first schools to hold protest against the first Gulf War. The only thing that we shared in common was that our organizations both had latin mottos. (For the Corps: Semper Fidelis, "always faithful"; for the Greeners: Omnia Extares, a latinization of the sixties catchphrase "let it all hang out.") As we stepped on campus in our dress blue uniforms we prepared ourselves for what was sure to be an interesting visit.

When we arrived, though, we were disappointed by our reception. No spontaneous protests broke out, no one called us names, no confrontations with patchouli wearing hippie chicks. Instead, we received a cool reception. Stares and smirks and polite bemusement, but no one went out of their way to be rude or unkind. They simply ignored us, figuring that we would soon just go away without a fuss.

We walked over to the student union, ordered some lunch and sat at a corner table by ourselves. Most of the students did their best to avoid making eye contact but one young girl, dressed in Birkenstocks and sporting white-girl dreadlocks, walked up to us and smiled.

“Are you two Canadian Mounties?" she asked. I smiled, thinking that she was making fun of our uniforms. Then I realized she was serious. “Um no,“ I said, “We’re U.S. Marines.“

“Oh," she said, looking puzzled. “So what do Marines do?”

In 1915, a Canadian medical officer named John McCrae published what is probably the single best-known and popular poem from the First World War, “In Flanders Fields":

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

After reading this poem Moina Michael, a college teacher and YMCA War Worker, was so moved that she was inspired to write a response. Hastily written on the back of an envelope, she penned the lines to We Shall Keep the Faith:

In 1996, Commandant of the Marine Corps General Charles Krulak issued an order that every Marine would carry a Corps Values card. The card would serve, said Gen. Krulak, as “a touchstone during times of uncertainty – a link to our past and a constant reminder of dedication to our Core Values.” Every Marine is expected to keep the card in the their possession at all times, just a they carry their ID cards or identification tags.

On the back of the card are a list of guidelines such as “Lead by example”, “Respect yourself and others”, “Maintain a high standard of integrity”, “Uphold special trust and confidence”, and “Place faith and honor above all else.”

After seeing a photo taken in Iraq, it’s apparent that a few of my fellow Marines need to dust off their cards and read those words again.

“Soldiers have long been subjected to invidious generational comparison,” writes Phillip Carter and Owen West in their recent Slate article, Iraq 2004 Looks Like Vietnam 1966. The opening line turns out to be prophetic as the two former military officers provide their own invidious comparison between the situation in Iraq and the early phase of the Vietnam War:

After factoring in medical, doctrinal, and technological improvements, infantry duty in Iraq circa 2004 comes out just as intense as infantry duty in Vietnam circa 1966—and in some cases more lethal. Even discrete engagements, such as the battle of Hue City in 1968 and the battles for Fallujah in 2004, tell a similar tale: Today's grunts are patrolling a battlefield every bit as deadly as the crucible their fathers faced in Southeast Asia.

There is no disputing that Iraq is a dangerous area where our troops are in constant danger from terrorist activity. But is the situation comparable to Vietnam?

In 1966, a total of 6,053 servicemembers were killed either in action or because of "non-hostile" wounds; in 2004, the total number was 896. The difference between the deaths in Vietnam and those in Iraq is a ratio of almost 7 to 1.

But with a little sleight-of-hand and some tweaking of statistics, Carter and West are able to conclude that the true 2004 "constant casualty" figure in Iraq is 3,065 KIA. While the process they use to arrive at that figure is a bit murky, I trust that it was vetted by someone who knows what they are talking about. Still, the figure fails in one key respect – the death toll is 896, not 3,065.

In his recent Tech Central Station column, former Army officer and Desert Storm vet James Joyner implies that military members are somehow being misled about their contractual agreements:

The dirty little secret of military recruiters is that, regardless of the length of the initial active duty contract, everyone who joins the military incurs an eight-year obligation under Section 10145 of 10 USC. This fact is buried in the long enlistment contract and certainly not emphasized by recruiters, who are under heavy pressure to meet monthly quotas.

Except for the part about recruiters being under heavy pressure, Joyner couldn’t be more wrong. First, the “long enlistment contract” is only four pages, including one page of laws relating to the contract itself. (A copy of the contract can be found here.) Second, this “dirty little secret” is spelled out quite clearly on page two:

[Note: I'm about to go off on a rant. It doesn't happen often so I hope that you will simply ignore this while I get a few things off my chest. I recommend skipping this post entirely and checking back when my moral outrage has subsided.]

