Tuesday
Aug172010
More Ken Samples! HBO's "The Pacific" and Just War Theory
Tuesday, August 17, 2010 at 07:02PM 
Good stuff from Ken!
Here's the link: http://reasons.edgeboss.net/download/reasons/straightthinking/st78-080310.mp3
Tuesday, August 17, 2010 at 07:02PM
Reader Comments (15)
Then, based on his conversations with his father and his viewing of the TV series "Band of Brothers," (not citing any Bible verses), he says, "When you're on a battle field, it's hard to introduce moral categories that you should follow. It is easy to think that it is 'kill or be killed,' and so some of these ideas that, 'you don't take it out on civilians,' 'you don't use excessive force,' it's very easy for the human being to have an appeal to the worst part of you, rather than to the more just part of you. And so, Joe, some people have said that Just War Theory is unrealistic in its expectations." Okay. That's why we introduce moral categories BEFORE entering the battlefield. That's what the rules of engagement are for, no? Didn't the Nuremburg Trials make it clear that an individual IS to be held accountable for having their conscience guide their wartime actions?
"Others have said that it's [Just War Theory] not terribly workable." Yah. Like the Nazis.
"Some good and decent Marines were put into a very difficult situation, and the way they tried to survive is they became mean. They became War Itself." So what, exactly, makes them "good and decent?" How monstrous would they have to become for you to say they're not good and decent?
"On the other hand war is so brutal, and so difficult, that the Marine Corps felt that, in order to help my guy survive, he's gotta become War Itself." He's gotta become an unthinking killer, huh? With these equivocating statements, it is very easy to justify war crimes.
"Whole world--Civilization is at stake here, and these fascist ideologies have enslaved people, are murdering people, and the only way we can break out of this is to become meaner and tougher than our enemy. " No, the Whole World is not at stake if a soldier doesn't kill civilians. But his soul is in danger if he does. You bet Civilization is at stake when you kill civilians and use excessive force. When you kill Iraqi farmers from a helicopter just working their fields and slaughter Afghan pregnant women in their homes! Samples here is engaging in the logical fallacy of Two Wrongs Equals a Right.
"Sometimes you're in a situation of the Lesser of Two Evils." Okay. Where does the bible allow this? The lesser of two evils is still evil!
Whoa. I actually heard him imply that the end justifies the means. Brainwash-Alert! Brainwash-Alert! Sounds like someone's doing a little damage control after the WikiLeaks exposes!
"I don't think in the nuclear age you wanna wait until the very last moment. You may see a mushroom cloud." Ugh! I just can't stand when Christians get involved in this fear-mongering to prep the public for the War On Iran we all know is coming whether the citizenry wants it or not. The Whole World knows that the most bellicose nation in the world (US) has nuclear weapons, and unfortunately for Iraq and Afghanistan and Iran, they just keep minding their own business, and look who attacks whom!
I'm very wary when Christians start using their religious forums to justify unprovoked attacks ("preemptive strikes"). There is nothing more evil, more Nazi-esque.
Does he, at any point in the interview, remind the listener that the Nazis initiated an unjust war, and were doing just that? "Preemptive strikes?" Playing the aggressor with trumped-up accusations to get the citizenry to go along? Does he remind us that America should be careful to never behave that way? Nope.
As much as I learned from Professor Ken Samples on Sundays at 9am, I'd love to get him to the crux of the matter with this question: "What do you think of Julian Assange, founder and spokesman of Wikileaks?" He's probably call this heroic man "dangerous."
Or, if you want to see a good interview introducing you to Julian Assange and what his group is doing, here's an interview on TED Talks (the link below). Something just gives me a feeling that there's a real connection between this and the recent airing of "The Pacific," as well as Professor Samples' talk on war.
http://www.ted.com/talks/julian_assange_why_the_world_needs_wikileaks.html
The unfortunate thing is that the Marine Corps has not lost this mentality of becoming war. Go down to MCRD San Diego and hear what the recruits shout before eating in the chow hall..."Kill, Kill, Kill them all." Or go to Camp Pendleton and listen to some of the running cadences that are sung. "Drop the Napalm on the children."
How can I, as a Christian who is seeking to redeem culture and eradicate unrighteousness, be affiliated with this organization? This is very difficult.
