You can also expect some positive and long-awaited changes here in the layout of the site.

Please talk among yourselves and mill about smartly.

TrackBack (0) | Comments (2)

Comments on this Entry:

(DaveO on Jan 13, 2011 8:30 AM) Interesting post over at Defense Tech: should Petraus receive a 5th star? There's plusses and minuses to the elevation. By law, having a 5th star means no running for President or holding other office, though those were waived for Eisenhower and Marshall. Also means he becomes the CJCS by default being the senior military officer.

(JB on Jan 13, 2011 9:47 AM) That reminds me of Col. Brodie. He would walk out of the band room and tell us, "Talk among yourselves, the subject is...the French bourgeois and their interaction with ninjas".

TrackBack (0) | Comments (1)

Comments on this Entry:

(USMC Steve on Jan 11, 2011 11:03 AM) It is truly sad that we are losing role models such as Dick Winters, and looking at what we have for role models nowadays. It is truly no wonder why our society is on the downslide. I for one feel that we have lost something of national value. Semper fi for the Major.

Also missed by many was Secretary Gates willingness to consider moving Africa Command from Stuttgart Germany to the Tidewater area of Virginia.

Thoughts. Who is the next VCSA; next Chairman of the CJCS, VCJCS. What other changes. Let's hear what you have to say!

TrackBack (0) | Comments (4)

Comments on this Entry:

( on Jan 7, 2011 8:03 PM) Word 'round here is LTG Vane for Vice. He's currently GEN Dempsey's #3. Admiral Roughead will be the next CJCS.

(DaveO on Jan 8, 2011 5:55 AM) That was me above. General Dempsey brings the immediate knowledge of training and doctrine. This quality is important when considering that within his expected term of office (2011-15), the Army will cease full-up combat operations; and return to a peacetime OPTEMPO. Basically: going back to basics. General Vane brings an ORSA and acquisitions background that supports the budget cut/drawdown mission that the Vice will have to lead. He's tough enough, and by reputation sharper than folks credit him, so he may be the right officer to support General Dempsey. Admiral Roughead is my cynical choice fo CJCS. There were some angst over decisions he made or enforced as Superintendent for the USNA, and as CNO. The services will need an enforcer riding herd, not a thinker or a manager. The admiral will fill that bill. Biggest challenge for the command: getting soldiers over the cognitive disconnect of combat vs. pseudo-combat (training). "This isn't how we did things ____" (insert OEF/OIF/OND locale here) will fly about a yard in a peacetime Army that focuses on CTC. What I would not like to see is the Army once again cast out the low-density but absolutely indispensible MOS and equipment (persistent stare, analysis) like it did post-Desesrt Storm.

(tıklabence on Jan 9, 2011 5:16 AM) tskler

(DaveO on Jan 10, 2011 8:55 AM) Geez, I've been tsklr'd by Uggs.

Rear Admiral (Lower Half)-- all things being equal, I'd prefer to be a Rear Admiral (UPPER Half); maybe they should just go back to using "Commodore."

Rear area security-- it needs to be closely monitored and tightened up!

Butt stroke (both vertical and horizontal).

"To the rear of the piece, fall in!"-- for all you artillerymen out there.

And my personal favorite--

"To the rear, march!"

TrackBack (0) | Comments (5)

Comments on this Entry:

(DaveO on Jan 7, 2011 10:46 AM) Rather forward thinking colonel.

(tıklabence on Jan 9, 2011 5:17 AM) thnkss

(MDL on Jan 9, 2011 2:43 PM) The football allegory of 'tight-end' or 'wide-receiver'.

(mustang on Jan 9, 2011 7:50 PM) Cockpit.

(USMC Steve on Jan 11, 2011 11:07 AM) I guess that means that "Penis wrinkle" is out too?

By all accounts he was a capable, enterprising officer-- precisely the sort that service needs now and will desperately need one day in the future when it has to face a peer competitor. We Marines have a love-hate relationship with the Navy, and I think I am voicing a common experience when I say that I've seen my share of humorless rigid ship XOs. When you see one who isn't, and who knows his business, he's a keeper. But apparently not in today's Navy. Sad.

TrackBack (0) | Comments (19)

Comments on this Entry:

(Foxfier on Jan 5, 2011 7:38 AM) Nothing new. Ever since Tailhook, he should've known you can't do that. The ultimate power of Females Taking Offense is part of what made me start to question the wisdom of how we have women serving. (So, where's our press conferences on how he was forced out of service, and we really really really need folks like him, why are folks so intolerant?)

(IlikeIke on Jan 5, 2011 8:00 AM) And they begin to take the comedy away for the sake of being PC. I knew it. And so it begins

(DaveO on Jan 5, 2011 8:45 AM) Having followed this story for a while, there are some points to ponder: 1. This video was made 4 years ago. Who wins by having an experienced skipper fired just prior to deployment? 2. If the captain received any discipline for this video, and he may have, does this constitute double jeopardy? 3. While perhaps guilty of being a fighter jock, his antics reflect poorly on the Navy. 4. PC has been around since the 1970s. I would argue that PC has always been around - one doesn't criticize the King, or later the President. This episode is just a boot upside the head for folks still in uniform. Homosexuality is no longer a topic of humor, conversation, or consideration. The officer will most likely get a shore billet, followed by a lucrative career in the defense industry along with a nice Navy pension and VA benefits.

(USMC Steve on Jan 5, 2011 8:48 AM) And it makes the Navy look like a bunch of petty jackass beggars. An incident from almost 5 years ago and they fire him two weeks before his ship is to deploy into a hot zone? And you can bet that the powers that be cannot even grasp why they are fucked in the head on this one.

(Bill Cooper on Jan 5, 2011 1:11 PM) Guys, What's the Statute of Limitations had he appeared in blackface doing a Stepin Fetchit routine, or a takeoff of Bill Dana's "My name, Jose Jiminez". At some point in time, you just can't excuse it by saying, "Oh, Mary Lou, I wuz just joshin'. I didn't mean nuthin' by it". A good point in time is when you are a senior officer and the No. 2 man on a ship of the line. The Navy's problem is that for years it has looked the other way when the miscreant was an aviator, and especially a top-gun (See Matt Tiabbi's "Jock's Guide to Getting Arrested" in the August 2010 Men's Journal; Rule No. 1: Don't be a f*ckup), and the result was Tail Hook, and now Capt Honor, who by all accounts isn't evil, but undoubtedly exercised poor judgment. It's a shame to see an honorable career end like this, but he has only himself to blame for not asking himself that all-important question, "Would I want to see this on '60 Minutes'?"

(GRRRRR on Jan 5, 2011 1:49 PM) Haha, I'm surprised at the comments here. I always thought the idea was for military men to conduct themselves professionally, and if they didn't and that conduct became public, they knew the consequences would probably be severe. The military does not like bad publicity. It's a shame an effective commander has to be relieved, but that's life, he knew what he was doing. Personal responsibility is a good thing, remember? The crackup is how lame you are for blaming "PC." Like it's everybody else's fault the guy acted like an ass and got himself fired. If by PC you mean, "basic human respect for people who don't look, act and talk exactly like just like you," then sure, PC PC PC. But let's look at this another way. Let's pretend the good captain was gay and black and atheist and hated white, male, Christian, hetero marines, and circulated videos making fun of you for your Christianity and made a joke about how he hated you. Would you be whining if he got fired for that? I doubt it. And. That. Makes. You. A. Hypocrite.

(YatYas on Jan 5, 2011 2:38 PM) Watched the video and thought it was pretty goofy in parts, but not deserving of relief from command of a warship. Having served in the Marine Corps; met my share of eccentric leaders that I would rather serve with than the ones that never rocked the boat and had no personality.

(GRRRRR on Jan 5, 2011 2:54 PM) LOL at me for being wrong... Following YatYas, I decided to watch the entire stupid thing instead of believing what I read about it. It was hardly as offensive as it's been made out to be. Still not surprised about the fallout, though. In the corporate world where I'm from, this kind of thing would get any manager fired. Not for its content but for the fact that the content became public. An innate sense of fairness, however, would call for a punishment more fitting of simple bad PR judgment rather than the disgrace of being relieved of command. My apologies, Colonel. You're right on this one and my first impressions were wrong.

(Doug on Jan 5, 2011 3:43 PM) In today's environment, military or civilian, you simply can't do this kind of stuff and get away with it. I am not a very politically correct person and I can get a laugh out of this, but if I were to post something like this on Youtube, under the auspices of my job, I would be canned.