A recent action by the U.S.military appears to have rankled many of my fellow Christians. Chuck Corrie says that hearing the news made his blood pressure go up while Canadian blogger Bene lists numerous reasons the decision made was wrong. What heinous act do they find so disturbing? The military giving our troops Bibles.

Yes, my fellow Christians are disturbed that people are receiving Bibles.

Apparently, some people are shocked to find that the government provides Bibles (as well as copies of the Koran and Torah) to military personnel. Although religious materials have been provided by the government since the inception of the Chaplaincy – during the American Revolution -- they act as if this is a shocking new development.

From reading their remarks it appears they’re more concerned that some sacred doctrine of church/state separation might be violated than they are with the spread of God’s word. The fact that men and women in the military might find comfort in having a sacred text available while they are in a foreign land protecting the rights of Americans (and Canadians) to worship as they choose doesn’t seem to be a consideration.

If this were the end of the story I might have simply shrugged off the obtuse reaction. But it didn’t end there.

Pearl Harbor survivor Houston James embraces Marine Staff Sgt. Mark Graunke Jr. during a Veterans Day commemoration in Dallas. Graunke, a member of a Marine ordnance-disposal team, lost a hand, leg, and eye while defusing a bomb in Iraq in July of last year. (Photo by Jim Mahoney/Dallas Morning News)

Just wanted to provide a reminder that for some people, every day is veteran's day.

The German press is reporting that twenty noncommissioned officers and one captain of the German army are being investigated for using violent training tactics that included electric shocks, physical abuse and psychological intimidation on around 80 recruits between June and September:

Spiegel newsmagazine reported Monday that in four instances on the training grounds in Coesfeld, a small town in northern Germany, the officers dressed themselves up as Arabs, ambushed the recruits during a night march, bound and hooded them and then transported them in trucks to a basement in the barracks.

There the recruits were forced to kneel against the wall, where they were roughed up and drenched with cold water. At least two of the victims received electric shocks in the throat, groin and stomach area from a loud-speaker cable, according to Spiegel.

While any reports of such abuse are disturbing, I find it particularly troubling that the event occurred during initial training, a period when professionalism and soldierly virtue are inculcated in the impressionable recruits. Military units are hermetically sealed cultures that, when at their best, have a moral core that is comprised of a unique blend of deontological and virtue ethics. Although the deontological side, with its emphasis on regulations and discipline, is the most commonly associated with the military, it is the honing of virtue ethics that creates a moral institution.

By cultivating specific virtues such as courage, discipline, and honor, a military shores up the natural moral law which lies in the hearts of its members. But hazing – whether physical or psychological – undermines this effort. The soldiers believe their abusive reality rather than the sanitized façade that is presented to the outside world. Their inherent sense of right and wrong is undermined and replaced by situational ethics that implies that the normal rules of civilization do not apply to those who are exposed to the fog of war.

Happy 229th birthday to my brothers and sisters in the worlds finest fighting force. Although it's been a tough year, the Marine Corps has shown once again that we are always ready to answer our country's call (but if for some reason we're not available, you can always leave a message on our answering machine).

Several bloggers have pointed out that an email is circulating on college campuses advising young men and women that President Bush is planning to reinstate military conscription:

Mandatory draft for boys and girls (ages18-26) starting June 15, 2005

There is pending legislation in the House and Senate, S89 and HR 163,to reinstate mandatory draft for boys and girls (ages18-26) starting June 15, 2005. This plan includes women in the draft, eliminates higher education as a shelter, and makes it difficult to cross into Canada.

While I don’t want to say too much (for fear of losing my security clearance) I feel an obligation to tell what I know about the veracity of this claim. And that is this: the email is true. Every word. The draft is coming soon. Which is why you must act now.

Seriously, there’s no time to waste. If you want to avoid being drafted you need to leave for Canada. Now. Right now. Just get in your car and drive north. Eventually you’ll meet peculiar people who talk with a strange accent. Those are Minnesotans. Keep driving a few more hours and you’ll reach Canada.

