Fundamental attribution error

Another mistake I think people make when they discuss police brutality, or war crimes, is to attribute them to some characteristic of the population that joins the military or becomes a police officer. One of my commenters says:

I think a lot of folks who join the military (not to mention police officers and prison guards) have authoritarian or sadistic tendencies which in turn increase the probability of war crimes being committed, especially given the stress of being under fire, in a strange land, among hostile locals.

What would you expect from people who sign up for a job where you maim and kill people you don't even know, just because someone else told you to do it?

(sorry if I offend anyone; I know a few of you just signed up for the tuition support or needed the money and got more than you bargained for)

Maybe this is so, but I'm skeptical. I've known a lot of quasi-pacifists with aggressive, domineering personalities and a startling lack of empathy. Give them slightly different political beliefs and an M-16, and I sure wouldn't turn my back on them.

It seems highly probable that there's some selection bias. But a desire to kick some ass is only one reason to become a police officer or a soldier. There's also a desire for justice, an interest in protecting your community, a sense of duty to something larger than yourself, a desire to do something really important with your life, like, say, put it between your beloved home and war's desolation. What do I expect from people like that? Quite a lot, actually.

But as the Milgram experiments show, most people given unlimited power over other human beings tend to abuse that power unless there are adequate institutional safeguards against us. We are natural bullies. And in mobs, we quite often make each other worse. Military culture fights this natural tendency with a pretty rigorous code of conduct--but in the end you've got a bunch of boys out on a corner with big guns. There's only so much that a code of conduct can do.

Comments

I think I generally agree with your post, but this statement represents a logical fallacy:

"I've known a lot of quasi-pacifists with aggressive, domineering personalities and a startling lack of empathy. Give them slightly different political beliefs and an M-16, and I sure wouldn't turn my back on them."

Simply put, the predilections of "quasi-pacifists" is irrelevant to your commenter's point. Now if you can point to quasi-pacifists who do join the police and military, that's saying something.

Posted by kishin | April 22, 2008 11:50 AM

"...but in the end you've got a bunch of boys out on a corner with big guns. "

Now, now, let's give credit where it's due; Lindsy England was no boy.

Even people with the best motives can be prone to be abusive. The people who join for all the right reasons are likely to be the most frustrated. Those who know they are good people feel most justified in breaking the rules if they think it is for the best, and everybody makes mistakes.

Posted by Njorl | April 22, 2008 11:53 AM

The point is, the personality type he's denigrating as peculiarly military seems to be pretty evenly distributed throughout the population.

Posted by Megan McArdle | April 22, 2008 11:59 AM

I would say that one way to verify this assertion is to compare the crimes committed by the force composed of a cross section of the population, as in the draft army, as opposed to the self selected volunteer army. My belief is that such a study would not show a valid statistical difference. The other variable would outweigh the so called "authoritarian or sadistic tendencies".

On a personal level, I would guess that the commenter does not actually know many people in the military. Maybe thier experience is from what is seen on TV or in the movies. My personal observation from 27 years in the Army does not support the assertion.

Posted by TGriffith | April 22, 2008 12:03 PM

As someone who served three years in the Army immediately after high school, I think the original commenter is completely clueless. He left out the qualification most democrats ascribe to military members, which is extreme low intelligence.
Most people I know now have no idea what I was doing 25 years ago. It is frequent for them to start all manner of slander against people in the military, having never known any. When I object, the response I get is usually one of shock, followed by "but you're not the military type". The honest ones will come right out an list intelligence and kindness as things they believe members of the military lack.
As far as authoritarian or sadistic tendencies, my experience is that they are no more or less common than among the general population. There are times in the military when you MUST be authoritarian, or someone is going to get hurt. Despite the Hollywood depictions, I never met any sadists, including my Drill instructors. They had a tough job but were genuinely good men who I respect and admire 25 years later.

Posted by JimS | April 22, 2008 12:05 PM

The point is, the personality type he's denigrating as peculiarly military seems to be pretty evenly distributed throughout the population.

...and at this point we're into the realm of assertion without any real evidence on either side of the argument, as TGriffith suggests. Probably best to just point this out and move on.

Posted by kishin | April 22, 2008 12:10 PM

Oh, and for the record, I opposed this war as strategically stupid and a complete misuse of the military. It's instructive that those that made the decision to wage it, like Bush and Hilliary Clinton, have not pressured their own offspring to join up.

Posted by JimS | April 22, 2008 12:12 PM

Kudos, JimS. I too think it outrageous that the Bush daughters did not join the military upon graduation. (OK, they'd have to be held out of harms way, but the could have done critical jobs stateside). Daddy gives speech after speech about how important the war on terrorism is, and his kids are hanging around nightclubs. The old Vietnam era taunt still applies: "You dig it, you go."

Posted by creech | April 22, 2008 12:34 PM

But a desire to kick some ass is only one reason to become a police officer or a soldier.

Well heck, when things get physical cops usually end up on the losing end. It's quite common to hear of some suspect violently resisting arrest, and as a result five cops need medical treatment for injuries. Maybe some police forces have higher physical standards, but the average NYPD cop looks like he'd lose a fistfight with the typical 15-year-old ghetto gangbanger.

Posted by Peter | April 22, 2008 1:08 PM

Well said Megan. I am pretty much a pacifist liberal but I think you are spot on here.

Posted by Chris Dornan | April 22, 2008 1:09 PM

So obvious credit goes to John McCain then, for having "skin in the game". As well as to many of the current top Army leadership. (noted as a parent with two children in the Army)

Posted by TGriffith | April 22, 2008 1:11 PM

Say, JimS and creech - do you have college graduate kids in their early 20's? Or even high school graduate kids 18 or 19? Anyone who talks about "sending" your adult children into the military has no clue. And who can tell whether someone is "pressuring" their kids to do anything? I can tell you I try to pressure my teenage kids to do a lot of things that don't get done.

These are grownups. They make their own decisions. Putting responsibility on parents for the life decisions of their adult children is absurd.

Posted by Ak Mike | April 22, 2008 1:12 PM

I think a lot of folks who join the military (not to mention police officers and prison guards) have authoritarian or sadistic tendencies

I feel pretty safe assuming this commenter has never actually met many people in the military. He certainly doesn't know anything about the military or how it works. Just for his information, most military personnel sign up knowing they won't ever be in combat and the overwhelming majority will never even pick up a weapon at any point in their careers after basic training.

I've worked in and around the military all of my adult life and the only personality differences I've noticed are that, in general, military folks are smarter, better educated, and more self-motivated than the civilian population. Megan hit the nail on the head with the Milgram experiments. Personality has nothing to do with it. It's just an ugly fact of human nature that people tend to abuse authority.

Posted by SeanH | April 22, 2008 1:13 PM

AK Mike,
Fair enough, and yea, I have children. I should have criticized HRC for not having served herself, but being very willing to send other people's kids, especially in a situation where there was no clear and present danger (only a murky potential danger.) My parents weren't thrilled with me heading out at 17 for the Army (they signed under the threat that if I had to wait until I was 18 I'd join the Marines, which they viewed as more dangerous).
I doubt that in either Clinton or Bush's case they would encourage their kids to join. Unlike WW II, this is a danger only grave enough for other's kids.

Posted by JimS | April 22, 2008 1:53 PM

Again, to consistency: One can't claim that a group such as the military does not harbor any particular sort, and yet at the same time talk about 'liberal' academia, or 'liberal' media.

Posted by ScentOfViolets | April 22, 2008 2:09 PM

Hmm, how to respond. This is a tough one. Let me try this one on for size: YOU GUYS HAVE NO CLUE!

Authoritarian? Sadistic?

The vast majority of folks serving in the military are on the bottom of the rank structure. They can't be authoritarian, because they don't have any authority nor anyone to be authoritarian over.

Sadistic? Why on earth would a sadist want to join the military? And believe me, any time someone is found with sadistic tendencies, they are kicked out as quickly as possible.

The last thing we want in the military are folks who will let their personal preferences and tendencies to override common sense and the accomplishment of the mission.

People with authoritarian and/or sadistic tendencies are much more likely to become prison guards, where at least you do have some chance to be authoritarian or sadistic.

There is a vast difference between the jobs of police, prison guards, and the military. If you think they are but different aspects of the same thing, you don't know what you are talking about.

Posted by Rex | April 22, 2008 2:12 PM

SoV, that's ridiculous. The military is overwhelmingly conservative, particularly the officer corps (although I believe less so than it used to be). There's a difference between personality type and political beliefs.

Posted by Megan McArdle | April 22, 2008 2:14 PM

One can't claim that a group such as the military does not harbor any particular sort, and yet at the same time talk about 'liberal' academia, or 'liberal' media.

Posted by Rob Lyman | April 22, 2008 2:21 PM

There's only so much that a code of conduct can do.

Yeah. Especially when the top of the chain of command is deliberately trying to void it.

Posted by wj | April 22, 2008 2:49 PM

Megan hit the nail on the head with the Milgram experiments.

Actually, she was wide of the mark. The Milgram experiments did not show that "most people given unlimited power over other human beings tend to abuse that power unless there are adequate institutional safeguards against us."

Rather, they showed that there is a strong bias towards trusting/following institutional authority, even when it goes against one's own better judgment (these are frequently thought of as 'obedience' experiments). The subjects in the experiment frequently expressed their own discomfort; they were not engaging in a self-directed sadistic power exercise.

(The Stanford Prison Experiment might lead to these conclusions, but despite its fame, it was a very poorly run experiment that makes conclusions difficult to draw).

Posted by Brad L | April 22, 2008 2:51 PM

But as the Milgram experiments show, most people given unlimited power over other human beings tend to abuse that power unless there are adequate institutional safeguards against us.

This is similar to but not identical with what Philip Zimbardo argues in The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. He conducted the famous Stanford Prison Experiment and writes in the book about how the Abu Ghraib scandal took place.

Zimbardo's main thesis, IIRC, is that the conditions in which power dynamics operate -- like prisons -- can affect the way people behave. And the culture and operating conditions within those conditions can end up being powerful disinhibitors of social norms. The book is very much worth reading for people interested in these kinds of issues.

Posted by Jake | April 22, 2008 3:04 PM

It's true that I was painting with an overly wide brush in my earlier post; perhaps trolling a little bit. I'm sure there are all sorts in the military from those driven by financial necessity, to those driven by some sense of patriotism or duty (which, how well guided, is a matter left to individual judgment), to yes, those with an authoritarian streak. But in lieu of some solid data either way, I will cling to my assertion that, though not everyone in the military may be a sadist (perhaps that was overly strong language to use in the first place), I think the military (and in general work in the euphemistically named "security services") does have an intrinsic appeal to people who are authoritarian in nature and this is reflected accordingly in the ranks, though of course I must give credit to the folks who try to do right by the people of Iraq, report atrocities, and so forth.

It is true that the Milgram experiment and the Stanford prison experiment demonstrated that a shockingly wide array of average folks would commit atrocities when given positions of authority, or under the belief that their actions were sanctioned by a higher authority, but as Megan herself suggests, I have to think there is some self-selection going on for people to find themselves in positions of martial authority in the first place (whether it be over American prisoners or hapless Iraqi civilians).

It's also true that I don't know very many folks in the military, save for my late grandfather who was in the Navy back in World War II. He never talked about it much, but I know that it left its interminable mark on him (I always would come across guns and knives hidden around my grandparents house in the strangest places as a kid). My grandfather nonwithstanding, I don't think military folks and I really see eye to eye, so I keep my distance.

But to return to the Milgram experiment and the lessons of World War II in general, I think an interesting lesson was, as it came to be known, the "banality of evil". I think we can all agree that what happened at places like Abu Ghraib and Mahmoudiyah was despicable. But what about the guys that fly the rendition planes? The guards at Guantanamo Bay? The logistics that moved that bomb that accidentally got dropped on a wedding party? The lawyers back in Washington who try to create legal cover for using "enhanced interrogation techniques"? Even those who don't personally hold a weapon are nonetheless cogs in the military machine, and for the military, the job is ultimately dominance through deadly force.

Other commentators have suggested that war is an inevitable part of human nature and that to deny this fact is to set oneself up for conquest. Though I don't like it and will complain accordingly about the barbarity of human nature in posts such as these, I do have to acknowledge reality. I do not concur, however, with the idea that you can cast away all moral standards and say that, "war is hell". I do not agree that, because it is the "enemy", anything goes.

For all the atrocities committed by all sides in World War II, contrast the American treatment of German POWs; generally better than that which they received within the ranks of their own army; with that of the hapless Arabs interred in Guantanamo Bay and other such American facilities worldwide. Even the Wehrmacht generally followed the Geneva Conventions with regard to their Anglo POWs (not so much for the Slavs and others, however).

The war in Iraq was not a defensive war. It is an offensive war (based upon false pretenses, no less); which is a war crime in and of itself. Atrocities have been committed that are gravely at odds with the principles for which America claims to stand, and I find this bothersome.

There is a difference between realpolitik and hypocrisy. Realpolitik was perhaps to leave Saddam be and look the other way regarding his brutal governance. But hypocrisy is to commit acts of the very same nature by our own hands and of our own will.

Posted by STC | April 22, 2008 4:06 PM

the hapless Arabs interred in Guantanamo Bay

I think we can all agree that burying people alive is a bad thing.

Posted by Rob Lyman | April 22, 2008 4:18 PM

Actually "interred in Guantanamo Bay" would probably mean they were drowned.

Posted by liberalrob | April 22, 2008 4:39 PM

SoV, that's ridiculous. The military is overwhelmingly conservative, particularly the officer corps (although I believe less so than it used to be). There's a difference between personality type and political beliefs.

