Proceedings and Its Others

Hi,

I was wondering what people think are the equivalent(s) (if any) to USNI Proceedings. I think of AWC Parameters and NWC Review as roughly comparable, to each other, but not to Proceedings; Military Review is less abstract and wide-ranging than each of the three publications already named. Without going through the various other publications, I think of Proceedings as arguably unique with respect to how varied its content - in terms of article length, topics covered, viewpoints published, etc. - is.

I don't ask purely out of curiosity - I'm trying to write a paper on how bureaucracies respond to challenges (such as the collapse of the USSR, or the encroachment represented by Goldwater-Nichols). As such, I'm thinking of using Proceedings as a source for what "the Navy" (yes, I know, it is not a monolith) "thought" about those challenges. I'll probably compare the Navy to one or more of the other services. If people could identify what they thought of as similar publications along some of the dimensions named, that would be very helpful.

And while as noted above, I'm not asking out of curiosity, perhaps the relative merits and features of the various publications might prove interesting fodder for posting.

Regards
Jeff

I think Proceedings is fine. I've been getting the magazine since I was commissioned some years ago, and have always thought it worth getting. Back in the day it was devoted entirely to naval issues (including the Marines and USCG), but now it is branded as "The Independent Forum on National Defense."

Still, they focus much on Naval-related issues. They have some gems on small wars/COIN/etc, but also has lots of articles on RMA-related things that, if you ask me, are just large advertisements for defense industry firms and weapons systems projects.

Lots of USN and USMC authors, and to a lesser extent, officers from the other services.

I don't really think there's an equivalent for it, now that it's moved from its naval roots to a more national-defense related journal.

but let it lapse about five years ago due to what I though was a distressing trend toward political correctness and too many articles 'written' by too many FlagOs. It may or may not have changed since then but they lost me. that said, it is still a unique publication and a valuable one and arguably the best of all the US service journals in my opinion.

Army magazine has been a party line pub for years -- occasionally to an almost sickening extent -- but the last few issues have been better; hopefully, that's an indicator of much needed change.

The Marine Corps Gazette is still a good publication and has been pretty consistent over the years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

The Marine Corps Gazette is still a good publication and has been pretty consistent over the years.

---

Indeed, but its scope is much narrower than the Proceedings and focuses heavily on tactical and operational issues. I find the two complement nicely.

I've always liked the Gazette, but let my Proceedings membership lapse for much the same reasons as Ken did.

I don't know if qualifies as politically correct, but Capt. Kelly's piece in the July Proceedings, "Rewriting the Rules of War" did not endear me to the magazine's editorial choice.

Quote:

---

...Maintaining the moral high round may be a popular theme for editorial writers, but it means very little if you lose. Winning is everything.

The last war we actually won was World War II, before political correctness had been invented and before Soldiers were subject to so much second-guessing. We killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in fire bombings and often took no prisoners in battle. Interrogation of prisoners could be rigorous indeed, and maintaining their dignity was not a high priority. No one would dream of referring to such actions as torture. There were few embedded media members, and they were kept rather busy reporting real news, mostly involving the heroic actions of our troops. There was a war on, and we did what we had to do to win.

Today, opponents of this war are attempting to infuse political correctness and civilian ethical standards into our troops who do the fighting for them. If they go to far, they may end up destroying the military warrior culture altogether...

---

This is something I expect out of the Weekly Standard, not a professional military journal.

I would support the point that the Gazette is good and that it is possibly the closest near equivalent to Proceedings. Though on the principle of full disclosure, I must confess that I might have grown more than a bit biased toward the Gazette as I have had the good fortune (or maybe it should be misfortune) to have essentially worked my way through every issue of the Gazette since 1963 to present, in chronological order, for my own research.

I mention this long sequence of reading mainly to point up an issue already alluded to, which is that the quality, mixture, and content of articles is really dependent on who is the editor – over the 40 plus years of the Gazette that I looked at, one can see clearly the shifts in quality, mixture and content, etc, that occur with different editors. An inherent aspect of any journal - academic, independent, whatever - is that the editor, explicitly or implicitly, serves as a gatekeeper. Some editors keep the gate pretty much closed, others have keep it reasonably wide open, and they all have an agenda of some sort (and yes, I edited an academic journal for 13 years, and I am guilty of all of the above to lesser or greater degree in spite of my best of intentions not to be. Sadly we all have implicit bias of some sort, if only as to what we thing is important or even just wanting to vomit when another article on an already overworked topic lands on ones desk:rolleyes:).

