May 26, 2005
Bill Whittle - On Fire and On Target!
Every once in a while you will be lucky enough to read something that will rock you back on your heels. It may be a religious publication such as a bible, a history, a biography or an autobiograpy, a novel, a screen play or, in this case an essay.
Bill Whittle is the author of Eject! Eject! Eject! I first came across this guy's blog quite some time ago, early 2003 I believe, and shared his essay's with Tad, a great friend and a retired Marine. Tad's note when I sent him the first link was "Where did you find this guy, he is amazing."
I can't disagree with Tad one iota.
The first essay I read was simply titled "Victory". and as I noted at the beginning of this essay, it rocked me back on my heels. Each and every essay by Bill Whittle has done exactly the same thing. This guy is amazing! An exerpt from Victory:
I can’t describe to you what that felt like that night. You really did have to be there, I guess. Not only did you have to be there, you had to know the history, the frustration, the humiliation and the almost unendurable, relentless disappointment that had been part of being a Gator fan for so many years.Of course, you really need to read the whole thing. Every word before you make up your mind about it.You could have watched it on TV, but you’ll never know what it was like to have that grin branded on your face, to walk up to homeless people and 85 year-old alumni and street thugs and kids and adults and everyone, everyone deliriously happy and dancing and hugging each other and just filled with such joy and elation and community. We had suffered together, lost together, come back year after year after year through endless defeats and dreams snatched away right under our noses, hoping together, and now, finally, this night had come. Next Year was here, at last.
I was honored to have done the video tribute to the team a few weeks later, in a celebration that drew 65,000 to the stadium just to say thank you. And when Steve Spurrier got on stage and said, “This one’s for all those Gator fans up in heaven,†I remember thinking, God, if that is not the corniest thing I’ve ever heard before a giant sob leapt out of me and I looked up at 60,000 people crying like babies.
Just like me.
Now it is worse than folly to compare this to the feeling on the streets of Baghdad on April 9, 2003, when the statue came down and it began to dawn on Iraqis that the son of a bitch was really, truly gone. It is an insipid, indeed, an insulting comparison.
So why did I make it? Well, because it’s all I’ve got. And that, in a strange and wonderful way, is exactly the point I want to make, for we have created a society so long immune from fear and repression, a safe and free and prosperous haven so encompassing that the deepest sense of liberation and victory that this American ever got to experience was when my college team won a stupid football game against the guys up the street.
We have been so safe, and so free, for so long, that it has warped our sense of history and human nature. It is, of course, a trade I am happy to make, but this isolation from the true horror and depravity that are everyday experiences in many parts of the world has imbedded in it, like a particularly lethal virus, the seeds of our own destruction. And it is this threat, much more than that from fundamentalist Islam and its organs of terror, that we must look at – closely, and deeply, and often.
I believe that many of those who opposed the war did so because they simply could not -- or in many cases would not – imagine what life under real oppression is like. Remember, these are the people who say, and seem to believe, that we in the US live in a police state, under a murdering dictator, where propaganda is spoon-fed to us like willing idiots and political opposition is crushed mercilessly.
If you say such things long enough, and you spend all your time in the company of similarly tinfoil-hatted comrades, then you actually begin to believe that life in Baghdad under Saddam Hussein wasn’t that much worse than life in Berkeley under the racist, election-stealing, Wellstone-murdering, Earth-destroying Republikkkan administration."
On returning from the cruise my bride and I recently too, I read his more recent essay "Sanctuary, Parts I and II" and it too rocked me back on my heels; and has taken a few days for the whole concept to sink in. A taste:
"What’s worse than crawling under your beloved house and seeing the foundations rotten with decades of termite damage?This too:NOT crawling under your beloved house and seeing the foundations rotten with decades of termite damage.
I’ve been away for a while, doing a little thinking. Usually, my thoughts for these past few years have started at home and then taken me to Iraq, and the war. Lately, though, I have been thinking about Iraq, and my thoughts turn more and more to home.
I started thinking along these lines six months ago, after a young Marine shot and killed a wounded Iraqi in a mosque in Fallujah
The ideas behind this little adventure we are about to embark upon have changed enormously since then. I have, quite frankly, been at a loss to know how to put so many wide-ranging snapshots together into this montage, this image, this idea of Sanctuary that I think holds the key to many of the problems we face today.
Stay with me -- our first stop is not our destination, but it is a necessary one. So let me first take you on that original journey, and show you how events in Iraq can show us how to fight and win a much wider and deeper conflict, right here at home."
"So why were the Taliban and Al Qaeda and Fedayeen insurgents treated so differently? Why the hoods and shackles? Why the humiliation at Abu Graib?It is not because these men shot at US soldiers. Regular Iraqi units, NVA units, North Korean Units, Germans, Japanese, Confederates and Redcoats have shot at American soldiers and upon their surrender their treatment has been, on the whole, exemplary. Why are these different?
It is not because they are opposing us. It is – to put it as bluntly as possible – because they are cheating – cheating in a way that none of the above ever did.
They have willfully and repeatedly broken the covenant of Sanctuary.
Let’s speak to the Perennially Outraged as if they were the fully grown, post-pubescent children they pride themselves on being.
What is the obvious difference between an enemy Prisoner of War, and an Unlawful Combatant? Suppose two of them were standing in a line-up. What one glaringly obvious thing sets them apart?
That’s right! One is wearing a uniform, and the other isn’t.
And why do soldiers wear uniforms?
It certainly is not to protect the soldier. As a matter of fact, a soldier’s uniform is actually a big flashing neon arrow pointing to some kid that says to the enemy, SHOOT ME!
And that’s exactly what a uniform is for. It makes the soldier into a target to be killed.
Now if that’s all there was to it, you might say that the whole uniform thing is not such a groovy idea. BUT! What a uniform also does -- the corollary to the whole idea of a uniformed person – is to say that if the individual wearing a uniform is a legitimate target, then the person standing next to him in civilian clothes is not.
By wearing uniforms, soldiers differentiate themselves to the enemy. They assume additional risk in order to protect the civilian population. In other words, by identifying themselves as targets with their uniforms, the fighters provide a Sanctuary to the unarmed civilian population."
A final tease (before I command you to read the rest):
"They violate the Sanctuary of the Uniform. They violate the Sanctuary of Surrender. And the most reprehensible of all is the violation of the Sanctuary of Mercy.Throughout the insurgency, and especially in places like Fallujah, enemy fighters with real or feigned wounds have called for aid. Not often does a soldier who has been in combat look down upon the wounded of either side without horror and sympathy. In places like Fallujah and Iwo Jima and Antietam it is an easy thing to see one’s own reflection in that grimace and that agony.
So when a soldier out of uniform, who may have faked surrender to kill unsuspecting Americans, calls for aid and then willfully kills medics with a concealed grenade… where does that leave us? What unplumbed depths remain? When mercy is used as a weapon against the merciful, what horrors and abominations remain unplayed?
THAT, dear left-wing Citadels of Conscience, is what we are up against. That is what you support against the decency, honor and kindness you mock in your own countrymen as they build schools and hospitals and, indeed, an entire democracy. That is the definition of “Unlawful Combatant.†It is not a legal nicety, and it is not a rhetorical flourish. It is a pattern of ruthlessness, deception and murder. And regardless of your motive, it is the side you find yourself taking.
These are the kind of men in Guantanamo. Who controls such men? And when busloads of men from Afghanistan and Syria and Jordan and Egypt and Iran, men without uniforms, men not under the control of any officer, men who follow no code of conduct other than an oath to kill any American, anywhere – who among us with a gram of understanding and perspective can be surprised when such men are hooded and shackled on air transports? And being left to sleep in the open air is one thing in Northern Germany in the winter of ’44, and something else entirely in the middle of the goddam Caribbean! I mean, for the love of God, some of the people screaming themselves into a lather over such an outrage will pay tens of thousands of dollars for the same privilege a few miles away on a catamaran anchored off the coast of Jamaica."
I've deliberately teased you with a bit of Bill Whittle, hopefully, if you are as smart as I think you are, you will go read the rest of Sanctuary. It will take about an hour, only an hour, 1/8760th part of a year. It will also take a couple of days for it to really sink in.
Thanks Bill, once again you have provided me and hundreds of others food for thought, nurishment for our minds, and for most of us, reason spread on the tossing waves of confusion, hyperbole and hysteria of those who cannot see the way clear to beating down these islamofascists.
A note to my beloved readers: Read the whole thing before commenting, and when you comment, just share what thoughts you had in your heart of hearts. Oh, and one more thing, take time to read the comments too.
Posted by GM Roper at May 26, 2005 10:51 PM | TrackBackSo...why not execute the out of uniform insurgents immediately? We did this to German troops wearing American uniforms during the Bulge, as well as SS Troops (on general principle), all under the auspices of the Geneva convention. Would the political ramifications really be worse than the pictures that humiliate ALL Muslims?
Look, guys, you either follow the conventions, or not. You want to extract info, fine...drug 'em up to the eyeballs and squeeze it out of them. Humiliation through s exual posing is totally counterproductive to that effort. Just ask the FBI.
Posted by jim hitchcock at May 27, 2005 01:09 AM
Jim, what we did during the 2nd World War would not be "acceptable" at this point. I agree that the Conventions allow for it, but the political fall out probably wouldn't be worth it.
Having said that, I don't have a problem with using drugs and sleep deprivation etc., short of torture to extract information. I do have a problem with the posing as we saw in Abu Ghrab, and the perpetrators of that will be/have been punished.
I think that insurgents should be turned over to the Iraqi's for immediate trial for crimes against the Iraqi people. I suspect that the Iraqi's would be far less conventional than we would be.
A quote from Bill Whittle that says it for me: "I believe that in general, humans are good and kind. But some of us are beyond the laws and civility we have created inside our Sanctuary, hidden from the brutality of nature and lawless men. If there are killers spawned anew each generation among the gentle dolphins, then there are killer humans, too – and this will not change no matter how deeply we may wish it. And that is why I continue to argue for what to so many of us is plain to see: no people are perfect, but some societies behave better than others. It is one thing to kill to oppress people and make them do your bidding, and something else again to kill those oppressors and expand the bubble of safety and security that are so pervasive in the West that many cannot possibly imagine what the natural state of man is like.
I wrote, “can’t imagine,†but can’t remember is much more on target. Our parents knew more about the reality of human nature than people my age: they saw what the Japanese did in Nanking and what the Germans did in Poland. My grandmother grew up in an America without electricity, running water, or an indoor bathroom. Depriving a convicted murderer of these things today would be considered a human rights violation. The whole idea of “Human Rights†is an invention that we basically gentle and kind apes have made to protect us from the horrors and savagery of our ancestors’ existence. Our parent’s grandparents knew death and pain up close and personal; they slaughtered animals with their own hands, lost half or more of their children before they became teenagers, and lived in a very hard world where stealing generally meant that someone would die as a result of what was stolen from them. These people had no problem discerning victim and perpetrator, and determining where the blame and the responsibility lay."
Responsibility, that is in fact the key to the difference between the savagery of the islamo-fascists and civilization.
Posted by GM Roper at May 27, 2005 07:54 AM
GM, that guy is wierd, he still thinks after all the military has said itself confirming that the prisoners at Abu Ghraib that were tortured were almost all not guilty of any anti-occupation activity. And I'm afraid, as we now know, either a large minority or the majority of Guantanamo had nothing to do with the Taliban or AQ.
BTW, I note the 'liberal' media never refer to any of the acts US soldiers commit as 'torture', they stay with the military line of 'abuse'. PBS, NPR all follow this military lingo.
Posted by steve at May 27, 2005 08:46 AM
There IS right and wrong. Much is said and much is written about which is which and just how to define them.
People that are tyrants, despots, dictators...are wrong. People that blow up car bombs in market places, houses of worship, etc, killing and wounded scores of men, women and children are NOT "insurgents", "rebels", "opponents of the regime", or any other word less than terrorists.
They engage in terror. They have no honor, no compassion, and have stepped completely outside the realm of man's quest toward civility. They do not come under any protect of international treaties, such as the Geneva Convention.
Drawing room tacticians and internationalists that hurl insult and advice at the very people that shield them from any danger are, in the main, neither wise nor helpful. Note: I said "..in the main..". I support our right to speak out on public issues, but I really do wish that those who speak out would consider the ramifications of their words.