Sigh. Number one, I never said 'personality types'; you did(I went with, 'of a particular sort' because it's just as vague as what's being tossed around here, but at least it has the virtue of not pretending to be anything but vague.) Number two, your views on what constitutes a 'liberal' (as are the views of a lot of conservatives) can most charitably described as protean. And most certainly 'liberal' does not mean 'votes Democrat'. Nor does voting a Democratic ticket imply that one is a 'liberal'. Number three, look at what you wrote below, not even a day ago:

In my experience, this is true; relative to other professions, professors don't seem to be having much fun. Everyone in any job has their list of jerks who don't deserve the success they've had, jobs they wish they'd gotten, and amenities they wish their job had. But for many academics, those lists seem to be the bitter cornerstone of their professional lives. I've never seen a group of people--including investment bankers--more obsessed with status.

So it's easy for you to characterize academics as 'bitter', but impossible to visit a label of comparative denotations on the military (of whatever branch or rank)?

That's simply not being consistent.

Posted by ScentOfViolets | April 22, 2008 4:43 PM

One can't claim that a group such as the military does not harbor any particular sort, and yet at the same time talk about 'liberal' academia, or 'liberal' media.

Why not? Is there some rule that either all groups are representative, or all groups are unrepresentative, but it's impossible to have certain groups be representative and others be unrepresentative?

No, there isn't any such rule. But then again, I didn't say anything about the general case, did I? I compared the military, the media, and academia. If you want to argue that it's true for one of these groups, but not for either of the other two, it behooves you to actually present the argument.

Are you going to present that argument?

Posted by ScentOfViolets | April 22, 2008 4:49 PM

And most certainly 'liberal' does not mean 'votes Democrat'. Nor does voting a Democratic ticket imply that one is a 'liberal'.

I suspect there may be a statistically significant correlation in both cases, though. I'm sure there's someone here who could give scratch up a p-value or two on the subject.

I should mention, though, that as academics do not seem overly prone to cling to God or guns, they may not be as bitter as some believe.

Posted by Rob Lyman | April 22, 2008 4:56 PM

Are you going to present that argument?

No. I've never met a bitter status-obsessed academic, so I lack the anecdotes necessary for the creation of data.

Posted by Rob Lyman | April 22, 2008 4:59 PM

Also, this whole post is a diversion from the actual issue at hand: Megan's feelings on war crimes. It is much more likely that selection bias would be a significant factor among the national leadership or at the upper levels of the police and military. The executives and commanders set the tone and establish the "rules of engagement" for the line personnel, and the characteristics that make for one possible path to successful career advancement (ambition, drive, singlemindedness, ruthlessness, etc.) can easily be the same as those that make up a potential war criminal. Add in ideological and moral predispositions (e.g. religious fundamentalism, latent racism, exceptionalism and chauvinism) and self-selection within the service (through political appointments and forced retirements) to remove more level-headed people who act as a brake on excesses and you have a recipe for disaster.

Posted by liberalrob | April 22, 2008 5:04 PM

Um, all of these anecdotes are very touching, really, but the poster was at least referencing what is a very well established school of scholarship dealing with the existence (and possible causes) of authoritarian personalities in police officers and military personnel. When we're talking about something that is the basis of an entire discipline, don't you think we should at least mention the hundreds of studies that have been done on the topic testing its validity, shortcomings, and causation? I mean, I know we're not aiming too high here on the old Internet, but really now...

Posted by Vermando | April 22, 2008 5:08 PM

Well, I can speak from personal experience (active duty USAF) that I am not a sadist.

Frankly, I find it kind of insulting that one would think that that sort of mindset would be attracted to the military.

Conservative does not necessarily mean sadist, after all. In fact, I think a majority of the military aren't quite libertarian conservatives. Look at who the military has supported most in donations... AFAIK, it was Ron Paul and then Barack Obama.

As far as my own personal reason for joining? I would like to think I'm patriotic, and I enjoy doing protection our country. Yes, I do of course get benefits such as health care and great education, plus I get to see the world, so it's not a one-sided street by any means. But I think, even if there weren't those benefits there, that I would've enlisted anyways. If only, to make sure that I'm in that situation, and not one of these sadists that are so prevalent. ;)

Posted by LnGrrrR | April 22, 2008 6:11 PM

TGriffith's point is a very good one. A comparison of atrocities committed by volunteer/professional armies versus atrocities committed by conscripts would be most useful. I strongly suspect that you would actually see more atrocities committed by conscripts drawn from the general population than you would see in a professional army. Anecdotally, at the turn of the last century, state militias deployed to the Philippines committed the bulk of the atrocities versus the U.S. Army (volunteers) also deployed. I think one of the reasons for this is the mob mentality. Military violence isn't just group violence, but organized violence. The "organized" part is critical and military discipline and training are far less about getting somebody to kill on command who would otherwise not be so inclined as it is to get them to stop on command. (And do lots of other unnatural things, such as not run away when being attacked, not chase a retreating enemy until told to do so, actually aim your gun before shooting, etc. etc.) After all, mobs kill people all the time and the history (as well as psychology) is replete with examples of "ordinary" people doing very nasty things under stress conditions. Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, the Rape of Nanking are just a few examples.

Consequently, it hardly seems surprising that a professional military, with people drilled over and over to do very specific things that run against the grain of a million years of human evolution and psychology might also be less inclined to commit atrocities.

All that said, some armies (and police forces) are better trained and more disciplined.

Posted by Robert P | April 22, 2008 7:57 PM

(sorry if I offend anyone; I know a few of you just signed up for the tuition support or needed the money and got more than you bargained for)

Um, no. Those of us who signed up in the middle of a war know what we got ourselves into.
Also, from my limited experience (just under 2 years in the AF), sadists and such are a tiny minority. I think I've met one, or possibly 2.

I'm with JimS and SeanH, the best part about the military is the quality of people you work with.

Posted by guineapigfury | April 22, 2008 9:23 PM

None of this is particularly relevant to what has happened in the US over the past 7 years. What has happened here is that, beginning with Dick Cheney's musings that we are "going to have to go to some dark places", the political leadership of the country has deliberately removed the "pretty rigorous code of conduct" which the military had in place to discourage torture and other anarchic abuses of power. They did so on the long-discredited theory that legal restraints make us less safe by restraining our soldiers from doing what needs to be done.

The fact that torture has occurred in every military conflict regardless of efforts to restrain it is neither here nor there. What happened in the US was that the political leadership deliberately encouraged torture. And some in the military went along.

Posted by brooksfoe | April 22, 2008 11:01 PM

I also think Megan is ignoring the fact that US soldiers seem to have committed dramatically less violence against the civilian populations in Kuwait, during the Gulf War, than they have in Iraq. This feels almost like a tautology, but it goes to the heart of the difference between defensive and aggressive wars. When you're freeing territory which someone else has occupied, you won't have as much hostility from the local population, and you'll be able to leave quicker.

You can argue that wars like the Israeli invasions of Lebanon or the US's occupation of Afghanistan were necessary because those territories harbored non-state actors carrying out violence against other states. But it's hardly surprising that these sorts of wars do indeed lead to more war crimes, as we've traditionally defined them, than clearly defensive wars.

Posted by brooksfoe | April 22, 2008 11:22 PM

It's also true that I don't know very many folks in the military, save for my late grandfather who was in the Navy back in World War II. He never talked about it much, but I know that it left its interminable mark on him (I always would come across guns and knives hidden around my grandparents house in the strangest places as a kid). My grandfather nonwithstanding, I don't think military folks and I really see eye to eye, so I keep my distance.

Yes, I think that would be best.

I really don't regard you as fit to keep the company of warriors, anyway. You might get some integrity rubbed off on you. You wouldn't know what to do with it.

Geez...can it be that your late grandfather is the ONLY vet you knew?

You're drawing this ignorant assumption from a sample of ONE?

You pathetic bigot.

Posted by Jason Van Steenwyk | April 23, 2008 1:06 AM

Steenwyk, why do you use the word "warrior"? It is anachronistic and not a good fit with the tasks or responsibilities of most US military personnel. It also sounds somewhat childish.

Posted by brooksfoe | April 23, 2008 1:38 AM

Thank you to this sector of the political spectrum for finally being honest about your dislike of the military! I always thought your aloof sympathy in the comments "Bring Our Troops Home!" was a little disingenious in the "support" realm, and military affairs were only discussed when politically adavantageous (e.g. "The Bush administration can't even provide healthcare for people with PTSD!"...as if some of you people even care).

Very Respectfully,

LT Nixon, some "boy" on the corner with a "big gun".

Posted by LT Nixon | April 23, 2008 3:17 AM

brooksfoe, Liberalrob states "Add in ideological and moral predispositions (e.g. religious fundamentalism, latent racism, exceptionalism and chauvinism) and self-selection within the service (through political appointments and forced retirements) to remove more level-headed people who act as a brake on excesses and you have a recipe for disaster." when talking about our Commanders and you have a problem with JVS using the word "warriors"? The fact that the use of the word seems "childish" to you says more about you than it does about JVS.

Posted by RickM | April 23, 2008 5:28 AM

brooksfoe clearly hasn't spent time on my base, where the "anachronism" is alive and well, thanks. "Warrior" is a useful and honorable term indicating our particular calling.

Being that there's a war on and all that.

======

Megan, I find your commentary here a bit odd, as if you're an anthropologist trying to characterize some alien society you've glimpsed on occasion. Come on and visit us military folks some time at work. We look kind of like we might even be in the same society on occasion, bathe sometimes and have been known to speak the same language as you.

For instance, the milblogosphere has chewed over Dave Grossman's "wolf/sheepdog/sheep" characterization at length over the last several years. This characterization is an overcompression and easily misused but can get quickly and effectively at the heart of the argument I think you're trying to make. It might be worth a look.

Posted by Chap | April 23, 2008 8:32 AM

brooksfoe,

Dude. You need to get out more. Seriously. You've got your head shoved so far up your fourth point of contact it's gonna take the jaws of life to extract it.

To be a "warrior" is the first job and responsibility of every uniformed service member. To that effect, the first rung of training in the NCO educational system of the U.S. Army is called the "Warrior Leader Course."

Further, maybe you should meet my friend Luis. Luis was my supply sergeant. He took a frag to the head.

You should also meet my friend Ernesto. Ernesto was another one of my soldiers. He was a medic. Ernesto lost three fingers on his right hand thanks to a moojie RPG in the summer of 2003.

He wrapped it up and continued treating the wounded, until he could be evacuated. Another one of my medics, SGT Ruiz, took a mortar frag to the face in July of 2003.

Those are just a few. SSG Craig, a truck driver attached to my battalion from the Iowa Guard, was killed when the helicopter he was flying in was shot down.

He drove trucks. And he was a warrior, too, and I'll have some serious words with anyone who suggests otherwise. Same goes with all of them.

Nearly everyone in country leaves the wire. Everyone who suits up and leaves the wire, or mans a sentry post on the perimeter is a warrior.

My admin clerks regularly pulled security on convoys between Ramadi and Baghdad. They had SAWS and drivers licenses. And they were and are fine warriors and I'd go out with them again.

They are warriors, all. And you know what? So are the men and women that turn wrenches, literally, until they collapse from exhaustion, or work themselves until leaders have to put them to bed for their own safety.

Sorry, brooksfoe. I don't need your lecture on who's a warrior. And neither does anyone I know in uniform.

We CLEP'd out of your class.

Now crawl back to your hovel, and thank your lucky stars that better men and women than you are protecting your sheltered existence.

Posted by Jason Van Steenwyk | April 23, 2008 10:33 AM

One of my favorite movies about military culture is "A Few Good Men" (I'm also partial to "The Caine Mutiny"). Its plot clearly illustrates what I consider to be the main issue we're discussing here: line personnel with the most honorable of motives are ordered to commit a violation of the official code of conduct, because their commander thinks it necessary to enforce discipline. The thing goes south and they wind up accidentally killing the soldier the commander was trying to "train," and then rather than owning his ordering the action up front the commander tries to cover it up (or at least his involvement). When the commander is called to testify at the court-martial of the line Marines, he makes a long-winded speech about honor and duty and warriors manning the walls while effete sheeplike citizens sleep soundly in their beds secure in the safety he provides through his leadership; what moral right can the sheep then claim to criticize the manner in which he provides that safety? But the fact remained that he ordered the commission of an act that went against the code of conduct governing the military, and ordered that a crime be committed; and regardless of how lofty and high-minded his intent might have been, he did order that violation. So he was punished for it. We are a nation of laws, not of men, even in the military.

I have absolutely no criticisms at all for most of the people who carry out the orders and do the fighting and dying in Iraq, Afghanistan, and everywhere else they are called on to do it. They are all heroes. Like those Marines in A Few Good Men, they do need to exercise some basic moral judgment in carrying out orders; you don't give up your knowledge of right and wrong when you take the oath, and that's what some of the displeasure here is about. But I realize that there often isn't time to think about whether what you're doing is the right thing to do, and there is a lot of conditioning to push our troops to default toward following orders without questioning them; so a heavier responsibility HAS to fall on the commanders who are giving those orders. Those are the people who most deserve scorn, those people like Col. whatshisname Miller who came up with the interrogation regime used at Guantanamo and then exported it to Abu Ghraib. Where's his court-martial? Beyond that, where is the investigation into the people who ordered Col. Miller to come up with those techniques? Where is their indictment and trial?

That's what I'm talking about, Jason, LT Nixon, and whoever else wants to think I "hate the military." I don't hate the military. I hate what's being done with it (and to it).

