"Did you kill anybody?" The real story about what Iraq was like

"Did you kill anybody?" The Real Story About What Iraq Was Like

You are a soldier of the United States deployed to Iraq. On another typical day, you are standing beside a wall (not crouching, because everyone knows that speed and reaction times usually matter more than cover). For the moment, silence reigns. The enemy is out there, somewhere, but you aren’t sure exactly where. Suddenly, the telltale “clink – clink” of a grenade resounds into your ear. Heedless of the danger, you boldly locate the explosive and throw it back the way it came. You barely get back into cover in time to shield yourself from the fragments. As if that were the signal, tracer rounds begin flying from all sides. Coldly staring down your sights, you acquire and eliminate target after target. Occasionally, should a terrorist make the mistake of coming too close, you take out your combat knife and mercilessly slay your foe with a single stab (with your left hand, of course) without missing a beat. “Just another typical day at the office”, you think, as the glow of the television screen fades and the scores for the last round list you, yet again, at the top of the standings. Your buddies complain that you cheated, but you know the truth: You just get a lot of practice. Eventually, you go to sleep. Tomorrow you have to strap on your body armor and go to work, doing the actual job of a soldier in a war zone, which will probably consist of hours upon hours of uninterrupted boredom. You know this because you have seen the time between the action scenes in the movies, the time between the load screens of Call of Duty. You have actually been to war.

I had always planned on serving in the military. When I joined the Army National Guard in 2004, though, I intended it to be just a way to pay for college while I got my degree and became an Officer.  I picked the job of a Rifleman because it was the closest unit to where I was living at the time and it sounded cool. Three years later, during another uneventful training exercise during the summer, the unstoppable rumor mill finally spit out a tale of truth: We were going to Iraq.

My first deployment was in 2007-2008, during what is known as the “Surge”. I was a gunner whose convoys ran supplies, everything from bullets to ice cream, from al Taqaddum airbase to all the places you heard about on the news. We ran to Fallujah, Ramadi, Baghdad, and occasionally the Syrian border. The war was in full swing, and the intel briefings I received prior to every mission reflected that. “Since the last time you ran this route three days ago, there were IED’s here, here, and here. That one over there was an EFP, likely from Iran, killing two. The Chechnyan sniper in Fallujah took another shot at a passing convoy. This time it hit the vehicle, but missed the gunner. Oh, and somebody managed to toss a grenade into the hatch of a vehicle waiting on the bridge to Fallujah.” IED’s (Improvised Explosive Devices) come in many shapes, but by far the most dangerous were EFP’s (Explosively Formed Projectiles). At the time they were practically guaranteed to kill someone in the truck if they scored a hit.

As my buddies and I left the briefing, we joked about the basketball future that particular grenade throwing Hajji likely had, immediately began complaining about the lack of stir fry at the chow hall that night, and promptly forgot everything we had just heard. It was just another day in the life. We had been running convoys for months and had never been hit by anything we considered serious. A farmer shooting at an armored vehicle isn’t exactly threatening.  And at the end of the day, if something did happen, we were all far too pretty to die.

Returning home, one of the most awkward situations was when people asked about my war experience. I think they usually meant well, and were genuinely curious, but the things they asked about made no sense.

Them: “Was it hot?”

Me: “It was a desert, so during the day, yes. During the night, it was cold.” (What am I, the weather man?)

Them: “Did you kill anyone?”
            Me: “….” (What do you want to hear? Yeah, I killed people? No, I didn’t?)

Even worse were the few times I decided to be completely honest about the level of violence I had encountered and tried to explain how little action actually happens, even during a war. The reactions I got varied, but by far the worst was disappointed. It seemed that, because I wasn’t constantly raining bullets on my enemies, my deployment didn’t count, or wasn’t up to their standards. How could I explain to them the nuance, of the balance between boredom and terror?

Much of this difficulty stems from the weariness of civilians when it comes to the war they didn’t have to fight. This sense of pointlessness can be felt in Mehdi Hasan. Writing for the New Statesman, he says that the war in Afghanistan is lost. Drawing parallels between Afghanistan and Vietnam, Mehdi says that our “ill-preparation” and lack of focus has doomed the war to failure. Written from a British perspective, Mehdi holds the body counts of this war as compared to others, such as the Falklands, and then asks the question “Why did they die?”

Another reason for the difficulty in communication comes from the soldiers themselves. A massive change in context, both socially and in terms of relationships, has been endured by soldiers both when they leave their home and when they return to it. Soldiers have trouble relating to friends and family because they feel their family has no perspective on what they’ve experienced (Wands, 2013). Internally, soldiers struggle with having to turn off the learned aggressive behavior that has helped them survive. They struggle with the sense of pride and self-reliance that sees getting help as a weakness. They also can be embittered, believing that those they fought for do not value their sacrifices (Wands, 2013).

Contrary to popular belief, not every soldier is riddled with PTSD upon returning home. Soldiers have been receiving more treatment than ever before, during, and after the deployment for combat related stress (Mulligan, 2010). Only 3.4% of those studied during the deployment showed signs of probable PTSD, which was similar to those who had not been deployed. Soldiers on deployment had better overall physical and mental health than police officers and doctors in emergency treatment areas (Mulligan, 2010).

Yet another misconception is that the stress that a soldier experiences arises solely from actively engaging in combat. A study was conducted that attempted to measure the activity in the amygdala, which plays a large part in fear responses in the body, and find out if combat stress caused the amygdala to be overactive even post-deployment. It was determined that actual exposure to “combat” was not a good indicator for PTSD. The constant perception of danger, however, was a good indicator. It was also important to note that this was true whether or not this fear was ever realized (Wingen, 2011).

The vast majority of experience in a combat zone is that of the mundane. You wake up, you eat breakfast. You go to work and do whatever job it is you are assigned. You wait. You wait for orders. You wait in line for chow. You wait for Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) to blow up an IED. You roll down the highway for miles and miles and miles in the dead of night, with nothing more interesting to look at than the featureless desert stretching as far as the eye can see.

Yet, during all of it, you are waiting for something else. You wait for that fateful bullet. You wait for the IED you didn’t see, the one man in a crowd of civilians who has a grenade in his pocket. You wait for the ambulance you are allowing to pass to suddenly turn into your truck and detonate, killing everyone within 100 meters. You wait and wait and wait for these things. Sometimes they never happen. Sometimes they do. Either way, you wait.

This is the fundamental misunderstanding between those who have been there, who have seen and tasted and smelled warfare. The uneducated believe that all of war is one scene of carnage after the next, always dodging bullets and performing thrilling heroics. They think that it is the constant din of explosions which make every returning soldier a bundle of unstable nerves, just waiting for the right moment to explode into violence. Yet, if this is not true, what is it about the experience of war that affects soldiers so strongly?

The common thread that one should find through the various researched papers is that it is not only the actuality of danger, but the threat of danger or the possibility of killing that affects the psyche of a soldier (Wingen, 2011). Sometimes, what changes you is the constant knowing that the next day, the next hour, the next minute could be your last. Sometimes it is the reality that around the next bend there could be a target that you will have to be ready to destroy, utterly and completely. These possibilities may never realize, but whether or not they do, their reality is not lessened at all.

If we as a nation take all of this knowledge to heart, we can change how we approach our veterans. They are not any more dangerous or unstable, on the whole, than any other group of public servants (Mulligan, 2010). The war they fought was not one from the movies, and we should not expect each one who returns to regale us with tales of thrilling heroics. Even so, the experience of being torn from everything they know and tossed into a situation where death is very real and apparent can affect them deeply. If we take this lesson to heart, we can finally understand and truly believe that these facts should not be a source of shame, that they are perfectly normal, and that they are likely not broken beyond repair.

Only when we really and truly believe these things that can we start treating our veterans the way they deserve to be treated: Not as mythical heroes disconnected from reality or as fragile dolls who will break at the slightest provocation, but as normal people who have seen and done extraordinary things.

As I finished this essay I realized that it included many sources from well respected, peer reviewed journals on psychology, but through all this research there was one thing that was lacking: Anecdotal evidence collected by an untrained Engineering student in an informal setting. I vowed that his oversight could not be allowed to continue and therefore conducted research of my own to confirm others’ findings. I tracked down a former Specialist in the US Army, whose name I have redacted but whom I shall refer to as “Sexy Beast”, who was a two deployment veteran of Iraq.

