Sunday, April 10, 2011

On God and Soldier: An American Warrior Code of Conduct

In the United States of America we take our religious beliefs more seriously than most countries in the rest of the world. We go public with our religious morality with very little reluctance. Let us then go public with that morality as it pertains to the kind of human beings we send abroad as representatives of our moral values.

Read with me please one of the greatest spiritual writings on war, combat and the need to take life:

Weapons are the tools of violence;
all decent men detest them.

Weapons are the tools of fear;
a decent man will avoid them
except in the direst necessity
and, if compelled, will use them
only with the utmost restraint.

Peace is his highest value.
If the peace has been shattered,
how can he be content?

His enemies are not demons,
but human beings like himself.

He doesn't wish them personal harm.
Nor does he rejoice in victory.

How could he rejoice in victory
and delight in the slaughter of men?

He enters a battle gravely,
with sorrow and with great compassion,
as if he were attending a funeral.

Tao Te Ching – Stephen Mitchell translation

Rich  Moniak, a friend whom I admire, published an opinion in the Juneau (Alaska) Empire regarding the Wasilla soldier who pled guilty to participating in the murder of three unarmed civilians in Afghanistan: Trained to Kill


… prosecuting attorney Capt. Andre Leblanc defended the U.S. Army’s honor. “We don’t do this” he said. “This is not how we’re trained.”

If it wasn’t the Army that turned Morlock into a murderer, who did?

…Furthermore, military service is often considered the best medicine for kids like Morlock. Their transformation from boys to men begins in basic training where they’re taught to conform to a rigid set of values while developing a high standard of discipline.

… In Men Against Fire, a book published after the war [WWII], [the army’s chief combat historian] made the astonishing claim 75 percent of soldiers in combat never fired their personal weapons with the intent to kill the enemy. … “the average individual still has such an inner resistance toward killing a fellow man that he will not take life if it is possible to turn away from that decision.”

The documentary film “Soldiers of Conscience” offers insights into the military’s response to Marshall’s conclusion. Made with official permission of the U.S. Army, Maj. Pete Kilmer explains the objective of a technique known as reflexive fire. The training teaches soldiers to instinctively fire two rounds into a target within seconds. Once mastered, they can effectively overcome the resistance that prevented so many from pulling the trigger in combat.

But Kilmer adds the “price for that is they’re not thinking through the great moral decision of killing another human being.”


I've written previously about the antics of civilian leadership when it deliberately ignores or downplays the horrific consequences of war, bombing campaigns and torture.

Anyone who's seen current films about the military in which basic training and combat training are discussed can't help but see how military training attempts to "desensitize and dehumanize" recruits presumably for their own good ... so when they need to harm or kill someone attacking the homeland, the soldier's defense can be timely and instinctively automatic.

Perhaps on the highest level, where what is suspect is the need for sabre-rattling and war. Ought we not look first at our sabre but at our national humanity and sense of sacred life?

Ought we work harder to make a case for peace, an end to all wars and the need to brainwash our children with hate and authorized aggressiveness because we as a people are essentially and immaturely insecure about our strength, stability and power?

On lower levels of reality, the military's ability to construct an effective organization that will literally defend the nation requires recruiting with sizzle in order to lure future soldiers who will fight and fight effectively.

But do we want to see our children and grandchildren brainwashed to hate another human being because of nationality (this more than race since nationality facilitates a broader horizon of human beings who are all citizens of this nation's real or pretended foes.)

Is this not a reflection of legitimate moral blindness that puts military families at a disproportionate amount of risk in this country? In and of itself is this not as irresponsible as a grandstanding Florida pastor putting our soldiers at risk because he wants to be seen burning another religion’s scripture he deems as less sacred than his own?

There is much god-talk in this country. However genuine spiritual discussion outside of religious political agitation does not dominate our obsession with convenient  entertainment, sports, car races, idols, survivors and celebrity dancers.

Have we not made “looking away” from genuine moral values our national hobby?

How might we immunize our warriors against the infection of moral blindness?

What do our adult children say when asked about who Americans are and what core values represent America's best message to the world?

Are our children opportunists with little regard for whatever America's core values truly represent because they are more motivated by some slick sales presentation that says excitement awaits when you're on the path of being all that you can be?

Are some of our children - as has been pointed out in several venues - children out of poverty who joined up out of economic and intellectual desperation?

Are they genuine civic-minded patriots who combine their personal sense of self-development with legitimate appreciation for what it means to live in the American democracy?