Can a Christian be a marine, in good conscience? Are you buying into the ideology of a thirst for blood if you associate with this organization? I first tried to explain it by saying that I am here as a 'beacon for the gospel in a dark environment' but the sad reality is that one person without a star on his collar can do absolutely nothing but be an example....ah, the joys of wrestling with theological issues, you have to simultaneously reassess your allegiances.
Any thoughts Kim?
Congress has oversight of the military. Whether congress is doing its job in overseeing the military is one thing. Releasing classified documents and endangering lives is another. I think what the wikileaks proprietor is doing is dangerous, and perhaps even treasonous.
As for your issue with Ken, he can speak for himself, if he so wishes.
Anonymous:
You raise a number of important questions which deserve answers--but a comment section on a blog is hardly the place to do it. Contact me personally, if you wish.
Your ultimate answer will be found in understanding the distinction between the civil kingdom and the kingdom of Christ. Your job as a Marine is to defend your country--and I for one am very grateful for all you guys do to keep us safe.
If your conscience is troubled, then don't re-up when your term is over. In the meantime, shoot straight and remember that Jesus never condemned the centurion (Matthew 8:5-13), and God even used a member of the Italian Cohort to spread the gospel (Acts 10:1-2).
God gives the government the sword for a reason--to keep the peace by punishing wrong-doers. The culture of the Marine Corps is an issue I cannot address, having no first-hand knowledge. Can any former Marines speak to this?
I don't want to take up a lot of space on pastor Riddlebarger's blog so this will be my only response to you and I'll keep my comments brief. However, I must say that your comments are somewhat difficult to respond to in an orderly fashion because they are emotive in nature and somewhat scattered.
1. There's no contradiction in saying that Just War Theory is the most reasonable and viable approach to thinking about the ethical issue of war and that combat veterans under terrible duress nonetheless have difficulty following all the lofty moral ideals of this system. None of us keep our moral ideals perfectly and combat soldiers have an even greater difficulty because they are often pitted in a literal life-and-death struggle. And yes, good and descent people are sometimes capable of terrible acts of violence especially when when faced with the unparalleled challenges of warfare. Combat veterans who hold a Christian world-and-life view like my father often wrestle for years with the moral decisions that they had to make in the bloodiest war in human history. I think such noble warriors deserve our respect, gratitude, and sincere sympathy.
2. I don't know if you have actually read much about Just War Theory (see my articles at reasons.org), but while I hold the theory to be morally and logically viable that doesn't mean it's completely without weaknesses. Christian ethicists have criticized the viewpoint for being at some points impractical and in a nuclear age too defensive in nature. And some Christian ethicists view the possibility of a preemptive strike in certain circumstances as being consistent with a Christian moral perspective (see Moreland and Geisler in The Life and Death Debate).
3. Apparently unlike you, Jenny, some Christian ethicists do think that life and especially combat circumstances present people with circumstances of the lesser of two evils. Read the book Four Views of War for differing Christian perspectives on this difficult issue. Combat circumstances are sometimes extremely trying and morally ambiguous. You might benefit from talking with some war veterans who have actually faced the moral fog of war.
4. Regarding the Wikileaks controversy, I agree with pastor Riddlebarger's assessment.
In closing, Jenny, I want to commend to you an article that I recently wrote about logically evaluating big government conspiracy theories (see the New Reasons to Believe e-Zine online). I think it can serve as a healthy check in thinking through conspiratorial claims. To finally quote a Bible verse: "Test everything. Hold on to the good" (1 Thess. 5:21).
Respectfully,
Kenneth Samples
Perfect - this is probably the most concise, clear and pastoral explanation of the 2k model possible. "Shoot straight and remember that Jesus never condemned the centurion." This phrase belongs in a movie.
What conspiratorial claims, Professor Samples?
Professor Samples, I think it's gracious of you to reply. My email address is robinsong@lavabit.com
To reply to your statement #1: True, but you went beyond simply pointing out how combat veterans have a hard time fulfilling the lofty ideals of Just War Theory. Pointing that fact out would be a great segue to teaching soldiers Christian principles of defending the weak and defenseless, even the weak and defenseless amongst the enemy nation, should the need or opportunity arise. A good Christian soldier need not abandon the Second Greatest Commandment to "love thy neighbor as thyself" (Luke 10:27).
I put little stock in ethicists. I have one authority: The Holy Bible; and I lean heavily on the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards for interpretation. The WCF gives specific limits under which the magistrate may wage war (Ch. 23). Remember, Revelation 17:14: "These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful."(KJV) If I was a soldier in the days of the Last Battle, I would NOT want to be fighting against the Lamb, no matter what my superiors say! So Christians soldiers must be discerning about just what it is that's being required of them before they choose to carry it out. Westminster Larger Catechism (Q. 136) gives 3 exceptions to the 6th commandment condemnation against killing others: "publick justice, lawful war, or necessary defence." But since the 6th commandment is required of individuals, not institutions, individuals must discern whether or not those three exceptions apply in any given situation. A Free Press (reporters) can be an aid in getting the facts needed to wisely discern that. Christians soldiers are free in Christ. Free to fight lawfully, not unlawfully. Ephesians 6:6 tells us to obey our superiors in Christ, lawfully, "doing the will of God from the heart."
Also from WLC, Q. 136, "provoking words" are a breaking of the 6th commandment. "A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger." (Pr. 15:1).
"Drop the Napalm on the children" doubtless qualifies as "grievous words." A military that incites soldiers to wrathful, hateful, vengeful acts is a military that prepares them for unlawful war. The commanders have to do that to drown out their soldiers' guilt mechanism.
Providence has place me in a massive city with no less than 4 military installations (San Antonio, TX). I stand in line at Panera and the post office with young men and women in fatigues. I have worshipped at 3 different Reformed Churches here, ALL of which have a high percentage of military in the congregation. I call them my brethren in Christ. My heart grieves deeply that NO ONE here cares enough for their souls to explain to them the difference between lawful war and atrocities.
"Trust in the LORD with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding." (Pr. 3:5). "Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil." (Pr. 3:7).
Professor Samples, while leaning on human understanding and enhancing ambiguity, you very narrowly escaped defending attacks on the defenseless. But you get plausible deniability because you said "some have said . . . " A soldier killing the enemy soldier in a lawful war is justifiable. He acts in self-defense. A soldier killing any civilian in any country, not in self-defense, is breaking the 6th commandment. If he commits murder, a guilty conscience is a blessing that should lead him to repentance, which is a blessing that leads to forgiveness in Christ.
Could you introduce me to a good and decent person?
" . . . there is none that doeth good, no, not one." Romans 3:12.
I do believe, however, that even born-again Christians are capable of Nazi-like atrocities (there, but for the grace of God, go I!) and that the atonement of Christ through faith alone is sufficient for even the worst of sins. Thank God our military allows for conscientious objection, if that is what one must do to avoid committing out-and-out murder.
The problem I see is today's military men and women undergo training that works repetitively to overrule a person's natural sense of guilt over killing the defenseless. This dehumanizes. The Nazis did this with impunity. In killing or maiming the defenseless, "I was only following orders" is no defense. I know you are familiar with the Nuremburg Trials. Surely you would not say that the phrase "war crime" is a contradiction in terms. There is such a thing, is there not? What about "crime against humanity?" Where do YOU draw the line?
Once a soldier, through repetitive songs, cadences, and chants, silences his conscience from telling him not to murder the defenseless in cold blood, how long before his conscience is forever seared beyond repentance? I tremble to think about it. Praise God that his grace is never beyond the reach of anyone with a broken and contrite heart.
Dr. Riddlebarger, may I say with all due respect:
This nation is not involved in a lawful war (a la WLC 136) by the standards of the law of the land, which is the Constitution. But if it were, it could easily morph into an unlawful war (by the standards of the Bible) later on. In which case an informed populace has the right to withdraw their consent.
In the US, the consent of the government is required by the law of the land. How can that be obtained if the governed are not fully informed as to what they're paying for? Americans would never knowingly consent to foot the bill for cold-blooded massacres and the like, so if that sort of warring goes on, consent needs to be manufactured by hiding the truth and calling it "classified" to make well-intentioned people afraid to inform the citizenry.
Wikileaks is merely filling a massive vacuum left by the current ineptitude of the Fourth Estate. The wikileaks exposes don't endanger our soldiers lives because 1. The events exposed occurred many months to even years before they're leaked. Troop movements have changed. 2. The events exposed by wikileaks are not news to the common man in Iraq or Afghanistan; it's their daily lives. Anyone who wants to attack us on the ground already knew about these things long before wikileaks told the rest of the world. So the only ones it really affects are the ones whose knowledge can truly bring about justice in the war: US citizens. Shouldn't Americans know the true nature of how our military is conducting its operations at least as well as the commoners in occupied nations do?
