Goodbye to the Brute

EULOGY FOR LIEUTENANT GENERAL VICTOR “BRUTE” KRULAK

ROBERT CORAM

JANUARY 8, 2009
MCAS MIRAMAR
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA

WHEN GENERAL CHARLES KRULAK ASKED ME TO BE HERE TODAY HIS INSTRUCTIONS WERE SIMPLE: BE BRIEF OR THE BRUTE WILL COME DOWN AND RIP YOUR HEAD OFF.

I BELIEVE THAT TO BE TRUE. SO THIS WILL BE TO THE POINT.

WHEN I FIRST MET BRUTE KRULAK I FOUND HIM A MAN OF GREAT SELF CONTROL, A MAN NOT GIVEN TO REVEALING MUCH OF HIMSELF. SO I WENT TO HIS OLDER SON, VICTOR JR., AND SAID, “WHAT MOVES YOUR FATHER? WHAT DOES HE FEEL PASSIONATE ABOUT?”

“THE MARINE CORPS,” HE SAID.

FOR BRUTE KRULAK, IT WAS ALWAYS ABOUT HIS BELOVED CORPS. HE WAS DEVOTED TO HIS WIFE AMY AND TO HIS THREE SONS – VICTOR, WILLIAM, AND CHARLES – BUT THE MARINE CORPS ALWAYS CAME FIRST.

HE SERVED THIRTY-FOUR YEARS, AND IF ONE WORD WERE CHOSEN TO REPRESENT THOSE YEARS IT WOULD BE INTEGRITY. HE ALWAYS DID THE RIGHT THING, NO MATTER THE OPPOSITION, NO MATTER THE COST.

LET ME GO BACK MORE THAN SIXTY YEARS TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.

DURING WORLD WAR II, THE ARMY BEGAN MAKING PLANS TO DISMANTLE THE MARINE CORPS IN THE POST-WAR DRAWDOWN.

TO STOP THIS THREAT, A HANDFUL OF MARINE OFFICERS FORMED WHAT CAME TO BE KNOWN AS THE CHOWDER SOCIETY. LIEUTENANT COLONEL KRULAK, BECAUSE OF HIS SOARING INTELLECT, HIS BOUNDLESS ENERGY, AND HIS REMARKABLE ABILITIES AS A WRITER, WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT MEMBER OF THAT GROUP.

OPPOSING THE CHOWDER SOCIETY WERE A NUMBER OF BROTHER MARINES, THE PRESIDENT, SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE JOINT CHIEFS, GENERALS MARSHALL AND EISENHOWER, AND POWERFUL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

BUT THE BRUTE NEVER LACKED SELF CONFIDENCE, ESPECIALLY WHEN HE THOUGHT HE WAS RIGHT. AND, BY THE WAY . . . HE WAS ALWAYS RIGHT.

LIEUTENANT COLONEL KRULAK MET GENERAL EISENHOWER AT A PARTY AND THE GENERAL SAID, “JUST WHAT IS IT THAT YOU MARINES WANT?”

THE BRUTE LOOKED HIM IN THE EYE AND SAID, “THE RIGHT TO FIGHT FOR OUR COUNTRY, SIR.”

READ THE BENDED KNEE SPEECH, THE TURNING POINT OF THE UNIFICATION FIGHT. READ THE NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947 AND THE 1952 AMENDMENTS. THINK ABOUT THE FACT THE MARINE CORPS IS THE ONLY BRANCH OF THE U.S. MILITARY WHOSE SIZE AND MANPOWER IS PROTECTED BY LAW. TAKE COMFORT IN KNOWING THE MARINE CORPS IS MOST READY WHEN THE NATION IS LEAST READY. FOR ALL OF THIS WE CAN THANK GENERAL KRULAK.

MUCH OF GENERAL KRULAK’S REPUTATION HAS TO DO WITH THE FACT

HE WAS ONE TOUGH MARINE. HE LIVED UP TO HIS NICKNAME. HE WAS A HARD MAN WHO COULD MAKE HARD DECISIONS. HIS CANDOR TO HIS SUPERIORS OFTEN BORDERED ON IMPERTINENCE. COLONELS HAVE RETIRED RATHER THAN SERVE UNDER HIM. BUT HE WAS ALSO A MAN OF GREAT COMPASSION.

