Is Violence the Ultimate Authority?

[Jonathan Goss]

I don't think I explained myself well. The fact that you assume that all Marines are programmed to exert "force over will" (regardless if you are talking about our own will or any other will) proves my point that you are coming from an ignorant perspective and that you do not understand what a Marine is. So my answer is that the ultimate authority does not derive from violence, but from ignorance. The reason I say this is not because I think that you are generally an ignorant person, but because I see you as being an outsider in relation to the Marine Corps, and outsiders are ignorant. No matter how many friends or people you know who are Marines, you will forever be an outsider and therefore ignorant...at least until you earn the title. Look back to the quote I posted earlier in that thread. There is a reason that an Army General would say that.

Don't think I am saying that I am superior here because that is not what I am saying. I am ignorant when it comes to many things, however I do think that being a SNCO in the Marine Corps makes me a credible source regarding the mindset of Marines. In my perception, many of "society's" perceptions are based in ignorance. Civilians are a large majority in the global society. Military members are a minority. This is why I say ignorance is a higher authority than violence.

I hope this helps to answer your question.

Ah, I see, yes that does explain your position better. Thank you, Afraziaaaa. Yes, you are corret, I AM ignorant to the mindset of Marines by not being one myself (yet...unfortunately) but I hope that my ignorance is not so profound that it eliminates the credibility of my opinions. But, hey, if it is, then I would hope that I can be humble enough to be educated.

Your suggestion that civilians being the majority and largely ignorant in their perceptions fascinates me. It may very well be true. Or it may not. I'm not sure, but if you have the time to elaborate, I'm all eyes! And if not, thank you anyway for your input; that is something I have yet to dwell on enough to form an opinion.

[Jonathan Goss]

I Dont Know About All This Philosophy But I Like Boobs To.

Boobs truly are the profoundestly beautiful topic of discussion. There has got to be a religion based on boob worship. Hopefully I can become a Marine so I can preach this religion as the Boob Chaplain. If someone doesn't like boobs they are likely a pod person and should be summarily dispatched. Boobism? Boobianity? Boobosophy? :\ Hm, it's the kind of faith even the hardest-hearted prick can warm up to.

[Sgt Leprechaun]

A fascinating discussion.

Let me take a crack at it. I come from one of the last professions in this country where it is still somewhat common to handle things with physical and lethal force. I've been involved in 'furballs', shootings, had someone try and stab me (bounced off my web belt, dull knife), and all manner of such things. This is NOT to discount combat, per se. An animal of a different sort and also part of this discussion, but not my area. My 'combat' (Pentagon 9/11) doesn't 'count' as far as that goes, society doesn't consider being there as 'combat', but rather thinks of us as 'victims'.

Some quotes come to mind when discussing this, and I believe they are useful:

Live Free and Die Hard Quote:

John McClane: You know what you get for being a hero? Nothin'. You get shot at. You get a little pat on the back, blah, blah, blah, attaboy. You get divorced. Your wife can't remember your last name. Your kids don't want to talk to you. You get to eat a lot of meals by yourself. Trust me, kid, nobody wants to be that guy.
Matt Farrell: Then why you doing this?
John McClane: Because there's no body else to do it right now, that's why. Believe me, if there were somebody else to do it, I'd let them do it, but there's not. So we're doing it.
Matt Farrell: Ah. That's what makes you that guy.


I wanted to put the fear of God into the enemy. I could see some dead bodies and eight blokes, some scrambling for their weapons. I’ve never seen such a look of fear in anyone’s eyes before. I’m over six feet; I was covered in sweat, angry, red in the face, charging in with a bayonet and screaming my head off. You would be scared, too.”
Corporal Brian Wood
Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment


"The mostly safe suburban lifestyle of Volvos, NPR, and Trader Joes is an anomaly. Bought by time and space away from poor people and minorities and policed by a thin line of professional police officers. It’s very fragile, unlikely to last (we are running out of space) and not the experience of most people who live with violence every day."

****

Think on those. Each from a different type of thing, one written by scriptwriters, the other, a Brit from a bayonet charge (!!) and the last, a police officer posting on another forum.

Violence? I'm all about violence. I'm not exactly a young pup anymore, but I have no problem stomping a mudhole in some fools face if that is what is required. Most people, nowadays, are so inured to actual, physical violence, that the mere THREAT of it against them, personally, is cause enough for them to react in fear at the least and sheer terror at the worst. Now, this doesn't take into account the professional criminal underclass, for whom violence is a way of life and is merely 'part of the trade', like a meatcutter becomes used to the feel and scent of raw steak.

[Jonathan Goss]

SGT LEPRECHAUN, I love the fact that you quote good ol' "YKMF" McClane! Truly a timeless badass. You seem to be speaking about those for whom violence is a way of life, where the rule of violent law is more overt and readily accepted. Do you think this same rule of law exists for all of us on a more subconscious level--that the average citizen's fear of the government, police and military derives from the fear of guns (or really just the ability of officials to kill)? I'm not convinced of this, but I obviously leans towards it when I think about authority and violence and the desire for self preservation inherent in sentient life.

For instance, why do we pay our taxes? Well, why give a damn what the IRS has to say? Because they can send agents and court orders to collect. Well, why obey them? Because if you don't they can arrest you. Well, why care about that? Destroy those who try to arrest you. But then they will send more, authorized to use lethal force. (A slightly askew example of this being the Branch Dividian Waco debacle) That's just one scenario of how violence potentially drives us from the ground up.

I hope I don't seem contentious or overly biased (though I'll admit the bias is there--however uninformed), it's just that I find the relationship between our "society" and our more natural insticts to be an interesting topic because getting to the source of why we do what we do and say "yes" and "no" to certain things in life (like authority) often gets lost in the mix of "right" and "wrong" and the partisan politics of social issues, when really we could make better decisions on the law and the self when we dig down to the roots of human nature.

Also, just for my own edification, what's a "furball"? I've never heard that expression before.

As always, thank you for taking the time to reply, SGT. You have always been helpful and informative in damn near every one of my topics (no matter how left-field or potentially asinine). And thank you to everyone else as well.

[Sgt Leprechaun]

I think that violence, for 'man' as a whole, is ingrained into our very subconscious, and despite the niceities of social mores, bubbles just below the surface. We are a "Killer Angel" to be sure, despite, again, 'polite' society frowning upon such things. Just look at a group of kids in the schoolyard. If left unsupervised, eventually they turn all 'Lord of the flies' on each other, and it doesn't take long for the 'Alphas' (boys AND girls) to come to the fore.

I don't think it's so much a 'fear' of guns, society is permeated with them. You can't turn on the boobe or the all seeing eye without some sort of gunplay popping up, looking for it or not. No, I think it's fear of losing freedom, and loosing whatever personal possessions "things" that drives us nowadays.

Agree with your IRS theory. Jefferson, I believe said that a gov. large enough to give you everything you want, is also large enough to take everything you have. Same applies. Americans pride themselves on being 'good citizens', and working hard. "Playing by the rules", even if we hate 'em.

'Furball' is a term that actually comes from old fighter pilots, meaning a dogfight in the sky. I use it for a 'dogfight' on the ground, because in a true, no holds barred fight, the 'fur' flies. It really does become, in the words of the 'man in black', "The mud and the blood and the beer". Working in a 'combat car' (what we called it in my little world outside Metro DC in the 90's), a 'furball' was what happened when you were rolling around on the ground with someone.

You are most certainly welcome!

v/r

[Jonathan Goss]

"Well, if he's an angel, all right. But he damn well must be a killer angel." (paraphrased from the flick, I believe)

It seems very true that violence residse just beneath the surface. And it strikes me that civilization, its rules, its mores, its niceities, its sensibilities, and its overall society, are not the brave and noble attempts of humanity to ascend to a more transcendant state of Love and perfection and all that warm jazz, but a veneer--layers and layers of cake--piled up to cover our animal nature. If people are pushed far enough, they tend to revert to basic instincts. Being 27 years old I admit I am not "seasoned" enough to speak with experience on this, but it captures my interest.

Sorry, I'm rambling. Basicall, the idea that society is a layered mask over our animal natures (kill, eat, procreate, survive) is the root of my theory on violence being the ultimate authority. But it's obviously not ironclad since we have things like honor, discipline and sacrifice that fly in the face of self preservation. This is part of why I ask the question on a Marine forum since honor, discipline and sacrifice are attributes/virtues that--judging from what I've gleaned as an outsider--are espoused by the Corps.

As an aside, what a tragic irony it is that we as Americans enjoy the lifestyle that has its roots in Jefferson's thought, yet through the natural course of national events we often seem to conveniently turn a blind eye.

Also, I hope there is no misunderstanding as to my use of "guns" as an example. I am a firm supporter of firearms rights and knowledge, but they are among the most salient methods of "force application" in our society (for their lethality) and make for a good symbol of "the ultimate authority of violence" in our civilization. Now, is it possible that Fear is the ultimate authority? Fear of X, Y or Z that drives us to do what we do? Here, I'm sure, Steven Pressfield would have something to say...or Doug Stanhope.

[Sgt Leprechaun]

Try reading, for your edification, Victor Davis Hanson's books on the Greeks. VERY edifying, and well done. Nonfiction, I might add. You can begin with almost any of them, but I liked "The Western Way of War". He's also done several others.

Also, when it comes to the 'trenches', Marc "Animal" MacYoung as an excellent series, one of my favorites of which is "Violence, Blunders and Fractured jaws". Naturally, one cannot approach this topic without also touching on Major Dave Grossman's outstanding works, "On Killing" and "On Combat".

While I'm a fan of Pressfield, the only book of his I can sink my teeth into is the first one, the remainder, much as I've wanted to like them, I just can't get into.

Gotta run.. More later.

[Jonathan Goss]

I have some Victor Davis Hanson, actually! Can't recall which books but I know they're sitting on my research shelves at the apartment. I LOVED "Western Way of War"; that one I very much remember and it is a constant resource for anyone interested in the subject of hoplite warfare. I actually just saw an interview on Youtube of him and Christopher Hitchens which was pretty interesting about war crimes in WWII. He is engaging to both read and watch (partly because he looks like Robocop). Pressfield is also that way. I wish they had him as a talking head on more shows because he brings a much needed charisma and humility to often Ogaden-dry topics.

When you mention Pressfield's first book, do you mean "Gates of Fire"? He wrote one before that, "The Legend of Baggar Vance", but it didn't gain as much traction as "GoF", though it seems worth reading. Anyway, to book-nerd out for a second (as if anyone didn't see that coming), "GoF" changed my life. That's probably the best novel I've ever read. "Tides of War" was not as popular--probably because it was a story of antiheroes fighting an unheroic war--but I find it the most fun to reread. The character of Telamon was profoundly badass. And who can forget "The War of Art"? A must read for any aspiring professional (in any field).

"Violence, Blunders and Fractured Jaws" looks promising by the title alone. And "On Combat" and "On Killing" ring familiar, but I haven't read them. Thank you for the suggestions. Did you ever take a look at Pressfield's later novels like "The Virtues of War" and "The Afghan Campaign"? I'd imagine, given your occupation, you've probably heard of them. Not as Romantic (in the literary sense) as "GoF" but compelling in their own ways.

And thank you for replying at such late/early hours. Unless you're half way around the world, I assume this has been a "small hours" exchange for you.

[Sgt Leprechaun]

Yep. Gates of Fire it is. Great read.

I reply at such late hours because I work a midwatch LOL

[hussaf]

Gates of Fire is on the Marine Corps Reading List...I think for Corporals. Many guys in the Fleet have read that one now.

FYSA: I think Dave Grossman is a Lt. Col, though I'm pretty sure he's retired.

In my MOS I deal with authority/power in both kinetic and non-kinetic environments. I've found authority can only be given, not taken...though whatever level one grants others authority over them varries greatly. In the U.S. most grant authority based on laws. In other countries, its much different. Afghans will often do what you want when they are convinced it will benefit them....even if its just in the short term. Truly its the WIIFM strategy, "whats in it for me?" That could be the application or the cessation of the application of violence, or it could be the proverbial 'carrot.' In the military, being Western and subject to the UCMJ, we also acquiesce to rules such as the Law of Land Warfare, ROEs, Geneva Convection, et al. Per the above, we utilize violence in self-defense, only after establishing positive identification of the attacking parties, and with enoough violence to subdue the threat. Of course there are grey areas, mistakes, or just crappy situations that make that not always the case, but that is the intent. Specifically using violence to gain authority over the populace in Afghanistan does two things; it doesn't work, and its not allowed. Afghans, the Taliban specifically, are used to being treated violently and expect it. This means relatively little to them. One of their biggest concerns IS actually security. Most tribal elders are sick of the fighting...maybe not so much the younger guys, but many of them as too. However, when surrounded by violence their entire life...more application of it does little. If the Taliban offer security and safety so the locals can go about their day unimpeded, or if the US can, it doesn't matter. If they have to pay fees and taxes to the TB for this safety, they will do it...if we can keep them safe without being under the thumb of the TB, they would prefer that...but either would do.

Anyway, the military is not applying violence to gain authority...that is not the goal of COIN, which is the strategy we are applying. Perhaps violence is used when, say, attempting to create freedom of movement and stabilization in a certain AO or district center, but that is a means to an end....the end being that freedom of movement on that specific road in that specific district or village.....which, in turn, could be argued as a derivitive of authority. Basically, what I am saying is people allow temselves to be subjected to an authority as they deem most beneficial to them at the time. We are trying, or at least say we are trying (varries per occasion) to give Afghans what they want. The Taliban are utilizing Murder and Initmidation campaigns. The Taliban are winning because they have more numbers and better access to the population than we do....its their country and they know it better than we ever will, and better than our military leaders are even trying to (military commanders are an obtuse lot that believe they can reuse, or slightly rewrite, a generic strategy they attempt to allply to an entire country or province. This is anathema to what actually works, particularly in a "country" as variable as Afghanistan.

Ok, well I'm going to be in the field until May in the ****tiest part of Helmand, might be coming back to a computer after that. Maybe I'll have a different opinion after experiencing this year's Spring Offensive...I hope its more subdued than the last one
SF
A.

[hussaf]

yeah, no spell checker on this computer....plus some of the buttons are missing and sticking, so sorry for the hard read.

[Jonathan Goss]

yeah, no spell checker on this computer....plus some of the buttons are missing and sticking, so sorry for the hard read.

Not a hard read at all, Hussaf; you fared much better sans a spellchecker than I do at times!

So the application of violence in Afghanistan is so commonplace that it is practically a given by its people, do you think building a more efficient (I hesitate to use the oft-derogatory term "Westernized") infrastructure there will provide a peaceful stability that will remain when we depart? Or do you think the Afghan people would allow it to collapse out of mistrust and/or lack of appreciation as soon as we leave? I don't mean "lack of appreciation" in an insulting way, but tribalism seems to be resistant to change. The status quo is powerful.

Also, is there any justification for US military commanders rigidly holding to methods of operation/overall strategy that have been tried so often before but are just being tweaked? Or is there something to "staying the course", as it were? Is there any merit to consistency or is it just perpetuating ineffectual trends?

It seems that violence has been a profound source of authority there, used under the guise of "WIIFM" (in this case, "do what the Taliban says and our tribe will have an easier time"). So what could displace that? Can a new unified power structure arise in such a varied region of the world based on something other than violence-enforced law? I guess that also hints at another tangential question: Is the American Dream of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" a universal one, or is the mindset of the Afghan people focused on something else?

That seems like a dumb question but mindsets differ across the globe. Take the Eastern and Western approaches to religion; both are fundamentally different from one another in damn near inexplicable ways. The Eastern way of spirituality is so alien to the Western way that it almost requires a rewiring of the brain to plug in and understand it. I wonder if that same sort of thing applies to Middle Eastern and Western ways of thinking in regards to how ultimate authority should be granted and applied.

PS: It's a real tragedy that "Gates of Fire" wasn't made into a movie. It would have stomped "300" in nearly every regard. That **** was caaaaash.

[hussaf]

They don't want, care, or need to be Westernized. If it happens, it happens....as long as it doens't negatively effect their life...most don't care. What happens in Kabul is vastly different than what happens in other parts of the country. Bamiyan and Nare e-Saraj might as well be different countries....for example. Hell, Helmand province is vastly different than most other provinces in AFG. Its not a unified country, people have no real concept of patriotism to the state. If we can bring in Foreign Direct Investment, and promote some semblance of transparency and reduce corruption...then perhaps the governmental infrastructural will be valid enough to actually let their authority be known to, and effect, the Afghan people in a positive way. Realistically, most Afghans just want to do what they do and not have outsiders (whether Taliban or ISAF) effect them unless its to their benefit (and not even then for some of them).

As far as authority and violence, I was more focusing my answer from the point of view of the U.S. Marine Corps.

As far as mindsets of different cultures...that's a difficult one to disect. Yes they are different, and one can attempt to understand the machinations of a culture (like westerners studying taoism, or Budhism), which gives one a window into a certain aspect of a culture...but i don't think one could possibly completely understand a culture they didn't grow up in.

[Jonathan Goss]

I remember reading in Sebastian Junger's "War" that one of the problems with creating any form of "national" governing authority was the distances between population centers and the inability to provide a form of federal (like we have) control over them because they were so spread out and with so many variations, I guess a result of tribalism. It seems like dealing with dozens of different city-states, each with their own nuances and separated by terrain that doesn't lend itself to cross country government monitoring or control. Having never been myself and never studied a current map, I can't say, but it seems to make sense and I think that's what you're sort of echoing (though I could be wrong).

Some of your terminology is both fascinating and foreign to me, particularly "kinetic and non-kinetic environments", "the Law of Land Warfare", and "COIN".

Also, you spoke of the defensive role of violence in the military's role in Afghanistan, though it's way off topic, how do Marines approach the offensive role of violence? Do you seek out enemies and set up situations to receive fire from targets so you can return fire or actively pursue/stalk known combatants and destroy them? I admit being vastly naive on this subject and am just curious as to how Marines go about the more proactive side of violence in an AO, if at all. (I also understand that this is probably too multifaceted a topic to really do justice but any input is, as always, greatly appreciated) As always, thank you for taking the time to read and/or answer. The point of view of the USMC is exactly what interests me in these matters, hence why I ask here.

[Jonathan Goss]

*clarification: "off topic" referring my question on offensive role of violence, not your answer. Your answer was very much on topic.