previous post next post  

Murtha's "Semper Fidelis" Moment

It is often said there's no such thing as a "former Marine".

On that point, Jack Murtha seems bound and determined to challenge the conventional wisdom. An enormous controversy was launched recently after he proposed we renege on promises made to Iraq, Afghanistan, and our coalition allies to stay the course. Rep. Murtha wanted the United States to strategically "redeploy" its fighting men and women to a safer location, leaving the people of Iraq and Afghanistan defenseless against brutal terrorists who could, after all, simply take part in the democratic process if all they wanted was a voice in the emerging government. I have a question for Rep. Murtha: what, exactly, makes him think a ruthlessly unprincipled enemy will suddenly stop the killing when the only protectors of the emerging democracy are whisked across the border to safety?

streamers.jpg Rep. Murtha's "plan" was enshrined in the unassailable sanctity of a combat veteran's admirable service to this nation. No one, we were told, could question his motives, or his patriotism. Not even, it appeared, another Marine: one who had the temerity to speak publicly what any Marine with any sense at all was thinking privately: that his "plan" flew in the face of 200 years of proud Marine Corps history. Attend any ceremony where Marines gather and you'll see something special: the Marine Battle Colors. During the color ceremony, you'll watch the Marine flag lowered proudly, as it should be, in deference to the stars and stripes: Old Glory. But if you're lucky, you may also get to see another brave sight flying in the stiff breeze. The Marine battle streamers. One for each engagement the Marines have fought in over their long and glorious history. And on the unofficial Marine emblem appear these words: "These Colors Don't Run".

Hosting provided by FotoTime

Marines take those words seriously. Dead seriously. Because a lot of men - good men - have died to earn the reputation the United States Marine Corps enjoys throughout the world. They are respected, and feared, wherever they go. They command the field.

They do not leave it in the hands of the enemy, despite what Representative Murtha would like to see us do. And despite the waggling fingers of Democrats like Harold Ford, there was absolutely nothing wrong with Colonel Danny Bubp taking a fellow Marine down a peg on the House floor that day. Marines police their own ranks. They have always done so. One Marine is never afraid to take another to task when he thinks honor is at stake. And they all have a stake in the future of their Corps. And their country.

General Peter Pace, USMC, did so again the other day when Rep. Murtha stepped out of line and damaged our recruiting efforts, and rightly so. I commend him for having the courage to speak out. It must have been difficult for him. Military men do not like to involve themselves in matters political. General Pace should not have been placed in that position:

"That's damaging to recruiting," Pace said. "It's damaging to morale of the troops who are deployed, and it's damaging to the morale of their families who believe in what they are doing to serve this country."
Representative Murtha might do well, if he can find a quiet moment when he is not listening to the sound of his own voice, to consider the motto of the Marine Corps:
Semper Fidelis

It is a short one, for Marines are men of few words, preferring deeds to flowery expressions of feelings. It means "Always faithful". A Marine considers it his highest duty to be faithful: to his country, to his Corps, to what is right. Rep. Murtha might ask himself, to what has he demonstrated faithfulness?

His nation has made commitments to its coalition allies and to two nations which are now dependent on us: Iraq, Afghanistan. Whether or not he likes the cost of those commitments, an honorable nation does not shirk its duty once it makes a promise.

The Marine Corps will have a future that extends beyond this war...or perhaps it won't, if he has anything to do with it. Enlistment rates, whether or not the war lasts, have an impact far down the road. If his words have half the impact he hopes they will have, what damage is he doing to the future of the Marine Corps? Does he even care?

Certainly his words are having an impact now. Consider this news item:

Al-Qaida's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahri, said in a videotape aired Friday that the United States' decision to withdraw some troops from Iraq represented "the victory of Islam" and called on Muslims to attack oil sites.

Al-Zawahri, wearing a white turban and gray robe and seated next to an automatic rifle, waved his finger for emphasis as he spoke in the two-minute excerpt aired by Al-Jazeera.

"I congratulate (the Islamic nation) for the victory of Islam in Iraq," he said.

You remember I told you more than a year ago that the American withdrawal from Iraq is only a matter of time, and here they are now ... negotiating with the mujahedeen," al-Zawahri said.

"Bush was forced at the end of last year to announce that he will pull out his forces from Iraq, but he was giving excuses for his withdrawal that the Iraqi forces have reached a good level."


This news, of course, is very worrisome to many on Capitol Hill. Rep. Murtha is certainly worried. He appears to have finally realized the impact of his words:

Appearing at a town meeting in Arlington, Virginia, with fellow Democratic Rep. James Moran, Murtha said, "A year ago, I said we can't win this militarily, and I got all kinds of criticism." Now, Murtha told the strongly antiwar audience, "I worry about a slow withdrawal which makes it look like there's a victory when I think it should be a redeployment as quickly as possible and let the Iraqis handle the whole thing."
You remember... those would be those Iraqi forces that Murtha says "aren't ready and will never be ready". That's why we need to skedaddle...err...redeploy as soon as possible. And we see what the response of al Qaida is to the withdrawal of our troops.

Attack. Full speed ahead.

It would appear that the question of just who Mr. Murtha is "faithful" to has been definitively answered. Al-Jazeera and Mr. al-Zawahri certainly like what he has to say. It seems, so far, only to be his fellow Marines who disagree with him.
And combat vets who know what it's really like in Iraq and Afghanistan.

1 Trackbacks

TrackBack this entry at http://www.thedonovan.com/cgi-bin/mt41/mt-tb.cgi/5070

Murtha's Mess from A Blog For All on January 7, 2006 1:11 PM

Rep. Murtha purposefully misrepresented what was stated for political gain and knowing full well that most Americans would simply hear the 'can't win' part without knowing the full context and how, in fact, the US is winning because the terrorists ca... Read More

52 Comments

Oh, let's count in a few Dogface Soljers who disagree wit' 'im, too!
 