WHEN HE WAS COMMANDING GENERAL AT MCRD [note: Marine Corps Recruit Depot], THE WIFE OF ONE OF HIS DRILL INSTRUCTORS WENT TO BALBOA TO DELIVER HER BABY. THE BABY WAS STILLBORN. THE MOTHER WAS IN GREAT PAIN BUT WAS NOT ATTENDED TO FOR SOME TIME AND THEN SHE WAS PLACED IN A WARD WITH THE MOTHERS OF HEALTHY NEW BORNS. HER HUSBAND CAME TO COMFORT HER BUT IT WAS NOT VISITING HOURS AND HE WAS TURNED AWAY.

THE DRILL INSTRUCTOR CALLED THE OFFICER OF THE DAY WHO SAID, “STAND BY THAT TELEPHONE.” NOW IF THERE WAS ONE THING THE BRUTE COULD DO, IT WAS LIGHT A FIRE UNDER PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT DOING THEIR JOBS. LESS THAN TEN MINUTES LATER MAJOR GENERAL KRULAK CALLED THE CORPORAL, TOLD HIM HIS WIFE HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED AND TO GO TO HER SIDE. WHEN THE CORPORAL ARRIVED, HE FOUND CAPTAINS, COMMANDERS, AND SENIOR NURSES WAITING, ALL VERY SOLICITOUS. THE STANDARD OF CARE HAD GREATLY IMPROVED FOR THAT YOUNG MARINE’S WIFE. THE CORPORAL RETIRED AS A MASTER SERGEANT AND TO THIS DAY, GENERAL KRULAK IS HIS HERO.

SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE WONDERED WHY WE ARE GATHERED IN SAN DIEGO RATHER THAN IN WASHINGTON, AND WHY THE GENERAL WILL BE BURIED AT FORT ROSECRANS RATHER THAN AT ARLINGTON.

WHEN GENERAL KRULAK WAS AT MCRD, HE SET THE STANDARD FOR COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT BY A COMMANDER. AFTER HE RETIRED, THE GENERAL AND MRS. KRULAK LIVED IN SAN DIEGO FOR MORE THAN FORTY YEARS, LONGER THAN THEY LIVED ANYWHERE ELSE. HE WAS ON THE BOARD OF THE SAN DIEGO ZOO FOR MOST OF THAT TIME AND THE ZOO HAS NEVER HAD A MORE VIGOROUS, MORE INFLUENTIAL BOARD MEMBER. FOR ALMOST A DECADE HE WAS PRESIDENT OF COPLEY NEWS SERVICE AND A PROLIFIC COLUMNIST.

SEVERAL WEEKS AGO THE GENERAL ANNOUNCED HE WANTED TO BE BURIED HERE. “I HAVE A CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PEOPLE OF SAN DIEGO,” HE SAID.

HIS LIFE WAS ALL ABOUT DUTY.

HIS LIFE WAS ALSO ABOUT MORAL COURAGE.

IN 1967, LIEUTENANT GENERAL KRULAK WAS COMMANDING GENERAL, FLEET MARINE FORCE, PACIFIC, AND FIRST AMONG THOSE BEING CONSIDERED FOR COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS. HE HAD EVERYTHING TO LOSE WHEN HE WENT TO THE WHITE HOUSE AND CONFRONTED PRESIDENT JOHNSON OVER HOW THE VIETNAM WAR WAS BEING PROSECUTED AND HOW TOO MANY RESTRAINTS WERE BEING PLACED UPON THE MILITARY.

THE OUTLINES OF THAT INCIDENT ARE WELL KNOWN. WHEN I ASKED THE GENERAL FOR MORE DETAILS, TO TELL ME WHAT HAPPENED NEXT, HE SAID, “PRESIDENT JOHNSON STOOD UP, PLACED HIS HAND IN THE SMALL OF MY BACK, AND PROPELLED ME OUT OF THE OVAL OFFICE.”

