February 04, 2005
Degrading America - Part 2
CNN has reported a disturbing account of a three-star General’s comments on how it was fun to shoot enemy combatants. No doubt, this is an embarrassing account of a distinguished soldier’s loose tongue, but the context in which the remarks were delivered might have made his slip somewhat more excusable. But unfortunately, this isn’t the first time that General Mattis has made a feature presentation in the news.
We saw him last April in a Wall Street Journal piece, when he made the decision to relieve Marine Col. Dowdy of command. It was the only incident in the Iraq war in which a senior military officer was dismissed of duty. The short of it: Mattis sacked him because he made decisions in combat to protect his men, rather than moving them through hostile territory as quickly as he might have.
Put these two articles together, and you will see a picture of a high-ranking officer who fails to place adequate importance on the lives of both his own men and the enemy's.
General Mattis has broken no laws that should jeopardize his position, nor has he failed in accomplishing the military goals he set out to achieve. However, American soldiers in Iraq must exemplify the highest standards of moral conduct. They have a duty first to protect their fellow soldiers, and secondly to respect the Iraqi people for whom they came to fight. As one of the highest ranking officers in Iraq, Mattis must be held in the highest respect by his men for modeling these ideals. He has failed in this regard.
The last impression the world should have of our forces in Iraq is an image of whooping, trigger-happy Marines letting loose with machine guns like kids in a shooting gallery. As a conservative who believes in the sanctity of life, and as a supporter of the mission of our troops in Iraq, I call for General Mattis' resignation.
Posted by Gandhi at February 4, 2005 12:05 AMI see the Marines missed another recruitment quota last month. Guess more and more young people in America figure they can be more of what they can be here in the states than dead or maimed in Iraq.
Other services, while meeting quotas are seeing downtrends in recruitment. Iraq is losing its supporters by those that most count for Bush’s mission, replacement troops.
That would not happen if we were defending our borders here at home. Says a lot to me about the changing sentiments over Bush’s Iraq War.
Mattis sounds like another General Patton to me. Very much like another Patton. Of all the Generals in WWII, Patton and Monty are the two I would have absolutely NOT wanted to serve with as a soldier.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 4, 2005 01:51 AMDavid,
If I remember correctly, it was primarily the Marines who invaded Iraq, and the Army that is currently occupying it. That being the case, a failure to meet Marine recruiting quotas would have little to do with U.S. casualty quotas, although it’s possible that potential recruits are incorrectly making a correlation between safety in the Army and safety in the Marines.
Posted by: Gandhi at February 4, 2005 02:13 AMThe Marines are still in Iraq in their former numbers from all the accounts I hear about on MSNBC. Given the shortage of replacement troops currently discussed by both Republicans like Wolfowitz and Democrats like Clinton on C-Span yesterday, I doubt the Marines have been brought home in large numbers.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 4, 2005 03:36 AMHowever, American soldiers in Iraq must exemplify the highest standards of moral conduct. They have a duty first to protect their fellow soldiers, and secondly to respect the Iraqi people for whom they came to fight.
Actually Gandhi, there’s another alternative, albeit not an immediate solution. Given that state building or strengthening seems to be a necessary part of waging war on terror, many thinkers and politicians on the left side of the aisle are proposing changes to the armed forces to meet that requirement.
John Kerry proposed authorizing 40,000 new troops - half combat and half civil affairs officers, MPs, linguists, and other necessary expertise for rebuilding or strengthening a state’s capacity.
Democrats just introduced two bills (S.11 and S.12) to do something similar.
And Thomas P.M. Barnett (I blogged on him here a while back, and on my own site) is going so far as to propose two separate, permanent military forces, one for combat, the other for peacekeeping and state building.
It’s clear that combat soldiers are poor peacekeepers and civil administrators. Unfortunately, Republicans have virtually ignored the problem, and therefore done no thinking or planning for a solution.
General Mattis has a place in our combat forces. I’m not sure it makes sense for our combat forces to be doing peacekeeping and nation building.
You guys are pretty out-of-the-loop for political junkies. The Marines were rotated out soon after the Fall of Baghdad but was rotated back in recently. They occupy the Anbar Province in the Sunni Triangle. Currently, the greatest shortage is in the Reverves and Guards. The frontline troops have no shortage as yet due to stoploss orders.
I really don’t understand why there should be a shortage right now. The Republicans should be joining in droves under the banner of the Great Leader. Where are the 60,000,000 Bush Voters? Perhaps we should start drafting the Red States for them? Then the Moral Conservatives can follow Bush’s example and avoid combat using Daddy or flee to Canada like the good Bush Voters they are!!!
Posted by: Aldous at February 4, 2005 07:01 AMGeneral Mattis spoke the truth. For all who have been on active duty, in the US Armed Forces, what the General said is a truism.
Our troops train endlessly to kill, and maim, and destroy, our enemies in the most efficient way possible. After months and, in some cases, years of training, the emotional release resulting from actually doing what you have trained so long to do, is, well, fun. Not to mention, the bad guys are trying to kill you at the same time. The old expression: ?If the enemy is within range of your guns, you are in range of his!? weighs heavily on the minds of warriors. To eliminate an immediate threat brings a rush no drug can supply. I believe that is what the General meant.
For expressing the truth, there is a likelihood his military career is over. It is a sad day, indeed, when the truth dare not be spoken.
It reminds me of another General who lost his job as a result of something he said. General George Patton was arguably the best General the US Army had, period. A warrior. A pure warrior. Warriors are like junk yard dogs. A country keeps them chained up until the country is in danger. Then the country releases the chain and allows the “dogs of war” to rip and tear until the enemy is vanquished. Then, we chain them up again. Or, we persecute them for doing what WE trained them to do…fight and win wars.
We?d like the General to know some of us admire his candor. We also appreciate the job he has done for our country.
Semper fi, General Mattis.
“Longstreet”
This guy is a marine, marines kill people. Marines are taught to think and adapt so, they can kill efficiently. Marines should want to go to war. Thats their job, the bringer of death. Really though, Marines are crazy and they have to be in order to survive this Presidents vendetta.
Posted by: chad at February 4, 2005 10:14 AMY’all are so dang outside the loop its not even funny - as a 12 year veteran of the US Army Infantry, and having recently returned from Iraq, let me clear up a few things for you -
The job of Infantry is a very simple one that has no relation whatsoever with any civilian occupation - its job is quite simply to kill people and break sh*t. And American Infantry forces (both Marine and Army) - which always lead the assualt, bear the brunt of the casualties, and get the least credit - are the best in the world and killing people and breaking sh*t. (and for the record the invasion of Iraq consisted of over 200,000 troops, the majority of them Army forces, and the current occupation of Iraq, has about 130,000 troops, again majority of them being Army troops - the Marines are very good at what they do, but they also have a very good propaganda machine that sometimes creates the impression - like Gandhi’s - that they had a larger role than they may actually have)
All that said the Entire US Army is about 500,000 troops, with another 250,000 or so in the Guard and Reserve. The Marine Corps consists of about 175,000. The Air Force and Navy have around 350,000 apiece. THat makes a grand total of about 1.8 Million men and women in uniform (excluding the coast guard) NOTE these are approximate numbers strength levels constantly fluctuate.
Now to the point - take out all the cooks, clerks, supply guys, mechanics, pilots, welfare officers, etc and get it down to just the guys that carry rifles and are trained to “close with and destroy the enemy” and you are left with less than 100,000 troops (Thats not a typo) The “tooth to tail” ratio in the current US force structure is 1 to 36 in other words for every one guy fighting there are 36 others “supporting him”. I am excluding Armor (Tank) units and Artillery Units which - while considered combat arms - are not heavily involved in fighting right now in Iraq - except in cases where they have assumed roles traditionally performed by the Infantry - an unfortunatley all to common practice. By its very nature, and I am not the first to make this argument, US Infantry forces, Light, Medium, and Heavy, both Marine and Army, are “elite” by the traditional measure. At no time in history has any nation fielded an army of so few “fighters” capable of doing so much damage.
The point I’m trying to make here if you are still with me is that being an infantryman is a unique job, and the most politically incorrect of all jobs in the world - You are paid to kill people and destroy things. It takes a special breed of individual to do that and an even more special breed to inspire and lead them. Civilians (and some military members) who don’t have that familiarity with the Infantry often are shocked by the things they say and do. Its too far outside there experience. The Marine General, somewhat facetiously, was sharing an honest opinion that is shared by more than a few of his brethren. The infantryman is a hard-charging, tobacco chewing, foul-mouthed, dirty, stinky bastard known to drink a lot, chase women, and generally be as politically incorrect as possible. All the social engineering and “touchy feely” BS foisted upon our military over the last two decades can’t change that and trust me - you wouldn’t want to.
The General was, quite bluntly, stating a fact I would tend to agree with when talking about the Islamo-fascist bastards we are fighting, and that I have run across in my travels -
They are ruthless, cold blooded killers, with little or no moral courage, and have an extremely low regard for human life, dignity, the basics rights of men and more especially women. Is killing fun - no I wouldn’t say that - but if you gotta kill somebody these are the guys on the top of the list (well maybe after lawyers), and so there is a certain “joy in that work”. Thats probably not the best way of putting it, but I would compare it to throwing the switch on a child molesterer/murderer - you hate to HAVE to do it, but there is most certainly a kind of satisfaction in it.
I am reminded of one of my favorite quotes from George Orwell -
“Free people rest peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf”
Posted by: Brad at February 4, 2005 01:16 PM
“Warriors are like junk yard dogs.” Yes, there is a time to kill people and break s*** - I have close friends in Iraq who do exactly that. But a three-star general should be far above that, especially since Generals are expected to do far more than just command their troops to kill the enemy. Mattis’ comments probably would have been excusable during the invasion two years ago, when he didn’t need to worry about the politics; two years later, now that we’re protecting some of the same people we were fighting with earlier, they are inexcusable. There’s a fine line between “expressing the truth” and controlling the tongue.
The “Men or Mission” article I posted earlier shows some of the need for that balance.
Posted by: Gandhi at February 4, 2005 01:39 PMBrad,
Thanks for trying but there are people on this blog that there is no explaining to. Men such as yourself have been in the arena while others in their nice safe homes can sit back and criticize from half a world away. If general Mattis had said ” I feel so darn guilty about slaughtering these poor homicidal maniacs!” he would have stood a chance with the left.
As for myself I would like to see a little more viciousness on the generals part. As someone said earlier, thats his job. And as we see more and more the left’s frustration because of the great job our military is doing, you have to expect them to attack those that are actually doing the presidents orders. Even though this is a “Republicans & Conservatives” blog, you’ll see it for an actual “Bash Bush” blog.
I was once called a “Nationalist” on this blog because I argued with the “See the glass half empty” crowd concerning America.
Even the words of Theodore Roosevelt were called a “platitude”. These words which I dedicate to you and those that follow our president, and especially our president.
“The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.Whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood….
Who at best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly.
So that their place shall never be with those faithless and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat.”
Thanks Brad.
Posted by: oldwolf at February 4, 2005 03:23 PMGandhi:
“a three-star general should be far above that, especially since Generals are expected to do far more than just command their troops to kill the enemy. “
I agree. Mattis’ remarks are so disturbing solely because he is a three star general.
The last line of your first link is especially telling:
“I was a little surprised,” said retired Vice Adm. Edward H. Martin. “I don’t think any of us who have ever fought in wars liked to kill anybody.”“
Vice Admiral Martin is a man of war and reason, while Mattis’ remarks display that he is a man of war with several screws loose.
Mattis:
“You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil,” “You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.”
This is nothing but the crazy-talk of a fascist. We the People, should never want to encourage or applaud that particular brand of insanity from our political or military leaders.
Posted by: Adrienne at February 4, 2005 03:39 PMOldwolf, don’t be so quick to label everyone here as “Bush-bashers”. I am a grassroots conservative and a strong supporter of the Iraqi liberation, our troops, and our President. My dad’s small business where I work has received national recognition on the U.S. Senate floor for his support of the National Guard (see paragraph 5). I’ve done door-to-door fundraising to support Crisis Pregnancy Centers from the time I was six years old. Reputable Republican politicians can always count on my support and my vote. Visit my personal website and see for yourself whether I’m a conservative.
I was quick to attack Mattis not because I’m against President Bush or the troops, but because I care about the image that they give to our country. I want the world to see America at its finest, and to have a good impression of the Republican administration. However, I also don’t want to parrot conserative rhetoric that will damage the reputation of our party as being unintelligent, immoral, and out-of-touch. There are plenty of people on both sides who do that. I refuse to join their ranks, and I encourage you not to either!
Although I disagree with Brad’s politics, I sympathize with his sentiments and understand where he is coming from.
Posted by: Gandhi at February 4, 2005 05:21 PMMattis obviously put his foot in his mouth on this, but it’s not obvious to me from your article what the context and setting was. Embarassing, maybe, and not the kind of guy you’d want as a spokesman for the US - but I won’t call this “degrading”. You can’t blame the guy too much for what (I assume) was dark humor.
I’m more worried about the fact we’re keeping suspected terrorists in solitary confinement, without legal counsel or charging them with crimes, for so long that it may cause irreversible mental damage. This isn’t exactly super PR for America, land of liberty and justice for all. And this isn’t a few bad apples - it’s policy. That’s degrading.
Posted by: William Cohen at February 4, 2005 05:48 PMI think Gen. Mattis sounds pretty bad, but I think the commentary should not be considered shocking. We do indeed train soldiers to kill and enjoy action, especially against unsympathetic opponents.
If anything, the reason why his approach should be considered ill-advised are the problems inherent with a speed assualt. You are always in danger of leaving more of your supply train behind than you really want to, and you are not in the best position to secure territory. We started out with one arm tied behind our back to satisfy those who wanted to prove their theories.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 4, 2005 05:50 PMI to served in the U.S. military. Short and sweet, there is a reason we call these guys grunts. We do not pay them to think, we pay them to kill. That is their job. The mistake made here was putting a true grunt in front of a camera!
