Life without a Code

How does a man live without a code? What else defines a man but his faithfulness to the beliefs of his heart? This code is the core of a man. It gives his devotion to andreia (manly valor) and arete (excellence) teeth and allows him to transcend those whose stock in trade are clever words hidden in hot breath. The code and his devotion to it must come before anything else- even before God and Country. The code is the muscle, sinew and bone of actions that started in the head and heart.

When a man has no code, he does whatever makes him happy at any point, doing whatever he can to gain advantage for himself. I do not have a problem with self interest but in this case, self-devotion leads only to self-deception. Voltaire once said that if all men were philosophers, religion would not be necessary but since all men are not philosophers, religion is necessary so his wife, cobbler and banker cheat him less. If all men had infallible clarity of sight, we wouldn't need religion either but things in the world are unclear. Nevermind the fog of war. I'm mostly concerned with the thick mist of my daily life.

A code is a man's beacon. It is his lantern. When confronted with a situation, a code allows a man to act in accordance with his beliefs allowing him to remain in integrity. Without a code, a man simply responds to the challenges of the day with pragmatism. He acts according to what he can live with now, not in the future.

Somebody once told me that integrity was consistency in thought, word and action. Somebody else said that integrity is what you do when nobody's looking. I think thy're both true. Integrity is the key to living a fulfilling life and the key to integrity is having a code. The particulars of the code are important but not nearly as important following it faithfully. A code isn't written in stone. It can be modified but only after great thought and never in the moment.

I suppose it would be possible to live without a code but I've seen those who do and that life just isn't for me.

Pride? Okay, but why a parade?

I'm in San Francisco right now. I came up here for a buddy's wedding in Sonoma and learned when I got here that it was the same weekend as the Gay Pride parade. People say about a million homosexuals and lebians from all over the world came to San Francisco to be "gay" in a way that may not be acceptable in their own community. A friend of mine took his kid through the parade unaware of what it was. While a little shocked, he said that he didn't see anything offensive. I found out later that his is the more staid of the "gay" events- something more family friendly that others.

Now I totally get the desire to be yourself, even for a weekend. I also understand the appeal of being around like minded individuals. But on principle, I generally disagree with events like the Pride Parade. I personally believe that homosexuality is a question of nature, not nurture so I put the Pride Parade in the same category as I would any like the Mexican parade, St. Patrick's Day Parade, and other parades celebrating ethnic heritage.

The way I see it, it's just plain stupid to be proud of something you had no control of and didn't work for. Nobody should be proud just because they're gay, straight or a particular ethnicity. It's totally different if you want to be proud of your association as a fireman, a policeman or a University professor. A person has to work to achieve those things. You don't automatically get to become a fireman simply by virtue of being Irish. Imagine if that was the case? Pride in something you did not work for is anathema to meritocracy.

The implications of such thinking are apparent. Pride in some characteristic, the idea that you have worth separate and solely based in something that you did not create out of will is the flip side of prejudice and decrimination without evidence. As Buster Kilrain said in Shaara's Killer Angels, the idea of America is that each man is judged on his own merits, not what his father did. Indeed, our Country was founded on the idea that heritage didn't mean entitlement.

I think people like to be associated with excellence without actually having to work for it and pay the price. You see this in the martial arts world very clearly. "My teacher is so and so..." as if the fact that you're his student gives you of the teacher's ability. I would always say to my students, "Don't ever brag about me because I won't be in the ring with you and I will not ever fight your fights." People also like to say, "So and so of my ethnic group did this or that!" As if it means that person has that ability too.

You can only take credit for what you yourself have done. Nothing else. You do not get to live off the reputation earned by better men. If we can all really take this idea to heart, we will start lessening the intensity of the manufactured identities that clash with each other. Our apparent separation that drives so many people to depression with begin to dissipate and we will chose to fight the battles that merit fighting and not the ones that are easiest to fight.

The Lose-Lose of Disaster Relief

With the hurricane season coming up, I'm beginning to hear all kinds of stupidity regarding disaster preparedness. The primary argument involves to two primary facets: prevention (pre-disaster) and reaction (post-disaster). As typical of the analysis of those who have never actually gotten their hands dirty, it sounds pretty good but is completely off base. "Prevention vs. Reaction" just isn't the issue.

We can never adequately prepare for every disaster that may befall us. So 100% of our resources devoted to prevention would be a waste of money. But not prepositioning disaster relief material (whenever possible) prior to a major event is just irresponsible and places too much stress on those who must respond. The real debate that happens among professionals is more tweaking resources towards one thing or the other.

But this brings me to the real issue: disaster relief is about people but not the people you may think. In my opinion, the definition of a disaster is something that we were unprepared for. Now that lack of preparation could be due to negligence or an honest mistake but that's for history to decide long after the first response has taken place. You need to have the right people in the right place to make it through a real disaster because when a real disaster strikes, the systems in place are generally insufficent or completely worthless. All the preparations in the world, all the prepositioned materials don't mean a single thing if the leadership can't deliver the goods. Hurricane Katrina made this very clear. There was a lack of leadership at every level: municipal, State and Federal.

But you know what? We got what we had coming. We get exactly the leaders we deserved. This isn't a Republican/Democrat issue. Both parties are guilty of taking advantage of trying situations to increase their power. If you work for the government in any policy capacity, you can be sure that any plan that you have that doesn't go perfectly or doesn't preciently account for every eventuality will be used by someone to gain power for their party. Our standard has become perfection for even the most complex issues. When did this happen? When did criticizing from the sideline just plain overpower action? Has it always been this way?

Michael Brown was exactly what we deserved because he was able to negotiate the treacherous water of Federal Leadership. He got to his position because he didn't rock the boat. And in the GOV, you don't rock the boat by not doing anything remotely risky. Why should we have been surprised that Michael Brown wanted to adhere to administrative protocols instead of cutting through the red tape? He never did that his entire career. In fact, you can't reach that position unless you are risk-adverse. He watched people through his career get fried over unintended mistakes and it taught him that it is more important to cover your own ass than it is actually do something. But that's not his fault. This system that created him is the system we want.

We want our respective parties to rule so badly that we don't think through the long term repercussions of our actions. This phenomenon is even common in the military where a policy of "zero tolerance" has created Officers who will not risk their careers to give their men realistic, hard training that might save their lives.

One of the lessons I have taught in my leadership courses and to anybody who has ever worked for me is that it is more important to be effective than right. We as a people have to start looking out for the good of the Country and not just our own provincial needs. In this day and age, the idea of wanting to improve your Country has become hoping your Country fails in a war. The idea of "speaking truth to power" has become a teenager's senseless rant. And saying you support the troops has become a cover for spurious vitriol directed at the President.

I don't see a solution to this. Aristotle said that democracies become republics which change into monarchies then slide into despotism. I had always hoped that we might avoid this vicious cycle but due to human nature, we seem to be part of the stream.

My main point in this incoherent piece: It's about the man in charge. Systems will not protect you from an evil man (Enron). Systems will not protect you from an incompetent man (Katrina). Only the right man in the right place in the right time can bring stability out of disaster. And unfortunately for us, in our lust for political power, we often destroy those men before they can save us.

Let's Keep it Honest

The continued anti-Bush and anti-military bias in the MSM keeps me on the edge of incredulity. The Tibetan Buddhists have a saying I like very much- an aversion is just as bad as an addiction. I'm shocked at how otherwise intelligent people become frothing at the mouth, rabid dogs when it comes to President Bush. It's become so bad that even things that have very little to do with the President, such as the military, suffer due to an association.

I will sit and debate anyone on the topic of the Iraq War but I've found that most of the people I've talked are speaking from emotion and not knowledge. When asked about the legality, I question was international justice is if there even is such a thing. When asked about the morality of the war, I bring up the concept of jus ad bellum and jus in bello. People love to have opinions about this though their usual understanding of IR is worse than a first year college student. I don't see them having the same type of conversation with an oncologist and IR is an infinitely harder topic than medicine.

