Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS.
On Martial Virtue ... and Selling Jon Krakauer's Crappy New Book
A few months ago, I was asked to review Jon Krakauer's new book by the Washington Post, and I must admit to having been excited. Having grown up a pretty serious rock climber, I was a huge fan of Jon Krakauer's previous
Alas, the book was awful. I mean, it was really bad. On the same day in which I had very little good to say about it in the Post, it was similarly panned by Dexter Filkins in the New York Times Sunday Book Review. The book was so bad that Filkins and I managed to find completely different reasons to think it was rubbish. The main problem I had with the book was that Krakauer let his visceral hatred of the Bush Administration get in the way of telling what could have been a pretty good story about an amazing young man who gave up a career in the NFL to enlist in the U.S. Army and then died in Afghanistan, killed by a member of his own platoon in a firefight gone horribly wrong.
In my review, I did not spare -- as you might have expected me to do, given the particular U.S. Army regiment in which I was serving -- Pat Tillman's chain of command for what were a series of monumental cock-ups in the aftermath of Tillman's death. I thought it particularly unconscionable that Tillman's battalion commander sent a young Ranger to the funeral and expected him to go along with the lie about how Tillman died until his family could be notified once the battalion had returned. (A friend reminded me later that the 2nd Ranger Battalion had very little experience dealing with combat casualties up until that point in the war, which is a good point that I might have mentioned.) But a very wise woman -- and a former C-130 pilot -- told me once that when you're examining military miscues, you should draw a long line on a sheet of paper and write "conspiracy" on one end of the line and "buffoonery" on the other. The odds are in favor of buffoonery -- the act whereby otherwise intelligent people make a series of stupid decisions -- being a more likely explanation for what went wrong than conspiracy.
Not in Krakauer's world. In Krakauer's world, there is no rock in Afghanistan under which a plot cooked up by Donald Rumsfeld and Doug Feith is not hiding. This guy even went so far as to say that the Ranger Regiment's strict adherence to timelines was a by-product of the Bush Administration and Rumsfeld's Pentagon. (Funny, and here I grew up thinking it was because things like airfield seizures are really complex operations that demand subordinate units be places and do things according to schedule.)
So Krakauer wrote a crappy book, and now he has to market it. And how is he doing that? By going after Stan McChrystal, who is probably the least culpable guy in Tillman's chain of command for any of the stupid things that happened in the aftermath of his death. There Krakauer was, on Meet the Press yesterday, going after McChrystal, who he never interviewed for his book but who had sent a memorandum up through the chain of command at the time of Tillman's death warning his commanders about the circumstances surrounding the event.
In the great tragic story that is the death of Pat Tillman, Stan McChrystal stands out as one of the guys who made mistakes but ultimately did the right thing. At this point, he should issue a statement saying something along the lines of:
"Pat Tillman was an American hero. His death was a great tragedy. I apologize to his family for the poor quality of the initial investigations into his death and for the decisions made by Pat Tillman's commanders to not immediately notify them of the circumstances under which he died. I personally apologize for not closely reviewing the citation for Pat Tillman's valor award to ensure its accuracy. I am now fully committed to winning the war in Afghanistan and to ensuring that Pat Tillman's sacrifice and the sacrifice of his family was not in vain. Thank you."
Here's what really upsets me. I know that Jon Krakauer has to sell his book, but in doing so, he is cravenly seizing upon the fact that Stan McChrystal is the man of the moment to do so even though by doing so Krakauer once again takes the focus off Pat Tillman and politicizes his death in as crummy a way as the Bush Administration ever did.
On the night Pat Tillman was killed, I myself was leading a platoon of Army Rangers as part of a quick reaction force in Afghanistan under the command of Stan McChrystal (albeit many rungs down on the chain of command). I heard the casualty report on the radio en route to another objective, but I did not discover it had been Pat Tillman who was killed until returning to base the next evening.
On returning to base, I walked into my battalion commander's office and started chatting with him, as I often did, about books. This was the guy who had introduced me to books like The Centurions
What he meant by that was no slight on Pat Tillman, a man who in life and in death embodied courage and sacrifice and a host of other virtues and traits. What he meant by that was that so too did every one of the Rangers who followed me onto a very cold mountaintop in eastern Afghanistan the night Tillman was killed. So too did all of the other Rangers and special operators on the compound. Hell, none of us were drafted. We were four-time volunteers -- we volunteered for the Army, we volunteered for the Airborne Course, we volunteered for the Ranger Course, and we volunteered to serve in the Ranger Regiment. None of us were dead-end high school drop-outs with no other place to go. The guy who was #1 in his class at West Point was a fellow platoon leader in my battalion. Our intelligence officer went to Cornell. My forward observer was captain of the baseball team at James Madison and turned down law school to enlist in the Rangers. (And now works in the Obama Administration, by the way.) We all had better places to be than fighting a war in eastern Afghanistan and all of us could have chosen a more comfortable and profitable way to spend our twenties.
But in the eyes of Krakauer and on the fringes of the American left, soldiers are either victims of circumstance or war criminals in waiting. If soldiers have any martial virtues such as those displayed by Pat Tillman, we're only comfortable celebrating them posthumously. This allows a guy like Krakauer to praise Pat Tillman but slander Stan McChrystal, a guy who has spent 30+ years faithfully serving his country in the most demanding jobs -- jobs which require not just hard work but martial virtues we Americans have lost the ability to even speak about.
Stan McChrystal is one of the finest men I have ever known, and I hope I have sons who serve under men like him. Jon Krakauer is going after him now because he has written a crappy book and now has to sell it. McChrystal is in the news, and that gives Krakauer's book relevance, even if the virtues of Pat Tillman fade to the background. That really makes me angry. But I guess it remains a possibility that Jon Krakauer wrote an entire book about Pat Tillman without ever understanding the kind of man he was -- and that there might exist other men like him.
Call me crazy, but what if the slow public announcement of the friendly fire investigation was in consideration for the shooters as well as the victim - that some degree of certainty was desired regarding their position on the SNAFU-negligence-murder scale before public pronouncement was made.
What if "I could throw a rock in this compound and hit ten Pat Tillmans" was a shared view among commanders, and they actually considered the living ones a higher priority than the dead?
I know it doesn't fit the McChrystal kowtows to his political superiors' whims by inflicting politically-correct ROE that kills troops argument so popular a few weeks ago, but then again neither does the storyline about his brazen assault on his political superiors that replaced it.
@ Visitor
"Perhaps we could save the "tl;dr" for /b/, gentlemen? I am unhappy to see it here on a blog that sometimes has quite interesting and germane commentary. I do not think I would like to see informed and considered commentary discouraged here; and most especially not in such a derisive fashion."
The comment was longer than the original post and every comment in between combined, largely because it consisted of page after page of long quotations. Thats not germane commentary, thats a sure sign of an axe-grinding witch hunt, and to hell with that.
tl;dr
No, seriously.
Also, not a /b/tard.
@Nathan:
"Perhaps we could save the "tl;dr" for /b/, gentlemen? I am unhappy to see it here on a blog that sometimes has quite interesting and germane commentary. I do not think I would like to see informed and considered commentary discouraged here; and most especially not in such a derisive fashion."
tl;dr
No, seriously.
Also, not a /b/tard.
. . .
I guess being 44 years old and not Blackberry, Twitter, Facebook, etc. savey I'm too ignorant of abbreviations in the blogging world. I'm been curious all day ... just what does "tl;dr" stand for? Are you asking me to commit an unnatural act or what? Why don't you just spell it out for me?
"The comment was longer than the original post and every comment in between combined, largely because it consisted of page after page of long quotations. ..."
Granted my commentary was a bit long. Since I was arguing that McChrystal wasn't as pure as the driven snow I thought I'd paste in my response to McChrystal's June 2nd testimony to try to back up my assertions with facts.
"Thats not germane commentary, thats a sure sign of an axe-grinding witch hunt, and to hell with that."
Yourself and KILO have just responded to my post with ad hominum attacks. Save your venom for substantive criticism of my arguments. I'd welcome contructive criticism. Obviously, I've taken the Pat Tillman story to heart. If I have any axe to grind, it's with folks who are messing with the truth of his story. Exum, McChrystal, Shanker etc. fall into that category.
(Nathan ,.. nice name. That's my boy's name as well.)
@Nathan
My much more Blackberry literate wife just got home and suggested I google the phrase "tl;dr."
"Too long, didn't read". Duh. (That's much tamer than my imagination feared).
But , perhaps you should actually read my postings before simply assuming that a lengthy comment is a "sure sign of an axe-grinding witch hunt." (although I must agree with you that long postings are often the sign of a rant; I'm hardly objective, but I don't think my material falls into that category)
@ Guy Montag
"Guilty. I apologize for the lack of formatting of my post. The numbered sections were pasted from my Word documents and all my nice formatting didn't show up here. I wish I had a link to provide to my documents. They only exist in my WORD files and hardcopy."
This ain't hard. Even word's crappy HTML export option should be able to get you something workable in HTML format. Export the whole thing, put a section listing at the top and read up on how to make "Name" tags. These will let you point to sections of a single page (like links to wikipedia sections look like) without going to the trouble of creating multiple pages. Whack it on blogspot. It's free, fast, works.
http://www.w3schools.com/HTML/html_links.asp
"NOTE: I don't have any "proof" that Nixon then called McChrystal. But, he was next in the chain of command. Does anyone who served in the Army really believe that Nixon never passed this information to his boss McChrystal? "
I haven't served in the Army, nor know anything about the workings of the chain of command, but too would assume he did. The point however is, until you have a reference you can cite for that happening, you don't get to claim that he was informed on a particular date.
Even if this were the case, we'd still be talking about him being provided with a non-official conclusion from a single person, a personal opinion, while an investigation was still going on. Whatever that opinion was, if he didn't dismiss it in favour of waiting for the findings of the investigation, he'd be in the wrong on what's an incredibly important matter.
Nothing to do with coverups and criminal charges, etc, just the fact that if you're going to declare someone's son was killed by someone other than the expected and declare he died due to monumental error on the part of the armed forces, you'd better be damn sure before you do. Imagine it going the other way, FF death revised to become enemy fire. Nobody's happier with that outcome because of the result, for the simple fact that it was wrong to start with and there are consequences to that.
As an aside, CPT Scott's 15-6 Final Report was passed up April 29th and was "disappeared".
The timing of this is a core issue not mentioned before, which explains why McCrystal waited until the 29th to file his own memo pointing to this FF conclusion. So that issue is resolved.
BTW, why are we questioning why McCrystal waited until the 29th instead of why Scott didn't file this until the 29th ? If the evidence was so overwhelming, concurring and conclusive, the single person responsible for this delay in an official conclusion of a FF incident would be Scott (or whatever body/effort he was responsible for).
If it's McCrystal's place to ignore the investigation and make his own conclusion without waiting until the findings are presented, then we're yet to hear that argument. If the investigation was irrelevant and we would have been happier had it not been undertaken (allowing this same chain to declare whatever they like) we're yet to hear that argument either.
Why McCrystal waited until the 29th and why it was prudent to do so seem to be quite simply explained.
"Exum said he viewed TWO battles on the screens at Bagram. Exum led the quick reaction force to rescue the LRRP team, the other battle was the firefight in which Tillman was killed. Read his Washington Post 9-13-09 review "He Didn't Come Home" for the full quotation which makes this clear."
Correct. My mistake.
"For some reason KILO didn't address McChrystal's role in the frauduelent Silver Star award. "
That reason being I have absolutely no interest in this aspect. If he got awarded the MoH I'd still find it irrelevant. Who killed someone matters, this doesn't. I'd also suggest someone being given a token medal for morale/psy purposes is not an extraordinary event. Either they're all up for review or I simply don't care about +1 more inaccurate citation than everyone else.
I'm happy for you to say whatever you like about anyone on this matter, I am simply not interested.
Comment by Visitor on November 3, 2009 - 11:05am
"Sounds like Kilo is in love with McChrystal? Do you want have his baby?"
That's funny, I could have sworn I'd not once expressed any feeling or opinion about him one way or the other here or anywhere else for the entire duration he's been in the news. Like I said, combine harvester accident, bring it on.
Comment by featherock on November 3, 2009 - 12:03pm
"why is everybody holding Exum to journalistic standards? he's not a journalist."
You've got that completely backwards. They haven't been doing this and actually should be. This is after all a topic he's written about for the Washington Post. If you're not a reporter and don't want to be held to journalistic standards, excuse yourself from being published in one of the major nationwide newspapers.
