One of the interesting things I’ve heard lately, which makes sense to me, is that a warrior does not uphold honor by upholding promises. Every word out of a warrior is the truth and is seen as a promise.
It’s a very different paradigm and world view from modern society’s concepts of honesty and fairness.
Ymar says: Every word out of a warrior is the truth and is seen as a promise.
Ymar, is that because a warrior refuses to speak propaganda and deception? A warrior is concerned only with telling the truth precisely as he sees it?
What would that say about our top military leadership, who spend most of their public speaking time as if they were diplomats, shading the truth, rather than speaking bluntly and clearly? Not really their fault, as a top military position is also political by its nature… but are they still to be considered warriors?
The military are operating under civilian control. That means what they say and do is subordinated to the civilian leadership, namely Obama. He’s their head honcho and head of command, like it or not. A soldier, is not a warrior. A soldier kills on command, because he was told to, and does things because he was told to. A warrior was never necessarily a soldier and always had a far greater autonomous control over their own actions and beliefs.
As for your question of why a warrior would only speak the truth, this goes back to the American belief that a man’s word is his bond. By “word”, they didn’t mean “promises” but by the “words that comes out of his mouth”. This also refers to the Persian belief, before they got conquered, looted, and raped by the Islamic hordes, that it is necessary to teach young men 3 things for them to mature. 1: Despise lies 2: ride a horse 3: shoot straight
McChrystal and Petraeus are warriors. General Diversity Casey of Ft. Hood is merely a soldier. That’s a very easy, though shallow, way to tell. Some people in the military actually adhere to their oaths as given. Others are a bit looser in interpretation. Overall, men of honor will honor their allegiance to the US Constitution, which means obedience to the proper chain of command. This strangely enough has led various historical warriors into trouble, militarily speaking. King Leonidas didn’t take his personal guard force to Thermopylae because that was all the Spartans had. He took it because that was the only thing the politicians allowed him to take.
Under Bush, Petraeus prospered and America benefited. Under Obama, McChrystal bombed and blew up, giving Obama vacations and American body bags. These are not coincidences.
Ymarsakar – Good point about the military being subjugated, but I don’t think it’s to Obama (although he is the current face of what is evil). The military is under control of the State Department. It doesn’t matter if I am reading about Brett Kimberlin…. The Blaze comes the shocking news that the Obama State Dept may be teaming up with unrepentant domestic terrorist, Brett Kimberlin … or L.O.S.T. OR…. Hillary Clinton took on conservative forces that twice have blocked ratification of the United Nations Law of the Sea treaty, calling it crucial to U.S. economic and strategic interests in the Pacific and elsewhere.