(YatYas on Jan 5, 2011 5:41 PM) Good on you, GRRRRR. But you're still not invited to my next militia meeting:)

(ugg uk on Jan 5, 2011 11:26 PM) UGG boots is a symbol of fashion that almost everyone wants to own a pair of ugg saleboots. Ugg boots sale all over world and also be popular in UK. UGG uk wind sweep country and now you can find ugg boots on sales almost every corner of UK. The most popular styles are ugg classic ugg bailey button,ugg classic cardy ,ugg classic mini,ugg classic short and so on. UGG sale uk has become a phenomenon in life that people can not ignore. However as a famous brand, people began to wondering where they can get ugg cheap. Now ugg boots cheap is here. We provide ugg boots sale in uk and offer you with ugg cheap sale. We make the uk ugg boots sale went into a new period for ugg sale that everyone can get their cheap uggs in our ugg uk store. Find ugg sale boots here, ugg on sale for you. UGG for sale Cheap!

(USMC Steve on Jan 6, 2011 8:13 AM) Grr, that is, I believe, what most of us were thinking. For an almost 5 year old matter, it would be much more typical to issue a non-punitive letter of reprimand, or perhaps a punitive letter, but to allow him to remain in command of his ship and take it to war. I have seen Marine officers of his grade do far worse and get away with it or get very slightly slapped. Unfortunately, the political appointees running the navy (that takes in the admirals too given that they act more as politicians than actual naval officers) see this as demeaning the navy and that is all they are interested in seeing. There is a lot more to it than that. What they have actually done is to reduce somewhat the combat capability of 6000 people. We can only hope the new commanding officer is really squared away given the impending deployment of the ship and all the units on it. The punishment does not at all fit the crime.

(Bill on Jan 6, 2011 9:45 AM) And the witch hunt for this is not over. The powers that be are also investigating the officers of the staff of the strike group that were around when the videos were originally aired. Nice, especially since some of them are in the Enterprise geoup again for this deployment, which starts very soon.

(DaveO on Jan 6, 2011 10:42 AM) Bill - where'd you hear of that?

(Hell_Is_Like_newark on Jan 7, 2011 11:40 AM) I finally watched one of the vids. This is the Navy is a firing offense? The content was PG-13 at worst.

(Pworker81 on Jan 8, 2011 6:21 AM) Hey, It happens. BNA..Breaks of Naval Air,

(tıklabence on Jan 9, 2011 5:17 AM) thnkss

(tıklabence on Jan 9, 2011 5:19 AM) thnkss

(chet on Jan 10, 2011 11:14 AM) (What it sounds like when Chet grumbles into his helmet): Hmmm, XO antics. What did his CO, his admiral and the rest of the Navy say about him when this stuff occurred over the span of YEARS? Well, they said he was worthy of promotion and major sea command. So what changed? Well, the Navy wasn't getting any negative PR back then. Ahh, so what we have here is an example of command cutting their loses and running out a scape goat to face the media hatchets solo. BTW, where is his old CO now? Still on track? hmmm. So much for Brothers in Arms. Note to self: It's a "career" so long as no one needs you to fill a pot hole while they drive the bus over you. Check.

Could be.

"KABUL, Afghanistan -- The leaders of the largest tribe in a Taliban stronghold in southern Helmand province have pledged to halt insurgent attacks and expel foreign fighters from one of the most violent spots in the country, the senior U.S. Marine general in Afghanistan said Monday.

"Marine Maj. Gen. Richard Mills, who commands coalition forces in the southwest, said the deal was struck between local elders in the Sangin district and Helmand Governor Gulabuddin Mangal with the consultation of coalition forces. The area has witnessed some of the heaviest fighting of the war."

Furthermore...

"The deal was made with the Alikozai tribe, the largest in the Sarwan-Qalah area of the Upper Sangin Valley. The tribe controls the majority of the 30 villages located in a 17-square-kilometer region, said Mangal spokesman Daoud Ahmadi. The tribe last rose up against the Taliban in 2007 but failed because of a lack of resources and coalition help.

"Sangin is a strategic region for the Taliban and one they do not want to lose. It is a key crossroads to funnel drugs, weapons and fighters throughout Helmand and into neighboring Kandahar province, the spiritual heartland of the Taliban. It is also one of the last remaining sanctuaries in Helmand where the Taliban can freely process the opium and heroin that largely fund the insurgency."

I read this as a significant step forward. Apparently patient, persistence presence has worked (again). Quite a few coalition troops died to get us where we are. This is by no means the end, but it portends well. Will the Alikozai hold up their end? Can the provincial government hold up its end? Will the ANSF be able to build on this gain? Stay tuned.

UPDATE: Stratfor weighs in:

"And all caveats aside, political accommodation in Sangin must be seen as a positive development. Just how positive remains to be seen and will warrant close scrutiny in the weeks and months ahead."

TrackBack (0) | Comments (7)

Comments on this Entry:

(YatYas on Jan 3, 2011 8:16 PM) Hopefully this will be one of the steps in the coming year to help the Afghans to be able to defend themselves against the Taliban. Maybe then more of the not so diehard Taliban will decide to switch sides.

(DaveO on Jan 4, 2011 9:39 AM) Perhaps a turning point. I wouldn't let any of them guard my back though. Taliban tribal math: $ + proximity of death-dealing entities = loyalty.

(Ron Snyder on Jan 4, 2011 6:41 PM) Yeah, their loyalty is rented to us for now.

(Doc H on Jan 5, 2011 1:50 PM) Yet another confirmation that the surge strategy appears to be making progress in Afghanistan. When Marines first arrived it was die-hard Taliban country. Sangin is an area that the Marines have paid for in blood. I wish them continued success.

(ugg uk on Jan 5, 2011 11:26 PM) UGG boots is a symbol of fashion that almost everyone wants to own a pair of ugg saleboots. Ugg boots sale all over world and also be popular in UK. UGG uk wind sweep country and now you can find ugg boots on sales almost every corner of UK. The most popular styles are ugg classic ugg bailey button,ugg classic cardy ,ugg classic mini,ugg classic short and so on. UGG sale uk has become a phenomenon in life that people can not ignore. However as a famous brand, people began to wondering where they can get ugg cheap. Now ugg boots cheap is here. We provide ugg boots sale in uk and offer you with ugg cheap sale. We make the uk ugg boots sale went into a new period for ugg sale that everyone can get their cheap uggs in our ugg uk store. Find ugg sale boots here, ugg on sale for you. UGG for sale Cheap!

(jewelry on Jan 7, 2011 1:09 AM) I am so surprised to see your posts,there are some good ideas and some I think we are different,but when we talked it,there are our right thoughts,share each other,so link my name now!

(tıklabence on Jan 9, 2011 5:19 AM) tskler

And that ain't all, I suspect.

I think we should brace ourselves for an interesting new year, if I may be permitted to call it that.

TrackBack (0) | Comments (2)

Comments on this Entry:

(DaveO on Jan 3, 2011 9:00 AM) None of these are new. In Pakistan, when the presidency fails, as it usually does, a general will seize control, as they usually do.The general will most likely have the support of the ISI. In Zimbabwe, our efforts to support the anti-Mugabe groups have been undercut due to the WikiLeaks expose. Perhaps we will get to see a country self-annihilate. Should we encourage the deconstruction of the African, and Southwest Asian countries whose boundaries and political culture are remnants of colonial Europe? Would re-establishing tribes as the primary political unit, with their own territory be of benefit to all? Regardless, I don't see a role for our forces until early 2012, and then only to repeat Mogadishu.

(tıklabence on Jan 9, 2011 5:20 AM) thnkss

I find Mr. McCarthy attitude troubling; luckily he has little influence in determining whether colleges have ROTC or not. What is most troubling is his belief that those in the military are intellectual midgets and are only interested in perpetuating a culture of violence. My experience is that the military are the ultimate peacekeepers, their presences helps ensure peace.

TrackBack (0) | Comments (10)

Comments on this Entry:

(VMI88 on Dec 31, 2010 3:00 PM) Mccarthy's column is the first of many attempts from an elite intellectual to find some self proclaimed moral high ground for continuing to exclude the military from campus. These folks do not want to sully their bucolic academic environs with something they find so distasteful. Once military service came back in vogue in the 80's/90's the elite schools were criticized for not offering ROTC. With no draft or war to point to, they latched on to DADT as their new platform to justify doing what they wanted to do anyway - keep ROTC and the military out. Unfortunately many of the upper & upper middle class parents who write the tuition checks to these schools would prefer their kids not serve either. The students themselves are too busy climbing the ladder (like they probably have been since Montessori preschool) to rock the boat. Besides, military service doesn't get one a high flying career and fat paycheck like a stint at McKinsey or Goldman Sachs would, so why bother? With DADT gone these schools will simply find some other fig leaf - Iraq, "torture", lack of female representation in the senior ranks, land mines, whatever - to justify keeping ROTC out.

(YatYas on Jan 1, 2011 4:39 PM) The problem is that the Media, schools and Hollywood are run by a majority of elitists that feel America is the great evil in the world. Or should I say they believe our system of capitalism and democracy is the great evil in the world. Since the late Sixties it has been the same talk of a poor, uneducated and minority military which of course is inaccurate and shows their lack of actual knowledge about our military.

(GRRRRR on Jan 1, 2011 7:20 PM) @YatYas, the only person who hates America is you. You right wingers are constantly finding fault with it. It's socialist, it's communist, it persecutes poor Christian white folk, it's fascist, its president is Kenyan, evil liberals run every one of its institutions, it actually expects its citizens to pay taxes in order to receive services, it's run by a shadow government of yet more liberals, liberal pedophiles run its schools, and true Americans like the idiot governor of Texas want to secede. Stop acting and talking like a traitor who would be more at home in Iran and try to act more like an American. As for capitalism, liberals want corporations to be properly regulated so they don't screw you in the ass, something you apparently enjoy. As for democracy, right wingers apparently like to stomp on people's faces at their political rallies and threaten to overthrow the government if they don't get their whiny, shrieking way. All of which shows your lack of knowledge about a country you pretend to love but actually obviously despise. God save our country from these f***ing idiots... Way to keep digging up liberal boogie men, Colonel. How daring of you to save America by overreacting to college professors who simply want the nation's educational institutions to remain independent of the military. What about the 9/11 responders? Zip from you. What about the START treaty? Zip from you. How about other things that actually MATTER? I guess not, because that would mean actually criticizing Republicans, and then the evil liberal boogie men would win and turn you into a gay Muslim.

(YatYas on Jan 2, 2011 12:20 PM) Had a reply to a commenter last night, but evidently it was banned. The reply was not obscene or vulgar, but did have "nutjob" in it. Guess, I need to be more politically correct towards the feelings of others.

(GRRRRR on Jan 2, 2011 7:21 PM) Stick with commenting on the military, which you claim to know something about, and avoiding idiotic generalizations about liberals and America in general, which you obviously don't know s*** about, and you'll spare everyone's feelings. Try it. I guarantee the world will be a happier place.

(PSYOP Cop on Jan 3, 2011 2:25 AM) If those colleges don't want ROTC on their campus, I say f--k 'em. I mean, all jokes and partisan banter aside, who needs them? The military has been doing just fine without Harvard and Yale graduates in its ranks (George Bush senior aside). I think the whole thing's a non-issue if you ask me. If some Ivy Leaguer wants to join up, he can go to OCS. Or enlist.

(DaveO on Jan 3, 2011 9:15 AM) The arguments boil down to the question on whether or not America's military should reflect America's demographics. Under the Melting Pot theory of cultural synergy, the answer is yes, America's military should reflect America. Under the Salad Bowl theory of multiple cultures living in dynamic tension, the answer is a resounding no. Since our government currently advocates and encourages the Salad Bowl theory, then America should restrict ROTC to a very select few institutions of higher learning. In effect, turn the tables on the elite: let them know they aren't good enough for military service. Most folks graduating from college today have been instructed in what to think, not how to think. The inability to apply critical thinking skills should automatically disqualify a person from being commissioned.

(GRRRRR on Jan 4, 2011 1:21 PM) Here's an interesting topic to cover in your blog, Colonel: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/03/fran_townsend_terrorism/index.html A delegation of prominent Republicans met with a terrorist organization in the hopes of getting them to commit terrorist acts against Iran, thus the enemy of my enemy is my friend. But the Roberts Supreme Court just upheld the Department of Justice ruling that said even if you just talk to or advocate a terrorist group, you can be formally charged with providing material support to terrorists. That makes the following Republicans guilty of providing material support to terrorists: Rudy Giuliani and former Bush officials Michael Mukasey, Tom Ridge and Fran Townsend. Can't wait to hear your denunciation of these people as traitors. I mean, Rudolph Giuliani and Tom Ridge are now basically the Jane Fondas of The Long War. Oh sorry, I forgot, they're *Republicans*, so we can't call them traitors. Because we all know that Republicans support the troops (although how, exactly, we can't exactly say) and only liberals are traitors (cuz they're, you know, elitist and run the world). That's what we've been trained to believe and by God we're sticking to it.

(DaveO on Jan 4, 2011 7:20 PM) So former Speaker of the House Pelosi's visit to, and pledge of support for, Syria counts? Bashir Assad's ties to terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah is fairly well known; and whose regular assassinations of Lebanese Druse and Christian leaders leaves Lebanon a perpetual battle ground is just so much fluff, right GRRR? And the good Congressman who served as go-between for the Speaker and FARC? Subsequently our Democrats refused to ratify a treaty with the duly elected government of Colombia. Cuz they were terrorists or anti-American enough I guess. And Head Code Pink Medea Benjamin's personal service as ambassador for Mullah Omar? But they're all good democrats, aren't they? They're anti-American, have provably given aid and comfort to enemies of America (their words, of course), and still we forebear. Hmmm... wait a minute: I've been talking deeds here. Repeated actions demonstrating that America is the enemy of the Progressives. You, GRRR, have pointed one instance involving Republicans. Might as well indict every tourist in NYC who talks to a cabbie fleeing persecution in his home country.

(GRRRRR on Jan 4, 2011 10:08 PM) Haha, DaveO, I really enjoyed that big load of horse**** you just carted out to make excuses for your anti-American friends. Way to prove my point. THANK YOU. Say it with me: Republicans can meet with terrorists anytime they want and you're okay with that--even a group that had directly participated in the 1979 embassy seizure. Say it with me: We should do as your side says, not as they do. Say it with me: There is no such thing as treason when a Republican does it. Say it with me: "Anti-American" never applies to your side because you can always rationalize what your traitor friends do instead of expecting them to take any responsibility for their actions. As for deeds, man, you failed to list one. What a crock. You're mad at Pelosi for visiting Syria? What a jackass you are. Republicans had already visited Syria. Where was your big mouth then? Oh right, those were Republicans, so it's okay, oh, right. I keep forgetting that because, unlike you, I have only one standard. Regarding Medea Benjamin, man, what a dupe you are. Here are the simple facts: Benjamin of Code Pink went to the Green Zone in Kabul to talk to Afghans. She and other Code Pink members talked to 150 Afghans in Kabul. The funny thing is after the trip she returned and revised Code Pink's stand on the Afghanistan War, suddenly opposing an immediate withdrawal, as she had been told by the Afghans she interviewed that they believed an immediate American withdrawal would mean collapse and civil war. Holy crap, I can't type, I'm actually laughing too hard at you. She comes back from Afghanistan closer to your position than before she left, and you still find a way to call it treason. Oh, man, it's just too funny. So, as for alleged "deeds" of liberals that you have the balls to call Anti-American for no reason, I'm still waiting. And as for principles, integrity, honesty, I'm still waiting for that from you, too. If you had any, you'd denounce Ridge and Giuliani right now. Since you won't denounce them, I've decided to call you Damascus DaveO from now on. Hope you like it. Thanks again for proving my point: Republicans don't give a crap about honesty, principle, integrity, America. They just want to win and feel like they're right, and screw everybody else, including their own country's laws and security interests.

TrackBack (0) | Comments (4)

Comments on this Entry:

(ALeyram on Dec 28, 2010 8:20 AM) Thanks You Admin...

(Cracker Iota on Dec 29, 2010 11:06 AM) And a Happy New Year to you, my brother.

(Pneumatic fittings on Dec 29, 2010 9:48 PM) Excellently written article, if only all bloggers offered the same content as you, the internet would be a much better place. Please keep it up!

(tıklabence on Jan 9, 2011 5:21 AM) tskler

"I am a fan of the old World War II movies, the ones where the platoon was composed of typical Americans, Hollywood-style. There was a guy named Farmer and one called Preacher... Now, of course, we would have to add a gay soldier. I fear for him. He'll need someone to watch his back."

Only if "he" puts his lifestyle above his duty and fails to keep faith with those other typical Americans. And that is the heart of substantive opposition to the repeal of DADT. What Dick does here is to assume the posture that he thinks his adversaries in this argument do, namely inchoate lunk-headed intransigence. I detect also a note of good-war-ism; you know, those old WWII movies were great because WWII was the last good war, not what we have today with these awful provincial people and their tacky state university degrees who beat up on various Third Worlders and refuse to love gays. You know, Dick, we like those old movies too, but those of us who have served know that Hollywood can't match reality, and that the real soldiers and Marines in the platoons aren't simply pets or mascots for the chattering classes. It continues--

"But we know also that this can be managed - contained, limited. It takes education. It takes training. It takes leadership. This is what concerns me about Amos. His views are on the record. He sees gays as somewhat out of control, possibly holding hands in combat, sneaking into one another's bunks at night, being distracted just as the enemy is coming over the hill. Not only is this silly and based on an ignorant misconception of who most gays are, but it can be dealt with."

First of all, that's GENERAL Amos to you, bitch. Now, note the hectoring breathy fatuousness-- It takes *education* ... it takes *training* ... it takes LEADERSHIP. When he writes "education and training" what he really means is "re-education and indoctrination." Those who lived through the purge-trial aftermath of Tailhook will know what I mean. Leadership, frankly, is what General Amos is exercising, although Dick can't recognize it. The Commandant is stating his considered professional opinion that repeal of this law will have a detrimental effect on the combat readiness of his service, and furthermore that doing so during active overseas operations is a particularly ill-conceived course of action. Remember how long this man has been in uniform, and the positions he has held. He understands his Corps, and what makes it tick, and he has been entrusted with shepherding it through the next four years of war.

Dick fittingly ends his hissy fit on an incoherent note--

"The Marines of today know that virtually the entire Republican Party stood up for bigotry. The Corps knows that some important senators - John McCain and Jon Kyl, to name two - furiously fought to retain the status quo, always in the sainted cause of unit cohesion. (Kyl said repeal could "cost lives.") Marines know, too, that in surveys, those on the front lines are least supportive of having gays among them and they are also aware that their brass fought to keep "don't ask, don't tell." The issue for me, as for Gen. Amos, is unit cohesion. That's why he has to go."

I don't see how he (Dick) is advocating for increased unit cohesion. And does he he think it's a good thing or not? If he paused to think for a moment, he might realize that unit cohesion *is* a sainted cause, and a thing well worth preserving. Unit cohesion keeps the force together when things aren't going well. Unit cohesion is born of hundreds of Americans dedicated to a single cause, welded together into a fighting instrument by hard realists who do sometimes hold contrary opinions. But what has no place in the realm of unit cohesion, or of any aspect of combat readiness, is compulsory acceptance of behaviors that most find distracting at best and deviant at worst. The gay soldier or Marine who subordinates his behavior for the greater good of his unit gets treated like a soldier or Marine, like one of the family.

But Dick wouldn't get that, would he?

TrackBack (0) | Comments (31)

Comments on this Entry:

(JB on Dec 22, 2010 6:48 PM) I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the closest Dick has ever been to a person in uniform is those WWII movies he so cherishes...

(Marc on Dec 22, 2010 7:07 PM) All I see is a WaPo writer that favors political correct-ness over unit strength and unity, necessities in combat. If gays are treated no different than straights, I think things will work out all right. I've met plenty of straight men I would hesitate to share a foxhole with, mainly over their lack of dedication and attention to detail. The day I worry about what some hack writer thinks of The Commandant of the Marine Corps will be the day I quit breathing.

(IlikeIke on Dec 23, 2010 3:12 AM) This guy is funny. I'm glad the CMC said something about this he is right on many levels. I can't wait until my first NJP for making a gay joke that offends someone. Now were going to have a million gay sensitivity briefs every year, and when I say something like "hey bro don't be so gay" to a buddy like I normally do I'm gonna get hammered over it because the wrong person takes offense. This is gonna screw up the comedy factor of my beloved Corps. I'm gonna need a new routine.

(Bill Cooper on Dec 23, 2010 6:06 AM) LtcP: Calm down. Don't demand that Mr. Cohen use Gen Amos' title, and then call him "Dick" in the same breath. Also, don't fall back on the same hackneyed arguments the general officer corps used about "the coloreds" in 1947 and women in the early 1970's. And don't say "But this is different this time". That was said back then, too. Do the details need to be worked out? Damn right, and it will be like "The Office" around most units for a while, but as always, the troops will find a way to make this work. Was it a disrespectful article? You bet, but don't let your enemy define your conduct. On a happy note, Merry Christmas to LtcP, Townie and everyone else who are faithful readers and commenters to this blog. Let's hope and pray for a really good 2011. I look forward to doingbattle with people I would probably like if I had the chance to know them, although we don't see eye-to-eye on many issues. At least we can agree to respectfully disagree without questioning sanity, manhood or patriotism.

(DaveO on Dec 23, 2010 8:38 AM) Cohen is a weather vane. His article is meant to inform the upcoming top officers and NCOs of the different services, and whomsoever becomes the CJCS (my bet is Adm. Roughead), that loyalty is the most important attribute. That loyalty is, and will be applied to a broad number of subjects, not just the new law. The Commandant made remarks to the reporters that were the same as he made to members of Congress – so this isn’t a matter of public disagreement with the civilian chain of command. General Amos is the first, and so far only, head of a service appointed by Mr. Obama. He was also confirmed by a Democratic-Party-dominant Senate. There must be some degree of confidence in the Commandant’s loyalty to the civilian leadership in the White House and inside the Ring. Likewise, should the WH fire General Amos, they can not guarantee the quality of the officers who will head all of the services in the next year. The good ones will leave, or defer; and those who seek power above all generally tend to destroy their branch of service. The Commandant won’t lose his job. I don’t see this as a smack-down on the Commandant. It’s more of a call to heel for the next bunch of 4-stars. TY Bill Cooper - Merry Christmas to you and yours as well, along with all the rest of y'all!

(LtCol P on Dec 23, 2010 12:00 PM) But Bill, it's so easy and fun!! ;-) I get incensed when some jerk insults the Commandant. Merry Christmas to you and yours. Here's to a prosperous 2011!

(MDL on Dec 23, 2010 12:22 PM) PC continues. Fortunately things will move to the center/right next month. In the meantime, a song for all. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkUj0aGUBeo

(GRRRRR on Dec 23, 2010 8:44 PM) @MDL, this is not about political correctness, it's about people wanting the same rights as you have and that all Americans should have, which is the ability to serve their country in the armed forces as long as they are mentally and physically fit. I'm sure if the military denied you the right to serve based on religion, sexual orientation or your obviously stupid political choices, you would be whining loud and shrill enough to break glass. It's amazing how some of you people swear an oath to defend the Constitution, and got shot at to honor that oath, and you don't have an effing clue what's even in it. The essence of our system of government, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, is that the majority cannot tyrannize the minority based on its idiotic fears and prejudices. It's a liberal concept, I know, but that's America, love it or move to Iran. As you know, we liberals are all big fat elitists because we want the government to treat everybody equally and guarantee equal rights. It's the same selfish right wing mentality about terrorism. Arrest people without Habeas Corpus and torture them? Go for it. Pat me down at an airport? GASP, TYRANNY!!!!! Deny gays the right to serve their country? Why sure, they're just homos, yuk! Take my giant publicly funded LOVE JESUS OR GO TO HELL sign off the school lawn? GASP, TYRANNY!!!!! A little self awareness can go a long way, honestly. Try it. Happy Holidays, men. I will be praying this holiday season that the DADT repeal does not make you all turn overnight from the world's finest warriors into pink tutu-wearing homosexuals shooting themselves by accident while losing a war to France. What thin ice we tread ...

(escort bayan on Dec 24, 2010 10:34 AM) thanks a lot admins

(MDL on Dec 24, 2010 1:25 PM) Grrrr (hope I didn't short you an "r"), save your preaching for the choir. You seem to think that you can attribute a whole host of characteristics to me based on a sentence. I know what's in the Constitution and have in fact read it. I also have my own moral code, as apparently you have yours, and I find homosexuality as well as pederasty and bestiality to be beyond reproach. Be happy (gay?) that you won. Our enemies certainly are, as political correctness overtakes the need for a strong military. As for moving to Iran, perhaps you and your brethren could deign to relocate to Denmark or the Netherlands, heck I would be happy to cede all of California to you. I for one will stay here. Now that you have had your say on me, you can go back to the Huffington Post.

(GRRRRR on Dec 24, 2010 2:41 PM) Haha, MDL. I'm going to try to make this so simple even a Republican can understand it: If you're going to fly thousands of miles away from your family to fight for freedom, you actually have to allow people to live freely. Okay, so I believe you've read the Constitution, I guess you just don't like what it says. Too bad: If you swear an oath to it, you should respect it enough that you have to allow minorities that you don't like to have the same rights as you do. Unless you swore your oath to the Constitution of Iran by accident. Gays already are serving, so unless you think the U.S. military is a push over, an idea that is obviously laughable, then allowing them to serve without being able to get fired for being gay isn't going to change anything. The only thing that is changing here is poor whiny you has to personally accept something that makes you drop a load in your pants and feel icky in your private parts. Finally, as for splitting up the country, I'm all for it. You can have the divorce-ridden, low-IQ and education, less productive, teen pregnancy-rich, tax-importing right wing red states, and I'll take the productive, tax-exporting, high-education and IQ, and low-divorce liberal blue states. See ya and good riddance.