Well I have you to thank. I'm sorry I couldn't really do this justice, Big Guy. I wasn't planning on writing this morning. I'm just exhausted. But you really picked a few winners. Thank you.
 
Heh. I just saw those two together and the Thought Bubble Fairy appeared and said, "Cassie!"
 
Well said, Cass. It's good to see Gen. Pace speaking out strongly - Oorah!
 
I just watched the video segment over at Ms. Malkin's - Sgt. Mark Seavey ROCKS!
 
THIS Marine is gonna keep his trap shut... My feelings about Murtha aren't appropriate for this honorable place... But there ARE EX-Marines... The ones who won the title, and then proved themselves unworthy of it because they forfeited their honor, either through personal greed, or politics... Murtha seems to have sold the Corps out for a few votes...
 
Remember: It isn't that Murtha isn't a marine, but that he has become a politician. Which overrides any valour gained, any respect that was earned.
 
This Zoomie Sib, and Marine supporter, has *no* problem declaring Murtha an EX-Marine. My new Congreswoman, Jean Schmidt, took a LOT of heat for calling him out on the floor a few months ago- but I was damn proud of her. Telling him that Marines don't cut and run was a defining moment for her freshman year. It's too bad no one stood up for her when she said it. Murtha's a disgusting heap of donkey dung, IMHO. (yeah.. I know.. I should tell you how I really feel about that spineless, d**kless, embarassment to the Corps)
 
murtha is a disgrace to the corp period that from an old marine j
 
Thanks, but I have a different view. Since when has a single Congressman from the minority party been considered "our leadership" by America's 18- to 19-year-olds? To the point that the CJCS is specifically criticizing him? Where is President Bush? Where is Vice President Cheney? Aren't they our country's "leadership"? Granted, on military recruiting, the media see Rep. Murtha as more of a "leader" than President Bush (who, at minimum, never deployed) and Vice President Cheney (who did not serve). But I think that our governing party is forgetting about its national leadership responsibilities to set a good example for the rest of us. If General Pace wants to boost recruiting, he would ask Jenna's boyfriend Henry Hager (hhager(at)doc.gov) to consider serving, and speak with his father/influencer, Assistant Secretary of Education John Hager (john.hager(at)ed.gov) as well. 'Not to mention Miss Bush herself. Rep. Murtha has said he would not enlist today precisely because the war is being managed so poorly, from the strategic level. [Even with operational and, especially, tactical-level success, strategic failure is still possible.] If President Bush really wanted to accomplish the mission, he would be urging his Bush Pioneers ($100,000-$199,999) and Bush Rangers ($200,000+) to encourage their eligible relatives and friends (healthy heterosexuals under 40), their circles of influence, to consider volunteering. And if anyone thinks that I'm a standard leftist, please include in your comment the answer to this question: Assuming Jenna's boyfriend Henry Hager is qualified for military service, Do You Specifically Approve of him working in a political job at the Commerce Department rather than wearing a uniform? Thank you. Karl Olson
 
I absolutely do approve. I strongly encourage those who feel the call and think they would be good at it to join the Armed Services. But one thing I've learned from my vet friends (through being told it repeatedly) is that we all have our roles. Some of those roles include military service, and others do not. But to put it quaintly: it takes all types to make the world go 'round.
 
First of all, I would argue that any 18 or 19 year old might will consider his state Representative to be a "leadership position". If not, why elect that person to represent him in Washington? By voting for literally thousands (and in some cases, tens or hundreds of thousands) of persons, a state Representative had damned well *better* demonstrate leadership, or he is not doing his job. And if Rep. Murtha is not demonstrating "leadership" by introducing a bill to withdraw our troops from a WAR than what precisely would you call it? The man's name is in the news every single day. By any standard you care to name, that's political leadership, whether positive or negative. Secondly, the President *has* urged Americans to consider a military career. You just haven't been listening. And the media are complicit for not carrying more of his speeches. *Pay attention*. Thirdly, whether the President, VP, Jenna, or her boyfriend, chose or choose to make the military a career is immaterial. America currently has an all-volunteer military and is still meeting its recruitment quotas. Unlike Rep. Murtha, they are not actively seeking to damage the US military. They just choose to serve their country in other ways, which is fine. I come from a military family, so does my husband, and since you asked, neither of us has any problem with that. The military has never favored a draft. They are willing to fight so we have a choice about things like serving in the military, unlike closet fascists who want to see (in theory at least) all choice removed from the public sector... at least until it becomes reality, when they start screaming bloody murder.
 
Thanks for your honesty. What bothers me most is that he has not, to date, stated publicly whether he has even considered military service. I take it you're not worried about the overall recruiting situation, then. Operation Yellow Elephant did not exist until recruiting difficulties became quite apparent early in 2005. Thanks again. Karl Olson
 
Cassandra- Thank you. If you are referring to President Bush's June 28 speech at Fort Bragg, he specifically limited his comments to the career military rather than citizen soldiers. *I do pay attention.* On January 5 2006, CJCS General Pace expanded the concept to patriotic citizens serving their country in its hour of need, even if they plan other careers for the longer term. While we are on the subject of leadership, doesn't it include setting a good example for the rest of us? If not, I take it that you don't think there's a recruiting problem.
 
What bothers me most is that he has not, to date, stated publicly whether he has even considered military service. Maybe that's because he doesn't think he should have a political role in that issue just because of who he's dating (I imagine she'd also prefer he not be that high-profile). And I can certainly imagine feeling that way, were I in his shoes. And Karl, the veneer of civil conversation is wearing rather thin... especially when I've taken a look at your website: The objective of OPERATION YELLOW ELEPHANT is to recruit College Republicans and Young Republicans to serve as infantry. They demanded this war and now viciously support it. It's only right that they also experience it. "...viciously support it?" What a phrase!
 
Oh, and I should clarify... When I say "we all have our roles," I don't mean assigned roles. I mean the places in which we find our "calling," or the ways we find we can contribute to the world per our values and skills.
 