Army has been recommended to you. As I am only just starting working my way through it, all I can add is ‘so far, so good’ (another line of research; and no, I am not starting in 1963 – doing so once may be excused as ignorance, to do so twice is out ‘n out just plain daft).

I would mention one other issue, as I have done in depth length what you starting to do. I do not think in going through the journals you will necessarily be able to glean how ‘bureaucracies’ respond. I am not sure exactly what you mean by ‘bureaucracies’, but I take it you mean the collective, rigid hierarchy (very loosely defined). If this a reasonable assumption, what the journals (and letters to the editors) are most likely to provide you with is a fairly good idea of the debates around the issue you are interested in. What you mostly get are individuals making their individual arguments (see 'editors' and their foibles above). Nonetheless, as these debates consist of a lot of articles/letter questioning the party line, this does give an ingress to the thinking (responses) of the ‘bureaucracy’. You may be able to do better with the Proceedings, however, due to the prevalence a few years back, for as Ken White ably noted, Admirals, etc were writing articles that were marred by ‘political correctness’ (aka the bureaucracies’ party line). But, to be fair, you will also find an interesting debate related to this in Proceedings a couple of years back (or so) about whether officers can write what they think as opposed to writing in support of the party line. The issue was, as I understand it, that the Navy ‘hierarchy’ was starting to be disturbed by the number of officers who were writing articles that challenged ‘Transformation’ and reportedly was cracking down behind the scenes. Credit where credit is due to the editor(s) of Proceeding for airing this important debate.

Have fun!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmx1

I don't know if qualifies as politically correct, but Capt. Kelly's piece in the July Proceedings, "Rewriting the Rules of War" did not endear me to the magazine's editorial choice.
. . .
This is something I expect out of the Weekly Standard, not a professional military journal.

---

Captain Kelly is merely stating fact; as such he is NOT being politically correct. Good for him. Good for Proceedings for publishing it. Professional discussion is their reason d'etre.

His point is absolutely correct, no matter how abhorrent you may find it. I do not find it all abhorrent but I do accept that the US today is unwilling to wage war properly or fully for a variety of reasons barring a war of national survival. We have made, rightly or wrongly, a conscious choice to attempt to use limited war as a method of enforcement of will. My belief is that is an unwise choice but it's been the norm since 25 June 1950. History shows that it has not done well as a methodology.

The problem, of course, is that other nations (and a number of non-state actors) have realized this self imposed limitation and are taking full advantage of it. Captain Kelly just makes the point that such self imposed limitations are in fact playing into the hands of these contemporary and probable future opponents.

The counterpoint is that many in this country would object to a short, very violent and fully engaged war as being brutal and unnecessary -- when in fact, that approach would almost certainly cause fewer overall casualties and less damage to everyone and everything involved (including the poor civilians caught in the crossfire) than does the IMO foolish attempt to 'limit' war -- a process that will invariably lead to a protracted, few casualties but environmentally and politically damaging in all respects conflict of dubious (at best...) resolution.

Not to mention the domestic political legacy of divisiveness that descends into bitterness from each of these so-called limited wars... :(

I think valid professional discourse calls for statements of fact and not the 'nice' and accepted views of society at large or of the military heirarchy. That discourse should lead to selections of courses of action and tweaks to doctrine that will be acceptable to the broader society. If certain precepts, unpalatable to some are omitted from the discussion, then they will not be properly considered and thus may reappear by default at a later time because no one knew that the precepts were judged unsuitable.

As evidence of that let me offer that all the counterinsurgency techniques -- and all the problems with detainee operations and interrogation -- that were learned the hard way in Viet Nam were largely ignored in those professional journals from 1975 until 2003. I suggest we saw the results of that and did not like what we saw...

