Respect: applying it across cultures essential to success

David Axe writes yesterday that the many "tactical" incidents of disrespect shown to our Afghan partners by US Forces is resulting in a major strategic problem. I think that's somewhat obvious based on recent reporting coming out of the region.

The issue may even result in the ultimate failure of our efforts in Afghanistan. From the article:

Mark Jacobson, the former NATO deputy senior civilian representative in Kabul, said he sees the writing on the wall. “If the trust, ability and willingness to partner falls apart, you are looking at the endgame here.”

Axe's reporting leads me to two observations. One, we don't seem to understand what is meant by "respect" as it applies to the Army Values. Two, the way we interact with the Afghans seems flawed.

Ask any Soldier about the Army Values, and "Respect", and I would venture to guess you'll get a response that goes something like this: "Oh, yeah, respect is important. I mean, we should respect each other despite our differences; black, white, Hispanic, even gay...whatever you are."

You see, I think we've too narrowly focused the issue of repsect towards an inward acceptance for diversity when in fact it is an issue that reaches well outside the Army and into the people we come in contact with wherever we are...CONUS or deployed. Everyone, even our enemies to some degreee, deserve respect.

I may be out on a limb, but to me it's a basic human rights issue. People deserve to be treated with respect, for their culture, personalities, capabilities...just for being human.

This does not negate our mission to close with and destroy the enemies of our nation, in accordance with our Constitutional responsibilities. But, Soldiers need to know that while it's great they show respect for other Soldiers, the Army Values require them to show that same respect for those outside the Army as well.

Then there's the issue of strategy. Maybe it's time to admit we are not trained swell enough to have so much interaction with foreign partners who are so culturally different from us. SF troops and Civil Affairs types go through years of training in order to understand and work with foreign nation armies and peoples. To expect a 19-year old from Philly to be able to successfully negotiate the intricacies of Afghan culture after a 2-hour block of instruction and a tri-fold pamphlet is probably too much to ask.

I think it may be time to separate Soldiers from the Afghans, let the pros do the interaction, and allow our regular Joes to do what they do best--kill the enemy.

Mind Reading and Victim Identity: Inextricably Linked

Two recent events in the news have brought me to a profoundly new level of disgust and irritation with the state of our Union. It's getting so that I can't even figure out what Nation I live in anymore.

First came news of CNN commentator Roland Martin. Roland Martin is not on my list of admired people. Frankly, I think it's safe to say we are diametrically opposed to each other on views of politics. Except perhaps in one area...freedom of opinion and speech.

You may have heard this: CNN is being called upon to terminate Roland's association with the news channel. Why? Because on Super Bowl Sunday, he tweeted this:

"If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham's H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him! #superbowl"

The organization known as GLAAD, immediately responded to the tweet, demanding Roland's head. Apparently, in the clairvoyant interpretations of the victimized/victim pandering group, this tweet represented a gay slur, and must be dealt with. Severly! Now! No mercy; we know exactly what he meant and his intentions behind it!

So, bending to the pressure, CNN dutifully submits.

After being sufficiently cowed, even Roland submitted and acquiesed to the PC Gods--regretting offense, yet still insisting it was not a gay slur. I don't think they believe him...because they know. Oh, yes, they know exactly what he was thinking.

Then consider this...the victimology brigade also knows exactly why those Marines were thinking when they posed with that awful "SS" banner. They're actually NAZIs! Yes, Nazis, in the USMC, and we give those awful neanderthal men guns...with bullets, and they use them...to kill "Jews, gypsies, and others."

As it more benignly turns out, the group in the picture are all Marine Scout Snipers. SS= Scout Snipers. It was a group picture of the Marines while they served in Afghanistan. It was a picture, taken as units have done since the camera was invented, by a bunch of guys who wanted to commemorate their time in service together. A reminder of their bond forged in blood and sacrifice.

But that doesn't matter to victim group Military Religious Freedom Foundation, who promptly demanded the group's punishment.