Or somewhere in between?

Voluntary military recruits - both those who've enlisted and those with commissions - bring to the military initiation process that set of ethics and morality cultivated in childhood. Although family circumstance in some cases were inadequate in helping create a solid foundation of ethics and morals, most who join come out of families where at least some degree of a value system was encouraged and demonstrated.

Ideally then, entry into military life would include a strengthening of moral and ethical traits into a blend with a warrior's code of conduct.

Soldiers are neither devoid of nor excused from ethical and moral responsibility. If the military encounters preconceived notions considered to be contrary to the values and skills necessary in a soldier, how are new "notions" to be put into place?

Should we not be concerned that if values and skills do not include a strong sense of moral responsibility then our basic training and combat training programs are harming both recruits and the nation?

Our sons and daughters are not to become amoral killing machines totally lacking in moral responsibility. This sense of moral responsibility absolutely must graduate from basic training intact in a soldier's mind and heart.

In the absence of real moral responsibility in our soldiers, not only will we see more and more tragic incidents of the shaming of one's self, one's unit, one's branch of service, one's community, and one's country, but the absence of moral responsibility will stand more fully revealed as a flaw in the civilian society as well.

The antics of civilian leadership when it deliberately ignores or downplays the horrific consequences of war, bombing campaigns and torture justified by something other than literal defense of the homeland reflects a legitimate moral blindness.

We do not send our children out to fight irresponsibly with no sense of ethics simply because the ethical and moral sense has been assigned to higher authorities.

We don't excuse our soldiers for ethical and moral lapses because authorities placed in positions of appointed power have - with self-preserving hypocrisy - labeled offenders as some few "bad apples," who deserve no further close scrutiny and need to be locked up, the key thrown away.

Our soldiers absolutely must emerge from basic and combat training with moral competence intact.

I hope that stories of institutionalized programming of racial hatred, bigotry, stereotyping and name-calling are not predominantly a part of teaching warriors a moral and ethical code. If the stories are true, should we endorse such programming?

Or might we declare that as of this moment they are not to do it in the name of our families nor on our behalf? Might we repudiate these teaching tactics that are based on moral recklessness? 

When my son or daughter joins the military and enters into its initiation,  am I not being unreasonable in expecting the military to blend its own sense of ethical and moral responsibility with that which we as parents have endeavored to plant in our children's hearts?

Allow me to refer you to a book by Shannon French entitled The Code of the Warrior.

This from the Amazon site quoting Publisher's Weekly:

"French, a professor of philosophy and ethics at the U. S. Naval Academy, believes that the warrior needs an ethical framework not only to be an effective fighter but to remain a human being-and even to save his or her soul."

To which I want to add that as an American citizen who willingly endorses - if it happens - the decision of my own flesh and blood to join and serve in the military, I demand that the military act in ways that reflect professionalism, integrity and personal class, teaching the real moral and ethical code of the warrior.

If my child has an officer's  commission and is to become a leader of soldiers, I do not expect a professional military leadership to attempt to destroy the inner sense of integrity of that fledgling officer. Nor to try to replace integrity with moral blindness.

Moral blindness can be infectious and if left untreated will pass from soldier to soldier, even from officer to officer.

Discernment is the key here and it is absolutely vital to this nation that we do not place morally blind officers in positions of command that lead to blind amoral obedience.

We do not want morally blind soldiers who cannot act competently when confrontations with ethical dilemmas arise. We want to see in our soldiers' behavior a strong support for legal authority, moral authority and ethical authority. To the degree that such authority is lacking or not modeled by the political leadership, all of us suffer and all of us will pay.

We have in our recent past prominent voices declaring moral nonsense such as the U.S. should "blow them away in the name of the Lord," 

Are these attitudes not ethical and moral lapses of the highest gravity - especially when it's revealed that Christian celebrities and policy lobbyists consider a Constitutional amendment against gay marriage or teaching creationism in schools to be higher godly priorities than murder wearing an American  Military uniform?

Should we live as if God were focused on gays and evolution, looking the other way with no almighty interest in focusing a divine gaze on Iraq and Afghanistan?

What is a soldier to do if his moral sense of the sacredness of human life survived his Basic Military Training? How do we support that value so deeply at the core of our humanity?

What do we do when a soldier refuses an order based on his own developed sense of ethics, morality, loyalty and patriotism?

Again from the author of  The Code of the Warrior

"The best way to ensure that military personnel will not commit a war crime even if given (illegal) orders to do so by a superior officer, is, not to drill them on codes of conduct and provisions of international law,

but rather to help them internalize the significance of the history and tradition of the military

and of concepts such as honor and courage in order to develop a coherent sense of what it means to be a member of the military."

What does the initiation into the military teach our children?

Discipline ... which of course takes many forms.

What does moral and ethical discipline look like in the life of an American soldier?

Whose moral and ethical values are the primary instinctive and emotional guides in a human being?

Certainly none taught by those infected with moral blindness.

So it's a dilemma.

Is there a better way to turn fun-loving dream-filled American young people into instinctive killing machines without fracturing their humanity?

Is that question an oxymoron?

Is this not all the more reason to demand of ourselves that we do our duty to make sure leaders have justifiable reasons for turning our youth into characters like Kurt Russell in "Soldier."

But the ultimate cause lies at the head of the country, the so-called heart of our national leadership.

Our soldiers absolutely must emerge from basic and combat training with moral competence intact.

Americans can not afford a shallow unreasonableness that defines for them who is patriotic and who isn't.

If this nation insists that it’s soldiers can justifiably kill innocents in the name of any cause or for any reason, then we have taken any sheen of honor, integrity and morality off our tarnished and tragically rattled sabers.

I recommend the following articles:

Ethics Training and Development in the Military

Teaching Military Ethics: Personal Development versus Moral Drill

Saturday, April 9, 2011

Ask your doctor if medical and pharmaceutical extortion is right for you.

It is an indisputable naturally occurring "phenomena" that as you grow older bodies and body parts show wear and tear, start to break down or malfunction, and bring on introductions to new and probably irrevocable discomforts

... including almost constant pain to some degree.

If my body - which has started speaking to me more forcefully and in language that I cannot ignore - communicated in the verbal language by which most of us negotiate the wise and silly paths our lives take,

what words would I receive?

"I (your body) have earned a right to insist on you easing back from your habitual and almost ignorant abuse of strength, energy and body tissues (you know, bones, ligaments, joints and organs.) Don't resist the onset of body messages to the detriment of your quality of life.

If "slow down" is the message you receive, then slow down.
If "take it easy" is the message, then start taking it easy.
If "more rest" is the message, then quit fighting bedtime and give in to the urge to nap.
If "you can't do that anymore" is the message, then don't take your old ball to the hoop and try a few jump shots. Retire from your pretend NBA, NFL, and MLB jockiness and become more fan and less all-star.  And don't climb out on the roof without a rope around your waist, wear your gloves . .. and move carefully."

Yesterday I mowed the front lawn for the first time this year ... and now with two new knees instead of one. I've been in a bit of pain from the second surgery for a while ...  not an intolerable pain, but a constant reminder of what is sore and what can get sore with exercise.

At Lietta's suggestion I took an anti-inflammatory this morning after getting up to fix breakfast. Within half an hour much of my pain was seriously missing ... and I realized that the pain of surgery had mostly dissipated sometime in the past month or so. In it's place was greater onset of the arthritis I knew I would inherit from both sides of my family.

So the anti-inflammatory (NSAID type) suppressed my pain and I'm walking around the kitchen like a spring chicken, er ... rooster.

Where am I going with this?

I'm more and more offended by big medicine, big pharma, big medical providers and of course big government, the bought-and-paid-for-by-big-business  that now owns the FDA that is supposed to look out for us citizens.

That, I suppose, is what it becomes so annoying to see ads for all sorts of pills that offer relief to pain and discomfort but include warnings that portray side effects worst than the relief itself.

That, I suppose is how the FDA authorizes pharmaceutical monopolies by limiting distribution of drugs to the chosen few who send money to the FDA authorities along with a request for special treatment.

Bottom line is nothing less than extortion based on a medical industry's claim that that suffering that comes with aging is not avoidable if you are willing to pay.

... and pay the price demanded ... or suffer ... with government endorsement of the extortion and failure to address the suffering in the name of the people.

Don't get me wrong. I really like my doctor and appreciate his skills ... but even he admits that the pharms track his prescription decisions.

So ... perfectly content at my age with the relatively affordable medications I do take, I will continue with this possibly shallow cloak of pain-enduring courage so long as the pain does not destroy my bravery and chin-up tolerance of growing older.

Can I last?

Hell, I don't know ...

But for now my health is not deteriorating at a rate greater than what happens normally as people age.