The Founding Fathers knew the dangers of the citizenry losing control of its military. That military eventually turns on the citizenry. Happened in Rome. Already happened here in colonial days. God forbid it should happen here again.
Thanks for your patience with my comments.
I find your comments above emotively inflammatory and logically convoluted in nature.
As one Christian to another, I hope you'll give careful considerations to the following points:
1. If you are going to publicly critique other people's work and make accusations about their scholarship and character then you should use your real name (or full name). It demonstrates more intellectual integrity and responsibility. To many people in the Internet age use anonymity on the Web to cloak their inappropriate behavior.
2. Ever hear of the Golden Rule of Apologetics (1 Peter 3:15-17)? It asserts that a Christian should treat other peoples' ideas and arguments they way they want theirs treated. A genuine Christian theological critique of the viewpoints of others should be characterized by honesty, fair play, and by the willingness to give your opponent the benefit of the doubt. This approach involves a willingness to read their statements of belief in the best and truest light possible.
Unfortunately, your long and scattered responses misrepresent what I said in the podcast and you have made numerous uncharitable accusations by implication.
Here's just a few of your mistakes in reasoning and uncharitable implications followed by my response:
* Failing to recognize proper context:
Jenny: "based on his conversations with his father and his viewing of the TV series "Band of Brothers," (not citing any Bible verses), he says..."
My response: The clearly stated focus of the podcast was not a formal lecture on theories of war but an evaluation of the HBO series "The Pacific" in light of Just War Theory. I made no mention of such conflicts as Iraq and Afghanistan.
Casting Theological aspersions:
Jenny: "not citing any Bible verses"
My response: Are you implying that I don't believe in the supreme authority of Scripture? See chapter 7 of my book A World of Difference were I explain and defend the protestant principle of Sola Scriptura.
* Uses of motive language:
Jenny: "Am I the only one who hears Professor Samples talking out of both sides of his mouth here?"
My response: Why not state the question in terms of logical consistency? Why resort to emotional charged language that unfairly places your opponent in an unfair position?
More emotive language & poisoning the well:
'Sometimes you're in a situation of the Lesser of Two Evils.' "Okay. Where does the bible allow this? The lesser of two evils is still evil!
Whoa. I actually heard him imply that the end justifies the means. Brainwash-Alert! Brainwash-Alert!"
My Response: Lutheran scholar John Warwick Montgomery has said that lying to the Nazis to protect Jews during the holocaust was still lying. So your dismissal of the lesser of two evils idea is not held by all Christians. I guess some Christians actually disagree with your private interpretation of the biblical text.
Ad hominem (impugning character):
'Others have said that it's [Just War Theory] not terribly workable' "Yah. Like the Nazis."
My response: No, Jenny, not everyone who is critical of aspects of Just War Theory is a Nazi. Even Christian scholars have made criticisms of this theory. But then again, this response probably will not carry much weight with you because you have stated that you don't trust scholarship.
Straw Man tactics:
Jenny: "I'm very wary when Christians start using their religious forums to justify unprovoked attacks ("preemptive strikes"). There is nothing more evil, more Nazi-esque."
My response: Jenny's accusation is a total misreprestation of what was said concerning preemptive strikes. Though J.P. Moreland and Norman Geisler make a forceful case for the morality of preemptive strikes under certain circumstances.
Category mistake:
Jenny: "Could you introduce me to a good and decent person?"
" . . . there is none that doeth good, no, not one." Romans 3:12.
My response: Don't confuse the theological category of total depravity with basic principles of morality. Even fallen sinners reflect the Imago Dei and are capable of doing good things, how much more those who are being transformed by the saving grace of God.
Rash and presumptive judgments:
Jenny: "Professor Samples, while leaning on human understanding and enhancing ambiguity, you very narrowly escaped defending attacks on the defenseless."
My response: Jenny's ability to judge the hearts and intents of fellow believers is amazingly presumptive and uncharitable.
Jenny, I could point out many other mistakes you have made in your diatribe but frankly I don't have the time. I'm working on a new book to help Christians to think carefully about their faith.
I strongly urge you to read deeply from many scholars who have devoted their lives to applying the Christian world-and-life view to the challenging issue of war. You can start by reading Reformed theologian John Jefferson Davis' excellent chapter on war in his book Evangelical ethics.
Finally, as one Christian to another, I hope in the future you will be much more careful in how you characterize the works of other Christians and avoid character assassination by implication.
Maybe you should show your written comments here (and mine) to your pastor and ask him for an honest assessment of your points and the manner you have presented them.
Kenneth Samples
I am truly sorry to hear that you are having such qualms about the Corps. Did you come to your reservations about war and the Corps recently? I ask because it seems strange to me that if these views are longstanding why you chose to join (of all branches of the service) the Marines! An organization that advertises that they are “the first to fight;” glories so much about its martial history (at such battles as Chapultepec, Teutoburg Forest, Wake Island, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Chosin Reservoir, Khe Sanh) that they imprint it on their recruits and let movies be made about them. They don’t mislead anyone as to what kind of organization they are. If your concerns developed after you joined the Corps, it seems strange to me that you would re-enlist or retain your commission/warrant. I have been to Camp Pendleton and MCRD San Diego, my experience is that the recruits can sing all they want about killing Jody or Suzie it does not mean they are going to do it—or even that they are pre-disposed to do it. To me the calls were geared to motivating Marines to do better on their PFTs than anything else. Cadence calls that I heard tended to be more about strength, courage, sacrifice (My Marine Corps Color is Red/ It shows the world the blood we shed). It’s corny but at night the recruits end their day singing the Marine Hymn with its lines about fighting the countries battles in every land from dawn to setting sun of being proud to serve in every clime and place that they could take a gun also and keeping their honor clean. This is not to say every Marine met that goal. But it does set a more complete picture. But we all have our views and Dr. Riddlebarger’s advice is sound. If you have reservations about being in the Marine Corps, finish up your tour and do not re-up again or if your concerns are so great you cannot wait, find a chaplain and declare yourself a Conscientious Objector.
I could write more but I don’t want to take up too much time and space and you anonymous did not give any more concrete objections than recruit battle cries and cadence calls. Others are much better equipped to talk about this than me, but I would like to reiterate what Dr. Riddlebarger said, Anonymous, that an understanding of two kingdoms and natural law might help you in your struggles. I may be wrong but it seems to me you are upset that the Kingdom of Man is not more like the Kingdom of God than has been ordained—which is natural but also why it is people that need to be redeemed. After all, if we were to eradicate all unrighteousness in the world we would have start with me…and you.
And Jenny,
What you did to Professor Sample’s interview was misleading, self-serving, self-righteous and hypocritical. He was on that show to talk about “Band of Brothers” and “the Pacific” he never mentioned Iraq, Afghanistan, Wikileaks or many of the other vile things you imputed to him. Yet, you chastise him for not bringing it up in his interview? You quote the Westminster Standards on not using grievous words. What are describing Professor Samples as: “talking out both sides of his mouth” “Brainwash”, “fear mongering”, etc? Are these words of encouragement and love? Would it have been so difficult to preface your remarks with, "I know Dr Samples did not talk about any of this but I would like to talk about my opinions on Iraq, Afghanistan and Wikileaks"? I could probably ask why you do not apply the same standards you have for others to yourself? Why do expect perfect obedience from people who have defended your life and liberty when you cannot adhere to lesser commandments? Have you in your posting loved your neighbor as yourself? I suppose it could be argued that that the goal of proselytizing about supposed war crimes justify deceit and hypocrisy. But to apply your own standard, where is the justification of the lesser evil allowed in the Bible? And please also consider that you are sitting relative comfort and safety as you wrote those awful things. The men that Professor Samples was actually speaking of were desperately fighting for their lives against Japanese enemies that were utterly bent on killing them all. As relayed by E.B. Sledge and others, they were under combat conditions and went days and even weeks without meaningful sleep, suffered dysentery, jungle rot, battle fatigue and other numerous other privations most of us could not imagine. This does not justify every action they did, Sledge and others would freely admit to that. But they deserve better than to have their whole lives be self-righteously dismissed by you as not decent or lumped together with the Nazis. WWII Pacific Theater US Marines and soldiers did not round up 6 million people gas them and burn them in ovens, they did not kill 2.5 million like the Khmer Rouge or 10+million that Stalin likely killed. The actions of these soldiers, sailors an Marines, stopped the Imperial Japanese Army which had perpetrated the Rape of Nanjing, The Bataan Death March, and the rape of the Korean "comfort women" (facts that in your rush to declare America the most bellicose nation, you utterly failed to mention). Now it might be said that my posting here is a terrible hatchet job of Jenny’s posting and I might have even put words in her mouth that she never intended to mean or say. All I can say to that is I suspect Professor Samples knows how she feels.
Semper Fidelis
PS If as you imply, Jenny, releasing the Wikileaks documents (again noting Professor Samples NEVER initially mentioned it at all) does no harm why has Amnesty International criticized Wikileaks for putting civilians who have helped the US in danger? Why did you not mention this Jenny? Is it because these civilian lives are meaningless as they help the evil American military? Why don’t you hold Wikileaks to the same high standards you hold the US military to?
I can understand in part what you are going through. I too was in the military for a short time, and am now glad be done with it. I was not in the Marines, but in the Army National Guard. I left the military disillusioned with my most disgusting and awful experience ever.
I can't speak for everyone, but as Christian who is concerned with morality, I would advise anyone that is morally minded to be aware before enlisting; I would go so far as to discourage a Christian from joining, or anyone who is concerned with morality. I know what you went through when hearing and being forced say things and to sing those type of cadences that made me cringe. I view it as a culture of death. I remember one recruiter saying after I enlisted, "I love infantry, 'cause you get to kill people." "Sound" guy, those cadences are not simply sung for no reason, it's part of military indoctrination. Killing is part of the mindset of many. The military doesn't make us moral, it makes us disciplined, it trains us for war and it's requirements; perhaps I should say that it makes us into killing machines, and I mean machines. We enlisted soldiers have no voice, we have to shut up and do as we are told. Anonymous you are correct, unless someone is an officer or in some significant leadership position, you can't change any practices. One of the most disgusting things I remember was hearing a fellow recruit say that he didn't care if he killed a child, he would do it without a problem; I felt physically sick when he said that, and thinking back on it I feel like I should have smacked him across the face.
Perhaps those who wish to become officers can have a better experience and fewer problems dealing with moral issues. Which is why I don't just flat out say that no one should join the military. Just be prepared to suffer the consequences for not going along with what you know is not right. Like me, you may feel alone at times and feel the pressure of the environment. I think pastor Kim gave you good advice Anonymous. I will try to remember you in my prayers, because I can empathize with what you are going through, at least to some degree.
Ouch! Score one for the Sound Guy.
Jenny is my nickname. Most people call me that.
Jennifer Robin Abrenica is my full name. I am a member of Christ Reformed Church, Anaheim. I sat under your teaching for 4 years, and you know me. You gave me a personally-autographed copy of your book "Without a Doubt" with this enscription: "Jenny: Salvation by grace (Eph 2:8-10). Warm Regards, Ken Samples". Thanks again for the book, by the way.
And my pastor has seen both my comments and yours here. It is up to him whether he wishes to give an honest assessment of my points and the manner in which I have presented them. I know he takes his calling seriously, and I know he is a defender of truth, fearing God rather than man.
Although I could say more, I have no need for further comments. All I wanted to bring to light is now self-evident.
The link above is for a very helpful chart for the confused brethren. I have been helped by it when I was confused. It's entitled "Brainwashing and How to Resist It."
An example from the Chart:
MIND-CHANGING TACTICS: Produce Mental and Moral Confusion through contemporary books and stories (cognitive dissonance)
HOW TO RESIST: God's Word
SCRIPTURES: Know the Truth (I Samuel 17:37 and Ephesians 6:10-18)
The Marine Corps must build and have ingrained a culture of war in order for Marines to do their jobs correctly. And their job is to protect our Nation which is a beacon and a light to the rest of the world showing God's providence, love and grace.
War is not pretty and bad things happen in it and a Marine must be able and willing to Kill (not murder) in order for wars to be won. We fight for God, Country, Corps and Chesty.
Don't be hard on yourself for being a member of the greatest fighting force the world has ever seen or known.
Hippies cannot protect this nation, but God created the Marine Corps to protect it.
Goodnight Chesty where ever you are.
Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Marines don't have that problem.
Ronald Reagan, President of the United States; 1985