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?

Year of the Army Professional

I read in the most recent edition of the Army Times that this is the Year of the Professional.

With that in mind, I asked myself, "What does it mean to be an Army professional?" Is there a code I should commit to memory? Is there a song, or a handshake I should now instinctively know?

I am certain that there are brilliant minds working right now to lay out exactly what this means for the Army, but until then I'd like to offer up my own list of ideas that make up the Army Profession and what it means to be an Army professional.

It's not as tidy as the Army Values' "LDRSHIP" acronym, but it's a first cut. Submit your own ideas if you'd like.

Oath-Unlike so many other nations in history, when we join the Army we don't swear allegiance to a person, a party, or event the Nation. Instead we commit ourselves to a body of ideals as laid out in the Constitution of the United States. We will defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic; bearing true faith and allegiance to the same.

Loyalty-A professional is loyal to their oath and to each other. It's a concept already included in the Values, but in this case I think it is worth repeating.

Ethos-We have a Warrior Ethos which describes how we will conduct ourselves. It presents the ideal of how we will operate, and when you encounter a Soldier, whether it is in peacetime or war, you should expect nothing less.

Competency-Competent Soldiers are trained in their mission tasks and their Warrior tasks. This competency is then demonstrated continuously throughout a career, not just during the test at the end of a school or required course. It's a way of operating--incompetent people will not be tolerated. They'll either be retrained to meet standards, or sent packing.

Accountability- Professionals are held accountable for their actions by an overwatching body. In the Army we have several layers of overwatch in place to keep us honest: the Law of Land Warfare, UCMJ, Army regulations, professional evaluations/ promotion system, internal leadership counseling mechanisms, etc. Professions police themselves-- when they don't, they tend not to be very professional.

Trust-Professionals trust their leaders, and professional leaders trust their subordinates. Do we need work here? Absolutely, yes...especially as we transition from a deployed environment to a predominately garrisoned force. Soldiers who experienced a high degree of autonomy and mission focus in places like Afghanistan will want that same level of responsibility in garrison. Leaders need to trust that their subordinates will continue to get the job done, and subordinates need to trust that their leadership has their back.

So, put it together and what does the acronym spell? OLE CAT!

Like I said, it's not as tidy at LDRSHIP, but you get the idea. Regardless, this still needs some massaging in order to make it useful, but I wanted to get my two cents in while it was fresh on my mind.

ROTM!

New American Socialism--it's a Red and Blue issue

Friends,

If you listen to what we now call "news" in America, with the various pundits and talking heads all espousing their opinions as "news", chances are you will hear about why we are in the economic state we are in.

The Occupy folks, the no more taxes folks, the tax the rich folks, the outrageous government spending folks, the unfair economic policy folks, the Socialists, Marxists, Capitalists, etc. It makes it difficult for a regular citizen to figure out who really is at fault when it comes to the state of our economy.

So, who is to blame? Yes...they all are.

At least according to the authors of this essay.


You may have opinions about the source of the essay, but I found it to be pretty compelling on all sides. It's pretty direct in poking a finger in the chest of Socialists and Capitalists, Republicans and Democrats. From the essay:

We have lost our sense of honor, humility, and the dedication to personal responsibility that, for more than 200 years, made our country the greatest hope for mankind. I want to detail some of the factors that gave rise to the current entitlement society. We have become a country of people who believe their well-being is someone else's responsibility.

Folks, we have got to get our house in order. Yes, this does have to do with individual Values...and National Character. We've lost it. Plain and simple we've allowed our own desires and self interests to separate ourselves from the greatness that is the United States.

All I can say is, God bless the 2nd Amendment and those who exercise that right. Read the essay...you'll understand.

What kind of Army do you want?

This academic paper makes interesting work of the questions surrounding the developement of a "Warrior Class" that may be forming within the U.S. military. It's an academic work, so if you're going to read it, set aside about 30 minutes in your schedule.

However, it makes for an interesting read. The conclusion summation makes the point that we (the big "we", as in Americans) need to think about the kind of military we want to have defending us. Right now the military seems to be trending towards a self-selecting group of citizens, influenced by heritage and familial ties, who have born the burden of defending the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. The latest numbers I've seen bandied about was something like <1% of American citizens have servied in the Armed Forces. Our experience as Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines is foreign to most Americans.

Is that good? Is it bad? The author makes some conclusions about it, and offers some recommendations in how to "fix" the possible problem.

Good food for thought...

A Question of Legitimacy

Max Boot- Obama's Tragic Iraq Withdrawal

CFR.org - Obama's Tragic Iraq Withdrawal

In an Oct. 31 Wall Street Journal article, Max Boot lays out exactly what I said last week. If we don't gain the strategic victory in Iraq, it is because our leaders did not make the effort to meet with, and communicate with, al-Maliki and other Iraqi officials. From the article:

So why was it possible for the Bush administration to reach a deal with the Iraqis but not for the Obama administration?

Quite simply it was a matter of will: President Bush really wanted to get a deal done, whereas Mr. Obama did not. Mr. Bush spoke weekly with Mr. Maliki by video teleconference. Mr. Obama had not spoken with Mr. Maliki for months before calling him in late October to announce the end of negotiations. Mr. Obama and his senior aides did not even bother to meet with Iraqi officials at the United Nations General Assembly in September.

Incompetence or indifference, I don't know for certain, but it appears that they just didn't want to do the messy work of relationship building. Withdrawal from Iraq, despite the risk of overall failure there, is the primary concern of the administration.

I still believe strategic victory is possible, and I believe that the military leaders now in place will do everything they can to make it so, but the administration's negligence in Iraq is disappointing.

Your Army Values/Character/Ethics valuable to business

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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...

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:

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.

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/

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:

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.

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

...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.