Stay there until a Democrat is elected and pardons you and your fellow draft dodgers. It may take a few years but it will be worth it. After all, which would you rather be, dead or in Toronto?

Okay, now get going. Really, you need to stop reading this blog and just go. Good luck and godspeed.

Next time you talk to a Marine who served on recruiting duty, ask them if they ever met a veteran who served in the famed “Charlie Company.” Most likely they will roll their eyes in recognition and tell about the time they were stopped by a scruffy looking man who claimed that he served in “the ’Nam” with “The Walking Dead”, one of the most legendary units of that era. After it became a badge of honor to have served in the Vietnam War, the "vets" returned from manning their posts in Canada to share their war stories, tales they had picked up at the local video store.

At the time I came to expect such ridiculous claims from the local “braggart soldiers.” What I didn’t know was that the “brag sheet” of former Marines that I carried around to impress potential recruits had an exaggeration of its own. In the section on former Marines who became journalists, next to the picture of Bernard Shaw, was a photo of Dan Rather.

The only problem is that Rather was never a Marine.*

In an interview with the Academy of Achievement, Rather admitted:

I went in the Marines, had one of the shortest and least distinguished careers in the whole history of the Marine Corps and came out.

His choice of wording is rather fitting. While he enlisted and went to boot camp, he never actually graduated. As B.G. Burkett uncovered in his research, Rather was discharged four months into his training for being medically unfit. As a boy, Rather had suffered from rheumatic fever which may have adversely affected his stamina.

In a 1996 op-ed for The Advocate, John Kerry came close to revealing his position on gay marriage. Fortunately for the Democrats, his position is “nuanced” enough that he can avoid being pinned down on the issue. While he considers the Defense of Marriage Act to be “legislative gay bashing” that sets up a “caste system for marriage” he doesn’t claim to actually support gay marriage. While his stated position is that that states should be forced to legally recognize same-sex marriages, the Senator doesn’t say that he would support them in his own state.

What he is clear on, however, is his position on gays in the military:

In an election year, even the most trivial of incidents can become the subject of intense scrutiny. Take, for example, the story about a handful of Marines whose lunch was interrupted by John Kerry. On its own merits, the story is nothing more than a photo-op that backfired. Slightly amusing, perhaps, but the event is certainly not portentous of the military’s reaction to Kerry’s candidacy. Being a non-issue, I would have ignored the story completely had it not led to a rift between two influential bloggers, Hugh Hewitt and Sgt. Stryker, whose opinions I both respect and admire.

The dispute erupted after Hugh made the following comment about the incident:

During an election year, the prism of partisan politics colors almost every issue. Even events of the most serious nature get overshadowed by the political squabbles that will result as both sides attempt to leverage the issue to their advantage. The long term consequences are ignored while everyone argues about how it will help or hurt a particular political party.

That was the primary reason I was hesitant to comment on the Sandy Berger story. No matter what I said I would come off as just another partisan hack shilling for my party. But after reading this comment by Glen Reynolds I felt it was necessary to point out what is really at stake:

The legalities of this are the least important part from my perspective -- I'm far more concerned with what the Hell he was thinking -- but this may be useful.
...
Gross negligence? Sounds like it to me. But again, I'm not an expert. In fact, this almost makes me wonder why he hasn't been charged -- though the decision to charge someone, even someone admittedly guilty, is always a matter of discretion, and criminal charges against a former National Security Adviser are a rather big deal. It's easy to understand why the Justice Department might be reluctant to bring such charges even if it's satisfied that all the elements of the crime are present.

I think Reynolds is wrong. The legalities are the most important part.

Before I had ever heard the term “blog”, I was a fan of Arts and Letter Daily, one of the most influential and critically acclaimed weblogs in the world. Six days a week Denis Dutton and Tran Huu Dung scour hundreds of newspapers, magazines, and journals in order to highlight interesting articles, book reviews, and essays.

Yesterday, their “Article of Note” was a selection from the U.S. US Army War College’s journal Parameters . Normally, Ralph Peters essay “In Praise of Attrition” would have died a deservedly obscure death. But because of the attention it will receive, and the potential embarrassment it could cause the military, I feel compelled to comment on it.