Yes, I do approve of young Mr. Hager not serving. Just as I approve of my son not serving, because he chooses not to. Last I checked, we were still an "All Vol" military. Ladle in a draft - and I will stand right there with you demanding that all the scions of privilege and power take their chances. *Each and every one* Very limited exemptions, and medical exemptions determined by military docs, not family practice GPs. It really is a silly argument. And now, are you setting a new standard, that if you wore a uniform but never deployed, you lose your right to an opinion on the subject? But just because my son doesn't choose to serve, doesn't mean that I lose my right to an opinion on the issues of the day. And while I have a DD214 myself, covering more days than 99% of the population, I don't need *that* to have an opinion, either. Or am I missing the point? As for the recruiting problem. Certainly it exists, essentially for the Army only. And if you took away the 50K unasked-for end strength bump, it wouldn't loom large at all. The Reserve and Guard are a different issue, certainly. And there are things ongoing to address those concerns, such as the implementation of the Army Force Generation program, which is designed to greatly reduce the deployment stress on Reserve and Guard units by reducing the frequency of those deployments and regularizing them, but nothing happens overnight as you phase in a remarkably complex redesign of the whole force structure concept, from active through the Reserve Component. There's lots to talk about in the war, the approach to the war, and the management of it (though I haven't studied a war yet that wasn't a cock-up, with the winner being essentially He Who Screwed Up Less - though that's a whole 'nother subject on the Tyranny of Silly Expectations). But the particular ox you gore, Mr. Olson, is a straw man and a stalking horse that you use to skewer your political opponents with what appears to me to be a superficial argument masking your general distaste for those who currently hold power and how they use it, rather than the issue of manning the force. Just sayin'
 
Thanks, John. My response is going to have to wait. My husband works really long hours and I really need to spend some time with him this weekend. Will respond later.
 
OK, I'm just not understanding this anymore. All these people whole heartedly support this war, but NO ONE wants to enlist. Then if someone states that things are going horrible and the soldiers and Marines are being treated list crap (shortage of armor), then these people are called names. Whats up with this Folks listen, there is a storage in the Army. They haven't met recruitment demands. I am stationed overseas and on AFN they have spots trying to get soldiers to re-enlist. These are people who have put there time in. Because you folks refuse to step up to the plate, soldiers already in the Forces are being pressured to stay in. This is the stuff you all refuse to listen to. Now I fully expect there will be people calling me names. There will be people saying that I just understand or that I'm not a true military wife. Let me tell you, my husband has honorably served and will continue to serve his country, but I wish some of you people who LOVE to shout at the roof top, would step up to the plate. I think it's time for you all to do your patriotic duty. If not, don't critize a people who don't agree with you. Don't insult those who may actually know more than you. Thank you and I really wish someone would explain these to me. Thank you for your time. lisa
 
because you folks refuse to step up to the plate... Gee whiz Lisa... let me think on that one. My husband is a 46 year old career Marine, so I kind of think maybe you don't know what the heck you're talking about there. I am a 46 yo female who couldn't serve in combat, is too old, and anyway wouldn't qualify because I have asthma. But hey... thanks for asking. This also happens to apply to my kids, one of whom is a VA cop. And as far as "knowing more than you" you obviously DON'T know much. Try doing a little reading up on recruiting. The Army has longstanding recruiting problems that are organizational in nature and predate the war. From a Rand report: In FY97, this was especially true for the Army. The Army barely met its recruiting requirement in that year, despite large increases in recruiting resources, doubling the permissible number of enlistments among youth without high school diplomas, and despite a QDR-mandated reduction of the active force that reduced the accession requirement by 7,500. The Navy experienced similar problems in FY98, missing its accession goal by almost 15 percent. In FY99, both the Air Force and Army fell short of their active force recruiting requirements, and there were large shortfalls in the Army, Navy, and Air Force Reserves that amounted to 20 to 40 percent of the recruiting requirement. These problems continue today. The Army is most affected, because it has the largest recruiting mission and also had the largest drawdown; as a result, it has also had the largest post-drawdown increase in accession requirements. No criticism. Just some facts.
 
Lisa - yes, there is a recruiting shortage. More worrisome, we are lowering standards and taking in more Cat IVs. I would note, however, that the Navy, Air Force, and Marines do *not* have a problem making mission. Take away the 50K bump in endstrength the Army didn't ask for... there wouldn't be a shortage. Reenlistment ads? Gee, when I was stationed in Germany in the 80's, and lived in Germany and France as a kid in the 60's and 70's... there were reenlistment ads. That's *normal*. And they're meeting those goals, are they not? No one wants to enlist? Strikes me that there are *thousands* wanting to enlist. We just happen to need *thousands + X". By the way, Lisa - My DD214 shows 8,760 days of service, and I've the fruit salad that goes with it. Bill's DD214 has even more days, and he has his share of combat gaudys - he retired last year and his tour of duty includes Vietnam. Dusty's DD214 has 25 or so years on it as well, and he has all the fruit salad on his Class A's he needs. My wife has done her bit, so has Bill's, so has Dusty's. My Mother watched my Father off to two wars and 7 Purple Hearts. Then she bit her nails for another 24 years as I did my bit. And Cassandra? The author of this piece? She's a Marine wife, who had the fun of being the Battalion Commanders wife as her husband took his battalion off to OIF and OEF. So... let's bark up a different tree. You misread *this* group.
 
just out of curiosity, how come when a vet posts here (btw - thank you for your service) they are accredited a great deal of respect, but when a vet, even a decorated vet (Murtha, Kerry, Cleland, McCain) has an opposing viewpoint, they are "traitors?" What exactly "qualfies" a vet to have an opinion? Do I have to put up with the lunatic rantings of one of my inlaws just becuase he repaired F16s in Michigan for 3 years? I don't see why you guys trash the patritism of a decorated Marine. The guy was a DI for cryn' out loud! I'd be afraid to say any of this to his face! It would be useful if (both sides) we would recognize that the thing that makes this country great is dissent, discourse and the right to make an ass of oneself. vic
 
Well, I allow dissent here, Vic. And I generally don't drop the traitor label lightly. I do have strong feelings about John Kerry that are not favorable, and I what I found most disturbing regarding Rep. Murtha is that he, having decided we have lost the war, seems, by his comments alluded to by Cassandra, wants to ensure that we make what amounts to a very public surrender and rush away. Does that make him a traitor? No, not at all to my eyes. But to people who hold an apposite [sic] but opposing view of the situation on the ground, it *does* make him a political enemy - and, like it or not, that's how political battles are fought these days. And, if anyone has read the newspapers of earlier eras, pretty much how they were fought then, too. I think, should you return, you'll find this place can generally conduct civil discourse, albeit spirited. But if you do so, kindly leave a legitimate contact email (if you fill in a bogus web address your email address will not be displayed and is accessible only by me, the site owner).
 
Now you're being ridiculous. Words have meanings. First of all, you have never heard me use the word traitor, so don't ask me to defend something I haven't done. Propping up straw men so you can knock them down is a fool's errand. Let me see if I understand your argument: we musn't disagree with anything they say because they once wore a uniform? Perhaps you can tell me why we have a military? Why we have a Constitution? So people like you can tell me I can't disagree with anyone who wears a uniform? Especially when it is damaging to the nation in wartime? Well pardon my French my friend, but bull. Disagreement is one thing. Disloyalty is another. Speak up all you want and no one will say a word. Tell people to stop serving in their country's VOLUNTEER armed forces and that DOES start to sound like treason though I never used that word. But it fits, quite frankly. It fits. No one has said Murtha can't talk. But he should do so responsibly and he shouldn't lie, which he has been doing for months now and I've documented it over and over. So has Kerry. If they continue to lie, I will continue to call them on it. If they say irresponsible things, I will criticize them. It's called free speech.
 
John of Argghhh!, I can not post my valid email address, as I do not wish to be buried in SPAM. It looks like you automatically post email addresses...If I am wrong, I will happily tack my real address to my posts. I fully understand, and agree with your decision if you do not wish to publish this email (the addresses I have used above are from some joker out in Minnisota). Searching this page, Cassandra is correct, no one here called Murtha a coward...that said, do a google for Murtha + coward and you will get about 91000 hits. Where everyone got the idea I am some hippie hiding in a corner is beyond me. I support our troops, both active and vets. ALL of them. Blindly following an elected leader is not patriotism, that is zealotry. I am willing to bet that the same respect was not given to Clinton while he was running around with interns. Heck your front page disrespects an elected Senator! Love her or hate her, she's still part of the government, and she represents all of us. Even if we didn't vote for her. Either way...keep it up. Your gun posts are fascinating. Where the heck did that bloke find pin-actuated rounds?
 
Well, the pin-fire rounds are out there (and that bloke is me, if you're referring to the author of the post. Email addresses - if you click on my name in this comment - it links to my website, not my email address. I ocmpletely understand the spam issues. So, as I said, if you put in a bogus website (or a valid one, like... www.thedonovan.com...) *that* is what will display. *I* will get your email in the comment notification, no one else. As for the Senator, are you referring to the cartoon? Of course, I see it so often, I may be overlooking something. The cartoon is an editorial (it's also a link, *we* dont draw that). As for Clinton, this blog didn't exist while he was in office, and, as I was a still-serving officer at the time, I wouldn't have mentioned him in any overwhelmingly negative way, as serving officer's have specific, legal, restrictions on their free speech rights. Which I support, incidentally. I'll give all of 'em basic respect, until such time as they dis me and mine, or otherwise earn my contempt or anger. They don't get to just sit in their protected bubble and crap on me and my beliefs, ideals, ideas etc, and enjoy immunity because they are members of a protected elite. That said, you'll find this place has passion, but I generally enforce rules on commenters of "attack the message, not the messenger". In terms of editorial content, however, such as Cassandra's post, the messenger may well be the message, and is fair game. I do not allow this space to degenerate to the level of commentary one can ezperience at Daily Kos or Little Green Footballs, Free Republic or Democratic Underground. But I do encourage passion. I recommend to you the "This Just In" post upstream from this one for an example of how it works around here. Lastly - if you like the gun stuff, on the upper left sidebar, click the "Gun Pr0n" for posts on guns, or "Imperial Arsenal of Doom" for picture collection, much of which is my personal stuff.
 
John of Argghhh! Thank you for the thoughtful, thought-out response. I compleatly agree with you that the level of discourse has fallen to a true low. I blame the other side :P Attached is my true email address. I don't have a URL, so I linked to a silly site I occasionally read. You will recall during the Clinton presidency, a well known Marine Lt. Colonel stated "He's not my Commander in Chief." That the president didn't dishonerably discharge him speaks volumes to his (Clinton's) character. It stunned me to hear that from a man in uniform, especially a decorated, high ranking one. I'll check out the "Arsenal of Doom." As I'm about to be stationed overseas, my stash is about to be reduced to a rubber band and paper clips. Since bad guys never carry guns (thier illegal!) I should be fine.
 
A lot of Marines criticized him for saying that, too.
 
...and the President could not have dishonorably discharged him, merely for saying that. So it says absolutely NOTHING about Clinton's character that he did not break the law by doing something he was not legally empowered to do. And in case you're interested, I have been in and around the military all my life. And the ONLY time I have EVER heard or SEEN anyone including myself penalized or told to keep their mouths shut was during the Reign of Terror. That's right: you guessed it: Clinton. So check your comfortable assumptions. Because they're flat-out wrong. I saw dependent wives told they could not even tell JOKES at private homes during Clinton's presidency for fear of official retribution. And this happened at several commands. And that's just flat out wrong.
 
Vic - it's not the President's job, really, to cashier an officer for speech like that. The UCMJ covers it. And people *were* punished for inappropriate speech during that era. I witnessed it. And when I was an instructor, and my students bad-mouthed the President publicly, I rebuked them, publicly. Even if I agreed with them privately. Good luck in your journeys, feel free to stop by.
 
