• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

All Things "Mad Dog" Mattis (merged)

  • Thread starter Thread starter ark
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P. Kaye: just so we are clear, I do not bear you any personal ill-will. Perhaps (on reflection) it was not proper of me to come down on you as hard as I did, but I could not let those comments stand.

Let me offer you this: at least as a junior officer you realize the gravity of what we are up to in this profession of ours, and you realize that you have responsibility to lead from a moral and ethical base. You are also prepared to stand up for what you believe in, even against bad-tempered old LCols. Although I do not like what you said, I respect the characteristics that I believe it shows. If you stay with soldiering, and get some time on ops, I think that you may come around to see my point of view more clearly. But, I should sincerely hope that time does not dull the edge of your convictions: only temper them with experience.


As for "black humour": I have spent a fair bit of my life around firefighters (I even was a volunteer, briefly) and I echo the comments on this aspect of emergency service people. You will not find people more caring and compassionate than most firefighters, nor people who are more ready to risk their lives for total strangers every day at the sound of the alarm tones, but the black humour amongst them can be shocking. It is, IMHO, a kind of armour for the mind against horror and fear.

Cheers
 
there was a brief discussion here late last year on the benefits of black humour

http://army.ca/forums/threads/23295/post-129149.html#msg129149
 
P Kaye said:
>> Stupid thing to say in public, but you have to agree with the sentiment.
You most certainly do not.

>> Anyone who thinks that it is fun to shoot people should not be in the army.
Well said.

Carrying weapons into a foreign country is a huge responsibility.   I don't think enough soldiers take the idea of this responsibility seriously enough.   I once heard a MCpl say "We're in the army... our job is to kill people... it's kinda fun...".   If I ever heard one of my troops say something like that, I would take serious measures to correct his/her attitude.   I encourage all the other officers and NCMs out there to do the same.

Part of our responsibility is to teach our troops how to fight, and how to kill.   Sometimes, in combat, this would require a certain mindset where you dehumanize the enemy to distance yourself from the fact that you're killing other human beings.   But we haven't been in that situation since Korea.   When Canadians go on operations like we've been doing for the past several decades, it is vital that we respect the individuals in the countries we travel to as human beings, with their own cultures, ways of thinking, and beleifs.

I am deeply shocked by how bad the american seem to be at this.   I recently read in an issue of The Economist about how American Soldiers were treating civilians in Iraq.   It made me incredibly angry.   To read that an american GENERAL said what was posted above angers me more.   How the heck did this man ever make it to GENERAL???   Officers are supposed to be men and women of good character.   Generals should be men and women of exceptional character.

Canadians have always been better and smarter about this, but I feel we are slipping too... perhaps unconsciously becoming more american in our attitudes about foreign people.   This attitude needs to be corrected, and it certainly needs to happen first and foremost amongst our soldiers on deployment.

Defense by violence is our ultimate purpose and duty.   But it is a serious and solemn duty that we should treat with respect.   If we think it's some kind of party, we're behaving like animals.


"But it is a serious and solemn duty that we should treat with respect."

Well said, I agree.
 
Obviously, you ignored the rest of the thread.... ::)
 
Amazing what a "slip of the tongue" can do ...
(and, I also wonder whether it was supposed to have been a privileged platform ... in which case the person who tape recorded it is a cad).

And, yet again ... it's all about how you say it:

Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result.
- Sir Winston Churchill
 
The Marines are up against an enemy in Iraq that are WILLING to blow themselves up,in order to kill Americans. It would be very hard for me,to not find some great satisfaction,in taking out as many of these dirt-bags as possible,perhaps with great glee. Perhaps his comments were not exactly "PC", but he leads from the front of his troops, they will follow him through the hubs of hell,in spite of all of the "P.Kaye's" in the world. :skull:
 
In the general's defence, I would like to point out that the conferencee where the remarks were made was  hosted by the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association, and the topics were primarily focused on new communications technologies. The topic was "What are the Real Lessons of Iraqi Freedom Parts I, II, III?", The audience was composed mostly of other uniformed military members and defence contractors, many of whom are probably ex-military. <a href=http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20050203-1436-marinescomments.html>His comments were met with laughter and applause from the audience.</a>
It's not like he brought this up at the PTA board meeting or something.

Sorry, no citations for this yet(just  a chat with someone who was there) so you can take it or leave it, but I'm sure it will become apparent in the next few days.
 
Come on people he is a Marine and you expect him to be politically correct.
 
Just curious, but how likely is it that a general really had much experience shooting people in Iraq or Afghanistan? It just seems unlikely to me that the general would be in any position, even if leading, to have to shoot anyone - his security entourage would make that pretty unlikely, no?
 
Is a soldier who posseses a combat record a superior moral being? Does the possession of a combat record automatically lift him or her to higher plain of moral and ethical certitude that defies the normal conventions of our society? Does combat experience excuse General Mattis from being responsible for what comes out of his mouth?

You would think so reading some of the threads here in reaction to Mr. PKaye. And although Ernst Junger might approve of placing General Mattis on higher plain of moral authority, I think we're on a slippery slope when we bludgeon junior officers (or anyone else) for raising questions and then impugning their motive as a naive lack of combat experience - or a naive misunderstanding of military operational realities - or a naive lack of life experience - or whatever else you may want to throw at him.

By that standard the vast majority of posters on this board are in no position to question the General's record or anybody else's combat record for that matter.

Those of us wearing the uniform need to be careful that we don't arrogate to ourselves a sense of messianic preference that considers civilian society un-annointed, un-initiated, uninformed and ultimately unworthy.

My own view is that this is a very small incident against the backdrop of the Iraq war and I hope that the General's career survives.  But every little incident counts, and soon adds up in the eyes of those who want the US to fail in Iraq. We might wish to call General Mattis' remarks an example of "black humour" and it may well be.

But the Al Jazeera crowd will have a very different interpretation and the war for public opinion in the Arab Street is as important as in Main Street USA. In that sense I do hold the General (especially a GO for God's sake!) to a higher standard of conduct as a representative of the Marine Corps, and as a public face for that august institution.

At that level you are a diplomat and a politician and symbol all wrapped into one. After all,  one can imagine the reaction if this had been a senior NCO making a similar remark -   I suspect the Marine Corps Commandant would be less charitable than he was with General Mattis.

I have no idea if General Mattis is a great soldier or not.  But to always play the "combat card" every time a soldier's behaviour is questioned by those who don't have combat experience - or even sufficient military experience - is a bit like Johnny Cochran playing the "race card" - it makes a lot of people feel guilty and defensive while the accused gets off scott free.




 
GEN GEORGE PATTON'S SPEECH

To Give Some Comparison to the overly politically correct critique of USMC Lieutenant General James N. Mattis recent comments, I humbly submit one of the most decorated US Army generals view points on killing the enemy.

180px-GeorgeSPatton.jpeg


General George S. Patton

"Men, this stuff that some sources sling around about America wanting out of this war, not wanting to fight, is a crock of bullshit. Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. You are here today for three reasons. First, because you are here to defend your homes and your loved ones. Second, you are here for your own self respect, because you would not want to be anywhere else. Third, you are here because you are real men and all real men like to fight.

When you, here, everyone of you, were kids, you all admired the champion marble player, the fastest runner, the toughest boxer, the big league ball players, and the All-American football players. Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war; for the very idea of losing is hateful to an American."

The General paused and looked over the crowd. "You are not all going to die," he said slowly. "Only two percent of you right here today would die in a major battle. Death must not be feared. Death, in time, comes to all men. Yes, every man is scared in his first battle. If he says he's not, he's a liar. Some men are cowards but they fight the same as the brave men or they get the hell slammed out of them watching men fight who are just as scared as they are. The real hero is the man who fights even though he is scared. Some men get over their fright in a minute under fire. For some, it takes an hour. For some, it takes days. But a real man will never let his fear of death overpower his honor, his sense of duty to his country, and his innate manhood. Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best and it removes all that is base. Americans pride themselves on being He Men and they ARE He Men. Remember that the enemy is just as frightened as you are, and probably more so. They are not supermen."

"All through your Army careers, you men have bitched about what you call "chicken shit drilling". That, like everything else in this Army, has a definite purpose. That purpose is alertness. Alertness must be bred into every soldier. I don't give a f*** for a man who's not always on his toes. You men are veterans or you wouldn't be here. You are ready for what's to come. A man must be alert at all times if he expects to stay alive. If you're not alert, sometime, a German son-of-an-asshole-bitch is going to sneak up behind you and beat you to death with a sockful of shit!" The men roared in agreement.

Patton's grim expression did not change. "There are four hundred neatly marked graves somewhere in Sicily", he roared into the microphone, "All because one man went to sleep on the job". He paused and the men grew silent. "But they are German graves, because we caught the bastard asleep before they did".

The General clutched the microphone tightly, his jaw out-thrust, and he continued, "An Army is a team. It lives, sleeps, eats, and fights as a team. This individual heroic stuff is pure horse shit. The bilious bastards who write that kind of stuff for the Saturday Evening Post don't know any more about real fighting under fire than they know about f***!"

The men slapped their legs and rolled in glee. This was Patton as the men had imagined him to be, and in rare form, too. He hadn't let them down. He was all that he was cracked up to be, and more. He had IT!

"We have the finest food, the finest equipment, the best spirit, and the best men in the world", Patton bellowed. He lowered his head and shook it pensively. Suddenly he snapped erect, faced the men belligerently and thundered, "Why, by God, I actually pity those poor sons-of-bitches we're going up against. By God, I do". The men clapped and howled delightedly. There would be many a barracks tale about the "Old Man's" choice phrases. They would become part and parcel of Third Army's history and they would become the bible of their slang.

"My men don't surrender", Patton continued, "I don't want to hear of any soldier under my command being captured unless he has been hit. Even if you are hit, you can still fight back. That's not just bull shit either. The kind of man that I want in my command is just like the lieutenant in Libya, who, with a Luger against his chest, jerked off his helmet, swept the gun aside with one hand, and busted the hell out of the Kraut with his helmet. Then he jumped on the gun and went out and killed another German before they knew what the hell was coming off. And, all of that time, this man had a bullet through a lung. There was a real man!"

Patton stopped and the crowd waited. He continued more quietly, "All of the real heroes are not storybook combat fighters, either. Every single man in this Army plays a vital role. Don't ever let up. Don't ever think that your job is unimportant. Every man has a job to do and he must do it. Every man is a vital link in the great chain. What if every truck driver suddenly decided that he didn't like the whine of those shells overhead, turned yellow, and jumped headlong into a ditch? The cowardly bastard could say, "Hell, they won't miss me, just one man in thousands". But, what if every man thought that way? Where in the hell would we be now? What would our country, our loved ones, our homes, even the world, be like? No, Goddamnit, Americans don't think like that. Every man does his job. Every man serves the whole. Every department, every unit, is important in the vast scheme of this war. The ordnance men are needed to supply the guns and machinery of war to keep us rolling. The Quartermaster is needed to bring up food and clothes because where we are going there isn't a hell of a lot to steal. Every last man on K.P. has a job to do, even the one who heats our water to keep us from getting the 'G.I. Shits'."