IN THE PAST YEAR WE HAVE READ OF RETIRED GENERALS PUBLICLY CRITICIZING THE PRESIDENT OVER THIS WAR. BUT IT SHOULD BE REMEMBERED THEY ARE RETIRED, AND THEY WERE NOT LOOKING THE PRESIDENT IN THE EYE WHEN THEY CRITICIZED HIM. THEY HAD NOTHING TO LOSE. GENERAL KRULAK DID THE RIGHT THING. BUT THERE IS ALWAYS A PRICE TO PAY FOR DOING THE RIGHT THING. HE WAS NOT APPOINTED COMMANDANT. HE DID NOT RECEIVE HIS FOURTH STAR.

BUT HE DID RECEIVE SOMETHING THAT HAS ELUDED PRESIDENT JOHNSON: A LASTING REPUTATION AS A MAN OF INTEGRITY.

TIME HAS A WAY OF ERODING A MAN’S ACCOMPLISHMENTS, OF TURNING

HIS LIFE – ALONG WITH HIS BODY – TO DUST.

THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN WITH GENERAL VICTOR KRULAK.

HE WAS THE LAST OF THE OLD BREED. AND HE IS AMONG THOSE VERY FEW MEN WHO HAVE THE HONOR OF BEING KNOWN AS GIANTS OF THE CORPS. WHEN THOSE MEN ARE LISTED, THE NAME BRUTE KRULAK IS FIRST,

IT SHINES THE BRIGHTEST,

AND IT WILL BE THE MOST ENDURING.

Be Sociable, Share!

Filed in Uncategorized | 18 responses so far

18 Responses to “Goodbye to the Brute”

  1. senor tomason 16 Jan 2009 at 9:31 am 1

    “DURING WORLD WAR II, THE ARMY BEGAN MAKING PLANS TO DISMANTLE THE MARINE CORPS IN THE POST-WAR DRAWDOWN.”

    That was a good idea. World War II was the last conflict in which the Marine Corps had a mission distinct from that of the Army. In every conflict since, the Marine Corps has funtioned as an unnecessary duplication of the Army.

    But the Marine Corps did make possible the 1986 Clint Eastwood movie “Heartbreak Ridge”. Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeant Thomas Highway was originally written as Army Sergeant First Class Thomas Highway. But the Army did not like the script and refused to help in the making of the movie.

  2. Maxon 16 Jan 2009 at 2:37 pm 2

    ST mentions,

    “That was a good idea”

    I agree, on the face of it.

    However, and it’s a big HOWEVER,
    it’s a two edged sword (pun int).

    I’ve heard the Marines called the Navy’s Army, and
    redundant, etc,,etc.

    Though a smaller beuracracy, therfore to some degree,
    more agile and quick thinking, adapting and learning, than the larger services, by evidence of thier enthusiasim, back when, and lip service
    to the teachings of Boyd & friends. Wich all of the other services
    choose to ignore completely, because thier suggestions meant change, and upset thier apple carts .

    So maybe being a seperate entity, and with different perspective, and leadership, can to some degree, be a good thing. That is an advatage
    towards the larger interests, of “Defence” and said “national interests.”

    Maybe the US armed forces could be broken up further, perhaps
    as a whole it might function better (interservice rivaliries aside, and IF we can get past that, IF ?) than at present.

    For instance, the USAF might do well to branch off thier close air support, in deference to the army.

    Canada experimented with amaligination of all thier armed services
    under one uniform in the 1970s and early 80s, it was a failure.

    Maybe ADC should come back, and seperate from TAC ?

    In another case,
    We have Navy, & Coast Guard and now “Homeland security”
    with arguably some overlap there too.

    It’s tough to say, the current status quo is so entrenched.

    But that’s all shoulda, coulda, woulda.

    It’s beggining to be quite apparent among the enlighted right here, and elswhere is that such debates maybe moot in the face of current
    reality, whereby the survival of the nation ansd scociety as we know it
    is headed off the proverbial cliff.

    Humm ?

    MaX

  3. Newjarheaddeanon 16 Jan 2009 at 3:08 pm 3

    AHOY, my condolences, Semper Fi, however I’ve lost my Father and mother and with my mothers death was not able to be at her side or pay my respects. So I know of the loss. I also love the spirit of what the Corps is suppose to be. I recall in the last days at MCRD for me when our ID instructed us to write a letter to congress to fight for the Corps survival. I did not know what I know now or my letter would have addressed the lack of training issue. IMO the USMC mission is suppose to be breaching and securing the hatch/beach and other water ways, as well as the Navy in general. Let the big old U.S. Army take the foe nation down. However even the navy now has it’s NECC for securing the ports rivers etc. The ruse landing during GWI IMO is a fitting metaphor. And remember the Brute was and his son is a General i.e. politician, hence the Corps had nothing to do with the Brute not get CMC nor his son becoming CMC. IMO the Johnson meeting proves that. And there well be no more General Mc Authors. Nowadays its join the MIC or die, there are now five types of sniper weapons being used by the USMC. That’s making due with what you have. G-day!

  4. Timothy.Thompsonon 16 Jan 2009 at 7:44 pm 4

    General Krulak’s career is an essay in itself on the continuing need for a United States Marine Corps.

    Robert Coram, writing in his biographies of Colonels John Boyd and Bud Day, makes the point that the USMC is distinctly different in training, traditions and mission from the US Army.

    Every Marine is a Combat Marine. The US Navy supplies non-combatant personnel. Every Marine is a qualified rifleman. Every Marine is trained and drilled in leadership and the Marine Corps tradition that the ability to give orders is matched exactly to the willingness to follow orders. The Marines are specifically trained in and equipped for amphibious warfare and joint operations with the Navy.

    The higher standards of training in the Marines would be almost impossible for the Army to match.

    The early adoption by the Marine Corps of John Boyd’s maneuver warfare is just one example of how the Marine philosophy of warfare differs sharply from that of the US Army.

  5. loggie20on 17 Jan 2009 at 7:00 am 5

    The concept of Marines goes farther back than the great naval battles in the Mediterranian and the Khans’ attempt on Japan.

    The first fights on water were between Marines. It was later with Greek fire and gun powder that naval battles became duels of fire and shells rather than boats being platforms for marine infantry to find, fix and fight on the trade routes of the world.

    However, the Romans learned from the Athenian debacle of the Pelopennesian Wars and only raised a Navy when needed, three times for Carthage, and a few times later for their civil wars and pirates. The Romans unlike the Athenians, who went bakrupt trying, rarely kept a standing navy.

    That being said, consider the building of “force structure” based on traditions and not based on economics or need that will allow the Marines or the fighter/bomber/battleship/submarine/carrier/airland battle/tracks/wheels….. mafia to bankrupt the nation with no benefit to the common defense.

    Be careful that the Corps’ survival usurps their good for the nation.

    The Corps, or the Air Force or Navy should never be more important the the national good.

    The founding fathers may have gotten it worng about “maintaining a navy”.

    Why charter a feifdom with the US constitution?

  6. senor tomason 17 Jan 2009 at 8:01 am 6

    “We have Navy, & Coast Guard”

    There is a significant distinction in mission between the Navy and the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act and has power of arrest over civilians – which the Navy does not.

    Such a significant distinction in mission between the Marine Corps and the Army does not exist.

    As for claims of higher standards of training in the Marine Corps versus the Army – in Iraq the Marine Corps has higher friendly fire casualities versus the Army.

  7. Maxon 18 Jan 2009 at 9:01 am 7

    “Coast Guard is exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act and has power of arrest over civilians – which the Navy does not.”

    Good information and an interesting distiction.

    Coast Guard is somewhat of a “police force.”
    And yet increasingly high value military assets
    like AWACs and Tracker are being used in the
    bogus war on drugs.

    Navy has powers of arrest when accompanied
    by DEA, FBI etc,,,.

    Again, we’re looking at jusristictional overlap, rivalries for
    recognition, and funding, etc, the whole ball of wax.

    “As for claims of higher standards of training in the Marine Corps versus the Army – in Iraq the Marine Corps has higher friendly fire casualities versus the Army.”

