Words have consequences

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

Malkin calls the case of Marine 2nd Lt. Ilorio Pantano "especially relevant in light of Easongate/Eason's Fables/Eason-quiddick."

Sadly, No!™ It's especially relevant in light of Mattisgate.

And, Mr. Gittins said, he was charged with desecration for posting a sign in English on the SUV that said, "No better friend. No worse enemy" — the slogan for the Iraq war of the 1st Marine Division's commander, Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis.

Now. Do I believe for one minute that Pantano, who may be charged for murder for killing two Iraqis, thought it was "fun to shoot some people"? Not really. In fact, this pacifist thinks that this is shaping up to be a huge miscarriage of justice.

But Lt.Gen. Mattis is the one that opened up this line of reasoning, that gave credence to the idea that Marines are not just out there trying to protect the USA or Iraqis, not just trying to save their comrades, but looking for any excuse to kill a few guys who "ain't got no manhood left anyway."

If that were Pantano's motivation, and I am sure that it was not, then murder charges would be exactly what the doctor ordered. As Americans, we still make a distinction in wartime between civilians and combatants; Pantano presumably thought he was dealing with the latter - and if he was wrong, it certainly sounds as if he acted in good faith. I only regret that he had to be in that situation in the first place.

Comments like Lt.Gen. Mattis' make no distinction between the two, and call the good faith of our Marines into question. Who's really disrespecting the troops?*

* That's by way of being an actual question. I'd be happy to hear from soldiers who disagree with this take on things.