The main thesis of the article is rather straightforward:

The belief that attrition, as an objective or a result, is inherently negative is simply wrong. A soldier’s job is to kill the enemy. All else, however important it may appear at the moment, is secondary. And to kill the enemy is to attrit the enemy. All wars in which bullets—or arrows—fly are wars of attrition.

If a civilian were to make such a claim it could be excused as a grave misunderstanding of the purpose of war. But for that statement to come from a professional soldier is absolutely stunning. Unfortunately, it only goes downhill from there. In all my years of reading military journals I can honestly say that I’ve never read an article as ignorant as this one. Were we to actually institute such a doctrine as the one Peters proposes we would quickly revert to the most immoral and ineffective military in modern history.

Robert Kaplan, a veteran reporter for The Atlantic, was embedded with a Marine infantry company as they made the harrowing attack to retake the city of Fallujah. Kaplan’s story (not yet available online) highlights the harrowing nature of combat and shows that “Security and Stability Operations” (i.e., nation-building) can often be more deadly than conventional warfare.

But the article is worth recommending for another reason. Eschewing political correctness, Kaplan makes some connections that many people would prefer to overlook. The Atlantic’s interview with the reporter underscores two key feature of Marine Corps culture:

A couple of my favorite milbloggers, Blackfive and Sgt Stryker, are taking the media to task over reports that the Army is involuntarily recalling soldiers who have been discharged or retired. While they're providing a valuable service by clearing up the confusion, I think they're being to hard on the reporters and media outlets involved.

Journalists often rely on “experts” to help them analyze specific policy moves, particularly when they are enacted by complex organizations such as the military. In doing so, reporters and wire services are bound to make factual errors. When the media can’t properly report on the results of a local school board how can we expect them to provide adequate coverage of the military?

What is more disconcerting are the ridiculous claims about the military by people who should know better: retired military officers and policy analysts.

Take, for example, their Cassandra-like evaluations of the Army’s selective callup of some members of the Individual Ready Reserve:

In 1915, a Canadian medical officer named John McCrae published what is probably the single best-known and popular poem from the First World War, “In Flanders Fields":

For the past several days I’ve been returning to the photos of Abu Ghraib prison in an attempt to make sense of what I was seeing. There was something peculiar, almost familiar, about the pictures. The way the soldiers were smiling and posing gave me an odd sense of déjà vu. I had the eerie impression that I had seen similar photos before.

And then I realized -- I had. While it had been long ago, over ten years, I recognized that these were photos of a hazing incident.

Hazing has a deep-rooted association with college fraternities, athletics, and the military. When most people think of hazing they tend to imagine silly, “Animal House”-style pranks played on fraternity pledges. They’ve probably heard horror stories of hazing that went to far but assume that it’s generally nothing more than a harmless form of peer bonding. The truth, however, is far more insidious.

My suggestion that lack of proper training contributed to the atrocities in the Abu Ghraib prison was met with much resistance. Many of the comments on the post claimed that specialized training on the Geneva Convention would have had no effect and that it was solely a breakdown in moral discipline. On his own blog, David Tanner provides one of the most representative and thorough criticisms:

I can't believe that the problem [Joe] points out and the disgusting abuse of the Iraqi prisoners have anything to do with each other. The fact that those reservists never saw the Geneva Convention rules should have nothing to do with the way they conducted themselves. I don't care about the pronouncements of international conventions, or international standards for wartime etiquette; it doesn't require a reference to such proclamations to see that what those individuals did to the Iraqi prisoners was reprehensible.

While I certainly agree with the view of Tanner and others, I think it glosses over an important point. Most everyone has simply stated that these soldiers “should have known” not to act the way they did. They seem to be under the impression that it is both obvious and beyond dispute and, therefore, no argument even needs to be made. Essentially, they're making an appeal to natural law. Like St. Thomas Aquinas, they agree that good and evil is intrinsic and knowable by all people (ST IaIIae 94, 4). These reservists should have known that such actions were wrong because all humans are endowed with the same moral intuition that humiliation and torture are evil acts.

Last week Pat Tillman was post-humously awarded a Purple Heart and a Silver Star and promoted to the rank of Specialist. His memorial service was held in his hometown today, the same day this strip by UPI editorial cartoonist Ted Rall appeared in many national publications:

In a mere four panels, Ted Rall manages not only to malign the memory of Tillman but implies that the Taliban were not supporting Al Queda, claims that the military has killed more "innocent civilians" than terrorists in Afghanistan, and calls the people hiding Osama bin Laden -- a man responsible for murdering over 3000 American -- the 'Afghan resistance." I suppose tomorrow we can expect Rall's strip to deny that the Holocaust ever happened.

No, Mr. Rall, Pat Tillman wasn’t an idiot or a sap. Nor was he a 'cog in a low-rent occupation Army." He was a brave man, a heroic soldier, a great American. Tillman gave his life so that you might live without fear. He died so that you would remain free to draw your silly little cartoons and espouse your ludicrous conspiracy theories. He died for your freedom, the very freedom you use to besmirch his reputation.

No doubt you lash out because this man’s devotion, courage, and self-sacrifice exposes what a mean and petty coward you are. Next to a man like Tillman your efforts must look exceedingly pathetic. Though what could cause you to lower yourself to such a disgraceful display is beyond my comprehension. I pity you, Mr. Rall. I really do. You are a sad, sad excuse for a man.

(Hat tip: Ramblings' Journal)

Update: Arguing with Signposts has an amusing parody of this cartoon.

After hearing allegations that prisoners being held by U.S. military forces were humiliated and abused, I was shocked and puzzled. 'How could this happen?" I wondered. 'How is something like this even possible?" Reading through the news reports it becomes clear that numerous factors were responsible and the Army’s investigation will no doubt uncover more. But whether we are willing to admit it or not, most of us in the military were not too surprised to hear these atrocities were committed by reservists.

The Department of Defense and every branch of the military has a dirty little secret, what Ross Perot would call, 'The crazy aunt in the basement that no one wants to talk about.' The military’s 'crazy aunt" is the idea that there is no substantial difference between the active duty and reserve forces.

At one time in our history, particularly during the Cold War-era, reliance on a massive amount of reserve forces made sense. The numbers bolstered our end strength and looked -- at least on paper -- impressive. Soviet military planners always had to factor in the reserve units and match them, lest they be perceived as weaker than the Americans. Reserve units also had the advantage of providing a basically trained contingent that filled the middle position between active duty forces and draft-eligible recruits.

The Soviet Union fell apart and the Warsaw Pact no longer poses a threat. Our security threats are radically different than they were just ten, much less thirty, years ago. But the military, like any bureaucracy, is slow to implement change. The Total Force Policy, which was adopted in 1973, not only remains in place but according to the DOD, 'Today, Reserve component forces are fully integrated into all war plans, and no major military operation can be successful without their participation." (The reason the outdated policy was not scrapped was because it continued to look good on paper, this time by shifting the cost of personnel funding to the less costly reserve forces.)

The tragic death of Pat Tillman has invoked some stirring tributes from columnists, bloggers, and politicians. The outpouring of grief and admiration for the young man has been extraordinary. All weekend I’ve thought about this young soldier’s death, and while I don’t have anything particularly profound to say about him, I think his example says some profound things about our country, especially our priorities as a nation.

For instance, almost every mention of Tillman refers first to his role as a football player for the Arizona Cardinals and then, almost in passing, that he was a member of the elite Army Rangers. I have a long-standing love of sports and a special affinity for professional football. But football is a game. A game. While it’s certainly an honorable occupation, it pales in comparison to the achievement of serving in the Army, much less to being a Ranger.

Why is pride of place given to his achievements on the gridiron rather than on the battlefield? And what does it say about a country that esteems its entertainers more than its warriors? Devote your life to the protection of your fellow citizens and you’ll get respectful nods and a livable wage. Devote your life to the protection of a quarterback and you’ll be worshipped as a hero and paid a king’s ransom. The absurdity of it all would be laughable if it weren’t so depressing.

And then there’s the money. Sadly, in America, it always comes around to money. Let’s be honest. Unless you lived in Arizona or were a dedicated fan of the NFL, you probably had never heard of Pat Tillman before his untimely death. The chances are just as great that he would have remained an obscure figure, like the other 39 who have died in combat in Afghanistan, had it not been for a remarkable number -- 3.6 million.

The recent suggestion by Sen. Chuck Hagel that compulsory military service is needed has once again brought the issue of the draft to the fore. I’ve expressed before the pragmatic reasons why I think it’s an abhorrent idea, but I’ve been intrigued with some of the 'moral" arguments being presented by both liberals and libertarians on the issue. On post in particular that caught my attention was one presented by Ezra Klein (via Matt Yglesias):

Now, I don't want a draft. Being a healthy 19-year old, the prospect is pretty scary to me. But I must express puzzlement over Oliver Willis's assertion that one would be immoral. As long as there's a serious CO program contained within, think a draft would be significantly more moral than our current way of staffing our military.

Our Constitution requires Congress to 'raise and support Armies" in order to 'provide for the common defense." What it doesn’t specify, however, is how the military should be 'raised." There are, in fact, only three options available: all-volunteer, forced conscription, or some combination of the two. Currently, our military is an all-volunteer force which, according to Mr. Klein, is significantly less moral than instituting some level of conscription.

What is peculiar is that Klein believes that it would be more 'moral" for the government to force him to do something he's unwilling to do voluntarily. While conservatives are often the one’s to take a pessimistic view of the inherent goodness of humans, liberals are the often the first to use the power of the government to force them to do what they would not do on their own (i.e., paying a higher rate on state income taxes). Instead of addressing this curious phenomenon, though, I want to look at the underlying assumption behind Klein’s view, which I believe is shared by many people whether they are conservative, liberal, or libertarian.

Throughout the first half of the 20th century, Germany proved to be one of the most militaristic countries in the world and the instigator of two global conflicts. The rampant militarism was only stemmed after the country was defeated and divided into four occupation zones. Naturally, when the prospect of reunification became a reality in 1990, many people grew concerned that it would lead once again to a powerful and dominant German military.

Those people no longer need to worry:

German soldiers who are in relationships with each other will be able to sleep together in barracks and on foreign missions.

Peter Struck, the defence minister, said the new guidelines applied to homosexual as well as heterosexual couples. They were necessary to reflect "social normality". Until now, sex between married or cohabiting servicemen has been forbidden in barracks and on operations at home and abroad.

The change was announced after protests from several Social Democrat MPs who said that the ban on cohabitation in barracks was putting women off becoming soldiers. There was also growing criticism in military circles that the ban on sexual relations, which was imposed to safeguard order and discipline, was "hostile to life". Senior officers argued that married couples living in barracks should not face disciplinary proceedings if they had relations while they were off-duty.

The defence ministry dismissed a suggestion that the new rules would lead to a distraction from or a dereliction of duty.A spokesman said: "It is more likely that people would become distracted if this were not permitted and couples were not allowed to say goodnight properly. Sexuality is a part of being a human being regardless of whether you wear a uniform."

Let me begin by making a prediction: the Germans will reverse this decision within five years. That should allow enough time for the incidents of sexual harassment, sexual assault, sexual blackmail, and rape to reach a tipping point and scandalize the entire EU. Last year, women soldiers in their military made 83 claims of sexual abuse; I expect those numbers will easily triple within two years.

Surrounded by mealy-mouthed bureaucrats who wrap their answers in politically correct diplomese-speak, Deputy Secretary Richard L. Armitage has always seemed out of place at the State Department. The burly veteran has done his time in the trenches – the Naval Academy, Vietnam, the Pentagon – and has never been afraid to speak his mind (defending Powell to a Washington Post reporter, he asked, “"Frank Gaffney, Gary Bauer, these pissants who have never served in uniform—who would you rather have represent the nation, them or Colin Powell?"). He may work for Powell but he talks like Rumsfeld.

The Deputy Secretary, who Jack Shafer refers to as “a Powell loyalist with a mouth (and body) to rival that of "Macho Man" Randy Savage”, recently let loose in a question and answer session with a group of pan-Arab print reporters:

QUESTION: -- about human rights in Iraq. There have been civilian casualties, women and children, in Fallujah. How can you promote democracy in the Middle East when you're sending out a message that it's okay to shoot at children and –

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: Oh, stop. Stop. Shame on you. I hope you were screaming about human rights during the time of Saddam Hussein. I didn't hear many in the region.

We are the most humane military in the world. We punish our people when they exceed bounds, and we do it transparently. We regret every single civilian life which is lost, and we do our utmost, even putting our soldiers at risk, to prevent those.

It is true that there are civilian casualties and it is true that these scenes are shown over and over, particularly on our Arab friends' television networks. Now we spend enormous amounts of time and put our soldiers and Marines at risk in order to try to prevent it.

War is dangerous and it is difficult times, but when you ask that question, I would hope that you'd reflect on your own writing over the past, say, 30 years and see what you've said about human rights in Iraq.

An excellent answer and one that was long overdue. We could use more people in government like him who aren’t afraid to speak the truth. Though it would be a step down for him, he should be appointed as the White House press secretary. Seeing Armitage taking on the Washington Press corps would be like watching WrestleMania on C-Span.

(Hat tip: Ben Domenech)

Apologizing for 'light blogging" is rather pretentious. As the Comrade once said, 'I hate to be the one to tell you ... but we will survive. Really. With support of my family, I think I will be able to get by the next day or two without an update from ‘YourDailyNanoBlogPundit.com.’'

He has a good point and I won’t insult you by apologizing for the paucity of posts over the past few days. What I will do, though, is give an explanation for the lack of output (and yes, there is a difference).

For the past week I’ve been working on earning my 'gray belt", the second rung on the ladder of the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program. Since I haven’t had much time (or energy) to keep abreast of the latest news and current events, I’ve been left with little to blog about. So in order to produce something I’ve decided to post about what I did today (normal blogging will resume soon):

Mike the Marine shares some news from Iraq that you won’t be hearing about on CNN (note: names have been omitted to protect the privacy of the individuals involved):

Three Marines this past week stood out in their professionalism and humanity while participating in a vehicle patrol with an Army unit. The Patrol encountered an overturned truck in a canal and due to the gathering crowd could not pass. When the Marines learned an Iraqi man was trapped underwater in the truck they dismounted the vehicle, Sergeant Lxxxx established a secure perimeter while Sergeants Bxxxx and Wxxxx dropped their gear and entered the canal pulling the driver out. While the driver could not be resuscitated by an Iraqi doctor on the scene, the attitude of the crowd was noticeably and favorably changed when the Marines emerged from the water. Sergeants Lxxxx, Bxxxx, and Wxxxx demonstrated the very definition of our ethos "No better friend, no worse enemy." You should be proud of these Marines, I am.

I am too, Devil Dog. I am too.

(Hat tip: Blackfive)

The news that the Selective Service is taking steps toward a military draft that would target people with special skills in computers and foreign languages reminded me of a recurring dream I have. In the dream, Donald Rumsfeld goes to the podium and declares that a national draft will begin in exactly one week. No deferments, no excuses, and open to every eligible male that is capable of standing upright long enough to take the oath of enlistment. Seven days reprieve and then the lottery begins.

On the seventh day, with extra guards stationed along the border of Canada, Rumsfeld steps back up to the podium and with a sly grin says, "Just kidding."

Then he closes the border and refuses to allow any would-be draft dodgers to return back to the States. That's my favorite dream. And the chances of it actually happening are only slightly less than the military reinstating the draft.

Although completely unwarranted, Hugh Hewitt has included me among an illustrious list of MilBlogs (Sgt Hook, Smash, MudvilleGazette, Blackfive, and Chief Wiggles). As he points out, my blog 'ends more towards the cultural, religious, and political than the military." That, however, will soon be changing as I just recently found out that I’m scheduled to leave for Iraq this fall. Now I’ll finally get to call myself a 'warblogger" (or perhaps more fittingly, a 'reconstruction blogger").

For those who have come over from the Weekly Standard article I’ve highlighted some of the military related posts:

The Sound of Force Protection: The Military Updates the Ancient Art of Acoustic Warfare

Being Donald Rumsfeld: How I'd Transform the Military (Pt. 1- The Air Force) [This series is still in progress]

The Designated Waver: How the Marines will Change Iraq

The Cost of Liberty

'Without A Shot Being Fired": The Significance of Military Virtue

David Brooks Discovers 'Krulak's Children"

Happy Birthday, Marines!

Separate But Equal?

(By the way, Weekly Standard readers might also find this article on "How To Spot a Straussian" of interest.)

In his Life of Crassus, Plutarch recounts a tale of how the Parthinian army used an interesting form of psychological warfare. Unlike the Romans, who used horns and trumpets to incite themselves to battle, the Parthinians used hollowed-out drums covered with bronze bells that produced, “a low and dismal tone, a blend of wild beast's roar and harsh thunder peal.”

They had rightly judged that, of all the senses, hearing is the one most apt to confound the soul, soonest rouses its emotions, and most effectively unseats the judgment.

This ancient method of using acoustics for psychological effect against an enemy will soon be getting a modern update. Marines deploying to Iraq this month to relieve the Army will be bringing with them a new non-lethal weapon called a Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD). According to a report in the LA Times:

Some people dream of what they'd change if they were the President. Not me. My fantasy is to be the Secretary of Defense. Like my curmudgeonly hero Donald Rumsfeld, I would implement a “transformation” of the military that would be wildly unpopular. And like Rummy I wouldn’t really give a damn.

This is the first in my series of what I’d change if given free reign over the Department of Defense. I’m starting with the Air Force and will eventually work my way through the other branches. Am I qualified to make such sweeping recommendations? Of course not. But then again, how qualified are those pencil-neck geeks at the Rand Corporation?

...
During the Cold War era the AF's mission was to be a garrison force focused on containment and operating out of fixed bases in the United States, Europe and the Pacific. But while the Army is no longer focused on fighting Warsaw Pact forces, the AF has not made a similar adjustment in their structure. A recent report by Jane’s Defense Weekly highlighted one of the lessons of Operation Iraqi Freedom:

Iraq proved, yet again, that we shall never return to the days of the massed aerial armada, and that military aircraft procurement will continue to fall and life cycles increase, as the means to strike the target with accurate weapons is further refined. Technological improvements will advance the cause of the intelligent weapon and the unmanned air vehicles to carry it and locate its target.

My contention is that AF is simply too big for its mission. For example, the AF currently has almost 750 tactical fighter aircraft. But during the first Gulf War, when Iraqi still had an intact air force, only 168 of these aircraft were deployed to the region. The number of fighters could be cut in half without affecting readiness. So why has the AF become a sacred cow with a virtually untouchable budget? Because no one in the government has the guts to do what needs to be done.

Here’s how I would change things:

"Being ready is not what matters," said Marine LtGen Victor H. Krulak in 1965. "What matters is winning after you get there." While Krulak was speaking about Vietnam, the Marines will be keeping those words in mind as they take over duties in Western Iraq from the Army. The Corps is planning to take a different approach than our sister service and many have viewed this as a criticism of the 82nd Airborne. They shouldn't. Because of it size and lack of resources, the Corps has always had to improvise and take a unique approach in our tactics. Iraq is no different.

As Phil Carter of Intel Dump points out, "the Marine Corps has always been on the cutting edge of counter-insurgency doctrine. The Marine Corps led the way in transforming themselves into a "3rd Generation" force, and have also pioneered much of the thought on "4th Generation" warfare. It does not surprise me that the Marines are willing to put some of those ideas into action."

Tactics, however, aren't simply limited to combat operations. The "cutting edge" approach we take to warfare has to be applied to our peace-keeping operations as well.

This morning I was reminded of that fact as I sat in on a debriefing with my new Sergeant Major. He has just returned from combat operations in Iraq and shared with us some of the "lessons learned." One story, in particular, stood out as an example of the "Marine way."

Linoge, an NROTC Midshipman from Georgia Tech, quotes this comment from his Marine Officer Instructor:

We're discriminatory. We don't like fat people in the military. We don't like dumb people either. Of course, we don't like ugly people, but we can't do anything about that.

That's true. In fact, I'm a perfect example that the Corps doesn't discriminate against the ugly.

Professor Bainbridge tipped me off to the fact that Time Magazine has named "The American Soldier" as its 2003 Person of the Year. While I applaud the decision I also see it as a slap in the face to the rest of the military. Either the magazine is singling out the achievements of the Army or they believe that all troops can be lumped under the rubric of "soldier." Whichever it is, Time blew it.

In case the magazine's editors weren't aware of it, there were also Marines, sailors, and airmen involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom. While the Army played a major role, they were not alone and the other services deserve due credit.

Now before you chide me for making such a petty complaint since, you could argue, Time meant all the services when they chose the title, let me explain a basic fact of the military: a "soldier" is one who