« Democratic Response | Main | No Butt »

February 3, 2005
A Hell of a Lot of Fun

Noted without comment..

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A senior U.S. Marine Corps general who said it was "fun to shoot some people" should have chosen his words more carefully but will not be disciplined, military officials said on Thursday.

Lt. Gen. James Mattis, who led troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, made the comments at a conference Tuesday in San Diego.

"Actually it's quite fun to fight 'em, you know. It's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right up front with you, I like brawling," said Mattis.

"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil," Mattis said during a panel discussion. "You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."

In a statement, Gen. Michael Hagee, commander of the Marine Corps, praised Mattis as "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," Hagee said.

"I have counseled him concerning his remarks and he agrees he should have chosen his words more carefully," Hagee added.

Maj. Jason Johnston, a Marine spokesman at the Pentagon, said Hagee did not plan any disciplinary action against Mattis. Johnston declined to provide details of how Hagee had counseled Mattis, calling it a private matter.

At a Pentagon briefing on Thursday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he could not comment on the remarks, but Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, praised the general as having set a stellar example for troops in his service abroad.

Mattis is commander of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command at Quantico, Virginia, south of Washington.

My Way News

Ah, screw it, I'm going to comment.

This guy is a dick. I am frankly flabbergasted that the Marines aren't going to discipline this guy. Worse, they can't even manage to condemn what he said. The statement that he "intended to reflect the unfortunate and harsh realities of war" is partially true, since by his very existence he reflects those things, but mostly a crock of shit. His intention was to say how much fun he has blowing people away, nothing more. That someone of his obvious intellect could rise to the level of General is a true credit to our nation.

General Mattis, if you're reading this, I have a question:
Where's your honor, dirtbag?

Comments

Previous Comments

I guess I would start by asking what you know of honor? Gen. Mattis is a "Fighting General." You know, the kind we need to win wars against bad people. I think it is safe to say that the Taliban was pretty evil. I won't comment on the treatment of women, because that is more cultural than political, but terrorists should be killed before they get to commit acts of terror. General Mattis doesn't pull any punches, and his marines love him. Why not have a conversation with the General and then try to malign his intellect and character. He might surprise you. But then again, I'm guessing you have more hiding in your heart than a dislike for one Marine.

Your dislike of a Warrior is evident in your comments. Some need to disaprove of the lifestyle of those that are trained to kill for their country, no matter the worthy cause. I would challenge you to think about all of the generals that have fought our country's wars and ask yourself if they thought the same thing, no matter the enemy. Come into the real world and not the intelectual fantasy world that you really think you live in. Not everything is pretty and nice. Some people really need to die. Some people like United States Marines need to train to kill people and break things. These are the harsh realities of life, not war. Forget your 1960's dope smoking faggotry and embrace the warrior ethos of manhood. Some things are as simple as good vs. evil.

I hesitate to dignify such comments with a response, but what the hell, it's my website and I won't let such drivel stand unanswered.

So to both of you cowardly anonymous commenters: This general didn't simply speak about the hard necessity of killing people in the course of warfare, he said it was FUN. Both of you conveniently overlook this and defend only the idea that warfare is necessary. An idea, I might add, that is highly debatable.

Of course I don't know this general, Anonymous #1, but knowing that he said "it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them" is frankly all I need or care to know. The fact that the killing machines under his charge love him doesn't impress me one bit.

Anonymous #2 states that "some people need to die" as if it's an indisputable fact, a silly thing to do. Even if this were unequivocally true, anyone who enjoys killing another human being is not well. We should never celebrate or revel in the deaths that MAY be necessary in the course of protecting ourselves. Further, we should think long and hard about just how necessary those deaths are before we undertake to kill thousands of people, many of them inevitably innocent of any crime.

What's in my heart is not hidden. I hate war, as I believe any rational human being should, including those who do the actual fighting. Especially those who do the actual fighting. I do not necessarily believe that there should never be war, but I certainly think it should be avoided if at all possible. If war becomes necessary, the responsibility to minimize civilian losses and end the war as quickly as possible could not be more grave.

I counter-challenge your ass to study some history. Most of the distinguished generals in our history have loudly decried war. They did not enjoy killing people. They were great men charged with a very serious duty. This guy is a cowboy and he has lost his humanity.

Here's a little sampler to get you started:

"The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience.  Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.  We know more about war that we know about peace, more about killing that we know about living."
~Omar Bradley

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
~Dwight D. Eisenhower

What a cruel thing is war: to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead of love for our neighbors, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world.
~Robert E. Lee

The ability and inclination to use physical strength is no indication of bravery or tenacity to life. The greatest cowards are often the greatest bullies. Nothing is cheaper and more common than physical bravery.
~Clarence Darrow

I recoil with horror at the ferociousness of man. Will nations never devise a more rational umpire of differences than force? Are there no means of coercing injustice more gratifying to our nature than a waste of the blood of thousands and of the labor of millions of our fellow creatures?
~Thomas Jefferson

Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.
~Ernest Hemingway

"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." George Orwell
Just remember this next time you get all worked up over the words spoken by a great man and great Marine.

I'm just waiting for someone to quote Jack Nicholson's character from A Few Good Men.

Once again, Olga, you ignore the central point. Orwell's quote describes the need for a country to have armed forces; it says nothing about enjoying it. The point here is not the existence of the military, the point is the existence of a military leader who professes to have a great time killing.

I really don't see where people get the idea that this gleeful killer is a "great man." He thinks killing people is fun. "A real hoot." Yeah, what a model human being.

It may be true that war and war training breeds this kind of attitude in people, but that's just another argument against war. It robs our soldiers of their basic humanity.

You people have lost your damn minds. It's simply stunning that you would defend the idea that killing people is fun.

As a woman who was appalled by the horrors inflicted on my fellow females in Afghanistan, I'd like to add my personal "thank you" to the General. Keep up the good work!

A nice reflection of the American ideals of justice, there.

I guess it would be okay, then, for the military to just round up and kill all the abusive husbands in America, too. Or does this only apply to foreign misogynists?

You think every person the General had a blast killing was interviewed to determine their stance on the equality of women before they were killed?

The Taliban's treatment of women is/was certainly a crime, but where does it end? The lack of a basic understanding of morality and the ability to think beyond immediate revenge in this thread is really depressing.

The blood thirsty AUTOCRATIC POLITICAL CONSERVATIVE RIGHT-WING EXTREMISTS at the top are not concerned about life. It's hard to believe they could have so many people duped. They don't care about democracy there at all or they wouldn't be working so hard to get rid of democracy here in the United States. I have signed to impeach every time, but here he is in again. I know they had to cheat. I haven't run into that many people that say they voted for Bush; but there is a lot of people who think they are Republican conservatives when they don't have any idea what they really are; but think they voted for GOD. I don't believe that for a minute. God wouldn't tell Bush to kill over 100,000 Iraqi people and destroy their whole country just so the United States could build it back; so that Bush could destroy any and all Social Benefits the Political LEFT have in the United States. Bush has lied so many times that it is not funny. That is not of God. And, Bush's lies cause us a problem. The Right-Wing acted like it was so awful the Clinton lie, but Bush has outdone himself telling lies and still hasn't got impeached.

I have a new liberal blog site at http://standupforliberalsintheusa.blogspot.com/

I hope to get some comments of the information I have posted.

I'm Anonymous #1...still undercover for my own reasons. Am I a coward? I think we will discover that we use words (and their definitions) differently.

You hate war, especially those that wage it, but you also think that some wars are necessary. Well, it is admirable to hate war and still belive in its necessity. There isn't a general alive, even General Mattis, that would argue that war is terrible. You take it one step further by saying you hate those that wage war. You are entitled to say whatever the hell you want to say, but I think you just committed the same mistake that General Mattis made in his speech...the fault is in the emphasis, not the message.

While I am not on a first name basis with General Mattis, I am familiar with him enough to know how to read the intent of his words. No general has ever cared more for the lives of his men than Mattis. Every loss is deep and personal to him. As with the quotes from the past, you must use a systematic approach when discerning intent. Lee, Eisenhower, MacArthur...they all hated war because they waged war. They would wish for no one to feel the burden of loss that they carried for the rest of their lives. But I would also argue that none of them felt remorse over killing the enemy in a broad sense. General Mattis delivered a message to all marines prior to beginning the attack in Iraq. He is very clear regarding his intentions and how marines should "feel" as they fight. Don't blame the man for being emphatic, and don't blame him for being good at his job. We need generals that fight just as much as we need a political machine to keep him in check. I would rather have him feel as he does, loving a good fight, than to hate those underneath him that wage the war.
The following is the text of his message...

For decades, Saddam Hussein has tortured, imprisoned, raped, and murdered the Iraqi people; invaded neighboring countries without provocation; and threatened the world with weapons of mass destruction. The time has come to end his reign of terror. On your young shoulders rest the hopes of mankind.

When I give you the word, together we will cross the Line of Departure, close with those forces that choose to fight, and destroy them. Our fight is not with the Iraqi people, nor is it with members of the Iraqi army who choose to surrender. While we will move swiftly and aggressively against those who resist, we will treat all others with decency, demonstrating chivalry and soldierly compassion for people who have endured a lifetime under Saddam's oppression.

Chemical attack, treachery, and use of the innocent as human shields can be expected, as can other unethical tactics. Take it all in stride. Be the hunter, not the hunted: never allow your unit to be caught with its guard down. Use good judgment and act in the best interests of our Nation.

You are part of the world's most feared and trusted force. Engage your brain before you engage your weapon. Share your courage with each other as we enter the uncertain terrain north of the Line of Departure. Keep faith in your comrades on your left and right and Marine Air overhead. Fight with a happy heart and strong spirit.

For the mission's sake, our country's sake, and the sake of the men who carried the Division's colors in past battles—who fought for life and never lost their nerve—carry out your mission and keep your honor clean. Demonstrate to the world there is "No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy" than a U.S. Marine.

Major General J. N. Mattis, U.S. Marines

Gee I guess that I am not so anonymous (#2) any more by giving you my first name. But then I would expect someone to be pissed off who says such bullshit to be mad about not being given a name. Just put me in the vast centrist conspiracy that threatens the fabric of the liberal left.
I don’t enjoy killing and none of the Marines that I have served with do either, but there is a sense of satisfaction in dealing the death blow to someone who wishes to kill citizens of the United States. Yes they wish you, Anthony Hecht, harm. And I am proud to protect your other worldly ideas. I in fact enjoy what I do.
Hating those who do the actual fighting is a very harsh comment, especially when they are protecting you and you very privileged way of life. You ask on your website for someone to help your significant other with a job, while others in Iraq and other places are asking for food. The warriors who represent you across the globe make this possible.
Attack me with insults and try to degrade me, I don’t really mind. Try to put a little more intellectual thought into your comments and less insult, but then again that is a tool used by those trying to oppress others. I expect nothing more from you. I am neither left nor right. I am in the middle with the other 75% of the population trying to the sift the bullshit from credible.
As for Major General Mattis, whom I have been privileged to hear speak on four or five occasions, I think that you have taken his words out of context and that you should do a little more research.
I hate war. I have fought them, but I am still here to do it for you.

First, and most importantly, I did not say that I hate those who fight or those that wage war.

I assume the misunderstood statement was this:
"I hate war, as I believe any rational human being should, including those who do the actual fighting. Especially those who do the actual fighting."

What I was saying is that I think those who do the actual fighting should also hate war, as rational human beings. I do not hate soldiers, I deeply respect their service. This, of course, does not mean that I respect every individual soldier, no matter how high their rank. Nor does it mean that every mission we send our military on is a good and just one. This is a common mistake, to confuse the war with the warrior. I respect and honor the warrior, I do not respect this particular war.

I disagree that the military commanders I quoted above would not have felt the losses on the other side. Particularly Robert E. Lee and other generals of the Civil War understood all too well that they were killing their brothers. I understand the need to dehumanize the enemy, in fact this is exactly my point. War is a horrible business. It robs us all of a piece of our humanity.

I believe this particular war is unjust. It was launched on a foundation of lies by ideologues who have hidden their true agenda, continually inventing new rationales after the fact. The people killed in Iraq did not mean me any harm, by and large. The fact that Iraq is now the foremost breeding ground for anti-western sentiment is due entirely to our presence there. Conflating the regime of Saddam Hussein with Islamic terrorism is dishonest. A true and effective "War on Terror" would be fought with intelligence, police, and international cooperation. Invasions of the region which breeds this radicalism by the very country that they despise is only making things worse.

As for Gen. Mattis, I maintain that his comments are despicable on a basic human level. Killing may be necessary, but it is not, for a moral person, "a real hoot." Ever.

The Greeks, a many other martial cultures, however, would disagree with your argument that one should not enjoy war. In the works of Plato and Aristotle, spiritedness is an important aspect of a citizen's character (though they disagree about many particulars and the relative ranking of thumos in relation to the other passions).

I would look at how Shakespeare handles this idea in Coriolanus vs. Henry V. vs (the beginning of) Macbeth to get a better understanding of warriors and their inner psychology.

You should also look at Victor David Hanson's The Soul of Battle. His question: wow do atomistic-individualistic democracies where everyone is concerned with personal advancement produce these killing machines who are willing to give everything to secure victory for the nation?