During the interview, I primarily focused on his first deployment to Iraq in 2007, because he stated that deployment was more dangerous in his estimation and affected him more deeply. I began by asking him what the most common questions were upon his return, and which ones he found the most annoying or offensive. “For both the most common and the most annoying,” Sexy Beast said, “it would be a tie between ‘Was it hot?’ and “Did you kill anybody?’” (Sexy Beast, 2013)

This was in line with my own experiences, as well as that of most other veterans I had talked to previously. I was curious, though, in how he responded to the question about killing. Most movies would have us believe the brooding veteran would regale the civilian with a dark tale, but the answer was far less dramatic: Make it a joke (Sexy Beast, 2013). When asked how civilians responded to that answer, he said it varied. “It varied from laughing with me, to simply not understanding. The worst reaction was being disgusted that I could joke about something like that.” Just as expected, it seemed that civilians had a very difficult time relating to those who had been to war. What was it about the experience that made the veteran so different?

“Having to be constantly on guard, always on alert…It made me angry, it made me bitter. I felt like I could never let my guard down, even when I came home.” The environment, the reality of danger that was always just a bit of bad luck away, stayed with him. Despite this, he said the moment that stood out the most was the time he sandbagged a Sergeant Major (blocking his door with a barricade of sandbags so it cannot be opened from the inside) while the SGM was inside, asleep.

I never get tired of sharing this picture.

In my own research of this topic I found confirmation of my own experiences and responses by those who had experienced similar things. Sexy Beast, as well as many others I have talked to, had been affected by their tours but none of them were particularly unstable or dangerous. They were simply different. 

Annotated Webliography: The real story of the war in Iraq.

After both of my tours in Iraq I was struck by just how little the average citizen understood about the conflict there. Despite being at war for over ten years, there appears to be next to no true understanding beyond what is seen on the television screen. My goal in writing this paper is to provide some insight on how deployments actually work and how they actually affect soldiers, in contrast to what the reader may have seen on the 6 o’clock news.

Hasan, M. (2011, July 4). If I die in a combat zone: the war in Afghanistan was lost long ago, says Mehdi Hasan, but we carry on fighting. New Statesman. Page 28. Retrieved September 10, 2013 from the JSRCC Library database.

This article provides a critical commentary of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from a British point of view. The author ties in casualty counts and a lack of objectives as reasons why the war is lost.

Sexy Beast, B. (2013, October 3). Interview about experiences during and after Iraq deployments. Conducted via Skype on October 3, 2013.

Mulligan, K, et. al. (2010, July 22). Mental health of UK military personnel while on deployment in Iraq. British Journal of Psychiatry. Volume 197, pages 405-410. Retrieved September 11, 2013 from the JSRCC Library database.

This article takes data gathered from self-reported questionnaires of deployed and non-deployed soldiers to find patterns of mental health issues. It also identifies conditions that tend to cause greater instances of PTSD.

Wands, L. (2013, July). “No one gets through it OK”: The health challenge of coming home from war. Advances in Nursing Science. Volume 36, pages 186-199. Retrieved September 10, 2013 from the JSRCC Library database.

This article explores the difficulty veterans have in reintegrating with civilian society. It discusses common issues that have been raised by combat veterans and how their experience on deployment affects them after they return home.

Wingen, GA, et. al. (2011, January). Perceived threat predicts the neural sequelae of combat stress. Molecular Psychiatry. Volume 16, pages 664-671. Retrieved September 10, 2013 from the JSRCC Library database.

This article identifies the perception of threat as a major cause of combat stress. It determines the distinction between the perception of threats and the actuality of threats as it relates to PTSD.

It was only a matter of time: Women in the Combat Arms

There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth on Tuesday when Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced the immediate rescinding of the long-standing military policy of restricting Combat Arms jobs to men. You can read the entire memo here. The decision was endorsed by the Joint Chiefs, and comes at the twilight of Panetta's term as Secretary of Defense.

While the restriction is lifted immediately, the Armed Forces have some time to implement the new policy. Each branch must submit their plan of action by May 15, 2013. Integration "will occur as expeditiously as possible...but must be completed no later than January 1, 2016."

The decision is not final, of course, as all actions of this sort must be reviewed by Congress. Should any branch find that a specific job not be suitable for women, they can submit their recommendation that that job remain closed, and Congress will have the final say.

So, what to make of this shockingly fast turn of events? Will this be the end of the military as we know it? Will the infantry descend into sex-fueled chaos, leaving us weak and defenseless before our enemies? Will freedom be destroyed because there's nobody left at home to make the sammiches?!

Probably not. Other armed forces have employed women in combat roles, and history hasn't imploded yet (I'm looking at you, Israel and the Celts...which would actually be a really cool name for a band). There are obstacles, however, that should be taken seriously when the branches make their plans.

Problem 1: Physical standards

For those of you who are not familiar, the military employs a double standard currently between men and women. A man of my age group must run the 2 mile in 17:00 in order to barely pass. A woman has 20:30. She only has to do 17 pushups, compared to my 39. Neither of those standards are high, but the standard held for women is woefully inadequate when it comes to the demands of combat.

If women are to do the same job as a man, then they must be able to maintain the same standard. Here at least the military seems to already be on the ball. The defense official who announced the policy change said that "it's likely the Army will establish a set of physical requirements for infantry soldiers. The candidate, man or woman, will have to lift a certain amount of weight in order to qualify. The standards will be gender neutral."


My biggest concern here is that these "gender neutral" standards will be a compromise, rather than an absolute assessment. I can already see the lax standards being relaxed further, under the rallying cry of "Fairness!" (more on that later). More than that, they will likely not be comprehensive. After all, it is no good if a 130 lb. woman can do the same number of pushups as me if she can't also carry an ammo can, or throw me on her back and run 50 meters if I get shot. What happens if we have to march a few miles before we make an attack? Will she be able to carry all her water, food, armor, ammo, mortar shells, extra ammo for the machine guns, etc., etc., etc? Or will some of that weight be shifted to me?

How you overcome it: The same standard for every applicant who applies to a job. A standard specific to that job. A true, accurate standard, that does not care who can make it. The standard only cares about what is necessary to do the job well.

Problem 2: Mental training

If you've ever asked yourself "I wonder if being an infantry soldier is like Call of Duty?"

The answer is: "Absolutely, except add in the part where Leonidas kicks that dude down the well. It's just like that."

My point is, I'm not talking about what women are capable of doing. It's established fact that the weaker sex is all weak and stuff and can't possibly perform the death defying stunts that I must do on a regular basis. I'm actually talking about the menfolk here.

Specifically, the mental instincts of protection that are present in a large portion of the male population. Many men react differently to seeing women in danger than they do with men. Whether this response is biological, conditioned socially, or both is irrelevant. The fact is, it is there. Look to LCOL Grossman's book On Killing:

In On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman briefly mentions that female soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces have been officially prohibited from serving in close combat military operations since 1948 (in 2001, subsequent to publication, women began serving in IDF combat units on an experimental basis). The reason for removing female soldiers from the front lines is no reflection on the performance of female soldiers, but that of the male infantrymen after witnessing a woman wounded. The IDF saw a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently experienced an uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression.

It is true that not every man may have this sort of reaction. It is also true that the military deals in the aggregate, and if a significant percentage of men react this way then it is worth addressing.

Unfortunately, it isn't considered politically correct to suggest this sort of reaction might exist, or if it does, that it's not really a bad thing. "Shouldn't you want to protect your fellow soldiers?", goes the refrain of the civilian.

The answer is no, at least, not always. For example, if I am in the middle of an assault on an objective and my best friend gets shot in the face right next to me, I'm going to be understandably shook up. I am going to want to help him, drag him to safety, do whatever I can do save him. These are all normal, healthy reactions, and they are what I absolutely must not do if I want my friend to live. In this situation, the best thing I can do for him is to ruthlessly murder the enemy as quickly as possible so I can have time to save his life later. If I stop the forward momentum of the attack and turn the battle into a casualty evacuation, more people will die.

How you overcome it: One word: Training. The military trains soldiers to turn off instinct all the time. Most notably, the instinct against killing. Despite the fact that humans are extremely aggressive we also have a built in block against actually killing our fellow man. The military has, through decades of practice, learned how to teach soldiers to turn this switch off and allow them to kill, but only under very specific stimuli. The instinct is not gone; soldiers who return home are no more likely to kill than anyone else. But when exposed to the situation they were trained to deal with, they are able to overcome it upwards of 90% of the time.

If this protective instinct does in fact exist there is reason to believe it can be similarly dealt with in a way that leaves the instinct intact back home. After all, we don't want to raise a generation of soldiers who are even more likely to beat their wives than they already are, because that would mean I'd have to sit through even more powerpoint presentation on that subject, and I swear to the almighty raptor Jesus if I have to sit through one more powerpoint presentation I will literally punch a baby.

But we should be able to make it so that soldiers are able to deal with it if they see a woman injured, at least enough so that they can accomplish the mission.

Problem 3: Logistics

"An Army marches on its stomach."

One of the realities of warfare is that you are only as good as your logistical framework allows you to be. The toughest Spartan warrior won't be much of a threat if he hasn't eaten in three weeks and has the plague. In the field, logistics get tougher. Every drop of water, every scrap of food, every needed bullet must be carefully planned, and then carefully delivered to the wrong FOB because they read the map upside down.

Women are more difficult to supply in the field for long periods of time due to their biological needs. They are more prone to infection due to certain...areas...on their...you know...Anyway. Sanitation is more important there, and more sanitation requires more water. It also requires something to deal with that special time of the month, because as Science has told us, their menstruations attract bears.

How you overcome it: By not being obstinate and actually admitting this is a problem. It means that the supplying of ground soldiers just became more difficult to achieve. Not impossible, just a bit more complicated.

The bear thing is pretty much insurmountable though.

Problem 4: Order & Discipline 


Leading soldiers is kind of like parenting children. Really big, obnoxious, stupid children with bad potty mouths and poor grammar.

Sometimes your soldiers do well. You need to praise them, let them know they're succeeding. Sometimes, they need some help, and then you need to patiently instruct them, usually by cursing as much as possible.

And sometimes they just need to have the hell beat out of them. At those times you pull them aside, away from their peers, and perform corrective action until they get it straight. Most times you do it privately so as not to embarrass them in front of others.

What happens when I pull a woman aside, alone, for a time to do corrective action? What happens if I'm accused of impropriety? Hell, even typing "corrective action" like that sounds like a really dirty euphemism. I can tell you what would happen in the current military: SGT Karim would become PVT Karim faster than you can say "wrongful accusation". So I bring a witness. What if we're both accused of being in on it together? So I bring a third? A fourth? Accusations aside, will I be accused of being "insensitive" if I yell and curse at her the same as I do for my other soldiers (which actually has a combat related purpose, believe it or not)?

I won't even go into the fact that there's going to be banging going on of gigantic proportions. You put that many young, irresponsible men and women in close quarters together than there is going to be an all-out boner fest of epic proportions. If you think I'm wrong, allow me to kindly direct your attention to Olympic Village, or to every college campus ever.

How you overcome it: By realizing that equal treatment means equal treatment, as in the same. By making it so the accusation of impropriety does not absolutely mean guilt. By walking that fine line between taking those sorts of things seriously (because they do happen), while also not letting them be used as a blackmail tool to undermine good order.

I firmly believe that the vast majority female soldiers are professionals like any other. It isn't the majority of professionals I'm worried about, it is the minority that always screws it up for everyone else.

Not sure what to do about the boners. Cold showers?

Problem 5: "Fairness"

We must understand one thing above all others. One thing needs to be absolutely clear in every person's mind as we go through this process. That thing is this: When it comes to the military, what is "fair" ranks a distant second to what is effective. This flies in the face of what many of us are taught as kids (and, indeed, what I teach my own kids). We at least try to make things as fair as possible, because it is the right thing to do.

Unfortunately, we have to realize that the military exists for one purpose. That purpose is to win wars. To kill people. To break stuff. To just generally be an asshole and make a mess in someone else's yard. And when it comes to that sort of job, being a fair fighter is a pit stop along the way to being a dead one.

I am not saying fairness should be disregarded. By all means, if we have two options available to us that are equally effective and one is more fair than the other, let's be fair about it. But if it's a choice between fairness and effectiveness, effectiveness needs to win. Every time.

With that in mind, let's project into the future. The first few women who join the Infantry are going to start where everyone else did: as privates. That means that they will be in subservient positions, surrounded by men who outrank them, who have more experience than them, and are just plain better at their jobs than they are. Not one of their superiors will be female.

And that needs to be okay.

It takes time for a soldier to develop the skills necessary to lead other soldiers in battle. That means that, for a while, there won't be any women who are qualified to lead. Not because they're women, not because they are stupid or incompetent. They won't be leaders for the same reason we don't let male graduates of basic training instantly become leaders (unless those graduates also happen to have taken a series of useless classes in college too, in which case we will instantly put them in charge of entire platoons, cuz you know, America). In time, they will gain the experience to earn promotions, and at that time those promotions should absolutely be given.

The danger is that we will rush the integration, that we will decide that women need to be in leadership positions right away, and so we promote those who aren't ready, or move a Staff Sergeant used to managing a team of cooks into an Infantry Squad Leader position and expect them to succeed. Some will, but most won't, and it will lead to a weaker force. Bad leaders train bad soldiers who become bad leaders.

How we overcome this: By managing our expectations and not expecting wholesale change overnight. The all-male military is a tradition that goes back centuries. Changing it will take time, if we want to do it right.

In closing, I actually part from many of my compatriots in my beliefs. I think that this has the potential to be a very good move, one that could strengthen the military as a whole by making sure everyone who really wants to be a soldier, can be. The problems I've put forward, and those that I didn't think of, are real, but they aren't insurmountable. With careful consideration and thoughtful planning, they can be dealt with.

See, my beef with this thing whole thing isn't even about women being in the infantry. It's not about me doubting that they can succeed there, because I have the utmost confidence they can.

I just also have the utmost confidence that the Army will screw it up in the most extravagant way imaginable.

One more step: Pentagon lessens restriction on females in combat

The Pentagon is expected to propose new rules today that would lessen the restrictions placed on the roles that military women can fulfill in combat. Before my military compatriots reading this hyperventilate and pass out, rest easy: "Restrictions on women serving in infantry combat units will remain in place." But, "Defense officials say as many as 14,000 positions could be opened up".

"Women will still be barred from serving in infantry combat units, defense officials say, but the changes will formally open up new positions at the combat battalion level that, until now, have been off limits.

The new jobs opening up for female service members will be combat support positions, including communications, intelligence and logistical positions, defense officials add. Typically, these jobs have been made available at the combat brigade level, but not at the lower battalion level, which was deemed too close to combat situation."

The article goes on to note that on today's battlefield, the line between "front line" and "rear echelon" can get kinda blurry.

On this particular move, I have no objection. Women already serve in support roles admirably well in other levels, and having them at Battalion will probably not affect things much at all.

My concern comes from the direction these moves are taking. The ultimate goal seems to be to get all restrictions removed from women in combat, to the point where I, as a Sergeant and Infantry Fire Team Leader, may have a woman serve under me directly in combat.

Truly, my concern isn't actually women in combat, per se. One only needs to glance at the IDF, for example, to see that this can be done. My concern is due to the fact that the decision makers on this issue are likely to be influenced by politics, and they will be more concerned with doing what is "fair", rather than what is effective.

As I've pointed out time and again, the military is not supposed to be fair. It isn't about fair, because what the military is about is war, and war isn't fair. The purpose of the military is to "break stuff and kill people". Anything that supports this goal should be kept. Anything that contradicts it should be removed. You don't have time to worry about fair, because if you take time out to worry about that, people will die.

This is a fact that decision makers under hostile fire must face time and again. Take, for example, a situation where I have two soldiers, Joe and Bob. I need to get a soldier across the street (which is being fired on by the enemy), so I can have a support by fire position on some objective. If I know that Joe is faster than Bob, I'm going to send Joe. Every time. It doesn't matter if Joe went last time, or the time before that, or the time before that. Fact is, Joe is more likely to accomplish the objective, so Joe it is.

