I know not what years my readers served our once great Corps, but I am of the vintage of the writer of the article below. He and I have history that goes back to 1966-67 and carried forward to the late 1980’s.
Our first tour together was in Vietnam in 2/1. I “think” he was a lieutenant, but I could be wrong. As a lowly sergeant in Echo company I know not his assignment; I seem to recall he was a company XO? I attempted to research his assignment in several places, but his all Bio’s aren’t that specific.
The next time was in 9th Marines on Okinawa 1977-78. I was a captain serving as the regimentals Asst OPSO, and he was a major serving as the OPSO with 2/9. That was the start of my feelings concerning this officer. It’s all in the book should you desire more information.
The next time I was a colonel serving as the Training Director at LFTCLant in Norfolk. He was a frocked BG serving as the Asst CG of 2d Marine Division at CLNC. An incident during this tour solidified my opinion of him that still carries on today.
I did see him again a few years ago at a Naples MCL Birthday Ball. I approached him to simply say hello and he did not recognize me. Guess I never made much of an impression on him. He developed the nick name of “Chuckie Cheese Krulak” by some Marines, including me!
To flush out some memory cells, the one accomplishment he enjoys boasting about was he takes credit for establishing the “crucible” in recruit training.
His daddy was Lieutenant General Victor Krulak (aka “The Brute”). In 1964 he was assigned as the Commanding General of all Marine Forces in the Pacific theater (CG FMF Pac), which of course, included the war in Vietnam. Rumor had it he was looking forward to becoming CMC, but in 1967, LBJ choose Leonard F. Chapman instead — a wise choice in my view. The next year Daddy retired.
Now if you think Daddy did not have something to do with the son becoming CMC, you live under a rock. Seriously!
Taken from Project Syndicate, a newsletter purported to provide “a broad range of views by the world’s foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. ” However, I shall let you decide on their statement
The disproportionate share of insurrectionists at the US Capitol with a military background are not representative of the armed forces as a whole. Nonetheless, as the divide between the military and US civilian society grows, even more attention will need to be paid to weeding out extremists.
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA – Revelations that the insurrection at the US Capitol included many former and current members of America’s armed forces have been met with alarm. And yet, as a 35-year veteran and retired commandant of the US Marine Corps, I saw the events of January 6 as the predictable culmination of a growing disconnect between the US military and civilian society.
Once home, many veterans joined organizations like the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion, where they were surrounded by like-minded people who had served, suffered, and sacrificed together. Jobs were plentiful, and Americans took pride in their country and their military.
Similarly, in the Korean War less than a decade later, though America was never “all in,” it nonetheless had clear strategic goals. As in WWII, US servicemen and women did a remarkable job and came home to an appreciative country.
But then came Vietnam, where most Americans never really knew what their country was fighting for. When the conflict finally came to its ignominious end in April 1975, there was no victory to celebrate (and it certainly was not fireworks that flew from the roof of the US embassy in Saigon). Unlike previous generations, those who fought in Vietnam were not honored for their service and sacrifice. Equally important, the public backlash against the war led to the end of military conscription, which fundamentally transformed the relationship between the military and the American people. The rift created by the shift to an all-volunteer military has grown wider ever since.
After Vietnam, America’s next major war was Desert Storm, in 1990. Again, clear strategic goals were met in a dramatic fashion, and US servicemen and women returned to a proud country – on the cusp of becoming the world’s only remaining superpower with the collapse of the Soviet Union the following year.
Yet by the end of the Gulf War, globalization and technological change had already begun to reshape American society. Old-line industries were being upended, and many manufacturing jobs were disappearing. Although immigration had only a minor effect on the big economic picture, it became a hot-button political issue for those who found themselves out of work. At the same time, a new wave of social-justice issues also started gaining momentum during this period. As a microcosm of America, the US military was not immune to these political dynamics.
It was against this political, social, and economic backdrop that America embarked on its “long war.” Much like Vietnam, the “War on Terror” lacks clear strategic goals and has lost public buy-in over time. Many of those who have fought it subscribe to the apocryphal refrain that while the military was at war, America was at Walmart. After serving multiple tours in Iraq or Afghanistan, servicemen and women who sacrificed years of their lives have received little recognition.
In his 1973 book, The American Way of War, the historian Russell F. Weigley quoted US General George C. Marshall as saying, “a democracy cannot fight a Seven Years’ War,” because any protracted conflict eventually will lose the support of the electorate. The longer a war runs – particularly when it becomes cross-generational – the greater the disconnect between the typical citizen and the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who serve.
he War on Terror is an abiding case in point, helping to shed light on the unrest and extremism that burst into public view at the Capitol. A small minority of alienated former and active service members have concluded that something is wrong in the America for which they fought and sacrificed. The past two presidential elections have fueled this discontent and convinced some that they have a duty to confront perceived domestic “enemies.” Political leaders, meanwhile, have exploited these sentiments for their own advantage.
The COVID-19 pandemic also contributed to a perfect storm. As the economy shed jobs – particularly at the lower end of the income distribution – face-to-face interactions were no longer possible. With deepening social atomization, it has become more difficult to experience solidarity. Angst or boredom have afflicted many, and some have found refuge in online communities espousing extremist ideologies. The 2020 presidential election brought the situation to a boiling point. A sitting commander-in-chief openly sought to overturn a free and fair election with lies and intimidation, and a small minority of his acolytes answered his call to action. Really?
But Americans should have faith. Notwithstanding a few outliers, the US military is unwavering in its support of, and dedication to, the US Constitution. Those in its ranks who harbor extremist views will be discovered and dealt with appropriately. Looking ahead, recruitment methods will be strengthened to weed out extremists. Recruiters will have to look not only at candidates’ social-media activity but also at their “body paint” (tattoos) and other potential indicators of extremist or racist sympathies. Interviews will need to be more pointed, and education for active members improved.
While the troubling trajectory of US military-civil relations has created fertile ground for some members to be radicalized, it is important to remember that the insurrectionists represent an exception. The US military has defended American democracy for centuries and will continue to do so, in keeping with our noblest traditions. Yes, I agree general, you can bet on it!
In sum, I categorize this fellow in the same company as Mattis, Allen, and all the other Kool Aid drinking generals viewing the military through their woke eyes and ears. Krulak says the recruiters will take care of this supposed problem. LOL What does he know about recruiting — Nothing!
Here they come folks. Now, I know full well there are always two, sometimes many, sides to every story and in an attempt for full disclosure, I’ve not been able to find any of the other sides to this one. But this one sure sounds somewhat fishy to me. Of course, the headliner goes a bit overboard with the use of words like “turret.” Of course armored cars has turrets. But I think the FBI needs to be looked at a lot closer by conservative minded folks.
FBI Sends in Armored Vehicle with Turret, 2 Vans, 6 FBI Vehicles, 3 Local Police Vehicles to Arrest Young Father Who Attended Jan. 6 Rally – UNBELIEVABLE INTERVIEW!
The FBI lured him out of his home in Alabama by pretending to be a customer needing a pressure washing.
Then an Army armored vehicle with a turret on top, 2 FBI vans, 6 FBI vehicles, 3 local police and sheriff’s vehicles pulled up and ransacked their home.
Audrey James, his wife, was forced to sit outside for 8 hours with her 3-year-old while the FBI searched their home and broke a light fixture.
Joshua James is a war hero, a veteran, a Godly man, a provider, and a business owner. Joshua James DID NOT commit any violent crime. He attended the January 6th speech by President Trump at the Ellipse along with a million other Americans. He volunteered to work security with other members of the Oath Keepers.
The FBI is holding him until trial because he was seen speaking with two other members of the Oath Keepers that day.
How is this legal?
On Friday The Gateway Pundit spoke with Audrey James and she is understandably distraught.