Patton paused, took a deep breath, and continued, "Each man must not think only of himself, but also of his buddy fighting beside him. We don't want yellow cowards in this Army. They should be killed off like rats. If not, they will go home after this war and breed more cowards. The brave men will breed more brave men. Kill off the Goddamned cowards and we will have a nation of brave men. One of the bravest men that I ever saw was a fellow on top of a telegraph pole in the midst of a furious fire fight in Tunisia. I stopped and asked what the hell he was doing up there at a time like that. He answered, "Fixing the wire, Sir". I asked, "Isn't that a little unhealthy right about now?" He answered, "Yes Sir, but the Goddamned wire has to be fixed". I asked, "Don't those planes strafing the road bother you? And he answered, "No, Sir, but you sure as hell do!" Now, there was a real man. A real soldier. There was a man who devoted all he had to his duty, no matter how seemingly insignificant his duty might appear at the time, no matter how great the odds. And you should have seen those trucks on the road to Tunisia. Those drivers were magnificent. All day and all night they rolled over those son-of-a-bitching roads, never stopping, never faltering from their course, with shells bursting all around them all of the time. We got through on good old American guts. Many of those men drove for over forty consecutive hours. These men weren't combat men, but they were soldiers with a job to do. They did it, and in one hell of a way they did it. They were part of a team. Without team effort, without them, the fight would have been lost. All of the links in the chain pulled together and the chain became unbreakable."

The General paused and stared challengingly over the silent ocean of men. One could have heard a pin drop anywhere on that vast hillside. The only sound was the stirring of the breeze in the leaves of the bordering trees and the busy chirping of the birds in the branches of the trees at the General's left.

"Don't forget," Patton barked, "you men don't know that I'm here. No mention of that fact is to be made in any letters. The world is not supposed to know what the hell happened to me. I'm not supposed to be commanding this Army. I'm not even supposed to be here in England. Let the first bastards to find out be the Goddamned Germans. Some day I want to see them raise up on their piss-soaked hind legs and howl, 'Jesus Christ, it's the Goddamned Third Army again and that son-of-a-f***-bitch Patton'."

"We want to get the hell over there", Patton continued, "The quicker we clean up this Goddamned mess, the quicker we can take a little jaunt against the purple pissing Japs and clean out their nest, too. Before the Goddamned Marines get all of the credit."

The men roared approval and cheered delightedly. This statement had real significance behind it. Much more than met the eye and the men instinctively sensed the fact. They knew that they themselves were going to play a very great part in the making of world history. They were being told as much right now. Deep sincerity and seriousness lay behind the General's colorful words. The men knew and understood it. They loved the way he put it, too, as only he could.

Patton continued quietly, "Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the bastards who started it. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we can go home. The shortest way home is through Berlin and Tokyo. And when we get to Berlin", he yelled, "I am personally going to shoot that paper hanging son-of-a-bitch Hitler. Just like I'd shoot a snake!"

"When a man is lying in a shell hole, if he just stays there all day, a German will get to him eventually. The hell with that idea. The hell with taking it. My men don't dig foxholes. I don't want them to. Foxholes only slow up an offensive. Keep moving. And don't give the enemy time to dig one either. We'll win this war, but we'll win it only by fighting and by showing the Germans that we've got more guts than they have; or ever will have. We're not going to just shoot the sons-of-bitches, we're going to rip out their living Goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy Hun cocksuckers by the bushel-f ucking-basket. War is a bloody, killing business. You've got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts. When shells are hitting all around you and you wipe the dirt off your face and realize that instead of dirt it's the blood and guts of what once was your best friend beside you, you'll know what to do!"

"I don't want to get any messages saying, "I am holding my position." We are not holding a Goddamned thing. Let the Germans do that. We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy's balls. We are going to twist his balls and kick the living shit out of him all of the time. Our basic plan of operation is to advance and to keep on advancing regardless of whether we have to go over, under, or through the enemy. We are going to go through him like crap through a goose; like shit through a tin horn!"

"From time to time there will be some complaints that we are pushing our people too hard. I don't give a good Goddamn about such complaints. I believe in the old and sound rule that an ounce of sweat will save a gallon of blood. The harder WE push, the more Germans we will kill. The more Germans we kill, the fewer of our men will be killed. Pushing means fewer casualties. I want you all to remember that."

