Marc Estrin : Our Brawling General

General James Mattis, shown here at Kandahar International Airport, Afghanistan, in 2001. Photo by Dave Martin / AFP.

‘The lesson was learnt…’
Our brawling general

By Marc Estrin / The Rag Blog / July 12, 2010

So we have a new general to lead our Central Command (or CENTCOM), overseeing our operations in 20 countries from Egypt, across the Middle East and into South and Central Asia. This, btw, courtesy of our Defense Department. There is a lot of ours out there that may need defending.

Anyway, our new leader, appointed by our other new leader’s Pentagon, one Gen. James Mattis, seems to be quite a guy. Looks nice enough to have a beer with, no? Does his own laundry. Wears intellectual-type glasses. The kind of leader we need to win hearts and minds.

“I like brawling,” he is quoted as saying. Hey, one of the guys. “You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil, you know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.” A feminist, no less.

Well, OK — for this statement, he was reprimanded. Perhaps it was for the feminism part, but reprimanded he was, your Secretary of Defense assures us, dismissing any possible concerns from hearts-and-mind-ists or male-ists. He was reprimanded and asked to choose his words more carefully in the future.

And now, five years past, SECDEF guarantees that “the lesson was learnt.” A Brig-Gen in the know tells us that the old brawler has “since proven himself a statesman, including by working with 27 nations in a NATO command position, and SECDEF agreed, saying, “Obviously in the wake of the Rolling Stone interview, we discussed this kind of thing, and I have every confidence that General Mattis will respond to questions and speak publicly about the matters for which he is responsible in an entirely appropriate way.”

Without, hopefully, indulging in pedagogical overkill, let us survey the more obvious simulacra in this story:

Most obviously, there is the simulacrum of appropriateness. Now in control of his brawling essence, or at least of its mouth, Gen. Mattis has learned to say the right things and not the wrong things. This should assure us that the hearts and mind simulacrum can remain intact.

Second, consider the simulacrum of “learning,” as in “the lesson was learnt” — in the passive case. The simulacrum of metrics testifies to that via Mattis’s being able to “work” with 27 (count ’em) nations, as NATO’s “supreme allied commander for transformation” which “focuses on supporting current operations while shaping US forces for the future.” This, no doubt, was a grueling test of Mattis’s maturation among the boys.

We proceed to the simulacrum of assurance. Of what does SECDEF assure us? His “confidence” (sharing faith with us) is that the good General will “respond to questions and speak publicly… in an entirely appropriate way. ” Good doggie. How he still feels and acts, and what behavior he encourages among his troops is another thing. But we can be confident that his performance at the simulacra of briefings will no longer raise eyebrows.

[Marc Estrin is a writer and activist, living in Burlington, Vermont. His novels, Insect Dreams, The Half Life of Gregor Samsa, The Education of Arnold Hitler, Golem Song, and The Lamentations of Julius Marantz have won critical acclaim. His memoir, Rehearsing With Gods: Photographs and Essays on the Bread & Puppet Theater (with Ron Simon, photographer) won a 2004 theater book of the year award. He is currently working on a novel about the dead Tchaikovsky.]

The Rag Blog

This entry was posted in Rag Bloggers and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Marc Estrin : Our Brawling General

  1. Hey I like this Gen. James Mattis already. Afterall, if you can't enjoy shooting some ardent adherent to Sharia law that stones women for the audacity to learn or walk about unescorted, then who can you enjoy shooting??? … exactly.

    Plus I didnt know what simulacra was and had to google it. Turns out my reading today was also educational.

  2. richard jehn says:

    Lance: Either you are making a joke or you are serious. If you are serious, it suggests that you condone the violation of international principles of law, notably the Nuremberg principles. Here are the couple of relevant bits:

    Principle VI

    The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes

  3. Richard, the point made is since neither political party has the will to get out of AFG, then the people we send to fight, kill and die, will in the end take some comfort knowing what their enemies are capable of. After all, even soldiers must find some way to like their work.

  4. Terry G. Fisher says:

    Speak and act in an “appropriate” way? Oh yeah. The prudish hypocrisy the “politically correct” wallow in. People who feel it is OK for a pretty woman to be a lady in the drawing room, a gourmet in the kitchen and dining room and a lusty, busty harlot in the bedroom, but, let’s not talk about the last role. That would not be “appropriate.” Reality check. “Decent”, gentile, civilized people sleep safely in their secure homes at night because brutish and cold-blooded warriors stand ready to savagely slaughter whom ever would harm them. Do those “gentile” people want those savage warriors present at their social gatherings. No. That would not be “appropriate.” They want the methodical killer the enemy flees from in panic to come to the ball in a powdered wig and do the minuet and expend his pinkie when sipping non-alcohol punch. There is only one response to give to those people. Up yours. Is that “appropriate?”

  5. Terry, that is actually a pretty good response. I prefer our military to be brutish and savage. Their opponents are that way, so we need ours to be even more savage and brutish than everyone elses. That is why I said I liked General Mattis. Personally, if I witnessed somoone stoning a woman or child or raping them, I could shoot them in the head at close range, have a good meal and not loose any sleep over it.

    My argument isnt about the behavior of the military, but rather the mission. I see no national interest to defend in Afghanistan. Its just a waste of lives and money.

    Prior to our involvement in Iraq, Saddam acted as a natural buffer to the military interests of the Iranians. After the fall of Saddam, the Iranians have rapidly emerged as a dominant regional military power. What ever “islasmic terrorist” threat we eliminated in Iraq has been replaced 10 times over in Iran and Yemen and Syria. How did that serve our national interests?

    I must add that I have no idea what the hell you were talking about regarding pretty women, harlots, powdered wigs and pinkie fingers. Perhaps your suffering from some sexual identity issues. If so, there are folks that regularly read and write on this blog that can assist you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *