Google had this link near the top http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/28/rolling-stones-shot-at-general-caldwell-misfires/ . I didn’t read it carefully, but a commenter sums it up saying that the only psy-ops was the one applied to the interviewer perhaps to get back at him for a different piece he did that got a high-ranking military official removed.

I expect any human to potentially try to sell things to his/her superiors. Obviously there are many ways to go about doing this. We certainly want honesty here if anywhere (people are dying and opposing players are making preparations to fight back).

What is striking though is the Hollywood (and perhaps very realistic) image that grunts are trained to follow orders without fail. What kind of respect is that for another human? This means they become a tool of whoever is the one that is actually thinking. I clearly understand why this is done (to fill the ego, with the plausible reasoning that you, the general, should have an extended body with as much power as possible and that those fighting are not equipped to think nearly as well), but a person’s life should be viewed as more valuable than that. If you, the fighting soldier, are going to risk limb or try to remove someone else’s you should hold yourself responsible and hence better be sure you believe in your subsequent actions.

Of course, I am not shocked the military does things this way since in practice there is a very large number of grunts that are willing to shoot and might do so under someone else’s command if not yours. Demanding strict adherence to following orders is also a way to keep those with doubts about morality working for you (the general) rather than getting in the way.

The grunt creed contrasts sharply with the higher ups who certainly want to analyze the perceived enemy/foe and figure out how to win that chess game.

So, since military leaders have to think, does this pose a threat to the President and to the People, much like a thinking soldier like Pvt. Manning might pose to his higher ups? But we can ask the same thing about a thinking and empowered President and Congress posing a threat to the People. In the end, it is nice to try to make one set of decisions and then encourage everyone on down the complex hierarchy to just follow the decision, but this dehumanizes the participants, likely denies the valuable input of many heads, and makes you less likely to think dynamically and adjust quickly. It also makes us potentially very ruthless, yet powerful in many ways. And this attitude escalates from others as well (who’ll feel threatened by us) and results in an arms race towards ever more powerful murdering weapons.

The best approach is to always frown upon violence (ignoring outlets like games and some controlled environments). And the best way to defend against violence from others is to encourage everyone to think and get educated on matters (so as to avoid being exploited and turned against someone else). [Anyway, if you act without having confidence, your chances of failing go up significantly from whatever they’d otherwise be.]