If the facts bear out what has already been widely reported about the massacre of 24 Iraqi civilians by U.S. Marines in the village of Haditha, it will be an atrocity on a par with the horrors of Abu Ghraib -- or My Lai in Vietnam, years ago. But it will also be a tragedy that reflects a shameful failure of leadership.
My years as a Navy captain taught me that our enlisted men and women are a good cross-section of our nation -- on the whole smart, adaptable, and idealistic, with the same human flaws as the rest of us. As a military force, they will be what their leaders make them. If they are properly trained and prepared for every contingency, they will be tough, self-confident, and disciplined, far too proud to lower themselves to the enemy's level. Without that kind of leadership, and under the enormous pressures of combat, their human flaws will take over.
I'm not rushing to judgment on the Haditha episode. Maj. Gen. Eldon Bargewell has yet to deliver the verdict of his three-month investigation, and a second inquiry by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service won't be finished until this summer. There may not have been what Congressman John Murtha, himself a Marine hero, has called a cover-up, and extenuating circumstances may yet be found. But there seems little doubt that deaths first reported as casualties of a roadside bomb, and then as insurgents killed in combat, were really civilians shot by our Marines in retaliation for a comrade's death in the bombing.
I have every sympathy for the troops under fire. They were trained mainly for large-scale combat in a war with identifiable enemies and familiar, predictable battle situations. They find themselves instead -- as our troops did in Vietnam -- in a murky counterinsurgency campaign, where an enemy can lurk behind every smile and any rock can be an improvised bomb. It's well known that that kind of fear and frustration can breed atrocities, and our military leaders should have prepared the troops to avoid such reactions.
Aboard my ship USS Benfold, I rehearsed the crew to handle every contingency any of us could imagine: What if we hit a mine? What if a small boat full of explosives is heading our way? What if there's an oncoming missile? What if half the crew comes down with a virus? As one result, when an anchor tore loose one day and plunged into the depths, the crew calmly did what was necessary to slow down the screaming chain and finally stop it short of disaster -- and they did it in silence, with no yelling or confusion.
General Bargewell is expected to recommend that all the coalition forces in Iraq be given training in how to treat civilians professionally and humanely under the rules of combat, with multiple scenarios to handle the possible contingencies. That's the right way to do it -- and should have been done long before now. What would be worse than useless, though, would be abstract "ethics training," a smug Sunday school exercise that only further destroys morale.
Our leaders must also take care to send the right signals to the troops. When higher-ups in the Pentagon started tinkering with the rules of interrogation and carving out exceptions to the Geneva conventions, they sent a wink and a nod down the line -- and that made the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo all but inevitable. Leaders must also be held accountable. When no one but low-ranking troops had to do time after Abu Ghraib, it was a clear signal that the only real crime was getting caught. In the ranks, cynicism deepened.
It isn't too late to mend matters. As I said, most of our enlisted men and women are smart, adaptable, and idealistic. They want to believe they are part of a just cause. And they will believe it, and behave accordingly -- if they are properly trained, by leaders who are held accountable for the same standards they impose.
Is that too much to ask?
Join the Leadership Group today:
Captain D. Michael Abrashoff is a popular speaker author of The New York Times and Wall Street Journal bestseller It's Your Ship -- Management Techniques From the Best Damned Ship in the Navy, The Wall Street Journal bestseller Get Your Ship Together -- How Great Leaders Inspire Ownership From the Keel Up, and the seminal Harvard Business Review article "Retention Through Redemption."




Comments: 50
It is even more troubling that there is an article out just this morning that indicates that the new Army training manual is being rewritten to eliminate compliance with the Geneva rules on detainee humiliation (see article here: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-torture5jun05,0,877738,full.story). It seems that this administration not only has difficulty recognizing its own mistakes, it also insists on repeating them. This, too, is a failure of leadership.
What do we expect when we train young poeple to kill and have them in impossible circumstances? Of course they snapped. It is horrific and inexcusable, yet totally understandable because of what they have been through.
This is what happens when we invade and occupy a sovereign nation.
I am disgusted that soon this new training manual which Lynn mentioned is just fine with the powers that be. We need to change so much, from the top on down.
Mike, I am the mother of a gay child who frequently speaks to schools and social service people about abuse of gay children, especially in schools. The one thing that is completely clear to me is that the attitude of the school depends ENTIRELY on the attitude of the leadership: If the principal is very clear that no one is allowed to harass or abuse another student for any reason, then the likelihood of it happening is much smaller than it is in a school system where the principal does not have a clear position on the problem. Indeed, I've seen it in all kinds of institutions -- when there isn't a leader with a clear vision and communicated expectations, chaos ensues.