That those lessons were ignored with rare exceptions was political correctness of a different kind, in that case, obeisance to the desires of the senior leadership to avoid counterinsurgency as it was hard and messy. Good try but as they say, the other guy gets a vote.

The Weekly standard is an avowedly political publication, it and its merits or failures are not really germane to anything on this board.

If the focus of a professional journal is to discuss all aspects of the profession, to omit some articles or topics because they may be offensive to some is to stifle discussion. That is political correctness.

Is that what you wish?

If you want to take a hard look at a pub that has evolved significantly to reflect the current operational environment - albeit non-official, non-governmental and not associated with any military service - I recommend looking at Jane's Intelligence Review. Not reflective of the military bureaucracy per se (except as part of its target audience) but Jane's is a relatively large corporate bureaucracy. Formerly Jane's Soviet Intelligence Review (retitled in Jun 91), the pub has undergone tremendous change over the years, and continues to evolve to effectively cover the world and to meet the needs of the target audience.

Well, if the point is to advocate total war, then go ahead and do so. Ken, you certainly made it better than he did. But it's un-PC to advocate total war, so instead, he skirts the issue by
1) lamenting the PC-imposed limitations
2) drawing an analogy to WWII without completing the analogy. So if we're to conduct this war like WWII....what exactly do we do? I won't put words in his mouth, but he doesn't offer any such vision.

The result is useless wistful thinking about what could be rather than actionable recommendations on alternatives. I've come to expect that from political ideologues. I don't expect that from a professional magazine - I expect more useful recommendations than "PC and civilian ethics are bad". That the level of discourse doesn't, in this instance, rise above what I see from the political side, is my beef with the publication.

Would they print your comments? If so then we can have some honest discourse about the cost/benefits of total war. If all we can do is blame scapegoats....I can read that elsewhere.

provided so I can't comment on what he said or how he said it. I would note that not everyone is a great writer and some have difficulty putting heartfelt thoughts in a coherent to others format.

However based on what you did quote, I have to say that IMO Captain Kelly's first paragraph is essentially correct, as is the second. Whether they have any relevance to the rest of his article or to the world today is another matter entirely. In any event, I can see his point on the topic and I see yours. I suggest that it's a difference in background and outlook that creates the dichotomy and that, while you can condemn his if you wish, that had the two of you talked in person, it might come across differently...

His third paragraph though is I believe important and correct. Let me give you some examples. When a soldier is killed or several are, units today hold a memorial service. Fine in this war; wasn't possible in WW II, Korea or Viet Nam due to the speed of activity and the sheer number of casualties. That is a gesture of respect for the fallen and it is certainly well meant -- it is also potentially a combat distractor. Every death is now investigated; that also is not possible in a large war for the same reasons and is also a combat distractor (not least as the Investigator[s] intervie anyone with knowledge of the incident). In short, just these two simple examples are indicative of a trend that has potential harmful effects. The troops get used to them and in a tough, fast war, they won't see them; thus I submit they are a bad practice.

Armed forces are a reflection of the society from which they come. We have, over the last 60 year become a much kinder and gentler nation. Unfortunately, at base level, war has not become one nanogram more kind or gentle.

Other factors like the constraints imposed by the desire to hold civilian casualties to an absolute minimum which drives the choice of 'limited' war -- a decision that paradoxically generally serves to prolong combat and thus increase casualties of all types on both sides and exacerbate battle damage. It may not be apparent to you but to many troops serving in Afghanistan and Iraq, the ROE and the presence of the media are frequently constraints on action because the kids are afraid they're going to get a court Martial for doing what they should do. It's also noteworthy that the British troops in Iraq have surfaced the same complaint. Many of those rules; the investigations and memorial services I cited above; dozens of other things like clearing targets with Lawyers; those things are not necessarily imposed by opponents of this war but they are things the system does in an attempt (foolishly and fruitlessly, I believe) to placate those opponents. Those things do in fact have a softening impact on most -- not all (fortunately) -- units in the Armed forces

We let the troops get too kind and gentle and they will suffer; that's his point.

All that gets way off the issue -- that issue is that Captain Kelly is expressing his gripes with the system. That may be unprofessional to you but professionals are people also. You can gripe in this professional forum that he's being political because he griped in another professional forum that politics and correctness were ruining the armed forces. Seems a fair trade to me.

And you certainly don't have to read Proceedings if you don't want to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmx1

I don't know if qualifies as politically correct, but Capt. Kelly's piece in the July Proceedings, "Rewriting the Rules of War" did not endear me to the magazine's editorial choice.



This is something I expect out of the Weekly Standard, not a professional military journal.

---

I just read this piece from Capt Kelly and found it incredibly short-sighted, especially for an O-6. It gives no thought to the strategic aspect of war. He seems quite willing to toss out the strategic goals in favor of allowing "young men barely out of high school who are still maturing and whose values are still in the formative stage" to form our response to international law. One the one hand he appears to excuse some of this conduct because of the nature of the situation and those in it, but then praises the result for the same reason. He's trying to play both sides.

I do agree that we cannot sit in our living rooms with the benefit of detached reflection and impose what we would have done in a particular situation on those actually faced with life or death choices. However, the law takes care of this. I forget the actual case ( I can find it if you doubt me), but the Supreme Court has specifically ruled that the law does not require detached reflection in the face of an uplifted knife. Although this particular case involved a cop on the beat rather than a soldier in combat, the analogy is sufficient. Capt Kelly, however, would seek to dispense with those rules; those that protect civilians and us in favor of an anything goes approach to war. He says that our soldiers are trained to defeat an enemy "by whatever it takes." This is certainly not the case and I don't want to be a part of any organization that takes this approach.

Never mind the application of this line of thought to COIN, you still have many other things to consider. First, like it or not, we require the support of allies. Even those allies that do not send troops contribute to our war effort, even if it is only getting out of the way on the world political stage. If we start indiscriminately killing people, we lose that support and legitimacy for our efforts erodes significantly. Second, for more than 200 years we have stood as a beacon of freedom and the rule of law. Do we really want to throw that away simply because we are frustrated at the tactics of our enemy? Do we really want to embrace the mentality of a four year old and lash out in similar fashion because 'he did it too?'

Moreover, the good Captain tries to cloak his argument in an impenetrable veil of patriotism by invoking our soldiers' sacrifices. He seeks to deflect criticism by saying that "Before you judge them, try walking in their boots or talking to some of the gravely wounded veterans." This is completely disengenuous. Is he saying that because my deployment didn't call for me to kick down doors I can't offer an opinion? What about those in congress that are charged with oversight? Must they keep their mouth shut as well because they haven't served in combat? As a former prosecutor, I've never been driven to commit a crime; does this prohibit me from seeking to punish a wrong-doer? This tactic is merely policitical BS more appropriate to Hannity and Colmes rather than a serious military publication. I may get this slightly wrong but you'll get the jist: In a college philosophy class I was taught that the first fallacy of logic is to attack your opponent rather than his argument. The Captain is an obvious believer in preemptive strikes because this is exactly what he's doing. He is attacking those whom he thinks will disagree with him by saying they can't do so until they fight in Iraq (I didn't realize Navy Captains were patrolling Baghdad).

What the Captain terms as political correctness is not that but a fact of war. Wasn't it Clausewitz that said that war is a continuation of politics by other means? Doesn't this mean, then, that war is inherently political? That aside, political decisions will always factor into war decisions because of the strategic implications of tactical actions. I would have thought that Abu Graihb would have taught that lesson. Fighting war in the way the Captain seems to want would merely prolong the fight as more and more enemies would be created. One can only hope that this opinion is in the extreme minority.

LawVol, You go boy!!!! somebody say Amen. Great speech you should run for something:wry:
It reminds me of the line from the first Superman movie when Louis Lane ask Superman why are you here? "I am here for Truth,Justice,and The American Way"

Quote:

---

It reminds me of the line from the first Superman movie when Louis Lane ask Superman why are you here? "I am here for Truth,Justice,and The American Way"

---

And a look at your legs, Lois :eek:

Agree with Slap. Most excellent post LawVol

Tom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slapout9

LawVol, You go boy!!!! somebody say Amen. Great speech you should run for something:wry:
It reminds me of the line from the first Superman movie when Louis Lane ask Superman why are you here? "I am here for Truth,Justice,and The American Way"

