Patterico's Pontifications

2/17/2005

Hopefully Final Thoughts on Mattis

Filed under: General,War — Patterico @ 6:12 am

There has been a fair amount of shrill rhetoric directed against me due to my denunciation of Gen. Mattis’s counterproductive remarks about the joy of shooting wife-beaters. Most of it I won’t dignify with a link; it consists of people who got an emotional kick out of getting up on their virtual soapboxes and telling me off on this issue — and in the process twisted what I had said beyond all recognition.

To hear some of these folks tell it, all Gen. Mattis ever said was that he took a grim satisfaction in killing terrorists and murderers — as opposed to what he really said, which was that it’s “fun to shoot” men who slap around their wives. According to some, my condemnation of his remarks demonstrated a desire to emasculate our military, and turn them into a bunch of politically correct automatons.

But somewhere in all that noise, there have also been one or two reasonable people who have made a good case that I was too harsh in calling for some form of further discipline for the general.

Armed Liberal said that General Mattis’s remarks made him “wince . . . deeply,” but added:

I’ve met Gen. Mattis, shaken his hand and sat with him and discussed what he hoped to do when the 1st MEF returned to Iraq. And it was clear to me that he ‘got it’; that he was going to stop the bad guys and defend the good guys – who included the brutalized Iraqi people.

I had no doubt that he was a warrior, and all warriors have some germ of Genghis Khan in them, some desire to see their enemies trampled underfoot, their cities brought down amid tears.

But he knew, I felt then, how to place that impulse in context, and I continue to believe, based on the performance of his Marines, that he knew how to place that context into action, even when faced with a brutal enemy.

I think he slipped when he spoke, and while I disagree with Patterico and don’t believe an official reprimand was remotely called for, I do believe that a general officer ought to know better.

Fair enough. I have reflected on these comments for a few days.

I have also taken into account a comment from Dan at Riehl World View. His initial post had an element of the soapbox quality of the numerous posts that have attacked me. He called me “some dilettante typist with a blog and a law degree” and mocked the idea of winning hearts and minds. This is a milder version of the sort of invective I have seen in numerous right-wing blogs over the past few days.

But when I explained my position in a comment, Dan’s comment in response had a different tone from the post to which it was appended. I thought he made a reasonable argument. Here is the end of it:

War is ugly and brutal but also a reality, however grave. And I believe men returning from war are entitled to be treated and judged with “realistic” expectations under the circumstances. Consequently, while I may well agree with you that under general or common circumstances the types of statements made could be termed unnecessary and potentially counter- productive, I do not choose to apply such a standard to this individual at this particular time given his recent and positive contributions to the overall war effort.

In short, cut the guy a break. We asked him to travel halfway around the world and kill people for us. He did. That in and of itself is more than any man should ever be asked to do for his country, let alone potentially actually dying for it himself. Is it really necessary that we now ask of him just all that much more in service to his country at this precise moment in time? When I weigh all the factors in my mind – the answer for me is “no.”

I don’t entirely agree with this. I think that Gen. Mattis’s position as a general imposes on him the necessity for a higher degree of circumspection in his public remarks than we would expect from Marines of a lower rank. And I continue to believe that his remarks — as he phrased them — were entirely counterproductive. I think our government was right to quickly denounce them.

But I also think I may have been a little hasty in calling for harsh discipline for the general. Armed Liberal says that the general is truly a man who understands our need to wage an effective public relations campaign. This is a concept that many bloggers have brutally mocked in recent days, but it’s also a concept that we are stuck with, whether we like it or not. If Armed Liberal is right — and knowing him and his judgment, I believe that he is — then Gen. Mattis is just a man who slipped up in public remarks. Perhaps I should have cut him some more slack, as Dan suggests.

Gen. Mattis has been told he should have chosen his words more carefully. He has agreed. Perhaps that is enough.

Comments (16)

16 Responses to “Hopefully Final Thoughts on Mattis”

OK, maybe you aren’t a “dilettante typist,” but you do have a blog and a law degree. Two out of three isn’t so bad. ; ) I’m glad that we were able to have this positive dialogue. And I apologize as I was indeed well up on the soapbox with my first post. While the capability to mount my soapbox now and again is part and parcel of why I blog; I also understand it isn’t a very smart place to live 24/7. Thanks for your post of today. Tough times and issues demand that good people reach a point where they agree to disagree without losing respect for one another.
Dan (324b6f) — 2/17/2005 @ 8:42 am
Sorry I didn’t respond to your email; I’ve been busy the last few days (and I rarely post). What I’d planned to do (this morning, actually) when I received your request was copy ONLY the comments between us to a post on Fair Whether, and give you either the “final word” (as I’d indicated at Andrea’s), or continue the conversation (but only at your choice). Your post this morning seems to contraindicate the necessity of this any longer.

