All Things "Mad Dog" Mattis (merged)

[P Kaye]

Okay, certainly I over-generalized, and this was not fair of me to do.  When I read news reports like this, I get angry, and that obviously came out in my post.

>> I wonder what you base this assessment of "enough soldiers" on.
I obviously haven't taken a comprehensive survey, or done a study.  I was posting MY obvservations based on things I've heard soldiers say.  I didn't claim to be an expert on the psychology of Canadian soldiers, but merely offered MY observation as a Canadian Soldier who works with other Canadian Soldiers.

>> I would say that if we cannot produce troops who can fight, and win
Of course.  Nowhere did I advocate producing wimpy soldiers who aren't prepared to fight.  But I FIRMLY believe that as soldiers we should realise that killing is a serious thing, and it should be taken seriously.  Nobody should encourage troops that it would be "fun" to pull a trigger and put a bullet in another man.  We should teach our troops how to do this, and perhaps teach them how to do it without being affected by remorse over it during combat, but we should NOT teach them that it is FUN.  This "killing is a party" attitude is dangerous and should be discouraged.

>> What utter sanctimonious moralizing tripe.
Call it whatever you want.  I think soldiers should be professional about their profession.

>> Killing and destroying, while not the only outcomes of our actions, are inseparable from our role
During wartime in combat, yes.  During peace-support operations, hopefully NOT.  My main point is that I would discourage soldiers from hoping for an opportunity to kill and destroy because they think it is fun.  It's a responsibility, and we must be trained, prepared and equipped to do it.  But a soldier who hopes for a war because he thinks it'd be cool and fun, is a dangerous person, in my mind. 

Cheers.

 

[P Kaye]

>> How much different is it then a football player saying that he likes to deliver bone
>> crunching hits, or hockey players who thrive on beating up their opponents.

Quite a bit different I would say.  Football players rarely kill each other.  If a football player ever kills another player, I would BET he would feel very remorseful, and not think it was all that "fun".

Hockey players who thrive on beating up their opponents are doing a disservice to the sport, and I think they should have their heads examined too.  Beating on your opponents outside the rules of the sport is unsportsmanlike, and just bad hockey.  If a player finds beating his opponents "fun", he should hang up his skates and go join UFC or something equally mindless, imo.

 

[Wizard of OZ]

don't you mean the USMC

And would it not be a given that killing is a serious thing? 

it is not considered normal by 99% of society but there are those who train for war because that is what they love. 

So when you call on them to do somehting they love and give them the political backing to do their job, you can't get pissed off at them when they say they love what they do.

 

[George Wallace]

I see we have a couple of divergent opinions here, and a few poor analogies.  I'd like to add another aspect to this discussion and that is the problem of PTS.  If a Soldier, Marine, Pilot, or Sailor can not dehumanize his enemy, then he is going to soon become ineffective in Combat.  It is a defence mechanism that Combatants must develop or go insane.  This Marine, (not soldier) made a PC mistake on a very public forum.  It may have been taken out of context, it may not have.  

I too, would feel it improper to talk of an Enemy in such a way in public, but I am sure that that is the actual feeling that we must take if we are ever in the situation to actually kill the Enemy in Combat.  Not to do so; to think of the Enemy as being a human being with a family and perhaps children, will cause hesitation and perhaps your own death on the battlefield.  You will have to wipe any such thought from your mind, or you will suffer mental anguish for what you have/had to do.

GW

 

[P Kaye]

UFC = "Ultimate Fighting Challenge".
Maybe it doesn't exist anymore... it used to be a sort of wrestling/boxing sport with real serious hits... serious injuries, blood and broken bones.
Some kids (some of my friends included) thought it was the coolest thing ever.  I always found it a bit sick.
Although I may be making some people angry here, I don't htink my general attitude that violence is bad and we should hope to avoid it makes me any less of a soldier.  In fact, I think in some ways it makes me a smarter and better soldier.  I'm just as prepared as the next guy to pull a trigger, if it ever becomes necessary.

 

[P Kaye]

>> but I am sure that that is the actual feeling that we must take if we are ever in the situation to actually kill the Enemy in Combat

Absolutely.  I acknowledged this necessity in my orginal post.  But this has to be a mindset that you "turn on" during combat, and "turn off" after combat.  Perhaps this particular General hadn't quite turned-off his combat mentality when he got home.

What I find disturbing and unhealthy is when soldiers make comments  in joke or jest about killing as though have this combat mentality on a day-to-day basis.  Perhaps many of these people just have a bad sense of humor, and make these comments to get a laugh without thinking about what they're saying.  I pray that if I ever find myself in combat, I will be able to "switch on" this combat mentality to help me stay alive and do my job.  But I also pray that when the job is done I could turn it off again and return to being a balanced human being.

 

[pbi]

Okay, certainly I over-generalized, and this was not fair of me to do.  When I read news reports like this, I get angry, and that obviously came out in my post.

You certainly did. If the qualifications that you included in your second post represent what you really meant to say, then perhaps you should have thought for a bit before posting. There is a huge, huge difference between offering your opinion on how Canadian soldiers should behave, and slandering soldiers that you really know very little about. You betray a latent anti-Americanism that is one of the more unpleasant traits of our country. It tends to cloud judgement and turn objective observation into red-hot flame wars.

Cheers,

 

[Wizard of OZ]

Oh i knew what UFC stood for i just felt your reply fit better with the USMC

GW

All my analogies were only meant to show that others love their jobs were it is not considered a normal aspect of society.  Hitting people and fighting with people.  

Yes it is different then killing people, but you are right i am sure in war you have to de-humanize the enemy that is why the navy sinks ships and subs and the airforce shoots down planes.  They have the advantage of seeing it as a machine.  The troop on the ground has a much more difficult job, dehumanizing his target as it is in a human form.


PK

I don't think you are making anybody angry but i think some may question where you draw your experience from.

On the laughter issue

Did you ever think it may be a way of them battiling the stress of actually having killed someone?

You mightthink it fine to sit on the sidelines and judge but until you have been in the game don't critique who have played it.

You can question why they were there.  But i would leave the troop slaming alone, most just do the job asked of them.

Agreed on that pbi

 

[P Kaye]

>> Did you ever think it may be a way of them battiling the stress of actually having killed someone?

I've heard this kind of talk alot amongst recruits, who have (hopefully) never killed anyone.  The Cpl I referred to was a driver who  had never been on deploymnet.  As I'm in the reserves, a majority of the soldiers I work with have never been on deployment.

I don't think I'm "sitting on the sidelines... criticizing" those who have been in combat.  My posts were about the recruits and reserve NCMs who have either not been on a deployment, or whose deployments in Bosnia never had them anywhere near a state of combat, and about the remarks and attitudes of SOME of them.  It's these ones that bother me, and of course I realise it's not all of them.  If I am a BMQ crse O and hear recruits making comments and jokes like I've mentioned, I would haul them into a lecture on professionalism.  If for no other reason than civilians might overhear these soldiers oneday and it might contribute to the belief that soldiers are all trigger-happy war pigs.

Anyway, if my post offended ANYONE who has actually been in Combat, please accept my humble apologies, as well as my heart-felt salute to you for doing your duty.

 

[Wizard of OZ]

Ok i see where you get that and shame on them.

I don't know if i agree with it being a switch that you can turn on and off.   I think you either are something or are not something.  

Cops don't turn off who they are when they are at work as opposed to being at home, they may tone it down a little but i don't think it is something you can turn off.  

If that is what you meant as opposed to a switch then i can agree with that.

That is why we train all year to do our jobs and not just a month or two before we go and do it.    Of crse we spool up but we never turn off.

 

[George Wallace]

What I find disturbing and unhealthy is when soldiers make comments   in joke or jest about killing as though have this combat mentality on a day-to-day basis.   Perhaps many of these people just have a bad sense of humor, and make these comments to get a laugh without thinking about what they're saying.   I pray that if I ever find myself in combat, I will be able to "switch on" this combat mentality to help me stay alive and do my job.   But I also pray that when the job is done I could turn it off again and return to being a balanced human being.

Soldiers have what is called Black Humour, which is a type of mechanism that fights the stress they find in Combat.  Here is an exert from a Book written by Sgt William R. Jones of the RCD after WW I, "Fighting the Hun from Saddle and Trench"

 

Such a picture was before us on a morning we occupied the trench in question.  It was one by no means pleasant, I assure you, but the life of a soldier is to smile and carry on under all conditions, and it is well they can do so, and that there are some who can see the humorous side even to a tragedy.

  Among our men was one such, in the person of Corporal Lees, who was quite a wit and was always smiling and helping others to do so.  Upon entering this trench, with the German dead piled along the top, he proceeded to walk up and down noting and making some ridiculous or humorous remark concerning this or that dead German.  He finally came over to where I was lying and said, "Gee, Bill, but you look as if you are all in."

