Soldiers Disgrace Themselves, Country

I have been following this story about the female soldiers who mud wrestled in Iraq. From all accounts, several women in an Military Police (MP) unit were involved in a mud wrestling contest as part of a going away celebration for soldiers who were leaving the country to return to the United States.

I have several issues with this whole thing. I am disgusted with the entire process from the event itself to the punishment handed out. Many on the left will use this incident as another way to bash the military they so despise. I feel that these soldiers handed their enemies, the left, a gift. The MSM, the democrats in Congress, and the liberals in the US will tell us that this was a terrible thing that happened because these young men and women were far away from home and they were fighting in a war they did not want blah, blah, blah.

Let’s get it straight right up front. These soldiers were acting this way because they lacked the personal discipline to behave like professional soldiers. They decided, instead, to act like abunch of college students at a frat party. These soldiers are not looked at as individuals when they misbehave. They are looked at as representatives of their service. They are ambassadors of their service and instead of representing it honorably they decided to bring disgrace upon it. Their actions reflect unfavorably upon them and the Army and they should certainly have been punished. Having said that, I think the punishment that I have heard about is too harsh. I saw on Fox that one of the soldiers has been discharged from the service after being reduced in rank. She might have gotten a dishonorable discharge as well. These soldiers were doing something wrong but the punishment was far above what they needed. These young ladies needed to be reduced in grade, given extra duty, possibly confined to the correctional custody facility for 30 days and then reassigned to other units away from the unit they disgraced.

That is what should have happened to these young troopers. Now let me give you this old First Sergeant’s opinion on the leadership, especially the NCO (noncommisioned officer “sergeant”) leadership. The sergeants who arranged this little party should be reduced in grade and dishonorably discharged from the service. They should receive a Court Martial and sent on their way. The first job of a leader is to accomplish his mission and the second is to look out for the welfare of his troops. These sergeants failed miserably in this endeavor. By setting this up and allowing it to happen they sent a clear message that the women in their unit were sex objects and could be placed on display for the enjoyment of the men. This will compromise their mission because the bond of trust on the leadership in that unit has been broken. The soldiers did not have their welfare well cared for. The sergeants who did this are beyond contempt and they failed to perform their duties in a professional manner. They arranged for their soldiers to disgrace themselves, their service, and their country. While one could make the argument that the soldiers were following orders that does not fly with this old Dog. They however, should not be severely punished while their leaders, the ones who sanctioned this, walk away from it unscathed.

This looks like the same scenario as the prison scandel at Abu Ghraib. The soldiers on the ground, the privates, are all going to jail while the officers above them are walking. The General in charge of that mess should have known what was going on and did not stop it. If she claims not to have known she should be drummed out for not knowing what is going on in the command. Instead they punish the privates and some of the sergeants while the officers walk. The claim is that the Specialist was the ring leader. Well let me tell you. I have a few years in the Army and no damned Specialist is a ring leader of anything. There are sergeants who are responsible for the soldiers and officers responsible for the unit and its actions. This is the same thing. The lower ranking folks are getting punished while the others walk.

Most of our service members are performing admirably and are bringing credit upon themselves and their country. A few jackass soldiers who can not get their collective heads out of their duffle bags are discrediting their units and dishonoring our country. The leaders are failing to exercise sound judgement and are not leading by example. Let’s hope that the MSM can see it this way and not show this stuff endlessly and that Congress does not use this to further show its hatred for the military as they did during the prison abuse fiasco.

To top it off these soldiers disgraced one of their own. The camp (Camp Bucca) is named after Fire Marshal Ronald Bucca, an Army reservist who was killed at the World Trade Center.

Camp Crazy Out Of Control.
Soldier Demoted for mud wrestling.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

9 Responses to “Soldiers Disgrace Themselves, Country”

  1. Adam says:

    Sorry, but I can’t see how the left is the enemy of the soldiers. I for one don’t hate most of the soliers, I just don’t like the leaders who choose violence over non-violence. This is just more crap from the GOP wanting to seem like the party of the millitary, the party of God, the party of moral thinking. It’s all total bullshit and you know it.

  2. Big Dog says:

    No, I do not know this is BS. I have served under leaders from both parties. The democrats cut defense every chance they get. Bill Clinton gutted the military, Jimmy Carter took the military’s teeth away and made them shells of a fighting machine.
    Johnson screwed the pooch with the military in Vietnam.
    Of course I guess it is partisan on my part to mention that so let me give equal time. Ronald Reagan made our military mighty and feared in the world. Bush and his father gave us weapon systems and money. They built us into a fighting force to be reckoned with.
    Leaders from the left show contempt for our military everyday. Adam, don’t take it personally. You do not wield the power of those in DC, on the left, who are enemies of our military. You do not have the fame that those in Hollywood who hate our military do. And you were not, as far as I can tell, in protests where left wing idiots carried signs calling for our troops to shoot their own officers.
    Adam, the GOP is the party of the military for one good reason. They are the party that has supported the military all the time, not just when they are running for office.
    Tell me, why is it that 75-80% of the military vote republican? Because the GOP is the party of the military.
    Hillary will gut the military like her husband did. She would emasculate the warriors in this nation to push her social agenda. We would be attacked and attacked very badly.

  3. Surfside says:

    Well put, Big Dog! Since at least the 60s, the Democratic Party has run largely on pacifism and “global agreement” for military action. Carter was definitely the poster child for that philosophy, and the world knew it — the Iranians took advantage of it. Clinton was pathetic in bombing an asprin factory and mismanaging the Somalia incident.

    During the 2004 election, all the Dems that voted to give GWB authority to take action in Iraq did the infamous left-wing backpedal. Why? Because they were playing to the party loyalists — the one’s embracing the “our allies must agree, or we can’t do anything to protect oursleves” philosophy.

    Sit-ins are not going to stop Iran or North Korea from using nuclear weapons. Chaining ourselves in front of embassy gates will not stop terrorists from entering Iraq via Syria or Iran. There are times for “walk(ing) silently and carrying a big stick;” there are times for diplomacy; and there are times for military action. To deny any one of these options is to reduce our arsenal of possible solutions.

    And, Adam seems to have forgotten that his party’s favorite child, President John F. Kennedy, set a military blockade between Cuba and the approaching Russian nuclear missles — a bold military move that could have resulted in quite a nasty war. Kennedy knew our position would have become militarily indefensible if those missles had been deployed. He didn’t “consult” with our allies to see if they approved of his action. Teddy Kennedy seems to have forgotten this historical fact.

  4. Adam says:

    Of course, fully funding the troops and sending them to war, that makes the Republicans better than the Democrats. When Clinton took away funding and then didn’t use full scale invasion to accomplish anything, that was just totally wrong! Imagine those 1000’s of troops who might have died had Clinton been a bit tougher in the world. The Democrats are wussies…

  5. Big Dog says:

    Clinton attacked Serbia to take attention away from his problems at home but made the planes bomb from 15,000 feet so they would not be shot at. He bombed an aspirin factory as a show of force and he refused to give the order to get OBL at least three times so, yes Adam, that makes them wussies.
    Clinton caused the deaths of a lot of our military by inaction. In addition, the dems caused the deaths of over 3000 on 9/11 by inaction.
    Jimmy Carter screwed the pooch in the Iran rescue attempt and military members died.
    Yes, over 1000 have died in this war, as the left drums on about everyday. 600,000 died in the Civil war and millions died in WW II. I point this out to get you to understand “PEOPLE DIE IN WAR.” As a soldier, I would certainly rather die in action than sitting around doing the first digit rectal interface while people are attacking and killing our militray members (USS Cole ring a bell).

  6. Adam says:

    Oh, I get it. 9/11 was ALL Clinton’s fault? At first I thought it was just the growing problem of US foreign policy since WW II when we realized we could just do about any damn thing we wanted.

    Clinton and Carter are “miserable failures” because they didn’t have any great wars or kill anybody important that might attack us later. People die in war, huh? Oh wow. I didn’t know that. That makes war just fine and dandy now that I understand that. Your obsession with the idea that “WAR SAVES LIVES” is just insane. When somebody like Carter or Clinton tries diplomacy over war presidency, they are disenfranchising the military. Hey, they gotta be shooting something in the world or they are just no good to us…

  7. Big Dog says:

    Clinton is not responsible for it all. There have been problems with American foreign policy but not because we think we can do what we want. There have been problems because of attitudes that the rest of the world can do what it wants regardless of how we feel about it and whether it has an effect on us.

    War is not the only answer but in the long run, it does save lives. Perhaps you refuse to see the other lives affected by these actions. We saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Afghanis and Iraqis. You refuse to see this because you turn a blind eye, like those in WWII, who failed to see what Germany was doing to the Jews. Under your philosophy it would be ok not to enter that war, even after Pearl Harbor, and regardless of the effect on the Jews.

    Carter and Clinton tried diplomacy? Carter did but he did it from a weak position and he was trampled. Remember, walk softly also includes carrying a big stick. Clinton engaged the military in dozens of military actions while cutting end strength at the same time. His idea of diplomacy was to create distractions from his troubles at home.

    If Carter and Clinton had shown testicular fortitude we might not have been attacked on all the occasions you and your ilk prefer to overlook.

    I never made any of the claims that you assert in your comment. I would like to say it surprises me that reading comprehension is lacking in a college student but given the state of the educational system is is more often the case than the exception.

  8. Adam says:

    I don’t turn a blind eye. War becomes the best way out of a problem only when we fail to address the problem properly in the first place. Unforunatly, our leaders for the past half century have chosen the wrong way many times over. The United States government is all about protecting it’s ass, and helping others only when it is public suicide not to. We can’t help but step on a few toes now and again in that process. Once in a while the foot those toes belong to kicks back. We all know we have enemies. It’s just about time to start admitting that maybe our actions haven’t always been so moral in the world. For some reason when I suggest such a thing somebody says, “LOOK! IT’S A MEMBER OF THE BLAME AMERICA FIRST CROWD! GIT HIM!”

    Overall though, it’s funny that you’re questioning my reading comprehension. I’ll remember that next time you take me out of context, as you love to do on a regular basis.

  9. Big Dog says:

    I don’t usually take you out of context but when you post an opinion based upon an article and your opinion draws conclusions not supported by the article then I think pointing this out is reasonable.

    I don’t know you are neccessarily part of the Hate America First Crowd but you were the one who said you can do not presently love this country and that you are ashamed. Perhaps I took that out of context but it did lead to my generosity being posted all over the net.