Well it's a good thing you aren't
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...
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.
Originally Posted by Ken White
Bookmarks