Canon Cockers

 The urge to save humanity is almost always
a false front for the urge to rule 
--H.L. Mencken 

Shut up! Shut up you American. You always talk,
you Americans, you talk and you talk and say 
"Let me tell you something" and "I just wanna say this." 
Well you're dead now, so shut up 
--The Meaning of Life (the Grim Reaper), 
Monty Python (1983)
 _______________________

An important yet unspoken implication of the call for General Staff ethics training ("Ethics for Dummies") is this: Where is the ethics training for our Soldiers-cum-Warriors?  We don't talk about it, because warriors do not have ethics.

How can you have a cadre of hopefully ethical officers leading a group of killing warriors?  Answer: You can't; to imagine such a contradiction as effective is a joke.  The FOX news - Black Five contingent says, "Ranger stop spouting your high-falutin' sophistries," but Ranger is correct -- a democracy does not stand in name or reality if it adopts the Warrior Way in battle.

Warriors will do anything to win, versus Soldiers who are constrained in their activities by civilized norms recognized by our canon of common law.  You cannot expect ethical behavior from warriors, but you can from Soldiers.  Conforming to a body of ethics is the thing that allows Soldiers to return and enjoy a hopefully successful reintegration into their society. A warrior is condemned to living forever on the fringes.  While we may love our Kurosawa films, the actual life of a Samurai is not something most of us would relish.

Everyone calls our Soldiers "Warriors" today, but are loathe to consider the consequences of an actual transformation into warriorhood. Consider the Kandahar Massacre, in which Army Staff Sergeant Robert Bales soldier methodically killed sixteen Afghan civilians and injured five others in Afghanistan 11 March 2012 on his own, in two separate actions (SSG Bales is currently being held at the Ft. Leavenworth correctional facility.)  SSG, Bales's actions were those of a warrior -- brutal, fierce, unforgiving, relentless, cruel ... lacking in humanity and devoid of adherence to any martial code.

SSG Bales behaved like the warrior he was, and we did not like it.  We may impose much onto our fighting men, but there are certain divide which we cannot brook because we know at heart that we are them -- we are both SSG Bales, and the villagers whom he slaughtered. 

We are aroused by the biblical story of Joshua fighting the Battle of Jericho, but we do not see ourselves as people who wreak such outright destruction.  We are people who, inasmuch as is possible, respect the elderly and the young; we respect that people wish to live a life, and work hard to cobble together a living best they can.  Their leaders may initiate wars and the people suffer and we understand all of this, and so endeavor to mitigate "collateral damage".  However, warriors do not take such considerations to heart. 

Flying planes into the Twin Towers is warrior behavior.  It is indiscriminate, violent and abides by no social norms.  It is doubly frightening both in its outright destruction and its disobedience of rules of civilized behavior.  We do not wish to be such warriors.  Moreover, we cannot fight that impulse if we ourselves display and abide by the same imperative.

Leon Panetta, who does not understand what it is to be a Soldier, cannot codify a body of ethics for Soldiers or for their leaders. 

Maybe the call to ethics training is a wake up call to return to Soldierly Values. 

Ethics for Dummies

eth·ics[eth-iks], plural noun 

1.a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture. 

2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a 
particular class of human actions or a particular group, 
culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics. 

3.moral principles, as of an individual

    
4.That branch of philosophy dealing with values 
relating to human conduct, with respect to the
 rightness and wrongness of certain actions    
and to the goodness and badness 
of the motives and ends of such actions 
--Dictionary.com
__________________

Doing mop up after General Petraeus got busted last year for putting his John Thomas somewhere he oughtn't have (being the Good Calvinists that we, in the United States, are), Defense Secretary Leon Panetta called for an ethics training review by the Joint Chiefs of Staff for General Officers.

Doesn't it appear a teeny wienie bit too late to wait until a person reaches General Officer rank before they get ethics training?  I mean, once wee willie is out of the barn, what is the use in shutting the fly trap door?

It also seems somewhat hypocritical that a former Central Intelligence Agency Chief espouses this ethics review when his agency oversaw illegal renditions, secret prions and torture, none of which fall under the rubric "ethical". Further, why not ethics training for civilian Department of Defense appointees, to include their shill well-paid loyal attorneys?

How about ethics training for our political leaders and the folks over at State Department and Homeland Security (DHS)?  What about the Department of Justice (DoJ)?  The National Security Counsel (NSC) and the National Security Agency (NSA)?  Treasury Department?

Who cares about ethics today?  Who questioned the legality of elective and aggressive preemptive invasions, and the ethics of Long Wars?  What has happened to the people who have questioned the incarceration and detainment of people snatched up during these illegal, protracted aggressions? Hint:  They did not get the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Marital infidelity ain't good, but it may pale next to transgressions of the murderous sort.  Message: No fuck whores, but fucking nations is o.k.  This belated consideration of ethics -- the latest installation of ass-covering as an art-form -- indicts our entire structure of education and military training, including our conception of liberal thought and what constitutes humanistic behavior.

We need more than a remediation course on ethics.

P Squared, Pt. II

Fine sounding phrases,
hiding hollow arguments
--Hendrick Van Loon

The president does not have power
under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize
a military attack in a situation that does not
involve stopping an actual or imminent threat
to the nation
--Barack Obama, 2007
__________________

[Oh, the difference a few years makes . . .]

Understanding the Petraeus - Panetta shuffle is a lot like understanding a terrorist incident: The meaning goes beyond the immediate target and has more significance than the action alone.

The key player in this mise en scène is Robert Gates, and not P². The timing is auspicious, and Gates' exit eerily coincides with his negative input on the Libyan air piracy campaign being run by the Obomba wunderkind. Gates has been more statesmanlike and restrained in the Libyan scenario than our erstwhile C in C, qualities which = presidential material.

It is Gates -- not Petraeus -- who is the threat to Obama's 2012 reelection bid. In a sane world, he would be a strong Republican contender. Unlike the rest of the wannabes Gates has a depth of government service extending back to the Reagan administration. He understands budgets, government policy and precedents, strategic planning, intelligence and statecraft. He is bipartisan and could attract the cross-over Democratic vote, unlike the other opposition candidates.

Gates is similar to Bush 41 in his knowledge of Washington's back streets. He is untainted and respected by the Legislative Branch and held in esteem by the citizenry. The personnel shuffle is a shell game. The reality is that Gates is the most respectable and electable potential candidate for the Republicans -- and the irony is, he is more restrained than either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

In short, Gates is more democratic than the Democrats. Obama couldn't put a glove on him.

P Squared

We're in a battle for our lives
for things that really matter to us.
There's a shell game going on
like I've never seen before
--Sen. John Kerry

I'd say your were a carnival barker,
except that wouldn't be fair to carnival barkers.
A Carney will at least tell you up front
that he is running a shell game
--Peter Fitzgerald
_______________________

Why is General David Petraeus being sidelined to the Central Intelligence Agency when he is obviously poised to be a future Chief of Staff of the Army or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and why is Leon Panetta being moved from CIA to Secretary of Defense?

Petraeus's experience from Platoon to theatre Army commands plus his Centcom experience make him a natural as a NATO Deputy Chief of Staff and then on to the Joint Chiefs of Staff as Chief of Staff of the Army. He is NOT a logical choice for the CIA as he has no depth of intelligence experience. (Gen. Stanley McChrystal would be more of a natural for the top spook position as he has the sleazy background which would make him a hand/glove fit for the duties required.) Why short-circuit a natural progression?

Petraeus's depth of experience is essential to the institutional well-being of the Army. The CIA appointment is not a forward step, and this is the second time that Petraeus has been moved laterally. Entering the CIA is not a career progression for a professional combat unit soldier. Putting Petraeus in the CIA is an insult to his service.

The position of CIA director is now a backwater slot since the introduction of the Director of National Intelligence into the intel apparatus. Why is the CIA not promoting from within, as they did when Gates became the director?

Ditto the move of Leon Panetta from CIA to become Secretary of Defense: What cross-over exists between Defense and CIA? Should we want, or even encourage, the CIA to think like the Department of Defense, or vice versa? These agencies operate in two separate worlds, and it is not advisable that they cross-fertilize.

Why would Petraeus agree to such a move, and why did Obama conceive of this game plan? Petraeus is the iconic combat officer of his generation, so why would he abandon his loyalty to the Army?

Both Petraeus and Panetta are competent men in their respective fields. Ranger has even predicted that Petraeus would be a logical contender for the Republican presidential candidacy in 2012, coming as he would off of a long an unbroken term of service in the military field. The media and Congress are deferential to Petraeus and voters would view him favorably. With this move, he is being denied that unbroken train of integrity.

If terrorism is still the U.S.'s main concern, why dilute our institutional knowledge by shuffling around the top players? Though this shuffle is being portrayed as a positive reassignment, it reeks of political maneuvering. The Obama administration is willing to sideline key effective military leaders for unknown purposes.

Marine General James Cartwright, slated to to replace Admiral Mike Mullen, has never served in Afghanistan, nor has Petraeus's replacement, Lieutenant General Allen. Replacing Petraeus is a confusing move that weakens the entire Afghan war effort.

After 9+ years of war, one would think the USMC would have a depth of experience that would elevate those with Afghan experience to the highest levels of command. Putting newbies in the line of fire is not the smartest personnel move.

Fired Up, Ready to Go

--Meaningfulness, Parvez Taj

If everyone is thinking alike,
someone isn't thinking,
--General George Patton, Jr.

You don't need to think. You need to drive.
You need speed. You need to fire it up.
--Talladega Nights (2006)
______________

H & I is not a street corner in D.C. -- it is the use of artillery called "harassing and interdicting fire". U.S. forces have used this technique since Christ was a corporal.

Simply stated, artillery fire is put out onto likely enemy avenues of approach and likely assembly areas on an intermittent and unpredictable manner. Now it seems in the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) the U.S. has taken this concept to another level.

In the Vietnam war, H & I was a daily occurrence and was based upon the assumption that anything moving at night was hostile, and therefore should be served up a healthy dose of U.S. firepower. If the Commies didn't understand the joys of democracy, at least they would enjoy our death-dealing firepower.

The only problem was, everything that moved at night wasn't Vietcong or North Vietnamese. Sometimes, the citizens of a country want to move about in their own country. Call it, the audacity of hope.

Now in Pakistan and Iraq, CIA Director Leon Panetta says drone missile strikes have been "successful at disrupting insurgents" (Drone Attacks Inside Pakistan Will Continue, CIA Chief Says.) He also said "U.S. aerial attacks against al-Qaeda and other extremist strongholds inside Pakistan would continue, despite concerns about a popular Pakistani backlash. "

Mr. Panetta, with little experience and seemingly less brains is disrupting insurgents, which translates, killing their hadji asses. For good measure, he throws in the "T" word just to keep us shivering in our boots: "Nothing has changed our efforts to go after terrorists, and nothing will change those efforts."

Just as with Mr. Bush, nothing can stop a policy, certainly not an intrinsic flaw. We are so enamored of the HOW of killing people that we fail to ask, WHY?

All extremists are not insurgents, all insurgents are not terrorists, all terrorists are not al-Qaeda. [Big green print, for St. Patrick's Day, and our Ranger readers -- this means key point, o.k.? Charlie Mike!]

What is the relevancy to the PWOT? Why are we killing insurgents who may or may not be a real threat to America? They may be anti-American, but possibly this is a reaction to our in-country policies (just imagine Predators flying over your next party.)

Historically insurgents have been communist, socialist, nationalist or religious, so it is meaningless to lump the players into such a nebulous pulp, which is a fiction. Whatever their affiliation, the extremists in Afghanistan and Iraq are not capable of projecting their hatred and violence to The Homeland ®. It is questionable that they are thinking that far into the future.

The focus in the PWOT should be the destruction of al-Qaeda and its leadership, which should be clear and distinct. This clarity is compromised by the Panetta types who do not grasp the problem, nor the concept of realistic threat analysis.

Capability --> intent --> why? This is the basis of all mission analysis and assignments, and this is exactly why the U.S. will destroy istelf fighting the PWOT. We lack the focus and unity of al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda's actions are pinpoint and have a unity of action, where ours are willy-nilly and similar to the proverbial bull in the china shop.

Where is the progress in our vaunted war fighting abilities? We now have a non-military entity like the CIA killing people with million dollar missiles -- wouldn't an artillery round be much cheaper?

The U.S. answer to terrorism is as screwed as our response to the failing banks. Reality is not our focus, and one day the money will run out.