@Kilo
I'll admit I'm not blog literate. I actually don't spend my time reading blogs or blogging (except when I find something to comment on the Tillman case).
However, if you or anyone else are interested, I'm downloading my material to my blog I'm currently constructing this morning (thanks to my blog-literate wife). It may not be pretty, but it'll be there:
feralfirefighter@blogspot.com
. . .
Kilo: "Even if this were the case, we'd still be talking about him being provided with a non-official conclusion from a single person, a personal opinion, while an investigation was still going on. Whatever that opinion was, if he didn't dismiss it in favour of waiting for the findings of the investigation, he'd be in the wrong on what's an incredibly important matter."
The "non-official conclusion" was from CPT Scott the appointed AR 15-6 investigation officer. My point was that after interviewing the shooters, he called his boss to pass on he "certain" it was fratricide. Sure, it took him 5 more days to finish interviewing, type up a report, etc.
McChrystal and the rest can play semantic games and say they only learned of "potential" fratricide, but that's just ass-covering BS. So, McChrystal wasn't sure of fratricide, but he's positive of a highly dubious Silver Star? He can't have it both ways.
. . .
Agree with your point on holding AM to to journalistic standards. A few weeks ago AM wrote a post that ripped into Robert Fisk for bad journalism!
Writing a book review, nor 'publishing' in a major daily, makes one a reporter or a journalist. Op-ed pages, and book reviews are nothing if not literary op-eds, are for opinions, not reporting. That's Exum's job, expressing his opinion, his duly well-informed opinion. Calling him a journalist or a reporter is like saying joining Boy Scouts makes you a soldier.
@featherrock:
Tru dat. I stand corrected.
Although I would obviously quimble about AM's "well-informed" opinion, at least with respect to the Tillman story.
I don't know if referring to AM as a journalist would be an improvement. My personal correspondence last May with Thom Shanker (NYT Pentagon reporter) who cleared McChrystal "of all wrongdoing" in the Tillman case didn't leave me with any respect for him or his so-called profession. If the mainstream newspapers actually carried out a "watchdog" role, I might be sad at their demise.
As an aside, Thom Shanker just happens to have started his gig at CNAS as a writer in residence. Maybe AM and Shanker can give each other pointers?
Comment by Guy Montag on November 4, 2009 - 9:27am
"I'll admit I'm not blog literate."
Ya don't say....
http://feralfirefighter.blogspot.com/
Blog posts aren't really designed for long bodies of work. The diary format means they're all backwards when you leave them in the default format. You can however put your own navigation in there to get around this. Do this....
1. Make 1 post and just put all your section titles in it.
2. Put a "back to contents" link at the bottom of every other post that points there.
3. Turn each of those section titles into a link to the post which contains that section as you post it.
4. Eventually you'll figure out how to use the page/layout design settings to make static areas of your page for navigation. ie To the right you have your chronological blog post listing ordered by date. On the left you can stick links for your static pages of the report where the date posted is irrelevant to the order in which it is navigated.
Damn near kumbaya here, good.
For an even more positive, uplifting note, how about a round of applause for the Lieutenant General who stood up to the politicians and refused to give PFC Jessica Lynch a Medal of Honor before all the facts were known.
Kilo,
Thanks for your gentle correction. As you pointed out, I'll be downloading my material to:
http://feralfirefighter.blogspot.com/
NOT feralfirefighter@blogspot.com
And thanks for your blog post suggestions. When I get the chance tomorrow evening at my fire station, I'll check them out. I dinked around this morning some. After picking my wife's brain, I'll probably go with merging my documents into pdfs so I won't have to re-format every single document and it'll be much easier to read.
Ah, Guy, technology nowadays.
By the way, loving the love between two different viewpoints, you two.
H to the US
@Guy - I agree that our media hardly plays a watchdog role. It's pretty complicit in the broad thrust of our government's and military's policies. One need look no further than the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, where every major media outlet of every stripe just aped DoD, DoS, and White House propaganda. Journalists who cover a regular beat like the Pentagon exchange access to information for complicity, to a degree. To be fair to Shankar, and not to denigrate you, I'm sure Shankar gets offered lots of binders or folders of information from conspiratorial whackjobs, and he probably assumed you were one of those. Still, that doesn't excuse his lack of reporting on the Tillman case, as you pointed out.