I saw dependent wives told they could not even tell JOKES at private homes during Clinton's presidency for fear of official retribution. And this happened at several commands. And that's just flat out wrong. It's also illegal. Spouses lacking enlistment papers can be as mouthy as they wish. Their spouse may not get beyond 06, but that's a different issue.
 
John...thank you for calling "bullshit" on both Cassandra and I. You and I can disagree, but you are fair and honest. I appriciate that more than you can imagine. Cassandra - FYI an officer's commission comes directly from the President. Technically he (or the Senate) can revoke it at his whim. You really don't know what the hell you are talking about, but I do appriciate your passion and devotion to America. I just wish you would step outside of your political party and see what is really happening. If you support these guys based on facts - more power to you. I respect that and booya, America! If you still think that there were WMD's in Iraq, that Saddam hit the World Trade Center and most Iraqis love us, then we should just stop talking now. We will never reach a common ground. /vic
 
Vic - *technically* you are correct, though it hasn't been true in practice since just before WWI, and recent (as in the last 10 years) changes in the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (as amended) have made it even less likely - as, for example, I was in the last or next-to-last list of Majors submitted to the Senate for confirmation, that requirement having been pulled up to O6 in a reflection of the fact that the Armed Services of today operate in a wholly-different environment than the officer corps of 1820, where a Major was near God, and today they make coffee and run errands in the Pentagon (hence they like to stay in units, where they are at least allowed to pretend to high status). While the authority rests with the President, it has been delegated to the various Secretarys, except in the instance of General Officers, whose removal from duty, whether routine or punitive, is, by law, reviewed and approved by the President, now-Colonel Karpinski of Abu Ghraib being the most visible instance of that. Though Clinton had to approve the early removal of Clark from SACEUR, as another high profile example. I wouldn't be so quick to judge Cassie, Vic - your information, while correct as far as it goes, is also incomplete. As far as I know, the only somewhat routine 'direct Presidential appointments' done in recent years are for military astronauts after they complete a space mission - in recognition of the fact that by going over to NASA they pretty much fall off the face of the earth as far as the regular promotion process is concerned. Throughout my career, the only time I ever really risked doing a 'by name' appearance on the President's desk was as a Special Weapons officer, where a 'failing deficiency' or relief for cause put a report with your name on it in front of the Prez within 24 hours. We took our nukes seriously, back when we had 'em.
 
John of Arrgghhh! I know that the POTUS dosen't directly commission officers. My point was that when the other party had the white house, it was fashonable for officers that should have known better to disrespect the office of the president. Cassandra The point I was trying to make earlier (and did a terrible job of it) was that "respect for the office" seems to fly out the window when the man in the office disagrees with the moonbat right. I feel it disrespects ALL of the military to "swift boat" a veteran. You don't like Kerry, don't vote for him. Hell, send money to W! Put up a blog with all the reasons tax cuts for the rich are good! That's how the system works. But to wear a band-aid with a purple heart on it fills me with a red rage that does not go away. It is disrespectful of the entire service and wile I support free speech, those guys were still making asses of themselves. OK, end the venting. It's late and I'm hitting the rack. /vic PS - from your (John of AARRRGGHH!!) posts, I'm guessing you were equally disappointed at the right's smear of a vet. Good on ya, and don't take any crap!
 
John of Arrgghhh! I know that the POTUS dosen't directly commission officers. My point was that when the other party had the white house, it was fashonable for officers that should have known better to disrespect the office of the president. Cassandra The point I was trying to make earlier (and did a terrible job of it) was that "respect for the office" seems to fly out the window when the man in the office disagrees with the moonbat right. I feel it disrespects ALL of the military to "swift boat" a veteran. You don't like Kerry, don't vote for him. Hell, send money to W! Put up a blog with all the reasons tax cuts for the rich are good! That's how the system works. But to wear a band-aid with a purple heart on it fills me with a red rage that does not go away. It is disrespectful of the entire service and wile I support free speech, those guys were still making asses of themselves. OK, end the venting. It's late and I'm hitting the rack. /vic PS - from your (John of AARRRGGHH!!) posts, I'm guessing you were equally disappointed at the right's smear of a vet. Good on ya, and don't take any crap!
 
1. First of all, you don't just "revoke a commission" at whim. It must be for cause. That means the officer must have done something pretty darn bad to end his career and yank his commission. My particular opinion of the officer you mention is not high, nor was it at the time. I did not approve of his actions and said so at the time. So did many, many other conservatives. So *you* do not know what *you* are talking about in this particular instance. 2. Insofar as dependent wives are concerned however, that is another matter entirely, and they were not even criticizing his politics but merely telling innocent jokes at a party. This isn't Nazi Germany. 3. I am sick and tired of the Left's use of the term "Swift boating" as a smear tactic. The truth of this matter is this: John Kerry left Vietnam after serving only 3.5 months of a 12 month combat tour. He was never seriously wounded. NEVER. He took advantage of a technicality in the regs that was RARELY used and also countermanded his CO's refusal to approve his first Purple Heart by going around him to someone else to get the papers filled out. Despite promising on Meet The Press TWICE to release his records HE STILL HAS NOT DONE SO. During the campaign, I documented several instances where his web site contained factual errors in his 3 MONTH COMMAND HISTORY in Vietnam, including TAKING CREDIT FOR EVENTS THAT HAPPENED WHILE ANOTHER MAN WAS IN COMMAND OF HIS SWIFT BOAT. When these were pointed out, the pages in question quietly disappeared. I still have the original pages saved as evidence. HOW DO YOU SCREW UP ONLY 3 MONTHS OF HISTORY? When Kerry left 'Nam he came back to the States and told the Senate his fellow vets were war criminals who committed "daily atrocities with full knowledge of all levels of command". That would have included himself, since he was a CO when he was over there. He is the one who smeared the reputations of men like my father-in-law, who served two tours in Vietnam. The Swift Vets merely challenged his version of events. They had every right to do that - they were there too. And they served their whole tours, yet you and other smart folks have no problem smearing their honorable service just because they have the NERVE to question a man who blackened the reputations of thousands of honorable veterans and met with the North Vietnamese in Paris when they were torturing our POWs. That's the thanks they get for serving their country: they are told once again: shut up. We don't want to hear about it. Don't you *dare* question the rich boy from the foreign service family who went to Yale or he'll sic the DNC's lawyers on you (which he did, unsuccessfully as it turned out because the courts weren't impressed). Mr, Kerry even had the nerve to go after POWs who wanted to tell their story. Men who were tortured in Vietnamese prison camps for seven years. This is a man who left after three months with rice in his butt. Wonderful. Take your red rage and try thinking for a change. Or do some research about Mr. Kerry. You might be surprised about what you find out if you have an open mind. You might ask why the Swift Vets had to file a cease and desist with Mr. Kerry when he was using their names and photos to suggest they supported him, when in reality they don't. They were provoked. And they finally spoke up. And America told these men, who served so long and so well, to STFU. Business as usual.
 