Thanks for a thoughtful article well-supported by your experience. It makes me think about the power of good leadership; there must be a great deal of it in the military that we never see or hear about, but when leadership fails, what a price the world pays. I've also enjoyed the reader comments on this article, all of them, and I want to echo what Cat said above about the importance of language training. I strongly suspect that if our leadership understood the importance of language and communication, we would have been long done with this war and probably never even have gone.
Thank you very much for an honest article that considers both sides of the situation. You clearly identified the root cause of the issue, instead of claiming this group to be a rogue part of the armed services that just went haywire without any reason.
Your article illustrates how important it is to be trained and prepared for any situation. As it applies to the war in Iraq, I hope it's not too late to insert some proper leadership and policies. It is simply a sad situation all around that those at the top have failed so many. Not only our armed forces and their families, but the citizens of Iraq, and to a greater extent the Middle East and our relations with the international community.
Do you see our troops pulling out of Iraq before the end of the President's term? Do you think a new Administration may be able to turn the tide?
Organization of operations is needed in all walks of life, not just the military. In the military, when operations are implemented without the proper organization, death and destruction occur that cannot be ignored.
Our entire society is becoming comfortable with unogranization that leads to operations that wobble along in a disfunctional manner. No one is born into the military, even the those who spend their entire careers in the military spend eighteen years as a civilian first.
We all need to refocus on training that leads to operations that have a purpose, not operations that settle for whatever happens.
Question: Can a nation that endorses poor training in everyday life expect to have a well-trained military ?
In my contacts within gather.com I have tried to help bring into our valuable interactive deliberations the ideas of the Short, Intermediate and LONG RUN as we confront important policy developments and their subsequent 'impacts'. I agree basically with your assessment of the need for excellence in leadership and for careful training. Those are the sine qua non of our present situations and dilemmas. However if the situation entails what this Haditha event connotes, then LEADERSHIP may help to thwart future events somewhat, but the basic absurdity remains. This kind of 'warfare' (any kind really) is simply absurd. And in the LONG RUN, disastrous.
A story: At the end of WWII (1946) I was a young Naval Officer (deck and engineering) on my ship being taken to Miami for decommissioning. I was Officer of the Deck one morning, when a young man arrived in civilian clothes and asked to see my captain, who because of the peculiarities of command happened to be the senior Naval Officer afloat in Miami that day. I logged the young man in, and notified the captain that there was an ex-Marine here to see him on some 'personal' business. After a while my captain asked me to come into his office space to take a few notes for the log, with the young man present.
It seemed that this young Marine had been in the Pacific doing a great deal of island to island fighting and one day had been guarding a prison compound with many Japanese troops in it. It seems that he had gone berserk (easy enough to understand at times) and machine gunned many of the Japanese prisoners to death. At his courts martial he was handed a dishonorable discharge. He was visiting my captain in order to set in motion a process to have his case reviewed in the hopes that the USN would change that decision (for reasons I was never made privy to) because he was finding it difficult to find civilian work and to survive in the post war period and anticipated that his whole life was ruined. I never knew anything more of this case.
WWII was far less absurd than this present action is, in Iraq. BUT I sense that there is a sea change coming where the WORLD's peoples are starting to lose hope that wisdom will ever properly be available to drive governments' policies away from dangerous LONG RUN paths. These possible developments are likely to give most dangerous shapes to the most grave dangers of future terrorism too. When anger abounds with capacities to hurt, beware! The WORLD -- because of our attitudes and our technological capacities may make it impossible to survive after this present century. Poor leadership is a result of increasing interactive complexity generated, I think, by two KEY forces: (1) Lack of intellectual capacities (among our 'leaders') to look at problems from a deep systems' perspective where there is a critical need to understand the complexities of multiple causalities that are operating (e.g. within the complexity), and (2) A great need -- seen most clearly by our Thomas Jefferson -- for a significantly educated and informed electorate. The second is more important than the first here.
Only now are we seeing the great American Public attempting to understand and correct the problems resulting from fear and PRE-EMPTIVE WAR. Links to the possibility of destroying basically sound ideas of 'good will', 'national reputation', 'common decency' and 'mutual respect' AND 'faith in (democratically elected) leadership' will likely occur. Early in my link to gather.com I suggested a new Constitutional Amendment be set in motion for passage : turn over 'educating us citizens in the ways of 'good thinking and good citizenship' to the Library of Congress (and FREE from the Office of the President) with significant monetary support so that as quickly as possible we get to the fundamental issue of making this a far better country and world. WE THE PEOPLE must learn how to choose excellence in leadership, how to solve complex problems, and how to learn respect for all of us human beings.We must learn to think in Global Terms as nation-state CITIZENS OF OUR WORLD.
Dick
Thanks for your contributions to gather. I love this article. It all comes down to leadership. I'd like to see more of the leadership take responsibility for what their troops do. I've had awesome commanders in the past and when their troops screwed up, the leader was right there with them (taking responsibility). I look forward to your future articles.
Also, as co-host of the Leadership Group, I'd like to thank all of you for your interesting comments.
Mike B, Your note reminded me of the example of General Dwight Eisenhower. The night before the D-Day invasion, he wrote two letters -- one giving the troops all the credit for the victory, the other personally accepting all the blame for defeat. Lucky for us, the second letter wasn't needed. This anecdote is why Eisenhower is one of my favorite leaders.
if they were equipped and empowered to do their job, it would have ended too quickly.
that's no way to maximize profits.
this issue was glossed over with pat tillman, one of our own. what did you expect from the deaths of a coupla dozen iraqis?
i repost from another comment:
Prison is where this cabal of poisionous "leaders" should be. Not the poor enlistee who is only following orders. What a sham!
"I'm not rushing to judgement"???
"When higher-ups in the Pentagon started tinkering with the rules of interrogation and carving out exceptions to the Geneva conventions"???
"It isn't too late to mend matters. As I said, most of our enlisted men and women are smart, adaptable, and idealistic. They want to believe they are part of a just cause. And they will believe it, and behave accordingly -- if they are properly trained, by leaders who are held accountable for the same standards they impose. Is that too much to ask?"?????
I must respectfully disagree with the tone and the conclusions of your post, Mike.
First, IMHO, with the exception of the Special forces, there is no better trained or better led force than the Marines. The Navy is well below their standard in both categories. The vast majority of my Naval Academy classmates would agree with that statement.
Second, it is my understanding that the training you contend the troops were not given was in fact given, to many several times over. All troops are given refresher courses prior to each deployment and how to treat civilians has been uppermost in that training. At this point in Iraq, most troops are on their second or third deployment.
Mike, you state that soldiers are a good cross-section of our nation. You then proceed to imply that each and every one can be trained for every contingency and that if they don't perform adequately it is not their fault but a shameful lack of leadership. This is a rather severe judgement of the Marine Corps and one that certainly excludes most of humanity. I would contend that if your standard is the only acceptable one, then we will not be able to support a fighting force to protect our liberties and freedoms. War is hell by its nature and what "should be" rarely if ever occurs. Women and children are not normally bomb carriers, but in the My Lai area they were.
As for Congressman Murtha, he and Osama Bin Laden see eye to eye on most things about this war, especially on withdrawing our troops soonest to turnover Iraq to the radical Islamists much as we turned over South Vietnam to the Communists. The leader of the communist effort in Vietnam, General Giap, told us all after the war that the media was his most effective asset in winning. Bin Laden knows that bit of history and why Murtha would decide to help in that effort is well beyond me. Vietnam was nowhere near as serious a threat to us as is the radical jihadists movement.
Most of us will never have sufficient knowledge to be able to truly judge the events of Haditha and I include myself in that group. I choose to trust the Marine Corps on this one, not the politicians.
I respect your right to a quite different view from mine, Mike.
Best regards, Ben Simonton, Captain US Navy (Ret)
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
It is the responsibility of the Officers in charge of that group to control their enlisted men from acting precisely as is thought. If what is believed to have happened, did indeed happen, they are all responsible as individuals. If the Officers above them failed to take action, and covered it up, they are guilty of yet another crime. There are sure to be ruined careers coming, and rightfully so, even without direct involvement. To wave an arm and say the Marines are not properly trained as a cause of the incident is ridiculus at this point. It may come out in an investigation that there is more that can be done and prove to be true. There usually is, as in all environments. I haven't heard one argument anywhere against our Armed Forces not being the best in the world in training, equipment, skills, planning, etc.; not to mention the best our country has ever had. Did it get that way from poor leadership?
Setting Bush, Rumsfeld, et all aside for the moment; if a true Leader all the way to the top is the way to prevent this type of tragedy, then the entire world has never seen one...ever.
Lets see what happens, and thanks for the article.
aw, ben - and you were doing so well up to that point.
"Second, it is my understanding that the training you contend the troops were not given was in fact given, to many several times over. All troops are given refresher courses prior to each deployment and how to treat civilians has been uppermost in that training."
and it all goes right out the window after hearing the first carbomb go off.
"At this point in Iraq, most troops are on their second or third deployment."
you just disproved your point. they should know by now, right?
"most" troops are national guard - weekend warriors.
"most" troops didn't know an IED from a GED before getting to iraq.
I know someone personally who has recently served in one branch of the military that performs its duty differently from any other branch. In fact, I have many personal friends and acquaintances who serve or have served in various capacities, and have never heard the same story twice.
I honor the military, but I think it is comprised of people who are human and all humans have failings.
Good comment, Mark Robinson.
Do our troops really need to be counseled or trained that it's wrong to kill children or torture or degrade prisoners? I don't believe so. In my experience, this knowledge is hard-wired into the men and women serving our country.
You raise important points about tinkering with ROE and interrogation methods. However, where is the guidance coming from WRT torture and the treatment of prisoners? It's not coming from the Pentagon.
And this is really where the problem is. We have an administration that elected to engage in a war of choice. They chose to prosecute this war using a force much smaller than recommended by military planners. And they chose to conceive the rosiest scenario for our participation.
Is it any wonder Haditha and Abu Ghraib happened?
Ver ygood article, but one point you made gets under my skin. The satement "our enlisted men and women are a good cross-section of our nation" I would take exception to. Most of the people I know or knew who joined the army as an enlisted person were people who were locking for a decent job but not wanting to go to college for some reason. Its usually money or brains. There seemes to be a disprotionate number of minorities and poor people. I am not saying they are not as smart as the rest by any means. We always used to say.....The smart folks are the officers, then the airforce, followed by the navy, the army, and lastly the marines. There must be some reason they are called "jarheads" In my experience the people I knew who were inteliigent who joined the marines and stayed, were a little "aggresive". Not bad people, but I could see how they might get out of hand if not held in check. I completely blame two groups for this if proven to be true. The soldiers who did it. They must alway be accountable for actions. The leaders must also be held accountable. No scapegoats allowed. Until they hold leaders accountable this will continue.
So basically I agree that haditha was a failure of leadership. Thanks again for the article.
You asked it things have changed since I retired and the answer is a very big yes. Technology has changed, how the services interact and undertake integrated operations have changed, procedures have changed, and a few others.
What does not change is the people and the need for leadership. Leadership can make the difference between success and failure. When a very large and powerful Persian force attacked the Greeks, the Greeks though weak from a numbers and capability standpoint overcame the Persians and sent them back home in defeat. The Greeks did this twice. A small force of VC caused a greater number and technologically superior American force to quit the battle even though they never actually defeated the American force on the battlefield. So leadership can make a very big difference.
But leadership can never overcome every human failing or condition. Humans will always act like humans and no amount of superior leadership can overcome every negative outcome every time. Such probably was the case in Haditha although we don't yet know if an error was made.
You also asked "Also, does each branch of the military have full knowledge and access to everything done and learned by all other branches?" It never did, but the integration of forces in Iraq is far better than we have ever done before and the General in charge is most likely doing his best to assure the utmost sharing.
You correctly point out that the different branches are different for a lot of very good reasons. In the Navy, there were three major groups - aircraft, surface ships and submarines. The three operated quite differently for obvious reasons. Submariners highly regard stealth and remaining unobserved/very quiet. Surface ship sailors know that they are out in the open and that it is hard to hide. Aircraft pilots know that their flights are often 2 hours of boredom punctuated by 30 seconds of stark terror on either end (takeoff from and landing on the postage stamp deck of an aircraft carrier, looking big alongside the pier but damn small out in the ocean). Officers and enlisted must spend most of their careers solely in one of these branches in order to become proficient, and thus they think quite differently about almost everything. I have no doubt that they Navy is likewise quite different from both the Air Force and the Army.
Just for the sake of understanding history, Bush and Rumsfeld inherited a very demoralized, unsupported, ill-trained and poorly equipped military. President Clinton was an anti-war, anti-military president who greatly weakened the military. My pilot friends were not allowed enough fuel to ensure proficiency through training, not enough time in the air and practicing takeoffs and landings on carriers. I am aware of pilots bombing over Serbia who were flying a plane which they had never been trained to fly. Very little live ammunition was available for training. The same was true for all aspects of the Navy. I am not aware specifically of the other services, but cannot imagine that they were treated differently. Morale was far lower than it had ever been during my 26 years.