(MDL on Dec 25, 2010 8:24 AM) Grrr, sorry to upset you this Christmas season, we shall never agree. You can have your hope and change, I'll cling to my religion and guns. Wishing certain things do not make them so, but please do keep on thinking that more hugs will make for a happier world. You head to the next gay pride festival, I'll go to the gunshow.

(GRRRRR on Dec 25, 2010 9:12 AM) Sounds good, as long as we both enjoy our full rights under the Constitution. Merry Christmas, bud.

(Townie 76 on Dec 26, 2010 1:13 PM) Lt Col JPP I understand your being peeved at the article, I was also, but rather than letting it bother me, I figured it was just another one of his rants. Richard Cohen for everyone information was a draftee, I am not sure he served in Vietnam, but nevertheless he served. His call for General Amos head was over the top. DaveO interesting perspective on the next CJCS--more important though who will be the next CSA of the Army. Current betting Dempsey, but he has had a rather serious illness recently; the current VCSA; or a wild card--perhaps a serving three star. We need a leader at the top, Casey has been a disaster. For CJCS I have to think Petraeus is a candidate. Bill C; good comments as always. To all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

(Doug on Dec 27, 2010 8:09 AM) I do believe gays should be allowed to serve openly, but I also understand what this will mean at the small unit level. This is different than when the army was integrated because it is about sex, not race and that is always a more highly charged issue. We do not have men and women living in the same barracks and sharing a bathroom for a very good reason. It would lead to innumerable disciplinary problems. And I wonder if this will go both ways. A 20-year-old guy placed in the midst of 30 women would have a hard time controlling himself and I would imagine the same might hold true of a gay guy. Guys are guys after all no matter what their orientation. And I do not think it is particularly fair to the straight guys to have them placed in that situation. So, any way you cut it this is going to to be a very difficult rule to implement.

(chet on Dec 27, 2010 12:31 PM) I wish someone would have informed my senior DI that serving in the Corps was "my right". We could have dispensed with the 13 weeks of shenanigans and brought back the 1/3 of the platoon that washed out in first phase, too. Dang, if it was a right, I would have just worn an Eagle, Globe and Anchor t-shirt on my bus trip to MCRD and told my senior to accept me as is. How's that sound? Stupid? I thought so, so let's dispense with the "right to serve" nonsense. I hope that recruit training is as discriminatory as possible and I really don't care what their reasons are. Really. Seems like everyone agrees that this new law will require effort, leadership, additional training (on what, we haven't decided), money, a lot of time, and probably more than a few people. Everyone agrees this will have some affects on our units (from "take a little getting used to" all the way to "destroy the fabric of our military - we're just guessing at this point, though). Some, like Bill Cooper, will calmly transpose reality and say "coloreds" and women didn't serve until '47 and '70 knowing full well that both served in the US armed forces "openly" and with honor and dignity almost from inception. These same folks also say homosexuals are "already serving" (implying that this is a simply change in the letter of the law, not in actual practice), again knowing full well that (up until now) anyone openly behaving as a homosexual would be booted. Ironic, isn't it? Isn't it odd how one minority will rob another of its heritage to serve its own purpose? That's the mentality behind this effort - "let's do it our way at the expense of all else". But ignoring all that - I am still waiting for a proponent of this to tell me in empirical terms: What does the country get as a whole? What does a citizen and taxpayer receive in return by allowing homosexuals to serve? A more capable military? Is anyone promising that? No? At best, we can hope for status quo and at quite a bit of cost and risk. And yes, you can draw all the parallels you want - in a merit based system, especially one based solely on the good of the whole (not at all like capitalism) all kinds of demogrpahic categories would be under represented or simply not there at all. Cry me a river. I don't care. Again, when nothing is in it that helps accomplish the mission (which is Victory last I checked), I can see the my old senior DI scowling down at us wondering what in the ^&#$&^%# we are thinking. Be glad we are fighting an enemy that has not yet mastered toilet paper and we are not struggling for maritime and air superiority. Be glad Dover has as little inbound traffic that it does. Otherwise, the old SDI would probably recommend anyone who tampers with his Corps for this type of nonsense be lined up against a wall and shot as traitors. Chet Latent Infantry NCO

(GRRRRR on Dec 27, 2010 1:33 PM) @Chet, good to have a rational voice chime in on this debate. You make some interesting points. I disagree with them. Serving in the Corps is obviously not a right. Soldiers must be physically and mentally fit, so there is performance- or merit-based discrimination. That is fine. I wouldn't want a blind crew flying my airplane, either. The problem with discriminating against gays is the discrimination is not based on anything other than base prejudice against sexual orientation, which in turn is based on fear and loathing. "I don't like how you have sex, therefore I don't want to share a barracks with you." In this, Bill's analogy to blacks is perfect. As you point out, blacks did serve, but not on par with whites. "I hate black people, therefore I don't want to share a barracks with them and won't trust them in combat, and if you make me, our heritage will be destroyed, and combat effectiveness will be eliminated." Yes, that does sound familiar. That is what I mean by rights, and if you want to know if America will benefit, it will benefit by living up to its principles of the minority being protected against the tyranny of the majority's ignorance and prejudices. So, if you don't like this rule, I say: Welcome to America. This is what you've been fighting for. If you don't like that, sorry to have misled you, but you might want to think about another line of work. When you say "gays serve openly," it looks like you somehow think you're going to be serving next to men wearing dresses who are unable to stop grabbing your penis, which is just stupid. The military has rules of conduct and those rules will continue to apply. If somebody breaks those rules the military will enact its disciplinary measures. Sorry, I just don't see the Marine Corps coddling anybody for any reason, and that includes you. Frankly, I'm surprised at the girlish overreaction to this. They're gay. So what. Man up. In short, the sky is not falling, our nation will not collapse, our military will not fail to do its duty as it has for more than 200 years. The only real change is this. First, soldiers will have to accept gays as equals and not feel icky being around them. Second, soldiers who are gay can now say, "I'm gay," and they can't be banned from their livelihood and ability to serve. As for combat effectiveness, think about the Arab translators who were kicked out because they were gay. Think about all the other soldiers who were kicked out who had previously been making real contributions to our security. Talk about lost combat effectiveness. The real treachery was denying these soldiers the ability to serve their country and protect the United States from foreign threats. All because gays make some people feel icky in their private parts, and nothing more.

(chet on Dec 27, 2010 2:24 PM) So pretty much: "Cry Bigot! And let slip the Dogs of Diversity!" Check. Add in a little belittling of previous service from dissenters and an invite them to leave. Got it. Grossly overestimate the ability of people to ignore their sexuality downrange. No sweat. (It's not like heteros have trouble with it, right?) Throw in some transferance with tried and true "phobic" meme and call it good, huh? I mean, it's not like a 22 year old NCO shouldn't be expected to handle an armed love triangle in his squad when he's been downrange and outside the wire for a couple months. What else could he possibly have on his plate that is more important than that? Disregard the rhetoric though. It's just squadbay grumblings. Nobody who dissents actually knows what they are talking about. How about that empirical evidence? Not anecdotal. Not pie in the sky principles. Empirical evidence. Here's a hint - it is not subjective. And let me know what the diversity industry is doing to combat the heterosexual inequalities for berthing and head calls while your at it. Barney Frank says separate head calls are discriminatory and will not be tolerated. Certainly, you guys don't plan to continue discrimating against women, too? Can we repeal the dual PFT regs as well? Can we finally disband every .mil organization that promotes one demographic over another? No? Didn't think so.

(GRRRRR on Dec 27, 2010 7:27 PM) Chet, nobody is denying this will be a big change and that change is disruptive. Obviously, a lot of this disruption will be the result of basic discomfort that heteros feel around gays. This discomfort is natural. Nobody is saying you should embrace it and cheer. The overriding consideration, however, is whether somebody should be allowed to serve in the military without fear of being deprived of his livelihood just because he has sex with other men, which, in the big scheme of things, is actually kind of a dumb thing to get so worked up about. The larger principle here may be elusively academic to the average soldier having to deal with this day to day but it is incredibly important. Our system of government was designed by the Founders to ensure that minorities, even those we personally dislike, are protected from the prejudices of the majority. This principle has protected Catholics and Jews and Mormons and blacks and Asians and gays and whatever other label you want for most of our history (sometimes not always successfully), and our nation is powerful because of it. As for love triangles and the like, you marines know the rules of conduct better than anybody and I could only assume they would continue to apply to any improper behavior, gay or straight. Obviously, the barracks grab ass and homoerotic kidding around will have to change. But I would bet you any amount of money that one year from now the U.S. military will continue to be the most respected, effective and dangerous fighting machine since the freaking Mongols. Please take me up on this bet; I will win it by any metric. Until then, just once, put yourself in their shoes and imagine what it must be like to have to hide and lie about your sexual orientation so you don't lose your job and ability to serve your country. Imagine for a minute that it is you and that you are now allowed to serve because you are a Christian or whatever you happened to be. Final word: You marines get shot at, bombed, you serve in jungles and deserts in every shithole in the world, you are often forced to fight on little food and sleep, you live separated from your families for months at a time--you will survive taking a pee in the same bathroom with a gay guy, and serving alongside them. The funny thing is you probably already do.