If our goal is to have women in combat, that is fine, but decisions need to be made far in advance to make this happen. It needs to be understood that this is a gradual change, and careful preparation will be needed to make this happen.

For starters, physical standards must be the same. As it stands now, if I do 42 push ups, 53 sit ups, and run a 16 minute 2 mile, I barely pass the PT test. If a woman does the exact same thing, she excels. While this may be more "fair", recognizing that women are in general physically weaker than men in some areas, it does not make for a good combat soldier. If it is deemed that X standard is what is necessary for an infantry soldier to excel in combat, then every infantry soldier must be able to meet X standard, not just those who happen to be born with a penis.

It should be pointed out that this standard excludes many men, not just women. It isn't sexist, because it is an absolute. Just as I feel no shame in not being capable of being a Navy SEAL (My testicles are orders of magnitude too small for that), a woman who cannot meet the standard of the Infantry and must therefore serve in support should not feel shame in that either. If it was easy, it wouldn't be elite, and we wouldn't get those bitchin' blue cords.

Secondly, there are psychological aspects that would have to be considered. Before you jump me, women, I'm not talking about the minds of women. I'm talking about men.

There are some facts about the mind of the majority of males in our society that must be considered. The primary one is this: Men tend to protect women.

As anecdotal evidence of this, ask a group of your male friends if they would interfere if they saw a man strike another man. You would likely get varied responses, like "Well, did he deserve it?", or hedged conditions like "Only if it got out of hand". Then ask that same group if they would intervene if a woman were punched by a man. The responses will be markedly different. Perhaps not every man would intervene, but I guarantee the responses would be sharply contrasted nonetheless.

If that is the difference in mindset when it comes to a simple domestic dispute, imagine the difference in seeing women around you in lethal danger, or actually dying. If you like, you can read a real world account from a Marine officer on how his men acted differently around women in their midst, even in combat.

That is not to say that these problems are insurmountable. Physical standards will exclude many women, but not all. Training can be designed to limit the protective instincts of men in specific situations. For example, humans are intensely disinclined to kill others of their own species (See "On Killing" by Lt Col Grossman), but our military's training has reduced this reluctance in high stress situations dramatically. This training does not seem to bleed greatly into normal life, as demonstrated by the fact that military veterans are no more or less likely to be productive members of society than any other citizen. If we can remove instinct in certain situations for this one thing, why not others?

What it is to say is that these problems do exist, and I have very little faith that those in charge will take these problems seriously. Instead, they will do what they always have done. They will simply steamroll the policy into existence. Then they will leave it to grunts like me, who don't have the luxury of being "Echelons above Reality", to deal with the consequences.

The 1%, by Josh Marenco

I've noticed a lot of "I am the 99%/1%/sqrt(x*.42)%" posts on Facebook, mainly by people who've run on hard times and blame this group or that company or that politician for their woes. An Army buddy of mine who I was deployed to Iraq with, who is now currently fighting the fight in Afghanistan, posted this the other day. I liked it, so with his permission, here it is in its entirety:

I am a college graduate. I don't have a house or apartment right now. I have around 37k of student loan debt. I deployed to Iraq 4 years ago to pay for it. I am currently in Afghanistan paying some more of it off. Even on my downtime, I'm always on call, 24/7. When you factor in the hours I work I make less than minimum wage, and I've already been promoted 3 times. I carpoo...l with my colleagues to work dodging bombs in the road. I try to help people only to get shot at and rocketed on the drive back home. My job has me moving up and down mountains carrying a minimum of 100lbs of extra gear, and my load is light compared to some of my friends. I can feel my shoulders, lower back, and knees lose years of their use every passing day. I'm only 25 years old but I feel like I'm 40. My health care plan believes drinking water cures most ailments. My meals on the job are rations most people in the Third World don't want to eat. Whether I get enough sleep or feel good doesn't matter to my employer or job, because whether I give 100% or only a mere 99.99% of possible max effort could mean the difference between life or death.

I've had to say goodbye too soon, and too suddenly to some of the best people I, and probably you, could ever meet. There was little time to mourn their loss because the job still needs to get done. My friends and I have only tattoos, Velcro tabs on our kits, or Sharpie scrawlings inside of patrol caps as tribute to our fallen friends. This is while people back stateside who are famous for snorting coke and playing make-believe get tributes in the news and People magazine as if the Pope, Mother Teresa, and Ghandi drove off of a cliff.

But guess what? Never missed a day of work, because my friends count on me to be in the right place at the right time. I don't bitch about my job (too much), and laugh away my circumstances, because I'm surrounded by people in the same boat as me, and the only thing more unbearable then the aforementioned is an obnoxious whiner.

Is it easy? Not exactly. Am I slightly jaded now? A shade or two. Do I want a better lease on life? That sounds amazing right now. Whose fault is all of this? Me, Myself, and I, because I'm the one who signed the dotted line without anyone pointing a gun to my head telling me to do it, and unlike you I've learned to accept responsibility for my actions and accept the outcome, something you clearly haven't learned how to do. If I dick around on the job, say "Screw this, I'm not gonna do the right thing today", forget something or even just make an honest mistake, I might be going home in pieces. But guess what? That's just life, man.

So you can't pay off your student loans? Tough shit. You're getting evicted from a house you can't afford? Sucks to be you, nerd. You can't afford groceries? Yes you can, it's called store brand oatmeal and canned tuna. What's that? Your worried about your health care and your health sucks? Put down the beer and fast food and walk for a block or two. Oh no, you're and overqualified, ultra talented megastar in your job, but you lost it and can't find another one? Sorry guy, sorry you don't live in Mr. Roger's neighborhood anymore and no one's around to tell you that you're special. I graduated from a private college with a 3.56 GPA and my professors told me the world would be my oyster, yet here I am, having to ask permission to take a piss, and sleeping where people and animals shit during my business trips. Not everyone gets to be an astronaut when they grow up, sweet heart.

Of course, there's a relatively simple solution to that. The US Military is always hiring. If you're lucky, you may get a job that requires comparatively little physical effort and little chance of seeing actual combat. Pretty kick-ass deal, right? Oh yeah, that's right, you're too good to do that. That's only for losers like me. Or it goes against your ideals and everything you believe in. Really? Where have you been in life so that now you have the answers to everything and anything? Oh, you studied abroad, smoked dope and drank Absinthe in Europe for a semester. You really do have the crystal ball with all the answers. Sorry, my bad.

So you want to take back what's owed to you? I've learned your next breath isn't even owed to you. You want to take what isn't yours but you think you should have? Where I come from that'll earn you an ass-beating. You're sick and tired of this screwed up country that you've put no effort into improving? Pretty sure no one would miss you if you left, so what are you waiting for?

I'm the real 1%, and I hope each and every one of you gets struck by a SL500-driving-Armani-suit-wearing-corrupt-corporate-executive-shaped comet on the way to Wall Street.

Well said, Hillary.

Morals and the Implied Task

The military is fond of implied tasks. As a Joe, I've had this phrase spoken to me on numerous occasions. Usually, it's in the tones of talking to a particularly slow toddler. For instance, when I claim I could not mop the floor because the mops were frozen, the "Implied Task" is to run water over the mops till they thaw you effing moron.

Keep that in mind when you read this article, an excellent (and very brief) piece by a lawyer and OIF vet about war crimes.

"Every single Taliban wearing the civilian clothes of the surrounding villagers is committing a war crime. Every single Hamas fighter who launches his rockets at an Israeli town from a school courtyard commits a war crime. Every single al Qaeda suicide bombing of a hospital, restaurant, or even military checkpoint is a war crime.

These war crimes are designed not merely to make it easier for terrorists to engage American soldiers (whom they could never defeat in open combat); they are also deliberately chosen to inflate civilian casualties....So what possible moral justification exists for incentivizing these illegal acts by bestowing on captured terrorists the privilege of the full and comprehensive due process protections of a civilian trial? A prisoner of war captured in uniform would not enjoy such protections. Does the Left not understand that imposing such burdens on our justice system leads not to respect from our enemies but to contempt and exploitation?

