Posted on 10/20/2004 3:13:55 AM PDT by Timeout
This Marine's letter should be read or heard by every American. In only a few words, he dismantles "the Kerry Doctrine" of war (and Andrew Sullivan's whining).
I urge every one of you to get this letter out to local talk show hosts. I'm going to ask my local newspaper if they will print it in a letter-to-the-editor in my name. I'll post later today after I talk to the editor.
God bless this anonymous Marine and all the others who make these excruciating choices for our benefit.
I was stationed at a base (Al Taqqadum) South-West of Fallujah that we took over from the 82nd Airborne. Your writing about the Abu Graib prompted me write this. It is an explanation of why so many in the military favor Bush, even though we are the ones suffering the most because of his mistakes:
It is an old military maxim that blunders can be forgiven, but a lack of boldness cannot. There will always be blunders. The simple becomes difficult in war. Take for example the following question: what is 2+2 equal too? An easy question right? Now imagine I gave you 15 such questions and you had 2 seconds to answer them. Most likely you would answer some and leave the rest. Looking at those questions you missed in isolation I might say, "What kind of blathering idiot are you? You can't even answer simple questions like 2+2=4". That is why Armchair Generals are so annoying. They look at one thing in isolation with all the time in the world to think about it and say confidently "the answers obvious". But when you are out in the fight everything looks different. Nothing is ever seen in isolation. You never have enough time. You never know more than 1/10 what you need to know. There will always be blunders.
But the job has to get done anyway. And to get this kind of job done boldness is essential. A leader who never blunders, but who doesn't take the fight to the enemy is worthless. A leader who sets about to win - win ugly if needs be - is priceless.
One thing the Marine Corps taught me is that a 70% solution acted on immediately and violently is better than a perfect solution acted on later. My experience has proven this true time and again. The sad fact is however, that a 70% solution is a 30% mistake. And those mistakes can be hard to take. In WWII for example, 700 soldiers drowned in a training accident in preparation for D-Day (that is about how many combat deaths we've experienced so far in Iraq).
There is a scene in the movie "We were Soldiers" that says it better than I can. In the scene a young soldier on the ground is giving directions on enemy positions to aircraft flying overhead. The aircraft then dropped Napalm on the enemy. At one point the soldier gets the directions wrong and stares horrified as the Napalm is dropped on his own unit. The soldier is shaken beyond belief. He sat there doing nothing - paralyzed by his mistake. Then his Commanding Officer gave him the confidence to carry on. The CO told him to "forget about that last one" and "you're keeping us alive here". And so the soldier swallowed his guilt and kept doing his job and thereby saved the unit. That is what a 70% solution looks like in real life. And those are the 70% solutions that win wars.
Most people and events are beyond your control. Most questions you don't have time to answer. Most facts you will never know. But you have to press the attack anyway. No matter how ugly it gets, you keep going until you win.
Kerry doesn't understand that. Everything he did during the Cold War and everything he says about this one states as much. He represents those who would never blunder, but who would not take the fight to the enemy. He would just sit there - like the soldier in the movie - paralyzed by America's mistakes.
Hit the nail on the head.
Just the other day at a counter-protest vs another so-called "peace" protest, I told reporters thank God these nuts weren't around during WW2.
Just take D-Day, for example...
Great letter. Thanks for posting.
(I just sent it to Sean Hannity)
Yesterday I was listening to a New Orleans radio talk show. The topic was the soldiers who refused orders in Iraq. It was depressing.
Probably 8 out of 10 callers thought it only "fair" that soldiers should be able to question orders they think are "too dangerous". The lazy hosts had not even done the minimum research to know military code or why order and discipline are so crucial to military effectiveness.
Several soldiers and vets called in trying to explain it, but---despite mouthing the right words about war being dangerous---the conversation inevitably lapsed into a question of "fairness". It brought home to me again that most Americans have no concept of the mental and physical challenges our soldiers face in wartime.
Semper Fi
Well said; but my belief is that Kerry knows full well the results of his actions -- he is a TRAITOR!
PING to you, 'Tonk -- with my respectful thanks.
With all respect, I disagree--this Marine had it right.
"Traitor" implies one KNOWINGLY decides to aid his country's enemies. The problem with liberals like Kerry is that they don't know (or care) that what they do weakens our country.
They believe our strength comes from being popular, having "friends" and allies. They think "peace through strength" is too scary.
This Marine is pointing out that Kerry and his ilk are dangerous because they will always focus on the "blunder" potential, not the battlefield objective. It's a subtle difference, but I agree with him.
That is why Armchair Generals are so annoying. They look at one thing in isolation with all the time in the world to think about it and say confidently "the answers obvious". But when you are out in the fight everything looks different. Nothing is ever seen in isolation. You never have enough time. You never know more than 1/10 what you need to know. There will always be blunders.I wish every TV host could be armed with that statement every time Wesley Clarke shows up to berate our soldiers for making "mistakes" in the fog of war.
Is there a "military" or "vets" ping list?
I am a civillian, but I would add that blunders are part of LIFE, too!
Good!
Interesting, indeed.
Your story brought to mind the Italian hostage who refused to be murdered with a mask over his face. His last choice in life was to demonstrate unbelievable courage by denying his killer a PR "victory".
While the media portrays those killed in battle as "victims", we seldom hear about the brave choices they made. I'll never understand such thinking.
How about "fair" to the soldiers on the other side of the supply line waiting for supplies...would they understand "fair" if the ran out of ammo/fuel/food??
Several callers pointed that out to the host. She and her callers appropriately hmmmm'ed and accepted the premise. But they couldn't get past their sense of "fairness". They kept returning to the proposition that a soldier might have a "bad" commanding officer who disergarded their safety. In such a circumstance, they opined, surely the soldier has a right to complain and refuse to follow orders.
They just couldn't get it through their heads that soldiers don't (and shouldn't) know all the factors in a battlefield decision or whether another unit may be relying on them. There was a total absence of understanding of a soldier's oath to follow orders and what that oath entails.
Like I said, it was depressing.
"Traitor" implies one KNOWINGLY decides to aid his country's enemies. The problem with liberals like Kerry is that they don't know (or care) that what they do weakens our country. They believe our strength comes from being popular, having "friends" and allies. They think "peace through strength" is too scary.
Kerry knows exactly what he did in Paris, and those further actions he has taken over the years in Washington. With Kerry we are well on our way to pre-1066 Britain, with the Landed Gentry controlling the Serfs -- and you know where he and his ilk and we who oppose them stand in that scenario.
Many thanks, great letter.
You ARE right in one sense.
Kerry put his own political views above his government's policy. He did cross a line in going to Paris.
He usurped the government's treaty power and that was treasonous.
For the most part, I think you and I agree. I was directing my thoughts more to the pacifist's view of armed conflict and their failure to understand "peace through strength".
Not to mention: illegal.
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.