As I read the article “Intimate Killing” in Washington Times, (BELOW) I formed a mental image of a virtual Pinball machine in which the little balls are media hacks. As the spring driven lever is pulled and one by one the little balls hit the open spaces of the game’s interior, hoping to rack up huge score points, they find that they will spend their time bouncing between a number of strategically positioned obstacles. The obstacles represent things that the little balls love to take issue with but are not big enough to overcome. As a consequence of the encounter between the little balls and the obstacles, the little balls trigger a series of noises, bells and whistles. Finally, the little balls become impotent and roll to safety within the bowels of the game, waiting to be launched again and again, with some expectation of one day bringing down the obstacles, thus making the ultimate career score.
The points raised by Robert H. Scales, author of Intimate Killing, take issue with one such obstacle. Scales, obviously experienced with the thrill of the kill, has taken his own swack at the impotent little balls who have retreated to keyboard sanctuaries to take a swack at an American hero. Reporters making a big deal about comments, made by Lt. Gen. Jim Mattis Bravo Robert, have made a big noise lasting less time than the last gasping breath of the bad men our military are killing.
Any serious shooter knows that the thrill resultant from pulling the trigger is directly connected to the motivation and intention created within the moment. My favorite Christmas Eve daytime activity is to take my arsenal and my kids to a private outdoor range in the high desert near Edwards AFB. While the rest of the world prepares for the phony fat guy in the polyester red suit to arrive, we squeeze off round after round creating a variety of role plays requiring us to be focused on killing some bad person who otherwise, lacking our complete success, would kill us. We love the idea of being able to defend ourselves from bad people. We have fun while we do it.
For those of us not grounded in military experiences, Stallone, Bruce Lee, Arnold, and Clint have given life to some of the baddest good guys cinema has created. The public understands very well that bad guys should die and good guys should win because we can identify with the hero and love it when he wins. We cheer, shout, jump up and generally enjoy it when the bad guy gets killed. I feel pretty confident that most would call the experience of killing the bad guy by proxy, fun.
Susan Moses
Beverly Hills, CA
---------------------------------------------
Washington TimesFebruary 7, 2005 Pg. 19
'Intimate Killing'Close combat and the art of warBy Robert H. Scales
On Wednesday, I had the pleasure of moderating a panel on the future of warfare. Marine Lt. Gen. Jim Mattis was one of the panelists. During his remarks he made a statement about the pleasure that young soldiers and marines feel when killing in close combat, a statement that seems to have gotten him in trouble with the fourth estate — prompting an apology and some counseling by the Marine Corps Commandant.First, a confession: I know Gen. Mattis. He is a central figure in the book I coauthored with Williamson Murray, "The Iraq War: A Military History." For those of you who might have the image of a knuckle-dragging troglodyte, let me assure you that he is one of the most urbane and polished men I have known. He can quote Homer as well as Sun Tzu and has over 7,000 books in his personal library.Jim is the product of three decades of schooling and practice in the art of war. No one on active duty knows more about the subject. He is an infantryman, a close-combat Marine. He is one of those very few who willingly practices the art of what social scientists term "intimate killing." Those of us who have engaged in the act understand what he was trying to explain to an audience of defense technologists and contractors.Intimate killing is a primal aspect of warfare unchanged since the beginning of civilization. It involves a clash of two warriors, one on one, armed with virtually identical weapons. The decision goes to the soldier with the right stuff, the one with the greater cunning, strength, guile, ruthlessness and will to win.For a moment put yourself in the place of a young soldier or Marine fighting house to house in the mean streets of Fallujah. Burdened with over 60 pounds of gear, sweat dripping constantly into your face, you can't stop shaking from the fear of what the enemy has in store for you around the next corner. Just ahead is a darkened house with doors and windows closed and shuttered. The only sound is the crunching of your boots on the trash and broken glass as you move in slow motion to surround the dwelling. You watch as the sergeant signals you to cover a side entrance. Through the faint haze you can see your buddy kick in the door and immediately come face to face with an insurgent who greets him with a burst of AK-47 fire that tears a hole in his chest. Your buddy doesn't die. The terrorist wants him to live just long enough for his buddies to rush in for a rescue and become additional trophies to be laid at the altar of heaven.Now, it's your turn. You use your superior discipline and skill to approach the insurgent such that you're detected just at the last second. Both of you raise your weapons simultaneously and open fire in a crushing tear of bullets that scatter and ricochet wildly across the room. One bullet finds the bad guy and he falls in a bloody lump just inches from your boots.What exactly do you "feel" at this moment? Relief, to be sure, but also something else that cannot be explained to anyone who hasn't committed an act of intimate killing. It's not joy, exactly, more like exhilaration and an enormous sense of self-satisfaction that in one of the most primal challenges — where all the satellites, planes, ships and smart weapons are of no use whatever — you prevailed, one on one, over a diabolically evil enemy.Who should be offended by the emotions of "joy" or whatever one feels at the moment of a successful kill? It's a fair fight, you win and the bad guy loses. It's that simple. One more terrorist will not threaten your unit or your buddies. Remember, this isn't a reality show. There are no retakes. Donald Trump doesn't fire you and the price for second place is death.My point simply is this: We must celebrate the fact that we have men like Jim Mattis willing to devote (and give) their lives when necessary to commit an act that most of those in our society would be horrified to even contemplate. If you are offended by these emotions, then seriously consider joining an Army or Marine infantry unit so that you can demonstrate how to kill an enemy in a more humane and politically correct manner.Until such an unlikely day occurs, we must all remember that leaders like Gen. Mattis and the men he commands are the rarest commodities that a protected society like ours can produce. All they want is the opportunity to serve a country that truly appreciates the difficulty and dangers inherent in the duties they perform, duties that very few are willing even to contemplate.
Retired Maj. Robert H. Scales is a former commander of the Army War College.
Monday, February 07, 2005
Friday, February 04, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)