Bret Devereaux

So evidently *despite* the desperate pleas of 10 former SecDefs, a meaningful number of veterans *did* take it upon themselves to try to unseat the lawful transfer of power within our civilian institutions. What might possibly have made them feel they had the right? 14/25

So is the civ-mil relationship healthy? Clearly not! There is a growing sense among service personnel that they are both set apart *and better* than civilian. Does warrior-ism drive this, or reflect it? I don't know, but either way it has to go as a signal of the... 15/25

...values that the force is going to adopt moving forward. Organizational culture flows down from the top, and 'warrior ethos' and 'warrior restaurant' nonsense signals that the top is on board with this warrior-ism, despite its baleful consequences. 16/25

That has to change and it is long past time for the civilian authorities - Congress, the President - to do their jobs and make it change. And to be clear, the culture of the military has *not* always been like this. 17/25

The 'warrior ethos' was added to the Soldier's Creed only in 2003 - the old version of the Creed had no reference to being a warrior, but it did have a line about "restrain[ing]...Army comrades from actions disgraceful..." which got nuked out of the current version. 18/25

The pro-warrior literature isn't that old either. Gates of Fire - the perennial target of my ire - was only published in 1998. Read some WWII veteran memoirs - 'warrior' is, in my experience, a very rare descriptor for military personnel. 19/25

Finally, @EmanThinks makes the argument that a 'warrior' mindset improves cohesion. It may well, but if it improves cohesion at the cost of the civ-mil relationship, it is worse than useless. This is the exact mistake of elevating operational/tactical considerations...20/25