You are wrong you know. Your version of humanity is cute, but not real. I spent twenty years of my life as a Marine. Most of us have known for a long time that killing in war is amoral, and as difficult as it is to get your mind around the concept, conflict is exhilarating. Battle, while terrifying, is also fun. Most of the men I know who have served in combat, when they sit quietly with another warrior and talk of the past, admit that the emotions released by close battle are unlike any other. It is why men cheer when the defeated leave the scene of battle.

Taking on a foe, creating a plan, executing that plan, vanquishing (killing) that foe are pleasurable experiences, it is also horrible. Afterward we go on to build other lives, as teachers, doctors, politicans, fathers, brothers, you probably stood next to one as you got your coffee this morning. That you do not recognize thatreality nor have the capacity to understand the experience makes me feel sad for you. How terrible to live half an existence.

What is truly terrible is that most of us know this, but don't often speak of it because it frightens those who put life in a small box where the curtains are pulled tight to maintain their little existence with manufactured reality.

The general simply spoke the truth. That is what scared you.

I love when people just tell me I'm wrong. No, Dan, you're wrong. (I don't really think that, I think we have a difference of opinion, but I'll use your approach.)

Your argument basically comes down to this: Because you've found a certain thrill in taking someone's life during battle, it must be right and good. Not only the killing, but the feeling you got. Further, those of us who have not had the experience of killing other humans are living half an existence. Lovely.

I can understand the excitement of battle, and the "fun" of creating a battle plan, etc, etc. This, however, is not the point. One can enjoy the tactical aspects of the job and still maintain a fundamental respect for human life, which the general's comments did not display. Naturally, in order to kill, you must be desensitized and the enemy must be dehumanized. All I'm saying is that you should recognize that that is what is happening. It is not glorious or a "real hoot." At best, it is a necessary evil. At best.

I would also argue that the reason men cheer when the defeated leave the scene of battle is because they have survived, and not because killing was such a kick in the pants.

No, you are wrong. Without the experience, you do not have anything on which to base your disagreemnet with the sentiment expressed by the general. I'm not making this stuff up. Some one who has participated, and had a different experience, can tell me they had a different expeirence, and I will respect that. But the moment they reject my experience, doubt my honor, maybe even call me a dirt bag, they demonstrate a lack of respect they suggest others must maintain, unless they are the enemy, then we can say pretty damn much what we want.

I have known men who loved a fight, and those who hated one. Those who relish action and those who must be nearly dragged to it. War is complex, warriors are complex, it is a simple truth.

Oh, and when the enemy falls back, and the line stands up a screams some version of "Is that the best you got you c**ks***rs?" Some of the men might be doing it happy that they are alive, but most are awaiting the order to pursue, on foot or by fire. Again, a simple truth.

I'm getting very tired of this thread, but I guess I'll go one more..

I categorically reject the idea that I have no basis on which to disagree with the general just because I've never served in the military or killed someone. Simply put, I feel that killing people is a bad thing to do. Tragically, we live in a world where it sometimes becomes necessary. I acknowledge that, accept it, but I still don't like it. I don't reject anyone's experience or doubt their honor unless given reason to do so. If someone tells me they find killing other people to be a "real hoot," I doubt their honor. This is not an honorable position, in my view. Those are my principles. If your principles are that killing people is, and should be, a real gas, that's your problem.

You contradict yourself when you admit that war and warriors are complex and then go on to state your "simple truth" regarding what most soldiers feel at the end of a battle. Life is complex, my friend, not only for soldiers, but for everyone, and having had the experience of taking another human life doesn't make you any great authority on the morality or war or killing. Certainly it goes nowhere toward arguing that the whole affair is fun.

My position on this is simple: War is a tragic circumstance that should be avoided at all cost. When war becomes necessary, it should be approached with utmost sobriety and seriousness. The comments the general made do not demonstrate that seriousness, or, in my opinion, the basic humanity that I would wish my country's military personnel to maintain, if at all possible. As a leader, it is the general's responsibility to set an example for his troops. If he shows respect, they will.

One doesn't have to look far (Abu Ghraib) to see what happens when the dehumanization of the enemy goes too far.

Finally, I would ask that you consider that we go around the world DEMANDING that our soldiers and citizens be treated humanely and with respect if captured or engaged by the enemy. We raise a mighty furor when these standards are violated by others, but many among us go to great lengths to defend the same attitudes and actions when we are the perpetrators. This isn't surprising, but that doesn't make it any less hypocritical. True morality is universal. This is why war, by it's nature, is fundamentally immoral.

Finally, who really has the simplistic view of reality, those who insist that things must be the way they are or those who imagine that things can be better?

I don't have much more to say about this. The general can say what he wants, he has that right. I don't respect what he said; I find it despicable.