Posted on 07/15/2005 9:06:28 AM PDT by SuzyQ2
By Richard "Rogue Warrior" Marcinko
Special to WORLD DEFENSE REVIEW
This is either the most opportune – or the worst – time for me to express my personal views on "ethics" within the framework of the "War on Terrorism." As most of you know, the SEAL community has just suffered its worst loss of teammates, warriors, lovers and family members since World War II. Although nothing unethical occurred during the operation in Afghanistan that cost a total of 19 special operations warriors (11 SEALS and 8 U.S. Army personnel) that I'm aware of today; it never-the-less is a dramatic loss.
This is the time of the year that the east coast SEALs hold their annual reunion (weekend of 15 July) at Little Creek, Virginia and the west coast SEALs at Coronado, California in August. The memorial services have been conducted and there will continue to be heavy hearts during this usual period of bonding and reflecting on the joys of accomplishment and team spirit. All members of the community are certainly recognizing the reality of the War on Terrorism.
A reference book that I use regularly in my preparation for speeches and the writing of now 14 Rogue Warrior books is Warriors' Words: A Dictionary of Military Quotations by Peter G. Tsouras. The book covers warriors' words from Sersostris III to Schwarzkopf - 1871 BC to AD 1991. For some reason the term "ethics" does not appear as a category. Does that infer that ethics does not have a role in war? In a general war of historical value I would say, it does.
In the past, wars were fought to bring damage upon the enemy; today terrorism inflicts mayhem on innocent civilians; including women and children. Even the conduct of terrorism has changed its tactical application from hijacking planes for a political message to suicide bombings that are designed to change our life pattern and cripple our economies.
My Webster's dictionary defines "ethics" as: "1. The study of standards of conduct and moral judgment; moral philosophy . 2. A treatise on this study. 3. The system or code of morals of a particular person, religion, group, professionals, etc."
By this definition, I would have to logically think that radical Muslim terrorists fall in here categorically as a "person," a "religion," and a "group;" and as intelligence has provided, some are also occupational "professionals."
Frankly, I do not find their tactics very "ethical" within our accepted terms and definitions.
That is KEY: I said our terms, definitions, logic, standards, values etc. How rude and crude of me to think that my (our) views are the ones that universally are accepted.
When I use the word "war" instead of "ethics" I can go back to my book of quotes and share some words of wisdom from Naval warriors of another era.
"Where evil is mighty and defiant, the obligation to use force – that is war – arises." – Rear Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan, Naval Strategy, 1911. (note: not 9/11. But close if you speed read.)
When I read, listen, view the liberals attack on the activities at GITMO prison, or Abu Ghraib detention centers, I wonder when they lost the realization that this is war, and these centers are designed to stop the hated enemy from inflicting more damage and in that process collect intelligence on what they know, do, will do, were supposed to do, and why they are willing to die for their beliefs that are so much different than ours.
Remember: we go to war to protect the way we LIVE. They go to war to DIE!!! It is the same critics that were screaming that we weren't conducting the war fast enough; we didn't have good intelligence, etc. Please reflect on this: The prisoners in Abu Ghraib and GITMO have better living conditions than our troops fighting the war on terrorism.
In my "Red Cell" mentality, if I were a terrorist and needed a break; I'd get caught, go to the R&R center (we call a prison or detention center), and rest for awhile so that when I was released I would be ready to kick ass again and I would have studied the hated enemy (us) in our enclaves.
Now this goes against my logic. If I can save one warriors' life by making a terrorist "uncomfortable," then that makes perfect logic to me.
FACE REALITY please.
Admiral James B. Stockdale – who I had the pleasure to serve under at the Pentagon, and was another warrior who recently died – was a Naval aviator shot down over North Vietnam and suffered years of brutal imprisonment; his ordeal made him an advocate of the power of moral and ethical leadership.
In an article "Educating Leaders" (Washington Quarterly, Winter 1983), he offered: "Integrity is one of those words that many people keep in that desk drawer labeled 'too hard.' It is not a topic for the dinner table or the cocktail party. When supported with education, one's integrity can give a person something to rely on when rules and principles seem to waver, and when faced with a hard choice of right and wrong. To urge people to develop it is not a statement of piety but of practical advice anyone who has lived in an intense extortion environment [a POW] realizes that the most potent weapon an adversary can bring to bear is manipulation, the manipulation of a prey's shame. A clear conscience is one's only protection."
The referred-to "manipulation" is what has been practiced at our detention centers; not out-and-out physical torture like he and Senator John McCain suffered. Let's not forget the treatment of our Blackwater contractors who were killed, beheaded, dragged through the streets and made a spectacle of by terrorists. Let's not forget the Iraqi security forces, politicians, clergy and most of all innocent women and children they continue to kill on a daily basis by their bombings. Let's not forget the train bombings in Spain and more recently the train and bus bombings in London. These were civilians whose only fault was that their governments were "coalition partners," and they did not adhere to the "proper beliefs."
Is this an application of ethics in the War Against Terrorism? IS ETHICS A ONE-WAY STREET?
This is not a war to "win or lose," but one to keep at bay. The Middle Eastern and Asian clock runs different than ours. They have patience to wait us out and attack when they are ready or when it is convenient. We, on the other hand, revolve around a 23-minute clock. It's a TV show. We see all our problems – social and other – portrayed, dramatized, and solved within 23 minutes or maybe as long as 46 minutes. We have no "staying power." We are "results oriented," and we leave the mundane on the cutting room floor for somebody else to resolve. Our national policy is – and has been – to engage the enemy "over there" so that we do not suffer collateral damage here at home.
In nautical verbiage, the best anti-swimmer tactic is to keep him out of the water. Keep the terrorists out of our country and for those cells already here (and they are), keep them off-balance and unsure of themselves and their targets. With the popularity of Reality TV, I don't understand why the general population in this country can't accept that this a war without rules, without flags, without borders, without uniforms, and without our values or logic.
THIS IS A LONG TERM WAR.
In closing, I offer a quote from General George S. Patton, Jr. (from a diary entry on 15 April 1943): "War is very simple, direct, and ruthless. It takes a simple, direct, and ruthless man to wage war."
--- Commander Richard Marcinko (U.S. Navy, ret.) is the founder and first commanding officer of SEAL Team Six (a counterterrorist force, which has been reconstituted as Naval Special Warfare Development Group) and RED CELL (a SEAL unit tasked with testing Naval security forces throughout the world). Commander Marcinko is also the author of numerous books, including The New York Times best-seller, Rogue Warrior. His latest work, Vengeance, is said to be "a thriller ripped from tomorrow's headlines."
Remove ethics from war and you have victory!
Ah... but remember that African Continental idiot Kofi Anan keeps reminding us daily, ..."if a single innocent or civilian (or presumably not uniformed) person dies, then it, itself, becomes terrorism."
Hehe - of course our terrorist enemies are not part of a clearly defined military force, so they must be "civilians."
That's why every time a terrorist is killed by US forces, the MSM reports it as "American soldiers kill civilian."
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.