I don't like smearing anyone. I did some of it myself, and found it didn't taste very good. And the thing you're missing, Vic, is internal context - by that I mean that Cassie and I witnessed things from within the military bubble, while you spoke comfortably from the perspective of someone who appears to have gotten most of his information from the MSM and anecdotally. Which hits, tangentially, on one the the useful aspects of the milblogs. We're routinely dissed by the left, the anti-war right, and the MSM as little more than a claque for the military and the administration. The recent tempest in a teapot over the Army hiring a PR firm to help get it's story out, and the PR firms exploration of using milblogs for that is a case in point. But a close reading of milblogs, especially ones written by the serving, those who have served, and their family members will find much critical writing and analysis - all from a contextual aspect that the MSM generally doesn't have, and in a sense sneers at. Yet I've had people come in calling me a mindless myrmidon who have left educated. I haven't changed their mind, usually, on the issue of the war - but I have explained why there can be a perfectly logical explanantion for what seems idiocy. I've also just stopped them flat with - "You're right. Not enough senior people got the boot over Abu Ghraib." And then explained why. And pointed out that if you are going to bring criminal charges, you have to think you've got a case that will stand up in court. If you don't, then you do things to people administratively. There are quite a few officer careers which ended as a result of Abu Ghraib. But those are pesonnel decisions, and don't make the news. But I digress. This space is certainly overall favorable to the warrior. It is less nice to the leadership. We do self-censor on the side of OPSEC. And we can provide context to things that the MSM can't. On the issue of Kerry, however, when the veteran in question brings up his service, and smeared, with a very large brush, the service of others, then that veteran is simply reaping what he sowed. Murtha is a different animal - but, in his case, the press and left waved his service as a credential. That made it vulnerable to attack. That doesn't mean all the attacks are appropriate. But when the rank and file military react so viscerally, that's indicative that they feel stung, which of course can be because it's the truth, or because it isn't - or because, in this case, Murtha is perceived as a cut-and-run Democratic party hack who is actually concerned at this point (read the quotes) not only about a staged-managed perception of a win, but, by extension, us actually succeeding. And, as that simply doesn't square with the feelings and experience of the boots on the ground (who feel that many people back here simply don't know what's going on over there) coupled with the fact that the press (I don't recall Murtha doing it this way, but his supporters certainly have) waves his "Marineness" in our faces... well, that understandably pissed off the Marines. On last note before I close this rambler off... if I sometimes get pedantic (as in my explanation of Presidential perogatives in dealing with officers) it isn't always that I'm nit-picking the person with whom I'm having the exchange - it's I'm speaking to the 1999 *other* visitors to the Castle on any given day, and to the Googlebot and similar web-creatures. *They* need the context.
 
John, I didn't have any problem with what you said. IMO, an active duty officer should not criticize the President. Whether this is actionable is up to the command. Personally I don't see the President's reaching down and personally being vindictive as being appropriate. This is a command matter and should be handled through the UCMJ. And that was my point. It would have been completely inappropriate for it to have been handled any other way, and that is what prompted my response. I never suggested in any way, shape, or form that it was OK for officers to criticize the President, nor frankly did I hear that during Clinton's term (publicly). Wives are civilians. We don't get paid by DOD and we should be able to say what we please, and it is inappropriate for the government to try to intimidate a civilian, especially for comments made in a private home. I did not resign my civil rights when my husband accepted his commission. Apparently the commenter thinks that liberal vets can say whatever they want and no one can gainsay them. Murtha can suggest a course of action that Marines view as cowardly, but if they say this course is cowardly (which is their opinion), they are told to shut up. They are not allowed to question what Murtha says. Their opinions don't count even though many of them are fighting over in Iraq. Kerry can call Vietnam vets war criminals, but if they question his version of events, they are told to shut up and smeared. Got it. Liberal vets can say whatever they want. Conservative vets have to keep their mouths shut, and not only that, but their wives can't way anything either! Interesting point of view. I do not understand this, but whatever.
 
