Kneeling

People have been bombarding me with my opinion on NFL players kneeling during the national anthem. My response, expectedly, left both sides of the debate unhappy.

My first issue is that I am being hunted down to be asked at all. I don't know about everyone, but I didn't join the military to be some special class of citizen that needs to be babied constantly. My opinion on this is no more important than any American's opinion. I would beware anyone telling you that this or that is demeaning to veterans. Not that it doesn't happen. One that comes to mind is the woman who pictured herself yelling at Arlington Cemetary. That is disrespecting the military. That woman also paid dearly for that error in judgment. Case closed in my opinion. I wish her no ill will.

But when it is a point of patriotism, that affects me no more than it does any other citizen. "But I had friends who came home under that flag!" says the angry Facebook veterans. "I have sacrificed more!". So have I. But I am not taking their sacrifice to make everything about me. I lost friends, those men were lost to their wives, their children, their parents, and much more. We lost them as a country, not just me or just veterans.

Also, the reasons we were supposed to be out there was to protect those very rights that these NFL players were expressing. If you are going to fight to defend those rights, then use your status as a veteran to suppress them when you get home, I don't know what exactly you were fighting for. Don't think the US is the first country in the world to use our veterans as a means to suppress the rights of their people. This was a critical element that our founding fathers were against.

Now to piss off the other side. I am not a fan of the kneeling. Not because my feelings are hurt, or because I think forced patriotism is a sign of a healthy country. But because I believe in the goal the NFL players are striving toward, and I think this is taking them further and further from it.

To be clear, I do think that our country has serious problems with race relations, and those problems are more serious than just a cab not picking someone up or people crossing the street to walk. It's issues that suppress a large segment of our population, causes them grief and suffering, and can easily lead to their death. Even from a selfish viewpoint, millions upon millions of Americans before trampled upon effects all of us, even if we aren't the ones with boots on our backs.

"So you think cops hate black people and are just looking for excuses to murder them?!?"

No. I think police officers are incredible people with very difficult jobs that many of us could not handle. I think your average officer wakes up every morning wanting to go out, do their job which is keeping us safe, and go home to their family at the end of their shift. I also think they are critical elements of our society.

But, as one of my First Sergeants used to say, there are dirtbags in every group. He called it the rule of 10%s. 10% of the military is dirtbags who need to be found and thrown out, 10% are the heroes that will save the day, and 80% are the average joes that need to be lead. I'm a Marine, and I guarantee if you ask me or any other Marine, we can tell you stories of dirtbags who should have never been in uniform and never put behind a rifle. Marines who were idiots. Marines who were racists. Marines who needed to be thrown out. That realization doesn't mean I hate Marines. Not at all. That's just being honest. I got to be one of the detainee guards who escorted The Pendleton 8 out of Iraq. I sure as hell don't feel bad about that.

That is where I am sitting with police officers. The vast majority of them are awesome people. But there is scum that needs to be thrown out, and it terrifies me when they not only aren't but when wagons get circled for officers who don't deserve the backup. It's because the police are such important and essential parts of our government and our life that we have to hold them to the highest standards. Not low standards because the job is difficult.

Which brings me back to why I am not a fan of the kneeling. When I discuss the issue of US police with people, including people who are completely against my position, the best way I bring them around to understand is changing the issue from a civil rights issue, to a government overreach issue. These are American citizens being killed by government officials, and we need to do something to curb that.

But in brief, I think that kneeling of NFL players isn't the best method to further their goals. But I think it would be wrong of me as a fellow American to ignore my neighbor's plights because they didn't bring it up to me in a manner I felt comfortable with. I also think it's ridiculous that the kneeling is being portrayed as insulting to veterans. I have asked many, many people, and I can't find a single instance in American history where kneeling before something is insulting. Many, many examples of the opposite though. Beyond that, nothing about the flag or National Anthem should mean any more to me as a veteran than any American civilian. I think our founding fathers would be disgusted by the government using veterans as a shield to suppress civilians' speech.

Land of The Free, BECAUSE We Are The Home of The Brave

I am going to go ahead and run off the assumption that anyone reading my blog already knows about the Executive Order Trump signed just a few days ago. The country erupted into debate about it and about what it actually entailed. Even White House Chief of Staff seemed to not understand exactly what the order entailed and was forced to reverse himself. So us as citizens are going to have a tough time.

Now, to cut through the lies being told on the Trump side, and on the anti-Trump side fairly quickly. First, no, this isn't a "Muslim ban". The ban applies only to certain countries, which both Republican and Democrats have agreed on (at separate times) are hotbeds of dangerous activities. You'll see a lot of posts showing that none of these countries' nationals have ever committed terrorist acts on US civilians, which is true. You'll also see people pointing out that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are not on that list despite being huge state sponsors of terrorism. While it's easy to point out The Trump Org has business in a lot of these hotbed countries that he didn't list, it wasn't just him that has routinely ignored those countries. Saudi Arabia is probably one of the worst offenders but the US has ignored their acts for decades, likely because of our huge oil interests in the area. Not just Trump, but a bipartisan blindness of their crimes.

Now, things that point toward it being a "Muslim ban" is it is specified in those orders that people of minority religions will be given priority to skip the ban. Of course, since they are all Muslim majority countries, that effectively tells Muslims they will be in the back of the line. If made a law preferring minority religions in the US, you can be damn sure Christians would quickly (and correctly) point out that law is harassment against them. That part of the order is one that could possibly be unConstitutional. Possibly. An argument for that line is those minority religions are the ones in the most danger, which while I don't have sources to prove that, sounds likely.

Another thing you'll hear is "But, but, but, Obama did it in 2011 and you guys didn't complain". This is garbage. Obama's order did not specify religions and did not affect people who were already legally allowed to travel to the US, such as dual nationals, visa holders, and green card holders. The two orders are worlds apart, and being pissed about one and not the other doesn't make anyone a hypocrite. Though while Obama didn't write a ban like Trump's, he did murder many, many innocent Muslims with drone strikes and bombings, which I'd say is worse. Of course, Trump's first raid as a president killed many innocent Muslims, including women and children. So it doesn't look like Trump is going to stop Obama's civilian killing legacy.

Is Trump's EO unConstitutional? Listen ladies and gentlemen, that question cannot be answered by some idiot in a Facebook comment section, or some idiot on a Reddit post, or some idiot that is paying $12/month to have his own blog to bitch in (yours truly). That question is going to have to be hashed out in court by teams of lawyers and likely decided by Supreme Court Justices. I know people want an answer now, but no one can give you one. And likely even after the SC decides we'll still have people hotly debating it.

But beyond the legality of the order that we're not qualified to decide, how do I feel about the order? Well, that comes in parts. First, I know more than most Trump supporters how dangerous this terrorism we are fighting is. I've seen the people murdered over it. I've spoken to the people who have been brutally tortured and disfigured by it and seen their scars. I've seen children rigged with bombs and I've gotten to clean pieces of little girl off the side of our Humvee after an attack. I've left friends behind in Iraq, and brought back friends whose lives were ruined by their injuries and PTSD. This is serious stuff people, and the thought of it making it to our country and my wife and my kids having to see it too horrifies me. I understand the people who want to prevent something like that, and are willing to go to lengths, even unpopular ones, to prevent it.

I didn't just see horror out there however. I also saw courage of not only my fellow soldiers, but of the Muslims living in conditions few people can understand. Being caught aiding American forces to clear out the remnants of Saddam's regime could easily get you and your family executed in terrifying ways, but they still did it. We were trained by Iraqis who could show the the bullet wounds or the torture scars that it had cost them to aid US troops, but they still came out with us and did it. And one of their biggest awards for doing so? Being allowed to come to the US and be Americans along with us. People, I'm an American by chance of birth as likely are most of you. Can you imagine how few of us would be Americans if we had to be shot at, tortured, and your family killed to make it? And by the way, those Muslims who have been aiding our troops like they aided me are banned by this new EO. Men and women who have risked their lives for months or years got to learn that the US was not good on it's promises. And our troops get to have an even more difficult time recruiting more people to help now that their word has been proven to mean nothing.

This also ignores the fact that it is really easy to point out the Muslim terrorist groups who hate us, but we all seem to ignore that those same terrorist groups hate other Muslims. ISIS and al Qaeda murder far, far more Muslims than any other group and Muslims are the ones killing and forcing back the most ISIS members and al Qaeda members by far also. Muslims are the single biggest allies in our fight against Islamic terrorism, and it isn't surprising. Who do you think would be the people most pissed about someone bastardizing their religion? Who would be the people most affected by someone turning their country into a warzone? We see it on TV, these people live it.

This isn't the first time we have had that issue in The US. Back in WWII, we denied entry to thousands upon thousands of Jews because we saw them as Germans that could possibly attack us from inside. Thousands died as a result of our inability to differentiate between our allies and our enemies. It was a permanent black eye in our history and one we were and are rightfully embarrassed and ashamed for.

Lastly, my issue with the EO is I see it as a power grab by our government, and I am really sensitive to this. Just months ago when I would complain about EOs and government overreach I had Conservatives on my side agreeing with me and demanding executive powers be curtailed and Liberals telling me it has to be this way because of our do nothing Congress. Now when I make the same complaints, it's Liberals on my side demanding the same things and Conservatives shouting us down as unpatriotic. People, take notice of how limited our founding fathers made these powers even though it was practically assured that they would be the first ones to hold them. They did that because they knew they would not always be the people holding those powers, and they would have to limit them in the very real chance that someone would have them that they didn't agree with. Since 9/11, the powers of our government has increased by leaps and bounds because we fail to look very far into the future. Sure, Trump might be your guy and you trust him with all the powers we can give, but what happens if he isn't re elected in 2020 and it is someone you hate as president. Those powers don't vanish with Trump, they get moved to the next president. Still comfortable with it?

If Islamic terrorism's goals is to fundamentally change our country, they are succeeding at an unprecedented rate. One of the most basic rules of warfare is to not do what your enemy wants you to do, and us Americans have forgotten that. Of course ISIS wants us and the rest of the world to ban Muslims. Not only does that entrap people in their strongholds, allowing them to have more money, more people to terrorize and abuse, and more children to indoctrinate and recruit.

Does that mean I think we should throw our doors open and take everyone that asks? No, but I do think considering how little Islamic terrorism (and virtually none by these refugees) we have in the US that our existing vetting process is capable and successful. But could this Muslim ban prevent an act, or could a more serious one do that job even better? Possibly, but I bet us all giving up our Fourth Amendment rights would also make us "safer". How many criminals have been able to abuse aspects of our Constitution to complete their heinous acts? How many obviously guilty people have walked free because of the sheer amount of rights afforded to them? How many cops and prosecutors have had valid evidence thrown out because how it was attained was against the 4th Amendment?

In order for everyone to have these rights, we have to subject ourselves to a certain amount of danger. Which is why I like a slight change to a famous American quote. We are the land of the free BECAUSE we are the home of the brave. Because without bravery, we cannot have these freedoms we enjoy and that makes our country what it is. Be brave Americans. Don't give in to the people who scare you into giving up your rights and fundamentally changing your country for a bit of possible safety. Don't allow Germany, Sweden, Canada, and various other countries show us up in their bravery. 

The D2D Guide To General James Mattis

Retired Marine Corps General James Mattis has been selected by President Elect Trump for Secretary of Defense. That's a lot of official titles right there. General Mattis still has some hurdles to overcome, including getting a waiver from Congress to bypass the National Security Act of 1947. This shouldn't prove too difficult, as Congress granted waivers for that within years of the Act passing.

For me, this has been the first and only cabinet pick by Trump that is remotely acceptable. I'm not special in that sense, that seems to be the running thought of most Americans. But there has been some pushback, mostly because of quotes attributed to General Mattis. Even someone I am a big fan of, Robert Reich made a worried statement on facebook about the pick.

Off the bat, I understand why there is pushback on the pick. First, and likely the biggest reason for the pushback is how horrible virtually every other pick of Trump's has been. In my personal opinion, a democracy lasts only as long as you can keep money from getting infused into politics. The more money that gets put in, the less avenues average citizens have to vent pressure. All governments need pressure valves where regular Joes can let off steam, make noticeable changes, and feel like part of the system and not a subject under it. Someone who doesn't feel like part of a society will either knowingly, or unknowingly work to destroy it. It's human nature. With the long list of billionaires and millionaires that are taking over our executive branch, I am worried along with the rest of you that money will become even a larger part of politics than it was before, and it is hugely incorporated into politics already.

I know, I know. How could we know Hillary would have been any better? I honestly doubt it would have been better. I was right there with the rest of you complaining about her ties to wall street. But that thought doesn't mean I can't complain about what is actually happening now rather than compare it to what would have theoretically happened. Hillary is gone. Unless the DNC is dumber than even I think, she won't be a contender for president again. We need to deal with what is really happening.

But on to the point of this post. General Mattis has some crazy quotes floating out there. We are already a warmongering country. One of the few bipartisan agreements is we need to stop being the world police. How can we be comfortable with a Secretary of Defense that has quotes about loving fighting and killing?

I served under Mattis when I was with 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines and he commanded I MEF. Of course, I was but a filthy Lance Corporal/Corporal, so it's not like him and I were drinking buddies. I managed to get a handshake in with him once. Sadly, he was already out of challenge coins since he was being swamped by Marines. I'm still a little salty about that. But I personally benefitted from working under Mattis. So I am not exactly an unbiased source, but I will do my best.

So why do military and especially Marines love him so much? There is a number of reasons. First, he was an intellectual in a branch that is not exactly known for intellectualism. General Mattis was well known for being an educated and intelligent man. He had a library of over 6000 books that he took with him from post to post from ancient Roman philosophies to modern military tactics. Reading and Marines go together like oil and water, so this is particularly amazing.

But what about those violent and antagonistic quotes?!? Talking about loving to kill people isn't exactly a hallmark of intellectualism. One of his quotes is:

“You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them. Actually it’s quite fun to fight them, you know. It’s a hell of a hoot. It’s fun to shoot some people. I’ll be right up there with you. I like brawling.”

Not exactly politically correct. But there is a couple things you have to remember. First, one of the horrors of our deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan is seeing the horrible treatment of women and girls in those two countries. We've seen women getting the hell beat out of them in public. We've seen little girls rigged with bombs because they were already a burden on their family not being a boy. I've had to clean the remains of a 6 year old girl (guessing her age) off the side of my truck after her parents and Imam rigged her to blow up. She ran away from us, likely because she knew she was sent to kill us. They still detonated her as she ran.