Posted by liberalrob | April 23, 2008 12:20 PM

You ever stop to think that maybe Hollywood movies are a pretty stupid place from which to draw your analogies and your impressions of military people?

Posted by Jason Van Steenwyk | April 23, 2008 1:03 PM

The point is, the personality type he's denigrating as peculiarly military seems to be pretty evenly distributed throughout the population.

Especially the anti-war hippies. Megan really fears the hippies. We talk a good game about peace and love, but we really want to rip her head off.

Posted by Dhalgren | April 23, 2008 1:42 PM

Any empirical study of the military and veterans (and yes, I've done it) will show that they are 1) better educated than the general populace, 2) employed in higher numbers than the general populace, 3) less likely to commit suicide than the general populace and 4) less like to suffer from psychological problems than the general populace.

This is true of the present, all volunteer, military, but it was also true of the conscripted military that fought in Vietnam.

All of these facts fly in the face of the generally accepted liberal view, especially as portrayed in the liberal media (but I repeat myself.) They are facts nonetheless. All the liberal claims about "the poor, the underprivileged and the minorities" who are "forced" into the military (because they're apparently too stupid or uneducated to find any other work) are baseless and insulting.

Many of the commenters here have gone out of their way to "excuse" the "grunts" while blaming their commanders for supposed actions that have taken place. One commenter went so far as to claim that the inmates at Guantanamo Bay have been treated much worse than German prisoners were treated during WWII. This without any facts to back up his claim.

In fact, the inmates at Guantanamo are treated *better* than German prisoners were treated. Every study has shown this to be true.

As to the claims of torture - there has not been one documented case of torture brought to light, despite the fulminating claims of those on the left. (And no, waterboarding is not torture. We waterboard our own troops during training. Furthermore, Congress approved the use of waterboarding, all their lying protestations for the cameras notwithstanding.)

You realize it's not wise to criticize the "guys on the ground" so you claim they're lead by unethical commanders without the slightest thought to what that claim says about those who follow without complaint.

You claim they're placed in an untenable position - asked to fight a war that is unjust or criminal - without thinking about what that says about the "guys on the ground" who re-enlist in amazingly high numbers and volunteer to go to the war zone.

The bottom line is, you don't like the military and you hate conservatives.

It would be nice if you could be honest enough to admit that, but liberals are seldom honest about anything, so that hope is vain in the extreme.

Posted by Antimedia | April 23, 2008 2:15 PM

You ever stop to think that maybe Hollywood movies are a pretty stupid place from which to draw your analogies and your impressions of military people?

Until you can demonstrate that the impressions are inaccurate, I have no reason to.

Those movies were very sympathetic and respectful towards the military, I thought.

In fact, the inmates at Guantanamo are treated *better* than German prisoners were treated. Every study has shown this to be true.

This statement is complete baloney. Exactly the opposite is true. I know for a fact that the Red Cross has reported on abuses.

And no, waterboarding is not torture.

That's all we need to know about your philosophy.

You realize it's not wise to criticize the "guys on the ground" so you claim they're lead by unethical commanders without the slightest thought to what that claim says about those who follow without complaint.

Obviously a lie, as I spent considerable time discussing this very point.

The bottom line is, you don't like the military and you hate conservatives.

The bottom line is, I do like the military. And I do hate "conservatives" like you who state blatant untruths and try to wrap themselves in the flag as though they were the only true patriots. You have damaged this country severely but now your time in power is ending. Hope you enjoyed it.

Posted by liberalrob | April 23, 2008 2:34 PM

Hollywood portrays the military just as realistically as it does portraying lawyers. Or doctors. You know, how they're all attractive and have sex in closets and have such exciting lives?

Anyway, I'm about to retire after 20 years in the Navy, and to talk to me for five minutes, you'd never guess I was military with my libertarian leanings of which I'm all-too-quick to voice. And I don't look real "military," either, other than the short hair, I guess, but I'm not a high-and-tight fanatic about that.

My point is -- if I have one -- is that we're pretty much like the general population. There are some soft-hearted guys, some Earth-Mother types, lots of sports fans (like me), plenty of eggheads, country boys and hip-hop dudes, and, unfortunately, a small fraction of hard-core sadists about which Megan's commentor is correct. But only a small fraction. And those dinosaurs aren't very welcome.

Posted by Michael | April 23, 2008 3:52 PM

Unfortunately, and to continue to take this conversation off on a tangent, I have to agree that the term "warrior" as currently used by our military is anachronistic, silly, and basically just PR. Sure, it makes it easier to recruit people and makes people feel nice about being in the military. But it is anachronistic, and has been for centuries. The term "warrior" deliberately harkens back to a time when fighting was individualized and, as commonly used, involves a "warrior ethos" in a society that emphasizes a individualistic caste-based honor code distinct from other elements of society. The ancient Greeks had warriors, as did feudal Europe and Japan. By contrast, what we have today are soldiers (yes, even the Marines). As did the Romans, the Prussians, and pretty much every modern army. The difference is in specialization, discipline and the focus on the unit rather than the individual.

This isn't just an academic distinction -- it has real ramifications for how we think of our military and how the military views its role in society. For example, in the Iliad, the greatest of the warriors, Achilles, essentially goes on strike when he feels his commander, Agammenon, disses him. No soldier would do that. A soldier follows lawful orders. Also (and, of course, this is where the current PR campaign comes in), warriors, being individuals and drawn from a separate caste, fight for themselves, for honor, etc. etc. Soldiers subsume their individuality and fight for a greater good, for the societies from which they are drawn.

In other words, IMHO, having to use the term "warrior" to recruit people these days is just another example of a "me"-based society. A real shame, because the title "soldier" seems much more honorable.

Posted by Robert P | April 23, 2008 5:12 PM

"liberalrob" smugly proclaims, in response to my statement

In fact, the inmates at Guantanamo are treated *better* than German prisoners were treated. Every study has shown this to be true.

"This statement is complete baloney. Exactly the opposite is true. I know for a fact that the Red Cross has reported on abuses."

Yes, they have. If you read the (NY Times!) article, what they have done is redefine torture to the same types of techniques that were used in Waco by federal agents. Strange how that was never called torture at the time. I suppose it's because Billy Boy was in charge and the people being "tortured" were those detestable cultists.

"liberalrob" continues, in response to this

And no, waterboarding is not torture.

"That's all we need to know about your philosophy."

Don't forget to mention that it's also the philosophy of your Congresspersons, including Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and others, all of whom not only approved waterboarding but were concerned that the interrogators weren't being aggressive enough. Not that they'll admit that *now*, in front of cameras, mind you. (Unfortunately for them, it's on the record.)

You can attempt to change the meaning of words to "win" an argument, but intelligent people will chuckle and shake their heads at your lack of integrity. It's a typical liberal tactic to change the rules constantly to "win" arguments.

"liberalrob" then protests too much

I have absolutely no criticisms at all for most of the people who carry out the orders and do the fighting and dying in Iraq, Afghanistan, and everywhere else they are called on to do it. They are all heroes. Like those Marines in A Few Good Men, they do need to exercise some basic moral judgment in carrying out orders; you don't give up your knowledge of right and wrong when you take the oath, and that's what some of the displeasure here is about. But I realize that there often isn't time to think about whether what you're doing is the right thing to do, and there is a lot of conditioning to push our troops to default toward following orders without questioning them; so a heavier responsibility HAS to fall on the commanders who are giving those orders.

So, boiling it all down, "liberalrob" has the highest respect for military grunts, even if they don't disobey orders (although he wishes they would), but the leadership - well, that's another story. They're all complicit, scoundrels who fool those poor fellows on the ground into committing awful war crimes that their indoctrination and/or the stress of the moment prevents them from realizing are crimes.

Sort of the John Kerry line of attack. Like Ghengis Khan, only they're heroes I tell you.

Yeah, you love the military all right. {{{snicker}}}

Posted by antimedia | April 23, 2008 5:42 PM

liberalrob: You may like the military. You say you do (I suspect in the same way you like children or puppies, even though you look down your nose at them and don't respect them).

So maybe you do like the military. But don't think you understand the military.

Watching movies about the military doesn't count.

Posted by Jason Van Steenwyk | April 23, 2008 5:59 PM

Here's one good clue that perhaps the person talking about the military has no military experience, and their views are based on Hollywood movies: They think that in the military the leadership (officers and NCO) and subordinates are at odds with each other. They think that the officers gives commands, and the enlisted troops grudgingly follow orders, knowing that they are wrong, but feeling powerless to change things. Based on this perception, they naturally push the blame for soldiers actions up the chain of command to leaders who coerced them into doing what they did not want to do.
My experience: I have yet to experience a situation where the leaders and followers where not working together, toward a common mission that they all agreed on as a worthy goal. I'm sure disconnects between leaders and soldiers do happen, but I've seen no indication that this was the case in Iraq, or even in Abu Griab, or Guantanamo Bay. Am I wrong?

Posted by josephtrese | April 23, 2008 7:13 PM

We military folks (I'm a Vietnam-era vet) have a long tradition of griping and bitching about command. We're a lot like Americans and their politicians. We love our supervisor (in most cases) but we bitch about people above them who make what we consider stupid decisions.

But (most of us) follow orders without question, *especially* when lives are on the line (which isn't just in combat, btw.)

Some leaders we respect and would follow into the gates of hell. Some leaders we follow grudgingly, because we detect that they lack courage or don't care about us or ..... (pick your reason).

Sounds a lot like normal people, doesn't it?

Posted by Antimedia | April 23, 2008 8:58 PM

I gotta stick up for liberalrob here. I disagree with most of what he says, and I find him sometimes a little clueless. On the other hand, he does listen to people with something to say. So educate him if you wish, but leave the insults out. Gradually we'll bring him around to the dark side.

Posted by Rob Lyman | April 23, 2008 10:04 PM

liberalrob said:

The executives and commanders set the tone and establish the "rules of engagement" for the line personnel, and the characteristics that make for one possible path to successful career advancement (ambition, drive, singlemindedness, ruthlessness, etc.) can easily be the same as those that make up a potential war criminal. Add in ideological and moral predispositions (e.g. religious fundamentalism, latent racism, exceptionalism and chauvinism) and self-selection within the service (through political appointments and forced retirements) to remove more level-headed people who act as a brake on excesses and you have a recipe for disaster.

Do you have any evidence this is actually happening? I've been wearing a uniform for 22 years and have been pretty successful, but I've seen nothing of the kind.

Honestly, I think you're all so fascinated with the trees that you're missing the forest. First, if you take a close look at the combat training members of the U.S. military get, you'll find that a great deal of effort is expended to break down normal human behaviors (run away or shoot everything that moves) and develop the reflexes and discipline needed to behave morally when you don't have time to think.

Second, you're all flailing and speculating about Machiavellian behavior at the highest levels of the military, but do you have anything other than suspicions and innuendo to prove it's going on? I ask this because history belies the truth of the matter if you care to examine it.

For instance, if you look back on the history of where individual Americans went wrong at places like Abu Ghraib, My Lai and No Gun Ri, you'll find that the biggest failures were not that America's elected and appointed leaders were giving heinous orders the boots on the ground were blindly folowing. The biggest failures have always been that the leaders weren't adequately overseeing and enforcing moral standards and they were trying to supress the truth when it started to leak out.

This is, of course completely the opposite of the behavior of the leadership and followers in Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the Soviet Union and a few modern day countries that I won't name here. In those cases, brutality was not merely permitted, but enforced from the top down. Americans have no doubt committed atrocities that have caused the deaths of hundreds or maybe even thousands of people, but it can be argued that the aforementioned bad actors systematically exterminated hundreds of millions.

Indeed, perhaps the biggest challenge the American military faces in combatting radical Islam is that we do have lines we will not cross.

Posted by Chris van Avery, Lt. Cmdr., USN | April 24, 2008 2:56 AM

This notion that warriors don't exist is just moronic. (Someone already mentioned the "wolf/sheep/sheepdog" analogy, which I think is as good as any.

The fact is that you CAN be a soldier and not be a warrior (Lynndie England seems like an apt example), and you can be a warrior without being a soldier ("Let's Roll!"). The distinction is important and useful. And simply because the term has resonance in antiquity does not make it an anachronism.

Those who are advancing the argument that the 'warrior' construct is "silly" are really advancing the argument that all modern militaries are made up of technicians.

Not the victorious ones.

Great soldiers have always known there is a difference between a soldier and a warrior. Napoleon said that the moral is to the physical as three is to one. When he said that, he was recognizing that an army of warriors can and will defeat an army of technicians three times its size.

I can't recall who said it, but another great captain also wrote that an army of sheep led by a lion is more powerful than an army of lions led by a sheep.

He was also recognizing that there is a difference between the warrior and the tree hugger.

David Hackworth, one of America's most decorated soldiers, also knew the difference and wrote about it extensively in the last 15 years of his life.

What's happening here is that the virtues of the warrior, or sheepdog - call it what you will - are so foreign to the sheep that they cannot even conceive of them. And so, in order to preserve their own misguided sense of self-worth, they will do their best to discount those hard-won honors that accrue to warriors. They dismiss the very term 'warrior' as "silly."

Warriors know different.

But trying to explain that to a sheep is like trying to explain "up" to a Flatlander.

Robert P., as I said before.... none of the warriors I've been privileged to associate with needs your college lecture on how they are not warriors, and that the concept is outdated, silly, or pure PR.

They CLEPd out of your class.

Oh, and I'd ask your college for a refund. The liberal arts weinies didn't serve you very well.