(USMC Steve on Dec 28, 2010 10:19 AM) If a gay person is willing to do what the typical military person (for the most part) does every day, and subordinates their own self interests to the welfare of the greater whole, and the accomplishment of the mission, then there should be no significant problems. Some straight troops have a hard time getting the concept that there are things bigger and more important than themselves. In this day and age it is a quite alien concept for people to grasp. Assuming that there is no expectation of special treatment for them based upon their sexual proclivities, then things should settle down fairly fast. As far as the Marine Corps is concerned, we will continue to accomplish the mission no matter how we might feel about some of the social engineering and experimentation that is being done with our service. And make no mistake about it, this was not done simply because it is right, but to salvage some political points for the flailing president and what is left of the democrat party still in elected office. Clinton brought in the DADT back in 1993 and it has been safely in place up until a few months ago, and all of a sudden there was a big damned hurry to get it overturned at warp speed? Dems were in the majority for two years and did nothing about this at all. Now Obama can claim at least one victory/campaign promise he managed to actually keep.

(GRRRRR on Dec 28, 2010 1:05 PM) [stares at Steve in amazement] I agree with you.

(USMC Steve on Dec 29, 2010 7:54 AM) Are you sure now, Grrrrr? Or can I call you Grr?

(DaveO on Dec 29, 2010 9:19 AM) Grrrrrrrr agrees with Steve? Floored. Simply, floored.

(LtCol P on Dec 29, 2010 9:35 AM) IT'S A CHRISTMAS FREAKING MIRACLE!

(USMC Steve on Dec 29, 2010 11:09 AM) JOY to the world...

(Quick couplings on Dec 29, 2010 9:49 PM) We are a professional manufacturer of hydraulic quick couplings,pneumatic quick couplings and pneumatic fittings.

(DaveO on Dec 30, 2010 8:09 AM) I'd say USMC Steve's and Grrr's agreement was a Quick Coupling...

(GRRRRR on Dec 30, 2010 11:27 AM) Now I'm bored :(

(sesli chat on Dec 31, 2010 9:23 AM) saolun beyler

(Consul-At-Arms on Jan 8, 2011 1:30 PM) Mr. Cohen was, many years ago, on active duty as an army reservist. WWII was also the last good war, in certain circles, because the socialists (at least of the non-NDSAP variety) were on the same side as the U.S., (at least once the national socialists in Germany launched their attack on the soviet socialists in Russia and her near-abroad). (Until they did that, at least once Stalin and Hitler had made their mutual non-aggression pact, WWII wasn't a "good" war at all.) (History matters. Especially the inconvenient kind.) Active duty personnel can also look forward to eve more hours and hours of mandatory "homosexual awareness" training. Yes, that's what it's actually called and has been going on since Pres. Clinton signed DADT into law way back when. Good thing nobody needed any of those training hours to prepare them to fight a war or anything. I've quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms2.blogspot.com/2011/01/last-weeks-links.html

(tıklabence on Jan 9, 2011 5:22 AM) thnkss

The Last Six Seconds

  One can hardly conceive of the enormous grief held quietly within General
  Kelly as he spoke.
  ____________
 
  On Nov 13, 2010, Lt General John Kelly, USMC gave a speech to the Semper
  Fi  Society of St. Louis , MO. This was 4 days after his son, Lt Robert Kelly,
  USMC was killed by an IED while on his 3rd Combat tour. During his
  speech, General Kelly spoke about the dedication and valor of our young men and
  women who step forward each and every day to protect us.
 
  During the speech, he never mentioned the loss of his own son. He closed
  the speech with the moving account of the last 6 seconds in the lives of 2
  young Marines who died with rifles blazing to protect their brother
  Marines.
 
 
  "I will leave you with a story about the kind of people they are about the
  quality of the steel in their backs about the kind of dedication they
  bring to our country while they serve in uniform and forever after as veterans.
  Two years ago when I was the Commander of all U.S. and Iraqi forces, in
  fact, the 22nd of April 2008, two Marine infantry battalions, 1/9 "The
  Walking Dead," and 2/8 were switching out in Ramadi. One battalion in the
  closing days of their deployment going home very soon, the other just
  starting its seven-month combat tour. Two Marines, Corporal Jonathan Yale
  and Lance Corporal Jordan Haerter, 22 and 20 years old respectively, one
  from each battalion, were assuming the watch together at the entrance gate
  of an outpost that contained a makeshift barracks housing 50 Marines. The
  same broken down ramshackle building was also home to 100 Iraqi police,
  also my men and our allies in the fight against the terrorists in Ramadi, a
  city until recently the most dangerous city on earth and owned by Al Qaeda.
  Yale was a dirt poor mixed-race kid from Virginia with a wife and daughter, and
  a mother and sister who lived with him and he supported as well. He did
  this on a yearly salary of less than $23,000. Haerter, on the other hand, was
  a middle class white kid from Long Island . They were from two completely
  different worlds. Had they not joined the Marines they would never have
  met each other, or understood that multiple America 's exist simultaneously
  depending on one's race, education level, economic status, and where you
  might have been born. But they were Marines, combat Marines, forged in
  the same crucible of Marine training, and because of this bond they were
  brothers as close, or closer, than if they were born of the same woman.
 
  The mission orders they received from the sergeant squad leader I am sure
  went something like: "Okay you two clowns, stand this post and let no
  unauthorized personnel or vehicles pass." "You clear?" I am also sure
  Yale and Haerter then rolled their eyes and said in unison something like: "Yes
  Sergeant," with just enough attitude that made the point without saying
  the words, "No kidding sweetheart, we know what we're doing." They then
  relieved two other Marines on watch and took up their post at the entry
  control point of Joint Security Station Nasser, in the Sophia section of
  Ramadi, Al Anbar, Iraq .
 
  A few minutes later a large blue truck turned down the alley way-perhaps
  60-70 yards in length-and sped its way through the serpentine of concrete
  jersey walls. The truck stopped just short of where the two were posted
  and detonated, killing them both catastrophically. Twenty-four brick masonry
  houses were damaged or destroyed. A mosque 100 yards away collapsed. The
  truck's engine came to rest two hundred yards away knocking most of a
  house down before it stopped. Our explosive experts reckoned the blast was made
  of 2,000 pounds of explosives. Two died, and because these two young
  infantrymen didn't have it in their DNA to run from danger, they saved 150
  of their Iraqi and American brothers-in-arms.
 
  When I read the situation report about the incident a few hours after it
  happened I called the regimental commander for details as something about
  this struck me as different. Marines dying or being seriously wounded is
  commonplace in combat. We expect Marines regardless of rank or MOS to
  stand their ground and do their duty, and even die in the process, if that is
  what the mission takes. But this just seemed different. The regimental
  commander had just returned from the site and he agreed, but reported that
  there were no American witnesses to the event-just Iraqi police. I
  figured if there was any chance of finding out what actually happened and then to
  decorate the two Marines to acknowledge their bravery, I'd have to do it
  as a combat award that requires two eye-witnesses and we figured the
  bureaucrats back in Washington would never buy Iraqi statements. If it
  had any chance at all, it had to come under the signature of a general
  officer.
 
  I traveled to Ramadi the next day and spoke individually to a half-dozen
  Iraqi police all of whom told the same story. The blue truck turned down
  into the alley and immediately sped up as it made its way through the
  serpentine. They all said, "We knew immediately what was going on as soon
  as the two Marines began firing." The Iraqi police then related that some
  of them also fired, and then to a man, ran for safety just prior to the
  explosion. All survived. Many were injuredsome seriously. One of the
  Iraqis elaborated andd with tears welling up said, "They'd run like any
  normal man would to save his life." "What he didn't know until then," he
  said, "and what he learned that very instant, was that Marines are not
  normal." Choking past the emotion he said, "Sir, in the name of God no
  sane man would have stood there and done what they did." "No sane man." "They
  saved us all."
 
  What we didn't know at the time, and only learned a couple of days later
  after I wrote a summary and submitted both Yale and Haerter for posthumous
  Navy Crosses, was that one of our security cameras, damaged initially in
  the blast, recorded some of the suicide attack. It happened exactly as the
  Iraqis had described it. It took exactly six seconds from when the truck
  entered the alley until it detonated.
 
