On Heros and Douchebags

The thoughtful writer always keeps his audience in mind and writes accordingly. This is very difficult to do with a blog such as this because I have no way of controlling, and very little way of even knowing who my readers are. I therefore sometimes feel I have to explain certain things to a more granular level than would otherwise seem necessary. This is one of those times.

My politics fall on the libertarian/minarchist/voluntarism/anti-statist end of the spectrum. Intellectually, morally, and philosophically I have a great deal in common with many others of the same bent. However, most of the people I encounter in such circles are somewhat... soft. I encounter very few such people who are experts in martial arts, or who are highly skilled with guns, or who show much in the way of a “warrior spirit”, at least in the sense that it relates to physical combat. Additionally, many such people have great disdain for all professional warriors.

On the other hand, warriors are born not made, and I was born a warrior. I started training in martial arts and shooting when I was barely a teenager, and I've spent many thousands of hours training with highly skilled men. I understand and appreciate the camaraderie that develops among men who train together in the “warrior arts”. However, most such men I've encountered have been what I'll call “intellectually straightforward” and think only inside the box. This doesn't mean that they are unintelligent, but the higher moral and intellectual issues that the minarchist and libertarian deal with regularly just aren't on their radar. Such warriors also often exhibit contempt for the “soft intellectuals” described above.

Basically, I self-identify with two groups that are almost mutually exclusive, and that often have great disdain for each other. The intellectual libertarian can be offended that I sometimes teach police officers how to shoot, and the professional LEO can be offended when I point out the great abuses of power that are absolutely rampant in the US today, and which they help support.

With that as backdrop...

General Stanley McChrystal is the type of warrior that many consider a national hero. His military accomplishments and credentials are beyond impressive by any measure. From his graduation from West Point, to his training as an Infantry and Special Forces officer, to his various commands over his 34 year career, he achieved what very few men are capable of. Also, the circumstances surrounding his forced resignation where he allegedly criticized the civilian leadership as buffoons only increased his reputation. (Most informed warriors consider the current administration to be a bunch of buffoons.)

In short, General McChrystal is (was) a “soldier's soldier”, and is very highly regarded by many skilled warriors. Many would go so far as to call him a great American patriot and hero.

However, earlier this year he went on MSNBC and said this:

I'm sorry, but if you spend an entire career training to kill people, and actually killing people supposedly in support and defense of the US Constitution, and then very publicly suborn treason against that very same document, you do not deserve to be called a hero. You, Stanley McChrystal, are a douchebag.

I have to say that again - if you spend an entire career training to kill people and actually killing people supposedly in support and defense of the US Constitution, and then very publicly suborn treason against that very same document, you are a douchebag.

One criticism that some of the intellectuals that I described above make towards all professional warriors is that they are just hired killers with no honor.  I know for a fact that this is false, as there are some professional warriors who are men of great honor and are doing the best they can under the current circumstances.  See here for my earlier post that describes the opinion of most warriors on this issue (and of ALL warriors who take their oath to the Constitution seriously).

It is the words (and actions) of former General Stanley McChrystal and men like him that greatly contributes to the level of distrust and contempt that many people have towards professional warriors.

I don't know which of the groups I described at the beginning of this post will hate me more now. Will it be the intellectual libertarians who are disgusted at my praise of General McChrystal, or the warriors who are disgusted that I would call such an illustrious figure a douchebag?