Posted by Jason Van Steenwyk | April 24, 2008 1:18 PM

Jason, interesting point about Napoleon, given that his was the first technician army (he himself an artillery officer drawn from outside the traditional military caste). His French army, drawn up of recruits from all elements of French society, led by officers drawn from the middle classes, elevated based on merit and technical competence, positively trounced Prussia's "warrior-based" military drawn from the Junker aristocrats. If you don't believe me, read Clausewitz. He was there.

Saying we have a military of soldiers is not to denigrate the moral component. Indeed, it makes that component ever more important. Discipline is, fundamentally, a matter for a modern soldier army. By contrast, the warriors of old were just a step above a mob.

Posted by Robert P | April 24, 2008 2:21 PM

I apologize if this comes out as a double posting.

For thousands of years armies struggled against the warrior ethos to bring soldierly discipline to combat. The decisive element of this was shown in the modern era when the English spent some quality time learning to stand in formation and stab to the left with their bayonets. With this soldier's response to a direct attack, the English were able to destroy the Scottish warriors. Soldiers fighting together beat warriors fighting for their own glory.

The problem came about in the growing urbanization of modern societies when the barbarian virtues were smothered under the burden of bureaucratic loading. Today we work diligently to reawaken the best elements of the barbarian inside the disciplined framework of the soldier. When we say that our soldiers are warriors, we are saying they are more than irrational killing monsters...they are thinking, disciplined, skilled military athletes who can effectively explode with violence against the enemy as a team.

It is a degree of refinement of military culture beyond the comprehension of our primary enemies who are barbarian warriors incapable of higher coordinated functioning. It bothers a lot of us in military service that the self-proclaimed academic elite are so satisfied with their own comprehension but still cannot accurately observe or describe what we are. It bother us that we have brutal barbarians we are at war with abroad and insipid bureaucratic twits at home who cannot comprehend the degree of expertise we have achieved.

Posted by Patrick S Lasswell | April 24, 2008 3:11 PM

Well said, Patrick.

But to lay another historical contextualization on top of everything else, there was nothing new about the British learning to stand and fight in formation. This concept was already highly developed by the ancient Greeks, among others.

The hoplite phalanxes of antiquity were an effective means of harnessing the strength of the conscript. One did not need to be a warrior, as we think of it, in order to hold his place in the phalanx - at least so long as they perceived that things were going well.

The real slaughter came during the pursuit, though. When one side lost its nerve - either because it had become outflanked, or because it was poorly motivated and poorly led (e.g.,, led by a nonwarrior), the phalanx broke. And then the poor hoplites were mowed down by the hundreds by cavalrymen, acting as part of a combined arms team.

The side that had the greater preponderance of warriors to frightened conscripts eager to skedaddle at the first opportunity has the advantage. Always has, always will.

The man in the British formations, and the man in the Greek or Roman or Macedonian phalanx, or the conscript in Napoleon's Grande Armee, was under no obligation to close with and destroy the enemy under his own initiative.

The modern professional army that this republic is blessed with, however, is composed of soldiers that ARE expected to do just that - and expected to do so as part of a very small unit: A platoon, a squad, a fire team.

Frequently, in urban fighting such as we see in Iraq, and most noteably Fallujah, a squad involved in a firefight may have only an occasional glimpse of the other squads in a platoon.

If your squad is storming a house, it may be the only element in the house. At that point, it is a war to the death, and frequently a war to the death between individuals, or three Marines on a fire team that happen to be first through the door.

The fight is over by the time the rest of the squad makes it down the hall.

True, you have to have some technical skills to keep your gear working and your Humvees maintained and your PAC-4 zeroed on your weapon.

But Robert, and liberalrob, if you think these men who took Fallujah are primarily technicians and can not be described as warriors, well, you're the insipid bureaucratic twits that Patrick described.

Posted by Jason Van Steenwyk | April 24, 2008 4:25 PM

Lt.Cdr. van Avery:

Do you have any evidence this is actually happening? I've been wearing a uniform for 22 years and have been pretty successful, but I've seen nothing of the kind.

In the absence of perfect information, an analyst must extrapolate on the basis of what information is available. There is a chance that the analysis will be wrong; but when some kind of analysis is required, you don't back off from it because there is some chance you might be wrong. You minimize it as much as you can, make your point, and then wait to see if you were right.

Do I have any evidence that more ambitious, ruthless, driven officers are enjoying more success in their careers than more careful, thoughtful officers? Not a lot. I do know that Gen. Shinseki retired (and likely was forced to retire) because his opinions on the required force levels for a successful occupation of Iraq were not palatable to the civilian leadership (and that he has been proven correct in every respect). I do know that Gen. Franks resigned as soon as he could because his advice on how to proceed with the invasion and occupation was constantly disregarded by that same civilian leadership. I do know that there has been an almost constant parade of generals retiring and then blasting the administration for their arrogance and incompetence. I do know that Col. Geoffrey Miller enjoyed promotion to Major General following his "innovation" of the interrogation tactics used at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, now widely suspected to involve techniques considered illegal under international law. And I do know that Gen. Petraeus has enjoyed significant career advancement (and was just promoted to CENTCOM commander) while obsequiously reaffirming every pronouncement of an administration that has been proven to be the most prevaricating, secretive, and incompetent in recent memory. So if I've made a mistake in my analysis, by all means point it out.

I agree with your statement about the way troops are trained. I think I alluded to that very point.

Second, you're all flailing and speculating about Machiavellian behavior at the highest levels of the military, but do you have anything other than suspicions and innuendo to prove it's going on? I ask this because history belies the truth of the matter if you care to examine it.

If we are flailing and speculating, and you have information that would straighten us out, you need to present it. I respectfully disagree with you that "history belies the truth of the matter." In fact history appears to overwhelmingly confirm the truth of the matter: our civilian leadership at the highest levels authorized and perhaps ordered the implementation of policies that encouraged, and perhaps explicitly required, the commission of war crimes; and our military commanders faithfully carried out those directives apparently without question. Do we have ALL the details? No; but they are coming out, slowly, despite the furious and quite effective efforts of the administration (aided by a compliant, obedient military leadership that they have carefully cultivated) to prevent it.

For instance, if you look back on the history of where individual Americans went wrong at places like Abu Ghraib, My Lai and No Gun Ri, you'll find that the biggest failures were not that America's elected and appointed leaders were giving heinous orders the boots on the ground were blindly folowing. The biggest failures have always been that the leaders weren't adequately overseeing and enforcing moral standards and they were trying to supress the truth when it started to leak out.

It's interesting that you lump in Abu Ghraib with My Lai. Let's for the moment accept your analysis that it was a case of "the leaders [not] adequately overseeing and enforcing moral standards." Would they have had to oversee and enforce moral standards if the operation had not been ordered??? Was it not perhaps foreseeable that such an operation ordered in that environment might in fact get out of hand? Given that it did get out of hand, doesn't that constitute criminal negligence? I hope you're not trying to minimize the atrocities committed at My Lai and Abu Ghraib by asserting that, essentially, "mistakes were made?"

