Printable View
Thanks. Always nice to have author background/information. It also helps to a degree to place the mindset of the author (in terms of background, experience, prevailing social ideas during his formative/professional years, and so on).Quote:
Originally Posted by mmx1
My suspicion is that Proceedings wouldn't have published the piece if they didn't think it would resonate with at least a small segment of their reading audience.
A token sentence regarding strategy hardly excuses the lack of strategic thinking in the body of his work. He appears to argue for a more lax approach to the law of war. I take this from his own words. He argues that I should not judge those troops that feel torture is valid, or that have personnaly abused Iraqis, or that would not report someone that violated the rules of engagement or mistreated non-combatants. Although not specifically stated, I think any detached reading of this work could reasonably come to the conclusion that the author is excusing this behavior and actually advocating it. Now we can agree to disagree on what the author meant, but I can assure you that I read this article without an intent to mischaracterize his statement. I took his words at face value.
His argument, then, has strategic implications in the sense that it specifically cuts against the goals of COIN. Moreover, it removes the possibility of wholesale support of our actions. There have many posting on threads related to torture and the like on this website, I think, that would substantiate this fact. By sinking down to the level of the insurgents, or even more closely approaching that level, we sacrifice our honor. Call me naive or old-fashioned, but I still believe that honor means something. To travel down the path that takes us even a step closer to those we fight stains that honor. As a nation, we may be too quick to action at times, but I believe our hearts are in the right place. We do wear the white hat and I'm not willing to allow convenience to supplant honor.
While the findings of the poll he cites may indeed reflect reality, I do not believe we can simply say "oh well," and move on. Nor can we simply argue that boys will be boys, or dismiss criticism because it comes from those on the sidelines. It is more than a bit disengenuous to argue that we are in Iraq to establish law and order while we allow some of our troops to violate international law. And to have a Navy Captain even tacitly argue that we should permit this behavior is a huge setback. Imagine if this guy were a Marine O-6 in Fallujah or Ramadi. Would we still be having the same success as we are now?
BTW, please do not read my words as an attack on the Captain or you. Perhaps its the trial lawyer in me, but I tend to go for the jugular at times. My wife is working with me on that.:D I do enjoy a debate though.
Also, you've used the term "10 characters" a few times in other posts and its not something I am familiar with. Could you explain?
He uses that because he likes to answer short questions in the title block, but the software requires at least ten characters in the message field to actually post.Quote:
Originally Posted by LawVol
(Sorry to answer for you, Ken, but I just happened to browse by this one):)
It certainly is with me.
What would you expect in a short Commentary article (IIRC, they're restricted in length by the Magazine) in the way of "strategic thinking?
Not that I'm at all sure such an article is the place for strategic thinking but I don't think strategy was his point or the reason for his comment.
Nor do I get the sense that he is advocating a more lax approach to the law of war. He cites surveys of troop attitudes that I recall reading in the mainstream media. I also recall much fulminating among the commentariat about those atrocious attitudes. Hate to break it to them but troops in combat get rather hardened and intolerant. He is IMO, making a statement that the law can get brushed aside, momentarily, in the heat of combat. In my experience that is absolutely correct. Ideally, it should not be but reality means that it is a fact.
I see absolutely nothing that cuts against the rules of COIN and I'm very curious as to how you come to that conclusion. I suspect that he, like me, knows that no one is going to 'win' against an Insurgency; all one can do is achieve an acceptable outcome. His comment is focussing on the action of individual fighters, not on the conduct of operations -- or strategy -- thus when he says "win" what he means is that the kid wants to stay alive. That is a truth, no more.
There is no way I can see that he is condoning much less advocating sinking to the level of the insurgents. He says:
I again suggest he is not objecting to the opinions of anyone, pro or con. He's merely suggesting that the deaths of friends has a hardening impact on ones view and that one should not judge those words -- and that's what the survey reported; words, not actions -- without some knowledge of what is entailed. I see no evidence he advocates their stated position, he's merely trying to illustrate why they said what they said.Quote:
"Before expressing shock, consider that approximately two-thirds of the respondents said that they knew someone killed or seriously injured and that many of them were serving in their second or third combat tours. Before you judge them, try walking in their boots."
One could logically presume that anyone who had retired from the Armed Forces of the US has at least a vague sense of honor and that they had displayed this to at least a marginal extent for 20 plus years. Thus I suspect that Captain Kelly and I both share your desire that we, as a nation and as Armed Forces, not sacrifice our honor.
I see nothing he or I have said that even suggests such a thing so I'd be appreciative if you could illustrate precisely what he or I said that gives you the impression.
Neither do I agree at all that Captain Kelly tacitly suggests that such behavior should be permitted. Could you also tell me where he does this? If you're going to cite his penultimate paragraph, may I suggest you take it in context with his final paragraph?
I expect that if Captain Kelly were a Marine Colonel in Ramadi he might perform fairly well and would do what needed to be done in accordance with the laws of warfare, the rules of engagement and his conscience (which I suspect is as good as yours or mine) and would be totally honorable in all respects. He would also understand his Marines -- something many cannot do ( and I think that was hi salient point).
That's all he wants, people to understand that the job is different. Society hires Cops, Butchers and Garbagemen to do jobs it would prefer to avoid. It also hires Soldiers for the same reason. The difference is that Soldiers have to do all the jobs of the other three and more besides. He simply points out very accurately that if you sensitize Soldiers or Matines to too great an extent -- not to any extent; too great an extent -- you are going to cause them to lose their combat edge and thus more of them will get killed. Balance is required and at no point do I see him suggesting tipping that balance as you seem to wish to.
Nothing wrong with going for the jugular but the carotid would be more effective in the demise of your opponent. It also helps if you get to the neck and not bite a shoulder... :)
Sure, we can disagree. I'm not trying to change your mind, just illustrate my opinion given your comments to my original post.
Quote:
He is IMO, making a statement that the law can get brushed aside, momentarily, in the heat of combat. In my experience that is absolutely correct.
Quote:
I see nothing he or I have said that even suggests such a thing so I'd be appreciative if you could illustrate precisely what he or I said that gives you the impression.
Neither do I agree at all that Captain Kelly tacitly suggests that such behavior should be permitted. Could you also tell me where he does this? If you're going to cite his penultimate paragraph, may I suggest you take it in context with his final paragraph?
your own statement reflects my impression that he (I never attributted any opinion to you or sought to refute any opinion offered by you; my thoughts were directed solely to the article) advocates that such behavior be permissible. After all, if we're going to overlook it momentarily, precisely when do we consider it? Are we creating a slippery slope? How do you convey to the troops in the field when they are subject to the law of war and when they are not? If they are confused now, I wonder what this will do to help? By allowing this behavior, we as a nation become complicit. This is a stain upon our honor IMHO.
Once we've institutionalized this behavior by brushing it aside "momentarily," we permit the torture and/or mistreatment of Iraqis (or other nationality in some future country). But where is the line drawn? The author indicates that we should overlook mistreatment and torture. What about rape and murder? What side of the line is that on? Is it a slippery slope? As everyday Iraqis witness or become the subject of this treatment, they turn hostile to the US and its allies. Quite simply, we validate the insurgent propaganda. This creates insurgent sympathizers and, indeed, insurgents; meaning more US troops are killed. Can it seriously be argued that Abu Graihb prevented American casualties? I vaguely recall reading something about that incident creating more insurgents and attacks picking up in the aftermath. However, I don;t need a study to tell me that if that happened to my friends, neighbors, or family, I'd be planting IEDs too.
And here's another point on which we disagree. I happen to think we can win against an insurgency, but not with the rules the author seeks to establish. Also, writing about the kid simply wanting to stay alive is tactical. Whether magazine space permits it or not, opinions must survive a strategic view. In other words, if a tactic undermines the strategy, we should think before acting. We certainly need more of that.Quote:
I suspect that he, like me, knows that no one is going to 'win' against an Insurgency; all one can do is achieve an acceptable outcome. His comment is focussing on the action of individual fighters, not on the conduct of operations -- or strategy -- thus when he says "win" what he means is that the kid wants to stay alive.
One last thought, you are correct that society hires butchers, bakers and candlestick makers, but there is a difference between those jobs and a soldier's job. The soldier is a professional and should act like one. Sometimes this mean overcoming your most primal instincts. Its why we train the way we do.
trying to change my mind and an equally good thing I'm not trying to change yours. Neither of us is doing well in that sphere... :D
Fail to see how my statement corroborates your view. The fact that he and I both acknowledge that such brushing aside occurs is not at all the same thing as advocating tolerance of it. I certainly do not and strongly doubt he does. In fact, I think it mildly curious that anyone would deliberately choose to take such a view. All he and I are saying is that Soldiers and Marines in contact should not be distracted by excessive -- underline that word, excessive -- concern over American civilian social mores. Should they reflect the goals of our society? Sure. Do they? Absolutely. Neither he nor I advocate any change in that and I suspect both of us are old enough and have been around long enough to know that's not going to happen even if we wanted it. We don't.
I see absolutely no evidence that any unit in either Afghanistan or Iraq, other than as an aberration, has not adhered to the rules. In fact, much anecdotal evidence from a bunch of folks who have been or are mow in either place is that excessive concern for rules at all levels of command is, if anything, a minor impediment. Mote the minor, no more. Everything I have read or heard indicates that strenuous efforts to do it right are being taken and I have not seen, heard or read of anyone who wants to change that -- including Captain Kelly
I doubt seriously that there is any question in Captain Kelly's mind and I know that there is none in mine that the laws of war always apply. Period. There is a significant difference between ignoring those laws and getting over sensitized by excessively strict application them and the trends toward political correctness that cause the Soldier or Marine to hesitate when he should not. You refuse or do not wish to recognize that difference, saying that he advocates such behavior be permissable. Those are your words and that is your perception. I do not perceive his article in that light at all and you have not shown by a quote where you see such advocacy.