So a General talking about these horrors isn't being callous. He is just speaking from experience that many Americans thankfully don't have. I personally never wanted to kill anyone. When I went to Iraq, it was to try and prevent killing, unless absolutely necessary. My fellow detainee guard and I actually got threatened with NJPs for not killing people, and instead physically restraining them at the risk of our own lives. I have no love of killing people. But I absolutely understand where General Mattis is coming from with that statement. It's not pretty. It's not PC. But it speaks to his men who have these experiences.

There are other quotes by Mattis that aren't getting much air time. But they are supremely important to understanding who this man is:

“You are part of the world’s most feared and trusted force. Engage your brain before you engage your weapon.”

Challenging Marines to think before they fight is a big part of General Mattis. He led the charge on nurturing Marine's minds as much as their bodies. You won't find many leaders in the military who harp on intelligence in their ranks. Mattis was one of the few, and we loved him for it.

“Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”

This is another quote to show how violent and antagonistic Mattis is. But that is only to people who weren't deployed. As Marines, we have been trained for literally centuries to never be complacent. Complacency kills is painted all around bases in Iraq. We don't know who is out to get us, especially in wars like these where the enemy isn't in uniform, working in ranks. So for us Marines, the "have a plan" part is just business. But the be polite and professional part is new, and different. Under Mattis, we were instructed to not be assholes to Iraqis. Treat these people with respect and politeness isn't how wars are normally fought, but it was the best advice we could have been given. Iraqis had been demoralized and beaten down for decades. Having the strength we did, while still being polite and respectful was a totally new idea. In Iraq and a lot of the world, people who had strength got to do whatever they wanted, and they took advantage of that. A force as strong as the USMC, and still being respectful was a new experience for them, and honestly how all wars should be fought. As Winston Churchill said "When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite". Stopping a fight before it happens is more important than winning after you caused it.

“I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all.”

Another antagonistic quote. But again, and as usual, context is key. This was part of a talk with Iraqi military leaders. As I said above, Iraq had been run with system of "whoever has the strength, makes the rules". Mattis' quote is reminding them strongly that HE had the strength now. A big issue in Iraq is that Iraqis had been trained into being submissive, subversive, or being horrifically murdered. It had been an incredibly dangerous time in Iraq for decades. Saddam's regime had killed an estimated 10% of the Iraqi population. And Iraqis laughed at us for such a low estimate. For comparison's sake, the civil war was the US's highest casualty war, and we lost less than 2% of our population during it. You either hid and lied in Saddam's regime, or you died. Mattis (and all of us) had to deal with rightfully suspicious Iraqis, many who had spent the majority (or entirety) of their lives being beaten down. Mattis had to show strength, and had to be honest here. If those Iraqi commanders had turned on him, he would have had to kill them. It's the nature of doing business. He put it to them straight, not because he wanted to kill them, but because he didn't want to.

“You cannot allow any of your people to avoid the brutal facts. If they start living in a dream world, it’s going to be bad.”

This quote is important to me, because we are living in a country where information is getting more and more available, but facts are becoming less and less important to us. Our politicians don't even bother with being factual anymore. They know the people who support them won't care if they lied, and the people who don't won't care if they told the truth. Preach to the choir is how we do business now.

Mattis I believe would reject that as SecDef. He is very much a man who values the truth over what he wants to hear. And to be honest, he is the only one in the incoming administration that seems to value that. Being honest and being effective are big parts of who Mattis is. We've needed that for a long time, and it'll be especially valuable now.

Another big part of why you are seeing waves of military and exmilitary supporting him is because he supported us. Mattis put his troops first throughout his career. He even once pulled duty for a Marine so that young guy could spend Christmas with his family. His explanation by General Krulak: “So I said to him, ‘Jim, what are you standing the duty for?’ “And he said, ‘Sir, I looked at the duty roster for today and there was a young major who had it who is married and had a family; and so I’m a bachelor, I thought why should the major miss out on the fun of having Christmas with his family, and so I took the duty for him.’ ". Find me the time Trump or Hillary took over a job for one of their workers on a holiday. I'll wait.

That is why servicemen and servicewomen support him and would follow him into hell. He was a man who didn't demand respect, he earned it. We loved him because he was one of us, not above us. He worked his way up from infantry ranks all the way to General. He knew what life was like as one of us. We learned the hard way what it was like having a General who did not know what it was like as a front line troop when we got General Amos as Commandant. He was the antithesis of Mattis. A man who threw his troops under the bus to protect himself. In other words, a man who emulated US politicians. Few Marines would follow Amos to a Dairy Queen, even if he was buying.

One thing about General Mattis that should make my liberal readers more comfortable is that I don't think Trump understands exactly what he is getting with him. Trump was confident he could force the military to obey even blatantly unlawful orders. He wouldn't even be able to control his own SecDef if he tried it. Mattis would absolutely stand up against that garbage, and what is Trump going to do? Fire the one and only pick that the US is happy about? Can a man who commands far more respect that he ever could? I seriously doubt it. On veterans sites I am already seeing vets asking how many people have to go before Mattis would become president (the answer btw is Mattis would be 6th in line). You think Trump has the grapes to can Mattis for refusing to administer orders that break our laws and treaties? I highly doubt it.

What Marines Dream About

If you were worried about the ignorant things Trump said he'd do with the military, than I highly suggest you think about supporting General Mattis. Don't just trust me. Look into the man's life and talk to people who have served under him. Try as I might, I haven't found a single person who has served under him who don't wholeheartedly support him as SecDef. That should speak volumes about who he is.

In summary, if you want a strong military that is intimidating to forces that want to hurt us, Mattis is a great pick. If you want a military that acts justly and professionally, Mattis is a great pick. If you want someone who will stand up for American values when stupid orders come from above, Mattis is a great pick. He's not perfect. He's not an angel. But he is who can do the job, and likely do it the best. I know his quotes might bother some people, but as General Patton said:

“When I want my men to remember something important, to really make it stick, I give it to them double dirty. It may not sound nice to some bunch of little old ladies at an afternoon tea party, but it helps my soldiers to remember. You can't run an army without profanity; and it has to be eloquent profanity. An army without profanity couldn't fight its way out of a piss-soaked paper bag. … As for the types of comments I make, sometimes I just, By God, get carried away with my own eloquence.”

I leave you with a letter sent by Mattis to his Marines. Read this, and see if you can understand why he is so beloved.

P.S. That comic above was taken from www.TerminalLance.com. Max is an great artist, motivating person, and a filthy Marine veteran like yours truly. Please take the time to visit his site and appreciate his work.

You Have To Invite Them In

So this election huh? I have friends in other countries calling me like we just experienced a natural disaster.

"Are you OK?"

"Has anyone you know been hurt?"

"What are things like over there???"

This election has been a tough one. First, because there is a short list of pros, and a seemingly constantly growing list of cons for each candidate. Neither side had to worry about running out of ammunition. If it came close we just had to wait a couple hours and a new Hillary email would surface, or a new Trump recording would be published, and we were all back into the mudpit.

But this happens every four years right? This might make my naiveness show, but I think this election has been unique when you're looking at what was going on in society. We've always had divides in this country. We fought an entire war over it. Now that we have President-elect Trump, of course close to 50% people are going to be angry for awhile. That's just the nature of the beast. Right?

I wouldn't call myself a history buff, but I do enjoy it. Oftentimes I'll see people complaining about how horrible the world is becoming and laugh to myself because those people are forgetting what the world used to be. Even with all the conflicts in the world, the rate of violence has been falling dramatically. I am a OIF veteran. I have seen conflict and some of my friends didn't come back from there. Total deaths of US military between Iraq and Afghanistan come in right under 7,000. That is a terrible loss of life, but let us not forget that in the World Wars, there was tens of thousands of men dying in just a single battle. Even Napoleon had a famous quote "You cannot stop me. I can spend 30,000 men a month". That is terrifying.

Now if you look at our election this month with a more historical perspective, should this be an election that causes this much friction? I'm not pretending that there isn't anything going on. Trump will have to make some serious and divisive decisions while president. But we've held elections during World Wars. We held elections during The Cold War when we were all sitting on the button, waiting to see who called who's bluff first and kill us all. Those were far more important elections, and obviously before my time, but from what I see and read, it still didn't feel as personal for your average American as this election did.

Why is that? While there is a lot of stress in the world, for us Americans it's relatively calm. Economy is doing decent. The wars we are in have lost a lot of their steam. The refugee issue is more of a theoretical problem than a real issue with The US. I don't even know anyone who knows anyone that has met a Syrian refugee. Not exactly life changing. We have so little going on here we argue about Starbucks holiday cups. Or the Kardashians.

The biggest culprit is the media, and both sides are sure that the media is against them. It's the media's fault Trump ever had a chance. It's the media's fault they make Trump look bad. It's always the media's fault. They have a conspiracy one way or another, and they breed in controversy to make themselves money! Or so screams Americans.

I have worked in the military, in government jobs, and for large corporations, and something I have come to realize is there is a lot less thought and planning than everyone assumes. The military and government is almost always like a dog chasing a ball. Little thought, even less planning. Everyone is flying by the seat of their pants. Corporations aren't much different. Every big company I have worked for reminded me very much of a quote that I can't remember well enough to attribute correctly, but it's essence was "It is so disorganized if you kicked it's ass the head won't realize it for a week". Imagining these organizations having these carefully crafted, secretive plans is hilarious to me.

Here is my completely unsubstantiated idea about the media. Are they digging their claws into our lives, making public things personal and causes way more animosity than it should? I believe so. But I don't think it was done intentionally, or even willingly. I think we demanded it, and the media provided the service.

Imagine you are a media executive. You are giving important and relevant news for years, but now you have to be providing fresh material 24 hours a day. So you resort to throwing in some filler crap. Let's toss in something about the candidate's personal life that might intrigue some people, but is barely relevant to the election. But then, holy crap! The public LOVED that filler material. Your ratings jumped, which put more money in your pocket and more stability in your career. You know that the material was junk that held no relevance to important thought, but what are you going to do? Turn down extra money and acclaim?

I would love to believe that I have the constitution to do what is right in that situation, ignore the money and only display important material. But even if I did do you think those shareholders didn't notice? You think they are going to let me go with my morals, or fire me and put someone in who pulls in the ratings and the money?

What I am saying is I really doubt there is some big global conspiracy against us. It's just that we as consumers are demanding this junk news, and all the media is doing is chasing those dollars we are throwing at them to show it. Americans love to be outraged, and we will pay top dollar for it. It reminds me of the Kardashians. You can't go a day in the US without hearing people say how much they hate the Kardashians and how bad they are for America. But we keep throwing money at them don't we? The Kardashians aren't the problem, us buying what they are selling is the problem. If someone would pay me millions to act like an idiot on TV, you better get ready for the Simmons Show. I doubt you would turn down that money either.

We aren't victims people. We are consumers who are demanding this stuff and not liking what we are demanding. We've demanded the media come into our homes, sit at our dinner table, and outrage us all. We've demanded an election convert from "I think this would be the best way, and my opponent thinks this will be the best way" to "If my opponent wins the USA is doomed and if I win it'll be a angelic utopia!!!". If we want the media to change, we need to stop rewarding them for doing us wrong. All they are doing is what we are incentivising them to do, and expecting them to have better morals than we do.

Stolen Valor

You ever meet someone randomly and it turned out they went to the same high school as you around the same time? You never knew them, but you guys compare notes and remember certain teachers or certain popular kids and you get that glowing feeling together of recognition and remembrance. That is kinda what it is like when two veterans meet each other. First you compare notes about boot camp. "We once had a Drill Instructor water board a kid until he could finally recite the 4 weapon conditions". "Oh yeah? Once a Drill Instructor got so mad that he called the kid's mom, went on a date with her, then had us all watch the video of their time together in bed while we drilled on the quarterdeck". Then you move on to deployments and at the end you've pretty much given each other the cliffsnotes version of your entire military career.

"Misery loves company" is an old quote, and an accurate one. While we fight, argue, and bicker a lot, there is still a bond that practically all of us share and it extends through generations. My grandfathers and I will sit around and talk about the differences and similarities between the military in their time and mine. If I meet one of the old timers with the baseball caps showing their military career, I'll address them by their rank they haven't had since before I was alive and we shoot the shit for a bit. Jonathon Ester made a good point that even if we can't relate to anything else, we all can relate to a number of things in the military, such as being treated lower than dirt for a good part of it, and the utter ridiculousness that extends from all branches.

This bond is a good part of the reason why this stolen valor trend is such a big deal. If you haven't heard of it, it's when someone who has never been in the military goes out and buys the uniform or medals and such, or merely makes up big stories about his/her illustrious military careers. Sometimes it is an actual veteran who did practically nothing exciting while in, then comes out and makes up a bunch of stories of heroism and extreme accomplishment. That is usually the first sign of a fraud. Their story is too big to be true. One I caught personally made up a story about become an USMC officer at 17 years old (you have to be at least 20 to become an officer), and was the commander of a force recon sniper team. He also had many sniper kills and was highly decorated. I smelled bullshit right away, but ended up publicly calling him out after he started talking down to an actual veteran for not being as superhero as he was. My googling abilities weren't that strong, but someone else was able to find out the picture of him in uniform that he used that I knew wasn't a USMC uniform, was a picture of a soldier who died in the Vietnam war, and whose remains had just been identified and sent to his family for burial. After getting some death threats I never heard from him again.

But it is an annoyance, because you do feel wronged after an episode like that. Like here I was, extending a hand of brotherhood to someone, and it turned out there were lying to me the entire time. It cuts deeper than normal. Not to mention it sullies the name of the people who you knew who really did what this guy was claiming credit for. Some you knew personally and some that maybe aren't around anymore.

Another issue is the victims of these people. Veterans are in for a bit of a rough time when they get out. Gotta find your feet again. You've probably lost a significant number of contacts during your enlistment, and networking is a big part of getting gainfully employed. Your military job might not have a corresponding career in the real world. "Oh you worked on wire guided missile systems? Well we have the perfect position for you at Joe's Waffle Shanty!". And a lot of the people you are competing against didn't burn ~4 good years of their life humping gear around foreign deserts. That's why when someone mentions your service, or thanks you for what you did, it raises your shoulders a bit. Puts a little more kick in your step and you fight on for another day. When you hear about some guy using smoke and mirrors to fool these wonderful people who give a shit about these things, it pisses you off. Because not everyone does give a shit. Those that do are few and proud, and I don't want their kindness abused by some dickhead.

I'm not saying these guys should be lynched. I'm not willing to debate on the Constitutionality of making something like that illegal. But I would like people to understand why it bothers veterans so much. It's not that we feel raised on a pedestal that you mere civies can't attain. Hell, I remember specific talks with other Marines about how awesome it would be to be treated like an actual human being again. It's a rough brotherhood with it's dysfunctions and tomfoolery. But for a lot of guys that's all they have. Some guys lean on that brotherhood to make it through the day. So we are protective of it. And I don't think we are wrong for doing so.

Gays in the military

This is an interesting topic for me, because of the seemingly conflicting views I have on it.

First, I totally support the gay rights movement. Mostly because I am part of a quickly dying group that believes free citizens should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Before you support that view, you have to realize all that entails. Prostitution, drugs, suicide, are all acts that do not have a victim besides the perpetrators. Does that mean I support all of these? No, but I don't think we should legislate against it. Even though I would be horrified if someone I cared about became a prostitute, or got hooked on hard drugs, or wanted to kill themselves, I feel that the proper response is to convince them out of the situation, not send the law after them. A part of our freedoms should also be the freedom to destroy your own life. 

Now does that mean I think being gay destroys your life? Not at all. I have seen no evidence that it causes any harm, other than the harm self righteous people cause them by attacking them. I know the argument is still out whether being gay is something you're born with. But until it is solved, I would rather take the safe bet that it isn't a choice and support the people in that situation rather than the worst case scenario of banking on it being a choice, and harassing someone with a genetic predisposition to it. 

So with that out of the way, on to the actual topic. I do support having gays in the military, with a caveat. I do not think that being gay makes you a good fit for being in an infantry unit. Now just in case I haven't pissed you off yet, I'd like to add I don't think women in an infantry unit is a good fit either. NOW everyone should be good and angry, but try and hear me out on this. 

Why infantry units specifically? Because the way they are forced to operate, they cannot make the proper accommodations for women or gays. What accommodations would that be? For starters, the living situation. Being deployed in the military is not like having a regular job. You don't have to live with your coworkers, shower with them, sleep next to them, etc. With women in non-infantry units, they have separate living quarters and separate bathrooms and showers. If you gave 100 military leaders the option for separate living quarters or co-ed living quarters, I would bet on at least 90+ of them picking separate. That helps prevent a lot of drama. Not all, but a lot. But, for the most part, deployed infantry does not have that choice. Everyone will have to live together. Bathrooms have to be shared. Showers have to be shared. They do not have the freedom to split this stuff up like other units do. That means excess drama in the exact place we need the least.

Now someone out there is probably thinking "omg! Just because a gay guy sees you naked does NOT mean they will fall in love with you. Get over yourself". First, hypothetical person, I'm a beautiful man. I guarantee they would. Second, could you imagine telling this to a woman? "Hey LCpl Roberts, you can jump in the shower with all those guys. Don't bitch about it, it's not like they are all just going to fall in love with you because you're naked. If you want to shower you'll just have to deal with it!". If that ever happened we'd see it on the evening news and a bunch of feminists would be rightfully pissed. It wouldn't bother me a gay guy seeing me shower, but I can't extend that to everyone and act like they are wrong for being uncomfortable. I have met women who wouldn't be slightly bothered by showering with a bunch of men, does that mean we should force all women to not have separate showers? I think not.

Beyond the logistical issues, there is also how we want this unit to cooperate. There is a certain brotherhood that comes from having an all male unit. Not necessarily a good thing. If you are a guy and want to imagine it, think about locker room shenanigans back in high school. Now imagine that being your entire life for 6-12 months. I see you are disgusted, and rightfully so. That is not a good environment for civilized people, but when you are sending men to kill and die, it is probably the best one you can ask for. How would gays and women effect that? In my opinion, significantly. In these all male groups, problems can and often are solved with violence. That sounds like a bad thing, but it works. Instead of two guys hating each other and undermining each other for months like I have often seen happen in the real world, they can duke it out and be over it in minutes. I've seen guys beat the hell out of each other and be best friends before they even stopped bleeding. But add in a woman to that equation. Now one of them lost a fight, and lost it with a woman he may have fancied watching. That wound is not going to heal. Not to mention, seeing a woman being injured in combat would be particularly devastating. Seeing a dead man hurts the soul. A dead woman destroys it. I know it likely isn't politically correct, but seeing a dead woman or dead child in Iraq tore us apart, while we got mostly used to seeing dead men. I couldn't imagine how badly an infantry unit would be affected if a female in the unit was killed.

Sexual relationships are something that isn't a problem within an infantry squad (for the most part). Anyone reading this can probably think of one, two, a dozen times a group became totally screwed up due to a relationship interfering. Even the Beatles didn't survive that. That is trouble an infantry unit cannot afford to deal with, and it would happen a lot. You are talking about a bunch of late teens, early 20s people with raging hormones and no real adult supervision. In my wife's postal unit in the USMC, there was 10 women and 5 were pregnant, most of those by fellow Marines. Those numbers would be even more disastrous in an infantry unit when they are spending practically every waking moment together. So now you have unit cohesion falling apart because love triangles are developing, others have broken up and now hate each other, people competing for love interests and hating each other for the competition. This chaos will definitely effect unit performance, and can easily lead to service people being killed. Or mistakes made where others are wrongfully killed. 

To be clear, I totally believe there is women and gays more than tough enough to do the job. I just think the trade off with losing unit cohesion does not make it a beneficial situation. Now, will it break my heart if women and gays were thrown into infantry units and they were forced to deal with the changes in how the unit works together? Not at all. Maybe they will find a solution that I cannot think of to make it all work. But, I would rather we figure it out first before wrecking the abilities of our infantrymen and putting them in more harm than usual. Political correctness needs to take a back seat to unit effectiveness in this case.

Our show that will include this topic:

They are not heroes!

A friend of mine sent me a link to a Facebook group that, if I remember correctly, was called "Soldiers are not heroes, they are tools of war" (I believe this page specifically). It's goal was pretty much what you would expect. They believed that military folks did not deserve the special recognition they got, and they were willing participants in an unjust and immoral war.

The page admin was pretty ignorant and useless to talk to. But there was members of the page that I managed to lasso into conversations. As with just about any group, there is a solid foundation of fact to what they are complaining about, and some wonderful people to talk to. I do agree with their group that the US has a terrible history of sending the military and other groups to perform actions that are not in accordance with the ideals of the country. We preach about how countries should be a democracy so the people can have a voice, then overthrow democratically elected leaders because we are not happy with the situation. We talk against dictatorships, then assist dictatorships in putting down revolutionary movements and enable them to continue torturing their population. Many of the actions of the US fly in the face of our mythology we try and sell. And it often comes right back around to bite us in the ass. Many of the groups campaigning against the US are ones we put together and armed. Putting our ideals to the side seems to always punish us, but oh well. The president who made that decision is long gone and fully unaccountable by the time we have to pay the tab on those actions.

So if the debate is if the USA government is doing a disservice to their citizens, you won't find an argument out of me. But this was not the argument that they have taken up. They are directing their anger to servicemen and women who have volunteered for service, and this changes the game significantly.

They are correct that the force is completely volunteer right now, so no one is being forced into service. People are deciding to join. But I don't think they have taken the full situation into account when they decide that makes military members accountable for the unjust ways they are used. The average age of a USMC recruit is 19 years old. If everything these people believed was true what they are saying is that a 19 year old, fresh out of high school and with all of the experience of living with his mom and working a minimum wage job, is completely at fault for being hoodwinked by a multi-trillion dollar professional organization like the US military. Because s/he was unable to see through the veil of a organization that the ENTIRE COUNTRY has not been able to get a consensus against makes that teenager a horrible, atrocity enabling murderer. The logic behind not seeing that military recruit as another victim of a system too powerful for all of us to voting citizens to get a handle on just doesn't make sense to me.

Another argument is that they are not heroes. The military people who have been killed/injured did not do it protecting the USA or their freedoms. They did it enabling the military industrial complex and other rich people. Again, I don't think that is a fair comparison. If a family member truly believed your life was in danger, and sacrificed their own to protect you, would you believe they were just an idiot that died for nothing? Or would you respect the fact that they did what they did to defend you when they truly thought you were in danger? Because that is the story that 19 year old believes. That his friends, family, fellow citizens are in danger, and by putting his life on the line he can protect you. Even if you are 100% right and where he ends up dying had nothing to do with your protection, should your anger be directed at him? Or at the people who fooled him and the majority of the country?

Don't get me wrong. Servicemen and women join for many different reasons, and not all of them are as angelic as the example I used. But a healthy percentage of military folks believe they are doing exactly that. I don't find that sacrifice all for nothing.

In all honesty, I don't find servicemen any more accountable for the atrocities our government commits than the rest of us citizens. Sure, I guess theoretically if nobody joins than they wouldn't have a sword to weird to commit these crimes (though, the issues with us not having a military might outweigh that, and I doubt the powers that be would let the military get so understaffed without kicking off a draft). But also, if all of us Americans could get our crap together and properly manage our government, we wouldn't have to worry about how that sword is wielded. That 19 year old would be able to join without being thrown to the wolves like he is now. Maybe we need to remember the myth we tell in our anthem, that this is the home of the brave. We need to stop allowing our government to take our rights and abuse our troops because we are scared and let the sales pitch of America actually match the reality.