Further, does the Left not understand that civilian trials (together with the consequent evidentiary requirements) would require our soldiers to act, essentially, as detectives in the middle of a shooting war?"

Funny thing about war. People tend to shoot at you during it, which makes the conducting of a forensic investigation a bit difficult.

Part of what's puzzling to me about the entire affair is why there is even an argument to begin with. Those who have never, will never, and could never face a real battlefield should hesitate before making value judgements about the morality of those who do. War is an ugly thing, and it makes necessary ugly actions.

So, what does this all mean to the Joe? When he's told that if he takes a prisoner, that prisoner will likely become a media circus show in the States? That he has to risk life and limb to gather enough evidence to convict if he wants the prisoner to be put away and prevent the enemy from being released by the Enemy At His Six to again become the Enemy At His Twelve?

What is the Implied Task?

Simple. Don't take prisoners.

Problem solved.

Ah, the Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again.

DADT repealed*

HR 6520 has been signed into law. Titled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010", the bill is remarkably short considering it's considerable impact on our nation's armed forces. About a page long, it allows for the repeal of DADT 60 days after the President, Secretary of Defense, and Joint Chiefs send a signed letter to Congress certifying that the repeal will not affect military readiness and that the DoD is all set to function without it.

It's uncertain when this approval will get sent, but it's not likely to be long and is assured in coming. Fortunately, I have every confidence that the DoD will spend plenty of time carefully formulating solutions to overcome the problems cited in every single survey of troops they've ever done, namely that of privacy, particularly as it related to showers and close quarters living.

Wait, hold on. They've already got the solution. Here it is:

"A special Defense Department working group appointed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates has recommended that the military should “expressly prohibit” heterosexuals from using separate showers, bathrooms and bunking facilities from homosexuals when the repeal of the law banning homosexuals from the military goes into effect."

In other words: Get over it.

Gee, thanks DoD.

The report says that a "very large number" of servicemembers (nearly 75%) expressed this concern. The report says that having separate showers or living quarters would be a "logistical nightmare" (We could have saved the taxpayers millions on this report if anyone at DoD had just read my blog. I've been saying this for months). Also, it might make people feel bad.

Here's how the conversation between DoD and actual ground troops would go.

Joe: "Hey, what about me showering inches away from a gay man? That makes me uncomfortable. I can't shower next to a straight woman for obvious reasons, and that same logic applies to gay men showering with me."

DoD: "Yeah...We really can't think of a good way to solve this problem. But don't worry, we've got a solution that never fails."

Joe: "Stick with what works?"

DoD: "Ignore the problem and pretend it doesn't exist!"

Joe: "...But...What about ---"

DoD: "Lalalalalalala I can't hear you! lalalalalala"

Fortunately, this whole situation has provided us some new guidance from higher. Here it is, the rules straight from DoD.

Joe's opinion only matters if:

1) Joe is not a combat troop, and will not be fighting in any war.

2) Joe's opinion agrees with our politically motivated preconceived notions.

3) The solutions to Joe's concerns are quick, inexpensive, and easy.

The military will adapt and overcome to this new complication, like we do to everything else. This will not, in my opinion, cause a mass exodus from the military. What it will necessitate is leaders at the lowest level becoming creative and finding solutions to overcome the idiocy dictated by people who have never left the office.

So, pretty much the same as always.

Military Day at JAC!

Today I have three military related stories to share with you. The first is a dodged bullet, the second is a disturbing close bullet, and the third is a bullet with levels of awesome before only attainable by Chuck Norris.

Last week the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, tucked away in a much larger spending bill, was filibustered to death in the Senate. From the SF Gate website:

"The vote fell three short of the 60 needed to move ahead on the defense authorization bill, which contained the repeal, and may kill, possibly for years, legislative repeal of the 17-year-old ban."

Of course, every interest group and their brothers and second cousins are railing against the injustice of it all. Fortunately, the military isn't about being fair, it's about being effective, and Congress has stood for just that. With any luck at all the Powers That Be will spend the time they've been bought actually working on a solution to the legitimate logistical problems. Perhaps they could do be classified similar to females and kept to non-combat roles, at least at first?

Oh, speaking of that...

A congressional panel is recommending that we go ahead and unrestrict the combat arms, and allow women into jobs like armor and infantry.

"A five-page analysis prepared for the commission concluded that women do not lack the physical ability to perform combat roles; gender integration will not negatively affect unit cohesion; and women are not more likely than men to develop mental health problems."

That's all well and good, so long as the military also abolishes the longstanding tradition of different scales for fitness. For example, in order to barely pass my APFT, or Army Physical Fitness Test, I have to run my two miles in at least 16:36. A woman of exactly my same age has 19:36 to accomplish the same task. Call me crazy, but in combat the enemy isn't going to run slower just because I have a woman along for the ride.

If women are to be allowed to serve alongside me when the bullets are flying, I need to be absolutely confident that she can run as fast, as far, and carry as much as I do. She needs to be held to exactly the same physical standards as a man. While that may not seem fair, because women are constructed differently, the hard truth is combat is an equal-opportunity killer, and the requirements to close with and destroy the enemy don't change based on your gender.

Of course, physical standards aside, there is the mental aspect. Here I'm not talking about the abilities of women to handle the stress of combat. I'm talking about men being able to handle women handling that stress. From Wikipedia:

"In On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman briefly mentions that female soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces have been officially prohibited from serving in close combat military operations since 1948 (in 2001, subsequent to publication, women began serving in IDF combat units on an experimental basis). The reason for removing female soldiers from the front lines is no reflection on the performance of female soldiers, but that of the male infantrymen after witnessing a woman wounded. The IDF saw a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently experienced an uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression.

Grossman also notes that Islamic militants rarely, if ever, surrender to female soldiers. In modern warfare where intelligence is perhaps more important than enemy casualties, every factor reducing combatants' willingness to fight is considered. Similarly, Iraqi and Afghani civilians are often not intimidated by female soldiers.
However, in such environments, having female soldiers serving within a combat unit does have the advantage of allowing for searches on female civilians, and in some cases the female areas of segregated mosques, while causing less offense amongst the occupied population. A notable example of this would be female US military personnel who are specially selected to participate in patrols and raids for this purpose.

Melody Kemp mentions that the Australian soldiers have voiced similar concern saying these soldiers "are reluctant to take women on reconnaissance or special operations, as they fear that in the case of combat or discovery, their priority will be to save the women and not to complete the mission. Thus while men might be able to be programmed to kill, it’s is not as easy to program men to neglect women."

Men, it seems, are instinctually programmed to be protective of women. If this is truly an instinct, and therefore is difficult to impossible to remove from the male soldier, does it make tactical sense to allow it? Can we give up any advantage over our enemy? Tough questions. I can only hope that Congress and the Pentagon ask "What will make our military most able to destroy the enemy?", and not "What is fair and equitable?"

Finally, on to the badass portion of the blog. As a good ol' US Army Infantryman, I am naturally inclined to recognize the Navy only as a repository for funny walks and unusually high levels of Don't Ask Don't Tell violation. However, in the face of this, even I must humbly submit to the Navy's awesomeness in this instance.

That is a railgun.

"An electromagnetic railgun offers a velocity previously unattainable in a conventional weapon, speeds that are incredibly powerful on their own. In fact, since the projectile doesn't have any explosives itself, it relies upon that kinetic energy to do damage. And at 11 a.m. today, the Navy produced a 33-megajoule firing -- more than three times the previous record set by the Navy in 2008.

"It bursts radially, but it's hard to quantify," said Roger Ellis, electromagnetic railgun program manager with the Office of Naval Research. To convey a sense of just how much damage, Ellis told FoxNews.com that the big guns on the deck of a warship are measured by their muzzle energy in megajoules. A single megajoule is roughly equivalent to a 1-ton car traveling at 100 mph. Multiple that by 33 and you get a picture of what would happen when such a weapon hits a target."

Because of it's ungodly speeds it can reach a target within 6 minutes. It can fire 6-12 rounds per minute. It hits the target with the force of thirty three friggin cars, all without explosives. Right now it's just ships. Imagine, if you will, once this technology is miniaturized into a mobile artiller platform. Artillery pieces safely in a green zone in Richmond, VA shooting rounds into Washington, DC.

It's nice, in this time of uncertainty, to know that the US military is still able to break stuff and kill people better than anyone else in the history of the planet.

DADT report endorses repeal...Kind of.

The Pentagon finally released it's much anticipated report on the predicted effects of a repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. The report was, for the most part, positive. The link is to the report itself, directly. I have not read the entire report, since it is 266 pages long. I have, however, studied many of the responses closely.

Most service members who were surveyed predicted either no effect or a positive effect in nearly every situation. One category of service members actually had an overwhelming positive response, nearly 80%! Of course this means that anyone who disagrees will have been proven wrong now.

This is the point where proponents of an immediate DADT repeal will tell me to pay no mind to the man behind the curtain. Unfortunately for them, I'm going to pull the curtain away anyhow.

That 80% figure that's being touted from sea to shining sea? It comes from page 65. As you can see, the question was:

"If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect your immediate unit’s effectiveness at completing its mission…"

For "day-to-day" operations, 17.4% said positive, 32.6% equally positive and negative, 29.3% no effect, and 20.9% negative effect. That's 79.3% who don't see it as a negative, or at the least see the negatives equal the positives. Just one tiny little detail. These respondents are the ones with no combat experience since Sept 11, 2001.

The ones with "combat experience" are still positive by majority, but not nearly as much. For day-to-day, the non-negative answers get 55.7%, negative 44.3%. That negative number drops when they ask about "intense combat" to 30.6%.

It gets better. Flip to page 74, "Army, Marine Corps, and Combat Arms."

"Among the Services, the Marines were consistently more negative in their responses about the effect of repeal. The combat arms communities in both the Army and the Marine Corps were also more negative about the effect of repeal than others in their Services.

For example, as discussed earlier, approximately 44% of all Service members said
that their unit’s effectiveness “in a field environment or out at sea” would be negatively impacted by repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Nearly 60% of respondents in the Marine Corps and in Army combat arms said they believed there would be a negative impact on their unit’s effectiveness in this context; among Marine combat arms the number was 67%."

The report goes on to say that those who serve in single gender (read, male only) units currently are far more likely to oppose a repeal of DADT. (Insider tip: The units that traditionally see the heaviest combat, AKA Infantry, Armor, etc., are all male. Females are not allowed to serve in these units except in limited support roles.)

Call me crazy, but I always thought that the most important thing the military does is, you know, win wars. Perhaps I'm old fashioned, but I think the opinions of those who have actually done the whole war thing ought to be given a bit more than equal weight with those who haven't. Similarly, the fact that the responses of those whose job it is to actually close with and destroy the enemy are so much more negative should be a huge red flag.

There is a misconception in the civilian world that everyone in uniform is a soldier in the same way, all shooting and fighting the enemy. The fact is that the combat arms specialties, your Infantry, your Armor, your Artillery, etc., are actually a minority of all servicemembers (At least 2.5 support troops for each combat soldier). Their voice is easily drowned out by the roar of all the pogues behind them. While the job of a quartermaster, a laundry specialist, and a mail clerk are all important to the success of the military the fact remains that the needs and concerns of someone who typically stays inside the FOB are very different from those who actually leave the wire.

This report, if you read it carefully, only reinforces exactly what has been said by myself and others over and over again. In terms of the actual firefights, (I.E. That intense combat question) whether they a soldier is gay or straight makes about as much difference as whether they prefer cake or pie (though of course the soldiers who prefer pie show far better taste). Similarly, for those who do not serve in combat arms it is likely to have little impact on the way business is done. But where the rubber meets the road, for Private Joe Blow Rifleman, the world is a little different.

If the big thinkers in the Pentagon can think of a legitimate plan to enact a repeal of DADT, one that addresses the concerns of the combat arms specialties and allows for privacy for all involved, then count me in. Unfortunately, it does not appear that this will happen. As usual, those knuckle dragging idiots who actually do the fighting are likely to be dismissed as outliers, unimportant, and uninformed. The brunt of how to effectively enact this change will fall on the unit leaders, right down to team leaders like myself.

Thanks, sir. Guess I'll take it from here.

From Korea: Apathetic response Total War!

North Korea badly miscalculated when they arbitrarily shelled a South Korean island in disputed territory. The artillery barrage killed two soldiers and wounded 18 others while setting at least 70 structures ablaze. The deliberate and blatant act of war instantly triggered an appropriate response.

South Korea scrambled their fighter jets and immediately returned fire with their own artillery batteries. Vicious air strikes sought out the source of the offending artillery and destroyed them with extreme prejudice. Additionally over a dozen strategic targets were subsequently targeted and destroyed by South Korea. The military of the southern nation has begun preliminary mobilization to ensure that, should North Korea not capitulate immediately, they are prepared for the ensuing war.

This is perhaps overshadowed by the masterful stroke performed by the US. In a display of military might and domination over North Korea, the US launched a small, precise barrage of cruise missiles at various sites throughout the Communist nation. These targeted structures of cultural significance, such as prominent monuments to the North Korean dictator, as well as completely destroying the residence that the dictator had slept at the night before. The message sent was clear. "We can strike you anywhere, at anytime, and you cannot stop us."

Oh, wait. Sorry. I accidentally picked up the news ticker for the wrong universe. That one was from the Bizarro world where artillery strikes on sovereign soil are kind of a big deal. I apologize for the inconvenience. Here's the real story.

South Korea responded by shooting a few dozen artillery shells back at the North Koreans, with undisclosed effect. The US, China, and Russia all collectively shook their fingers at Kim Jong Il, saying with one unified voice: "Bad! Bad Kim!"

The UN Security Council will be meeting immediately this week, where they will propose stiff penalties on Korea, have those penalties immediately vetoed by China, and in the end issue a very sternly worded memo telling North Korea they must stop these actions immediately or face even more sternly worded memos. Below is a picture of Kim after he reads the memo.

Medal of Honor Recipient Staff Sergeant Salvatore Giunta

Two days ago in the Whitehouse something happened that has not happened for over forty years, since the end of the Vietnam war. A soldier was awarded the Medal of Honor, in person, for actions in combat. That soldier is Staff Sergeant Salvatore Giunta of the 173rd Airborne BCT.

Please take some time out of your day to watch the video below. It's breathtaking. I challenge you to make it to the end with dry eyes.



President Obama's presentation speech gives a vivid narrative of the events of the day. For those who can't view the video, here it is:

"Sal and his platoon were several days into a mission in the Korengal Valley -- the most dangerous valley in northeast Afghanistan. The moon was full. The light it cast was enough to travel by without using their night-vision goggles. With heavy gear on their backs, and air support overhead, they made their way single file down a rocky ridge crest, along terrain so steep that sliding was sometimes easier than walking.

They hadn’t traveled a quarter mile before the silence was shattered. It was an ambush, so close that the cracks of the guns and the whizz of the bullets were simultaneous. Tracer fire hammered the ridge at hundreds of rounds per minute -- “more,” Sal said later, “than the stars in the sky.”

The Apache gunships above saw it all, but couldn’t engage with the enemy so close to our soldiers. The next platoon heard the shooting, but were too far away to join the fight in time.

And the two lead men were hit by enemy fire and knocked down instantly. When the third was struck in the helmet and fell to the ground, Sal charged headlong into the wall of bullets to pull him to safety behind what little cover there was. As he did, Sal was hit twice -- one round slamming into his body armor, the other shattering a weapon slung across his back.

They were pinned down, and two wounded Americans still lay up ahead. So Sal and his comrades regrouped and counterattacked. They threw grenades, using the explosions as cover to run forward, shooting at the muzzle flashes still erupting from the trees. Then they did it again. And again. Throwing grenades, charging ahead. Finally, they reached one of their men. He’d been shot twice in the leg, but he had kept returning fire until his gun jammed.

As another soldier tended to his wounds, Sal sprinted ahead, at every step meeting relentless enemy fire with his own. He crested a hill alone, with no cover but the dust kicked up by the storm of bullets still biting into the ground. There, he saw a chilling sight: the silhouettes of two insurgents carrying the other wounded American away -- who happened to be one of Sal’s best friends. Sal never broke stride. He leapt forward. He took aim. He killed one of the insurgents and wounded the other, who ran off.

Sal found his friend alive, but badly wounded. Sal had saved him from the enemy -- now he had to try to save his life. Even as bullets impacted all around him, Sal grabbed his friend by the vest and dragged him to cover. For nearly half an hour, Sal worked to stop the bleeding and help his friend breathe until the MEDEVAC arrived to lift the wounded from the ridge. American gunships worked to clear the enemy from the hills. And with the battle over, First Platoon picked up their gear and resumed their march through the valley. They continued their mission.

It had been as intense and violent a firefight as any soldier will experience. By the time it was finished, every member of First Platoon had shrapnel or a bullet hole in their gear. Five were wounded. And two gave their lives: Sal’s friend, Sergeant Joshua C. Brennan, and the platoon medic, Specialist Hugo V. Mendoza.

Now, the parents of Joshua and Hugo are here today. And I know that there are no words that, even three years later, can ease the ache in your hearts or repay the debt that America owes to you. But on behalf of a grateful nation, let me express profound thanks to your sons’ service and their sacrifice. And could the parents of Joshua and Hugo please stand briefly? (Applause.)

Now, I already mentioned I like this guy, Sal. And as I found out myself when I first spoke with him on the phone and when we met in the Oval Office today, he is a low-key guy, a humble guy, and he doesn’t seek the limelight. And he’ll tell you that he didn’t do anything special; that he was just doing his job; that any of his brothers in the unit would do the same thing. In fact, he just lived up to what his team leader instructed him to do years before: “You do everything you can.”

Staff Sergeant Giunta, repeatedly and without hesitation, you charged forward through extreme enemy fire, embodying the warrior ethos that says, “I will never leave a fallen comrade.” Your actions disrupted a devastating ambush before it could claim more lives. Your courage prevented the capture of an American soldier and brought that soldier back to his family. You may believe that you don’t deserve this honor, but it was your fellow soldiers who recommended you for it. In fact, your commander specifically said in his recommendation that you lived up to the standards of the most decorated American soldier of World War II, Audie Murphy, who famously repelled an overwhelming enemy attack by himself for one simple reason: “They were killing my friends.”

That’s why Salvatore Giunta risked his life for his fellow soldiers -- because they would risk their lives for him. That’s what fueled his bravery -- not just the urgent impulse to have their backs, but the absolute confidence that they had his. One of them, Sal has said -- of these young men that he was with, he said, “They are just as much of me as I am.” They are just as much of me as I am."

The ceremony was attended by the living recipients of the Medal of Honor. I am astonished that the building did not explode due to the insane levels of awesome contained within. As the highest rated comment on the youtube video said:

"This guy is the equivalent of a walking God- Complete and total badass. When he walks into a room, hippies burn up instantaneously and women's panties immediately drop. Staff Sergeant Salvatore Giunta will never have to ever buy another drink or even argue with someone again because he is a FRIGGING MEDAL OF HONOR RECIPIENT!!"

Indeed.

Government Transparency (Plus mystery missiles)

Obama has left the country, jetsetting about Asia, presumably consuming massive quantities of whiskey in order to forget that last Tuesday ever happened. He has left our Great Nation in the capable hands of Vice President Biden. Ol' Joe has wasted no time in getting to work on something that everyone can agree is very important: Government Transparency. Specifically, he's meeting with Earl Devaney, chairman of the Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board. They're going to find out where all those millions of dollars we spent on jobs went. They are going to help the government reveal its secrets to the People!

The meeting is of course closed to the public.



That's right. In an explosion of irony of the epic proportions only the federal government is capable of, the meeting on transparency with the Chairman of the Transparency and Accountability Board is completely and 100% non-transparent. Normally I'd use my razor wit to make this news story more entertaining, but I don't think I can possibly do better than Joe did all by himself.

In other news, a missile was launched off the coast of California yesterday evening. Wait, wait, there's no cause for alarm. The Pentagon has it all under control. And by all under control, I mean they have absolutely no clue who launched it.

Oops.

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell: Repealed Appealed Reinstated!

Let’s recap: A California Judge named Philips decided to strike down a DOD policy known as Don’t Ask Don’t Tell mandating that gay service members keep their homosexuality on the DL while serving as unconstitutional. When asked to lift her suspension of the policy, Philips said that “the public has an interest in military readiness, unit cohesion” but that these “these interests are outweighed by the compelling public interest of safeguarding fundamental constitutional rights.” (This sentiment will be a great comfort to troops engaged in a firefight. I know there’s nothing more comforting to me than knowing that my unit’s military readiness and cohesion aren’t #1 priorities when I’m in combat.) The Pentagon remained silent for a day or so, then issued the guidance that gay recruits had to be allowed to enlist. Cue mass panic at Recruiter’s offices as discharged rainbow warriors flock to the banner.

Yesterday a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals managed to clear their heads for a moment and, realizing that slamming the brakes on a decade of policy backed by over a century of tradition over the course of a single night without any research whatsoever in the middle of a war may possibly be just a tiny bit disruptive to military operations, granted the Justice Dept’s request to freeze the freeze that froze DADT. (That’s a triple negative. I get bonus points on my Blogger account if I can chain combos like that)

There will no doubt be months of appeals process to go through, not to mention the forthcoming study on the effects of ending DADT on military readiness. No matter which way this court decides the losing side will most certainly appeal, eventually forcing the policy decision to the Supreme Court, who I cannot imagine could find a way out of hearing it.

It is somewhat ironic that the Obama administration finds itself defending a policy they have themselves stated is unconstitutional, and that Obama promised to repeal on his watch. I do have to give them kudos for at least somewhat rising to the occasion, however, and pitching the ball to Congress to deal with, as they should…Well, personally I’d pitch the ball to the E-4 Mafia, but I doubt that’d be terribly popular among the JCOS.

Stay tuned. And remember: If you don’t look him in the eyes…

Judge bans DATA (AKA: Screw careful consideration!)

A California judge, Virginia Philips, ruled on October 12th that the military's policy of Don't Ask Don't Tell is unconstitutional and, showing the good sense equivalent to pulling your emergency brake while cruising at highway speeds, ordered the immediate ending of all enforcement of this policy worldwide. Obviously Philips, after taking a good solid hit from her self-rolled doobie, decided that he knew better than the thousands of officers and NCOs in the field, the Defense Secretary, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Congress.

There is a report due to come out December 1 on the possible impact of such a decision on the military which is supposed to encompass everything from combat readiness to morale, but I mean, why wait? It's just the readiness of the world's finest military at stake. I don't see what the fuss is about, honestly.

There is question as to whether the judge even has the authority to make such a decision but that aside there are serious problems with the action taken. Secretary Gates, who supports the eventual repeal of the law, "warned of "enormous consequences" for troops if the court order is allowed to stand, saying the decision on repeal of the law known as "don't ask, don't tell" should be decided by Congress and not the courts."

While my faith in Congress has waned considerably since the approximate day of my birth, I am inclined to agree with Secretary Gates. This is a matter to be decided, carefully, by those who are charged with running our military, not some lone crackpot judge in America's nutbasket.

I personally do not support the repeal of DATA as it stands today. My problem is purely logistical. I honestly do not care one bit if the man shooting, moving, and communicating next to me is gay, straight, bi, white, black, yellow, or Martian, as long as he can keep up. The problem is logistical. In the military (particularly in combat branches like my own, the Infantry) there is a high premium on privacy. Barracks can be large open bays with no consideration for isolation during changing or sleeping. Showers may or may not have stalls, bathrooms may or may not have partitions, etc. While overseas, even back in the rear, I shared my living space with a roommate, college dorm room style. In the field even this modicum of privacy disintigrates.

I have seen more naked men in my career with the Army than I ever thought possible. If you put a gay man with a bunch of straight men it is naturally going to make things a bit uncomfortable, in the same way that putting a naked woman in the middle of a bunch of naked men would be awkward. Unless we're willing to make the military completely co-ed and house men and women together with disregard to their sex it isn't consistent to do the same with gay men and women and their straight counterparts. Until there is a viable solution presented for how these legitimate issues are going to be overcome we cannot in good conscience repeal this standard which has worked reasonably well up till now.

The hard truth is that the military does not exist to be fair. It exists for two reasons, and two reasons only: To kill people and break stuff. Being fair is a secondary objective, and if it interferes with combat effectiveness, it needs to go by the wayside. Yes, it sucks, but the business of the military is war, and war sucks the big one.

Lying about medals now A-OK

There was recently a decision by a San Francisco court which determined that the Stolen Valor Act, a law that prohibits an individual from lying about receiving medals for military service, is unconstitutional. The defendant, one Xavier Alvarez, introduced himself at a public meeting in 2007 by claiming to be a Marine who had been awarded the Medal of Honor. Judge Milan Smith said in the majority opinion:

The right to speak and write whatever one chooses - including, to some degree, worthless, offensive and demonstrable untruths - without cowering in fear of a powerful government is, in our view, an essential component of the protection afforded by the First Amendment,"

Firstly, if you’re going to lie about a medal, pick something less conspicuous. The Medal of Honor? Really? Only eight men have been awarded this medal in the last twenty years, and every single one of them was awarded it posthumously. The story is quite easy to verify. Check out this website if you want to be choked up by reading of the acts of courage and sacrifice that ordinary joes like me can only imagine. Why not try something like a Distinguished Service Cross, or a Silver Star? Then again, I guess if you’re going for douche bag only the best will do.

The story continues:

"Alvarez was the first person ever prosecuted under a 2006 federal law that prohibits falsely claiming to have won a military decoration. It is punishable by up to six months in prison, or a year for elite awards such as the Medal of Honor.

He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to probation, fined $5,000 and ordered to perform 416 hours of community service. His lawyer said he completed the community service but, in an unrelated case, was convicted last year of misappropriating public funds and was sentenced to five years in state prison.”

Very appropriately, the community service he was ordered to serve was at a Veteran’s hospital. I hope he learned some sort of lesson there.

Anyone who has known me for any length of time knows how I feel about the Constitution and the rights it affords. Those rights may allow things we consider deplorable and despicable. The question here is this: Does the lying about medals, particularly one as prestigious as the Medal of Honor, do “damages” to another citizen?

The answer to this is not simple…On the one hand, having a cowardly and worthless sack of meat like Mr. Alvarez falsely and maliciously make the claim to have served courageously clearly damages the honor and reputation of those who truly did make those sacrifices. But what are these damages? How much are they worth? Is it appreciable enough to be legislated? Are lies like this akin to slander and libel, which are forms of speech that we correctly outlaw? Or are they simply one of the uncomfortable facets of the 1st Amendment that we must protect, along with distasteful things as pro-Nazi rallies?

Though it does not happen often, I am undecided...Were I forced to make a choice, I would have to err on the side of liberty and agree with the court’s decision. But I still don’t know.

I do know one thing however. It may be that they can choose to exercise their freedom of speech in this way. Should I happen upon someone who falsely claims the title of hero, I will be forced to exercise my freedoms to give them a little wall-to-wall counseling, preferably with dimensional lumber. The memory of those who gave their all demands no less.

The Medal of Honor

The Distinguished Service Cross

The Silver Star

The Purple Heart

Collateral Damage: A fact of war.

While some of you may not believe it, it is exceptionally rare that I come across a story in the news that genuinely makes me angry, even on issues I am passionate about. Being able to reasonably evaluate world events while still maintaining passionate opinions is something I pride myself on.

I read a story recently on everyone’s favorite cabal of communist wackjobs legitimate source of information, the Huffington Post. This story was on a video released by Wikileaks which shows collateral damage in Iraq in graphic detail. The article HuffPo article focuses more on the military’s “coverup”, claiming they cannot find their copy of the video in question. A quick Google search led me to a Yahoo News article. Enter the Monday Morning Quarterback:

” WikiLeaks posted a video that showed the U.S. military in a less favorable light. WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange said his organization got the videotape of "the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people" and verified its authenticity from "a number of military whistle-blowers"; the videotape was ultimately confirmed as genuine by U.S. military officials.”

Indiscriminate slaying? Mercy me! Let’s read on. The men, including the reporters, are blown away by the gunship, and then:

“Suddenly a van appears and Iraqis hop out to help the man. The helicopter crew seeks and receives permission to fire on the vehicle. In the ensuing barrage, two children inside the vehicle are apparently wounded, and their father, a Good Samaritan who had stopped to take the wounded man to the hospital, is allegedly killed. When U.S. ground troops arrive later, they discover the youngsters. ‘Well, it's their fault,’ a member of the Apache crew says, ‘for bringing kids into a battle.’ Initially, the U.S. said the dead were all insurgents and had been killed in battle, but the video as released seems to offer no evidence of hostile intent by those on the ground.”

Oh the humanity! How could those soldiers be so cold, so callused? They just murdered over a dozen people!

Obviously there are no extenuating circumstances for such an atrocity…I mean, except for the fact that the two reporters in question had intentionally embedded themselves with a group of armed insurgents….or that there had been multiple attacks on American forces in the neighborhood that very day…or that the reporters neither told anyone in the military that they were going to be embedding themselves…or that the reporters didn’t even bother to mark themselves somehow to signify they were non-combatants…or that the reporter took a knee to take a photo of the oncoming patrol with his shoulder mounted camera, which is exactly the stance you’d take if you were about to fire with your shoulder mounted RPG…Nope, no extenuating circumstances here.

The Apache was in the area to defend American foot patrols. They saw a group of apparently armed insurgents, one of which was posed in a threatening manner towards friendly ground troops. They did exactly what they were trained to do: They eliminated the threat utilizing the most violent means they had at their disposal. After destroying the enemy, they see a van arrive on scene and begin giving aid to said enemy. This, under any rational rules of engagement, would classify said van as an enemy vehicle, making it a legitimate target.

It is very easy for someone who never has, and with any luck never will, seen the realities of war to sit back and judge the decisions of a soldier in the warzone. It is easy, given the comfort of your couch and the luxury of time and no ramifications, to dissect the course of action taken by that soldier. Unfortunately, when a soldier hesitates too long because he is uncertain, people die. When a soldier doesn’t hesitate, and makes a decision, and that decision is the wrong one, people die. When a soldier doesn’t hesitate, makes a decision, and that decision is the right one? You guessed it: People die!

This is not a game.

This is not a movie.

There is the very real possibility that no matter what the soldier does, some American family’s husband, wife, son, or daughter will never come home. All he can do, all anyone can do, is act on the perceived information he has and make the best of the consequences. This is the reality that the soldier must live with.

What do their detractors, those who call them murderers, suggest they had done? Should they have gotten out of the helicopter and asked the man politely if he was intending on harming the Americans he was pointing at? Should they erred on the side of caution? What if their caution had been incorrect? What if that person had gone on to kill members of the oncoming patrol? What do they suggest the Apache crew tell the grieving mother of those dead soldiers? “Sorry, but I decided I didn’t want to take the risk?”

The hidden tragedy here is not that these civilians were killed. Do not mistake me: If we could conduct a war without a single civilian casualty, I would be all for it. Any civilian who dies as part of the business of war is a tragic loss. What I mean when I say hidden tragedy is the fact that this was brought up to disparage our troops at all. I am referring to the mindset that sees it as legitimate news to bring up the fact that the soldiers made comments about the enemies they saw, about the enemies they had just killed, that may offend the sensibilities of those at home. It is this mindset of the comfortable civilian, the sheltered politician, the bleeding heart peacenik, who presumes to tell the soldier exactly how to do his job.

The Rules of Engagement have grown into a grotesque monster that serves only to bind our soldier’s hands and cause them to wonder if they will go to jail if they make the wrong move. Our men and women in uniform have enough on their minds, what with the daily threat of death and dismemberment and all. What they do not need is the threat of an ended career simply for pulling the trigger with the best of intentions.

It is appropriate that the situation was investigated. It was appropriate for any mistake to be evaluated, and for solutions to be found that will hopefully cause a better resolution next time. It was appropriate for these soldiers to be cleared of all wrongdoing. Now it would be appropriate for those who have never once put their life on the line for something greater than themselves to STFU, and let those who have do the job they swore to do.