John Bernard on Afghan apologies

I recently asked friend and Victory Institute consultant John Bernard whether any amount of apologies or sensitivity training result in a positive outcome for our mission following the burning of Korans that enemy prisoners were using for intelligence documents. His answer is too long to publish in its entirety for my article at The US Report, but I opted to post the full version here:

This exercise in apologizing for every single “infraction” of some incredibly ill-defined set of rules, ideologically taught or traditionally handed down and not universally adhered to, is not only ineffective (as we have seen) but is in fact counter-productive. It is counter-productive from the vantage point of the original “Commander’s Intent” statement handed down – publicly, by then President George Bush shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001. It was clearly stated and I will paraphrase; “Locate, Close With and destroy Al Qaida and hold all those who give them help, comfort and financial aid (The Taliban Regime), accountable.”

While the original assault on Afghanistan met that narrowly defined mission statement, the events that have unfolded since then have shown a consistent devolution away from that intent and toward the very kind of “mission” that mired us in Vietnam in the 60’s and which eventually failed there.

This notion that we, as a free and affluent society are responsible for the safety and well-being of every nation or society on the earth is not only not consistent with constitutional thought, it is not, in fact, consistent with anything except United Nations vision. By strict United States Constitutional law, our armed forces are assembled, trained, funded and should be used for the defense of this nation. In fact, if you read the various versions of the oath of service, you will find that their use is even narrower than that statement suggests. All of us who have ever served in uniform, who currently serve and who will serve, do so for the protection of the constitution of the United States nearly exclusively. By extension, we are then preserving the sanctity of American lives and American property. It is difficult – at best to explain coherently how preserving the lives of those in other cultures which are threatened by their own people, on their own sovereign soil, meets that narrow definition of use.

Because we strayed so far not only from the mandates of the Constitution and the vision of the Founding Fathers during this latest episode as well as the original Commander’s Intent Statement, we have, as a consequence fallen prey to the personal proclivities of men with visions not consistent with that of either the Constitution or the Founding Fathers. And because we have followed those proclivities, we have proceeded without clear vision or the sanctity of Constitutional law.

We have also failed to heed history or the clear actions of our enemies and the cultures amongst whom we have been operating during these past nearly eleven years and have therefore faltered at nearly every step. This has caused us to leave our forces exposed to hostiles for far longer than was necessary and has left them far more exposed because our “understanding” of the enemy and the civilian population we have working among, was so flawed. Sensitivity training then, is a fruitless effort because it is a reflection of the flawed understanding of the ideology and the adherent. In essence, all it does is compound the problem by neutering an otherwise affective military presence.

In this latest episode where the charge of “desecrating” Islamic “holy books” has been levied against our forces, our leadership chose to do a knee jerk apology rather than explain the truth of the matter, that those texts had already been “desecrated” by EPW’s who had used them as combat field notebooks, writing in them against Koranic instruction and rendering them necessary for destruction, ironically, by fire. The ensuing riots and murders were orchestrated by the base urges of men who have been seeking to kill Americans, NATO and ISAF forces all along. This allowed their consciences what they needed to engage in uncivilized, animalistic behavior. Apologizing for these “disrespectful acts of desecration”, only further justified the belief of their seared consciences, that they were justified in their acts of violence.

Apologies in this part of the world are not seen in the same context as they are in western society, they are seen as admissions of guilt and of weakness. They are then acted upon as a pretext to violence. This cycle will not end until the Afghan and the Muslim get what they want. In the short run that means expulsion of foreign troops from their land. In the long run, it means world domination and forced submission to the Koran, and Allah.

John is a retired Marine whose website is “Let Them Fight or Bring Them Home.” If you aren’t already subscribed to his posts, you should be.