Marines Pose with SS Flag

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by plato

Any person who decides to be offended by past events in my army's history....Anyone (especially reporters) who decides that MY symbols mean I am proud that prisoners starved, and that civilians have been killed...

Can look at the skull and crossbones on my hat until my fist obscures his vision.

Persons can contribute to a political sensibility in which a specific armed service is out of step with the values of the society it is tasked to protect. This sensibility can lead to the slashing of budgets and a growing disregard for that service's readiness as other services rise in the public's esteem. In the 1890s, navalists hinged their argument for a modern, ocean-going fleet at the expense of the army which they painted as a symbol of administrative inefficiency and operational incompetence.

Similarly, after the Second World War, the air force successfully challenged the navy's role as the service best suited to deter war and to project power at the strategic level. After the Vietnam War, the air force's focus on "deep battle" reflected its effort to supplant the army's role at the operational level. This effort was hastened by the abrupt end of the U.S.-Soviet rivalry, and the 'triumph' of air power in the Second Gulf War which 'proved' the revolution in military affairs. In each case, air power enthusiasts insinuated that the navy and the army symbolized anachronistic forms of warfare.

If certain groups of warriors want to claim that it is their prerogative to take a postmodern approach to history in its selection of rituals, traditions, and symbols while averring that civilians are over reacting, that's their choice.

However, these warriors should not then be surprised if civilians decide to make lasting changes in how America fights its wars. Or who does the fighting.

(And also, the logic that interested parties should not take notice or offense of how others interpret symbols undermines significantly the intellectual and political opposition to the current president and his supporters. If the symbolic significance of the American flag is in the eye of the beholder, then no one should have a problem when people decide to burn it. Likewise, if the Constitution symbolizes different things to different people, then what's the harm of taking an a la cart approach to the Bill of Rights?)

My $0.02.

[hoot72]

Originally Posted by plato

I respect what you're saying, and I *almost* agree with the first sentence.

I come from a different universe, through time and space. (OK, time).

The symbol means what it means to ME.
And, I claim the right to be just as disobedient as the "poor me" groups.

Any person who decides to be offended by past events in my army's history....Anyone (especially reporters) who decides that MY symbols mean I am proud that prisoners starved, and that civilians have been killed...

Can look at the skull and crossbones on my hat until my fist obscures his vision.

I understand where you're coming from but there is a norm in society and within that norm there is right and wrong. Would it therefore be okey for me to walk around with a AQ logo on my shirt in the states? Certainly not because of what AQ represents and what it means not only to americans, but society as a whole globally.

Yes, it may be acceptable in a country like Indonesia or some middle eastern countries to be seen wearing such a logo but by in-large, in almost all 1st world nations, espcially those who suffered dramatic destruction and huge losses of life, the SS symbol means what it means and that is a direct link to the nazi party.

I may be wrong in my opinion but that's how I see things in general. I do stand to be corrected if my points are wrong but saying "people can damn well accept me and my way of thinking if they like it or not" has its limits when its applied to certain situations.

What the marine scout snipers did/have been doing, if it is true they have been doing it for the longest time is, morally, wrong.

And if you were looking for more excuses for the media to point the finger at the USA as an example of a country that "hasn't got a clue" or "being totally ignorant of something so blatantly wrong" or "they have done it again"....this would be it.

This and the peeing on the corpse....I mean, what is seriously up with these people?

That's what I ask myself..."what is WRONG with these people's heads? Are they that uneducated or morally screwed up?"

I am not in the military and never have been and am speaking frankly from a civilian point of view.

[hoot72]

If I may go off topic for a wee bit, there is an incident in world soccer that is going on at the moment and is controversial.

Two soccer players. A guy from Uruguay called Suarez, one of the best soccer players at the moment and scores tons of goals for Liverpool.

And a french man called Evra who is a person of Color and plays for Liverpool's fiercest rivals, Manchester United.

An incident happened during a derby match between both sides in which the word "Negrito" was used by Suarez to Evra.

An official complaint was filed after the match by Evra against Suarez for racism and eventually, after investigations, Suarez was handed a 8 match ban and didn't appeal the punishment despite the fact he claimed consistently it was normal in his country to call a person of color that word and that it was acceptable and alright.

Now, you have a uruguyan and his counterparts stating it is a norm in their country against europeans who were outraged he would even try to justify that it was alright to call another person such a word in this day and age and put it down to stupidity and a lack of common sense.

Public opinion has been against Suarez except if you're from Liverpool and a scouser who seem to think Suarez did no wrong.

So, Liverpool play Manchester United again last night and as the teams line up to shake hands, Suarez purposely walks past Evra and doesn't shake his hand causing yet another flash point as it seemed Evra had put his hand out to shake hands perhaps to get past this incident....and it has become a hot topic all over again.

Does the use of the word constitute a norm culturally that is acceptable to some, but not to others?

[Utah Bob]

A few basic questions..

[SF_BHT]

The symbols mean what they mean.

The death head and SS runes are what they are and are very distinct. Nazi symbols are distinct and as a history major and avid student of world history these symbols only mean today what the Nazi's used them for. Military or civilians that have collection's of military memorabilia does not make you a Nazi but when you demonstrate them as these kids did it only sent a message that they wanted to send. I have collections of many DUI's from WWI friend and foe and since then does that make me a Nazi? NO

The Marines 1st investigation was a cover your ass and now they are doing a proper one and I am sorry to say heads will roll

The Skull and Cross bones that most people see now today are associated with Pirates not the WSS. The very unique Scull and Cross Bones from the WSS is not the Pirate symbol and would never be confused for one so that argument will not work.

The Nazi symbols also as noted have been adopted by skin heads that also do not meet our societies and the US Military's moral social and moral convictions so did they not know what they were doing? Bullshit.

Plato your argument does not hold water…….You must have slipped through the system at the lower Hudson school for wayward boys. If you truly think that it is ok to demonstrate and advocate the use of these symbols then you need to relook at things and doo some studying.

Bad things happen throughout history and it is our job to not repeat them and improve this crazy world we live in. We can not go back and change history but we can make the future better because of how we study and understand history. Do not repeat those errors that affected humanity so profoundly and that are what the Nazi movement represents past and present. I do not condemn all German people and their collaborators but we have to make sure that that movement does not rear its head again.

The bottom line is that Marine unit need's to be looked at. The naive youth excuse is not holding water in my book.


This is my 5 cents

[The Reaper]

Anyone here who has never done anything stupid or that would reflect negatively on your service step right up and grab a rock.

The rest of us were lucky that there were no digital cameras or internet before we wised up or got out.

TR

[Richard]

An Iraq vet, now a Holocaust expert, explains why he exposed Marines' use of an "SS" flag.

Richard

Marines Nazi-Flag Whistleblower Comes Forward
MJ, 11 Feb 2012
Part 1 of 2

When Marine investigators learned last November that a scout sniper platoon in Afghanistan was using a Nazi "SS" flag as its standard, it wasn't a member of the unit who told them. It was Iraq war veteran Waitman Beorn, a visiting history professor at Loyola University New Orleans, also a Fulbright and Guggenheim fellowship recipient who teaches at the National Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington. Dr. Beorn's research on Nazis and genocide is informed by his military background: He is a West Point graduate and former officer who served as a scout platoon leader in Iraq from 2003-2004. Through his work he seeks to teach "ethical decision-making in a military context using the Holocaust as a vehicle."

Shortly after I first wrote about the flag controversy last week, Beorn got in touch to explain how and why he chose to report the incident to the Marine Corps' inspector general. (Though Beorn contacted military authorities, he didn't play a part in the incident's recent unearthing by the media.) For one, he had learned through military contacts that the use of the 'SS' flag was not an isolated incident. He hoped that exposing it could lead to an important "teachable moment" that might help alleviate what he considers to be a serious issue. In an email interview, he shared with Mother Jones details of how the Marine Corps responded to him, and how the Corps has since addressed this moral education issue with the troops. He said he was disappointed with the emerging media narrative that the military had responded poorly. "I was surprised by the speed with which they acted and the seriousness with which they appeared to take it," he wrote.

But he also emphasized: "I think our public needs to realize that this is not a case of the 'liberal media' going after our brave men and women in uniform. Symbols are important. They send messages. These messages are important." He explained his special interest in the SS incident with regard to military training, and what he thought would be the appropriate punishment for the service members in question—especially during wartime. In a follow-up email he wrote: "My focus is on the importance of positive unit cultures, and that the use of this image highlights a problem. For example, I was just informed that a Marine posted on a blog that he had had the tattoo for 17 years, which seems to highlight this point for me."

The following email exchange has been lightly edited for clarity.

Mother Jones: How were you made aware of the photos?

Waitman Beorn: A colleague of mine received it from a friend associated with the Marines. It was forwarded to me via email with a bit of background.

MJ: What were your thoughts on them, both as an academic specialist in Holocaust studies and as a former scout platoon leader?

WB: I was disappointed and saddened. Our military's image has been sullied of late and it was really disturbing for me to see that certain members were choosing the SS (which is in my mind the epitome of evil) as something to admire, at least its imagery. My work, as you may have noted from my CV on my website, focuses on the German military in the Holocaust, and this was particularly disturbing in that context.

As a former officer, my first thought was: Where were the NCOs/officers? This didn't seem to be taking place on a remote patrol somewhere. I have since learned that the use of SS runes is not an isolated phenomenon. Even if the Marines themselves didn’t know what the runes meant (which I can't really believe), someone did and allowed it to happen. (Note: you can find that exact flag online with the description: "7180. ss double runic flag, a favorite and well know [sic] ss flag, 3' x 5' $7.50" It is displayed on a page literally surrounded by Nazi memorabilia.) What this tells me is that those in command didn’t consider this to have been a concerning issue. That is what troubled me.

I was in the cavalry...We were perhaps not an elite unit, but we had a proud tradition and considered ourselves elite, at least in the armor community. We wore Stetsons and spurs. So I understand the importance of symbols to unit cohesion and culture. This, perhaps, made the choice of the SS runes all the more troubling.

MJ: What did you expect or hope would happen when you contacted the Marines' inspector general?

WB: First, I wanted to them aware of the situation. I contacted the inspector general because they are the ones most likely to deal with the situation.

MJ: How did things proceed from there?

WB: I was quite pleased with the response I got from the [colonel in charge of the First Marine Expeditionary Force's investigative office]. He seemed to be taking this very seriously and searching for those involved, as well as in educating the other scout snipers about the inappropriateness of this. I thought that using the incident as the basis for a class in the 1st Marine Division was an excellent response. I do want to highlight the response of the IG here. I was surprised by the speed with which they acted and the seriousness with which they appeared to take it.

The only part of the Marine Corps response that is a little troubling is the automatic assumption that these Marines had no idea what symbol they were appropriating. For example, from CNN: "They determined that the Marines in the photo were ignorant of the connection of this symbol to the Holocaust and monumental atrocities associated with Nazi Germany." I have a hard time believing that. One or two Marines, okay. But all of them, including their leadership? Also, the comment by the spokeswoman that they couldn’t have known because that's not what Marines are about seems hard to believe, as does the revelation that this is NOT an isolated incident.

(cont'd)

[Richard]

Marines Nazi-Flag Whistleblower Comes Forward
MJ, 11 Feb 2012
Part 2 of 2

(cont'd)

MJ: Amid all the media hubbub, what do you hope is the upshot of this, culturally?

WB: I think this is a highly teachable moment about the creation and maintenance of positive unit cultures and environments. This is exactly the kinds of discussions we have with cadets at the USHMM using, not coincidentally, the German army in the Holocaust as a teaching example of how negative command climates and unit cultures lead to atrocity. The idea, in a nutshell, is that when a unit orders, condones, or allows dysfunctional behavior (particularly racist, overly brutal, etc.) in the small things, this can metastasize into much larger violence including war crimes. See the Army "kill team" in Afghanistan.

Moreover, I think our public needs to realize that this is not a case of the "liberal media" going after our brave men and women in uniform. Symbols are important. They send messages. These messages are important. It doesn’t matter what the intent behind the use of the symbols was or what the snipers intended them to stand for. Some symbols simply have pretty solid meanings. For example, the swastika was not always a Nazi symbol, sadly. But no one would look at its use now and assume it was a reference to ancient India and that it was unfair to criticize whoever was using it. As a historian, of course, I would say this is another reason that knowing the historical provenance of images and ideas is important.

MJ: Any thoughts on an appropriate action to take with respect to the platoon with the flag? Or more broadly, what should be added to every servicemember's training and development?

WB: It appears to me that there are two extreme positions being taken. One seems to call for heads to roll (i.e. calling this a "felony"). The other seems to argue that these men are in combat and should not be punished because of the rough conditions they are in and that this is a tempest in a teacup. The latter position takes at face value that they had no idea of the provenance of the symbols which, as I said, I find incredibly hard to believe.

As far as appropriate action, certainly this depends on facts of the case not available to me. I think the education aspect is incredibly important. Not just about the racist symbols themselves, but about the choice of unit mascots, symbols, etc. Particularly given the complex battlefield in Afghanistan and the necessity to gain the support of the local population. The actions of the lowest-ranking servicepeople in this global environment can have huge strategic importance (Abu Ghraib, kill team, urination incident).

And this does not mean that being sensitive to this is an attempt at being overly PC or touchy feely. One of the reasons we don't execute prisoners, for example, beyond the more important reasons of morality and the law of war, is that such behavior makes the enemy fight harder, causes higher casualties for us, and makes the mission harder.