As we approach Memorial Day...and all the Sales and Crap...some might recall what Memorial Day is really all about. It isn't about Sales. Would it not be a good thing for Moms and Dads to talk to their children about what it means. Go to a cemetary and walk among the graves and you can pick out the ones of service personnel. Look and the birth date and the death date. Those people were the shields that have given us such a good life and so very much more opportunity than many others. Remember them.
Posted by tad at May 27, 2005 09:25 AM
Steve writes: "BTW, I note the 'liberal' media never refer to any of the acts US soldiers commit as 'torture', they stay with the military line of 'abuse'. PBS, NPR all follow this military lingo."
Steve, that is because it was abuse. Illegal, abuse! Shameful abuse! Petty Abuse! However abuse is all it was. The photographs released (and no doubt those that were not released) do not rise to the legal or conventional definition of torture no matter how indignant you or I get.
I fully and forthrightly condem the abuse of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib, but calling it torture is as shameful as the acts of abuse as any right-thinking person can ascertain if they put aside their partisan politics and look at it in the light of what we definately know happened. For those that continue to be intellectually dishonest and call it torture, well, what can I say?
Posted by GM Roper at May 27, 2005 09:47 AM
The point of Abu Ghraib is, I suppose, that there are bad people everywhere in the world. We might even agree that sometimes, good people do bad things; they are usually punished for doing bad things. It is possible to pick the incident apart in the quest for an answer to “why,†and it is perhaps even fitting to do exactly that. There are no doubt “several†explanations  some that may be acceptable, some not.
At the same time, we ought to recognize that while what happened at Abu Ghraib can only be regarded as inappropriate conduct  because we choose to hold ourselves to a higher standard, it was hardly torture in any sense of the word. Finger-nails were not pulled out, genitals were not hooked up to an electric generator, water wasn’t poured down the nostrils or throats of the detainees, their faces were not beaten to a pulp, nor were digits or limbs removed.
As Americans, let’s be enraged that any member of our military, regular or reserve, perpetrated such foolishness; but why are we not as equally enraged at the beheadings committed by terrorists, or the merciless beatings experienced by our POWs in their hands? Too many people have adopted the attitude that we are the monster, and we are not that. Not even close.
Posted by Mustang at May 27, 2005 10:33 AM
GM, I think that you recognized my question as one posed rhetorically, as opposed to something I would actually support or see happening.
Great response by you, though, and one I agree with 100%. Hope that's not too much of a surprise!
Posted by jim hitchcock at May 27, 2005 05:45 PM
Jim writes: "Hope that's not too much of a surprise!"
Oh, Oh!! Oh!!! It's the big one.... Oh!!!!
(with abject apologies to the American Heart Association and Redd Foxx) ;-)
Posted by GM Roper at May 27, 2005 06:06 PM
OK, I didn't even bother to check the name of the person who commented, "...after all the military has said itself confirming that the prisoners at Abu Ghraib that were tortured..."
What utter and complete b.s. Sure, they confirmed the actions that were contra-reg. Confirmed "torture"?
The ONLY "torture" that was done at Abu Ghraib was done under Saddam. Sure, what was done to the prisonsers there by some American soldiers was uncivilized, childish and demeaning. At about the level of lame frat hazing. I've personally seenâ€â€and stoppedâ€â€worse in high school locker rooms. So the poor babies got their feelings hurt? I am sooooo feeling their pain on that.
Big. Stinking. Deal. Not torture, except in the minds of [deleted accurate assessment of personality traits of a class of persons]. Did those military personnel cut off prisoners' fingers? Wire their genitals to batteries? Feed prisoners a piece at a time into wood chippers?
I didn't think so.
Yes, [whomever], torture IS a matter of degree. Whimps, losers and whiners see a "scary man" and "feel" assaulted, regardless of the actual behavior that "scary man" might engage in. No connection to reality at all. Fantasists. So, too, those whose tender sensibilities "see" nonexistant insults in common speech and insist on PC speech codes and the like "see" torture by American military at Abu Ghraib.
Grow up.
As to Bill Whittle's most recent essays: of their type, excellentâ€â€which is why I kept a referral to them at the top of my blog for over a week. I expect it's time others moved in to flesh out some of his arguments, add discussion of other elements of anti-civilization activity by reactionary so-called 'progressives," etc. But Sanctuary will remain a reference for such discussions for some time to come, I suspect.
Posted by David at May 27, 2005 08:46 PM