So Bush and Rumsfeld had a lot to fix. Based on the results, I would say that what they accomplished could have been considered impossible.
Some have asked why our troops were not trained properly for Iraq. If you feel that way, why not ask the troops. The internet and email have made them readily available to anyone who really wants to know and I would challenge you to find out for sure before making the wild accusations I have read on this thread.
The troops and their leadership deserve more. They are all fallible human beings, just like you and me, and they are trying their best to do a very difficult job. Constructive and searching criticism is one thing, but lack of support in a time of war, and it is a war, is simply providing comfort and support to our enemies.
Our enemies know this and hope that we will be far less determined to win than they. Are we less determined?
Best regards, Ben
The fact is the US military doesn't change overnight. The military that won in Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq was due to President Clinton.
Pretending that AWOL George Bush and Rumsfield arrived in 2001 and remade the military to fight and succeed--less than a year later--in Afghanistan, then Iraq, is just goofy.
Since Ben is only capable of slinging some truly ludicrous Bravo Sierra about training and resources, let me put a few hard numbers out there. In 1990, operations and maintenance spending per serviceman was $57K. In 2000, it was over $80K per serviceman. Even allowing for inflation (which actually declined in the Clinton years), that's a pretty healthy increase. And, if training suffered as Ben S. asserts--why did safety records improve by 20% during the Clinton years? One would expect safety casualties to rise as training decreases.
Safety records should have improved significantly during Clinton's years because there wasn't enough fuel money to operate. Ships spent much more time in port and aircraft did little flying for the lack of fuel. Live ammo could not be used in training and that also improves safety.
If you don't believe me, I suggest that you ask the military men who served before and during Clinton's presidency.
The military of Clinton could not have won in Iraq. You will note that our military was not used in Afghanistan, only a few special forces and CIA agents. The fighting was done by Afghans. The Iraq war did not start until 2003, two years after Bush and Rumsfeld took over. Morale went sky high after Clinton left and remains high today inspite of the dangerous duty. Ask the military personnel.
My credentials consist of 26 years of naval service as an officer, 20 years assigned to surface ships, command of two ships (a destroyer escort and a nuclear-powered cruiser) and 2 1/2 years on the Navy's central staff as deputy and acting director of surface combat weapons systems with ~ $3.5B annual budget for all the associated research, development, acquisition and life cycle support of all weapon systems for all surface ships.
What are your credentials, Jade?
Best regards, Ben
The military is beset by a certain amount of inertia--and, truth be told, sometimes inertia ain't a bad thing. This means any change of direction or technology intro/insertion is going to take 6 years--if all goes well. Yet, you have the armed services transforming itself from a "demoralized" and ineffective organization in the space of about ten months. What color is the sky on your planet, Ben?
If you don't believe me, I suggest that you ask the military men who served before and during Clinton's presidency.
You're talking to one. I'd also suggest your assertion is both a logical fallacy and a gross misrepresentation. The Federal Military Academy I graduated taught us the honor code remained in effect after we graduated. Yours?
You will note that our military was not used in Afghanistan, only a few special forces and CIA agents.
Are you on some kind of medication? Or, maybe GEN Richard Myers wasn't telling the truth when he discussed US military actions in Afghanistan. Simply an outrageous falsehood, Benji.
The Iraq war did not start until 2003, two years after Bush and Rumsfeld took over. Morale went sky high after Clinton left and remains high today inspite of the dangerous duty. Ask the military personnel.
Ooops
Double Ooops
Safety records should have improved significantly during Clinton's years because there wasn't enough fuel money to operate. Ships spent much more time in port and aircraft did little flying for the lack of fuel. Live ammo could not be used in training and that also improves safety.
Baloney. Check with your manpower buddies at the Pentagon--if you have any. They'll tell you it's a empirical certainty that decreased training leads to more casualties.
You echo my sentiments much more eloquently than I could, and have better experience to cite. Thanks for standing up to the BS being spouted here, as well as on the comments on my Haditha post.
A few words from the heart of this Marine: I "skated the edge" during my entire tenure as a Marine. The rules I broke were numerous, but mostly things like partying too much, skating out of duty, or just getting a sunburn (damaging government property, as they called it). After the '83 barracks bombing, I wanted to get revenge for what the terrorists did to my fellow Marines in Beirut. I was still relieved when the ship I was on was not diverted to the Persian Gulf. At that time, we were still being trained for a fight against the USSR, or a surrogate nation. That was a big problem for all levels of the leadership, and probably factored into our withdrawl from Lebanon, and refusal to put our troops under UN control since then.