Just 3 cents: 1) Military Vets are not by singular definition Gods, heroes, or anything other than people who served in the Armed Forces. Murtha, as I understand it, is a combat vet held in high regard for his service. That does not mean he is immune from criticism for stupid things he says now. I've known a few combat-experienced vets in my life, some with high-honors (a DSC, another nominated for the MoH), some with TINS stories that make your jaw drop, but none of that automatically imbued those people with god-like powers of common sense or divine decency. Murtha was in the past a good man, by all accounts. He is today a twit, by my reckoning. I respect him for his past service, but that doesn't earn him a "pass" for his current misguided commentary. Remember, the past does not equal the future! And that works both ways! 2) Kerry deserved what happened to him. A vet deserves no more nor less respect than he or she earns, and simply having survived being shot at does not convey hero-hood, and it doesn't mean the vet is even a decent person. Moreover, I know LOTs of people who never served in the military who have done a great deal more for others, or who have worked far harder than many vets to make the world a better place. And I've known a few combat veterans who were truly despicable people, which had nothing to do with their service or their experiences and everything to do with their character. The military tends to bring out the good in people, I believe, and it teaches everyone--combat vet or otherwise--values and bearing and how to think critically, and so on. It can make a Man out of a boy or a Woman out of a girl, and it can even bring about fundamental character changes. BUT, the act of service, the accident of being in combat, is not in and of itself the end-marker of a person's life. How a person carries himself after, what he or she says and does with the life that has been spared by God, that is what counts. Being a vet? $hit, anyone can be a vet. All it takes is a signature and the decency not to go AWOL. 3) The comments about Clinton and that era are interesting. What I find most interesting though, is that I have heard more complaints about being "stifled" from people since our Current SecDef took office than I ever heard under Clinton. Wild Bill was, according to most I knew, disrespectful to and of the military. I once met a fellow who considered his PCS from White House duty like being rescued from a bad foster home. On the other hand, I have spoken with many officers and former officers about the current administration, and even before 9/11 things were very unpleasant sounding. Just take a look at the retirement ceremony of Gen Shinseki--who attended and who didn't--to get a sense of what people were thinking then. I also know a couple of men who are not sure they want to go for that bird or that star if it means they have to continue under current mgmt. The conundrum is that for professional military people, there won't be a better time or opportunity to have a chance to do what they are best at. I suspect they will stay, in spite of their distaste for the way things have become. My sense is that it was better under Clinton than it is now insofar as being able to speak your mind and express dissenting opinions. I'm not in the muddle of it, but that's the rumbles I hear.
 
The conundrum is that for professional military people, there won't be a better time or opportunity to have a chance to do what they are best at. I suspect they will stay, in spite of their distaste for the way things have become. Well I've heard some of that too. Although I haven't experienced it personally and my husband has been stationed twice in the Pentagon for a three-year, so you'd think I'd know. And he is hardly the type to keep his mouth shut. In fact, his reputation is rather the opposite. At any rate, he has not encountered this particular gentleman in his travels. As far as dissenting opinions, I have only this to say, and I suppose it is politically incorrect. When you get to that rank, a lot of people only HAVE making that bird or star on their minds. And what they OUGHT to have on their minds is the future of their Corps or their service. It's about serving their country, not about what's good for them. If that is not what is important to them then they should get the heck out as far as I am concerned. If they have an opinion *and it is about something important* and they DON'T express it, WHY THE HELL NOT? What you are essentially telling me is that they have placed personal expediency over the good of their country and their service. Well shame on them. There is a word for that - several, in fact - and they are not pretty. Is this how fighting men behave? Is this the standard for men of honor? I hope not.
 
You know, you usually don't go off on odd tangents in a silly way, but I think you went in a direction other than was appropriate or actually reflective of my comments. Could be I just stepped into something smelly and you felt I was snarking you? Not at all, not at all. Truly. That said, this is the facts, Ma'am: This is disingenuous: "What they OUGHT to have on their minds is the future of their Corps or their service. It's about serving their country, not about what's good for them." True as far as it goes, but pure bull$hit in the long view. Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY, looks out for themselves within the context of the situations they find themselves in. We're not talking about people abandonging their mates in the heat of battle, or deserting a foundering ship, just legitimate career concerns about choices looming on the horizon. More important, the hallmark of our Services--the Army at least-- is that there are always competent people ready to step into the roles that others leave, for wahtever reason. One of the toughest men I've known as an adult was a former Marine who had been bayonetted in both Korea AND Vietnam. He was underage when he joined the first time and was discharged when they found out; he joined up again later, and long after went to officer school. He retired as either a Lt Col or Col, cannot remember. But even he retired from the Corps, and he often said he'd stayed longer than he should have. Frankly, any man who says he is not concerned about his post-Service life as he nears potential retirement age is either full of crap or an idiot. Life doesn't begin and end with the Service, even though some people feel that way (certainly, my life has been a LOT better since I left the Army), and a lot of people go on to do a lot more for the Service after they have retired. Considering I was an E-6 when I left, and the work I have done for the Government since, I'd say I have done far more, to much greater effect than I ever did while on duty. And I did a LOT of stuff while on duty. Which brings me to this: "If that is not what is important to them then they should get the heck out as far as I am concerned. If they have an opinion *and it is about something important* and they DON'T express it, WHY THE HELL NOT?" Rendering an opinion that is not well recieved can sometimes destroy a career in some services, even important opinions. Where life and death is not concerned, it's pretty damn dumb to say something, no matter how it matters; I'd bet your husband has spoken about choosing his battles or which swords to fall on. If not, then either he is consumately agile or he is just plain lucky. As for the opinions, and the rendering of them, I'm talking about such things as, say, telling the SecDef that there just aren't enough soldiers in the Army to do everything they need to do. Or maybe that transformation in some directions is just dumb? or maybe, We've done that before and it didn't work then either. . . And finally this: "What you are essentially telling me is that they have placed personal expediency over the good of their country and their service. Well shame on them. There is a word for that - several, in fact - and they are not pretty. Is this how fighting men behave? Is this the standard for men of honor?" If you knew the men you have just insulted, you would be ashamed of yourself, even if they aren't in the "Corps." I didn't say anything like what you wrote, and I didn't mean anything like that, and after rereading what I wrote, I don't know how you got here from there. I basically said they are considering the alternatives. In the case of one, for example, the choice is stay in for the star or move onto a job at State or one of the Intel Agencies where his skills would be REALLY valued! In the case of another, his many-recalls-later reserve service is really, really affecting his personal life. He doesn't mind--he helps evacuate the wounded from the theaters, but he doesn't have a lot of time at home, less even than a lot of full time military folks. And personally, I don't see a damn thing wrong with any of that.
 
This is getting a bit overheated. I am not sure why you took offense at what I wrote, but it wasn't directed at you. I am sorry if I offended you. I did not mean to. You are ignoring the most important words in what I wrote: *and it is important* We are at war right now. A lot of 18 and 19 year old kids are putting their lives on the line out there and they have to rely on officers to look out for their best interests in Washington. If people in charge see something wrong and say nothing to further their careers, that's not good. And I won't say it is a good thing. That's not the way I was raised. That's why officers get paid more than enlisted men. And why everyone makes fun of them too, but everyone in my family have always been officers and I think with that extra pay ought to come a great deal of extra responsibility. Sorry, but that's what I believe, even if it sounds stupid and Pollyannish.
 
And if I misunderstood your comment, I'm sorry. I think it was the reference to Shinseki that sent me off in that direction.
 
DING-DING-DING! This round is over. Fighters to your corners. Trainers - get those massages working, and fire up the 'Rita-matic. Before the bell rings again, consider whether or not the discussion is getting rather circular at this point. Just sayin'.
 
For whatever it's worth, I'm not angry and I have already apologized once. I'll be happy to apologize again if I have to. At any rate, I'm done.
 
*muffle voice floating up from the cave I'm in* Murtha may have been a good Marine, but, nowdays, he's a *spit* politician, and he's trying to cash in on soundbite, telling folks what he thinks he wants to hear. If he's against the war, fine, I don't have problem with it... "Phased withdrawl"? Okay, sounds like a plausible retrograde... But running his suck with words that HE KNOWS will harm the morale and well-being of the Armed Forces? No, that's not holding with that ol' Marine Corps "special trust and confidence"... Marines fight with their brains, and if Murtha was still in touch with his inner amphibious monster, he would go about pushing this agenda through the effective channels, not running his piehole in front of the world, and then trying to backpedal... If he's trying to tell us, "No, no, that's not what I said..." then he needs to fire his speechwiter and hire somebody who can get it right the first time... So says THIS Jarhead! *I'll get back in my hole now...*
 
Apologies not required, I don't need or want them. I like being able to be say what I mean (or think i do) without feeling the need to be overly-PC, etc. I guessI just didn't get the gist or the intent, but water under the bridge, so-to-speak. No pain here, this is after all an intellectual environment, no a physical one, and I'd much rather hang around with folks who can hod their own here than not... Know what I mean? And yeah, what Sgt B said (though I'm not a Marine).
 
Beers on me :)
 
Oh my, you *are* tired, to leave that useable a straight line. I'll take the beer that's be nestling between the Minor Mounds... *running away faster than you'd believe a fat man can*
 
Oh fine... make fun of the poor things. They're not THAT small. *pouting*
 
Snerk! Of course they aren't, they were sufficient to cradle the Elixir of Life, eh? Oooo. Double-entendre!
 
Good grief...great passion. Murtha has every right to speak as a citizen but should weigh his words as a member of congress. Nothing political here, just my image of our young warriors reading and regarding his (Murtha's) sentiments while in harm's way. He has earned the right to speak as a citizen and veteran. Putting a plan out in our current political environment invites a scathing attack regardless of the intent of the plan or the methodology. Two sons, two Marines, two tours apiece. I tell them to say what they feel once they wrap it up. They've earned it. They both are relatively quiet now, one is back in-country. It's a job. Aren't many of them around for the guys coming back, common complaint. Who speaks and who remains silent? Not my call. Some of the guys here are grousing about a co-worker who actively protests the war. He was a grunt in Viet Nam, quiet guy who asks me daily about my sons and tells me to thank them for serving. Marine for life, I mainly pray for our troops and say as long as they are there let's support them, get them the best gear and weaponry at beck and call, keep the politics out of it and err on the side of the troops when close air support and artillery are required. One man's opinion, Iraq was a mistake but not for the reasons flag-wavers want to paint red, white and blue and stuff down the throat of the country. We took our eye off the ball. We settled for a fixed target, pounded it, and then suffered the fate of any democracy that gets locked-in...a simple occupation, victory without strings attached is not a realistic goal in a land where the next direction is always less than four years away..."Elect me, I'll Bring the Boys Home." The threat of the use of Military force is always more daunting...the unknown...more Snakeater stuff is available, more timeline-friendly and just like lightning in the distance. Familiarity breeds more than contempt, it breeds ATTEMPT. Once we went static the body-bags had to be broken out and the count is in many ways most likely just a warm-up. Our tendency, the eventual tendency in any war which becomes run like a corporate management exercise is to instill a sense of normalcy. Meanwhile, the locals start setting their clocks and waiting for that routine to set in and wait for a chance to hang a big one on the troops in the line of fire...(See "Tet", "Beirut Marine Barracks", "Mogadishu") and watch as the US of A takes stock of the situation while Politicians make hay. Murtha spoke out of turn. He gave a limp suggestion, outline of a plan to "bring the boys home...and the girls". Let me hear a better one and Murtha becomes the only ex-Marine in history besides Lee Harvey Oswald. Bad guys know the play book we use and all the hopping up and down to the contrary won't change it. Sorry folks, any referendum or constitutional amendment to annex Iraq or grant it statehood fails the test of time and the test of reality in our current world. Is Murtha right? Don't think so, but I get really bored with people who state the problem and ignore realistic proposals for solution. The MSM revels in the miasma of pre-sets in play here and is making fantastic money off the contradictions so apparent in our situation. To all: Military guys take an oath and they know they have to pull the pin on their rank and end the career to get a free pass to say things like Murtha and other vet-congressmen get to mumble into the mike. Nobody should carp about maintaining that nice piece of American history. Shut up and keep marching. Your time to speak out will come. You are guaranteeing it every day you serve. Might not help you while you are the pointy end of the stick, but it will be there because you bought it with blood. Like my old buddy who thinks the Iraq war is wrong, there is indeed added weight to the opinion of the veteran. There is nothing wrong with being wrong every now and then. Which is the problem to a large extent...we're all a little wrong here. God protect our troops while we figure this crap out.
 
© 2008 John Donovan
All rights reserved.