  You can watch the last six seconds of their young lives. Putting myself
  in their heads I supposed it took about a second for the two Marines to
  separately come to the same conclusion about what was going on once the
  truck came into their view at the far end of the alley. Exactly no time
  to talk it over, or call the sergeant to ask what they should do. Only
  enough time to take half an instant and think about what the sergeant told them
  to do only a few minutes before: "let noo unauthorized personnel or vehicles
  pass." The two Marines had about five seconds left to live.
 
  It took maybe another two seconds for them to present their weapons, take
  aim, and open up. By this time the truck was half-way through the
  barriers and gaining speed the whole time. Here, the recording shows a number of
  Iraqi police, some of whom had fired their AKs, now scattering like the
  normal and rational men they were-some running right past the Marines.
  They had three seconds left to live.
 
  For about two seconds more, the recording shows the Marines' weapons
  firing non-stopthe truck's windshield exploding intoo shards of glass as their
  rounds take it apart and tore in to the body of the son-of-a-bitch who is
  trying to get past them to kill their brothers-American and Iraqi-bedded
  down in the barracks totally unaware of the fact that their lives at that
  moment depended entirely on two Marines standing their ground. If they
  had been aware, they would have known they were safe because two Marines stood
  between them and a crazed suicide bomber. The recording shows the truck
  careening to a stop immediately in front of the two Marines. In all of
  the instantaneous violence Yale and Haerter never hesitated. By all reports
  and by the recording, they never stepped back. They never even started to
  step aside. They never even shifted their weight. With their feet spread
  shoulder width apart, they leaned into the danger, firing as fast as they
  could work their weapons. They had only one second left to live.
 
  The truck explodes. The camera goes blank. Two young men go to their
  God. Six seconds. Not enough time to think about their families, their
  country, their flag, or about their lives or their deaths, but more than enough
  time for two very brave young men to do their duty.into eternity. That is the
  kind of people who are on watch all over the world tonight-for you.
 
  We Marines believe that God gave America the greatest gift he could bestow
  to man while he lived on this earth-freedom. We also believe he gave us
  another gift nearly as precious-our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Coast
  Guardsmen, and Marines-to safeguard that gift and guarantee no force on
  this earth can every steal it away. It has been my distinct honor to have been
  with you here today. Rest assured our America , this experiment in
  democracy started over two centuries ago, will forever remain the "land of the free
  and home of the brave" so long as we never run out of tough young
  Americans who are willing to look beyond their own self-interest and comfortable
  lives, and go into the darkest and most dangerous places on earth to hunt
  down, and kill, those who would do us harm.
 
  God Bless America , and SEMPER FIDELIS!"

TrackBack (0) | Comments (4)

Comments on this Entry:

(mindy1 on Dec 21, 2010 6:52 PM) Truly a heartbreaking story-for the man telling it, and for the famlies of those lost :(

(YatYas on Dec 21, 2010 7:33 PM) Because of men like this; the Muslim extremists can not defeat us. If Americans can show the same courage in this long war then we will win and the world will be better for it.

(jj on Dec 21, 2010 8:30 PM) Gen. Kelly is a humble warrior and a stud. I would serve with him anywhere, anytime........

(ExRat on Dec 22, 2010 10:36 AM) God has certainly blessed America with such men as Cpl. Yale and LCpl Haerter. I pray that our Nation will be worthy of their sacrifice.

TrackBack (0) | Comments (21)

Comments on this Entry:

(USMC Steve on Dec 17, 2010 8:02 AM) Granted I retired out back in 1998, but at that time, company grade officers just did not write opinion pieces publicly arguing with the stated opinion of the Commandant. It was considered at least when out among the great Unwashed, that the Commandant's opinion was it. We might argue it about a bit when amongst Marines, but not outside the circle so to speak.

(Bill Cooper on Dec 17, 2010 8:36 AM) Capt. Cox must be getting ready to ETS. The most intersting thing I have read about DADT goes back to when it was originally enacted during President Clinton's administration. Some one from the Marines was honest enough to say that if you want to see homoeroticism at its best, watch the soldiers in a combat unit. There is constant preening over the muscles and trash talking about manhood, and the engaging in homoerotic conduct to establish alph status over less dominant members of the unit. The writer stressed that such conduct is essential in pack situations such as squads, and that the soldiers would be less likely to engage in conduct establishing dominance if they feared that either someone might enjoy it too much or they would be percieved as being homosexual themselves. As a JAG, I have dealt with soldiers who got in trouble for threatening to "b*tt f*ck" a captured Op-for troop during an exercise to gather information. Think about this during the DADT debates.

(Cracker Iota on Dec 17, 2010 10:37 AM) So wrong on so many levels. First off, I agree completely with USMC Steve. Right or wrong, I sincerely hope that this Captain is ostracized by his peers NOT for disagreeing with the Commandant, but for doing so ON THE PAGES OF THE WASHINGTON POST. Are you KIDDING me? He is done, and he should be. Second, here is an interesting dilemma to illustrate the can of worms the good Captain and his ilk want to open. Currently, all military personnel deployed to Afghanistan and indeed the entire theater are subject to "General Order #1". No drinking; no sex; etc. In fact, a servicemember subject to G.O. #1 can not in fact even enter into the living quarters of a member of the opposite sex, lest it encourage inappropriate behavior. No men in women's quarters; no women in men's quarters. Got it. The point is sexual attraction and activity. Now add openly homosexual members. Surely under GO #1, a gay man wouldn't be billeted with straight men; surely they won't be billeted with women (unless they wear a scarlet "A" to identify the gay men from the straight, who would LOVE to billeted in female spaces). Answer: gay members get their own rooms! But this is ridiculous too; here in Kabul, every compound is far over capacity for billeting across the board. It would be impossible, without putting the health and comfort and safety of everyone else at risk for that of gay servicemembers. This may seem minor, but this is only one example. The advocates of this path don't seem to want to get into the weeds like this. But we will have to. I thank the good Captain for his service. But he is a punk. And that is coming from a combat arms officer with deployments to DESERT SHIELD/DESERT STORM, OIF, and OEF.

(Bill Cooper on Dec 17, 2010 11:14 AM) Cracker Ioat, Are you serious? You have been in theater. General Order No. 1 is a joke, especially among the Guard and Reserve (I'm a retired Guard JAG) and is only honored in the breach. Want to guess how many senior commanders forbid their troops from leaving base but have an apartment in Kuwait City where they have weekend liasions with their lower ranking girlfriends? Want to guess how many women get tired of being in theater and come back early pregnant? Want to guess how many senior officers and NCO's are drunk about half the time or are hitting on lower ranking women, but aren't disicplined because they're full-timers and good ol' boys who "are having issues" and this would ruin their careers? Want to guess how many are prosecuted for violating GO#1? In summary, your argument is so full of holes it whistler in a light breeze.

(Tank on Dec 17, 2010 11:30 AM) I think the point Cracker Iota is missing is that gays are ALREADY in the service. Therefore, by his logic, GO #1 is being violated every minute of every day in every service.

(DrNex on Dec 17, 2010 11:35 AM) Oorah! Good on him. What the Commandant is forgetting is that he in fact IS denigrating the troops - the gay ones that have served and died for our country since 1776. And he's half right in one respect. He says repeal would be a distraction, but the policy itself is a distraction. Unfortunately, discharges aren't limited to just "telling," but also being found out. E.g., if a fellow servicemember sees a marine, on his own time, in a gay bar in San Diego, it's curtains for that gay marine even though he never told and no one asked. As a result, gay servicemembers always have to look behind their shoulders, worried about who will spot them, who will overhear them, etc. It is a huge distraction and an insult to the (very capable) troops, gay or otherwise, who I have both supervised and served with.

(DaveO on Dec 17, 2010 12:56 PM) General Order 1 prohibits consumption of alcohol, except when consumed in the course of official duties (toasts at formal functions). General Order 1-A prohibits sex between uniformed members of the American military. Now, the women in my unit satisfied their urges, without violating GO 1-A by nailing NATO soldiers. Under Cracker Iota's example, homosexual servicemembers could do the same thing with NATO. Or locals. And according to the "Don't Pursue" part of the law, if a Marine saw another Marine in a gay bar, they can both wonder why each is there, but neither can do anything about it. So either the bar has some really good, and inexpensive beer, or ...