Today's Marines are trained in this type of "peacekeeping" warfare. The fact that so few have cracked in this way stands as a testament to the discipline we instill in our troops. This stands in stark contrast to our foes in Iraq, and even most UN "peacekeepers" in Africa, who are often thought of as badly as those they are sent to protect against.
I don't excuse at all what these Marines allegedly did, but I know it was not the norm for the USMC, or any branch of the US military.
The Gathering moonbats are fun to chat with sometimes, though.
"They are all fallible human beings, just like you and me, and they are trying their best to do a very difficult job. Constructive and searching criticism is one thing, but lack of support in a time of war, and it is a war, is simply providing comfort and support to our enemies. "
This is a great summary of the situation. But I must point out that simply being against the war or wanting your only 19-year-old son to be safe does not, I repeat does not equate to "not supporting the troops" and understanding this is tantamount to mending the conflict between pro-war and anti-war citizens in our homeland....and, I might add, demoralizing to our troops to not get it right.
Let's say that your son is a soccer player and you tell him that you are totally against soccer because it is a bad thing to do. Will your son believe that you are supporting him no matter what else you say? I think not.
You apparently do not think that we should have gone to war in Iraq. Fine. But once we are there, why don't you support the effort? If you don't support the effort you are by default supporting the enemy. Osama Bin Laden wants us to leave Iraq as soon as possible. Rep Murtha feels exactly the same way. It sounds to me that Murtha is supporting our enemies not our troops. The last time we left without finishing what we started the cost was over 2 million deaths. This time if we leave before finishing, many more of those deaths will be in the U.S. when they attack us as they did on 9/11.
What is the gain to you of doing what our enemies want us to do?
Best regards, Ben
Sooo...let's stipulate Benji Simonton is the most decorated and accomplished serviceman in the history of the US armed services. Why does he continue to refuse to name his colleagues who will attest to the claim President Clinton "demoralized" the military?
In the spirit of fairplay--I'll name those officers who have gone on the record as stating Bush and Rummy have had a disastrous impact on the military and nation:
GEN Eric Shinseki USA
LGEN Anthony Zinni USMC
LGEN Gregory Newbold USMC
MGEN Paul Eaton USA
MGEN John Baptiste USA
That's just a short list, Benji.
The potential coverup is another story. This may go as high as Abu Ghraib, though there was no coverup attempt there. I only mean that the rank of the officers responsible may be commensurate. I just don't see the link to lack of training, or of political leadership, in the initial incident.
On another note, I have to strongly disagree with Dick's whole "citizen of the world" concept. Several others echoed this, and it just doesn't wash. That kind of thinking will get you killed in the real world. I admire it as a theory, but it has no practical application, unless you talk about the "free world," as opposed to most of the rest of the world. A majority of the world's citizens are not free, and as such can not act as responsible "world citizens." More on that another time.
Still, a very thought-provoking article, Mike!
Moreover, Rummy directed the head of the Army's Military intelligence to conduct the ongoing investigation. This is dubious since it is alleged that Army Military Intelligence directed MPs to abuse and torture prisoners.
No cover up? Hardly.
However, a counter argument is if you self-censor or censor others in a democracy, you fundamentally undermine what is perhaps the greatest strength of our system of goverment -- which is public scrutiny and debate. All in a misguided effort not to air our dirty laundry in public. I would say to do so would also be supporting the enemy.
People who don't want to give aid and comfort to the enemy know that they can advise against a war all they want ahead of time, but should move on to "let's do the best we can" once it starts. There is no way to go back and redo the decision once placed in effect, so the enemy understands that people who continue to rail against a war after it starts do not support it or the government doing it. This emboldens the enemy every time and our history in Vietnam proves all this in spades, even to the extent of General Giap's admission at the end that the U.S. media won for him a war he could never have won himself.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
Clearly that's a ridiculous scenario, but my point why let Bin Laden and others drive our debates or put certain issues "out of bounds"? Isn't that giving the enemy a leadership role in our decision-making process?
Once again, our experience with the Vietnam war is that perfect example of what I have said.
We disregard whether Bin Laden is comforted or not at our own peril. Wars are fought on many fronts and psychological warfare can be, as it was in Vietnam, the most important determinant of the outcome. Believe me when I say that you would feel differently if you had to be out there trying to kill him.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
By Benji's logic, the media is the enemy and really ought to fiunction as a state-run organ, dutifully reporting only what the Govt. tells it to.