Puh-leeze... Ok, so maybe the guys are a little historically color blind. Maybe they should have been a bit more savvy, understanding that such imagery is potentially charged with meaning. But let's not pretend that we can prescribe an alternate meaning to every little thing. Not every little image needs to be hyper-scrutinized in order to see how a group can be offended.

It's maddening, and a bit sad. This is what we've come to.

This is not a left-right issue. It's a freedom issue. It's a mind-your-own-business issue. It's a keep-your-un-Constitutional-demands-for-thought-police-to-yourself issue.

Roland--don't give in! USMC--thanks for not giving in! The more we give in, the more these faux advocacy groups wrest power from the people, subjugating us to PC and all of its evil machinations.

Veterans--How will we be remembered?

I ran across an interesting little snippet today...the last surviving veteran from WW1 passed away Saturday. She was a member of the Royal Air Force, joining at age 17 in 1918. She was 110 years old when she died.

Soon, within the next 25 years or so, we'll commemorate the passing of the last member of the "greatest generation" as the final surviving WW2 vet passes. Then the Korean War vets will pass... then Vietnam War, etc.

So, how will those of us who served in Iraq and Afghanistan be commemorated? How will our sacrifices be remembered? Has our service been so awash in political derision that our service won't be remembered by the next generatiosn who follow?

I believe we can only expect to be remembered in the same manner in which we remember the sacrifices of those who have gone before us. We should expect nothing different.

This story of Florence Green, and her service during the "Great War"--"The War to End All Wars"-- was a reminder to me that part of being an American; part of living in a free society, is to remember and acknowledge the service of those who fought to keep that society free.

There is no commissar forcing us to pay homage. There is no dictator demanding we bow to the memory of sacrifice...it's all voluntary.

While they are still with us, thank a vet. Pat them on the back. Let them know they are appreciated for the work they did. Apply the Golden Rule, especially in this case--treat them as you would want to be treated, because our turn is coming.

God Bless the USA.

Predator--easy solution to difficult problems?

During a recent interview Monday, the President found himself talking about the CIA's "secret" drone campaign in Pakistan. It was startling because it represented the first time the government has openly acknowledged operations, while the rest of the world had already assumed we were the nation behind it.

Active drone campaign over a sovereign nation. That's pretty brazen--OK, got it.

However, this admission has opened the door for other questions pertaining to our use of drones, particularly their use against American citizens in foreign countries. Citizens who presumably are avowed enemies of the United States and actively pursuing terrorist-like activities against it, a' la Anwar Awlaki in Yemen.

The LA Times and Mother Jones are two of the outlets recently asking the question if our use of drones is legal in this context. Can drones be used to kill American citizens without the benefit of a trial? And if so, what is the President's rationale for doing so?

I think what's really happened is the POTUS let one slip. I don't think he really meant to go down that road, and he got to talking too much about the drone campaign. Why do I say that? Becasue of Jay Carney's reaction to the press later that day when he was asked again about the program. From the LA Times:

Nevertheless, on Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney refused to discuss the drone program, withholding comment on "supposed covert programs."

Whoops!

To be honest, I'm not sure how I feel about the use of drones in this matter. If there is a clear rationale, I would certainly like to hear more about it. I mean, it's pretty clear that Awlaki is an instigator behind terrorist activities, most notably the Ft. Hood shooting spree by Army Major Hasan (curse be upon him). I'm no military law expert, but I'm pretty sure you don't have to be a directly active participant in warfare in order to be a legal combatant. Generals sitting in bunkers planning the next operation are a legal target, yet they are not directly involved in pulling a trigger, after all. I see Awlaki as that general, American citizen or not.

Then again, I'm not particularly happy with the apparent arbitrary way in which the President, not a minion, but the President makes the decision to use lethal force vis-a-vis a drone-fired missile, to kill an American citizen.

But again, I'm no Constitutional lawyer, either; just a guy with questions.

What do you think? Is this use of drones legal? Is this use of drones against Americans legal? Is it moral?