A Few Thoughts On War

I have been reading, “Rouge Warrior” by Richard Marcinko, a former commander of SEAL TEAM SIX.  He says that,

“A point should be made here about the way Americans tend to regard the act of killing.  Like most of my generation, I grew up on Western movies where the hero- Hopalong, or Roy or Gene–chivalrously tosses his gun aside after the black-hatted villain runs out of bullets and subdues the bad guy with his bare fists.

That may work on celluloid, but not in real life.  In real life, you shoot the m**** and you kill him dead- whether or not he is armed; whether or not he is going for his gun; whether he looks dangerous or appears benign.  That way, you stay alive and your men stay alive.  Many of our senior offices do not believe this.  They would rather that we got killed than our enemies did.  That attitude is stupid and it is wrong.”  (pg 117)

He goes on to say, “so, my philosophy in battle has always been to kill my enemy before he has a chance to kill me and to use whatever it takes.  Never did I give Charlie an even break.  I shot from ambush.  I used superior firepower.  I never engaged in hand-to-hand combat unless there was absolutely no alternative–to me, the combat knife should be a tool, not a weapon.  All of the whiz-bang, knife-fighting, karate/judo/kung-fu b.s. that you see in the Rambo-Jambo shoot-’em up movies is just that:  b.s.

The real-life rules of war are simple and effective:  stay at arm’s length whenever possible and shoot the s*** out of the enemy before he sees you,”  (pg . 118).

Why do I bring this up?  This is to address the ridiculous notion that police should use non-lethal weapons, or that concealed carry holders must flee before fighting.

If someone attacks you, they have violated your right to life.  There is no negotiation, as a negotiation requires rational minds to reach an agreement.  There is no agreement to be made between someone who willfully and intentionally violates your right to life and yourself.  A rational agreement requires that both parties benefit in a  mutual and respectful way.  While the attacker has much to gain from your “compromise,” you have nothing to gain.  Mixing poison and lemonade doesn’t make the poison less deadly- in fact, it hides the fact that there is poison present.

If attacked, the ONLY moral response is to fight for your life.  Quickly, brutally, and using whatever means are necessary.  Hopefully, we will never have to be in such situations, but know that any compromise, or striving for a “fair fight” is the surest way to lose.

Thank you for reading my post.

Marcinko, Richard.  “Rogue Warrior.”  Pocket Books, New York, 1992.  pp 117-118.



Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: