Police Action

--Royal Marines in Helmand Province,
Andrew Miller 

Whenever I'm weary
From the battles that rage in my head
You make sense of madness
When my sanity hangs by a thread
--Now and Forever,
Richard Marx

Change your heart
Look around you
Change your heart
It will astound you
--Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime,
The Korgis  

___________________

The Department of Defense (DoD) Dictionary of Military and associated terms does not have a definition for "Police Action". Per our previous post, this is a significant omission.

This military non-thing nonetheless has various iterations. If you check online, you will find "kinetic police actions", "preemptive police actions", "unilateral police actions", etc.

The online Legal Dictionary of the Free Dictionary provides a very nice and lengthy disquisition on war and its "sort of war" variations. Wikipedia says "police action" is a euphemism for military action, sans a formal declaration of war.

Neither answers the question -- "What is a military police action?" -- though they are two of a scant number of entries that even attempt to do so.

The United Nations authorizes police actions under Article 42 (Global Actions) and Article 53 (Regional Actions.)

Early in the Korean War, President Harry Truman referred to that war as a "police action", perhaps one of the first institutional uses of the term. Korea, Vietnam and Grenada were all considered police actions.

Furthermore, is "peacekeeping" a police action? Since "police action" has been so cruelly intertwined with violent actions, perhaps we need a kinder and gentler term for the peacekeeping variety of such actions.

Ranger contends that words used incorrectly -- either intentionally obfuscated or vague simply due to lack of clarity in thought or action -- cause confusion in our political, military and personal lives. "Police action" is just such a word.

Let us take Korea as example. In that war, the United States used every weapon its defensive arsenal, except nuclear weapons. Does that sound like police work? The same occurred in Vietnam.

Admittedly, "Police Action Against Terrorism" doesn't quite have the ring, so we call that one a "war". Phony War, but war nonetheless. And of course, if it IS a war, why do we not declare it as such?

Ironically, the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) should rightly BE a police action, but it is hard to get people excited about such things these days. 

Perhaps what we need are some new acronyms -- the military can never have enough, can it? (WETSU, so to speak.)

If it is military action with no war, let's call it MOOTW: "Military Operations Other Than War". Phonetically it could be pronounced, "Mootwu"... kind of cute, like a Pikachu, and yet belying its moot-ness at the same time (kind of like a Pikachu).

Our words have become weaselly things, woody or tinny, alternately overwrought with emotion and obfuscation, so much so that it has become impossible to understand a Department of State, DoD or White House briefing.

If those first degree informational sessions are so confused, how poorer must be the information trickled down to the rest of us via our increasingly enfeebled and excitable media.

Why not define words clearly, and use them as defined?

The Disillusionment of Ranger: Once Bitten, Twice Shy

______________________

The first thing learned in the Army is to adjust the declination of our moral compass. While in actual compass course we are expected to be precise, "close enough" will do on the moral course.

We learn to lie, cheat and claw our way to the top by any means necessary. The savages rise to the top, while the non-cannibals drop out of the competition. If one will lie for the Army then why not for ourselves? That is the question one faces after first losing our moral "cherry", especially while working in a system that values, consistency, order and repetition (predictability). Everyone is "One Each", so if he lies, then we all lie.

As with Infantrymen, once blooded, killing is often less difficult the next time. Special Forces are admiringly called "Sneaky Petes", but that duplicitous skill once inculcated does not turn off at the doorstop. Anyway, what are "truths" and what are "lies" when working in the fields of violence? Has anything truthful or life-enhancing resulted from killing human beings?

It seems primitive to hawk honor codes while sitting on enough nuclear weapons to destroy humanity many times over. Can we see beyond the speeches, the clutter of our everyday lives and banal beliefs? Do we realize that our priorities, our assumptions of reality and our lives are based upon folly, whim and uncontrolled emotion?

Leadership is not about greatness but rather disregard for humanity and the ability to manipulate underlings to do things that go beyond the bounds of reason. In for a penny, in for a pound.

We soldiers are raised in a liberal democratic, humanistic society, and are then expected to perform functions that are 180 degrees to these closely-held beliefs.

Truth or Consequences

Perhaps all fields are battlefields,
those we remember
and those that are forgotten
--Reality Demands,
Wislawa Szimborska

~I did a bad thing...
~It's o.k., you get three!
--The Invention of Lying (2009)

Everybody Lies
(or, Truth begins in lies)
--Dr. Greg House, House

Thou shalt not bear false witness (lie)
--Ninth Commandment
_________________

Ranger finally consented to discuss a piece he had written 16 Jun 11 on the matter of truth. The wheels move slowly but inexorably. I hope to get some conversation going here from our readers, both military and non, on a foundational concept -- the Truth.