---

How about the line from Star Wars, when Carrie "Princess Bun Head" Fisher, AKA Leia Organa, says to Peter "Eat Stake, Dracula" Cushing, AKA Governor Moff Tarkin, "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

Seriously, the debate about how to conduct war goes back, in writing anyway, all the way to Thucydides' Melian Dialogue. In that instance, the civilized Athenians were taking the same position as Capt Kelly. But then, wasn't Athens primarily a naval power?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LawVol

I just read this piece from Capt Kelly and found it incredibly short-sighted, especially for an O-6. It gives no thought to the strategic aspect of war. He seems quite willing to toss out the strategic goals in favor of allowing "young men barely out of high school who are still maturing and whose values are still in the formative stage" to form our response to international law. One the one hand he appears to excuse some of this conduct because of the nature of the situation and those in it, but then praises the result for the same reason. He's trying to play both sides.

. . .
. . .

What the Captain terms as political correctness is not that but a fact of war. Wasn't it Clausewitz that said that war is a continuation of politics by other means? Doesn't this mean, then, that war is inherently political? That aside, political decisions will always factor into war decisions because of the strategic implications of tactical actions. I would have thought that Abu Graihb would have taught that lesson. Fighting war in the way the Captain seems to want would merely prolong the fight as more and more enemies would be created. One can only hope that this opinion is in the extreme minority.

---

I think you're reading into his essay what you wish to instead of reading what he said.

I had not read the article but I've seen a number of comments like yours that tend to excoriate anyone who suggests that judging the actions of people engaged in comment is best restricted to those that have been there -- as opposed to just expressing any opinion on those actions which anyone can do.

So I went to the Proceediongs website and purchased the article. As an aside, it was not clear anywhere in that process whether he was a Navy Captain or a Captain, USMC. Shocking, I know but Marines can and do write for publication.

You comment that he gives no thought to the strategic aspect of war; yet to me, his first paragraph does exactly that:

Quote:

---

"Before going to war again, our leaders must first decide on what we mean to accomplish and how far we are willing to go to win. Otherwise, we will again subject our troops to unnecessary confusion, stress, and personal risk, as we did in Vietnam and are doing now in Iraq."

---

Seems like an extremely valid -- and strategic -- premise to me.

You then stage a polemic against his admittedly impassioned rhetoric in the body of the article but I suggest that he's merely expressing the frustration that many on the ground in Iraq live with on a daily basis. You choose to see it as an assault on liberal values but it seems to me to be simply a statement of reality. Soldiers are emphatically not police officers and the goals and the mores are quite different -- and they should be. Have to be, in fact.

I have three sons, all have been soldiers, one still is and the other two are cops and they know the difference and behave accordingly.

In any event, I do not see the body of his essay as an attack on anyone. His final paragraph is simply another statement of fact:

Quote:

---

"Today, opponents of this war are attempting to infuse political correctness and civilian ethical standards into our troops who do the fighting for them. If they go too far, they may end up destroying the military warrior culture altogether. That should worry Americans greatly, because the jihadists are under no such moral constraints."

---

You may not agree with him. Let me suggest that the reverse of that would be to attempt to infuse purely military with no civilizing restraints processes on the civilian law enforcement community. I certainly would not agree with that. Nor, I suspect, would you.

We are, as I've noted earlier, a far more kind and gentle society than we were even 30 years ago. That is progress and I'm glad that is so. Yet as Captain Kelly says, our current opponents are not so inclined and it is indeed possible to proceed to far down a given path and reach a point of no return. He's merely suggesting that is not a desirable outcome.

Which should be obvious.

Haven't seen this much reaction to an article since Gen Dunlap's last piece. Seems they strike the same chord, although not perhaps with the same words.

10 characters...

The print edition has him as USN (ret), a regular contributor to Proceedins and the USNI's Author of the Year in 1979.

warlike. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmx1

The print edition has him as USN (ret), a regular contributor to Proceedins and the USNI's Author of the Year in 1979.

---

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).

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LawVol

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.

(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:

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."

---

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.

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.

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.

---

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.

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 ... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

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...

---

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.

And thanks to both of you, an interesting debate.