But all that is not the issue. What with the almost near blackout on the MSM about the declassified reports of WMD finds in Iraq? I've always maintained that there were WMD in Iraq even when we didn't find any. Having looked for things, I know how easy it is to hide something in a country the size of Iraq. There are more reports to come and I hope this gives everyone pause. How can we, who aren't in Iraq, speak with such authority about the situation in Iraq? We don't know what's going on and that's the way it should be. What would your average citizen do with that information anyway? We were going to have to deal with Saddam sooner or later. And dealing with him before he possessed nuclear weapons is certainly smarter though more morally grey to some. Kim Jong Ill? That's what happens when you play this game poorly. You are forced to deal with that madman.

Mansfield's Manliness

I first became interested in Harvey Mansfield's book, "Manliness", when I saw his interview on Book TV. At first blush, I thought the premise of a Harvard professor writing about manliness would be like Jenna Jameson writing about chastity but I was drawn into the debate because of the interviewer. Not your normal Book TV interview where the author gets to plug his work in a friendly environment, Naomi Wolf was decidedly hostile. She kept cutting Mansfield off, disagreeing with him on everything while not letting him finish any thoughts. Professor Mansfield, for his part, kept a polite but wry smile on his face perhaps understanding the irony of the event. Wolf would not last long in the company of men. Disagreements are fine but rude, hostile interrogations are a sure way to violence.

This book is dense and I don't recommend it unless you have a pretty firm grasp of philosophy. He expects his readers to bring a lot to the table. The funny thing is I don't know who is the target audience for this book? Most of the manly men of action I know are not particularly fond of philosophy. In fact, I can count on 2 hands the number of manly men I know who would be inclined to read this book and fully grasp it. I don't particularly agree with his version of manliness but this is a prejudice of mine. Spend any time around young men and you will see the stronger, more aggressive and outwardly manly men picking on the nerds. That's just kind of the way it goes. And it never ends. Even in the most elite of military units, the lowest performing man is always the target of countless jokes and insults. I think Professor Mansfield's view of manliness might be influenced by this reality. He seems like the kind of guy I would have picked on in school.

He sees the necessity of manliness but it's a forced respect. He doesn't understand that manliness is a relative trait. There are times in my life when I feel that I am the paragon of Manliness. "I rule," I will say to anyone who will listen. But then there are moments when I am with some men who make me feel like an unblooded boy. They don't do this on purpose. They inspire and humble me, simultaneously, just by their examples.

I don't believe manliness is about ego, attention or anything like that. The love of attention is a female trait and one I work on daily to remove from my character. Men shouldn't need attention. We just need to have personally accomplished something. Insofar as one needs the love of the masses or the attention of everyone in a room, he is less manly. Other manly traits may make up for this but they will never completely cover the odor of a vapid school girl.

Manly virtue, "andreia" to use the Greek, is about one thing. It's about putting the needs of others ahead of yourself. Suffering without complaint. Enduring for the greater good. One of my good friends once said that the parents' primary job with their children was to change their focus from inner to outer. That makes a lot of sense as there are no more selfish and self-absorbed creatures on this planet than a human baby. To give society a man who thinks of others before himself is the greatest gift two people can give to our Country. To whatever extent the child becomes a man is measured primarily by his self-absorption. And it's important to remember that this is a process and a test that never ends. A girl is a woman as soon as she can reproduce and grows curves. A man has to constantly defend his manliness throughout his life because a life of leisure and ease is all to easy to fall into. And that wouldn't be very manly.

My Take on Haditha

I have waited to say anything about Haditha until more information became available. Unlike those in the MSM and I'm sad to say, many of my left-leaning friends, I do believe in "inoocent before proven guilty" as well as substantive due process of law. I have to admit that I am biased. Understanding urban warfare as I do, I'm greatly inclined to side with the Marines in question. I don't do so blindly but out of experience.

I've been blown away at how eager some people seem to condemn these young men. It's not surprising given the one-sided treatment by the MSM. The numbers are staggering. According the Media Research Center, from 17 May to 7 June, 2006, the Big 3 aired 99 stories (3.5 hours of negative coverage) about the Marines and Haditha. Conversely from September 2001 to June 2006, the same media only aired 52 minutes of positive military coverage. And this seems par for the course.

I see two major reasons for this neither of which are treasonous. First, the MSM, overwhelming staffed by liberals and Democrats, hate President Bush so much that they will focus on anything to make him and the Republican party look bad. The Marines in this case are just a means to an ends. Sadly, I tend to believe in this analysis. The rule is generally, the farther away you get from the field, the more selfish interests tend to drive people. This is true of CENTCOM and any major command. When lives at stake aren't men that you know, it's easy to see you goals as more important.

But in my kinder moments (unfortunately brief), I think maybe the MSM just doesn't understand the pressure our Marines are under. Maybe they don't get that we are fighting an enemy who uses our very ROE against us and hopes to sap our national will. It has always been funny to me that the more educated a person is, the more likely he is to be manipulated by the cunning. But let's look at the matter directly. Anytime, a Marine enters a house, he is immediately placed in a shoot/no-shoot position. This is different than what cops to everyday because cops generally assume that they will not meet great violence. Otherwise, the call SWAT to the do the entry. Now, your average civilian can tell the difference between a good guy and a bad guy in 0.7 seconds. For someone to function effectively in that environment, he has to discriminate and act in hundredths of a second increments. Most people (even Marines) can't do that. It's just not biologically possible. But they still have a job to do so they err on the side of their own safety as every one of us who would condemn these young men would do.

In this specific incident, an IED went off and the Marines took fire from a house. As per SOP, they went to clear the house which involves tossing a couple of frags and then making entry. We might never know if there was an insurgent hiding in that house who took a couple of shots and then bugged out before the Marines made entry, hoping to incite just such an incident. We might never know if any of the people killed were involved. After all a kid or a woman with an rifle can kill you just as dead. Whatever the circumstances, we can be pretty clear that this happened in the rush of combat and the level of violence was appropriate to the perceived threat. Folks have to remember that this is an environment where slow thinking and slow action by any leader often leads to letters that he has to write to parents. Any comparison made to My Lai is just plain poor analysis.

That being said, I think the Officers who tried to cover this incident up should see some major punishment. That's the crime here. In this day and age, our Officers should know that winning the hearts and minds is a major piece on the GWOT. A 19 year-old lance corporal may be forgiven for forgetting this but there's absolutely no excuse for the irresponsible behavior of the Officers. It may have been a momentary loss of judgment which I am loath to bemoan, but several Officers seemed to have agreed to this coverup. That a failure of the chain of command and most importantly, it's a failure to the young men and women who expect their Officers to make the right decision.

Great Piece from the LA Times

LA Times
June 11, 2006
In this paper, war heroes are MIA

Why don't military good guys make the front page?
By Frank Schaeffer
DURING THE last two weeks, the Los Angeles Times has printed at least four front-page articles, and several others on inside pages, about a Marine squad accused of killing 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha and possibly falsifying reports about the incident. Some of the information reported by The Times was based on the military's own investigation. The Times' reports seemed fair, stressing the conditions of combat and confusion faced by our troops.

As the father of a Marine who served two combat tours in Afghanistan and participated in missions in Iraq, I'm glad the newspaper reports military failures. I want the military to be better too. I'm also grateful for the many poignant stories about our troops that Times' reporters such as Tony Perry and David Zucchino have written for the paper.

However, if the "chattering classes" ever wonder why those of us in the military family sometimes bitterly resent the media, they need look no further than the "Haditha story." What bothers me is that I haven't seen one recent story dedicated to the heroism of our troops given such consistent prominence in The Times or other leading papers. Nor have I read a front-page headline about a military medal ceremony and the story behind it, although every year I see front-page treatment in the Tmies of who wins the Oscars.

Apparently some awards are more equal than others — say, for being a supporting actress in a forgettable movie rather than risking one's life to save a group of Iraqi children.

If there is such a thing as "anti-military media bias," it is not in how stories are reported. It is in what stories are ignored and the editorial "values" implicit in those daily choices.

Who decided that dramatic acts of military heroism no longer merit front-page treatment? During World War II, the Korean War and even the early years of the Vietnam War, such stories got Page 1 attention. Where are today's front-page headlines that read "Marine Dies Saving His Squad" to balance "Marines Accused of Massacre"?

The prominence of stories about military malfeasance, absent stories about military heroism, creates an out-of-whack impression. When it comes to reporting on the military, it's as if we're back in the 1950s, only this time the media prejudice and insensitivity are aimed at military service rather than race. In the 1950s, you rarely saw a story about an African American unless he or she committed a crime or was portrayed with condescension as a victim.

What I would like to see is acts of military heroism regarded once again as newsworthy. Here is one story that would have merited a front-page headline if the editorial values of this paper were less dismissive of military valor.

Staff Sgt. Anthony L. Viggiani is one of the recently distinguished heroes of the Marine Corps. On Feb. 24, he was awarded the Navy Cross for his actions in Afghanistan in June 2004. Viggiani had been fighting Taliban remnants who were killing teachers and burning girls' schools. He led his men in combat after being wounded. He chased down and killed or captured the enemy. He humanely tended to the wounded enemy fighters he had been fighting moments before. He led his men to safety and honor. Was a Times reporter sent to cover the medal ceremony and to report on what lay behind it? If not, why not? Whose values dictate that winning a Navy Cross is less important than a Pulitzer, an Oscar or a PEN award?

I have no problem with reporting on the military's occasional failures. But it's unfair and out of context when, at the same time, editors at our best papers ignore much more routine acts of individual heroism that balance this grim picture. The Times should help us be as proud of our heroes as we are disappointed by those very few who dishonor us.

FRANK SCHAEFFER is the author of the forthcoming novel "Baby Jack" and coauthor with Kathy Roth-Douquet of "AWOL: The Unexcused Absence of America's Upper Classes from the Military and How it Hurts Our Country

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In his funeral oration, Pericles says that he doesn't want to overly praise the men who fell in battle because men can only hear so much praise for another man. In addition, they will only believe what they themselves think they would be capable of. I think the MSM's dismissal of our brave men and women in uniform and the daily heroism and superior decision making says more about the character of the folks who run the MSM than it does the people they dismiss.

It's a character flaw to treat the world and the people in it as characters in your personal motion picture drama. The proper goal of journalism to to report the facts that might hopefully lead to the truth, not "speak truth to power."

Akaka Madness

I am profoundly disturbed by Hawaii’s political leadership’s unanimous support of the Akaka Bill. Their appraisal of the situation in Hawaii is typical of those who earnestly mean to do “Good” and through their best of intentions do irreparable harm. The State of Hawaii, as idyllic as it can be, is fundamentally a 3rd world country. Transparency in business and government is practically non-existent and nepotism is standard practice hidden under the native rubric for corruption: “local style.”

In any 3rd world nation, when a single ethnic group is allowed privileges that other ethnic groups do not enjoy, conflict, very often bloody, occurs. Those who did not grow up here cannot understand how violent life in Hawaii can be. And with the recent upswing in ‘ice’ usage (smoked crystal methamphetamine), the situation is only getting worse. Empowering a single ethnic group that believes itself to be victimized sets the stage for violent and race-based reprisals especially if this group collectively thinks it has a score to settle. In addition, unlike the various Native American groups, the assorted ethnic groups in Hawaii have blended to the point where a conclusive determination of race becomes extremely problematic. Where do you draw the line? How much “Hawaiian” is enough?

To create a separate Hawaiian Nation within the limited confines of the Hawaiian Islands would, at best, create a situation like Cyprus; forcing its citizens to live under an uneasy and tenuous peace. Left to itself and cut off from all external feedback, the Hawaiian culture would wither and die. That is the price cultures pay for attempting to remain static. They invariably lose their relevance and vigor. Education that promotes as its primary virtue an adherence to the “old ways” creates citizens who cannot compete in a global economy. Literacy exclusive to a little-known language devoid of a rich literary tradition is de facto illiteracy. As such a nation would inevitably fall into economic and social despair, the relative wealth of its neighbor would prompt criminal incursions, cross-border harassment and random violence stemming from frustration. Instead of the “melting pot” we currently enjoy, the Hawaiian Islands with a separate Hawaiian Nation would come to resemble Northern Ireland.

