thedrifter
03-02-05, 06:38 AM
02-24-2005
Final Thoughts on the Mattis Incident
By Matthew Dodd
By now most everyone is aware of a few of Marine LtGen James Mattis’ remarks during a joint Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association-U.S. Naval Institute panel discussion about battling terrorists in future wars recently in San Diego. It was almost impossible to escape the news media headlines and television stories that a highly decorated Marine General said, “It’s fun to shoot some people.”
While technically accurate, that nifty sound-bite was repeatedly taken out of context and not looked at in its proper perspective. Let me share some things that I hope will help you make an informed decision about Mattis’ words and character as a leader of Marines.
First of all, here is a more complete quote of what Mattis said about the terrorist enemies we are now facing than most news media acknowledged:
“Don’t patronize this enemy. They mean business. They mean every word they say. Don’t imagine an enemy somewhere in the future and you’re going to transform so you can fight him. They’re killing us now. Their will is not broken …. ”
“It’s a lot of fun to fight ‘em, it's a hell of a hoot, uh, it’s fun to shoot some people. I’ll be right up front with you. I like brawlin,’ and one thing we have to do is make certain we’re advertising, recruiting, selecting the right kind of people to go into this fight so you’re not out there with people who have any misunderstanding what this is all about.”
“You go into Afghanistan. You’ve got guys who slapped women around for five years ‘cause they didn’t wear a veil. Guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway, so it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them. It’s a good fight. But as much emotional satisfaction – for all the emotional satisfaction you get from really whacking somebody like that, the main effort, ladies and gentlemen, is to diminish the conditions that drive people to sign up for these kinds of insurgencies.”
Almost immediately, Nihad Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a self-described Islamic civil rights group, released a statement:
“We do not need generals who treat the grim business of war as a sporting event …. These disturbing remarks are indicative of an apparent indifference to the value of human life.”
Awad also urged that DoD take “appropriate disciplinary action” against Mattis.
I am guessing that Awad was not aware of (or forgot about) a letter that then-MajGen Mattis, as Commanding General of the 1st Marine Division, published to his troops on March 19, 2003, on the eve of the opening of Operation Iraqi Freedom. That letter, in part, said:
“Our fight is not with the Iraqi people, nor is it with members of the Iraqi army who choose to surrender. While we will move swiftly and aggressively against those who resist, we will treat all others with decency, demonstrating chivalry and soldierly compassion for people who have endured a lifetime under Saddam's oppression.”
“You are part of the world’s most feared and trusted force. Engage your brain before you engage your weapon. Share your courage with each other as we enter the uncertain terrain north of the Line of Departure. Keep faith in your comrades on your left and right and Marine Air overhead. Fight with a happy heart and strong spirit.”
“For the mission's sake, our country's sake, and the sake of the men who
carried the Division's colors in past battles – who fought for life and never lost their nerve – carry out your mission and keep your honor clean. Demonstrate to the world there is ‘No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy’ than a U.S. Marine.”
On the eve of major battle with historical significance, I did not once detect that Mattis treated war as sport, and not once did I think he showed an indifference to human life. I am deeply concerned that the inspiring words in Mattis’ 2003 letter were not found in any mainstream media story or article that condemned the general’s words in San Diego and questioned his character as a leader of Marines. To not mention both presents only half the picture.
My understanding is that the panel selected and invited Mattis to participate because of his recent, extensive combat experiences. In other words, they wanted a warrior, and they got exactly what they paid for. Two prominent, former servicemen turned military commentators who either participated in the panel discussion or who were there to report on the event, wrote articles in defense of Mattis’ remarks.
On February 7, author and retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert H. Scales wrote in The Washington Times:
“For those of you who might have the image of a knuckle-dragging troglodyte, let me assure you that he is one of the most urbane and polished men I have known. He can quote Homer as well as Sun Tzu and has over 7,000 books in his personal library.”
“Jim is the product of three decades of schooling and practice in the art of war. No one on active duty knows more about the subject. He is an infantryman, a close-combat Marine. He is one of those very few who willingly practices the art of what social scientists term ‘intimate killing.’ Those of us who have engaged in the act understand what he was trying to explain to an audience of defense technologists and contractors.”
“Intimate killing is a primal aspect of warfare unchanged since the beginning of civilization. It involves a clash of two warriors, one on one, armed with virtually identical weapons. The decision goes to the soldier with the right stuff, the one with the greater cunning, strength, guile, ruthlessness and will to win …. ”
“My point simply is this: We must celebrate the fact that we have men like Jim Mattis willing to devote (and give) their lives when necessary to commit an act that most of those in our society would be horrified to even contemplate. If you are offended by these emotions, then seriously consider joining an Army or Marine infantry unit so that you can demonstrate how to kill an enemy in a more humane and politically correct manner.”
“Until such an unlikely day occurs, we must all remember that leaders like Gen. Mattis and the men he commands are the rarest commodities that a protected society like ours can produce. All they want is the opportunity to serve a country that truly appreciates the difficulty and dangers inherent in the duties they perform, duties that very few are willing even to contemplate.”
The day before, in The New York Post, retired Army Lt. Col. author and international lecturer Ralph Peters offered:
“In the course of a blunt discussion of how our military has to prepare for future fights, the general spoke with a frankness that won the hearts of the uniformed members of the audience. Instead of trotting out politically correct clichés, Mattis told the truth…”
“The language wasn't elegant. But we don't need prissy military leaders. We need generals who talk straight and shoot straight, men who inspire. And I guarantee you that any real Marine or soldier would follow Gen. Mattis…”
“The hypocrisy is stunning. Gen. Mattis told the truth about a fundamental human activity – war – and was treated as though he had dropped a nuclear weapon on an orphanage. Yet when some bozo on a talk show confesses to an addiction or a perversion in front of millions of viewers, he’s lionized as ‘courageous’ for speaking out.”
“Sorry. It's men like Jim Mattis who are courageous. The rest of us barely glimpse the meaning of the word.”
“We've come to a sad state when a Marine who has risked his life repeatedly to keep our country safe can’t speak his mind, while any professor who wants to blame America for 9/11 is defended by legions of free-speech advocates. If a man like Mattis hasn’t earned the right to say what he really believes, who has?”
“Fortunately, Lt. Gen. Mattis has three big things going for him: The respect of those who serve; the Marine Corps, which won’t abandon a valiant fighter to please self-righteous pundits whose only battle is with their waistlines; and the fact that we’re at war. We need more men like Mattis, not fewer. The public needs to hear the truth about war, not just the crybaby nonsense of those who never deigned to serve our country.”
“Table manners don’t win wars. Winning our nation’s battles demands disciplined ferocity, raw physical courage – and integrity. Jim Mattis has those qualities in spades.”
In the months and years ahead, we are going to have more and more combat-experienced generals being rotated through and assigned to stateside posts with greater chances for media access. I would hope that we can expect to hear from these warriors who have risked it all and who have come back to give us a glimpse of what it was like fighting for and defending freedom. Still, the Mattis incident has left me, and others with whom I have spoken, with some serious questions that beg for honest answers.
* Is it fair, reasonable, or responsible to publicly condemn and question the value of the service of our returning warrior generals who may speak bluntly about their experiences as requested to mixed military/civilian groups when some people, certainly not the majority, are offended by what they hear?
* Is the goal to hear what goes through a warrior’s mind in combat to understand what war is like, or is the goal to stifle or re-program warriors’ thinking to conform to some sort of politically-correct image of bureaucratic generalship?
* Is it the goal of the liberal-biased news media to continue to undermine the war effort by seizing every opportunity to condemn, distort and misrepresent any successful person, leader or event from the war?
Virtually all the Marines with whom I have spoken who have either served with or for LtGen Mattis, have a great deal of respect for him as a leader of Marines. As a former subordinate of Mattis and a career Marine officer myself, so do I. If my son were to join the Marines and be deployed in harm’s way, I would feel much better knowing he was under the command of Mattis.
continued
Final Thoughts on the Mattis Incident
By Matthew Dodd
By now most everyone is aware of a few of Marine LtGen James Mattis’ remarks during a joint Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association-U.S. Naval Institute panel discussion about battling terrorists in future wars recently in San Diego. It was almost impossible to escape the news media headlines and television stories that a highly decorated Marine General said, “It’s fun to shoot some people.”
While technically accurate, that nifty sound-bite was repeatedly taken out of context and not looked at in its proper perspective. Let me share some things that I hope will help you make an informed decision about Mattis’ words and character as a leader of Marines.
First of all, here is a more complete quote of what Mattis said about the terrorist enemies we are now facing than most news media acknowledged:
“Don’t patronize this enemy. They mean business. They mean every word they say. Don’t imagine an enemy somewhere in the future and you’re going to transform so you can fight him. They’re killing us now. Their will is not broken …. ”
“It’s a lot of fun to fight ‘em, it's a hell of a hoot, uh, it’s fun to shoot some people. I’ll be right up front with you. I like brawlin,’ and one thing we have to do is make certain we’re advertising, recruiting, selecting the right kind of people to go into this fight so you’re not out there with people who have any misunderstanding what this is all about.”
“You go into Afghanistan. You’ve got guys who slapped women around for five years ‘cause they didn’t wear a veil. Guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway, so it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them. It’s a good fight. But as much emotional satisfaction – for all the emotional satisfaction you get from really whacking somebody like that, the main effort, ladies and gentlemen, is to diminish the conditions that drive people to sign up for these kinds of insurgencies.”
Almost immediately, Nihad Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a self-described Islamic civil rights group, released a statement:
“We do not need generals who treat the grim business of war as a sporting event …. These disturbing remarks are indicative of an apparent indifference to the value of human life.”
Awad also urged that DoD take “appropriate disciplinary action” against Mattis.
I am guessing that Awad was not aware of (or forgot about) a letter that then-MajGen Mattis, as Commanding General of the 1st Marine Division, published to his troops on March 19, 2003, on the eve of the opening of Operation Iraqi Freedom. That letter, in part, said:
“Our fight is not with the Iraqi people, nor is it with members of the Iraqi army who choose to surrender. While we will move swiftly and aggressively against those who resist, we will treat all others with decency, demonstrating chivalry and soldierly compassion for people who have endured a lifetime under Saddam's oppression.”
“You are part of the world’s most feared and trusted force. Engage your brain before you engage your weapon. Share your courage with each other as we enter the uncertain terrain north of the Line of Departure. Keep faith in your comrades on your left and right and Marine Air overhead. Fight with a happy heart and strong spirit.”
“For the mission's sake, our country's sake, and the sake of the men who
carried the Division's colors in past battles – who fought for life and never lost their nerve – carry out your mission and keep your honor clean. Demonstrate to the world there is ‘No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy’ than a U.S. Marine.”
On the eve of major battle with historical significance, I did not once detect that Mattis treated war as sport, and not once did I think he showed an indifference to human life. I am deeply concerned that the inspiring words in Mattis’ 2003 letter were not found in any mainstream media story or article that condemned the general’s words in San Diego and questioned his character as a leader of Marines. To not mention both presents only half the picture.
My understanding is that the panel selected and invited Mattis to participate because of his recent, extensive combat experiences. In other words, they wanted a warrior, and they got exactly what they paid for. Two prominent, former servicemen turned military commentators who either participated in the panel discussion or who were there to report on the event, wrote articles in defense of Mattis’ remarks.
On February 7, author and retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert H. Scales wrote in The Washington Times:
“For those of you who might have the image of a knuckle-dragging troglodyte, let me assure you that he is one of the most urbane and polished men I have known. He can quote Homer as well as Sun Tzu and has over 7,000 books in his personal library.”
“Jim is the product of three decades of schooling and practice in the art of war. No one on active duty knows more about the subject. He is an infantryman, a close-combat Marine. He is one of those very few who willingly practices the art of what social scientists term ‘intimate killing.’ Those of us who have engaged in the act understand what he was trying to explain to an audience of defense technologists and contractors.”
“Intimate killing is a primal aspect of warfare unchanged since the beginning of civilization. It involves a clash of two warriors, one on one, armed with virtually identical weapons. The decision goes to the soldier with the right stuff, the one with the greater cunning, strength, guile, ruthlessness and will to win …. ”
“My point simply is this: We must celebrate the fact that we have men like Jim Mattis willing to devote (and give) their lives when necessary to commit an act that most of those in our society would be horrified to even contemplate. If you are offended by these emotions, then seriously consider joining an Army or Marine infantry unit so that you can demonstrate how to kill an enemy in a more humane and politically correct manner.”
“Until such an unlikely day occurs, we must all remember that leaders like Gen. Mattis and the men he commands are the rarest commodities that a protected society like ours can produce. All they want is the opportunity to serve a country that truly appreciates the difficulty and dangers inherent in the duties they perform, duties that very few are willing even to contemplate.”
The day before, in The New York Post, retired Army Lt. Col. author and international lecturer Ralph Peters offered:
“In the course of a blunt discussion of how our military has to prepare for future fights, the general spoke with a frankness that won the hearts of the uniformed members of the audience. Instead of trotting out politically correct clichés, Mattis told the truth…”
“The language wasn't elegant. But we don't need prissy military leaders. We need generals who talk straight and shoot straight, men who inspire. And I guarantee you that any real Marine or soldier would follow Gen. Mattis…”
“The hypocrisy is stunning. Gen. Mattis told the truth about a fundamental human activity – war – and was treated as though he had dropped a nuclear weapon on an orphanage. Yet when some bozo on a talk show confesses to an addiction or a perversion in front of millions of viewers, he’s lionized as ‘courageous’ for speaking out.”
“Sorry. It's men like Jim Mattis who are courageous. The rest of us barely glimpse the meaning of the word.”
“We've come to a sad state when a Marine who has risked his life repeatedly to keep our country safe can’t speak his mind, while any professor who wants to blame America for 9/11 is defended by legions of free-speech advocates. If a man like Mattis hasn’t earned the right to say what he really believes, who has?”
“Fortunately, Lt. Gen. Mattis has three big things going for him: The respect of those who serve; the Marine Corps, which won’t abandon a valiant fighter to please self-righteous pundits whose only battle is with their waistlines; and the fact that we’re at war. We need more men like Mattis, not fewer. The public needs to hear the truth about war, not just the crybaby nonsense of those who never deigned to serve our country.”
“Table manners don’t win wars. Winning our nation’s battles demands disciplined ferocity, raw physical courage – and integrity. Jim Mattis has those qualities in spades.”
In the months and years ahead, we are going to have more and more combat-experienced generals being rotated through and assigned to stateside posts with greater chances for media access. I would hope that we can expect to hear from these warriors who have risked it all and who have come back to give us a glimpse of what it was like fighting for and defending freedom. Still, the Mattis incident has left me, and others with whom I have spoken, with some serious questions that beg for honest answers.
* Is it fair, reasonable, or responsible to publicly condemn and question the value of the service of our returning warrior generals who may speak bluntly about their experiences as requested to mixed military/civilian groups when some people, certainly not the majority, are offended by what they hear?
* Is the goal to hear what goes through a warrior’s mind in combat to understand what war is like, or is the goal to stifle or re-program warriors’ thinking to conform to some sort of politically-correct image of bureaucratic generalship?
* Is it the goal of the liberal-biased news media to continue to undermine the war effort by seizing every opportunity to condemn, distort and misrepresent any successful person, leader or event from the war?
Virtually all the Marines with whom I have spoken who have either served with or for LtGen Mattis, have a great deal of respect for him as a leader of Marines. As a former subordinate of Mattis and a career Marine officer myself, so do I. If my son were to join the Marines and be deployed in harm’s way, I would feel much better knowing he was under the command of Mattis.
continued