You do know, I hope, that no one is "allowing this behavior?" If so how can you say "We as a nation become complicit?"
You also acknowledge that such slipping can occur and then use the old slippery slope argument to justify, I think, an absolutely rigid adherence to a rule of law on a battlefield where there is no law for the average Grunt other than to survive. In other words, you advocate erring on the side of caution. that is exactly the mindset he is castigating -- and may be why you took such umbrage :) -- his point and mine are that it is all very well for us to sit here in air conditioned comfort and argue semantics but the kid over there on the ground does not have that luxury -- or the time to parse the meaning of "concern for others."
The fact that things occur momentarily does not mean they are tolerated or rushed aside. Bad things do not happen in good units, it's just that simple. Not all units are good units -- that also is simple. It is also a fact of life that all Armed forces have to deal with. Incidents occur, if it looks dicey, it's investigated and if anything, we tend to rush to faulty judgment, break out the gibbets and the ropes -- then have to back down because of over reaction. That too -- over reaction -- is as American as Apple Pie. Lot of it about...
Yessiree...
Last time I checked, torture was a violation of Federal Statute and Maltreatment was a violation of the UCMJ. You say Captain Kelly indicates that we should overlook mistreatment and torture. I didn't see that -- I did see him state that our mores and attitudes in World War II were more tolerant, a true statement -- but I did not see any indication that he wants to return to that era; merely a comment that the second guessing so prevalent today was absent then.
You are quite welcome to believe we or anyone else can win against an insurgency. Short of Genghis Khan's technique, if you can find one that has been won, I'd be happy to hear about it. And if you say Malaya, be sure you're real familiar with it...
You may wish to do more research on what constitutes strategic view. We still disagree on the fact that Captian Kelly sought to change the rules. He did not IMO -- he merely pointed out that those who are trying to change the rules do so at some peril not to themselves but to the Troops with whom they are so 'concerned.'
To you, the fact that a kid wants to stay alive is a tactical issue. It really is not, it is a human issue. People tend to want to do that. Surely you aren't advocating that we train them to disregard that instinct...
You undermine your last jibe by picking trades I did not and omitting Cops who are also professionals. Having been a Soldier for quite some time. I'm more than aware of the professional ethos, I'm also quite familiar with the way we train. Basically it's good, far better than in my youth and it does not need a lot of sensitivity tweaking that will get people killed needlessly. That's really the whole point of Captain Kelly's Commentary article and one you appear to be inclined to ignore.
the nursery rhyme? It was an attempt to bring in a little levity to show its nothing personel. Lighten up; I come in peace.:)
Look, I'm not trying to offend you and I'm not being personal. However, I'm getting the sense that you think I am (maybe I'm wrong).
When I spoke of overcoming primal instincts, I was thinking specifically of the instinct (maybe the worng word) for revenge. However, I seem to remember being taught the frontal assault. I remember being told to stand and assault forward in the face of enemy fire. It seems to cut against the survival instinct, but it fits the strategic goal of defeating the enemy. D-Day comes to mind. Many brave men (and I know you know this) knew they would die but they did it anyway. Its why they're heroes. They overcame their primal instinct for survival and did what had to be done to accomplish the goal. That's all I was saying.
Maybe you are right and I am misreading Capt Kelly (not conceding). But misinterpretation is usually the fault of the author. I'm sure others have reached the same conclusions that I did.
and stopped taking things personally a great many years ago, however, being Scotch Irish I do tend to react to the slightest sign of hesitation, reluctance, intransigence, condescension, dismissal, surliness or hostility; any or all the foregoing -- and perceived or real -- quickly and with a greater amount. Sorry, it's genetic, can't help it. Even revel in it... :D
And being doubly retired, I have the time to indulge in tilting at windmills, even more so than Don Q O and Sancho H. I indulge myself by doing that here because a lot of the guys who might are still working for a living and don't have time to do it. Not that I claim to be speaking for any of them.
You aren't the only one here that IMO has misconstrued Captain Kelly. It's possible that I think otherwise simply because he and I are probably close to the same age and he speaks of a world he and I know and that those who (again IMO) misconstrue what he said have only read about. No slam that, honestly, just a thought.
Regardless, the important thing is that most everyone in uniform does what needs to be done when it needs to be done. Most also try to do the right thing and make sure others do so as well. That's what makes the company we keep better than most. ;)
I guess we've flayed this horse enough; let's go find another... :cool:
You speak for me.
Bob T
ten characters +(thanks KW ;))
Maybe if Capt Kelly surfs this site, or if someone knows him, he can post a clarification. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it and apologize but I don't think I am.
Thanks for the debate KW; I hope you're enjoying that Florida fishing as much as my dad does.
Thanks, don't fish, too lazy ... :)
I'd love to see a book that attempts to answer it with a broad, global analysis. And Max Boot's doesn't count. I'm probably not alone in thinking the answer to that question means much more to America's security in this century than all the F-22s and SDIs we'll ever see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
And thanks to both of you, an interesting debate.