No “Phoney” Solider: Gang Member To Navy Cross Winner

A very interesting column written by Marco Martinez, a former gang member and a Marine who helped bring down Saddam. His biographical book is Hard Corps: From Gangster to Marine Hero, and here he writes about what he saw in Iraq, and why he supports the war:

Violence isn’t senseless. Senseless violence is senseless. And I should know. Before being awarded the Navy Cross and having the privilege of becoming a Marine, I was a gang member. Sometimes it takes having used violence for both evil as well as good to know that there’s a profound moral difference between the two.
[…]
I was honored to have been given the opportunity to fight in Iraq on our country’s behalf. And it was that experience—and five things I saw firsthand—that illustrate the foolishness of those who would equate American military power to that used by thugs and tyrants.

1. Mass Graves

I was part of a group that was tasked with guarding Saddam’s mass graves. And let me tell you something: anyone who could look straight down into those huge holes at the skeletons and remains and see what that monster did to 300,000 of his own people would have no doubt that we did the right thing in removing him from power. Saddam’s henchmen would tie two people together, some with babies in their arms, stand them at the crater’s edge, and then shoot one of the people in the head, relying on the weight of the dead body to drag them both into the hole. This would save on rounds and also ensure that both people died, one from a gunshot, the other by being buried alive.

2. Tongue-less Man

You never know how precious freedom of speech is until you meet somehow who has had it taken from them—literally taken from them. During a patrol we came upon two hungry Iraqi men scavenging for food. When our translator began speaking with the men I noticed that one of them had a stub for a tongue. Through the translator we learned that the tongue-less man had spoken against the regime and that Saddam’s henchmen had severed his tongue. Saddam had quite literally removed the man’s freedom of speech.

You’ll want to read the whole thing. People seem to have very short memories. These are the reasons we went to war, and based on the intelligence we had at the time, those reasons were valid. Based on what our soldiers found there, they’re still valid. And if anyone wants to see a Mandela arise from the Iraqi people, we’ll have to give them a chance to form one…because President Bush was quite right – Saddam killed any potential Mandelas. People who have been subjugated for nearly 40 years, terrorized and tyrannized, people who have seen displays of courage met with the gun and the rape room, need some time to trust. That’s happening.

Something else is happening that is very troubling. I’m not a Rush Limbaugh fan; we disagree on much, but this nonsense coming from the left and from members of the U.S. Senate is absurd, intellectually dishonest and of a piece with the intelligence-insulting, idiotic narrative promoted by some, that Bush “actually said Saddam had killed Nelson Mandela.” Of COURSE Bush said no such thing. Of COURSE Limbaugh did not insult the troops (transcript here). Both men were less articulate than what one could hope for, but their meanings were not that unclear, and once upon a time people didn’t have to be so very careful with every word they spoke for fear that any misspoken word might be used against them.

I recall when Michael Dukakis was running for president (I was a Democrat then) – someone in the opposing campaign misspoke – I don’t remember the details but I remember Dukakis’ response. Asked by the press what he thought of the remark in question, Dukakis responded, [paraphrased] “I don’t think it’s a big deal; we all misspeak sometimes. Sometimes we say one thing and mean something else. I think we should let it go.” I thought, then, that he was correct and had made a classy response meant to keep focus on issues rather than foibles, and I was proud of him and proud to be a Democrat. The “politics of personal destruction” did not seem to exist back then.

The world has changed a vast deal, hasn’t it? Imagine our current political leadership saying anything that generous. President Bush would do it; he never returns in kind and certainly knows what it’s like to misspeak. Can you think of any other pol who’d do it? Maybe Joe Lieberman. Maybe.

Whether you like President Bush or not, whether you like Rush Limbaugh or not, you have to get a little concerned when members of the press take remarks vastly out of context and actually have the nerve to pretend that context is irrelevant. We’re entering not merely a season of staggering inauthenticity, this is now becoming a season of shame. Or of people having no shame at all.

Our soldiers fight and die to protect us from our enemies, insure freedom of speech and the dignity of others halfway around the world…our Senators and Mediafolk seem content to throw it away with both hands, in pursuit of power and dominance. Politicians who will stoop to this sort of dishonest character assassination – and the press that will not call them on it – they’re not only silencing others, they silence themselves. By adhering so strictly to the “damn the truth, just scorch the earth and destroy political enemies to ease the way for the party” script…they are effectively stealing from themselves their own free speech, and their right to individuality, and to dissent. They feed the monster of “party loyalty” and “conformity” that in the end completely devours their own liberty.

The very people who say they decry the “waste” of soldier’s lives in Iraq do themselves “waste” every noble military sacrifice, by further eroding free speech, the free exchange of ideas, here in America.

Here’s what troubles me. People on the left whom I long-admired, people like Russert, people like Fineman…why do they never, never speak up when a narrative veers off into blatant dishonesty? When did it become the habit of the more credible folks in the press to just duck their heads and ignore distortions made by their own industry associates? What happened to people of character being able to correct their own, once in a while, of being able to say, “wait, that’s silly; President Bush was speaking in metaphor. Wait, that’s not right, you’re taking Limbaugh out of context.” Where is the journalist who loves his profession or the Senator who loves democracy enough to want to protect credibility, enough to say, “ummm…no…I’m sorry but that’s a smear too far…” where is our Lord de l’Isle and Dudley?

From Leo Rosten’s out-of-print People I Have Loved, Known or Admired

Lord de l’Isle and Dudley, about whom I know nothing except this (but what a this it is!): In England, after the war, he organized a legal defense fund for German Field Marshal Erich von Manstein, who was being tried as a war criminal.

You can imagine how many eyebrows were raised in London’s clubs when this was announced…

When reporters asked Lord de l’Isle and Dudley to explain why he had launched this puzzling philanthropy, he replied: Had I met General von Manstein during the war, I would have shot him on sight.” Pause. Muttered “Hear, hear!”s of approval within the press. “I am not concerned with whether Manstein is guilty or note,” milord continued. “I simply want enough money to insure that he will be properly represented in his trial, by a British barrister…I want Britain’s reputation upheld.”

He wanted England never to have anything to be ashamed of.

Where are his journalistic and political counterparts in 21st century America?

Jules Crittenden and Don Surber both point out that in going after Limbaugh’s inarticulate flub, they’ve admitted we’re in Iraq for a noble reason: