Posse Incitatus

Joining up

The Posse has given some additional thought to Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp’s writing exercises.  It is still too early to determine if they are fact or fiction, but one thing is clear: he wanted to be a writer and he saw being in the Army as the path to that goal.

Not that there is anything wrong with this.  We will freely admit that we have done many things simply to have done them.  Not all of them make a good story, but they did provide life-experiences.

People can be quite complex, and what looks like cynicism or opportunism often masks internal conflict.  We believed this to be the case with John Kerry and we think that Pvt. Beauchamp has a similar dynamic.

In our experience, there have always been people like Pvt. Beauchamp.  Whether in the military or some other organization, there are people who voluntarily join a group, and then hold themselves aloof from it.  Pat Conroy documented this in The Lords of Discipline, his semi-autobiographical take on his years at the Citadel. 

On the one hand, there is the pressure to conform, to be part of the group.  Membership in the group confirms several kinds of benefits, ranging from camaraderie and the sense of belonging to the absence of abuse for being different from everyone else.  The flip side of this acceptance is of course the loss of the self, the sense that one is not different but rather “just another cog in the machine.”

Team-based institutions – and this can include sports teams, marching bands, some types of businesses and of course the military – are based on the concept of self-sacrifice for the greater good.  At its core, military basic training does two things: it breaks you down and builds you up.  Other teams follow a similar pattern, albeit with less severity.

The “breaking down” process is about teaching that the group’s success is more important than the individual’s comfort.  Having a great batting average or a high individual sales rate doesn’t much matter if the baseball team loses every game or the company goes bankrupt and lays everybody off.  Thus, the breaking down is about eroding that sense of individuality, showing that the one is nothing without the many.

The “building up” portion then teaches that by being a member of the team, the individual has actually increased his own worth – that he has become more than he was before.  The great battling average is now combined with stronger fielding, meaning that the team will win more games; individual sales successes coupled with support of others means that the whole company can grow, with more money for everyone.  As a byproduct of this, the individual’s gifts can allow him to become a leader, someone who combines his personal strengths with the power of the group.

It can be a life-changing experience, and often is.  This is why many veterans, even those who served in peacetime, retain a strong loyalty to the institution of the military.  They are bonded, and share a common culture, a common experience of being broken down and built back up.

Of course not everyone has a positive experience in these environments.  In the case of a creative personality – particularly a creative writer – this process of amalgamation to the group can be terrifying.  So instead of accepting full membership, the individual in these cases resists it – and often gets much grief as a result.

The result is a sort of double-think: one is part of the group but outside of it at the same time.  Outwardly, one is a full-fledged member.  In military parlance, he would have the ID card, uniform, know the culture, draw the pay and have passed all of the qualifications. Yet in his mind, he is not a soldier because he is different, very much unlike the “savages” or “simpletons” who have fully joined the group.

Yet there is also a sense of pride in being within the group.  He has passed the rituals and, to a certain extent, knows that he has been accepted into the culture of the group.  The military is very physically and mentally demanding – particularly for those of an individualistic bent.  Many of these people come from comfortable, affluent backgrounds and the rigors of basic training aren’t something they are used to.  Their friends and family may be impressed that they accomplished what they did and – though they may hate to admit it – they also like the fact that they are part of an institution that is accorded respect by most of the country.  They may hold the “flag-waving rednecks” in contempt, but they still like the respect they are now accorded.  Pvt. Beauchamp explicitly has made this point with his “chicken hawk” denunciations of non-Iraq serving veterans.  He hates the military, comes from an anti-military background, but knew that once he had the “street cred” of having served, he would get respect even from those he disliked.

That is why people like him will denounce the military with one breath and then express their pride in being in it the next.  He isn’t necessarily a hypocrite, he truly is conflicted.

To people like this, the tension is often very difficult, because the strain of being deployed, and the very culture of the military helps build friendship and trust.  One is torn between contempt and affection for one’s fellow-soldiers who could, on a moment’s notice, save one’s life.  That jerk in the cot next to you who prefers console games to reading, holds simplistic political beliefs and snores may be the one who pulls you from that burning Humvee.  It is a sobering and disturbing thought.

What makes it worse is that artists, particularly creative writers, hate relying on others.  They are the ultimate individuals – they control their text absolutely.  They speak on the page with the Voice of God.  The fact that a high-school grad with no ambition other than humping a ruck for the next 20 years outranks you because he is a better soldier is the ultimate insult – and proof that the military is truly a worthless institution run by simpletons. 

Of course there is another way, the way of acceptance.  A lot of great artists served in the military and learned discipline, the value of teamwork and how to be an individual without becoming an utter jerk.  The choice is not between being Private Joker or an anonymous grunt, it is between doing the job one signed up to do and growing in the process or being a half-ass about it and reaping (at the least) a great deal of internal conflict and at worst, the contempt of the group one once joined.

Pvt. Beauchamp is now finding this out.  If his stories turn out to be true, it will go poorly for him and his unit.  He will be asked why he did not report it up the chain of command, what role he had to play in what he saw and he will reap the hatred of those he turned in – without the virtue of having done so to preserve the honor, discipline and good name of his unit, the Army and the United States.

If his writings prove to be fictional, he will have embarrassed himself, his wife’s employer, and will have smeared the good reputation of the fighting men and women around him all in the name of a little passing notoriety.

There are no good outcomes for him at this point, only less awful ones. 

The final piece of this tragedy is that Pvt. Beauchamp is a lousy writer.

Yet another warrior-poet wannabe

The Posse was mildly surprised to see that TNR’s “Scott Thomas” is in fact a soldier, though whether he was in Iraq and the events he described happened remains to be seen.

Hot Air and others have already unearthed a trove of information about this would-be Hemingway, and perhaps the most salient fact about him is his complete and utter self-absorbtion.

Our society owes a great debt to our military and we honor those who volunteer to wear the uniform in time of war, particularly when they have so many other options. It is in fact a myth that our soldiers are simply people too stupid to find other things to do. Many of them truly are the best and the brightest.

However, this must not obscure the indisputable fact that some of them are the dregs of humanity, people who obtained entrance simply because they were able to pass a physical and showed no obvious mental deficiencies.

These screw-ups are a fixture in every unit. Some of them straighten out, some don’t They are inevitably the subject of many a hilarious tale when veterans congregate. Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp is clearly one of these. We don’t know him; he may be an expert marksman with the Bronze Star and four tours of duty behind him. We doubt it, though.

There is a certain kind of soldier who hates the military, who joins not to belong to it, but to be even more of an individual. They don’t get along with their fellow soldiers, make a point of letting everyone else know how they don’t buy into the values, ethos and discipline of the organization – and often reap a harvest of cold resentment. Pvt. Beauchamp is thus hardly unique.  (Uncle Jimbo knows how to handle such types.)

In fact, he reminds us of Anthony Swofford, author of "Jarhead."

Pvt. Beauchamp's articles in TNR were apparently the rough draft of his future memoirs, and a lifetime in coffee houses and cable television telling people who disagree with his tall tales to shut up because “they weren’t there.” Ironically (but predictably) his greatest critics come from those that have been and are still “there,” in Iraq.

They don’t much appreciate the image Pvt. Beauchamp is putting out about them, and his sneering portrayals of his “battle buddies” as a bunch of knuckle-dragging thugs isn’t likely to play well in FOB Falcon.

Not that we expect anyone to hurt him.  No, the Army has too much discipline for that. Indeed, we’d bet our life savings that shortly after his identity was revealed, NCOs all over the area issued clear (but low-key) instructions that he was not to be touched. So we do not expect physical violence against him, but we sincerely hope for some UCMJ action.

He has unquestionably disgraced his uniform and for that deserves to experience the thrill of being an E1 and the lifelong benefit of a Bad Conduct Discharge. This is an Information War, and slandering fellow service members (for pay?) is a serious offense. We hope the chain of command will not be cowed by liberal wailing that he is some sort of “truth-teller” or a “martyr for free speech.” By his own admission he’s an idiot, a scumbag who makes fun of the battle scars of his brothers and sisters in uniform. No one can argue that this is behavior learned in the military. T

he Posse would be delighted to see the briefing for “How to taunt the wounded.” Send him to join his spiritual twin Blake Lemoine and the other reprobates. Then he can collect stories about the joys of being in a military prison.

The Reich that never gets here

In the comments to our post about Operation Falcon III, two readers essentially raised the same point:  The United States is in immediate peril of losing its freedoms and will shortly become a Nazi-style police state.

One of them even urges us to study the history of Germany and to learn from it.

Unfortunately for the sake of their argument, we have.  Indeed the Posse is fascinated by history and part of the reason we started this blog to was to share this knowledge with others.

The collapse of the Weimar constitution is well-documented, which is why we are surprised at how ignorant people are of the actual mechanics behind Adolf Hitler's rise to supreme power.

The first precondition was the hyperinflation of Germany during the early 1920s.  This wiped out the savings of the middle classes, making them much more easily swayed by radical thinking.

The second was the tremendous unemployment that followed the global "economic blizzard" that began in 1929.  Thousands of unemployed, many of them combat veterans, provided a ready source for "street muscle" and a huge reservoir of anger at the existing political system.

Finally, there was the fragile nature of the government itself, based as it was on a parliamentary model which meant that key the most important political figure - the chancellor - was not directly elected but rather determined through complex machinations that were not open to public scrunity.

This was how Hitler was able to become chancellor and then for the Reichstag to effectively hand over all of its power to him.

It is also worth pointing out that Hitler wasn't particularly patient once he got his hands on the wheel.  It took only a few months between his elevation to the chancellorship and the law allowing him to rule by decree.

If Chimpy W. Hitlerburton was going to follow a similar path, he's about five and a half years behind schedule - and Congress is hardly likely to rubber-stamp his legislation in the same way the Reichstag did for Hitler.

Indeed, the president can barely exercise legitimate, Constitutionally-granted powers, like firing his own appointees without Congress stepping all over him.

In sum:  if you think the US is about to assume the characteristics of Nazi Germany, you are a complete and total idiot.

More fake soldiery?

Blackfive has put out a call to verify the latest atrocity stories appearing in a liberal publication - in this case The New Republic.  There is good reason for skepticism.

For one thing, TNR has a history of publishing stories that are too good to be true.

For another, the stories don't make much sense, even if you believe US troops are nothing more than desensitized kill-bots. 

The Posse is reminded of other fake veterans who came forward with tales of various outrages.

We have a strong suspicion that TNR is once again being taken for a ride, but unlike in the Stephen Glass episode, they won't care as much this time.  "Fake but accurate" is the new leftist mantra and if this anti-military atrocity story proves untrue, the next one maybe won't.

Or at least it will be harder to disprove, by which time the Big Lie will have entered the public consciousness.

Just don't question their patriotism.

What word is that?

The Posse was confused to read that yesterday a group of people apparently banned the use of a word starting with the letter "N."

We are pretty sure what they are getting at, but it is terribly funny to watch these front-page stories about the evil of a word that cannot be printed - nay, not even spelled out in part.

What amuses us is the thought of foreigners, or perhaps future generations trying to figure out exactly what word is so horrible.  Surely it can't be the one played on the radio on a daily basis?

This bit from the Detroit News is hilarious:

"So today we aren't just burying the N-word," said Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. "We're taking this out of our spirit, we're taking it out of our being; we're taking it out of our minds.

"We gather burying all the things that go with the N-word. We have to bury the 'pimps' and the 'hos' that go with it. Die N-word, and we don't want to see you 'round here no more!"

Quick!  Don't think of an elephant!

Meanwhile, the Detroit Free Press proves that satire is dead:

The Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and others have challenged the entertainment industry and the American public to stop using the N-word and other racial slurs.

Uh yeah.  Like "Hymietown?"

Shut Up and Sing, literally

With the strains of Lee Greenwood's ever popular song about being "proud to be an American" still ringing in our ears, the posse took a look at the Dixie Chicks film "Shut Up and Sing". Aptly titled, they should stick to what they do best and keep the political commentary to themselves.

The film purports to be a behind the scenes look at the Chicks on tour and how they dealt with the controversy that arose after their singer Natalie Maines made a statement about being "ashamed that President Bush was from Texas". The statement was made in London on stage at the start of their European tour and on the eve of the Iraq invasion back in 2003.

This is where the film starts and we see the actual footage of the Chicks onstage and Natalie making the statement to the uproarious cheers of the audience. Within two weeks a rising tide of public anger, media backlash, and a country music radio boycott start to hurt record and ticket sales. The Chicks are told that they have to do damage control and reluctantly go on radio, get interviewed by Dianne Sawyer, appear on the cover of Entertainment Weekly, always trying to explain but not apologizing for making the statement. They seem to alternate between not wanting to do any of this and being hurt by American's angry reactions. They try to keep a united front but ultimately let Natalie do most of the talking. They are aware of the cameras as the film crew follows them around these media events and take turns posturing for them. Nothing seems to help and along the way they get into a public tussle with country music star Toby Keith and are forced to deal with a death threat. We see band meetings with their manager and various PR people trying to figure out what they should do at each turn. The film follows them through 2006 as they record a new album and plan another tour.

It's not unusual for a band to hire a film crew to follow them around and capture their antics for an eventual dvd release, but we haven't seen anything as pretentious as this since U2's "Rattle & Hum" tour film.

First off that night in London, the film crew shoots the audience reaction to the statement made from the stage. The audience was miked and the house lights came up and we saw the faces and heard the cheers. This strikes us as odd, unless there is a life threatening emergency it is unheard of for a venue to bring up the house lights unless prompted to do so. Obviously the band gave permission for this to happen and for it to be filmed. There is no way the Chicks could have predicted what this statement would mean and how it would be perceived, but the mere fact that it was captured on film means that they knew there might be a reason to have this. I'm sure the film crew was delighted when this played out in the international media and they now had an angle for a full blown film and not just a tour document.

What is also remarkable about the film is not just the Chicks manufactured reactions for the cameras, but how the other two members of the Dixie Chicks, sisters Martie Maguire and Emily Robison silently endure their selfish lead singer. Showing all the markings of a spoiled child, Natalie speaks as if the world is revolving around her. She interrupts her band mates and manager constantly, she pouts, she speaks as if everyone should be writing down her picayune words. There is a scene in a hospital room where a pregnant Emily is waiting for an induced labor, the band and family are gathered as are the cameras. Natalie chatters away and finally Emily's husband off camera, reminds everyone that this should be about a birth not a band meeting. What we find MOST offensive about this film is a scene on a tour bus where, after reading a quote from President Bush and his mild reaction to them, Natalie calls him a dumb f*** then looks directly into the camera and says "you're a dumb f***"! as if she's speaking directly to the President. Not only is she ultra aware of the camera but she has the nerve to think that what she has to say is so poignant that President Bush will be watching someday. In the comfort and safety of her own tour bus surrounded by paid employees catering to her every whim this might be understandable but to include this snippet in the film is inexcuseable!

The film concludes with the recording and release of a single called "I'm Not Ready to Play Nice" which had some airplay on MTV and VH1 recently. The song is from the band perspective about how they feel about the whole issue. It is a well crafted, nicely layered, emotive pop piece and this to us is actually relevant- they've boiled down their experience into a work that can be created in their prospective field of art. This is what artists do and that's fine, whether actors, authors, sports figures, or singers. It's when they step outside their range of talents yet use the audience captured by those talents to express a political and personal opinion they become irrelevant. As the film title implys we do think they should shut up and sing. They can have all the opinions they want we just don't care what they are.

American Patriotism

The Posse wishes a happy Independence Day to all of our readers.

America remains somewhat unique in the widespread acceptance of patriotism as a virtue.  Even the leftish traitors that increasingly dominate the Democratic Party constantly insist that they are patriotic.  Indeed, they even concocted a bumper sticker slogan to the effect that treason (sorry, "dissent") is the highest form of patriotism.

This Independence Day, the Posse is thankful that for all of our nation's faults, there is a still a core of tradition and courage to sustain us.  From the parish hall to the local market, it is pretty clear that Americans still love their country.  The liberal elites may have given up, but they at least have to hide this as best they can from the voters.

In the land of sheep, the wolf is king

Last week the Posse was involved in a youth camp, which left us precious little time to follow world events.

Needless to say, we enjoyed the break immensely.

This week we are on vacation, so we intend to avoid the computer as much as possible.  However, we must note one observation we picked up last week.

While the camp was an excellent opportunity for young people to experience a variety of physical and mental challenges, there remained a sense of unease where the topic of firearms, marksmanship and the like came up.

Similarly, when one of the Younger Posse Members decided to join the Girl Scouts, we were surprised to find that archery was excluded from the list of merit badges.  "Art in the Home," "Yarn and the Fabric Arts," and the obligatory "Global Awareness" badges were there along with myriad other ones that have absolutely nothing to do with scouting, at least in the sense of "scouting outside of a shopping mall or home."

We now understand why girls would want to join the Boy Scouts.  The Boy Scouts actually get to go outside and learn survival skills; they practice marksmanship, archery, and learn something that may prove useful in an outdoor environment.

If one were to drop an experienced Boy Scout off at a northern Michigan roadside with only the contents of a modest backpack to sustain him for a few days, one would have a reasonable degree of confidence that he would survive.

A girl scout in similar circumstances would be able to organize a rally, or seek out discounts, but would otherwise be at a total loss.

This is supposed to empower women?

Similarly, we are constantly told by gun control advocates that children should never be exposed to firearms, period.  Guns should be the exclusive province of law enforcement.

This begs the question: if all children are raised to fear and avoid guns, where is the next generation of police supposed to come from?  The entire premise of gun control (and pacifism, incidentally) is based on the idea that there will always be "sheepdogs" to protect the righteous but otherwise defenseless flock.

But if the dogma of these groups became the law of the land, if society as a whole accepted and embraced their values, only the criminals - the wolves - would retain the ability to fight.  In this case, the wolf would become king.