Posted by: wisevil at February 5, 2005 02:35 AMThis is nothing but the opinion of one man, and I do not expect this to hold any weight.
When anu military man, regardless of his rank, takes pride in doing his job, I as someone who has never been in the service, applaud him. I know with folks like that on the job, I will go to my warm fuzzy bed safely tonight. Diplomacy and sensitivity may have their place, but that place is not on a battlefield. My job is to set telephone poles. When that sucker is in the ground correctly, I know I did a job that will last for 50 years, and I take a bit of pride in that too. If I were concerned with some rich dude being upset at having to look at the double pole in front of his house, that old pole would rot and fall, possibly hurting someone and damaging property.
I’m not coming down on anyone who has a problem with what this general said. I for one, however, salute him and thank the rest of the men and women in foreign lands who get their hands bloody and risk their lives so I don’t have to.
I pray you all come home soon and safely.
Gandhi,
I am sure you consider yourself a conservative but please note…How sadly we have reached, down to the point, where a “comment” from a general is ruining the image of America. Image!
Like someone who is drowning, reaching out for a pencil floating by, the left finds this last desperate grab, a realistic chance to bash all things American. He made a comment. So what! People have got to stop being so damn politically correct or they fall to the whims of the left.
Who’s so perfect that they never say something out of hand? But to make something out of nothing is a desperate move by desperate people.
I consider myself an independent with conservative leanings. I think President Bush should have waited awhile before going into Iraq,but he did and we are there. And to the Dems. and their lefty masters Bush is making them mad with hate by results. Yes I know Americans are being killed.The media everyday shoves this info down our throats .
Two soldiers killed today…
One soldier killed today…
Why don’t we ever here the rest of the story though.
( Two American soldiers killed today in battle…that killed 100 to 200 insurgents and freed another Iraqi town to the cheers of the Iraqi’s in that town.)
Because that would give people hope. They would begin to doubt the media’s spin on the truth. Yes some of the truth is ugly but the American people can think for themselves. We don’t need thought police telling us what to think…
(The general should know better…
We have to worry about our image…
Its Bush’s fault, He’s the Commander and Chief…)
I’ve seen over and over on this blog, “how much I love this country but…” There are people in this blog that remind me of those
abusive husbands who beats their wives all the time and then tells them its all her fault and he hits her because he loves her.
In NY where I live I am a great fan of 770 wabc radio and have actually talked to Sean Hannity and even Ron Kuby. Now I know that I will never be as articulate as Kuby, or as persuasively semantic as he but I actually caught him offguard once by using his own words against him. He is always going off on social injustice(He is a criminal defense lawyer) And I asked him how could he feel that way when he knowingly got killers off and back on the street due to a technical point in the law? He told me
“thats what I get paid for.”
Was there an outrage at that comment?
So much for social justice.
Freedom
General Mattis didn’t say anythinhg about insurgents or terrorists or criminals or anything like that.
What he said was: “It’s fun to shoot some people”.
It doesn’t get more clear than that. To shoot people means to kill people for fun, you shoot to kill, or you shoot an empty can of beer for fun.
What he said is that he has fun killing people. Sick!
Posted by: Jean-Francois at February 5, 2005 10:36 AMTo Jean-Francois,
Thank you so very much for proving my point.
How sad to be that way.Cross those T’s and dot those I’s my friend and sleep safely in your bed.
If you were in charge I would think twice about saying” I’d kill for a burger right now!”
Next thing I know I would be in prison for attempted murder!
Quite frankly if I had a rifle and these head chopping, suicide bombing ,innocent killing psycho’s were running around in front of me, there would be only one question I would ask.
How much of a lead should I give them on a windy day?
Freedom
Posted by: oldwolf at February 5, 2005 12:40 PMIt always fascinates me how people who scream “Murder” when other people torture Americans always start saying “Patriot” when Americans start torturing people.
I should also point out that US Standing in the world is rock bottom now. So the rest of the world shares your outlook, oldwolf.
Posted by: Aldous at February 5, 2005 01:48 PMJean-Francois, you’re getting hopelessly off-topic, and only helping proove the point that the “right-wing nut jobs” here are making about political correctness. Anyway I’m pleased this post brought so many conservatives out of the woodwork. I don’t feel as lonely here any more :)
Posted by: Gandhi at February 5, 2005 02:07 PMGanhi,
I’m not a conservative. I’m a realist. There is nothing politically correct about war. Grunts kill, we train them to kill, we ask them to kill, we want them to kill, kill, kill. If they gain pleasure from doing their job well then I’m happy for them.
My grandfather told me how much pleasure he got out of killing “those Nazi bastards” during World War 2. It wasn’t until the war was over that he had time to reflect on killing but he still came to the same conclusion, in his words “It had to be done”.
The bigger question is, with the world watching, who was the dumb ass that put this grunt in front of a camera?
Jean-Francois,
Like most people you have not heard the entire quote. It was taken out of context. I’ve seen the full quote and it basically says its fun to kill people who beat women, behead Americans, etc.. I to was shocked when I first heard the quote, but in context it makes sense.
The General should have had enough sense to couch his words. Sometimes you wonder how some senior officers made it to 1st Lt. However, he did make General, and we have to assume for good reasons. I raise the point, though, that those who think we should have the military guarding our Mexican border against illegals should give the previous comments of others some thought. The military already killed a young Mexican herder because that is how they are trained.You train them to think-or not to think, as the case maay be- with a kill or be killed mentality. They don’t belong patroling for civilian border crossing. That requires a different type of training. And that type of training is not for combat troops. Off the subject a bit, but ……
Posted by: Dee Lee at February 5, 2005 04:47 PMThere is no humanity in the joy of killing. In terms of defense, killing can be necesary. To enjoy it is to become less human and more animal, animals lacking a capacity for empathy and standards designed to counter instinct. War is evil, even when justified. And those who love war, well… draw your own conclusion…
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 5, 2005 04:52 PMEvery critic of the General has never been in conbat. Their fault-finding is without knowledge, shallow, and meaningless. Your third-hand opinion qualifies you for the following: “SHUT UP!”
When free Americans go into combat to risk their lives and health, they know they are occupying the moral high-ground. The collectivist enemy hates freedom and individual value - whether it is the nazi german, the imperial japanese, the fascist italian, the communist No.Korean, No. Vietnamese, and chinese, or Saddam’s murderers of his own people.
The civilized and free American takes great pleasure in fighting our enemies. We are honored to live in a time when our Country needs us. They are the ‘bad guys.’ We are the ‘good guys.’ One man’s satisfaction is another man’s ‘fun,’
Yes, General. We understand. Thank you. Salute!
Jim Baxter
Sgt. USMC
WWII & Korean War
Aldus,
Who cares what the rest of the world thinks of us? I am one of those “right wing nut jobs” who does his own thinking no matter what Europe or Asia or anyone thinks. I look at these countries that have fallen so far down from their laurels that they are really annoying. My country is what I am concerned with. Yes I have been called a “Nationalist” and a Fascist and even, get this, a”Neo IslamicPhobic facist .” But who cares! I love my country. It may not be perfect, but what is?
I look at this country like I look at my wife.
We are in our late 40’s. Her weight has shifted unfairly,her hair is greying and her hearing is shot.Not perfect in any sense ,however,…
There is not another women I would ever think about being with. To me the sun shines and sets in her eyes. When I think of everything good in my life I see she who gave it to me. Yeah there’s been some rough times but we always managed to get through somehow. We have become stronger even though the world has become weaker. It’s an honor to be loyal to such a women. Whatever may come we’ll take it on together.My wife and my country.
Freedom
oldwolf-
Subject: Breaks. As in Giving me one.
I know it’s gratifying for certain conservatives to allege we criticize things out of hatred for all things American.
In this case, you are not just wrong, but your conclusion is the exact opposite of the truth. We want America to be admired as we admire it.
I am not too much of a stickler on political correctness. I think human creativity and spirit can defeat any such ideological constraints, in some cases for very good reasons. That said, there have always been good reasons for watching your mouth on occasion.
You act as if it’s some kind of crime that we don’t like our president, or that we disagree so strongly with his policies. Really. You see the problem with your picture of things is that you don’t account for free thought if it doesn’t go freely in your direction. It is the very nature of democracy especially on important subjects to disagree and find faults with the opponent. We simple believe we have a better idea of things. People do think for themselves, indeed. We’re some of them!
But you know something? There is a solution to that: success. Did you notice how much hopes spread among liberals on this site of better days ahead? Caution and criticism still come, but oppostition to the war is less. Why? Because most of our criticism is reserved for failure, and our concerns for unrealized events. We would be more optimistic, though if fewer screw-ups were involved, including that little one involving why we got into this war in the first place.
We never had a problem with toppling that son of a bitch, but we had this little issue with wanting to go after the assholes who had only a short time before actually killed Americans, not merely threatened them. We saw and still see al-Qaeda as an imminent threat that outranks many other priorities in our current situation. We wonder how anybody can think of prolonging a situation like Iraq, when that increase the risk that the country will become a future hotbeds of terrorism. You speak of hope, but provide no answers to the fears of terrorism beyond a vague sense that if we impose our will on the Middle East, that will fix things. you tell us that as long as we fight them in Iraq, nothing can happen to us here. Quite plainly, our feelings on this are this: Bullshit. They attacked Madrid just fine. There is nothing requiring or encouraging them to plant every al-Qaeda agent in Iraq, and they are still operating rings worldwide, including in our country.
Now some people may carp that we can’t perfectly guard the homeland. Well, duuuuh. But you know something, they can’t perfectly attack us either. If we make it hard enough, we can make their task nearly impossible.
This is what Liberal’s want: a modern approach to a modern problem, not a cold war response to a vague, half-invented clash of civilizations threat. All this liberal bashing strikes me as a political strategy that is a relic of the cold war. The Republicans need to grow up and face the new world, rather than try and create an new cold war and call that regressive strategy innovative.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 5, 2005 07:17 PMJim Baxter said: “Every critic of the General has never been in conbat. Their fault-finding is without knowledge, shallow, and meaningless. Your third-hand opinion qualifies you for the following: “SHUT UP!”
Your comment demonstrates precisely why the founding fathers intended that civilians run the government, NOT THE MILITARY!!!!!! Thank you for demonstrating the point that if the military ever gets control, there will be no freedom of speech, nor reluctance to kill anyone who disagrees. Thanks Sarge!
Army, E-5, 72-75
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 5, 2005 08:19 PMoldwolf, that is a great analogy between devoted love of wife and country. And if your wife experienced a neural degeneration that facilitated her beating your kids and depleting the bank account on Bingo, would you not consider the behavior inappropriate and seek help for her?
Many of us who critique the adminstration and the Congress on the debts and deficits, the absence of so many of the premises for invading Iraq, for the lowering of education standards in America, etc. very much love America, and simply want the aberrant behavior to cease and have her return to her previous course of ever becoming the greatest nation on earth. A person or nation cannot change the errors of their ways if they are unaware of the errors in the first place. That is one way in which we, Republicans, Democrats, Third Party and Independent critics all, are trying to love and support America toward reattaining its greatest nation status in the areas in which she is now erring.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 5, 2005 08:33 PMJim Baxter-
I understand you disagree with Gandhi’s point of view. But telling him to shut up?
You didn’t fight collectivist enemies of any kind just so you could impose collectivism on your fellow citizens. We are a free people, and wisdom is not exclusive to civilian or military sectors.
In fight our wars we must make sure that the labels “good guys” and “bad guys” are more than just labels, that are efforts are truly beneficial to the innocent of the world as well as ourselves. I can understand quite well the joy of defeating one’s enemies, and the enemies of good. At the same time though, there is a such thing as getting carried away with those sentiments, to the point where one’s judgment of the good and the right is compromised.
The overall worry that Gandhi poses is valid- we do not need generals so caught up in the mystique of war that they fail to acknowledge the realities. If a general says such thing out of hard-nosed realism, that’s one thing. If the general says that because he’s in a world of his own, fighting a war of their own, that is an entirely different matter.
It was people caught up in the mystique of our power as a nation that let us down on 9/11. People who believed that missiles not planes wielded by terrorist would become the greatest threat. Our nation needs people who don’t believe this country is perfect, but who love it understand its problems. We need people who aren’t so locked into notions of American moral superiority that they blithely lead us into moral compromises that desecrate the Red, White, and Blue as surely as those who burn it.
In short, we need people who don’t take America’s security, prestige, and leading place in the world for granted.
I salute anybody who seeks the best for America. I admire those in uniform greatly. But I do not believe them perfect. Also, this is a country where the military is under civilian control. The policy must represent the wishes and intentions of the American people. Hopefully, we have leaders smart enough to chart a course that honors both military necessity and the public will.
The General should keep in mind that his mouth and his actions represent more than just himself, even if he chooses to remain outspoken.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 5, 2005 08:52 PMExcellent post, Stephen - I fully agree with your sentiments and feel accurately represented. Thanks.
Posted by: Gandhi at February 6, 2005 03:26 AMAnd if your wife experienced a neural degeneration that facilitated her beating your kids and depleting the bank account on Bingo, would you not consider the behavior inappropriate and seek help for her?
LOL! Nice one, David. That’s what I love about analogies, someone can always continue it further. :)
Sgt. Baxter, that “I was in the military, so shut up!” argument always fails to impress me.
I look at these countries that have fallen so far down from their laurels that they are really annoying.
If they’ve fallen so far down from their laurals, why is the rest of the world to them as role models of liberty and democracy and abandoning us? And shouldn’t we care?
why is the rest of the world looking to them…
Posted by: American Pundit at February 6, 2005 07:19 AMOldwolf,
You Stated:
“Who cares what the rest of the world thinks of us? I am one of those “right wing nut jobs” who does his own thinking no matter what Europe or Asia or anyone thinks. …
…My country is what I am concerned with.”
There is so much wrong with that statement and your way of thinking that I hardly know where to start. First, how strong do you believe the U.S. to be militarily? Strong enough to take on the entire world, strong enough to take on Europe and Asia, or just strong enough to take on all Muslims. I hate to break it to you buddy but we are just strong to get through the mess we’re in now, short of breaking out the nukes and instituting a draft, we have our hands full. One or two smaller skirmish we could probably handle, anything more forget it. Why do you think our military is presently working on mini-nukes? I’ll tell you, so when we get stretch a little too far we can resort to these mini-nukes with out irradiating the whole planet.
Second, you ask who cares, well I do and you should too. Smart countries sign treaties and make allies for a reason. If we run the United States on the simple minded idea you put forward, well I give us 10 more years at most. Our power in the world has always come from more than just our military; it has also come from having strong allies. Have you ever played “king of the mountain”? It is a kid’s game where you try to get to the top of the snow or dirt pile and once there you try to stay as long as you can. What this game teaches kids is no matter how strong you are, a group of other kids determined to take you down, will. Right now, we are “The King of The Mountain”; only this game allows us to make allies. To stay King in this game, we must make a lot of allies.
Third, I don’t believe the U.S. should be subservient to any country or the U.N. but we must be trusted in the world. When we give reasons for our wars, those reasons must pan out. Remember, Americans are having the new reasons for the war pumped into their heads everyday, the rest of the world doesn’t watch FOX NEWS, MSNBC or CNN. Do you remember the reason countries gave for not supporting us, our inability to prove the WMD allegations. Guess what, we were wrong and they were right! No WMDs.
The General is a grunt and talks like a grunt, he is what he is. I again ask who the idiot was that put him in front of a camera. It is not what he said that troubles me but who he said it to, the world. If this was the only incident for the world to judge us by we would have no worries, but unfortunately we give them at least one or two a month lately. As time and the war goes on, these words and images will take their toll on our standing in the world. Then, like the king of the mountain with no allies, we will be taken on and the world will stand watching and thinking, “well, they asked for it”.
On a more important issue, is the treatment of Veterans. Bush is cutting the Budget for the Veterans Affairs. We are also now seeing greater numbers of Iraqi Veterans living in the streets. There are also reports of abuse on Veteran Patients in Hospitals now.
I know people in California who said that Vietnam Veterans used to live in the Forests there like ghosts. I hope Bush’s Republican War in Iraq won’t cause a similar event.
Posted by: Aldous at February 8, 2005 02:46 AMSeeing Iraq veterans living in the streets? What street do you live on?
Posted by: Randy at February 8, 2005 05:16 PMHomeless Iraq vets showing up at shelters
By Mark Benjamin
UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL
Washington, DC, Dec. 7 (UPI) — U.S. veterans from the war in Iraq are beginning to show up at homeless shelters around the country, and advocates fear they are the leading edge of a new generation of homeless vets not seen since the Vietnam era.
“When we already have people from Iraq on the streets, my God,” said Linda Boone, executive director of the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans. “I have talked to enough (shelters) to know we are getting them. It is happening and this nation is not prepared for that.”
“I drove off in my truck. I packed my stuff. I lived out of my truck for a while,” Seabees Petty Officer Luis Arellano, 34, said in a telephone interview from a homeless shelter near March Air Force Base in California run by U.S.VETS, the largest organization in the country dedicated to helping homeless veterans.
Arellano said he lived out of his truck on and off for three months after returning from Iraq in September 2003. “One day you have a home and the next day you are on the streets,” he said.
In Iraq, shrapnel nearly severed his left thumb. He still has trouble moving it and shrapnel “still comes out once in a while,” Arellano said. He is left handed.
Arellano said he felt pushed out of the military too quickly after getting back from Iraq without medical attention he needed for his hand — and as he would later learn, his mind.
“It was more of a rush. They put us in a warehouse for a while. They treated us like cattle,” Arellano said about how the military treated him on his return to the United States.
“It is all about numbers. Instead of getting quality care, they were trying to get everybody demobilized during a certain time frame. If you had a problem, they said, ‘Let the (Department of Veterans Affairs) take care of it.’”
The Pentagon has acknowledged some early problems and delays in treating soldiers returning from Iraq but says the situation has been fixed.
A gunner’s mate for 16 years, Arellano said he adjusted after serving in the first Gulf War. But after returning from Iraq, depression drove him to leave his job at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. He got divorced.
He said that after being quickly pushed out of the military, he could not get help from the VA because of long delays.
“I felt, as well as others (that the military said) ‘We can’t take care of you on active duty.’ We had to sign an agreement that we would follow up with the VA,” said Arellano.
“When we got there, the VA was totally full. They said, ‘We’ll call you.’ But I developed depression.”
He left his job and wandered for three months, sometimes living in his truck.
Nearly 300,000 veterans are homeless on any given night, and almost half served during the Vietnam era, according to the Homeless Veterans coalition, a consortium of community-based homeless-veteran service providers. While some experts have questioned the degree to which mental trauma from combat causes homelessness, a large number of veterans live with the long-term effects of post-traumatic stress disorder and substance abuse, according to the coalition.
Some homeless-veteran advocates fear that similar combat experiences in Vietnam and Iraq mean that these first few homeless veterans from Iraq are the crest of a wave.
“This is what happened with the Vietnam vets. I went to Vietnam,” said John Keaveney, chief operating officer of New Directions, a shelter and drug-and-alcohol treatment program for veterans in Los Angeles. That city has an estimated 27,000 homeless veterans, the largest such population in the nation. “It is like watching history being repeated,” Keaveney said.
Data from the Department of Veterans Affairs shows that as of last July, nearly 28,000 veterans from Iraq sought health care from the VA. One out of every five was diagnosed with a mental disorder, according to the VA. An Army study in the New England Journal of Medicine in July showed that 17 percent of service members returning from Iraq met screening criteria for major depression, generalized anxiety disorder or PTSD.
Asked whether he might have PTSD, Arrellano, the Seabees petty officer who lived out of his truck, said: “I think I do, because I get nightmares. I still remember one of the guys who was killed.” He said he gets $100 a month from the government for the wound to his hand.
Lance Cpl. James Claybon Brown Jr., 23, is staying at a shelter run by U.S.VETS in Los Angeles. He fought in Iraq for 6 months with Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 2nd Marines and later in Afghanistan with another unit. He said the fighting in Iraq was sometimes intense.
“We were pretty much all over the place,” Brown said. “It was really heavy gunfire, supported by mortar and tanks, the whole nine (yards).”
Brown acknowledged the mental stress of war, particularly after Marines inadvertently killed civilians at road blocks. He thinks his belief in God helped him come home with a sound mind.
“We had a few situations where, I guess, people were trying to get out of the country. They would come right at us and they would not stop,” Brown said. “We had to open fire on them. It was really tough. A lot of soldiers, like me, had trouble with that.”
“That was the hardest part,” Brown said. “Not only were there men, but there were women and children — really little children. There would be babies with arms blown off. It was something hard to live with.”
Brown said he got an honorable discharge with a good conduct medal from the Marines in July and went home to Dayton, Ohio. But he soon drifted west to California “pretty much to start over,” he said.
Brown said his experience with the VA was positive, but he has struggled to find work and is staying with U.S.VETS to save money. He said he might go back to school.
Advocates said seeing homeless veterans from Iraq should cause alarm. Around one-fourth of all homeless Americans are veterans, and more than 75 percent of them have some sort of mental or substance abuse problem, often PTSD, according to the Homeless Veterans coalition.
More troubling, experts said, is that mental problems are emerging as a major casualty cluster, particularly from the war in Iraq where the enemy is basically everywhere and blends in with the civilian population, and death can come from any direction at any time.
Interviews and visits to homeless shelters around the Unites States show the number of homeless veterans from Iraq or Afghanistan so far is limited. Of the last 7,500 homeless veterans served by the VA, 50 had served in Iraq. Keaveney, from New Directions in West Los Angeles, said he is treating two homeless veterans from the Army’s elite Ranger battalion at his location. U.S.VETS, the largest organization in the country dedicated to helping homeless veterans, found nine veterans from Iraq or Afghanistan in a quick survey of nine shelters. Others, like the Maryland Center for Veterans Education and Training in Baltimore, said they do not currently have any veterans from Iraq or Afghanistan in their 170 beds set aside for emergency or transitional housing.
Peter Dougherty, director of Homeless Veterans Programs at the VA, said services for veterans at risk of becoming homeless have improved exponentially since the Vietnam era. Over the past 30 years, the VA has expanded from 170 hospitals, adding 850 clinics and 206 veteran centers with an increasing emphasis on mental health. The VA also supports around 300 homeless veteran centers like the ones run by U.S.VETS, a partially non-profit organization.
“You probably have close to 10 times the access points for service than you did 30 years ago,” Dougherty said. “We may be catching a lot of these folks who are coming back with mental illness or substance abuse” before they become homeless in the first place. Dougherty said the VA serves around 100,000 homeless veterans each year.
But Boone’s group says that nearly 500,000 veterans are homeless at some point in any given year, so the VA is only serving 20 percent of them.
Roslyn Hannibal-Booker, director of development at the Maryland veterans center in Baltimore, said her organization has begun to get inquiries from veterans from Iraq and their worried families. “We are preparing for Iraq,” Hannibal-Booker said.
Generals are NOT allowed anywhere near actual combat. For this nut to be bragging how “fun” it is to shoot these guys while it’s NOT his life on the line doing any shooting is disgraceful and cowardly.
-prior Marine (‘87-‘90)
