Bingo.

Most of the places where that power was projected are now remembered solely for the dollars and lives that were wasted there. If those phrases are used a lot it's because when it comes to warfighting, the ability to deploy expeditionary forces to distant locations is about as basic as it gets. I'm guessing the inhabitants of Dachau, etc, might disagree with you on the utility of projecting American military power abroad.

It is a serious charge, but it wasn't made lightly. In all fairness, I'm not sure the word "expendable" carries the same weight to me as it does to some. I was raised to believe that the armed forces *are* expendable in the sense that we are willing to send them into harm's way if that's what's needed to achieve some goal deemed necessary to this nation's security. I think most military folks accept that - it is understood when you sign up that you may be asked to give your life for your country. I have been mulling this over for days because I wanted to think it over before writing about it. My final sentence probably should have said something more like, "They shouldn't be... for any reason short of necessity". What bothers me so much about this is that I can't understand what that goal was. Obama stated several times that this was an absolutely necessary conflict, and then proceeded (as Ignatius noted so oddly) to do everything in his power to undermine that goal. *That's* what I'm having trouble with. At any rate, thanks for the link :)

Nice work, Matt. Thanks for doing the hard work Yon wasn't willing to do.

I can't believe I didn't see this one in the list: [wait for it...] Rear Admiral /and I'm outta here!

You know, I was going to say, "No fair making me cry at the office". And then I stopped and thought that there are some tears no American should be ashamed to own. Even if you're female and don't want to validate the stereotypes about women not being able to control their emotions. Years from now, I hope we never get to the point where this doesn't hit us right in the gut. Thanks for everything you do, Matt.

I'm waiting for the loons in the NYT Mag's comments section to start calling for the abolishment of public schools because (apparently) they turn perfectly ordinary men and women into child molesters. "Beast Within", indeed.

OMG :) You are not old. As a famous manly man once said, "The older the violin, the sweeter the music". You wear it well, Matt.

Most big organizations like the military could be more efficient and effective if they always had the best person in the job that was best suited to them. However, the institutions; because of rules, regulations, operating procedures, policies, customs, and traditions; manage to keep on getting the job done, albeit just not as efficiently as possible. I always thought of the military as encouraging the "all around player" mentality. It's definitely true that people aren't interchangeable but on the other hand, only putting the "best" people in each job doesn't lead to more flexibility, but to an organization where a few fair haired boys or girls get all the plum jobs and everyone ends up less well rounded then they might have been otherwise. Since war places redundancy at a premium, too much specialization doesn't seem like a wise strategy for the armed forces. I saw the virtues of the military management graphically demonstrated when my husband coached one of our sons' soccer teams for the first time. He had never coached before (nor did he play soccer - he was more of a football/rugby/basketball type in school). But, being a Marine, he was used to tackling jobs he knew next to nothing about. Up to that point, the base teams consistently got creamed by the townies. Not surprising, considering that they had tryouts, only played their first string most of the time, and sent their kids to the best soccer camps. The first thing my husband did was move people around. He didn't care whether Bobby saw himself as a forward - he rotated the kids into different positions. Soon, kids who had always been relegated to defense were scoring goals. The stars on the team saw this and started trying a heck of a lot harder instead of acting like little prima donnas. And we started beating the townies. We went to the state championship that year. Got beaten by a civilian team but I've never forgotten that year. It was a graphic demonstration of the management philosophy that makes the military so effective. On a slightly different note, I vividly recall several articles that came out when Nagl announced that he was retiring. He cited as his reason his family's desire for him to do something different. There was nary a word about any of the things in that article. The military has always had trouble holding onto 'superstar' types. But then so do civilian employers. People like that have more options than the rest of us, so it's hardly surprising when they want to take advantage of them.

"Only a Renaissance man with an accent grave of Sam Kinnison..." That is truly sidebar-worthy :) Thanks for making my day.

...But it was the basically affluent colonial aristocracy that led the revolt--the very ones with the most to lose In our current situation (where 1/2 the populace doesn't even pay into the tax system) I agree that it would most likely be the most affluent who would be the most likely to revolt. But our middle class, many of whom not only pay no taxes but receive transfer payments from the government, are also quite "affluent" by the standards of the rest of the world. When I spoke of the "affluent", I think I had a far broader swath of the citizenry in mind :) People wanting to defend the status quo could go both ways: the Evil Rich (aka Chinese-toy-loving minions of the wealthiest 1%) have the most to gain from overthrowing a government bent on confiscating the fruits of their labor and nullifying Constitutional protections on ownership of private property. But there are vast numbers of people whose wealth (relatively modest though it is by American standards) depends on transfer payments and/or income redistribution. Those folks have little or no incentive to fight encroachments on their liberty because doing so would actually decrease their economic security.

I do believe that there is rhetoric and a tone that is not helpful, and I also believe that people can be worked up into committing terrible acts, but the solution is not control over speech. The solution is free speech and the right to challenge ideas. When we start telling people they must shut up, we are moving down a slippery slope fraught with danger. I agree with you, Dr. X. I do think it's important to draw a firm distinction between merely saying, "There's a way to get your message across without lobbing verbal Molotov cocktails" or even, "Jeez, I wish you'd shut up" (always amusing when one's ostensible goal is to encourage civility!) and passing laws that penalize/prohibit inflammatory rhetoric. The first combats speech with opposing speech. That's entirely kosher. The second actively punishes speech. Sometimes we on the right have a tendency to conflate the two :P

But people were starving in Russia (for instance) and China. We don't have anything near to those kinds of conditions in the U.S. For a basically affluent populace to revolt, I think something pretty drastic is required. Elise made an interesting point on another post - she said that because we're a rich and secure society, we are more risk averse. Essentially we are happy with the status quo and so the effort and emphasis shift from trying to acquire more to defending what we already have. So one reason we're risk averse is that compared with our forefathers, we have little to gain and a whole lot to lose. Or it could be those damned Feminists and their mind control rays :p But affluence and relative security matter when one is assessing the likelihood of revolution. Affluent and secure people have little to gain (no one is directly threatening their livelihood, security, or prosperity) and much to lose (let's face it - if government isn't defending your property you're back to doing it yourself). An offsetting factor is the question of critical mass - in a climate where the masses are mostly comfortable and complacent, it's easier for a relatively few who aren't to create chaos.

Was there a point to that last comment (other than someone's inexplicable desire to be an ass, that is)?

...when we use words as weapons, it does not cause action; it inhibits action: words replace action. The insult replaces the spear; it does not cause the spear to be thrown. There's an interesting connection (in my mind, at least) between this story and the article on sex and porn in your post earlier today. I read that article last night (God help me, I have a subscription to The Atlantic) and was both fascinated and befuddled by the article. The "words inhibit action" argument closely resembles the oft made argument that watching porn - even violent, sadistic, degrading porn - somehow prevents men from hurting women. "Since porn got more prevalent, rape has gone down!" OK, maybe there is a connection and maybe not. I don't know and neither does anyone else because correlation doesn't necessarily prove causation. While I can easily accept that the "expressing fantasy/feelings inhibits action" argument might be true in the main, I also suspect that it's not the whole truth and may not be universally applicable. I remember during the 70s when we were told to voice our anger and resentment. "Don't bottle it up - let it free!" Well, that may work for some people but it has been my experience that some emotions NEED to be bottled up. There's a reason for the stiff upper lip of yore. We don't have to beat ourselves about the head and shoulders for having negative thoughts or feelings, but giving them free reign or dwelling on them is not always the answer either. Dwelling on or voicing negative thoughts and feelings can erode self control and strengthen the very feelings we're trying to deal with. Reference the well known research on the relationship between saying what you really think of your partner when you're angry and your relationship going downhill, as opposed to setting firm limits on negative or angry talk. Sometimes words escalate an already emotional situation. And often, when we nurse grievances instead of trying to acquire perspective, we feel more angry and resentful instead of less. During a deployment I can say to myself, "Buck us Susie - you may be feeling sorry for yourself right now, but you're not the center of the universe". Or I can dwell on my lack of control over my life or how the mean old Marine Corps took my hubby away from me AGAIN!!! It's not *his* decision! He's a helpless victim!. FWIW, I find it FAR easier to control my outward behavior when I take control of my inner feelings and thoughts instead of allowing my feelings to drive the bus. My husband isn't really a victim - he's a rational actor to whom many things are important including (but not limited to) spending time with his wife and family. So my feelings aren't really helpful and it's probably best to temper them with a strong dose of "Lighten up, Frances" :) I think the Left has jumped the shark on the Giffords thing but I also think their fear reflects a healthy understanding of the power of words to make an already difficult situation worse. Are they overdoing it? Sure, and their hyperbolic rhetoric only pours gas on the fire. If only they had been concerned about the supposed power of hateful, violent rhetoric when Lefties everywhere were publicly talking about assassinating George Bush or hanging him by the neck until he was dead. They might have felt better if they had exercised a bit of that self control they seem so enamored of now that it's their ox that's being vilified.

And before you go there, "un-pretzelize" is *so* a word!

[Eric Hines, in response to my "What is the critical mass required to overthrow government"?] This was a lot of that middle third that was on the fence in our Revolutionary War. It's an important factor, but I don't think it's a Critical item. Rebellions always are going to be asymmetrical, at least to a degree, as both Washington and Marion showed. I understand that revolution is always (or usually) asymmetrical. But revolutions are more often than not put down. I do think we need to factor in two related things here: the force multiplying aspect of technology (weapons of mass destruction as well as more effective personal weapons) and the accelerating effect of mass communications (much easier to start and coordinate your revolution). The point being that if there is no ideological "bright line" and if - as I posited - the only real bright line is the tipping point at which a critical mass of people are willing to take up arms against their government, it very much matters what that critical mass is. If the critical mass is (as I happen to think) much smaller than you don't even need 1/3 of the people to start a revolution. In all fairness, I think most people have a gut-level understanding that the critical mass needed to start a successful revolution has decreased to the point where the "price" of revolt is affordable to a LOT more people. And I think this unconscious fear/realization explains why the Left are going batsh** crazy over the shooting of a politician by a lone whack job. Their fear isn't really justified by this particular incident. It's just that it evokes another fear that may not be quite so irrational. Look, I am rolling my eyes just as hard as you all over the hyperventilation and hate filled rhetoric. The real irony is that if these folks REALLY believed that right wingers were violent anti-govt. psychos, they wouldn't be talking the way they are right now. They'd be buying guns to protect themselves and their families :p Or pleading for Obama to suspend posse comitatus so our brave, brainwashed puppy murdering troops would defend the Republic. Aye chihuahua - there isn't enough alcohol in the world to un-pretzelize their tortured "logic".

I think both you and Mr. Hines are on to the real issue, which is that there probably is no bright line: no single thing where we could warn the government, "This far and no farther." Rather, if they provoke a rebellion -- or a civil war -- it will be from a conglomeration of abuses, none of which alone would have brought the fight. I think this is your bright line, Grim - not any particular abuse (as you say) but an aggregation of abuses sufficient to provoke a critical mass of the populace to armed revolt. Here comes the interesting part: what is a "critical mass"? In a less technological age, it would have been enough to start and sustain a war (as opposed to putting down a brushfire). In the age of asymmetrical warfare, I suspect that number is far, far lower than it used to be. Compounding this is the phenomenon Chuck cited: a complacent population unused to even minor inconveniences and unable to defend itself or tolerate fear/discomfort. This is an important point because it is by no means certain that any civil unrest would have the restoration of the Constitution as its object. The desired end might just as well be anarchy or even the abolishment of private property.

We allowed some Marines in too. For the amusement factor. Why is "Send in the Clowns" playing in my head? :)

Glad you didn't take it amiss. Both my Dad and my husband's Dad were career Navy, so I have nothing but affection for the Marine Corps' sister service. Plus I couldn't resist yanking vet66's chain!

I blame DeltaBravo and vet66 for this. The role reversal of "insubordination and revolt" to "role reversal" to "change back to former roles" between ranks and all the horseplay (initiation) was a bonding and testing thing that has gone on in Navies for centuries. *** [summoning her best toffee-nosed narrator voice] "From a safe spot behind the nearest gun turret, we observe the young Shellback in his native habitat as he struts back and forth like the NBC PEACOCK, preening himself and absent mindedly polishing his [redacted] in a futile attempt to tamp down his inner Ru Paul. But it is all for naught because sadly, there is video. Watch as the subject initiates "horseplay". His eyes lovingly caress the heaving carrier deck as the rhythmical "slap" of the rubber hose punctuates the night air with its insistent drumbeat. His fellow shipmates are slowly whipping themselves into a frenzy of forbidden desire... He rips off his swoveralls and tosses them to a nearby aviator as his whips his head back and for... But I digress. Apparently, repressed esprit de corps manifests itself in unexpected ways on the high seas. ***

When the XO says "Man your battle stations-flank speed" he is not calling for a massage with a happy ending. Alas - another beautiful fantasy dies a horrible death :p

After reading these comments, I have decided that we are all at least 85% gay. And yes, this means you.

...the timing seems to indicate that this was done, not to "uphold" any standards, but to torpedo someone's career, while enhancing a reporterette's career, and assuage the angry mutterings of the minority who perceive themselves as now being the dominant and final arbiter of all things in the military. I'm not sure why the motivation of whoever lodged the complaint is relevant here? The facts and standard to be applied have nothing to do with whether the complaint was made in good faith or maliciously. Either the guy did something that merits firing or he didn't. His career can't be "torpedoed" unless and until the Navy leadership decides what he did is a firing offense. The media can't torpedo someone's career for eating Fritos corn chips (even if they happen to think Fritos are evil, trans-fat laden works of Satan and his unholy minions and that service members paid with federal tax dollars have no business eating fattening foods) without the active cooperation of Navy leadership. The Navy - not the press or minorities - sets its own standard. If this guy gets fired (as I suspect he will, eventually) it will be because the Navy investigated and decided what he did was unsat. So while this complaint may or may not have been lodged to uphold a standard, the disposition of this case absolutely depends upon whatever standard the United States Navy chooses to uphold. That power and that decision lies entirely with them, not the complainants.

...so Honors will be thrown under the bus as a token gesture. I think that's what really offends people about this story. It's kind of hard to take the Navy's hand waving seriously when they are the ones who gave this guy a carrier command in the first place. If this truly rises to the level of a firing offense he should either have been fired at the time or - if it that would have adversely impacted the mission - some sort of official reprimand should have been placed in his file where it would be seen if he screened for command (hardly implausible in this situation since that is exactly what happened). *If* it is truly a firing offense. The Navy's actions at the time definitely suggest otherwise. As I said before, I have less of a problem with the jokes in the video than with him joking about his superiors being in the dark and therefore not legally responsible: "As usual, I want to say that the captain and the admiral - they don't know anything at all about the content of this video or the movie this evening, and they should absolutely not be held accountable in any judicial setting," That carries a strong whiff of "yeah, we're doing something the brass wouldn't sanction, so we'll just make sure they don't find out", which is downright bizarre coming from the XO. And then there's attitude towards complaints: Over the years I've gotten several complaints about inappropriate materials in these videos, never to me personally but, gutlessly, through other channels." He adds, "This evening, all of you bleeding hearts... why don't just go ahead and hug yourself for the next 20 minutes or so, because there's a really good chance you're gonna be offended. A still, small voice tells me that a senior officer who publicly announces that he doesn't give a rat's patootie about complaints will find few junior personnel willing to approach him directly :p When my husband had an issue with something in one of his commands, he didn't go straight to the top. He went up the chain first. So it's hardly "gutless" for an E-2 or E-3 to go up the chain rather than marching directly into the XO's office. I've heard a lot of folks comparing this to "recreation", but these were official videos made in uniform and well within the course and scope of an XO's normal duties. That's not "recreation". Recreation would be if he made these videos on his own time, with his own resources, and without wearing the uniform or invoking his rank and position. That's really the crux of the issue here - if the Navy thinks this was an improper use of authority then he never should have been given command in the first place. That's what they're going to find difficult to explain.