to make a comment like that, it only goes to show how far away the soldier is from reality.
… insert double take
Uh, yeah. Those uniforms they’re wearing don’t mark them as Boy Scouts and those ribbons aren’t merit badges. You may be shocked to realize that we have people who have dedicated their careers to killing people and breaking things. Of the two quotes I don’t find either one to be particularly offensive. I expect a Marine to be eager for a fight. I sure as hell don’t want one who is hesitant to enter the fray.
Marc
I can’t think of a better ambassador for present day United States.
As you know the feeling in wide swathes of the North American continent on 12 September, was envy.
Forget .40 calibre or 9mmm. Which of you can boast 4 whole passenger aeroplanes deployed as guided missiles in one single day and bringing down 2 of the worlds’ largest buildings to boot.
It’s an enviable record of destruction and I can see why the US had to start a war. Can’t have some foreigner lording that over you. But face it, there isn’t any but a slim chance of equalling that masterful stroke.
Osama Bin Laden: undefeated champion of the world, where is he these days, by the way?
Which swathes of America? I don’t remember anyone feeling envy it was more or a shock, surprise, I was impressed with their ability to pull this off, and I was kicking myself for not taking them more seriously after ther first WTC bombing.
Why would that bring about envy?
Well, we’ve toppled two governments in less then four years since the WTC bombings. I’d say that’s a bit more impressive then destorying two buildings and killing a few thousand people.
He did a great job of achieving his goals. Wait, were his goals to get America even more deeply involved in the middle east?
Marc
Yet, the parts emphasised seem to describe envy.
Yes, and that’s the point of sevastopol’s post. He’s saying that the U.S.'s response can be interpreted as “You call that random death and destruction? You ain’t seen nothing, yet…”
You’re correct in assuming that his goal involves getting the U.S. out of the middle east. It’s not quite as simple as that, however.
IMO, the General quoted was stupid to be quoted saying as much but I totally (as a combat vet) understand where he’s coming from.
Think of this - you train and train and train and train repeatedly and hard to do a certain thing, and never get to do it for real (I trained for over a year before I did a single combat mission). When you finally get to do exactly what you did all that training for, it is a hell of a rush. Add to that all of the highly scientific methods the US gov’t uses to train it’s troops for combat (especially the USMC) as well as dehumanize the enemy, and you’ve got the amazing ground troops we have who managed to destroy a much larger force in 3 weeks with a rate of advance that was the fastest ever seen in the history of the world.
The problem is that this same mentality and training and trained reaction to violence and combat, whilst incredibly valuable in war, is not quite so great to have around on peacekeeping or occupation missions. Hence, while the troops we have are great, they are the wrong kind of troops for the mission at hand. We need cops, not Marines.
And Desmostylus - thanks for the nightmares, mate. I love to think of OBL winning 'cause of the short-sighted idiocy of our leadership.
I guess you have a different definition of envy then I do. Oddly enough I can be impressed, shocked, and surprised with something without being envious.
Marc
I’d be outraged if he actually shot people for fun. But a comment from a Marine to other military personnel to the effect that he enjoys shooting Bad Guys strikes me as ill-advised, but hardly surprising.
And before the indignancy squad gets on their horses again, No, not all Muslims are Bad Guys; the Marine was clearly referencing Talilban-type characters in Afghanistan, who, IMHO, if they do not surrender, our troops have every reason to shoot.
I really don’t understand such a reaction. We send our soldiers into terrible situations and they feel a wide range of emotions as a result. So long as James Mattis is shooting the people we want him to shoot, I’d say being happy to do it probably makes him far more effective than being horrified.
Fine, if he and others like him can spend all their time in active combat. Otherwise, I would hope that “wide range of emotions” would remain accessible to our military people. Or else we risk breeding a warrior class, a Spartan aristocracy that is going to have a divisive effect on our country.
He’s a professional killer and he likes his job. What’s the problem? Aren’t we always told we’ll be happy if we love our jobs?
I don’t mind the warrior class - I think we’ve effectively had one for years and it’s not had a decisive effect on the country because they have been held in check by higher command. Higher command now is the problem, as they are encouraging all sorts of nastiness for the wrong reasons.
I don’t want to hijack this into a Bush-bashing thread, I really really don’t, but if people at the most senior levels of command flout the basic rules of warfare and international law and act without regard to consequences, so will the lower echelon troops.