However, since I suppose I fall somewhere amongst the more reasonable critics (I would hazard, from your email), would you still want to respond to my final, quite specific criticisms of your position here? – I’d repost my final rebuttal from Andrea’s here, and you can take it from there.

Or just leave it at this? Your call.
brandon davis (5d2c93) — 2/17/2005 @ 9:54 am
I didn’t think the esteem in which I hold you could go up. Looks like we both had to change our minds 🙂
RedJacket (c466f4) — 2/17/2005 @ 1:28 pm
…then maybe Mackubin Owens puts it in a fashion that we can ALL agree on, without further rancor (on either side of the argument) in the article Distinctions of War: General Mattis’s Mistake, with the following relevancies noted:

“The context of the comments makes clear that Gen. Mattis was having some fun and playing to his audience….

…The fact is that Gen. Mattis is probably the finest Marine combat leader since the legendary

. I have never met a Marine who served with Gen. Mattis who had anything less than the highest regard for him. Anyone who has seen him knows he doesn’t “look” like a Marine but he sure knows how to act like one. And acting like a Marine makes room for such principles of restraint in war as chivalry (defend the weak and the innocent) and proportionality (use only the force necessary to achieve the objective). For the most part, observers agree that the Marines of Gen. Mattis’s division treated surrendering Iraqi humanely—the way they are supposed to be treated.

…There is something about Gen. Mattis’s remarks that most commentators have missed. He was not saying it is “a hoot” to kill everyone, but those kinds of people who, as they say in Texas, “needed killin’.” Ask yourself this question: If you came face to face with Osama bin Laden or Abu Musab al- Zarqawi, you might smile as you put a round though his head? Be honest. I would.

whole article. It fairly covers both sides of the issue, and anything Mack’ writes on the armed services is worth reading.

Please also note the passage in Shakespeare that Mack’ quotes in his article …a poetic quote like this isn’t an anomaly in the military mindset: in my ramblings, I’ve found that some of the best officers are poets in spirit (though seldom enough in deed) …on the bookshelf alongside Sun Tzu and Clausewitz, you’ll find the complete works of Kipling. There’s some insight there, if you ponder on it a bit. Just FYI.
brandon davis (5d2c93) — 2/17/2005 @ 2:30 pm
Just a short comment from a retired USAF officer and former fighter pilot: I agree that General Mattis could, and should, have chosen his words more wisely. He’s a general officer and, as such, needs to keep in minds that war is an extension of politics and he’s on the political front lines of the war in Iraq. However, warriors speak certain ways when speaking to other warriors. And, while I’m sure he would have used other words to the garden club, the fact is that he’s engaged in killing our enemies. I agree with Dan’s eloquent comments and would say that few are in a position to judge the general too harshly.
Check six, CarlosinCA
CarlosinCA (5a8d69) — 2/17/2005 @ 3:30 pm
Well, I think your comments here are more reasonable than the originals. I personally believe that a general, especially in this era, is far to much a political position and should be separated from the politics as much as possible.

Historically, the best generals have been some of the worst mouths out there. Sherman, Grant, Patton, Lemay were all pretty up front with there exact feelings on the enemy. It may not be pleasant to here, but many soldiers are the ones that the comments were intended for. We don’t hire soldiers to be kinder or gentler. We want them to kill the enemy and protect our precious backsides.

I think in some cases this is an example of PC going too far. You may be offended by his speach. Well you can speak out about it. That’s your right. But, don’t forget, he has a right to his thoughts and has the right to state them. It may not be helpful to a cause, but do you really want to strip a defender of the right that you take for granted?

I personally don’t. I am willing to wince a little at poor judgement and inflamatory statements and let the officials decide what is appropriate censor. I think we all should give him the benefit of the doubt before calling for his head.
Nylarthotep (ca6be3) — 2/17/2005 @ 4:04 pm
Correction: The original blockquote was garbled somehow (bloody computers, anyways …hmm, maybe you can’t include an embedded link in a blockquote?? …or maybe the nickname Mack’ used was blocked?? …which I changed to LTG Burwell’s Christian name, just in case); at any rate, I think the link offers valuable insight, and the line should have read:

The fact is that Gen. Mattis is probably the finest Marine combat leader since the legendary Lewis Burwell Puller.
brandon davis (5d2c93) — 2/17/2005 @ 4:51 pm
Okay, I give up …I did include links though.
brandon davis (5d2c93) — 2/17/2005 @ 4:56 pm
Patterico–you still don’t get it. Choosing to enter the armed forces to kill another human being and then following through to kill that human being is not like choosing a Latte over a Cappucino. The soul wrenching experience of combat is like no other and the closeness of the relationship to your fellow combat soldiers is in some ways closer than a lovers’ or a spouses’. There is an artistry in being able to inspire soldiers into combat mode. In Vietnam we had a terrible experince where g.i.s killed their leaders by shooting them or blowing them up with grenades. It happened so often that it became a word–“fragging”. The death rate of 2nd lieutenants was enormously high at least in part for this reason. I know that my commanding officer always slept with a side arm and was constantly alert for all eventuallities. The reason General Mattis is important isn’t his medals or his rank. It is in his ability to connect with other soldiers and LEAD THEM IN BATTLE. He cannot lead by being a Sunday School teacher or a politically correct official. These troops need to hear these words spoken by their leaders, which General Mattis did. I can’t tell you how frustrated I am that there is so little public understanding of what military leadership is and is not. I am horrified to hear and see ignorance displayed as informed expertise on military matters. The only thing worse for me has been to watch as Politicians who have no understanding of military neads (Senator Cohen who later became Defense Secretary in the Clinton Administration for instance) exercise great power with such arrogance, endangering the lives of combat soldiers and this nation.
john (6fdeb3) — 2/17/2005 @ 7:29 pm
I saw nothing wrong at all with the general’s comments and would have taken disciplinary action against any officer who apologized for those words. Your comments are what I expect from a Feather Merchant.
Walter E. Wallis (2692e8) — 2/17/2005 @ 7:42 pm
Well, Walter, Gen. Michael Hagee disagrees with you. He counseled Gen. Mattis that he should have chosen his words more carefully. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I am guessing that you never reached Gen. Hagee’s rank.
Patterico (756436) — 2/17/2005 @ 8:33 pm
———–
In the online article at CNN (subheading) – Commandant Gives Counsel – LTG Michael Hagee, Commandant USMC …

“…defended Mattis, calling him “one of this country’s bravest and most experienced military leaders.”

“While I understand that some people may take issue with the comments made by him, I also know he intended to reflect the unfortunate and harsh realities of war,” he said in a written statement. “Lt. Gen. Mattis often speaks with a great deal of candor.”

Hagee said he had counseled Mattis regarding the remarks and that Mattis “agrees he should have chosen his words more carefully.”

“Throughout our history, Marines have given their lives in the defense of this nation and human rights around the globe,” Hagee’s statement read. “When necessary, this commitment helps to provide us the fortitude to take the lives of those who oppress others or threaten this nation’s security. This is not something we relish, yet we accept it as a reality in our profession of arms.”

“Lt. Gen. Mattis is a superb leader and one of the Corps’ most courageous and experienced warriors,” Hagee wrote. “I remain confident that he will continue to serve this nation with dedication and distinction.”

Hagee’s written statement doesn’t approach the level of a reprimand, neither formally nor informally …Hagee wasn’t even close to being censorious. As Patterico said, Mattis was “counseled”.

(Might as well try that link to LTG Chesty Puller again, too. Hmm, did it work this time?)

I started to twit that “I have no opinion on Walter E. Wallis’s former rank.” But geez, he sure comments a LOT! And then I started reading his posts. Hmm.

Walter – Are you Walter E. Wallis *AKA Inspire 28*, 23rd Infantry, Korea 1950-51, Battle of Kunu Ri?
brandon davis (5d2c93) — 2/18/2005 @ 10:00 am
Thanks Patterico and those bloggers who disagreed with his take on Gen. Mattis, and participated in this dialogue. The fact that Mattis’ comments were put on the record meant that criticisms and defenses referred to the contents of his actual remarks. A good precedent for others ‘in the news’ to consider following.
AMac (b6037f) — 2/18/2005 @ 11:44 am
Well, my curiousity got the best of me, and I finally got around to blogging the term that Walter used to describe Patterico: “Feather Merchant“.

I wasn’t sure if it was a pejorative for “lawyer” or something. It’s not.

From the book “Tales Of A Feather Merchant: A World War II Allegory” (available from the publisher) ….

“By the way, “feather merchant” was a term applied to all Marine recruits in boot camp, where they were broken down and rebuilt, according to Marine theory. It refers to “recruits having minimal practical know-how, usually small in size, extremely young, physically uncoordinated, incapable of responding to basic orders and totally undisciplined.“

Interesting, but “So what?” you ask. – Well, nothing really, but after pursuing via Google so many posts written by a “Walter E. Wallis” (AKA Inspire 28), his use of this peculiar term (previously unfamiliar to me, at least) jives with the meme of many of those posts, that Walter is indeed a Korean veteran. And a fighting participant of a storied regimental command, the 23rd Infantry, the Tomahawks.

“The 23rd Infantry remained with the 2nd Infantry Division at Ft. Lewis until August 1950 when it departed for Korea.

“In Korea the 23rd Infantry Regiment served initially as the “fire brigade type unit” and was moved to counter enemy thrusts. Just after the 2nd Infantry Division relieved the 24th Infantry Division along the Naktong River, the communists attempted to overrun the Naktong Line. The attack was stopped in the Changyong-Yongsan sector in a battle, which lasted from the 1st to the 15th of September. Company C was overwhelmed by a North Korean Division and ninety percent of the Company was killed, wounded, or captured. The 23rd Infantry Regimental Combat Team joined the other Combat Teams of the 2nd Infantry Division and made a phenomenal break out of the perimeter against determined resistance and chased the communists north and west. During the drive north, the 23rd Infantry Regiment helped to liberate many of the prisoners’s of war at Namwon Prison. Moving north in November, the Division had advanced to within 50 miles of the Manchurian border when the Chinese Communists entered the fight. Hoping to trap the Eighth Army northwest of the Chongchon River, the Chinese attacked by the thousands. The mission of the 23rd Infantry Regiment was to keep the withdrawal route open over the Chongchon River and protect the right rear flank of the Eighth Army. As the rear guard of the 2nd Infantry Division, the Regiment suffered casualties amounting to nearly one-third of their strength but performed its mission enabling the Eighth Army to withdraw in order.

The Chinese winter offensive was halted at Wanju. From Kunu-ri to Wonji the 23rd Infantry experienced 84 consecutive days of enemy contact, the longest stint of combat of any regiment during the Korean War. On 11 December, a French Battalion, Le Batallion De Coree, was attached to the 23rd Infantry Regiment, for the battles of Twin Tunnels and Chipyong. In the epic battle of Twin Tunnels, the 23rd Infantry Regimental Combat Team routed the enemy at bayonet point and defeated two regiments of the 125th Chinese Communist Division. At Chipyong-Ni, five enemy divisions attacked the 23rd Infantry Regiment. Surrounded and outnumbered, the Tomahawks defeated the Chinese, inflicting 5,000 casualties. The battle marked a turning point in the war and was the first major defeat suffered by the Chinese.

In April and May, the 2nd Infantry Division located on No Name Line halted the communist spring offensive. Following a spectacular defensive struggle against 10 enemy divisions the 2nd Infantry fought for 30 days before they secured the ridge. The communist attack to retain control of Heartbreak Ridge lasted until the end of the following month, when finally the Division was relieved for a well-earned rest.^*1*“

Thanks for your service, AND your comments, Walter E. “Gene” Wallis.

My apologies to all for the OT aside.
brandon davis (5d2c93) — 2/18/2005 @ 11:19 pm
Every rational person appreciates the actions of those who have served. Assuming that Brandon has correctly identified Mr. Wallis, our thanks go to him for his service.

I still think Mr. Wallis’s insult of me missed the mark. Generals are expected to know better than to make counterproductive remarks — which is why a higher-ranking general counseled Gen. Mattis.

Mr. Wallis may claim greater knowledge than I have of how military men should act — but Gen. Hagee presumably knows better than Mr. Wallis about how generals should act.
Patterico (756436) — 2/19/2005 @ 8:07 am
Okay, fine–the general wasn’t as circumspect as he could’ve been. It’s not as if this is the first time this has ever happened. General Singlaub got muzzled back in the 70s for being skeptical of Jimmy Carter’s proposed policies. General Campbell got in trouble for calling President Clinton names. And so on up until the present. American generals are supposed to keep their political views and most of their other non-military views stowed until they leave service. Then they can write memoirs, be a talking head on cable news, what have you. Yes, it’s grating to see a warrior forced to button his lip because of the pc squeals of the Chronically Offended. But that’s a by-product of civilian control of the military.

Now, if you want to meet a soldier who truly loves his work, meet tanker “Red Six”: “It’s just sick how badass a tank looks when it’s killing.” He’s even got a compilation of soldiers’ video footage from the battle of Fallujah, near the top of his site.
The Sanity Inspector (1b4679) — 2/19/2005 @ 7:40 pm

2/17/2005

Hopefully Final Thoughts on Mattis

16 Responses to “Hopefully Final Thoughts on Mattis”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out