I can still mow the lawn, work in the yard, wash the vehicles, change the tires, hike, swim, move furniture and climb stairs.

It hurts a bit to do so ... but not to a degree where I'll give up my mortgage and what meager retirement resources I have available in the name of pain-avoidance.

My courage may last only so long as the pain does not for some reason accelerate beyond normal aging wear and tear ... or I may finally encounter my threshold ,,,

and may have to pay the extortion ...

but in the meantime I have dignity in and with my pain

... I'm still a free man looking forward to retirement, life with a beautiful woman, kids, grandkids and a life of unhurried pleasure in what is going on.

Maybe that's enough ...

would you have dignity if the cost of medication and insurance robbed you of the ability to do more ... just live in limited circumstances while your money trickles away to someone else?

Is that what life under capitalism and corporate welfare is supposed to come to?

Remember ... the politicians who tell you they had no choice but to make the decisions that have led us down this road to extortion are lying. They had choices to make all along the way ...

... including the choice not to take money from lobbyists ... and they DID have a choice ... they could have said NO instead of YES ... at any time.

They all are accountable.

Saturday, April 2, 2011

General Petraeus: “ nothing brave about burning the Quran over here while our soldiers pay the consequences over there.”


If foolishness were a sin for which a judgmental and punitive God would punish human beings … then perhaps “hating the sin but loving the sinner” would be today’s challenge regarding Pastor (and I use that term as a loose definition of what he pretends he is) Terry Jones.

Terry Jones has perhaps superseded the notorious “God hates fags – funeral protesting” Fred Phelps as the most despised, discredited and fraudulent Christian in America.

Burning the Quran is No Childish Game – Rick Sanchez (Bio)

Children have to be taught to settle disputes and express their opinions respectfully. Unfortunately, it's a lesson some adults never seem to have learned.

Take, for example, Terry Jones, the pistol-packing Florida pastor who threatened to burn a Quran on 9/11 last year. Well, a little over a week ago, he... you guessed it. He burned a Quran.

If you recall, Jones didn't go through with it last year because there was such an outcry from nearly everyone -- President Obama, Secretary of Defense Gates, politicians from both sides of the aisle, celebrities, religious leaders, regular folk and pretty much anyone with a lick of common sense -- that burning a Quran, and offending one and a half billion people, wasn't a good or sane idea.

But it may have been General David Petraeus whose argument was the most convincing -- at least for me. When I spoke with him last year, he boiled it down to a simple matter of life and death. General Petraeus said that there was nothing brave about burning the Quran over here while our soldiers pay the consequences over there -- in Afghanistan, Iraq and now, Libya.

The question of confrontation for this pretend Christian would of course be a moral-values asking where Jones found his Christ-based justification for such an incredible silliness.

Now is the time for our Christian celebrities to put away their donation-request plates and make national religious heroes of themselves.

Would it not be in our national best interest for our prominent and noisiest Christian advocates to take a public stand and call Jones on his behavior? At some point you cannot walk away from behavior that leads to such horrific consequences.

Sanchez on this very point:

Ignoring Jones and hoping he disappears into obscurity doesn't seem to work. If anything, he seems to have the survivability of a cockroach. Jones has to be confronted head-on, and that is exactly what an interfaith group of 35 pastors and imams from the Detroit-metro area is doing.

On Monday, the group spoke out against Jones' visit and announced they were planning a prayer vigil in response. Reverend Charles Williams II of the King Solomon Baptist Church said, "As a Christian minister, silence for me would be consent."

As much as I dislike giving Jones any more attention and a 16th minute of fame, silence and inaction in the face of bigotry don't work. Worse, they can unfortunately -- and incorrectly -- signal approval or at the very least acceptance. Jones needs to realize that his words and actions make him the very thing he despises: He is no better than the fringe of Muslims who hate.

Hate masquerading as political protest is still hate, which is why Jones must be repudiated so he realizes that his actions are not only offensive, but also dangerous -- especially to our troops.

We teach our children that they can disagree without being disagreeable. That lesson evolves as we grow older. As adults, we learn that we can protest peacefully and that we can oppose something without being offensive.

There is nothing spiritual, holy or religious in looking the other way with this one. It’s time for all of us to cast a vote for real piety.

Doofusness; The incumbent sitting Lame Duck American President

It's a vanity issue. For Mr. Trump that means he must satisfy Mr. Hannity, Ms. Coulter and these kind folks: On Networks and ...

Popular Posts