The FBI is going to move Joshua James to Washington DC.
Joshua, was arrested this week and is being charged in connection to the events of January 6th in D.C.
Bail WAS recommended by the probation office & we were told prosecution would not argue against bail. But, somehow at the last minute prosecution decided to argue against it. My husband was in D.C. that day providing security detail for speakers of the rally that morning. FBI said under oath they do not believe my husband was part of any violence and they have NO proof that he was involved in violence. The main topic of their testimony was the Oath Keepers logo on his hat, the organization who asked him to provide security to the speakers that day. They kept referencing two other individuals who had the same logos on their clothing that day and their aggressive behavior. The public defender asked “Was Mr. James seen with these people exhibiting aggressive behavior?” FBI Response “No he was not.” Public Defender “Well then let’s talk about Mr. James actions instead.”
They said they have cell phone data that places Joshua pinging off a tower that provides service in the area that includes the Capitol. (That doesn’t prove anything other than he was in the radius of that tower which is about a 6 mile range).
Here is the judges reasons for denying bail: While Joshua doesn’t have a criminal background and has strong ties to the community and is not believed to be a flight risk and may not have been violent that day, he continued to have communication with members of Oath Keeps after the 6th which “proves” he has no remorse for the events of that day. And due to the fact he has PTSD from being blown up in Iraq serving his country and doesn’t take medication for his PTSD and owns fire arms, they feel that’s a volatile combination and see no reasonable scenario for granting bail.
We said we would get rid of any weapons and even agree to a medical evaluation to prove he doesn’t need medication. Are those not reasonable scenarios? Especially for a combat veteran, Purple Heart recipient, small business owner who is the sole provider for his wife and 3 kids, who has strong ties to the community and isn’t thought to be a flight risk? He should be able to be home protecting his family while helping prepare for his legal battles. He is unable to work from jail and we have lost over half our income if he can’t work.
My husband has also used his personal time to repeatedly respond to and assist natural disasters rendering help to victims of tragedy, injury and the destructive forces of nature. Even in his own community.
They called our office line pretending to be a customer needing pressure washing to draw him from the house. They arrested him away from the house but then showed up at our home with SWAT and a tank rolled up to my front door. My 3-year-old and I were drawn outside so they could clear the house and raid it. We had to sit outside for almost 8 hours in the public eye while they tore our house apart and broke a light fixture. The only items they confiscated were oath keepers t-shirts, stickers and pamphlets and a can of some type of pepper spray. LOL, Really? That’s all
They did come back two days later with a warrant for a random cell phone. Since, we are getting harassing and threatening calls to the business line, email and Facebook.
With bail being denied they will transfer him to DC to await trial.
Who knows when that will be! We have no funds for an attorney of this magnitude and are trying to fundraise. We are hoping to gain enough support and get our story out there to raise funds to help get an attorney to help bring our veteran home on bail.
Their focus on oath keepers and other oath keepers actions (not my husband’s) proves their agenda. I asked the public defender why they changed their mind and argued bail he replied “there is pressure coming down to detain them.” This is a political witch hunt. If you need me to send you the affidavit I can. I have also requested a copy of the transcript of the hearing.
I think the current flock of FBI field agents are afraid of their own shadow, or maybe they have had so many resignations they are having to use FBI desk clerks for field ops? I mean they needed all that to go to a guys house who they had already arrested him? Certainly they had staked the house out and knew only the wife and 3 year old were there. WOW? Go get em’ guys.
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA – Revelations that the insurrection at the US Capitol included many former and current members of America’s armed forces have been met with alarm. And yet, as a 35-year veteran and retired commandant of the US Marine Corps, I saw the events of January 6 as the predictable culmination of a growing disconnect between the US military and civilian society.
Once home, many veterans joined organizations like the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion, where they were surrounded by like-minded people who had served, suffered, and sacrificed together. Jobs were plentiful, and Americans took pride in their country and their military.
Similarly, in the Korean War less than a decade later, though America was never “all in,” it nonetheless had clear strategic goals. As in WWII, US servicemen and women did a remarkable job and came home to an appreciative country.
But then came Vietnam, where most Americans never really knew what their country was fighting for. When the conflict finally came to its ignominious end in April 1975, there was no victory to celebrate (and it certainly was not fireworks that flew from the roof of the US embassy in Saigon). Unlike previous generations, those who fought in Vietnam were not honored for their service and sacrifice. Equally important, the public backlash against the war led to the end of military conscription, which fundamentally transformed the relationship between the military and the American people. The rift created by the shift to an all-volunteer military has grown wider ever since.
After Vietnam, America’s next major war was Desert Storm, in 1990. Again, clear strategic goals were met in a dramatic fashion, and US servicemen and women returned to a proud country – on the cusp of becoming the world’s only remaining superpower with the collapse of the Soviet Union the following year.
Yet by the end of the Gulf War, globalization and technological change had already begun to reshape American society. Old-line industries were being upended, and many manufacturing jobs were disappearing. Although immigration had only a minor effect on the big economic picture, it became a hot-button political issue for those who found themselves out of work. At the same time, a new wave of social-justice issues also started gaining momentum during this period. As a microcosm of America, the US military was not immune to these political dynamics.
It was against this political, social, and economic backdrop that America embarked on its “long war.” Much like Vietnam, the “War on Terror” lacks clear strategic goals and has lost public buy-in over time. Many of those who have fought it subscribe to the apocryphal refrain that while the military was at war, America was at Walmart. After serving multiple tours in Iraq or Afghanistan, servicemen and women who sacrificed years of their lives have received little recognition.
In his 1973 book, The American Way of War, the historian Russell F. Weigley quoted US General George C. Marshall as saying, “a democracy cannot fight a Seven Years’ War,” because any protracted conflict eventually will lose the support of the electorate. The longer a war runs – particularly when it becomes cross-generational – the greater the disconnect between the typical citizen and the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who serve.
he War on Terror is an abiding case in point, helping to shed light on the unrest and extremism that burst into public view at the Capitol. A small minority of alienated former and active service members have concluded that something is wrong in the America for which they fought and sacrificed. The past two presidential elections have fueled this discontent and convinced some that they have a duty to confront perceived domestic “enemies.” Political leaders, meanwhile, have exploited these sentiments for their own advantage.
The COVID-19 pandemic also contributed to a perfect storm. As the economy shed jobs – particularly at the lower end of the income distribution – face-to-face interactions were no longer possible. With deepening social atomization, it has become more difficult to experience solidarity. Angst or boredom have afflicted many, and some have found refuge in online communities espousing extremist ideologies. The 2020 presidential election brought the situation to a boiling point. A sitting commander-in-chief openly sought to overturn a free and fair election with lies and intimidation, and a small minority of his acolytes answered his call to action. Really?
But Americans should have faith. Notwithstanding a few outliers, the US military is unwavering in its support of, and dedication to, the US Constitution. Those in its ranks who harbor extremist views will be discovered and dealt with appropriately. Looking ahead, recruitment methods will be strengthened to weed out extremists. Recruiters will have to look not only at candidates’ social-media activity but also at their “body paint” (tattoos) and other potential indicators of extremist or racist sympathies. Interviews will need to be more pointed, and education for active members improved.
While the troubling trajectory of US military-civil relations has created fertile ground for some members to be radicalized, it is important to remember that the insurrectionists represent an exception. The US military has defended American democracy for centuries and will continue to do so, in keeping with our noblest traditions. Yes, I agree general, you can bet on it!
CHARLES C. KRULAK
Writing for PS since 2020
4 Commentaries
In sum, I categorize this fellow in the same company as Mattis, Allen, and all the other Kool Aid drinking generals viewing the military through their woke eyes and ears. Krulak says the recruiters will take care of this supposed problem. LOL What does he know about recruiting — Nothing!