  Then he turned about and exclaimed, "Holy Smoke, look who is here."  There on the parapet, the subject of his jest, lay a dead young German soldier, with most of his skull gone.  At this Lees grasped the forelock of the German's hair, slightly raising it and looking inside the German's skull, remarked, "I knew Gal darn well this fellow had no brains or he wouldn't be here."

  Such is merely one incident of what we term the comedy of the trenches.  It produces a laugh, even in the midst of the horror, and helps us to keep a light heart and carry on with a smile even under such conditions.

 

[DBA]

There are some really good online blogs by officers in combat units that give modern reference to the same type of thing. A good one is http://avengerredsix.blogspot.com/, the december posts about the falluja battles are especially instructive.

 

[HollywoodHitman]

PBI,

I read another of your posts yesterday (forgive me I can't remember which), but in it you said you were happy someone finally disagreed with you.......

Now, if you want people to disagree with you to prompt debate and exchange of ideas, you're going to have to STOP MAKING SENSE!

You'll never reach General if you continue to make sense. Less study, education and professional development, more ingestion of aluminum shavings.

To the rest out there, make no mistake that the primary job of all soldiers, regardless of trade is to engage and destroy an enemy. Whether you do this by supporting combat arms, or you're on the pointy end, you'll all be in some way responsible for the taking of anothers life, albeit  indirectly. You may not pull the trigger, or see the whites of the badguys eyes, but you helped, just by doing your job.

USMC Generals have an uncanny way of motivating their Marines to survive insurmountable odds and somehow come out on top. Our Generals (with a few obvious exceptions) should take some lessons from these combat seasoned officers and NCO's.

He may have said it out loud, which I think was a mistake, but those of you wearing a uniform who openly call his remarks disgraceful, you should consider getting off your high horses and having a good long look at why you're a soldier at all, if not to kill the lawful enemy of our people.

I had a crusty OLD Coy-Comdr in 1995 prior to the Magical Mystery Tour (Op Harmony, The Tour Too Far) who sat all of us young guys down and told us to seriously consider whether we would be able to pull the trigger when we got over there. The lessons of Medak and the fighting there were all too fresh and it was a reality of the situation we were going to be entering. He suggested that if we had a problem with the idea of taking another's life, that we should consider withdrawing our names from the tour.

This is a touchy subject, but it brings back the subject that no Chairborne Warrior likes a good, seasoned and hard combat solidier..........Until the shooting starts.

My $.10 c

 

[Cloud Cover]

I would say that if we cannot produce troops who can fight, and win, the whole game is up anyway. All killing requires a degree of dehumanization, especially for us in the Infantry who unlike some other branches stand a good chance of seeing who we kill. We expect a soldier to obey reasonable and lawful orders to kill, and our military judicial system is set up to see that we are empowered to enforce that.

Killing with in the meets and bounds of the law. IMHO, since this takes an extraordinarily well trained profession of arms to accomplish, I would argue this already makes the 21st century Canadian infantry soldier even more conscious of the human characteristics of the target between the sights. BZ.

 

[jrhume]

Well, here's my take -- in an open letter to LTG Mattis:

General:

The bad guys look human, sir.

No matter how depraved their actions have been; no matter how much they reveled in torture, rape and murder, they still wear human skin.  That confuses a lot of folks and gives ammo to our enemies.

The eyes that peer from their faces are those of a fiend, a monster.  A man who sees an animal in like condition will kill it out of pity -- and in defense of his people.

Likewise, since those far-off days of the cave bear and sabertooth, a man will kill marauding animals, not in pity or hate, but in defense of his family and himself.  Also not in hate, a man may kill to eat.  The killer can even feel a certain pride in his prowess and take pleasure in such killing.

Soldiers, especially Western soldiers, have often had to deal with institutional and individual madness on the part of our enemies.  The fiends we fight today, the terrorists all too willing to slaughter innocents in their foul drive for power -- these enemies we can and should kill without mercy -- and take pride in our prowess.

Pride at doing killing well is reasonable and hard-earned.  Too many of our young warriors have paid in blood while defending and freeing the oppressed in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Exulting in the death of a pitiless enemy is probably a crude, but effective, way to offset the grief we all feel at the losses we have suffered.

Still, General, such emotion is best confined to fighting men, of which I do not count myself.  Although I am a Vietnam veteran and have been shot at and mortared, I have not had the experience of combat.  I honor those who have.

So, General, the next time you want to shoot from the hip, make sure it's in the company of your fine Marines.  When speaking in public, have an Army officer check your speech.  Not an Airborne or Ranger type -- they're just as rough-edged as a Marine.

With respect,
Jim Hume, one time SP-5
US Army, 1965-68, Vietnam 1967-68

 

[Kirkhill]

Nice, Old Guy.

Cheers.

 

[mdh]

I suspect the US public will think - his fun - my son...

 

[Infanteer]

1) Again, Lt. General Mattis is a combat-proven leader.   We have members here who have served under him and have testified to his abilities as a good commander and a good Marine.   Despite what anyone may feel about the professional nature of him according to his remarks, he was at the front with his Marines and there is no doubt in my mind that he full well bears the weight of knowing that it was his orders that led to some of his Marines dying in combat.   If you think he is flippant, uncaring, or full of "false bravado", you should check your lanes and think of who you're aiming your character attack on (yes, I'm looking at you, Mr Kaye) - this isn't some Private fresh from battleschool in Wainwright.

2) George Wallace was bang-on with the Black Humour part of the equation.   I laughed when I first read the report.   Go to a forum full of US soldiers and you will see that this is not an uncommon sentiment.   Whatever the politics of the issue are, if you've spent 6 months to a year of your life avoiding death or dismemberment by the enemy, you're bound to take some satisfaction in exacting a toll on them.   Read the professional literature on the subject (On Killing, Achilles in Vietnam) - everyone is going to take combat and death in their own personal way and despite Mr Kaye's proscription, Gen Mattis's way is a fairly common one.

I agree with Mr Hume's letter that his comments weren't "PC" and should have been kept to beer's in the Mess.   So he's human and got carried away - I guess we can allow for that.   But I'll agree with PBI when I see a lot of high-handed arrogance in some of the threads that attempt to denigrate the professionalism of LtGen. Mattis's as a Marine and as a leader who has BTDT due to his (very common) sense of black humour.

Come off it.

 

[Infanteer]

Just to further substantiate my point about the general acceptence of this attitude, check out the SOCNET discussion on it:

http://www.socnetcentral.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46177

If you feel the need to scoff at the seeming unprofessionalism displayed by the commentators, remember that many of them have been to the Sandbox multiple times.

As well, as PBI picked up on, it appears that this was not a comment that was for journalistic or public consumption, as one of the posts explains:

"Although the article doesn't specifically say, I'd bet it's one of the USNI's seminar's currently in progress in San Diego. In other words, he didn't speak that way in just any forum, but in one specifically geared to the services and their vendors. Apparently the reporter wasn't even there - he had to hear it off the tape."

 

[old medic]

The following AP article appeared in several national newspapers (Boston Globe, USA Today, New York TImes, Washington Post)

Marine general counseled for saying 'it's fun to shoot some people'
WASHINGTON (AP) â ” The commandant of the Marine Corps said Thursday he has counseled a senior subordinate for saying publicly, "It's fun to shoot some people."

Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis, an infantry officer who has commanded Marines in both Afghanistan and Iraq, made the comments Tuesday while speaking to a forum in San Diego about strategies for the war on terror. Mattis is the commanding general of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command in Quantico, Va.

According to an audio recording of Mattis' remarks, he said, "Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot. ... It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right upfront with you, I like brawling."

He added, "You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil," Mattis continued. "You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."

Thursday, Gen. Mike Hagee, commandant of the Marine Corps, issued a statement saying, "I have counseled him concerning his remarks and he agrees he should have chosen his words more carefully."

"While I understand that some people may take issue with the comments made by him, I also know he intended to reflect the unfortunate and harsh realities of war," Hagee said. "Lt. Gen. Mattis often speaks with a great deal of candor."

Hagee also praised Mattis, calling him "one of this country's bravest and most experienced military leaders."

He said the commitment of Marines "helps to provide us the fortitude to take the lives of those who oppress others or threaten this nation's security. This is not something we relish, yet we accept it as a reality in our profession of arms."

He said he was confident Mattis would continue to serve.

According to Mattis' biography, he commanded, as a lieutenant colonel, an assault battalion during the first war with Iraq. During the war in Afghanistan, he commanded the 1st Marine Expeditionary Brigade; in the second war in Iraq, he commanded the 1st Marine Division during the invasion and early period after the war.