Take a look at one of the biggest revelations of all time regarding the military -- the release of the Pentagon Papers in 1971. The NY Times, which _eventually_ published them, didn't ferret out these papers. Daniel Ellsburg handed them to a Times reporter. It took guts to publish them, sure, but the point is, the Times didn't get them through investigative reporting, because that's simply not part of the gentleman's agreement.
@featherrock - Have you read Daniel Ellsberg's 2002 book "Secrets: A Memoir of the Vietnam War and the Pentagon Papers""? Facinating book.
Among other things, he was at the Pentagon during the Gulf of Tonkin incident reading the wires from the ships involved. Milke Gravel (presidential candidate last year) was the only senator who would have anything to do with the Pentagon Papers (McGovern passed) . and he put them into the Congressional Record and gave them to Beacon Press to be published.
On May 27th, after writing his article clearing McChrystal, I sent the following email to Shaker. The next day, I fed-exed him my binder "Did They Teach You How to Lie Yet" -- Senator Webb, General McChrystal, and the Betrayal of Pat Tillman.
A few days later he complimented my "exhaustive" and "well-researched" binder, but did nothing with the information. If you're interested, I'll be placing my binder, "Lies ... Borne Out by Facts, If Not the Truth" -- Thom Shanker, the New York Times, and the Whitewash of General McChrystal's Role in the Aftermath of Pat Tillman's Death onto feralfighter.blogspot.com.
Here's the email:
WEDNESDAY 5/27/09 about 9PM:
Thom Shanker,
I just read your May 26th article, “Nomination of U.S. Afghan Commander Revives Questions in Tillman’s Case.”
This past week I’ve been working on a long letter to Senator James Webb. I write that Congress and the senior leadership of the Army have shielded General McChrystal from close scrutiny and protected him from punishment. I review and critique Senator Webb’s Armed Services Committee review, General Wallace’s review, and Congressman Waxman’s House Oversight & Reform Committee investigation.
I’d like to send you a copy of my letter. My letter discusses in some detail every point raised in your article. In addition, I’ve uncovered new information about the Tillman case not mentioned at all in your article.
Here’s a preview of some of the information (without details or documentation):
1. Senator Webb did a “thorough review” last year of the aftermath of the Tillman fratricide at the request of Chairman Carl Levin for the Senate Armed Service Committee. (In retrospect, I realize this was part of the vetting process for McChrystal’s confirmation last year as Director of the Joint Staff). Webb mentioned this review May 27th 2008 on the Diane Rhem NPR radio show (about 40 minutes into show). When I tried to follow up, Webb’s Military Affairs aide, Gordon Peterson, stonewalled me and referred me to Gary Leeling 202-224-9339 (legal counsel for Senator Levin)
2.) Congressman Waxman “invited” McChrystal to testify on August 1st 2007. The Committee permited McChrystal to “decline” to appear at the hearing despite his key role in notifying senior leadership, writing the misleading P4 memo, and approving the fraudulent Silver Star. And the Committee never interviewed McChrystal during the next year until their report was issued. .
3.) General Kensinger was blamed for failing to notify the family because he supposedly had the “administrative” responsibility to do so. Yet, if you look at “Appendix D: Casualty Reporting & Next of Kin Notification Process” in the IG report, the flowchart clearly shows that McChrystal had that responsibility (and it’s noted both he and his Chief of Staff failed to make that notification despite knowing about fratricide NLT April 25th.
4). There was nothing “potential” about Tillman’s friendly fire death. Most of the troops on the ground knew immediately what had happened. On the 23rd word was passed up “70% sure” to Nixon. But, if you look at the IG report’s “Appendix B: Chronology,” its noted that LTC Bailey tells COL Nixon of potential fratricide on the 23rd yet Nixon supposedly only tells McChrystal of Tillman’s “death” (no mention of fratricide). How is that possible? And then supposedly McChrystal tells General Abizaid only of Tillman’s death. It looks as though Abizaid wasn’t being truthful when he testified before Congress about when he learned about fratricide.
5.) And on the 24th, the initial investigating officer CPT Scott passed on confirmation (“I’m certain, I’m sure”) to LTC Bailey, who then called COL Nixon (McChrystal was next in the chain of command). The Army knew of confirmed FF two days after Tillman’s death!