The General paused. His eagle like eyes swept over the hillside. He said with pride, "There is one great thing that you men will all be able to say after this war is over and you are home once again. You may be thankful that twenty years from now when you are sitting by the fireplace with your grandson on your knee and he asks you what you did in the great World War II, you WON'T have to cough, shift him to the other knee and say, "Well, your Granddaddy shoveled shit in Louisiana." No, Sir, you can look him straight in the eye and say, "Son, your Granddaddy rode with the Great Third Army and a Son-of-a-Goddamned-Bitch named Georgie Patton!"


General Patton's Military Awards

Distinguished Service Cross with one oak leaf cluster
Distinguished Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters
Silver Star with one oak leaf cluster
Legion of Merit
Bronze Star Medal
Purple Heart
Silver Lifesaving Medal
World War I Victory Medal with five battle clasps
European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with one silver and two bronze service stars
Mexican Service Medal
American Defense Service Medal
World War II Victory Medal
British Order of the Bath
Order of the British Empire
Belgium Order of Leopold
Belgian Croix de Guerre
French Legion of Honor
French Croix de Guerre
French Liberation Medal
Luxemburg War Cross
Grand Cross of Ouissam Alaouite of French Morocco
Order of the White Lion of Czechoslovakia
Czechoslovakian Military Cross
Grand Luxemburg Cross of the Order of Adolphe of Nassau
----

This post was brought from http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=37410 and I fully agree with the views, I can't believe people are still whineing about it when people like Patton was saying this shit daily.
 
Different time, different place, different war, and you're forgetting that Patton lost his command in Sicily and almost lost it in Britain for generating bad publicity, cheers, mdh


From wikpedia on the net a quick summation of Patton's career:

Patton's bloodthirsty speeches resulted in controversy when it was claimed one inspired the Biscari Massacre in which American troops killed seventy-three Prisoners of War. Patton's career nearly ended in August of 1943. While visiting hospitals and commending wounded soldiers, he slapped and verbally abused Pvts. Paul G. Bennet and Charles H. Kuhl, who he thought were exhibiting cowardly behavior.

(I've always preferred Montgomery to Patton anway - especially after reading Nigel Hamilton's excellent revisionist biography. But to me Slim was the most humanitarian of Generals in WW2.)
 
Glorified Ape said:
Just curious, but how likely is it that a general really had much experience shooting people in Iraq or Afghanistan? It just seems unlikely to me that the general would be in any position, even if leading, to have to shoot anyone - his security entourage would make that pretty unlikely, no?

Bing West and Ray West, in The March Up, recount General Mattis nearly being flattened by an Artillery barrage along while up at the front with the 7th RCT in its assault across the Baghdad Bridge (there is even a picture of the event) - he appears to be a General who leads at the front, so I'm sure he is no stranger to the firefight.

As well, the book recounts a story where the Division Legal Officer and the Public Affairs guy, who were travelling up to check an incident out that required their input, got tagged by a Fedayeen ambush and dismounted and fought a battle in the small town.  In modern day conflict, where battlespace is non-contiguous, anyone from the General to the Division Legal Officer can be expected to become a Rifleman.

mdh said:
Is a soldier who posseses a combat record a superior moral being? Does the possession of a combat record automatically lift him or her to higher plain of moral and ethical certitude that defies the normal conventions of our society? Does combat experience excuse General Mattis from being responsible for what comes out of his mouth?

You would think so reading some of the threads here in reaction to Mr. PKaye. And although Ernst Junger might approve of placing General Mattis on higher plain of moral authority, I think we're on a slippery slope when we bludgeon junior officers (or anyone else) for raising questions and then impugning their motive as a naive lack of combat experience - or a naive misunderstanding of military operational realities - or a naive lack of life experience - or whatever else you may want to throw at him.

By that standard the vast majority of posters on this board are in no position to question the General's record or anybody else's combat record for that matter.

Those of us wearing the uniform need to be careful that we don't arrogate to ourselves a sense of messianic preference that considers civilian society un-annointed, un-initiated, uninformed and ultimately unworthy.

My own view is that this is a very small incident against the backdrop of the Iraq war and I hope that the General's career survives.  But every little incident counts, and soon adds up in the eyes of those who want the US to fail in Iraq. We might wish to call General Mattis' remarks an example of "black humour" and it may well be.