First, I will post Ranger's original thoughts, then will fill out the ideas per a recent discussion. Philosophy 101 by RAW -- your one-stop metaphysical shopping center. (This entire piece is important to a future one which will draw on the ideas presented):

"Ranger often is forced to have discussions with our editor Lisa, usually as a result of being water-boarded and forcefully led into discussions of Truth. Since Ranger exists in moral ambiguity, his most common reply to most questions is, "Can't it be both!", which he considers a good-faith effort in a grey world.

"Last night a vision came to me: 'Truth is irrelevant to our lives. Whether we exist in truth or lies it matters not if the truth is as destructive as a lie. The truth of our lives are often based upon lies, be they personal, societal, political or religious.'

"I'll stick with my standby and say, "Can't it be both?"

For me (Lisa), terms must be defined -- what is an absolute, and when or why is deviation from the absolute justified or imperative.

First we pitted "Truth" vs. "Fact" (T vs. F, from here out). T is not equivalent to a fact, as it depends upon which facts one sees or uses. Other related but not equivalent terms are, "Good", "Bad", "Right" and "Wrong". Notions of "good" or "bad" are imposed upon our perception of the facts, therefore altering our T.

While the opposite of the Truth is a lie, perhaps Ranger's Catholic background allows him gradations of non-truth, or as he put it, "unprovable constructs". Some intentional non-truths may even be considered to be in the realm of sin, but even there we have venal vs. mortal sins, and the former need not even be Confessed. So many ways to slice things when one steps away from absolutes!

Ranger contends that T is subjective and constructed, either by society or by ourselves (who are influenced by our society.) Therefore, T. differs from fact (though they may be coincident). Truth is based upon facts, either arrived at via corruption or denial of the facts (cognitive dissonance) or in accordance with them; however, not all facts are evident, and this is a limiting factor on achieving T.

Therefore, no absolute truth is possible, Ranger maintains, as all of the facts of any situation will never be revealed. (This implies conversely, if one could see all the facts, one could arrive at T.)

Further, Ranger feels the lie is justified when the T. is inconvenient or uncomfortable. He feels lies were developed to protect the group or individual as societies developed -- they were a survival modification. He noted that skin readings belie the liar on polygraph tests, which seems to indicate that lying is not a comfortable or natural state for humans, and many body gestures reveal dissimulation. For him, lying is a sometimes necessary discomfort.

In a word, Ranger is a Situational Ethicist.

We agree that facts and truth do not have an absolute direction or quality: Truths or facts can be good or bad, and the individual makes that determination. Further, a T (be it based upon facts or incorrectly arrived at because based upon corrupt data) will lead to another fact (regardless of the goodness or badness of it's origin.) This subjective nature of digesting facts (=data) suggests an infinite regression would be necessary to arrive at the ground of any T.

Lisa suggested that Ranger's way is to view the Truth as a strategic quantity, where one weighs the pros and cons of its revelation. This seems a difficult and fraught task. It suggests a mental computation like a flow chart, in which one must anticipate the result of one's choices in order to achieve a desired outcome.

Lisa sees situational ethics as an oxymoron, and hews to a more Manichaean view. This renders her more rigid and therefore, more vulnerable. She is an idealist, in a fallen world. The argument for truth lies in its simplicity and the opportunity for growth. It doesn't matter whether the T (as I know it) is good or bad; it is imperative that I tell it, for that gives my interlocutor the best possible data, and the opportunity to act in accordance with his or her beliefs and values.

Truth-telling is like the game of Telephone -- even with the best efforts, something will get lost in the telling, or the hearing. But the effort to understand and to express is a noble one, if one is to achieve the best possible actionable information. However, If one begins with a faulty construction (due to misrepresentation, subterfuge or poor communication), any future decisions will be misshapen offspring.

The problem with using the human mind to function in a mathematical, flow chart model is that there are outcomes that may be unforeseen -- Mr. Rumsfeld's koan-like "unknown unknowns". Therefore, how can one decide upon obfuscation as the best path, when one cannot foresee the manifold responses to that (un)truth?

To me, this possibility of the chance for correction due to unknown future paths is an argument for telling the truth as one knows it (regardless of its limitations due to not having every single fact required to create an unassailable truth.) I challenge Ranger's contention that a lie is as good as the truth if the outcome will be bad simply because the quality of the outcome matters.

Ranger uses the teleological argument to justify a lie in the case of a bad outcome with the T. It seems to me that choice is made from a limited perspective, as it considers only the immediate cause and effect. Just as he argues for never knowing all of the facts, so one cannot know all possible outcomes. The fractal model helps show why the trunk of the tree must be sound, the trunk being basic precepts like a dedication to revealing and understanding facts and definition of terms.

If you say a "bad" T. with contrition and desire for correction, you may possibly enjoy a good ultimate outcome; you can attempt to alter what may seem a poor outcome. However, if you tell a lie, you damn the project to the waste bin at the point of dissimulation. It can never be good if good equates with "real, "honest", "growing" and all the qualities that bespeak of life and health. The lie kills the ebb and flow of life; it is a controlling action which stops honest reciprocity.

