Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Post No. 144: At Least the Marines Seem to Have It Down

© 2010, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

Several weeks ago, the movie A Few Good Men aired on a TV channel.

In the movie, a young Marine dies during a disciplinary session which is prohibited by regulations. The discipline was administered by two low ranking fellow Marines. The question is whether the Marines were following orders issued by higher ranking officers, or acting on their own accord.

Most recall the exchange between Tom Cruise, who represents the two Marines on trial, and the base’s commanding officer, Colonel Jessup portrayed by Jack Nicholson, resulting in the explosive, “You can’t handle the truth!”

But there is another exchange, prior to Nicholson’s outburst, which merits some consideration. It is between Cruise in his capacity as defense attorney, and one of his clients, the more senior and clear headed of the two Marines on trial.

Kaffee (Cruise): “Did you assault Santiago with the intent of killing him?”

Dawson: “No sir.”

Kaffee: “What was your intent?”

Dawson: “To train him, sir.”

Kaffee: “To train him to do what?”

Dawson: “To train him to think of the unit before himself. To respect the Code.”

Kaffee: “What’s the Code?”

Dawson: “Unit. Corps. God. Country.”

Co-Defense Counsel Weinberg: “I beg your pardon?”

Dawson: “Unit. Corps. God. Country. Sir.

In reciting this “Code,” the issue of the order of importance, or priority of the components, becomes apparent. The Marines seem to have it down to a science.

Prior to the airing of the movie, C-Span2 Book TV aired a program during which they discussed the priorities of politicians. There were allusions to (1) doing what they thought best for their constituents; (2) addressing issues as expressed by their constituents; (3) adherence to Constitutional principles; and (4) pursuit of religious goals. Some would argue that advancing their own financial interests should be somewhere in the mix.

However, when a politician declares that he or she will no longer run for office, or resigns from office, they almost universally claim that they want to “spend more time with their families.”

How do we decide what is more important in the grand scheme of things? Who decided that family is more important than other societal units? Why should more attention be devoted to family as opposed to other societal pursuits?

The son of legendary United Farm Workers leader Cesar Chavez criticized his Father for not spending enough time with his family, and yet millions of farm workers view Chavez as a hero who improved their lives dramatically.

Who decides? What’s right? What’s wrong? What’s the appropriate balance?

In the case of the Marines, it appears to be a somewhat rigid, well thought out prioritization, which is drilled into them. Former Senator Robert Dole, a WWII hero and winner of the Bronze Star, when asked why he risked his life to save that of a fellow soldier, remarked (paraphrasing), “Because you’d like to think that they would do the same for you under the same circumstances.”

According to Colonel Jessup, adherence to the Code by Marines “saves lives,” and permits those of us not on the front line, but who derive the benefit of their protection, to sleep peacefully at night. And anyone who has ever known a Marine, even if just briefly, or socially, knows how deeply this Code runs….

Marines become Marines because of those in whose hands they want to put their lives. It is not a matter of who you want to follow into combat so much as who you want to follow you, over the hill, or through the door.

Which brings us to Senators Ensign and Edwards, and Governors Spitzer and Sanford, and Presidents Kennedy and Clinton, and most recently Tiger Woods (although not an elected official with specifically outlined responsibilities to the public) who seem to have muddled the line of acceptable prioritization.

Or did they?

If these public figures had not been married, and had children, would we feel any differently about their societal contributions?

On the other hand, none of the above (with the possible exception of Tiger) seems to have had any qualms about using their marriages in any and every way possible to persuade the public to view them as individuals who would not behave in the manner is which they were obviously behaving.

For those contemplating public life and being in the public eye, it might prove prudent to get the applicable code down pat before becoming famous. A failure to do so could have dramatic negative consequences.

And the folks who are sending our Marines into harm’s way seem to be telling the rest of us that in a closed political society, where everybody is guilty, the only crime is in getting caught, and the only sin is stupidity.

With all due respect to our elected officials, the adaptation of some variation of “Unit. Corps. God. Country.” might prove to be the better approach.

And who would have thunk that society might benefit from emulating principles espoused by an entity run by the government….


  1. Tiger Woods is like king Solomon about women.

    Sanford used the peoples money for his fun and
    he should be removed.