But the Al Jazeera crowd will have a very different interpretation and the war for public opinion in the Arab Street is as important as in Main Street USA. In that sense I do hold the General (especially a GO for God's sake!) to a higher standard of conduct as a representative of the Marine Corps, and as a public face for that august institution.

At that level you are a diplomat and a politician and symbol all wrapped into one. After all, one can imagine the reaction if this had been a senior NCO making a similar remark -  I suspect the Marine Corps Commandant would be less charitable than he was with General Mattis.

I have no idea if General Mattis is a great soldier or not.  But to always play the "combat card" every time a soldier's behaviour is questioned by those who don't have combat experience - or even sufficient military experience - is a bit like Johnny Cochran playing the "race card" - it makes a lot of people feel guilty and defensive while the accused gets off scott free.

You're right, MDH, we shouldn't accept experience in battle as the relative weight in who gets to define morality.  But my statements aren't trying to do that, rather they are directed against the flippant character attack against the Generals professionalism by someone who isn't really in any position to give one.  Here is what I was targeting:

"Carrying weapons into a foreign country is a huge responsibility.  I don't think enough soldiers take the idea of this responsibility seriously enough.  I once heard a MCpl say "We're in the army... our job is to kill people... it's kinda fun...".  If I ever heard one of my troops say something like that, I would take serious measures to correct his/her attitude.  I encourage all the other officers and NCMs out there to do the same."

Really, has he done this before?  My relative military experience isn't much, but I can say that I have carried (loaded) weapons both in Canada and abroad, and I know everyone of us was properly trained and prepared for the situation we were going into (which happened to be quite tame).  I thank Mr Kaye for pointing out that we aren't taking are duties and our mission seriously enough (according to his observations).

As well, by extention of this statement, the author seems to be making some sort of pronouncement that LtGen Mattis, by way of his remark, doesn't take carrying weapons (or using them) on operations very seriously.

Seems awful crass to sit at home and snipe at a universally well regarded Marine General who has led (and lost) his Marines in three separate campaigns on how he views his duties.

"To read that an american GENERAL said what was posted above angers me more.  How the hell did this man ever make it to GENERAL???  Officers are supposed to be men and women of good character.  Generals should be men and women of exceptional character."

Again, the character attack.  The implication is that LtGen Mattis is of poor character and doesn't rate his position because of it.  I'll ask Mr Kaye to point out where he has the authority or expertise to know how the General's views on killing the enemy are a determinant of his (proven) ability to lead Marines into battle (which he has displayed on multiple occasions).   LtGen Mattis probably has more first-hand knowledge on leadership, killing and battle then you, me, or Mr Kaye do, so perhaps we should take the time to put his remarks into context with his relative experience with the subject matter.

"Canadians have always been better and smarter about this, but I feel we are slipping too... perhaps unconsciously becoming more american in our attitudes about foreign people.  This attitude needs to be corrected, and it certainly needs to happen first and foremost amongst our soldiers on deployment."

I call Bullshit (PBI called it  "utter sanctimonious moralizing tripe.").

Having been around soldiers (Canadians, Americans, Brits, Dutch) for a little bit, I can honestly say that we are not "better or smarter about this".  Look at the "Black Humour" example that George Wallace put up - if Mr Kaye doesn't believe that it still has a strong presence today (and that it can be a healthy release) then he has got the wool over his eyes.

He is implying that his Canadian professionalism gives him some sort "high-ground" to judge the attitudes of Americans or those who have faced the enemy in battle - it most assuredly does not.

"Defense by violence is our ultimate purpose and duty.  But it is a serious and solemn duty that we should treat with respect.  If we think it's some kind of party, we're behaving like animals."

No, our ultimate purpose and duty is to ACHIEVE THE MISSION through whatever level of force that is mandated and required.  It doesn't matter whether we are on a Peace-Support Operation or whether we are in a High Intensity War, that stays the same.  Even on a quiet PSO, I've loaded the jeep up with Fragmentation Grenades, M-72's and M-203 rounds as a contingency for a certain occurrence - so if our mission goes beyond Self-Defence (no matter where it is) so be it.

This is yet another value judgement on the General which really pisses me off.  He seems to assume that LtGen Mattis is flippant, uncaring of his duties and disrespectful of his professionalism.  Again, considering that the General in question is well regarded by those who have served under him and has an excellent record of service would seem to indicate otherwise.  Mr Kaye should practice some target identification and figure out who is in his sights before pulling the trigger - as I said, this isn't some Private fresh from Wainwright talking the talk.

Bottom line is, as I said before, everybody processes their experiences differently - if this is how LtGen Mattis percieves his multiple commands in the Sandbox, then so be it - he is entitled to do so.  It was an opinion that went beyond the audience it was intended for, and for that the necessary action was taken ("Tone it down, General").  However, Mr Kaye is in no way an authority to determine if:
1) LtGen Mattis's feelings on his combat experience are wrong.
2) LtGen Mattis's remarks are indicative of his professionalism and his ability to lead Marines.

Sit back and disagree, fine - but keep the character attacks and unqualified judgement calls to yourself.
 
P Kaye said:
Carrying weapons into a foreign country is a huge responsibility.   I don't think enough soldiers take the idea of this responsibility seriously enough.  ... I encourage all the other officers and NCMs out there to do the same.

Part of our responsibility is to teach our troops how to fight, and how to kill.   Sometimes, in combat, this would require a certain mindset where you dehumanize the enemy to distance yourself from the fact that you're killing other human beings.   But we haven't been in that situation since Korea.   When Canadians go on operations like we've been doing for the past several decades, it is vital that we respect the individuals in the countries we travel to as human beings, with their own cultures, ways of thinking, and beleifs.

Canadians have always been better and smarter about this, but I feel we are slipping too... perhaps unconsciously becoming more american in our attitudes about foreign people.   This attitude needs to be corrected, and it certainly needs to happen first and foremost amongst our soldiers on deployment.

Okay - I slept on it, rather than post a kneejerk reply ... so here's what I think:
IMHO, you have a huge amount of learning to do - frankly, your opinions don't hold water.
Sometimes, 2Lt's should be seen, but not heard
(i.e. "better to remain silent and appear stupid, rather than open one's mouth and remove all doubt").
 
Okay - I slept on it, rather than post a kneejerk reply ... so here's what I think:
IMHO, you have a huge amount of learning to do - frankly, your opinions don't hold water.
Sometimes, 2Lt's should be seen, but not heard
(i.e. "better to remain silent and appear stupid, rather than open one's mouth and remove all doubt").


I shudder to think what the knee jerk reply would have been... :-X
 
The basic fact is that the general has seen a lot and to his credit is an officer who shares the danger with his troops. I am not in the military but a educated miltary historian. If you look at many of the Great Marine General's you will see many of them are out spokena and lead from the frontlines. An example iGeneral Puller who I believe to be one of the greatest generals the USA. By the way his biography is amazing read. What I am saying is that is many of the greatest officers in the marines are the ones who will stay in the front with their men and who speaks his mind. This is why many marines have are so proud of them and their morale is high. An marine in Puller's Korean command once stated, "I would follow old Chesty to hell if I had too, becauseI know he would lead us back out.  Although  LtGen Mattis was politically incorrect with what he said if it raises the spirts of the fighting soldiers in Iraq then I don't really have a problem. Any general who stays with his men at the front has my respect and would gladly serve under him if I were an american because he makes his marines understand his life is no more important than his own.
 
mdh said:
I am not in the military but a educated miltary historian.

This sentence puts you in grave danger of intense scrutiny, watch out, cheers, mdh

Yup - we certainly are blessed to have such witty repartee from esteemed veterans such as yourself.
 
Looks like another
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v719/britney1234/dorquemada.jpg">
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top