Both Ralph Peters and Mac Owens have opinions about Lt. Gen. Jim Mattis’ comment on a panel discussing the future of war (Peters was on the panel and Owens is a Marine) when 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… You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil. 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.
Now, you can read their comments on your own; they’re both tried and true men. You don’t really need my opinion on this one. Yet, I will just say this: It is good that our military is under civilian control and it is good that we have warriors in our military who understand that war is a harsh teacher and who understand that it is best of our enemy to say of us, "it is a terrible thing to fight the Americans." And it should be added, this is true even though the Americans are not Spartans. And yet, we should not do as the Ancient Greeks did: Elect our generals, or, discard them, exile them, indict them, or fine them, over almost nothing, even less than the great Greek generals Miltiades, Themosticles, Percicles, Alcibiades, and Epaminondas were. And certainly we cannot have the MSM or CAIR play the judge, jury and executioner of those who are willing to bleed for us. The General spoke honestly. He thought he was speaking to warriors; that’s what he is used to. Imprudent, maybe, but no crime. I note in passing that the Budweiser commercial of soldiers getting off a plane, being appluaded by civilians, slowly coming to that recognition and smiling, was the best ad during the Super Bowl yesterday, according to polls. The Americans, though not Spartans, recognize the cruelty of war, as well as the need for honor. But then, the American citizen is not the MSM or CAIR, thank God.
The Comandant should have kicked the complainers out of his office with a well aimed boot in the ass. Anyone offended by the General’s comments approves of beating and stoning women, and thus is beneath contempt.
It should not matter who he was talking to. I think we are failing to acknowledge this man’s mindset. It is distubring, as I’ve said in other posts. I don’t care how much honor he wants from the army or how much he has protected our other soldiers: those words, although they should go legally unpunished, were uncalled for and inappropriate. I hope the men and women fighting over in Iraq (for the freedom of others) are great soldiers . . . but they should be great men and women as well. Mattis’ words prove he is most definitely not the latter . . .
Mr. Wallis,
Oh yeah. It should definitely be required of us to shoot every wife-beater. It should have to be really, really fun too. Great call. And, if for some reason, there should be people who are offended buy this, well, then they must be their wives too. With logic like this, who could go wrong?
" . . . beating* their wives too. " Sorry about that typo . . .
buy??? I’m going crazy. I apologize.
Matt, I think you really have no understanding of the relevant "mindset" Mr. Mingus. Col.s Peters & Owens explain the event well, you would do well to open your mind and avoid fallacious argument. You might Google James Mattis PBS for an interesting interview. As I’ve argued elswhere (here) "Every soldier relishes that the enemy, not he, is dead. The question is whether the enemy is actually worth killing. Gen. Mattis describes those worth killing." Those who saw the heads off aid workers, and shoot or bomb election workers deserve killing.
Matt, is this mindset too dangerous: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Mr. Mingus, Gen. Mattis’ comments were quite, well I say "Pattonesque". meant for the troops to get them into a mindset of the enemy they are facing. These creatures (Yes, they are just that) deserve no mercy. I give them one chance to surrender (about 2 seconds) then "grease ’em", off ’em, wax ’em or what ever. And then a "security round" to the head to prevent feigning of death. Our military has had many "fighting officers" in our history. Mattis is only one of many and we should be thankful.
War is not for the sqeamish and soldiers are not social workers, ala Clinton. As Gen Sherman once said or attributed to him; "War is cruel and you cannot refine it".
To Mr. Malynn,
I’m sorry you feel so strongly about killing people. Mattis describes what he has fun killing, not what is worth killing. And my "liberty tree" was growing just fine without all of the blood that was shed in Iraq. And as for opening my mind . . . what would you suggest I open it to? The presumption that people should be "fun" to kill? Or that soldiers should be trained to think that way? Killing for duty is different than killing for pleasure (as I’ve said many times before). It would do Mattis well to learn this.
To "jesse fan in chapel hill"
I’m sorry. I can’t take people who don’t consider our enemies "people" seriously. Get a somewhat humane world-view and come back to me. Eh . . . I think you made me sick . . .
Mr. Mingus, let us not get to carried away. Those that behead people, use Downs Syndrom people as bombs to kill others, uh you call these things people? Sir, you are the one that may be sick to rationalize or maybe excuse their butchery. Even worse to ignore it. The Pete Seeger Kumbaya approach is not going to work with the animals. Get It?
Jesse Fan,
Oh come on! I am not excusing it or ignoring it! Yes, they are people. People who do bad, bad (and sometimes evil) things. That does not make them less of a human being.
Eh . . . let me clarify that. Maybe saying that it didn’t make them less of a human being was a little much. I will say this: if someone is a bad person, they are still a person. That’s better. I like that more.
Gen. Jim Mattis’ is a Marine, not a soldier. Army=Soldier. Marine Corps=Marine, but in point of fact there are similarities. An Army General would have had more prudence, but the Marines glorify honesty. Plus is it so bad to have a General that doesn’t mind being in the trenches, and getting his boots dirty? If he enjoys killing certain people, this is a good thing, it is a sign of his integrity. Your appeal to the personhood of all people, is as hollow as an appeal to the treehood of all trees, with this exception, a person who bears no fruit is a hindrance but should not be exterminated. But the people that the good General enjoys exterminating go beyond their own barreness, they make a desert of human potential by choking the life blood from others(sometimes literally). These are evil men who deserve to die, because in the end you can’t love the bad without hating the good.
Matt, I see you stick to your preconceptions, and insults, rather than address the facts and arguments brought to the debate by those with experience in the subject at hand.
I love presenting a wealth of data here in the blogosphere, when the links are expressly ignored, you have real time evidence of the lack of seriousness of the debater.
And yes, I take killing seriously, as does every officer I’ve served with in uniform.
First, Matt should learn to read. Then Matt should learn to think. Matt should not then think too much or he will eviscerate himself for the abysmal ignorance of his comments.
Or perhaps Mattie subscribes to the Walrus and Carpenter philosophy. Do what you want, just don’t grin while you do it.
LOL! I love this blog . . .
Experience at hand? You mean killing for fun? Have you experienced that? Have you gotten to kill someone? And if so, was it really, really fun and neat? You didn’t present a wealth of information. You said those people were worth killing and I disagreed. Geez . . . a few days ago you were all about being open-minded . . .
Walter, learn to attempt to bring down my arguments, not my personal character. I’m sorry you disagree with me. I’m even more sorry that you had to insult me, though. How old are we on this blog?
Errr . . . "Mattie"’s done with this topic . . . this is going nowhere.