That being said, do the lower-ranking Marines need to be court-martialed? Probably not. Are there non-judicial punishments and remedial training that would be appropriate? I think so. As for the higher-ups, the senior NCOs and officers involved, the standard must be higher. These are the ones who create positive (and negative) climates.

Again, do they need to be in prison? No, especially given the other incidents of late which ARE of more severity. Do they need to be made an example of? Probably, depending on their level of knowledge. Can this be career ending (i.e. letter of reprimand)? I think so. But again, I think it depends on the facts of the case. I do think the Corps needs to go further than simply saying that no one had any idea what the runes meant (particularly if this has been a longer term issue that has never been brought up). They need to make more details public.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2012...leblower-talks

[SF_BHT]

Richard

Thanks for the post....

[John_Chrichton]

Are we seriously advocating criminal action against these Marines? Are we going to go down the road of investigating our troops for perceived political offenses? In that case, we ought to just institute Politruks and Commissars to ensure political correctness in our Armed Forces. (But wouldn't that be follow the example of another murderous regime?)

This symbol appears to have been a part of Marine Scout Sniper culture for a long time. In fact, a buddy of mine has the very same symbol tattooed on his body. Members of my family were exterminated by the Nazis in Ukraine. Am I then automatically offended by this symbol? No, because I understand that it has positive meaning to some who fight for this country.

This appears to be another case of political and cultural self-flagellation fueled by the MSM and academia. Since the American sheeple have abandoned their civic obligation to defend their own country to the 1%, they have also abdicated a moral right to dictate what symbols help to raise morale and create unit cohesion.

[akv]

Originally Posted by John_Chrichton

This appears to be another case of political and cultural self-flagellation fueled by the MSM and academia.

How so? Has there been an era in US history since WW2 when the results of this story would have been any different? 1955? 1965? 1975? Let's say you laud "the good old days" of the 1950's no PC back then, " the I like IKE" era, I'd wager if this story had hit back then the backlash would have been even greater from the millions of US vets who had served and lost buddies in the ETO.

You might be too young to recall the heat Ronald Reagan took for just placing flowers in a Bitburg cemetery where some of the interned were SS soldiers.

[Richard]

RE: Post #59 - YGBSM!

Richard

[Mr Furious]

I think this is way overblown, and is being stretched in every manner possible. I could be completely wrong, and these Marines are pure evil skinheads who deserve to be locked up for a long time. They're not. I have a hard time believing that these brave and proud Marines collectively and wittingly choose a symbol associated with a defeated and evil regime to align with and pay tribute to. That’s a joke. This isn’t some anti-Semitic allegiance or statement. If they wanted that they would have went for the black and silver. I think these are young Marines who think the scout sniper “SS” in the shape of lightning bolts looks good. They are proud of their service, and I am proud of them.

Much in the same manner as someone said before, regarding the two letters “s” in the Kiss emblem. Gene Simmons is Jewish and his mother was a holocaust survivor, the letters had nothing to do with a Nazi tribute. Nor was it a "fail." They were made to look like lightning bolts as a form of art.

Why slam these Marines for this, and why is are we even paying attention to this and once again diverting our attention and resources? While we’re at it, why not slam every owner of the "people's car"; Jewish owners included. Wasn’t that also a nationalist symbol of an evil regime? I highly doubt anyone thinks about Hitler, Ferdinand Porsche, or the Third Reich weapons of destruction they created and the lives lost when they turn the keys of their Jetta or Cayenne these days. Is it anti-Semitic to drive a Porsche or a Beetle? Or has enough time passed for that one and it doesn't matter if a VW was indeed created by a horrific being and his Nazi "professor"? I guess we'll let that one slide.

[CSB]

There are ten Marines in that photograph.
Plus a photographer.

I will assume that at least one of them is a Sergeant (E5) or higher.

And none of them knew the origin of the insignia?

As they say on the radio show "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" that comes under the heading of: "Things you should have learned in high school, if only you had been paying attention."

This may be a situation of "pure heart, empty head."

It's the 'empty head' that bothers me.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Mr Furious

I think this is way overblown...

YGBSM - American military personnel, direct representatives of our government, society, and national ideals, sporting tattos and displaying a flag which symbolizes the absolute worst of Western cultural development..."overblown"...I disagree.

The Importance of Images to America's Fight Against Violent Jihadism

It is difficult to overstate the importance of images, particularly in a war waged against an enemy so focused on violence employed for its use in propaganda. It is disappointing that, a decade since 9/11, we seem to need to constantly relearn the lesson of how deep a self-inflicted wound can cut.

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute...dism/2012/1/24

Richard