Old Blood 'n Guts wants captured American soldier dead

Ralph Peters is hardcore. He speaks like a man who has killed gooks by the truck load, with home-fashioned bows and arrows and captured kalashnikovs. There's a rumor floating around that Ralph Peters, while in Vietnam, hunted down a young Vietcong, knocked him over the head, and sucked the blood from the poor boy so that Peters could nourish his body as well as his id.

Haha. I'm kidding. Peters was never in Vietnam and never saw combat during his tenure in the Army. But his hardcore routine is nonetheless impressive.

Here's what Peters said about Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl:

I want to be clear. If, when the facts are in, we find out that through some convoluted chain of events, he really was captured by the Taliban, I’m with him. But, if he walked away from his post and his buddies in wartime, I don’t care how hard it sounds, as far as I’m concerned, the Taliban can save us a lot of legal hassles and legal bills.

Since Peters decided to open his big, fat, ugly mouth again, I think it's a good idea to repost an excerpt from Fred Reed's article on unthinking loud mouth:

Ralph, a doubtless well-paid commentator on television, complains that our elites do not fight in the country’s wars. True. Neither do our Ralphs. Relying on his biography in the Wikipedia, I find that he was born in 1952, making him of military age in 1970. The war in Viet Nam being at its height, he went to Europe for ten years. Rough duty, it was. Cirrhosis always looms in those beer gardens. He retired from the Army as a lieutenant colonel in intelligence. (Officers usually being peters, it is not surprising that Peters was an officer.) In the Marines we referred to such people as “admin pogues” or “REMFs,” rear-echelon motherfuckers. I confess to a loathing for those who shelter safely behind the lines yet send others to fight, bowwow, grrrr, woof. Still, his record is not irrelevant to his views. War looks exciting to office workers, but has less appeal to those who are forced to fight. It has even less appeal for those who are hit.

I remember lying in the NSA hospital in Danang, across the way from some guys whose tank had been hit by an RPG. I couldn’t see them because my face was bandaged. Still, we talked. They were badly burned, but seemed likely to live, though with ghastly scars.

The RPG had ruptured the hydraulics, they said, and the cherry juice cooked off. The two across from me had gotten out. The other two crewmen had burned to death. Apparently they screamed a lot. You panic, it hurts, you are blinded, you can’t find the hatches, that kind of thing.

I could tell a lot of stories like that. I don’t because then I get very strange and want to hit something. A loud-mouthed REMF, for example.

Thanks for introducing me to Fred Reed, and eventually leading me to his website: http://www.fredoneverything.net/, there's some fun reading there.

Fred Reed is wonderful. He is absolutely guaranteed to offend everyone who reads his site, unless you are a paleo-conservative, and even then, he seems to be for socialized medicine, so there is something for everyone who wants to get upset.

He is especially good on the quotidian realities of life in Mexico.

Us neocons believe that democracy and the rule of law aren't just nice things that only white people can have, but a place like Mexico can make you doubt your faith sometimes: isn't it totally corrupt, full of ignorant peons ruled by ruthless drug gangs? Well, yes, but there is another side to the country, a relatively new one which is responding to the growth of the world economy, and Fred -- who is NOT a kum-by-yah custardhead liberal -- shows it to us.

Read Fred Reed, but be prepared to spit your coffee out.

Speaking as a custardhead liberal (sans kum-by-yah) I often enjoy Fred Reed, too. (Thanks, Codyed, for introducing him to me on one of these threads a while back). He sometimes reminds me of an uncle of mine who saw a lot of action in WWII and who is very unsentimental about what it all meant.

I bought his Curmudgeing Through Paradise: Reports from a Fractal Dung Beetle to help support his big mouth and wasn't disappointed.

edit: Can't get the touchstone to work...

As I recall, most of the people in our last war-mongering administration had better things to do than serve in the military when their nation came calling. That's why they were (and will continue to be for all time to come) known as Chicken Hawks.

All their wars were fought by John Wayne and Ronald Reagan. People who have never been shot at should keep their mouths shut when it comes to issues of war.

Let's not forget those prisoners of war in Vietnam who made similar propaganda statements under duress. Unless you have been faced with a situation you don't know how you would react to it, so this chicken hawk passing judgment on the captured guy needs to shut the fuck up. My guess is none of the Chicken hawks would have stood up to the torture and threats of torture and would have made the same propaganda film. that's why they're called chicken.

In that sense I wonder how John McCain has reacted to all this. I haven't heard him make a statement, and perhaps he will not. As a vet and POW, I think he more qualified than most politicians and political hacks to comment on the situation at hand. I imagine he would speak with greater sympathy and wisdom than Peters.

Because suggesting the Taliban should kill him for deserting. For someone who have never seen combat, and is admitting that he doesn't know all the facts yet, that's a hell of a judgment to make on another soldier. We have a military court system, JAG lawyers, judges, the whole system. Maybe you're right maybe McCain isn't as relevant but at least he's been there and experienced being a prisoner. Peter's neither has the authority, nor the background to make a judgment like that. He's popping off for the cameras.

I dislike intensely people who have never been shot at making policy of sending other peoples children into situations in which small bits of lead supersonically whiz around looking for soft flesh to puncture. People like that make me sick.

You get familiar with the sound of bullets in the air then let's talk. Until you do, as I said above, shut the fuck up.

I wonder what the percentage of Presidents and Congresspersons who would qualify then to to engage our military. Does prior military experience become a prerequisite for our Commander in Chief?

My own qualifications or lack thereof, to comment on this topic - 4 years surface Navy, no combat.

9: Interesting. Geneg advocates the Starship Troopers model of choosing political leaders.

geneg,

I used to think the same thing about requisite military service for the Presidency, but, to richardbsmith's point, that would disqualify a hell of a lot of people. Especially if combat experience is the prerequisite. I'm not sure, but did Colin Powell ever see combat? Ike certainly did not, and yet he commanded SHAEF and then served two terms. Lincoln wasn't in combat during is breif stint in the Blackhawk War. And of course FDR wasn't able to serve, yet he led quite an effective war effort, wouldn't you say?

Also, knowing your political leanings, do you really want to imagine what the political leadership of this country would look like if military service was a requirement? We all know the general persuasion of those who serve, and it they ain't Obama supporters.

I don't care if Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl is a deserter. I would think one of our own would deserve better than what the Taliban would deliver.

It's just so easy for Peters to brush aside an American life. I guess that's one of the benefits of belonging to a creedal nation.

Gene, there is a breed of man that has experienced war but has no problem sending others to fight and fight in future wars. Usually this breed of man resides in the Pentagon, which oddly attracts this breed of man like a powerful magnet.

The Pentagon is also a very powerful institution. Veterans for Peace does not have a fraction of the influence former Pentagon generals or current Pentagon generals currently wield.

Gene, if we lived in your society, we would probably be in more wars.

I was assuming Gene meant "If you haven't been on the ground, don't send our boys there", Meaning you can be president, you just shouldn't push for war, if you haven't had a taste of it.

12: Ike did come under fire once. Does that qualify?

Ahhh, you misread my statement. I quote myself, "I dislike intensely people who have never been shot at making policy of sending other people's children into situations...". the key issue is to make it a policy to go to war. We have defense policies that require fighting wars, when it is necessary our President, regardless of war experience, becomes the Commander-In-Chief of the military might of our nation. I don't have a problem with that. My problem is to make it US policy to engage in pre-emptive wars. People who have never experienced war except through John Wayne and Ronald Reagan or Steven Spielburg, people who think somehow war is romantic, or because war time leaders are always popular, or because they don't like the side the enemy parts his hair on, or they want the power that goes with being a war-time president, or whatever reason they engage us in war should not be in any hurry to start them.

I do not have a problem with people with no combat experience being President. I do have a problem with martinettes being Commander-In-Chief. George Bush on the deck of the aircraft carrier, looking like he was trying to walk with the biggest wedgie ever says it all to me. War is serious business, not a game we play in quest of our place in history. The motivation for war has to be right. Afghanistan was/is a war that should have been fought. Iraq, on the other hand, was an ego-trip by the shithead-in-chief that deterred us from our central mission, the destruction of Al -Qaeda, while running up billions and billions of dollars off-book (whatever that means, as we see, nothing is really off-book), costing 4,000+ American soldiers their lives. But then, BushCo had better things to do than join the hoi-polloi in Vietnam, and learned at the feet of the great communicator that deficits don't matter. How's that working out for US?

I guess to put it succinctly, in my world egotistical idiots like George W, Bush don't get to engage America in a war just for the hell of it.

Along the lines of military service, it has always seemed to me that there should be some expectation of 2 year national service - military, community work, state work, teaching. Some give back.

ETA regarding the comment below from reading_fox, #21, I fully agree this point of compulsory service is a thought for another topic. I almost, and should have, apologized for intruding with this off topic comment when I wrote this.

18, agreed. I like Israel's 2-yr public service mandate. Obama has been good about pushing public service - I'll give him that.

Here is another angle on this captured soldier and how BushCo hung him out to dry.

George W. Bush has been an unmitigated disaster for this country. All tough talk matched with not a scintilla of thought or sense.

#18/9 while I agree there are some useful contributions from public service, there are also some serious consequences as well : Career/education disruption, loss of knoweldge, skills, and various economics problems, diluting the labour force, reduced taxes and earnings, higher welfare costs, admistrative burden. And fo course the question as to whether it will work for everyone as well as it has worked for some.

But maybe that's better off on a seperate thread.

Until the 13th Amendment is repealed, this is a moot discussion.

More Peters bashing and a sharp rebuke from the Pentagon

In the article I linked to above and in this clip, Peters seems convinced that Bergdahl is a deserter, citing testimony from a "very senior military leader" in support of his case . Given Peters' stated conditions in the first post, and having met the second condition, Peters must want the Taliban to "save us a lot of legal hassles and legal bills."

I also never said that Bergdahl should be treated with a "high degree of respect," whatever that means. Treating him as a human being and as an American, regardless of how monstrous he may appear to some, would seem like basic morality to me.

So I guess my dislike for Peters is well justified then.

So Peters wants the Taliban to take care of Bergdahl and wants Bergdahl to come home safely? Well, which is it?

If Peters stands by his latter statement, then he must care "how hard it sounds." In a moment of lucidness, Peters must have realized that Bergdahl has family. But then again, such sentimentality will no doubt cast Peters as a softy and will grate against the tough-guy image he created for himself in his first statement.

You can view Bergdahl in any kind of light you desire. He is still a human being and deserves to be treated as such, not tossed away by his country because of a wrong he may have committed. This standard, of course, should be applied to all human beings, including Bush administration officials, murderers, and tax cheats. Assuming Bergdahl is returned safely to American forces, whether handed over or rescued, he should receive a fair hearing, and if found guilty, his sentence will be carried out.

What is the point of the tough words then? (Being a pragmatist I search for the wisdom that may exist in Peters’ words in the possible consequences his words may have.) Does it boost morale in Afghanistan having people call for your Taleban style death if suspected of desertion?

I doubt that, since I think that the American soldiers serving in Afghanistan must likely note the lack of bravery needed to risk death by surrogate, and might seriously resents such theatrical bravado from one who has never been under fire. Could Peters be banging his own chest with what is needed of toughness in Afghanistan?

And as for the likelihood of actual desertion, If the soldier really handed himself over to the Taleban so as to add to his own safety, I’d say he was insane in the moment of performing the act of desertion – and if he suddenly have found them the carriers of the “Truth,” the army should stand trial for having let such an idiot enlist).

(Some may resent a Norwegian butting in - it might alleviate eventual irritation by noting that we got at least a few soldiers dying down there too.)

I hope that in this forum, at least, a specific citizenship is not a requirement for making an observation.

Peters' comments were unwise, regardless of whether he has been shot at or not.

Courts decide on guilt or innocence, and on punishment.

Suppose this kid did desert. A court may decide that there were mitigating factors.

The West is getting softer, including with respect to how it treats its own soldiers who have misbehaved. Even by the time of WWII, execution for desertion was very rare amongst the liberal democracies.

In general and in the long run, this is a good thing. It's part of the advance of civilization. In the short run, we can worry about whether this weakens us in struggles with forces who have not advanced so far up the moral ladder.

If the Taleban are smart, they will show this kid a good time -- tour him around some Potemkin village madrassas or something -- and then release him. This would instantly win them the hearts of a million liberals.

And while I'm on this subject, I hope our new President eventually exercises clemency for the idiotic "misguided Marin County hot-tubber" John Walker Lindh .

If this kid truly did desert his post, I have no sympathy for him.

He is now putting a lot of others at risk who are involved in searching for and rescuing him if possible. The same as Jessica Lynch, who wasn't worth her paycheck as a soldier.

As for my bona fides as a soldier, some of you know.

And no, I don't believe that being a veteran is a qualification for elected office.

26: If he's a deserter then he deserves the same thing anyone else in the military accused of a crime deserves: the right to a trial under the UCMJ before an impartial tribunal and defense counsel of his choosing, or if he cannot afford defense counsel, appointed defense counsel.

#30: oldsarge.

That untrustworthiness is abhorred in the army I will not start doubting. But regarding Ralph Peters: will he really be applauded among the American troops in Afghanistan for asking the Taleban for their aid in distributing American justice?

I made a perhaps premature negative judgement on that above: I did really think that those of us who never saw any action in a war zone would be asked to be a bit low voiced about what were just deserts for a possible deserter now in Taleban captivity.

I just could not avoid putting the question to a point; even though I’m not sharing any of the risks related to the Bowe Bergdahl case (loosing lives in a rescue operation for someone who turns out to have deserted is an ugly thought, yes).

Whatever attitude you believe to be the right one, I hope you will soon celebrate a happy homecoming.