    Welfare should be brought back.

    We need to stop the wars and killing. The money from the poppy and the oil should be used to pay the United States debt off and rebuild
    the countries that we have destroyed Iraq and
    Afghanistan, and Pakistan and the USA.

  2. If we want government out of business why not let the courts and others involved work out
    the problems of defective cars.

    Obama is doing a very good job.
    Who makes the big money in the United States?
    Drug companies, Weapon dealers, Insurance
    Companies, Security forces, Foreign Contractors,
    Paper companies, fossil fuel dealers, etc. The idea of insurance came from the mafia. If the goverment has taken money from these foreign
    contries how long before they raid the above

  3. The balance between career, say (political or otherwise) and family, is tricky business. It does seem that many who have achieved greatness do so at the expense of their own children. So when we honor someone for their life consuming contribution, we should consider giving awards to their spouse and children as well. Because in all likelihood, they have paid a high price.

  4. The difference between the Marines and the political personalities (and Tiger Woods) you mentioned is simple...

    The Marines believe it, it is The Code, and they feel real dishonor (real personal shame) if they fail to live up to it.

    The politicians mentioned, and Tiger, ignored the implied code (or oath taken) but let others believe they lived by it.

    We are indoctrinated in various codes of honor and conduct throughout our lives. In the US, we start reciting the Pledge of Allegiance at age 5. An age at which we cannot possibly understand the scope or meaning of the pledge. We are taught codes of conduct from our earliest years through the reading of fairy tales, stories of famous people, and by observing our parents and families' behavior. Even movies are part of this.

  5. Thank you Anonymous for participating in this exchange of ideas. We weren't quite sure the nature of the responses we would receive in connection with this post. That we received such varied and complex responses is encouraging in and of itself, since it reflects that there is no simple answer to how we apportion our our personal energies and resources.

    You wrote: Sanford used the peoples money for his fun and he should be removed. [You are absolutely correct that this is a distinguishing aspect of the South Carolina Governor's conduct, and we hoped that someone would focus on this component as compared to the cheating component.]

    Welfare should be brought back. [Are you suggesting that we should ensure that families should be taken care of and that will benefit society at large?]

    We need to stop the wars and killing. The money from the poppy and the oil should be used to pay the United States debt off and rebuild
    the countries that we have destroyed [sic. like]Iraq and Afghanistan, and Pakistan and the USA. [Interesting, real interesting.]

    Thanks again.

  6. Welfare should be brought back. [Are you suggesting that we should ensure that families should be taken care of and that will benefit society at large?]

    I wondered about this, too. It actually never went away so I am not sure what the writer meant. Maybe he feels welfare should be less restricted but I don't understand it in the context of the codes and adherence to them.

  7. meh, when things get bad blackwater will be there to make sure whitey gets 'his'...

    stop all the killing!

  8. Very good study on human behavior, and the marines are right: priorities need to be foremost.

  9. Douglas: Good to hear from you as always.

    You referenced a difference between Tiger Woods and some others in public life. Recently, we heard a commenter suggest that Tiger "represented" to the public, and to corporate America in particular, that he was some squeaky clean, goody two shoes type of individual.

    Did he affirmatively do so, or did we, the viewing public, make some assumptions about who he was? Did we conclude, because of the lack of negative publicity associated with him, that he was "better" or of "higher moral character or fiber" than other professional athletes of his "ilk?"

    It might be argued that Tiger's priorities were playing golf, making money, and having fun, in that order. Why does society want to inject family (and its associated fidelity issues) as a priority for him when obviously it was not?

    Are there some negative ramifications associated with people adhering to a set of values or priorities which the majority feels should govern? (Assuming, of course, that one does not violate the law.)

  10. Very good study on human behavior, and the marines are right: priorities need to be foremost.


"There Are More Than 2 Or 3 Ways To View Any Issue; There Are At Least 27"™

"Experience Isn't Expensive; It's Priceless"™

"Common Sense should be a Way of Life"™

Opportunity to Serve as "Guest Author"

This forum was designed to be YOUR forum for the civil exchange of ideas by people with all points of views. We welcome the submission of articles by all of our readers, as long as they are in compliance with our Guidelines contained in Post No. 34. We look forward to receiving your submissions.