We need people ready at a moment’s notice to go to faraway lands and do horrific violence to strangers to protect our freedoms. But those aren’t the same guys I want in Iraq now, talking to civilians and helping build a new country from the ashes of an old one. I’d much rather have a bunch of fat doughnut-eating beat cops from Boston and New York than a bunch of hyped-up trigger happy commandos. At least the cops have an understanding of cause and effect a hell of a lot better than the military seems to anymore.
It’s scary that the General was this loose and glib; it’s guys like him who exert control over the true attack dogs that are his soldiers. If his example, and the example of higher command, is to get excited about being able to shoot at anyone they want and to blatantly disregard international law and treaties, then why are we surprised by Abu Ghraib?
I expect better control from someone at his level, and think it’s right and proper to censure him. But I think the problem lies higher up.
I don’t understand the problem with Lt. Gen. James Mattis’ comment.
Men like to fight. And while there’s a lot of “hell” associated with war, there’s also a lot of excitement. During a war, some people need to be shot. What’s wrong with having some fun and experiencing some satisfaction while doing it? Given the right circumstances, I’d probably have fun doing it too.
But he isn’t excited about shooting anyone he wants. He was very specific about who he enjoyed shooting. He enjoys shooting at the Taliban who have composed a long list of horrible actions against the people of Afghanistan. If I had seen some of the Taliban’s work first hand, I might have learned to enjoy shooting at them too. We have no evidence here that this general commited any atrocity or violated any international law. I don’t see why he should have to sit back and pretend to feel sorry about what he was ordered to do and glad to do.
Our society seems determined to deny some basic realities of war.
If only he were talking about Iraqis.
Gen. Mattis made a remark. It was apparently off the cuff, and not carefuly rehearsed. It was not much different from what other people have always said about this enemy or that enemy. In my day, the slogan was “kill Charlie”. In my parents’ day it was “kill the Krauts”. Patton made the famous comment about “… the other poor son of a bitch …”. There was the famous “kill a Commie for Christ” in there somewhere too.
What some people see as a callous indifference, or bloodlust is really not. It is often an effort to desensitize yourself so you won’t go nuts. It is a way to, in your own mind, see the other guy as being totally evil. So you won’t hesitate and get yourself killed. Some of it is macho posturing too - “I’m a bigger hard ass than you are”.
Mattis should have chosen not to say what he did, but it happened. Soldiers are supposed to destroy the enemy. Some of them may say “insensitive” things. So what?
They are soldiers, not politicians or diplomats. They are the ones who get stuck with the fighting, when the fancy and sensitive words of others fail. Who do you want fighting for you? Shakespeare and Mother Theresa or Patton and MacArthur? I would choose the ones who can fight, no matter what words they uses. We don’t have these folks around for their saintliness of sensitivity.
This war is being fought in a media spotlight. Making darn fool statements to the press scores points for the Bad Guys. We pay Generals to know better than this.
All in all, highly unprofessional and unfortunate.
First off maybe it isn’t the smarting thing to say in a public relations atmosphere, but otherwise people need to understand that the military (at least the USMC), and war is something an average person, especially those who have never served, seem to understand.
This is why the media does NOT belong in the war zone. They only show parts of what’s going on and not the whole story. What need is it for him to have been interviewed in the first place.
This isn’t G.I. Joe type of warfare were no one dies, the good guys win without casualties, and innocent civilians aren’t even shown let alone caught in the crossfire.
What disgusts me about the War in Iraq, besides the fact we shouldn’t have been there in the first place, is that they are trying to make it look like a public relations campaign.
The military doesn’t promote you based on your public relations abilities. They promote you based on your job performance, your conduct, physical fitness score, and a couple of other issues.
Granted you could say that it was bad public relations to say what he did, but to my understanding he didn’t break the UCMJ. He was specifying the “bad guys” not coming out with baby skulls as a necklace.
As a former Marine I can tell you that the common response to a D.I. saying, “What makes the grass grow?” Will always get a “Blood! Blood makes the grass grow!!!”
Marines are trained to be the best-trained military in the world, and the primary focus is to kill, and the love of killing. Period. There is a reason why every Marine’s 1st MOS is a rifleman.
To quote Gunnery Sergeant Hartman from Full Metal Jacket: “God has a hard on for Marines, because we kill everything we see. He plays His games, we play ours. To show our appreciation for so much power, we keep heaven packed with fresh souls. God was here before the Marine Corps, so you can give your heart to Jesus, but your ass belongs to the corps.”
I just hope 2 things:
-
That nothing ever happens to the Lt. General, as he is a soldier fighting for the U.S. No matter my feelings about the war, I hope he makes it to his family ok.
-
That IF he does get killed (Hopefully not) that the guy who does it, has as much fun doign it as the Lt. General is having too.