Posted on 01/04/2004 2:40:15 PM PST by Greg_99
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf
--Attributed to George Orwell
Orwell surely had men like Lieutenant General William “Jerry” Boykin in mind when he spoke those words. Though the recent controversy surrounding Lt. Gen. Boykin’s faith-inspired remarks has died down, those who will decide Boykin’s fate should keep Orwell’s words in mind. Although Boykin’s comments were insensitive (isn’t “rough” an antonym for “sensitive”?), they should not be cause for relief or dismissal. Instead of calls for his firing, this general deserves respect for his continuing service to the nation, tolerance for his religious views, and support from his superiors. Firing Boykin would be counterproductive in the War on Terror. This Rough Man should be allowed to get back to the work at hand: stopping the terrorists who seek to do us harm.
If historians were to assemble a list of those who have done the most to protect the citizens of this nation from terrorism, Lt. Gen. Boykin would stand near the top of the list. For more than a decade, Boykin kept himself in harm’s way by battling terrorism. Later, he led the Army’s Special Warfare Center, supervising the training of the Special Forces. The Green Berets’ unprecedented performance in Afghanistan and Iraq attests to Boykin’s success, which explains why the Pentagon tapped him for further promotion and assigned him as Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence and Warfighting, a post from which he coordinates intelligence and focuses it on defeating terrorists.
To fire an excellent leader like Boykin would be hugely out of balance. Yes, Boykin’s comments caused controversy at home and offended some Muslims abroad. However, his contributions to the nation far outweigh any public relations setbacks that his comments may have caused, and firing Boykin would deprive the nation of his future contributions. History provides a lesson here: George Patton’s slapping of a shell-shocked soldier in Italy caused a public relations disaster in World War II, leading to many calls for Patton’s dismissal. However, had Marshall or Eisenhower forced Patton’s retirement, “Old Blood and Guts” would never have led the Third Army on its brilliant advance across the Rhine. What untold future benefit would the country lose by firing Lt. Gen. Boykin for the negative public relations reaction to his comments?
For it is surely mistakes in public relations that motivate the calls for Boykin’s scalp. After all, it couldn’t be that Boykin’s critics find his Evangelical Christian beliefs unacceptable. The general’s views on the role of God’s hand in the affairs of men, the existence and machinations of Satan, the power of Jesus’ name, and the efficacy of faith are all matters of theology, and Americans shouldn’t seek to discipline high officials on the basis of theology, should they? Tolerance dictates that we should appreciate and respect Boykin’s religious views, whether we agree with them or not. (Boykin’s views on America’s Christian heritage, on the other hand, seem historically indisputable.) Because the problem can’t be in what he said, but in how he said it, then Boykin’s error was one of public relations.
Furthermore, firing Boykin might lead to more problems than it would solve. Such action could suggest that high officials should either 1) not be religiously committed or 2) should stay quiet about their beliefs. Anyone who has served in the military, or who has come into contact with other agencies actively fighting the Global War on Terror, knows that these organizations contain many committed religious believers (e.g., Evangelicals, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Mormons, etc.). Those who risk violent death in the course of their jobs, or who send others into danger, are often serious about their religious beliefs. Boykin’s firing might send a message that these believers are not welcome in the upper ranks. Such a message would risk a serious loss of talent at a time when our armed forces and intelligence services need all the talent they can get.
Lt. Gen. Boykin’s comments (or what we have heard of them in the press) may have been politically insensitive. He undoubtedly did not foresee the potential repercussions if his comments were to be taken out of context, parsed, twisted and then selectively published by critics of the Bush Administration. But insensitivity—aka toughness—can be a virtue in a military leader tasked with a tough job—hunting terrorists—where niceties do not rule. In a time when our military has produced too many self-serving flag officers who spent their careers plotting to please their superiors in pursuit of promotion, we need officers like Boykin who spend their careers plotting to defeat terrorists in pursuit of national security. May God give us more Rough Men like Boykin, religious beliefs and all.
The authors are West Point classmates and graduates of the Special Forces Officer Qualification Course at Fort Bragg, and are members of the Council for Emerging National Security Affairs. These comments do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Defense or the US government.| Rank | Location | Receipts | Donors/Avg | Freepers/Avg | Monthlies | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 33 | Connecticut | 110.00 |
5 |
22.00 |
185 |
0.59 |
35.00 |
3 |
Thanks for donating to Free Republic!
Move your locale up the leaderboard!
We are at war with ideologues, and pretending we can "get along" with them if we only democratize them is pure FOLLY. They must be routed, their "religion" dismantled, and all proponents either imprisoned or executed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.