The Only Good SEAL Is a Dead SEAL

David C. Stolinsky, MD
Nov. 30, 2009

This title may be an exaggeration, but not by much. It refers to the cruel comment supposedly made by Gen. Sheridan in 1869: “The only good Indians I ever saw were dead.” But at least Sheridan was fighting Native Americans. What excuse is there for ill feeling toward our own troops?

The dead SEALS.

“Sole Survivor” is the story of Marcus Luttrell, a Navy SEAL who was the only member of his four-man team to survive a fight with a much larger force of Taliban in Afghanistan.

The team might have succeeded in their mission of capturing or killing a Taliban leader, and all returned alive, had they not made a fateful decision. As they lay concealed, three Afghan goatherds blundered onto them. Had they killed the three, things might have gone well. But they decided to let the Afghans go − and probably report their position to the Taliban. They made this decision for humanitarian reasons, but also because they were afraid of being prosecuted if they killed the Afghans. SEALS rarely admit to fearing anything. That they had reason to fear their own government shows how political correctness has impaired our ability to fight wars.

The book left me filled with admiration for these men. The team leader, Michael Murphy, was awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously, while Luttrell received the Navy Cross.

But I felt irritation as well as admiration. Their training and weapons were far superior to those of their enemies. They were the most highly skilled warriors in history. But low-tech weapons and superior numbers overcame them, and only one of the four lived to see home again.

Sometimes what is needed is not a small group of elite troops, but larger numbers of ordinary troops. Sometimes what is needed is not eight years of a “light footprint,” but one year of a size 14 boot-stomp, followed by rebuilding. We can’t afford to trade our few highly trained elite for their numerous cannon fodder.

Bin Laden said, “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.” If we hope to prevail, we must be the strong horse. Or we can just forget the whole thing and go out to stud − assuming that we still can propagate. Geldings don’t do well at stud.

If President Obama ever makes a decision, our troops in Afghanistan may get the reinforcements they need. Meanwhile, we have proved that we know how to honor our bravest − but only if they are dead.

The Somali pirates.

This April, Somali pirates took over the Maersk Alabama, a U.S.-flagged container ship. They seized Capt. Richard Phillips and held him aboard a lifeboat for five days. The destroyer USS Bainbridge arrived, but negotiations led nowhere.

Reportedly, the White House issued rules of engagement under which force could be used only if Phillip’s life was in imminent danger. Of course, with AK47s pointed at him, his life was in constant danger. Navy SEAL snipers were positioned on the Bainbridge, but rolling seas made the shot difficult.

The pirates became agitated, and the on-site commander gave the order to shoot. Waiting till the three pirates exposed themselves, the three SEALs fired simultaneously, leaving the pirates no opportunity to kill Phillips, who was rescued.

Now, however, there is a report that the White House rules were even more restrictive than we believed, and that the White House and Pentagon elite were infuriated that their unrealistic orders were disobeyed − no matter how favorable the outcome. Bureaucrats often value their own egos and careers more than they value the lives of others.

Is this report accurate? There is no way to be sure, but it sounds all too true. Bureaucrats never admit mistakes − and they can wait patiently for revenge.

The terrorist with a fat lip.

Recently, SEALs captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq. This creature was responsible for killing four American contractors in 2004, then mutilating their bodies and hanging them from a bridge. The photos are revolting.

One might think this is medal time. Instead, it is court-martial time. Three SEALs are being charged with assault, because the poor fellow complained that someone punched him, causing a swollen lip. He mutilates and kills prisoners, then hangs their bodies. But suddenly he becomes so delicate that one punch leaves him traumatized. Really?

Was the terrorist lying? Who can prove how he injured his lip? Was the punch necessary for his capture? Why mobilize the full force of military law on his side? Why give a homicidal terrorist captured under combat conditions the same rights we would give a U.S. sailor in the brig for being drunk on Saturday night in San Diego?

It is bad enough if this is the result of political correctness gone berserk. It is disgraceful enough if chair-warming senior officers further their own careers by dumping on brave men who risked their lives to capture a terrorist instead of killing him.

But it is even worse if the report is accurate, and this is “pay-back” to the SEALs for having dared to save Capt. Phillips against the orders of the White House. It is even more disgraceful if the SEALs are being sacrificed to “send a message” to all our troops:

·         The message is that mindlessly following the White House’s and the Pentagon’s unrealistic, legalistic rules of engagement is more important than staying alive or completing the mission.

·         The message is that the careers of a few higher-ups are more important than the lives of their subordinates.

·         The message is that political correctness in more important than winning the war.

·         The message is that loyalty only flows up the chain of command, not down − which is fatal for morale.

·         The message is that if you want to be a good SEAL, it helps to be a dead SEAL.

Has the rot penetrated that deeply? If not, our civilian and military leaders must allow the full stories of both the Somali pirate affair and the terrorist with the fat lip to be made public. But if all the relevant facts of these two episodes are not made public, we may have to assume the worst.

This is not a criticism of enlisted personnel and junior officers on the ground, for whom we have great respect. But it is a question regarding the senior officers, and their civilian bosses in the Pentagon and the White House. Where does Gen. Petraeus stand on the fat-lip affair? We need not ask about his boss, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Casey, who values “diversity” more than telling the truth − that Major Hasan murdered 14 at Fort Hood because he was an extremist Muslim fanatic. What about Defense Secretary Gates? What about President Obama?

The three SEALs now have a lawyer. Recall that on the first night of the war in Afghanistan, a Predator drone located Taliban leader Mullah Omar. But his motorcade stopped at a mosque, and a lawyer told Gen. Tommy Franks not to order the drone to fire. As a result, Omar escaped and is still at large.

Can you imagine a lawyer telling Adm. Nimitz that he couldn’t order the plane carrying Adm. Yamamoto, the commander-in-chief of the Japanese fleet, to be shot down? You can’t? Neither can I. Maybe that’s why we won World War II in less than four years, but we haven’t been able to win in Afghanistan in eight years. True, it’s not our grandfathers’ war. But we’re not our grandfathers, either.

We now conduct war so that a lawyer can tell a general not to kill an enemy leader, while three SEALs need a lawyer to defend them after completing a successful mission. Wars require warriors, not lawyers. Anyone who does not know this is a dangerous fool, even if he wears the uniform of a general or an admiral, or sits in the Pentagon or the Oval Office.

What’s next − trials of U.S. troops by the International Criminal Court? That would drive the last nail into the coffin of morale. “We Support Our Troops” is not something we stick on our bumpers. It is something we carry in our hearts. Or at least some of us do.

Bureaucracies, whether military or civilian, are of two types. The first type resembles a coffee cup, where the cream rises to the top. The second type resembles a cesspool, where the largest chunks rise to the top. We depend for our security and our very survival on our military. Which type of bureaucracy is it becoming?

An effective military. A politically correct military. Choose one.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. He can be contacted at dstol@prodigy.net.

www.stolinsky.com