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.

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!