6.) McChrystal is praised for his “timely” P4 memo to alert his superiors on the 29th. There was nothing timely about it. Even if you accept his own testimony at face value, he knew about friendly fire on the 23rd, 24th, or 25th. Yet he didn’t send out his P4 until the 29th? How is waiting four to six days “timely”?
7.) No one seems to have carefully read McChrystal’s P4 memo. The contents are damning. For example, He says “IF the circumstances of CPL Tillman’s death become public.” Not when, IF.
Anyhow, I believe you will find it worth your time to read through my letter.
Could send me your e-mail address? Then, I could simply send my documents as “attachments” to an email. Could you also give me a mailing address? (I’ll Fed Ex a hardcopy of letter tomorrow).
If you have any further questions, I can be reached at my email: ****** I can also be contacted at my home phone, ********. (Unfortunately, I’m a dinosaur who still doesn’t have a cell phone, so that option is out!) I’ll be home tomorrow in the afternoon and evening.
Sincerely,
David ****
****************
****************
WEDNESDAY 5/27/09 10:39 PM:
David,
Please feel free to send me your material, as I would be eager to review it. Above is my direct e-mail address. Thanks for writing.
Regards,
Thom
...
SATURDAY 6-06-09 9:58 AM:
David,
Thank you for your note. Your research is exhaustive and impressive.
My question back to you would be:
Why are even senators who were most outspoken in criticism of the handling of the Tillman case -- in particular Senator Webb, who has figured extensively in your research and in comments by the Tillman family -- now expressing satisfaction with the public resolution of the inquiries and now, apparently, ready to confirm General McChrystal next week? Remember, as I know you do, that the legislative branch is a key check and balance not only of the executive, but of the military. It controls funding and confirmation to senior general officer jobs.
Again, thanks for sharing your impressive work with me.
Regards,
Thom
No, I haven't read that book by Ellsburg, but I will now. Apparently there's a recent documentary about the Pentagon Papers, as well as a movie made a few years ago.
@featherock: enjoy the book, it's a very good read.
If you, or anyone else, is still interested in learning more about the Tillman case, I've finally placed two of my binders into my blog at feralfirefighter.blogspot.com. Both documents were converted into pdf format and downloaded to my blog using scribd:
At the end of May, I wrote the binder, “Did They Teach You to Lie Yet – Senator James Webb, General Stanley McChrystal, and the Betrayal of Pat Tillman.” I argue that the top leadership of the Army, Waxman’s House Oversight Committee, and Senator Carl Levin’s Senate Armed Services Committee acted to shield McChrystal from scrutiny and protected him from punishment for his actions. I focused on Senator Webb’s role in a secret “review” prior to McChrystal’s 2008 confirmation (I’ve updated this binder to include the 2009 Senate confirmation hearing and three new revelations from McChrystal’s testimony).
In September, I finished the binder “Lies … Borne Out by Facts, If Not the Truth” – Senator James Webb, Thom Shanker & The New York Times, and the Whitewash of General Stanley McChrystal.” This binder explores the role of the NYT's Washington Pentagon reporter Thom Shanker in “clearing” McChrystal of any wrongdoing. In addition, I describe my interactions with Senator Webb’s office and speculate at President Obama’s role in the Tillman case.
(Ironically, Thom Shanker is currently a writer in residence at CNAS! How exactly do you tell the difference between the government, the press, and the "independent" think tanks?)
Tonight, I should be able to download my latest binder, "Where Men Win Glory" -- Andrew Exum, the Center for a New American Security, and their Whitewashing of General McChrystal's Role in the Cover-Up of Pat Tillman's Fratricide". I started writing this binder last month, well before Exum's post came out. I still need to finish my letter to Nate Fick (too many busy nights at the firehouse this past week).
Note: I have not yet downloaded the Appendices with the source documents that back up my arguments. Hopefully, they will be there this weekend.
I think you'll find taking a peek at my work to be worthwhile. Most of the material in my binders is not covered anywhere else on the web, the media or Jon Krakauer's book.
It could have been worse. Andrew Sullivan speculated that Corporal Tillman was murdered because he was an atheist and against the Iraq War
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/07/was-pat-til...
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2006/12/military_ch...
Add your comment