Like the early programmers said, GIGO -- Garbage in, garbage out.

What do you think about the Truth?

Bounders

Boys will be boys, bad boy, bad boy
Always gettin' so restless, nothin' but trouble
--Bad Boys, Gloria Estefan

I can find a lover.
I can find a friend.
I can have security
until the bitter end
--Honesty, Billy Joel

If I listened long enough to you
I'd find a way to believe that it's all true
Knowing that you lied straight faced while I cried
Still I look to find a reason to believe
--A Reason to Believe, Tim Hardin
_________________

File this: He Dogs, Men Behaving Badly, or Not Really News.

This category seemed to hit its apex in March with the publicity turned on two abusive men, Charlie Sheen and Mel Gibson. Sheen was dropped from playing his alter ego, and Gibson's case settled just in time for the release this month of his film, Beaver, in which he plays a man who can only speak when his hand is inside of a beaver puppet (Really!) [Lesbian director Jodie Foster contrived this scenario, so what's that all about?] Alas, cruelty, stupidity and idiocy knows no bounds.

Within the last couple of weeks we read that International Monetary Fund director Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK) may have had a tryst with a New York hotel maid, and former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had fathered a bastard child by a member of his household staff while married to wife Maria Shriver.

It's a sad old story of "more for me"; nothing new. People are covetous, gluttonous beings; if they were squirrels in a field of acorns, they would fill their cheeks til they looked like Satchmo, and their bellies 'til they couldn't move. Those of us with reserve are labelled "prim"; those who preen their appetitive desires, whores or earthy, depending on your perspective.

It is the spin on these predictable stories which adds another layer to our hypocrisy. DSK was moved to Rikers Island and put on suicide watch, though were no indicators that he was a suicide risk. Placing him in that hardcore prison and implying he wished to take his own life adds to the implication of his guilt.

Not that he's lily white, but what if he slipped the maid some bills for a quickie before the flight? No more savory, to be sure, but a different story. This was a $3,000/night suite, and the maid would know the resident was flush; it is not unheard of for a maid to do extra servicing in an effort to earn far more than she would changing bed linens, as it is not unheard of for unsavory attorneys to check the police books and represent such a woman.

People do not want to entertain the fullness of the problem; it is more simplistic to draw battle lines. DSK is either a demon or has been set up; if one identifies as a liberal, there is simply no choice other than the maid was exploited. My intent is not to condemn nor excuse, but rather, to look at why these miserable situations continue.

It is an old story of lust, greed, profit and power. Had DSK made a pit stop in Nevada, he could have taken his pleasure at the Bunny Ranch without penalty, such is the arbitrariness of stateside life.

Just as men flaunt their power, women can leverage their assets. Each has a need, and the business transaction often does violence to the psyche if not the corporeal body. The denial and secrecy -- often followed by the inevitable expose -- add another special layer of pain.

These men did not kill their mates, only their trust and belief. One can recover from those injuries, though too often becoming a member of the Army of the Walking Wounded, hard-forged to wreak havoc on the next unsuspecting victim. So the cycle of misery and salaciousness continues. Good for the religion business , as both Schwarzenegger and his estranged wife turned out at the same Catholic church service last Sunday.

Good for tabloids, good for playwrights and movie makers, cinema and alcohol, therapists and every other thing that issues forth from our misguided ways.

The biologists tell us it's an urge to procreate; the psychologists say it is ego gratification. For some, it is a need to up the ante in a staid life; for others, power and dominance is a heady mix. Maybe it's hormones (whore-moans?) Whatever it is, we should never pretend to be a sublime race, exalted above the animal.

There are unfaithful men who can lie with a straight face: "I do not have any other relationships," they protest. Indeed, they are only poking someone else occasionally (and not in the Facebook-ly way); a "relationship" is the person who does the dishes. Bill Clinton in some good faith said he did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky -- he had not intromitted his male member, so it can't be sex, right? It all comes down to words, and if one is a Rhodes scholar from Arkansas, confusion can arise. Too, this disingenuousness is not the sole domain of men.

Southerners have a saying: "He'd climb a tree to tell a lie when he could just stand on the ground and tell the truth." Why not tell the truth? If you will have sex with multiple people, do not enter into relationship or marriage (unless all parties are agreed on the open nature of things); surely there are people who will enter the game. But don't play for sincerity when your game is played on the fly.

We must ask the right questions, always. Weasels will find escape clauses; those who want to believe will twist the crumbs to their psychological benefit.

Why do people continue to hurt each other on the personal level? It is this one-on-one disdain or lack of care that enables violence on the larger plane, and it is this observation alone which makes this a worthy meditation.