Alexander Haig (RIP) vs. Christopher Hitchens

Haig in 1981, photo from the Reagan Presidential Library

Originally I wasn't planning on saying much about the death of former General and Secretary of State Alexander Haig, since I never met the man and wasn't familiar with much of his life. But I do know that anyone who gave his lifetime to public service, saw combat in Korea and Vietnam (with a Purple Heart) deserves my greatest respect.

But one piece I read prompted me to write. For some people, driving up site traffic trumps all else. Over at Slate, in true tabloid fashion, Christopher Hitchens puts out this headline:

Death of a Banana Republican - Al Haig was a neurotic narcissist with an unquenchable craving for power.

A little background: President Reagan was shot and briefly incapacitated in 1981. Alexander Haig, then Secretary of State, briefed reporters at the White House. In response to a question from a reporter about succession (the Vice President was in Texas at that moment), Haig said:

Constitutionally, gentlemen, you have the President, the Vice President and the Secretary of State in that order, and should the President decide he wants to transfer the helm to the Vice President, he will do so. He has not done that. As of now, I am in control here, in the White House, pending return of the Vice President and in close touch with him.

He was technically incorrect; the Speaker of the House and President pro tempore of the Senate actually come before the Secretary of State. But certainly he knew this, having served in the White House when Nixon resigned. What he meant (as he claimed later) was that he was simply trying to reassure the media that everything was under control, that someone was in charge, and that he was the highest ranking individual in the White House at that moment. Certainly he wasn't staging a coup, nor did do anything to even suggest that.

But that's not how Hitchens saw it:

March 30, 1981, to be exact, this neurotic narcissist seized the microphone and made a clumsy attempt to seize power. With Reagan lying critically injured in the hospital, Haig announced in the Situation Room that "the helm is right here, and that means right in this chair for now, constitutionally, until the vice president gets here."

Hyperbole much? Then, unbelievably, this 60-year-old Oxford graduate resorts lowers himself to kindergarten level ad-hominems, insulting Haig's appearance:

I saw that "demeanor" up close more than once and was coldly appalled by the pig-nostriled and also piggy-eyed form that it took. But nothing could equal that day's performance, which evinced all the sweaty, pasty-faced, trembling symptoms of a weak king or of a slobbering dauphin who could not wait to try on the crown.

This is coming from same man who also wrote a hit-piece on Mother Theresa. Does he even believe his own nonsense?

Well you know what, Mr. Hitchens? I'll take Mr. Haig's years of military action over your decades of armchair opinion writing any day. The truth is, attacking Mr. Haig's role in the White House during the Watergate scandal would be a much more legitimate issue. But I doubt the man even thinks about these things - he just writes what sells.

Edit - Let's play a game:
Compare these two statements:

First, Hitchens, 2010:

the bulk of Haig's awful political career was an example of banana-republic principles and the related phenomenon of an overambitious man in uniform who mastered the essential art of licking the derrières of those above him while simultaneously (see above) bullying and menacing those below...Without any further battlefield experience, except for propaganda trips to Vietnam to support a war that his bosses had artificially prolonged, he moved up the ladder from colonel to four-star general—not bad even for a man who had gotten started by marrying his commanding general's daughter.

Then, Headquarters, US Army Vietnam, 1967:

The President of the United States takes pleasure in presenting the Distinguished Service Cross to Alexander M. Haig, Jr. (0-50790), Lieutenant Colonel (Armor), U.S. Army, for extraordinary heroism in connection with military operations involving conflict with an armed hostile force in the Republic of Vietnam, while serving with while serving with Headquarters, 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry, 1st Infantry Division. Lieutenant Colonel Haig distinguished himself by exceptionally valorous actions on 31 March and 1 April 1967 while serving as battalion commander during an attack by a numerically superior Viet Cong force near Ap Gu. When two of his companies were engaged by a large hostile force, Colonel Haig landed amid a hail of fire, personally took charge of the units, called for artillery and air fire support, and succeeded in soundly defeating the insurgent force. Before dawn the nest day, when a single mortar round fell near the perimeter, Colonel Haig recognized it as the registering round prior to a massive attack and immediately alerted his entire unit. Within five minutes a barrage of 400 rounds was fired by the Viet Cong, but it was ineffective because of the warning and preparations by Colonel Haig. As the barrage subsided, a force three times larger than his began a series of human wave assaults on the camp. Heedless of the danger to himself, Colonel Haig repeatedly braved intense hostile fire to survey the battlefield. His personal courage and determination, and his skillful employment of every defense and support tactic possible, inspired his men to fight with previously unimagined power. Although his force was outnumbered three to one, Colonel Haig succeeded in inflicting 592 casualties on the Viet Cong. Lieutenant Colonel Haig's extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty were in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.
Orders No. 2318 (May 22, 1967)

Enough Said.

Share
|

Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my  RSS Feed

Click here to continue reading...

"How to leave a soldier"

If you want to read an article from one of the most self-centered narcissistic people you will ever find, look no further than here. Not surprisingly, it's on Salon.com.

To summarize, a woman named Courteney Cook rationalizes why she left her military husband while he was away in Iraq, for an anti-war "blue-eyed Marxist". She also describes how she met other men, and actually goes through agonizing contortions to rationalize her behavior. It's both disgusting and painful to watch. She also gives her advice for others on how to leave your husband while he's away at war:

You'd be surprised how easy it is to leave a soldier on deployment. You can do it with a letter. (He can't argue with you. He doesn't have a phone.) If you lay the groundwork early, saying to the soldier before he leaves, "This will be the end of us, we might as well admit it," it's that much easier. The letter won't even come as a shock.

And if you have children with that soldier? You can handle all that with a letter, too. He'll write it -- because he cares about the kids, because he wants to work with you to do what's best for them even though you're leaving him -- and you'll give it to them. Here again, you will avoid a nasty confrontation. Who will they cry to? You? You're just the teary-eyed bearer of the letter. Him? The one who's sweating it out in the desert?

There will be no moving truck, no boxes, no house torn asunder. The soldier is peeing in a bucket as you pack. He doesn't care who gets the couch.

The only real consolation is that he's better off without her. Cassy Fiano does a great job in taking her down at Hot Air so I don't have that much to add, except a comment on Cook's conclusion. She described a painful scene, when her son joined the military also:

At the end of the day, my children's father called me to tell me that our son was already standing straighter and taller in his new uniform, that he'd handled the equipment issue, medical tests, immunizations and drills without any trouble.

"He will be OK," his Dad said. "It will be the making of him."

I believe my former soldier, but I'm afraid of what it's going to feel like to love my new one.

So are you going to abandon him as well?

Click here to continue reading...

Week Roundup

An Arctic Least Weasel. Photographer unknown, but origin is here

I've been busy, yadda yadda yadda. Here's some old, some new:

SWEDEN: Jews are fleeing the city of Malmö (which has the country's largest Muslim immigrant population) in droves, due to threats of violence and actual violence. I just can't help but think that if this story were the other way around, the mainstream media might actually mention it. This story comes from The Local, Sweden's Daily news in English. Note that comments were inexplicably disabled for this story.


UNITED KINGDOM: The Daily Mail reported that a staggering 1 in 7 inmates in the country is a foreign national. The number is even more shocking when you consider that does not include naturalized citizens. The largest groups are from Jamaica, Nigeria, and Ireland, in that order (I wonder if many of those are from their previous conflicts with the IRA?). When a country like the UK can't even deport a admitted murderer of two doctors, it's no wonder their facilities are a little crowded.

FRANCE: Some sanity here. France has refused to grant citizenship to a Moroccan man who forced his wife to wear the burqa.

BANGLADESH: Rape victim received 101 lashes for becoming pregnant. "Muslim elders" had issued a fatwa demanding the punishment. To add insult to injury, her father was fined as well. This being Islamic justice, naturally the rapist was not punished.

USA: Sheer insanity. Boy disciplined for bringing a toy gun to school. A two-inch toy gun (if that). It belonged to one of his Lego figures. Is it too late now to simply go back to the era of common sense?

USA: Bicycle helmet laws significantly reduce bicycling. The article blames it on cost and stigma. I know that when I was a kid, the only children who would wear bicycle helmets were ones with epilepsy, so there was definitely a stigma there. These laws are well-intentioned, but like many other things, they do more harm than good. Not only do these laws expand the nanny state even further, but they are another in a long list of reasons why children are so obese these days. In Europe, unlike America, you see elderly people (slowly) riding bicycles all the time. They would never wear a helmet, and it's silly anyway when you are never going over 10 mph.

BELGIUM: A 26 year old woman is the latest victim of the First World War. As in that war in 1914-1918. No joke.

USA: Some people are making political hay over this non-issue of Sarah Palin using crib notes written on her hand during an interview. But she wasn't taking a test, so what is the problem? Would anyone really mention this if she had simply wrote them in a small notepad instead?

Share
|

Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my  RSS Feed

Click here to continue reading...

"Don't Ask Don't Tell" is on the way out

It's pretty much inevitable at this point. The President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs all support scrapping the policy. I also support ending the policy, although my reasons are very different from theirs. Simply put, why should gays get a free ticket out of their service while everyone else cannot?

In my 16 years of service, I personally have known only two soldiers who admitted they were gay. Both were women, and while they didn't advertise it, their orientation was common knowledge to many. Nothing happened to them because nobody cared. I have also known two males who were discharged for openly announcing being gay, and most people believed that neither were gay, but just using it as an easy way out of their contract. And that's the real heart of the problem.

Essentially, attitudes have changed, with unexpected consequences. Once upon a time, there was a pretty effective deterrent against people making false claims of homosexuality in order to get out of military service. Nobody wanted that as part of their permanent discharge record for any prospective employer to see. But times have changed, and for better or worse, being labeled "gay" doesn't have the same social stigma anymore. In fact, it could probably help you get a job in many circles.

But policy change isn't going to happen overnight. Those who are crazy with impatience with the President for not ending this policy should understand that it isn't that simple (although most of them are people who wouldn't go anywhere near the military themselves). There are a lot of complications here.

First of all, the law, which Obama simply cannot change himself. And just repealing "don't ask don't tell" would bring us back to 1992 with gays still not allowed to serve. Congress needs to change Section 654, Title 10 the United States Code. Quote:

(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.
(14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

The "unit cohesion" argument is valid, however, I think it doesn't apply to most of the military any more. But it does apply in some cases: I would not support homosexuals serving aboard submarines, for one example (but that would just join a long list of personality traits that already disqualify people from submarine duty).

Second of all, and perhaps most importantly, how do those serving in the military feel about it? Is anyone asking them? According to a 2006 Zogby poll, only 26% were in favor of gays serving openly, 37% against, and the rest either not certain or with no opinion. Do you really want to rush this?

Some other hurdles are either unpleasant to think about, and others are outright funny. What happens with gay spouses? Will they get the same housing, health care, benefits, etc, as other spouses do?

What about so-called 'visitation policies'? Across most of the military, on board ships, and at the service academies, single military members live in housing or barracks with at least one roommate. Specific policies differ across the board, but all of them have some kinds of restrictions on members of the opposite sex in your room. So in other words, a gay service member can have his/her lover with him/her all night long, while a straight one has no such option. Effectively you are actually rewarding homosexuality and punishing someone for being heterosexual. It would seem to make sense then to simply scrap these policies as well. But they are in place specifically because of complaints over rapes and sexual assaults - so it's a Catch-22. I say just drop these policies too and treat military members like adults again.

Go ahead and change the code, and repeal DADT. But don't rush this, and do it in a smart manner.



Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my  RSS Feed

Click here to continue reading...

Kim Jong-Il, a "right winger"?

What happens when left-leaning authors like Brian Reynolds Myers (Green party supporter and vegan) and Christopher Hitchens (admirer of Karl Marx) try to make sense of the horror and evil of Kim Jong-Il's North Korea?

They turn Kim into a right-winger of course! From Hitchens' column at Slate:

I understand now that I got the picture either upside down or inside out...Myers makes a persuasive case that we should instead regard the Kim Jong-il system as a phenomenon of the very extreme and pathological right. It is based on totalitarian "military first" mobilization, is maintained by slave labor, and instills an ideology of the most unapologetic racism and xenophobia.

Now don't get me wrong - I don't want to oversimplify things here. There's nothing wrong with being a Green Party supporter and I'm not really trying to take a dig at Myer's book (of which this is probably a very minor criticism). Hitchens is also not a typical leftist - he supported the Iraq War after all. But the point is, if they try to reframe Kim Jong-Il's state as a right-wing regime, then they risk oversimplifying things here. I also can't help but think they are turning Kim into the villain they want him to be - kind of like right-wing people who try to make Hitler out to be a leftist because the word "Nazi" was partially an amalgamation from the word "socialist".

I do agree that North Korea isn't a purely communist state, but then neither were the USSR or China. It's certainly a centrally planned economy, with a state that only reluctantly allows any free enterprise at all (unless the government is getting its cut), just like all the others. And certainly North Korea is awash with racism (South Korea is pretty bad in that regard as well). But then again, Stalin's regime was as anti-Jew as they come, and Mao's China was rejected anyone or anything that wasn't pure Chinese. And come to think of it, they were also extremely "militaristic", along with their own personality cults to boot.

In fact, is there really a substantive difference between North Korea, the USSR, China, Cambodia, Romania, East Germany, etc, at the time of their communist ideological peak?

P.S.: I may be quibbling here. The rest of the article itself is still worth a read.

Click here to continue reading...