    Interesting, I don’t dought it, but in making such as statement
    you SHOULD back it up with a reference.

    However anticdotal, in evidence in support of your assertion,
    I have a neighbor, who retired recently from fulltime Army National Guard, who mentioned to me in passing coversation that he “had lost
    a lot of respect for the USMC,” based on his experience in interaction
    with them in Iraq.

    Where there’s smoke, there’s surely fire,,.

    Good thread, good commentary all around.’
    We’d expect no less.

    Kind regards.

    M

  8. Maxon 18 Jan 2009 at 9:17 am 8

    “Be careful that the Corps’ survival usurps their good for the nation.”

    “The Corps, or the Air Force or Navy should never be more important the the national good.”

    You put your finger on the essence of one element of the current
    burgeoning crisis.

    One of the underlieing themes in books and articles about
    Boyd, among the distiguished associates with whom he surrounded himself, most of whom are still with us, is that the myriad factions within the US Con. Industrial & Think Tank sectors put their own interests of self promotion, in perpetuation, wich includes procurement, on all levels, individualy, and collectively, above the greater interests of scociety, and humanity as a whole.

    That’s no exaggeration.

    http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/

    Throw in the aspects of collective profound ignorance, fear of the unknown, hubris, hedgemony, US political exeptionalism, unscroupulous politicians, among assorted fools and idiots, including and not limited to the mass media, and you have a perfect storm, wich we now experience, and pay for, and pay for,
    and pay still more, then more, and more, and more.

    http://www.tomdispatch.com/

    I have to give them credit, it’s a pretty darn robust, lucrative
    and robust racket they have going.

    Arguably the most succesfull business model ever developed,
    since the brothel.

    Apart from all that though,

    M

  9. loggie20on 23 Jan 2009 at 8:13 pm 9

    Max,

    The term”insubordination” comes to mind. Isn’t putting one’s future pay check at Boeing ahead of managing Boeing’s work for the taxpayer just a little insubordinate?

    When GAO does their annual assault on DoD weapon system procurements don’t they ever ask “who is being insubordinate in keeping the great waste going”?

    Does anyone have a job to do for the taxpayer? Much less the soldier.

    To change what Mac Arthur said about FDR:

    “some day a US soldier dying in the mud or frost or sand of some remote field because he did not have the right stuff will curse Boeing with his dying breath”.

    Just thinking.

    I will keep you posted on where that idea may go.

  10. Maxon 24 Jan 2009 at 4:03 pm 10

    “The term”insubordination” comes to mind.”

    Once again, our commentaries play off each other as we nudge
    and in our own way characterise fundemetal truths.

    That wich you recognise as ”insubordination” and being in contempt
    of ultimate authority, “we the pepole” being non-mil I recognise as
    the same basic malaise that permiates post modern western covilisation, and particuarly the US of A, for longer that I’ve been alive, or at least since Ike’s fairwell adress.

    That being the refusal to accept individual responsibility, from the top down, to the lowliest among us.

    Among dozens there maybe no finer example than the V-22 Osprey program.

    Whereby in a variation of the classic “king has no clothes”
    fable, the US marines refuze to stand up to authority and call the thing as it is, a gross liability in any forseeable combat scenario, instead have adopted it and modified thier tactics and operational
    requirements, to minimize and negate the risks of ownership.
    Irespective of the blatant compromise to thier overall efficacy.

    M

  11. mgyoungon 26 Jan 2009 at 2:54 pm 11

    I have to disagree with Senor Thomas. I am not a Marine; I was Air Force, but the Marine Corps is the only wholly-integrated, self-contained fighting force we have. The problem with the Marine deployment to Iraq is one of mission: The Corps is not supposed to be performing a traditional army mission. It wasn’t designed and isn’t funded or trained to do so (this may or may not explain the higher incidence of Marine friendly fire casualties in Iraq). The Corps is intended to serve as a rapid deployment and response and primary amphibious assault force. It’s “duplicating the Army mission in Iraq” because we don’t have an Army large enough to meet force demands for soldiers in Iraq, without compromising to an even larger extent the demands placed on soldiers or diminishing the quality of the force. The Marine Corps is needed, not because it defends bureaucratic turf and serves the needs of the military-industrial complex (a charge more aptly directed at my own service), but because it is uniquely designed, qualified and equipped to serve a unique mission, one especially important to a nation so dependent on force projection by sea.

  12. senor tomason 26 Jan 2009 at 10:48 pm 12

    “we don’t have an Army large enough to meet force demands for soldiers in Iraq”

    That is because in Iraq we got ourselves involved in a long-term (one year or longer) conflict without having a draft for the first time since the Mexican-American War ended in 1848. But that is another issue.

  13. loggie20on 28 Jan 2009 at 5:46 am 13

    mgyoung,

    In many ways the corporate USMC serves the MICC.

    The Commandant came out in strong support of the MV 22 as it was killing Marines and failing OT&E.

    The USMC rep on JCS requirements oversight has gone along to go along for everything from all the bells and whistles on LPD/LHD/Amphibs and things like the AAAV/EFV in interminable requirements development.

    The USMC unique missions needs beaches with regular force defense to justify its existence.

    There are none to storm.

    Military force is perishable, having a combat ready corps with no mission is waste.

    The argument for the inept MICC is ‘there will be no time” to build the corps if an enemy arises from no where.

    My response: how come the enemy just appears and the MICC needs to waste 4% of GDP forever getting ready for some enemy to crop up?

    Suppose the enemy don’t want to restage Iwo Jimi?

  14. Rob Pon 29 Jan 2009 at 5:40 pm 14

    The military procurement system, as “interesting” as it is, does provide the warfighter the means to fight the war. Boeing may be an evil corporation but they have not stopped me from having body armor, NVGs, NVG aiming devices, radios that fit in cargo pockets, etc way beyond what we liberated Kuwait with or even what we liberated Iraq with in 2003. In short, there are no service members who can curse Beoing with not have adequate gear.

    My problem with military procurement, in the short term, is the politicians who literally tell the military what companies, in what states, they WILL use to get the latest military equipment. Sen Feinstein is the most recent example caught legistalively requiring military contracts to go to her husband’s corporation. Punishment: She had to leave the Senate Armed Services Commitee. If I did something like that I would be led out of my unit in handcuffs.

    Basically, I’m not sure if Boeing, the Senate, or SYSCOM is responsible for our interesting military procurment system but I’m happy to get Congress out of these decisions as a 1st step to help clarify the rest of the problem.

  15. loggie20on 29 Jan 2009 at 6:45 pm 15

    Rob P,

    I have been in the acquisition system longer than I care to admit.

    I have seen things like the Feinstein example in varying degrees throughout that time, neither party has a monopoly on favored stuff.

    In my years, the instances you relate decline to utter uninterest compared to the instances of: requirements that do not come from anyone’s JROC/ORD, ORD not translated to anything meaningful in the specs, The vendor not delivering to spec, waivers or deviations from spec’ed requirements, failed OT&E getting into the field, etc.

    Add to that laundry list of problems PM officers who promise what they cannot deliver and more commonly say things like they can ‘build the F-35 for 100 monopoly dollars’ and it takes 175 with a lot more weight than promised (the plane facts are not changed too much on F 35). As well as those who plan to fail are those who fail to plan.

    Maybe congress is behind those too. They certainly do little to make sure the services spend the tax money wishly.

    However, we all work for constitution and we have the judiciary and executive to stand up to congress run amok.

    The reason all this happens is commissioned officers in the CJCS, services and PM offices neither ask nor tell when things are going to waste and abuse. They put themselves above the best interest of the taxpayer and forget their oath was to the constitution and their duty to point out when that is not being followed.

    What is there about supporting and defending the constitution which does not require a detailed complaint when an officer sees waste?

    No matter if it is for a congress person or for his bosses prospects at a job in Boeing.

    The system is so filled with fraud and waste that anyone standing up to it is committing an act of civil disobedience.

    However, those who partake are guilty of forgetting “the world is not governed by policy and expediency.”

    As Thoreau said there are times when civil disobedience is a duty.

    That is why they need to protect whistleblowers.

    Techie note: The CJCSI changed the ORD to CCD or CPD.

  16. Maxon 29 Jan 2009 at 8:17 pm 16

    “Boeing may be”

    Even with the collosal subsidies, ” they” still can’t make it.

    “CHICAGO (AFP) – Boeing on Wednesday reported a loss of 56 million dollars in the fourth quarter as the aerospace giant announced it would slash its workforce by 10,000 this year”

    “having body armor”

    http://tinyurl.com/bj7tdl
    http://tinyurl.com/8weg5
    http://tinyurl.com/adtd7
    http://tinyurl.com/gahhq
    http://tinyurl.com/2a8mg2
    http://tinyurl.com/dasv4e

  17. Maxon 31 Jan 2009 at 1:32 pm 17

    “even what we liberated Iraq with in 2003.

    Nice one Rob, you just thought you’d slip that little
    ‘zinger’ in HERE.

    I suppose you just want to find out who maybe
    paying attention.

    Ok, giving you the benefit of the dougbt, let’s say
    Iraq is now “Liberated.”

    http://tinyurl.com/ae3o98

    At what agregate cost ?

    Does anyone here really know ?
    Many will have a pretty good sense, and it
    didn’t come particuarly easily or cheaply.

    This I’m sure comes as great comfort to the countless
    tens of thousdands weekly who loose thier livelyhoods,
    investments, and futures, as western economies collaphs, as predicted and imagined, and masterfully implemented by
    Bin laden.

    Meanwhile we’re poised to be suckered even deeper into
    the burgeoning quagmire of Pakistan/Afganistan and still more ruinous”nation building” follies.

    Iraq was so relletively easy, so what can possible go wrong ?
    Afterall we’re only taking nukes this time.

    Thousands of dead Americans and allies, with the promise of still more, how many Iraqis, Afgani’s and Pakistani’s the world may never know. Those of our own, returning, many are sick, smashed, crippled, lives and futures compromised and ruined.

    Yet in the context of wars past, the in terms of casualties, these sacrifices have been very modest, and perhaps not really that far removed from everyday peacable but high risk vocations.

    Such has been the emphasis by vast resourches placed on mitigation of those risks for those who “serve” and “sacrifice.”

    To make a wars of occupation nearly as safe as say, police work
    in a particuarly bad neighborhood.

    Let’s continue to spend, and work towards making warfare
    as safe as possible in it’s perpetuation as a viable and scocially
    acceptable “bussiness” to profit from.

    I wish we could spend some of all that into making my own occasional
    commutes by car, or public transit all that much safer.

    Now let’s consider the basic dollars and cents, on top of all that ,
    along with the current and forseeable state of our finances
    and economy, one can be forgiven to ask, is it all going to
    be worth it ?

    For a select few who profit and/or remain gamefully employed by direct and indirect involvement I suspect the answer is yes.

    Too bad though just about everyone else including’
    the suckers continuing to work, and pay for it all.

    M

  18. SemperParatuson 19 Feb 2009 at 11:37 am 18

    “Coast Guard is exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act and has power of arrest over civilians – which the Navy does not…Coast Guard is somewhat of a “police force.”

    Great article and follow-on comments. Heaven knows we need more Krulak’s today. We’ve become a soft nation and men like General Krulak knew how to motivate subordinates into “winning” as opposed to “vacillation”.

    However, on a technicality, the above statement in quotes is misleading. The U.S. Coast Guard is the nations oldest continuous seagoing armed service and is indeed exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act. The notion that she is more akin to a “police force” is grossly inaccurate. Perhaps the author was referring to the United Kingdom Coast Guard or the numerous Coast Guard’s throughout the globe but certainly not the USCG.

    Law enforcement is just one of the many missions the U.S. Coast Guard has. Her wartime record, including Iraqi Freedom, speaks for itself; google for facts.

    Good job DNI, always a joy to review.

    r/td

    [CR: Thanks! As you might have been able to tell, we’re big fans of the Coast Guard around here. It’s been my feeling that it provides a model for the military force of the future.]