(nay-o on Dec 17, 2010 6:21 PM) Cox doesn't have guts, he's a coward for using the same nonsense logic to attack people who disagree with him as the dailykos people. This whole nonsense about anyone who opposes the repeal is just doing so out of "ignorance" continues the same nonsense meme that anyone who has opposition to homosexuality, or the repeal of DADT, could not have arrived that that opposition by any rational path, but instead they are just doing so out of hatred, ignorance, etc. What Captain Cox is doing is trying to impose his moral and religious views on others. He has the right to think homosexuality is just like race, but there are many others who do not believe it that way, and think homosexuality immoral and dangerous, just as people have for thousands of years. Of course Cox doesn't address the concerns from chaplains, etc, who fear retribution and persecution for ever daring to express their views on homosexuality being immoral. In fact, he feeds their fears by comparing it to a race and a religion, because many of them are concerned they will be punished for discrimination, and ruin their careers, if they ever give their views on homosexuality just like if they said the "n" word publicly. BTW, all the militaries he mentioned are weak. I have dealt with most of them. Israel cannot even defeat Hezbollah. Cox shows that this will be handled just as we who oppose the repeal fear it will be handled. You will be brow beaten and insulted, and punished, if you have any rational problem with open homosexuality. Your concerns about homosexuals being sexually attracted to you(we all know that never happens, right? homosexuals are NEVER promiscuous) will be ignored and you will be insulted for daring not to affirm homosexuality. This of course will breed resentment, bitterness, and in the end, destroy morale. Finally, Cox is naive in not realizing this is nothing more than an attempt to further normalize homosexuality in society at large. How does it feel to be a useful idiot, Cox?

(Hamilton on Dec 18, 2010 2:03 AM) My two cents on the Captain. Yes he has balls. And Yes he should be forced out. As an active duty officer he does not have the right to contradict current policy or his chain of command. This would be true if his opinion were reversed. I have some Canadian friends who make the Israel and Canada arguement for repeal of DADT. The US is neither of those two nations as my feelings toward Israel should show. Israel: First rate equipment Third rate team Fifth rate opponents.

(PSYOP Cop on Dec 18, 2010 3:51 AM) Those of you who scoff at Hezbollah... were you the same ones who thought Iraq was going to be over in six months? Beware underestimating your enemy. Remember Hezbollah were the ones who wiped out the better part of a Marine battalion landing team with two guys and a truck bomb. And a bunch of skinnies with RPG's brought down three Blackhawks and gave the Rangers a run for their money in a day-long battle. I hate Hezbollah... don't get me wrong. But never... never make the mistake of calling them "fifth rate". They're trained, equipped, dedicated, and very dangerous.

(YatYas on Dec 18, 2010 1:09 PM) Sorry to Captain Cox, but homosexuality is not normal human behavior like heterosexuality. It is abnormal in the same vein as pedophilia and incest. That does not mean I think homosexual behavior should be prosecuted as pedophile or incestual behavior is. Frankly, what consenting adults do together is not my concern as long as they do not try to force their views on me. Although, currently it appears those minority views are being forced on the majorty of the country.

(Hamilton on Dec 19, 2010 3:20 AM) PSYOP COP Why don't you build yourself a couple more strawmen while you are at it. No, I actually didn't think Iraq would be over in 6 months. I would put a criminally restrictive ROE as a root cause of the destruction of the Marine barracks ahead of any super skill of Hezbolla. I would also suspect that the Somalians are a 10th rate team that showed up with 30,000 players for a pickup game. BG Garrison's lack of planning and lack of requests for any armor or gunship support was a much larger factor in that disaster. Hezbollah is fifth rate, they are pure scum. Clever putting MRLs in civilian houses, that doesn't make them first or even third team players in my book. Keep on "not supporting them". Funny you didn't address my original point, the Captain is way out of line, he needs to go.

(Townie 76 on Dec 19, 2010 5:08 AM) Mr. Burke: The battlefield is littered with fools who underestimated their enemy. Your denigration of Hezbollah shows your complete lack of understanding or knowledge of the political and cultural history of Lebanon. Hezbollah is a potent political force, who has the support of the Sh'it majority in Southern Lebanon because they have become the de facto government in this region. More importantly they have the support of Iran. As the Israeli Army found out a few years ago they are not backwoods rubes, but a well trained and disciplined armed force. I hesitate to call them an Army as they are not associated with a legitimate government, but their organization and discipline have all the makings of an Army.

(Tank on Dec 19, 2010 2:10 PM) YatYas, your stupidity is astounding. There is no point in arguing with you. Except look at animals in nature to find exclusive same-sex pairing... How you can compare what two CONSENTING ADULTS do to incest or pedophilia (a minor CANNOT consent) is simply ridiculous, and fortunately the vast majority of the country and the military disagrees with you. ERRRRRR

(YatYas on Dec 19, 2010 5:42 PM) Tank: I doubt the vast majority of the country or the military believe that homosexuality is normal behavior. If that were the case, then there wouldn't have been an issue overturning DADT or currently same sex marriage.

(Tank on Dec 19, 2010 7:31 PM) There wasn't. Over 70% of Americans, republicans and democrats alike, were for repeal. Over 70% of our military troops were for repeal. For those who had served with someone they knew to be gay, that number jumped up to 90%+. See According to a December 2010 Washington Post-ABC News poll 77 percent of Americans say gays and lesbians who publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be able to serve in the military. That's little changed from polls over the two years, but represents the highest level of support in a Post-ABC poll. The support also cuts across partisan and ideological lines, with majorities of Democrats (86%), Republicans (74%), independents (74%), liberals (92%), conservatives (67%) and white evangelical Protestants (70%) and non-religious (84%) in favor of homosexuals' serving openly.[55] A November 2010 survey by the Pew Research Center found that 58 percent of the American public favors permitting homosexuals to serve openly in the military, while less than half that number (27 percent) are opposed.[56] According to a November 2010 CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll 72% of adult Americans favor permitting people who are openly gay or lesbian to serve in the military, while 23 % oppose it.[57] "The main difference between the CNN poll and the Pew poll is in the number of respondents who told pollsters that they didn't have an opinion on this topic - 16 percent in the Pew poll compared to only five percent in the CNN survey," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "The two polls report virtually the same number who say they oppose gays serving openly in the military, which suggests that there are some people who favor that change in policy but for some reason were reluctant to admit that to the Pew interviewers. That happens occasionally on topics where moral issues and equal-treatment issues intersect."[58] Overall, 70 percent of military personnel thought that integrating gays into the military would be positive, mixed, or of no consequence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell#Public_opinion The problem was not with the public thinking homosexuality is abnormal, but with corwardly republicans who, because of our primary election system, have to pander to the most right-wing base in the their parties in order to get the party nomination. Sorry that you're wrong, bro. In any instance, I can't wait till we implement a non-discrimination policy and can I bring soldiers like you up on charges. It's long past time to get bigots out of the military. We did it after integrating blacks, we did it after integrating women, and we'll do it now - even if it takes a couple years. The ONLY problem the military has with integration are with respect to hateful relics like you, who will fortunately soon find themselves on the way out.

(YatYas on Dec 19, 2010 8:06 PM) Tank: "In any instance, I can't wait till we implement a non-discrimination policy and can I bring soldiers like you up on charges. It's long past time to get bigots out of the military. We did it after integrating blacks, we did it after integrating women, and we'll do it now - even if it takes a couple years." Don't worry, I'm a retired Marine GySgt so you won't do a damn thing to me. I live in liberal California and yet the majority voted against gay marriage. Frankly, I believe the military will do their job since there have always been some gays serving. So are seperate heads/berthing for men and women going away as well as the discrimination against women in combat arms? Gunny out.

(Cracker Iota on Dec 20, 2010 10:21 AM) Tank: A manly name if there ever was one. Who did you say you served with? Or are you yet another zealot who never served, but is positive they know what is best for the military? And what charges, pray tell, do you plan on bringing me up on? Having an opinion that doesn't agree with you? So sorry; not a chargeable offense. Although you and your ilk would prefer it otherwise. And ref. GO#1, people, the restriction is NOT about sex only between uniformed personnel, but applies to uniformed personnel having relations with non-uniformed personnel as well. I know you think I am wrong, but I AM HERE, so I probably know better than you.

(JB on Dec 20, 2010 6:28 PM) I'll try to make my comment without getting mired down in the rest of the debate. The Capt. has openly and publicly questioned his chain of command in the newspaper. If my memory serves me correctly, we already have a precedent for what to do after what happened with GEN McChrystal and his now famous quotes in Rolling Stone. He questioned his chain of command publicly, he got the boot. Same thing should go for the Capt. Just my $0.02

(winch on Dec 29, 2010 9:52 PM) Ningbo JinWei Winch Company is located in Ningbo City- City of Seashore in China. Our main product are manual winch,Motor-driven winch,electric winch, winch for ship, ATV winch, Auto Parts, Cross-country auto parts.

(Monster Beats Tour on Jan 2, 2011 10:30 PM) Scratch-resistant gloss finish Advanced materials make Monster Beats by Dr. Dre Studio Headphones stand out from the crowd, and keep them looking good.