When it comes to Abu Ghraib, I'm not particularly interested in the photographs and Lynndie England. I'm more interested in Gen. Geoffrey Miller, Gen. Karpinsky (who should have complained more loudly), Col. Pappas (who was a scapegoat along with Karpinsky, albeit a deserving one), Gen. Sanchez, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and Vice President Cheney. What did they know, what did they authorize, what orders were given at each level. No, we don't have all the information, but what we do have stinks to high heaven. It needs to come out, and eventually it will.

Indeed, perhaps the biggest challenge the American military faces in combatting radical Islam is that we do have lines we will not cross.

Agreed, and it's critical to have bright lines, not dim and gray ones that we assert don't apply due to technicalities.

Posted by liberalrob | April 24, 2008 4:26 PM

liberalrob,

GEN Shinseki served four years as Chief of Staff of the US Army, the highest rank in the Army and then he retired. He was not forced to retire. The maximum term of service for Chief of Staff of the Army is four years. It is traditional to retire after four years in that position. It is the pinnacle of the entire military career.

Secretary Rumsfeld may have hated him, but he did not alter his career path in any significant way. Now, in 1990 the Air Force Chief of Staff was caught leaking sensitive information and fired immediately, so precedent exists for removing the senior officer in a service branch. That did not happen with GEN Shinseki. Admiral Fallon recently retired with time left in his tenure as CENTCOM and is being replaced by GEN Petraeus. That did not happen with GEN Shinseki

This is one of those thing you think you know that is not so. There are a lot of people in the military who are pretty tired of know it alls repeating gossip as if it were fact.

I've talked to a lot of people who've spent time in Abu Ghraib and been seriously tortured...but by Saddam's goons, not the US Army. Abu Ghraib was an atrocity and a failure of leadership by a variety of officers, almost all of whom paid for their failures. The criminals involved received a fair trial and far more leniency than their acts deserved, which is far more than what happened to Saddam's goons. The US Army never has and never will have an squad of designated rapists like Saddam did, which is the kind of depravity you are equating our military with.

Your commentary strikes me as particularly ignorant. You really prove my earlier point about the intellectual failings of civilian "intellectuals".

Posted by Patrick S Lasswell | April 24, 2008 4:56 PM

Patrick:

This is one of those thing you think you know that is not so. There are a lot of people in the military who are pretty tired of know it alls repeating gossip as if it were fact.

Then those people need to get out here and refute it. I'm not omniscient, and there's always some bird who doesn't get the word. Quit hiding behind "oh we can't be seen as political, we can't criticize the civilian leadership, we can't publicly question the reasoning behind their orders, we can't be whistleblowers." There are many ways to get the correct information out, if you truly want to correct the record. Lambasting some random ignorant liberal civilian "intellectual" (with insulting "heh heh" quotes) on a blog isn't going to be particularly effective, though I welcome the discussion.

The US Army never has and never will have an squad of designated rapists like Saddam did, which is the kind of depravity you are equating our military with.

Be very careful about what you accuse me of equating "our military" with. I've been very specific on which parts of "our military" I am discussing; I'm not attacking "our military" as a whole, and never have. And I never said word one about rape squads.

Some of the tactics known to have been used in interrogations under Gen. Miller's "innovative" leadership can easily be construed as rape. So I'm not sure you want to go down that road.

Your commentary strikes me as particularly ignorant.

Your commentary strikes me as particularly condescending and insulting. Have a nice day.

Posted by liberalrob | April 24, 2008 5:26 PM

liberalrob-

If you do in fact "know that Gen. Shinseki retired (and likely was forced to retire) because his opinions on the required force levels for a successful occupation of Iraq were not palatable to the civilian leadership."

Then why was his succsesor named in April 2002, 10 months BEFORE his statements to the Senate Armed Services Committee concerning troop strength?

Posted by NTv | April 24, 2008 5:38 PM

liberalrob,

Jason Van Steenwyk has been blogging since 2004, when he was in Anbar province doing the hard work as an Army officer. Google "Blackfive", "Greyhawk", "Michael Yon", "Major John", "Blog of War", "Thunder Run", "Outside the Wire", "Armorgeddon", "David Bellavia", and my business partner "Michael Totten". These people and many others have been telling the soldier's stories from inside and outside for years, accurately and with great insight. Several of these fine people have written books, like Michael Yon's current bestseller "Moment of Truth in Iraq".

We have been putting out the facts and the truthful stories for years. Take some time to read us.

Posted by Patrick S Lasswell | April 24, 2008 5:52 PM

"antimedia":

So, boiling it all down, "liberalrob" has the highest respect for military grunts, even if they don't disobey orders (although he wishes they would), but the leadership - well, that's another story. They're all complicit, scoundrels who fool those poor fellows on the ground into committing awful war crimes that their indoctrination and/or the stress of the moment prevents them from realizing are crimes.

Pretty good distillation, "antimedia." Although I don't accuse even all of the leadership of being complicit; just some at the very top.

It's too bad that "antimedia" had to preemptively ruin this moment of clarity with misinformation like this:

If you read the (NY Times!) article, what they have done is redefine torture to the same types of techniques that were used in Waco by federal agents. Strange how that was never called torture at the time.

Perhaps because it wasn't torture. I plugged in "waco torture" on Google and the only thing I found was some nut named Kouri who claimed that blasting loud music at the compound constituted "torture." I suppose that means we were also "torturing" Manuel Noriega when we were trying to get him out of the Papal Legacy in Panama. On second thought, from what I know of the playlist used it might indeed have been torture.

You can attempt to change the meaning of words to "win" an argument, but intelligent people will chuckle and shake their heads at your lack of integrity. It's a typical liberal tactic to change the rules constantly to "win" arguments.

Same can be said of conservatives. No points to "antimedia" here.

Posted by liberalrob | April 24, 2008 5:55 PM

Upon further review (because you guys forced me to dig into it) I see that Gen. Shinseki did indeed retire in a traditional manner. Therefore my entire argument falls apart, you win, Iraq is an awesome success, and the dead are all living. You may now do your happy dance. It's 5 PM and I have to head home now.

Posted by liberalrob | April 24, 2008 6:06 PM

Seriously, "liberalrob", is this what you think passes for reasoning?

You say

It's too bad that "antimedia" had to preemptively ruin this moment of clarity with misinformation like this:

In response to this that I wrote:

If you read the (NY Times!) article, what they have done is redefine torture to the same types of techniques that were used in Waco by federal agents. Strange how that was never called torture at the time.

Then you respond with this "reasoning":

Perhaps because it wasn't torture. I plugged in "waco torture" on Google and the only thing I found was some nut named Kouri who claimed that blasting loud music at the compound constituted