The State of Hawaii, if it is to move forward and prosper, needs to focus on the promise of the future and not the transgressions of the past. 9/11 has vividly shown us the perils of depending on tourism. Given our geographical location and ethnic make-up, Hawaii could bridge the social, political and cultural gap between the United States and China. By creating challenging jobs with opportunities for growth, Hawaii can keep its most talented youth instead of driving them away or sapping their enthusiasm. The poor and disenfranchised in Hawaii do not need encouragement that consists of promoting further victim ideology. They require proper training and an opportunity to compete in a global economy if they are to achieve any measure of independence. The Akaka Bill appeals to the basest instincts of the most downtrodden of the native Hawaiians, much as Robert Mugabe’s campaign promises assured Zimbabwe’s beleaguered citizens that their problems were caused by the “white devil.”

Passing the Akaka bill may do much to assuage the misplaced collective guilt of White America but it does so at the cost of the long-term viability of everyone living in Hawaii, particularly those the bill purports to help. More importantly, it sets an incredibly onerous precedent, legislatively affirming that ethnicity grants exclusive privilege- an idea that should be anathema to every American. We once fought our most devastating war to ensure the cohesiveness of our Country and promote the revolutionary idea that ethnicity would never determine a person’s future. The Akaka Bill would be the first step in rendering that sacrifice meaningless. A culture’s value is not defined by its technological or economic base. Nor can it be limited by mindless adherence to the “old ways.” The question that defines the only realistic debate for the positive future of Native Hawaiians is the same one that must be asked by Muslims. “How do we retain the central tenets of our culture while still remaining relevant and productive in a modern world?” Much has already been taken from the Hawaiian people. The Akaka Bill would take the only thing Native Hawaiians really need: a realistic hope for the success and financial independence of future generations.

Zarqawi is Dead!

Yay! Zarqawi is dead. I know that it is in poor taste to revel in the death of another human being but Zarqawi barely qualifies. He was a world class piece of shit. Anybody who thinks that the actions of our troops and Zarqawi's Al Qaeda are in any way relevant is an idiot. I don't mean that as polemic. I mean you are seriously stupid and need to reassess your capability to understand the world. I'm really happy. This guy had it coming. The only thing that I regret it that it's likely he got it too quickly. This man needed to look into the eyes of his executioner. The man deserved to be very scared before he died.

This what will happen in Iraq: terrorism will increase for the next 6-8 months as the remainder of the insurgency seek to find a new leader as well as prove they are still capable of coordinated attacks. After that, it will begin to taper off until violence reaches an acceptable level meaning that it can be controlled by the locals. This should take around a couple of years. Zarqawi was a logistics man and that's not easy to find in Arab populations. He unique combination of attributes made him the ideal leader for the insurgency. The insurgency's strength was in his perceived invincibility. Like the Boxer Rebellion, once the truth of lead is laid on the table, bullshit rhetoric goes out the window. His middle level managers will try to take over but they will fail much like Alexander's companions could not keep his lands together. They will be killed off and then the insurgency will find less and less support among the populace.

I'm blown away by some of the reactions. Some people simply can't be happy for our Country or anything that might remotely benefit our President. That's sad. That's taking a national security issue and making it a political one. It's like those PETA folks who think they are being brave by terrorizing chefs who serve foie gras. I don't see them picketing the dogfights or cockfights or any of the criminal activities that involve animals. Oh, those guys don't listen and they might hit back. I will eat foie gras until the day I die and I will fight anyone who denies me the right. But these folks who need to politicize Zarqawi's death are cut from the same PETA cloth. They protest the USGOV because the USGOV will listen and not make any moves against them. I don't see Cindy Sheehan going to Iraq to protest the Sunni insurgency. Spoiled cowards and they make me sick.

But today is a great day in the GWOT. Zarqawi is dead. I'm going to have a drink to toast TF 145.