According to the Wall Street Journal, the values system Soldiers have is a valuable commodity in the workplace. Specifically, companies like Chesapeake Energy Corp. want to hire Soldiers because of the values, ethics, and character we bring to the table.
Our Army Values may seem like a trite anachronism of a bygone era to some, but reality tells us that society is hungry for people with these same values.
Be a man or woman of character...live out your values...encourage others to do the same. We all benefit.
26 October 2011
FAIL MODE: How NOT to form strategic relationships in Iraq
While visiting with family over the weekend, I was asked over and over again if I thought it was a good thing or a bad thing that we were leaving Iraq (largely) on 31 DEC.
I repeated my opinion--the same I've said here previously--that as long as we maintain a strategic relationship with Iraq, getting the troops out is a good thing. We need to be able to train, visit, share, rely on, and provide for the Iraqi people through an open and mutual friendship forged on the personal relationships that have been made over the past 7-8 years.
Nothing would make me happier than to have a regular REFORGER or Cobra Gold-type exercise with Iraq on a regular basis. That would be awesome. It would be equally great to have their officers attend our CGSC or other officer training classes.
Instead, this is the kind of senior leadership our nation has to rely on to form these relationships. Our leaders have have completely FAILED to see the importance of our relationship with Iraq. Not just from a strategic standpoint, but also from a psychological aspect.
There are hundreds of thousands of servicemembers who have spent years of personal capital in that country, and they deserve to know that the U.S. government (read: Pres and VP) are willing to do what it takes to make their efforts worthwhile.
You didn't agree with the Iraq campaign...OK, we got it. But you're the leaders! Do something grown up for a change! At least play the diplomat and do what's right for the nation, our stature amongst nations, and the Soldiers who defend the people who call themselves Americans.
Disgusting.
I repeated my opinion--the same I've said here previously--that as long as we maintain a strategic relationship with Iraq, getting the troops out is a good thing. We need to be able to train, visit, share, rely on, and provide for the Iraqi people through an open and mutual friendship forged on the personal relationships that have been made over the past 7-8 years.
Nothing would make me happier than to have a regular REFORGER or Cobra Gold-type exercise with Iraq on a regular basis. That would be awesome. It would be equally great to have their officers attend our CGSC or other officer training classes.
Instead, this is the kind of senior leadership our nation has to rely on to form these relationships. Our leaders have have completely FAILED to see the importance of our relationship with Iraq. Not just from a strategic standpoint, but also from a psychological aspect.
There are hundreds of thousands of servicemembers who have spent years of personal capital in that country, and they deserve to know that the U.S. government (read: Pres and VP) are willing to do what it takes to make their efforts worthwhile.
You didn't agree with the Iraq campaign...OK, we got it. But you're the leaders! Do something grown up for a change! At least play the diplomat and do what's right for the nation, our stature amongst nations, and the Soldiers who defend the people who call themselves Americans.
Disgusting.
Chandler considers tighter grooming regs - Army News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Army Times
Chandler considers tighter grooming regs - Army News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Army Times
This is an interesting article--sort of a clashing of cultures. You can make the argument that the genie is out of the bottle, so to speak, when it comes to tattoos. We have so many Soldiers in the Army right now with neck, hand, and "sleeve" tattoos it would be hard to really clamp down on them. I can't see kicking out tattooed Soldiers now when the tattoos were acceptable at the time of their enlistment.
My personal opinion is that they do look unprofessional, and don't present the best appearance to those outside the organization. I'm not tlaking about here in the U.S., either. When deployed overseas we deal with cultures that are easily offended by tattoos, let alone the tattooed images themselves--skulls, monsters, blood, gore, and sexual imagery are common themes for tattoos.
If you want a tattoo--fine. Just keep it out of sight while wearing the uniform. Any uniform. ACU, ASU, APFU...all of it.
As for piercings: none in uniform.
Let's keep the Army uniform in appearance, and represent the Army and our nation in the best way possible.
You are, of course, free to disagree and I would love to hear about your opinions (submit you comments below...wink, wink).
This is an interesting article--sort of a clashing of cultures. You can make the argument that the genie is out of the bottle, so to speak, when it comes to tattoos. We have so many Soldiers in the Army right now with neck, hand, and "sleeve" tattoos it would be hard to really clamp down on them. I can't see kicking out tattooed Soldiers now when the tattoos were acceptable at the time of their enlistment.
My personal opinion is that they do look unprofessional, and don't present the best appearance to those outside the organization. I'm not tlaking about here in the U.S., either. When deployed overseas we deal with cultures that are easily offended by tattoos, let alone the tattooed images themselves--skulls, monsters, blood, gore, and sexual imagery are common themes for tattoos.
If you want a tattoo--fine. Just keep it out of sight while wearing the uniform. Any uniform. ACU, ASU, APFU...all of it.
As for piercings: none in uniform.
Let's keep the Army uniform in appearance, and represent the Army and our nation in the best way possible.
You are, of course, free to disagree and I would love to hear about your opinions (submit you comments below...wink, wink).
21 October 2011
COB Speicher in Iraq's hands!!
The base where I spent 25 months of my life in Northern Iraq, just outside of Tikrit, was turned over to the Iraqi Army in a ceremony held yesterday.
Contingency Operating Base Speicher was a flat, dusty, worthless plot of land to the casual observer. But to the Army, it was a great place to operate out of since it was positioned along the nation's primary north-south running highway, had an airfield capable of landing any aircraft in the inventory, and was centrally positioned in the volatile north.
It will remain a vivid part of my memory. I can clearly recall the times when rocket and mortar fire would fall on us--including the time when Jimi Hendrix literally saved my life (ask me about it some time). I can remember the acrid smell of the garbage pit, and the continuous burning that would go on day and night; reminiscent of Gehenna.
I also remember the CHUs (containerized housing unit) where I lived, and the shower trailers that I'd visit regularly. By the way, don't shower in the mid-day when the local nationals are refilling the generators with fuel. I did that once, and stood there naked in the dark for 15 minutes with a head full of lather, as I waited for the power to return.
I remember the chapel services, the internet cafe, the dining facility, and the people. All the good stuff.
That place was certainly no garden spot--nothing you'd want to visit on vacation, but for me it's loaded with rich memories.
Iraq--congratulations on another step forward! I hope we can continue to have a strong strategic partnership even after the majority of US forces are gone. It's been a long struggle.
Contingency Operating Base Speicher was a flat, dusty, worthless plot of land to the casual observer. But to the Army, it was a great place to operate out of since it was positioned along the nation's primary north-south running highway, had an airfield capable of landing any aircraft in the inventory, and was centrally positioned in the volatile north.
It will remain a vivid part of my memory. I can clearly recall the times when rocket and mortar fire would fall on us--including the time when Jimi Hendrix literally saved my life (ask me about it some time). I can remember the acrid smell of the garbage pit, and the continuous burning that would go on day and night; reminiscent of Gehenna.
I also remember the CHUs (containerized housing unit) where I lived, and the shower trailers that I'd visit regularly. By the way, don't shower in the mid-day when the local nationals are refilling the generators with fuel. I did that once, and stood there naked in the dark for 15 minutes with a head full of lather, as I waited for the power to return.
I remember the chapel services, the internet cafe, the dining facility, and the people. All the good stuff.
That place was certainly no garden spot--nothing you'd want to visit on vacation, but for me it's loaded with rich memories.
Iraq--congratulations on another step forward! I hope we can continue to have a strong strategic partnership even after the majority of US forces are gone. It's been a long struggle.
20 October 2011
Why Do Americans Care So Much Less About Captured Troops Than Israelis? - The Atlantic
Why Do Americans Care So Much Less About Captured Troops Than Israelis? - The Atlantic
This article in the Atlantic brings up a very interesting point--and a conclusion that may not sit well with readers, both military and civilian alike.
The Army has a Warrior Ethos that says, "I will never leave a fallen comrade."
I can understand why we don't negotiate with enemies to barter prisoners back and forth. If you get into that game, where does it end? I mean, the Israelis traded over 1000 prisoners for their one guy, Shalit. What will it cost next time, 2000 prisoners? The Israelis better get busy and start rounding some people up.
But even if we don't negotiate, how do we balance that against our ethos?
The article says the reason we don't press for an immediate release of our own prisoners is because, as a nation, the military is out of sight and out of mind due to the nature of an all-volunteer force and the proximity of military installations to major urban centers. The American public just doesn't relate with us in uniform on a day-to-day basis, so it's easy to ignore the fact that we have Soldiers currently in captivity with seemingly nothing being done to retrieve them.
Yet, the nation was fully aware and supportive of the three wayward hikers who were captured by the Iranians after drifting off course into Iranian territory. They received regular coverage on the news, which ultimately pressures our elected officials to action.
As Soldiers, we should not lose faith with our comrades in captivity, and hold fast to our ethos that says they will not be forgotten and never left behind. Regardless of why or how they were captured, we must show our true character and push for their release. Hopefully our citizenry will join us in that effort.
Today, pray for the safety and quick return of both Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl and Staff Sgt. Ahmed Altaie.
This article in the Atlantic brings up a very interesting point--and a conclusion that may not sit well with readers, both military and civilian alike.
The Army has a Warrior Ethos that says, "I will never leave a fallen comrade."
I can understand why we don't negotiate with enemies to barter prisoners back and forth. If you get into that game, where does it end? I mean, the Israelis traded over 1000 prisoners for their one guy, Shalit. What will it cost next time, 2000 prisoners? The Israelis better get busy and start rounding some people up.
But even if we don't negotiate, how do we balance that against our ethos?
The article says the reason we don't press for an immediate release of our own prisoners is because, as a nation, the military is out of sight and out of mind due to the nature of an all-volunteer force and the proximity of military installations to major urban centers. The American public just doesn't relate with us in uniform on a day-to-day basis, so it's easy to ignore the fact that we have Soldiers currently in captivity with seemingly nothing being done to retrieve them.
Yet, the nation was fully aware and supportive of the three wayward hikers who were captured by the Iranians after drifting off course into Iranian territory. They received regular coverage on the news, which ultimately pressures our elected officials to action.
As Soldiers, we should not lose faith with our comrades in captivity, and hold fast to our ethos that says they will not be forgotten and never left behind. Regardless of why or how they were captured, we must show our true character and push for their release. Hopefully our citizenry will join us in that effort.
Today, pray for the safety and quick return of both Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl and Staff Sgt. Ahmed Altaie.
19 October 2011
Values free-for-all in the Armed Forces
Apparently there is a move afoot to have atheist "chaplains" commissioned into the Armed Forces. According to Jason Torpy, Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers. According to Torpy, atheists in uniform are under-supported by the current force of serving chaplains (those who ascribe to a set of religious beliefs), thus the need for a crew of secular humanist chaplains to enter the ranks.
Wow.
How did we get here? It would seem to me that a secular humanist can gain access to the counseling Torpy claims is lacking in the military for aetheist Soldiers through the myriad behavioral health facilities and providers, all who conduct their counseling in a non-religious fashion.
This smells of a red herring argument, and I suspect there are other motives at play. The interviewer from Mother Jones reveals his cards when he says:
It appears the Mother Jones crowd is less concerned about filling the perceived gap in support to atheist Soldiers, and more concerned about the elimination of the chaplaincy in the Armed Forces all together.
If you've been reading recently, you know that maintaining the values base in our military leaders is of prime importance to me. People will get their values from somewhere, the question becomes, as Americans, where do we want our military leaders to be getting their value system?
Do Americans want their sons and daughters to be led into very dangerous places by men and women who derive their value system from a "whatever feels good, do it" worldview? Or, would you rather trust your most precious commodity--your children-- to people who view them as valuable gifts, created in the image of God, worthy and precious as individuals?
As I've mentioned before, the Army Values are deeply rooted in a Judeo-Christian way of thinking. The example of Christ can be seen in each and every one of them.
I appreciate the service of all Americans--religious or humanist--but let's not undercut the time-proven systems that support the moral, ethical and spiritual needs of the majority of the force just to satisfy the personal convictions of an admitted few.
Wow.
How did we get here? It would seem to me that a secular humanist can gain access to the counseling Torpy claims is lacking in the military for aetheist Soldiers through the myriad behavioral health facilities and providers, all who conduct their counseling in a non-religious fashion.
This smells of a red herring argument, and I suspect there are other motives at play. The interviewer from Mother Jones reveals his cards when he says:
A lot of Mother Jones readers could be forgiven for wondering why a government department has its own clergy corps in the first place, much less why atheists are interested in working with those clerics.
It appears the Mother Jones crowd is less concerned about filling the perceived gap in support to atheist Soldiers, and more concerned about the elimination of the chaplaincy in the Armed Forces all together.
If you've been reading recently, you know that maintaining the values base in our military leaders is of prime importance to me. People will get their values from somewhere, the question becomes, as Americans, where do we want our military leaders to be getting their value system?
Do Americans want their sons and daughters to be led into very dangerous places by men and women who derive their value system from a "whatever feels good, do it" worldview? Or, would you rather trust your most precious commodity--your children-- to people who view them as valuable gifts, created in the image of God, worthy and precious as individuals?
As I've mentioned before, the Army Values are deeply rooted in a Judeo-Christian way of thinking. The example of Christ can be seen in each and every one of them.
I appreciate the service of all Americans--religious or humanist--but let's not undercut the time-proven systems that support the moral, ethical and spiritual needs of the majority of the force just to satisfy the personal convictions of an admitted few.
18 October 2011
Bahrain logistics CO is 19th fired this year - Navy News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Navy Times
Bahrain logistics CO is 19th fired this year - Navy News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Navy Times
I certainly do not want to paint the Navy with a broad brush here...but this is why military leaders--particularly offiers and NCOs--need to be value driven down to their very core.
Regardless of the circumstances involved, I can assure you that this officer lost his position of authority due to a lack of values, or a temporary breach in his value system. It would appear that the Navy is having a tough go as of late, with 19 officers losing command over their failings this year alone.
Truthfully, we all make mistakes. All of us. Sometimes the ramifications of those mistakes are more serious than at other times. When one is placed in command, and responsible for the health, welfare, and safety of people, and the fiscal stewardship over the nation's resources, the price of failure can be very high...as it should be.
The men and women we place in these positions need to hold firm to the value systems that the services hold dear. The Army has laid out their values, and I'm sure the Navy, Air Force and Marines have done the same, but it takes a steadfast commitment to those values to ensure the responsibilities of command are met.
Pray for our leaders, and that God will raise up the next generation of morally straight and value-driven men and women to lead our armed forces in defense of this great nation.
I certainly do not want to paint the Navy with a broad brush here...but this is why military leaders--particularly offiers and NCOs--need to be value driven down to their very core.
Regardless of the circumstances involved, I can assure you that this officer lost his position of authority due to a lack of values, or a temporary breach in his value system. It would appear that the Navy is having a tough go as of late, with 19 officers losing command over their failings this year alone.
Truthfully, we all make mistakes. All of us. Sometimes the ramifications of those mistakes are more serious than at other times. When one is placed in command, and responsible for the health, welfare, and safety of people, and the fiscal stewardship over the nation's resources, the price of failure can be very high...as it should be.
The men and women we place in these positions need to hold firm to the value systems that the services hold dear. The Army has laid out their values, and I'm sure the Navy, Air Force and Marines have done the same, but it takes a steadfast commitment to those values to ensure the responsibilities of command are met.
Pray for our leaders, and that God will raise up the next generation of morally straight and value-driven men and women to lead our armed forces in defense of this great nation.
17 October 2011
Did I play my cards too early?
Doctrine_Man
The opera ain't over . . . http://t.co/2LCCNE4i
A trusted agent, Doctrine Man points out that the jury is still out on the Iraq issue. We'll see...
The opera ain't over . . . http://t.co/2LCCNE4i
A trusted agent, Doctrine Man points out that the jury is still out on the Iraq issue. We'll see...
Will we pull out of Iraq completely?-- AP seems to think so
I know and have worked with both Lara Jakes and Rebecca Santana, and have a healthy respect for their work covering Iraq for AP. In my dealings with them, they have always been straight shooters, and this article appears to be another example of their fact-based reporting.
I've always said I could not see how either side, Obama or Maliki, could politically weather a plan that kept a significant number of U.S. troops stationed in Iraq past the agreed-to departure date of Dec. 31, 2011. This report seems to support my premise.
From what I've read in the blogosphere and in news aggregator sites, some want to paint this as a "cut and run" measure, or a failure vis-a-vis Vietnam. I think we need to look at this a bit more pragmatically. After all, we have to leave sometime.
I've spent my share of time and effort investing in this country and the relationship I hope to share with the Iraqi people and government. I can say with some authority that, while not perfect, things there have vastly improved over the past few years. I would say that conditions in Iraq--the government, institutions, business, education, agriculture--are "Iraqi good." Not neccessarily up to our standards, but certainly good enough for them to move forward on their own.
What some commentors are missing in today's news, however, is this vital piece of information from the article:
The most important thing we need to preserve with the Iraqi people, is the ability to continue fostering a close, strategic relationship. I, for one, want a friendship with the Iraqi people and government. They are hard to understand and operate with at times, but in all I like the people and love their history and culture. As long as the strategic relationship continues to mature, and the door for future partnerships stays open, this is a win that was worth the exhorbitant cost our nation has endured.
I do diverge from one point in the article:
I thought Obama's campaign promise was to have US troops out of Iraq within a year of his election?
Instead, his administration has been lobbying all along for the continued presence. Only because of events outside his control will he be able to uphold the thin veil of his promise to leave Iraq.
Let's not give him too much credit for this.
I've always said I could not see how either side, Obama or Maliki, could politically weather a plan that kept a significant number of U.S. troops stationed in Iraq past the agreed-to departure date of Dec. 31, 2011. This report seems to support my premise.
From what I've read in the blogosphere and in news aggregator sites, some want to paint this as a "cut and run" measure, or a failure vis-a-vis Vietnam. I think we need to look at this a bit more pragmatically. After all, we have to leave sometime.
I've spent my share of time and effort investing in this country and the relationship I hope to share with the Iraqi people and government. I can say with some authority that, while not perfect, things there have vastly improved over the past few years. I would say that conditions in Iraq--the government, institutions, business, education, agriculture--are "Iraqi good." Not neccessarily up to our standards, but certainly good enough for them to move forward on their own.
What some commentors are missing in today's news, however, is this vital piece of information from the article:
A White House spokesman, Tommy Vietor, said discussions with Iraq about the security relationship between the two countries next year were ongoing.
Pentagon press secretary George Little said the U.S. remains "committed to keeping our agreement with the Iraqi government to remove all of our troops by the end of this year."
"At the same time we're building a comprehensive partnership with Iraq under the Strategic Framework Agreement including a robust security relationship, and discussions with the Iraqis about the nature of that relationship are ongoing," Little said.
The Strategic Framework Agreement allows for other forms of military cooperation besides U.S. troops on the ground. Signed at the same time as the security accord mandating the departure deadlines, it provides outlines for the U.S.-Iraqi relationship in such areas as economic, cultural and security cooperation.
The most important thing we need to preserve with the Iraqi people, is the ability to continue fostering a close, strategic relationship. I, for one, want a friendship with the Iraqi people and government. They are hard to understand and operate with at times, but in all I like the people and love their history and culture. As long as the strategic relationship continues to mature, and the door for future partnerships stays open, this is a win that was worth the exhorbitant cost our nation has endured.
I do diverge from one point in the article:
Going down to zero by the end of this year would allow both al-Maliki and President Barack Obama to claim victory. Obama will have fulfilled a key campaign promise to end the war and al-Maliki will have ended the American presence in Iraq and restored Iraqi sovereignty.
I thought Obama's campaign promise was to have US troops out of Iraq within a year of his election?
Instead, his administration has been lobbying all along for the continued presence. Only because of events outside his control will he be able to uphold the thin veil of his promise to leave Iraq.
Let's not give him too much credit for this.
07 October 2011
Army changing how we do doctrine
One of the big projects I've been working lately is getting the word out on new changes in Army doctrine. Particularly, the new system we have called "Doctrine 2105" which we're officially launching next week at the AUSA conference in Washington, DC.
Doctrine is pretty boring stuff, in general, but if you would like a good down-n-dirty synopsis, check out this blog posting by a new acquaintance, John Doyle of 4G War blog.
http://4gwar.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/training-army-field-manuals-being-condensed/
05 October 2011
Current attiutudes about Afghan/Iraq wars, and faith
http://news.yahoo.com/poll-1-3-vets-sees-iraq-afghan-wars-040253311.html
The big takeaway from this Robert Burns article is that after 10 years of conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq, a majority of serving military members have doubts about what we're doing in those conflicts. They appear demoralized--tired of the tedious and constant rotations in and out of these countries, being separated from family and friends. The wars have sewn seeds of doubt and distrust in our national leadership, and service members are feeling a growing chasm of understanding between those who have served, and the public for whom they are serving.
It's a bit disheartening to see.
I'm sure the POTUS isn't happy about these poll results, either. But what did he really expect? I mean, he campaigned three years ago on quickly ending the involvement in Iraq (within a year of being elected), and quickly resolving the "good war" in Afghanistan. Instead, we're lobbying to stay in Iraq for an even longer time period, and the news out of Afghanistan is rarely painted in a good light. Now, the ones POTUS has to lean on to do these difficult taske are expressing their disapproval in greater numbers.
But even more disconcerting for me is the truth that is revealed in this paragraph, neatly tucked away in the middle of the article:
Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Maries are not only losing faith in their government and in their duties, but also in God.
As I mentioned in yesterday's post, military leadership relies on those who are morally upright. In Western culture, for the past 2000 or so years, our moral foundations have been rooted in a Judeo-Christian ethic. It is the basis (or has been, anyway) for what we acknowledge as "moral."
Consider the Army's Values:
Loyalty
Duty
Respect
Selfless Service
Honor
Integrity
Personal Courage
Every single aspect of our Values can be seen in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. The Army didn't look to the Bible to determine our value system, but it shouldn't seem unusual that a Western culture would see those same attributes as noble and valuable, and borrow from the Judeo-Christian ethic heavily.
So what happens when a culture is no longer rooted in a system that understands the value of such attributes--that their sons and daughters are not raised with the foundational understanding that having such values are good and desireable? The Army will have to spend a great deal of time inculcating these values into the force. For some, the training will take hold. For others, the importance of the lessons will escape them, and the situational ethics that rule the day in modern society will overtake military life.
I see the military's slide in values far too clearly now, and with current polls showing the military is abandoning religious faith, I am concerned for those who will lead our Armed Forces in the future.
The big takeaway from this Robert Burns article is that after 10 years of conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq, a majority of serving military members have doubts about what we're doing in those conflicts. They appear demoralized--tired of the tedious and constant rotations in and out of these countries, being separated from family and friends. The wars have sewn seeds of doubt and distrust in our national leadership, and service members are feeling a growing chasm of understanding between those who have served, and the public for whom they are serving.
It's a bit disheartening to see.
I'm sure the POTUS isn't happy about these poll results, either. But what did he really expect? I mean, he campaigned three years ago on quickly ending the involvement in Iraq (within a year of being elected), and quickly resolving the "good war" in Afghanistan. Instead, we're lobbying to stay in Iraq for an even longer time period, and the news out of Afghanistan is rarely painted in a good light. Now, the ones POTUS has to lean on to do these difficult taske are expressing their disapproval in greater numbers.
But even more disconcerting for me is the truth that is revealed in this paragraph, neatly tucked away in the middle of the article:
The survey also showed that post-9/11 veterans are more likely than Americans as a whole to call themselves Republicans and to disapprove of President Barack Obama's performance as commander in chief. They also are more likely than earlier generations of veterans to have no religious affiliation.
Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Maries are not only losing faith in their government and in their duties, but also in God.
As I mentioned in yesterday's post, military leadership relies on those who are morally upright. In Western culture, for the past 2000 or so years, our moral foundations have been rooted in a Judeo-Christian ethic. It is the basis (or has been, anyway) for what we acknowledge as "moral."
Consider the Army's Values:
Loyalty
Duty
Respect
Selfless Service
Honor
Integrity
Personal Courage
Every single aspect of our Values can be seen in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. The Army didn't look to the Bible to determine our value system, but it shouldn't seem unusual that a Western culture would see those same attributes as noble and valuable, and borrow from the Judeo-Christian ethic heavily.
So what happens when a culture is no longer rooted in a system that understands the value of such attributes--that their sons and daughters are not raised with the foundational understanding that having such values are good and desireable? The Army will have to spend a great deal of time inculcating these values into the force. For some, the training will take hold. For others, the importance of the lessons will escape them, and the situational ethics that rule the day in modern society will overtake military life.
I see the military's slide in values far too clearly now, and with current polls showing the military is abandoning religious faith, I am concerned for those who will lead our Armed Forces in the future.
04 October 2011
General Mattis on the American experiment and military ethics - By Tom Ricks | The Best Defense
General Mattis on the American experiment and military ethics - By Tom Ricks | The Best Defense
To many on the outside this may seem like a quote from an overly-testosterone laden man; one who is out of touch with polite society. In fact, those who may feel that way are the ones who are out of touch with reality. This Nation is worth fighting for, and it requires every generation to develop the next band of morally straight and resolute warriors who will do what it takes to employ brutish tactics in order to keep our national "experiment" alive for the next generation.
It only takes one generation to falter in this task before we no longer have a nation to defend.
For me, the key attribute described above is to be "morally very straight." Anyone can inflict pain and death on another. You read about it every day. It's the morally straight people in society who can measure death and destruction, meting it out only when necessary and at appropriate levels required to get the job done. Military leadership is not a task for morally decrepit individuals. It takes men and women with the understanding that bearing the power of military force is a sober and serious effort. It is a thoughtful and intellectual process, not driven by pure emotion, but by measured action.
When has the American Army had their worst moments? Think about My Lai or Abu Gharib. Examples of leaders with moral failings. They had the cocky and macho part down pat, but failed in displaying morality and unselfishness.
Pray for our military leaders, or all branches of service, that they may remain morally straight and able to resist the temptation to be anything but.
...if we are to keep this great big experiment called America alive-and that's all it is, an experiment-we need cocky, macho, unselfish, and morally very straight young men and women to lead our forces against the enemy.
...Okay, it's not a perfect world, but America is worth fighting for on its worst day. So, if you have got the guts to step across that line, as each of you have, then just go out and enjoy the brawl. Just have a damn good time. Train your men well. Go beat the crap out of people who deserve it, and when they throw down their gun, then you have won.
To many on the outside this may seem like a quote from an overly-testosterone laden man; one who is out of touch with polite society. In fact, those who may feel that way are the ones who are out of touch with reality. This Nation is worth fighting for, and it requires every generation to develop the next band of morally straight and resolute warriors who will do what it takes to employ brutish tactics in order to keep our national "experiment" alive for the next generation.
It only takes one generation to falter in this task before we no longer have a nation to defend.
For me, the key attribute described above is to be "morally very straight." Anyone can inflict pain and death on another. You read about it every day. It's the morally straight people in society who can measure death and destruction, meting it out only when necessary and at appropriate levels required to get the job done. Military leadership is not a task for morally decrepit individuals. It takes men and women with the understanding that bearing the power of military force is a sober and serious effort. It is a thoughtful and intellectual process, not driven by pure emotion, but by measured action.
When has the American Army had their worst moments? Think about My Lai or Abu Gharib. Examples of leaders with moral failings. They had the cocky and macho part down pat, but failed in displaying morality and unselfishness.
Pray for our military leaders, or all branches of service, that they may remain morally straight and able to resist the temptation to be anything but.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)