The details of the Hollow Force Debate are presented at the link, The Debate. In analyzing that debate, I listed three categories of naval officers: the RESISTERS, the COLLABORATORS, and the PASSIVES. These categories, taken from the Korean War Prisoner of War (POW) experience, but in a different context, were applied to the attitudes and world views of naval officers in the 'later cohort' (born 1957-1964) of the Boomer generation (born 1942-1964). A group of 151 such officers comprised those engaged in the Hollow Force Debate. The context in this debate was the extent to which they supported the 'socialization' of the military imposed on them by the power elites of the Clinton administration during the 1990s.

       One of the officers, the most active in that debate was CDR Edward Pollister Carroll II, USNA class 1982 (born 6/30/59). He, above all others, singled himself out to speak for most of the others - whether or not their views coincided with his. He is the subject of this essay solely on the basis of his world view, as expressed in his E-mails during the debate. He is a perfect exemplar of a naval officer who appears to identify with the world view of the radical Boomer elites of the Clinton administration. Though born in the 'later cohort' of the Boomer generation, as were all of the other Hollow Force Debaters, he (more than any other member of the group) displayed an attitude and world view that coincide with those of the 'early cohort' of civilian counter-culture revolutionaries of the Boomer generation - those whom I have called the 'power elites' of the Boomer generation.

       Ward Carroll did not identify himself as an RIO (a backseater, not a pilot) until very late in our E-mail conversations, preferring to 'fuzz' his status by using the term, 'naval aviator,' to describe himself while talking the talk of a Top Gun 'fighter pilot.' This may have been an oversight on his part since he knew (and I did not) that a majority of the naval officers in the 151 debaters were naval flight officers - not pilots. Thus, at first, I was under the impression that all or most of the people I was addressing were pilots, except one officer who I knew to be an RIO.

       Ward Carroll, whose fleet experience was in the F-14 Tomcat fighter, was assigned to the U.S. Naval Academy's faculty during the course of the Hollow Force Debate - the latter conducted from August 2000 through June 2002. He was an instructor in English and 'ethics' and was in charge of the Master's Degree program[1] for young Navy Lieutenants and Marine Captains who are assigned as Executive Department Company Officers to the Midshipmen. The program is controlled out of the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School and implemented at the Academy via remote classrooms on a computer network link between the two places. It was originally advertised as a program that awarded a Masters Degree in Behavioral Science - to go along with the New Age 'ethics' program that was implemented under the direction of Dr. Nancy Sherman, the radical feminist sent by the Clinton administration to 'change the soul of 20-year-olds' at the Academy.

       Ward Carroll has been a very public figure in proselytizing for naval aviation in the aftermath of the Tailhook '91 bacchanal, especially in the reinstatement of the Tailhook Association with the active-duty Navy. He has done a credible job in this role as an 'unofficial' public relations officer for the Academy and naval aviation. He is the author of a recent book, 'Punk's War,' which has been widely publicized by the U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings. He is a strong advocate and defender of the new 'ethics' program at the Academy, which is discussed at length on this Web Site.

       Ward Carroll is also a COLLABORATOR. The evidence for this 'poster boy' image of a collaborator is presented below. Just as Bill Clinton was an icon for the power elites of the Boomer generation, Ward Carroll is the iconic representation of the collaborators among the Hollow Force Debaters - therefore, among the entire 'later cohort' of the Boomer generation in the U.S. Navy. Here is the evidence.

       CDR Ward Carroll was the third member of the Hollow Force Debaters to enter the fray. In an E-mail[2] dated 7 December 2000, he criticized Atkinson's (my) replies to Mike Stapleton and to Stewie. See the Hollow Force Debate essays for this correspondence. His message, originally masked by me as one from 'Anonymous' (rather than Carroll), was posted on my Web Site. I chose to give anonymity to Carroll because of the sensitivity of his position at the Academy and the common knowledge within the Academy circles that I had been highly critical of the new 'ethics' program there. I believed that his private conversations with me, if they became public, might jeopardize his position and/or his career. Carroll explicitly stated in a later message that he did not request anonymity. Consequently, I have lifted the cover of his identity - as he apparently desires. CDR Ward Carroll's original message is posted at the link in the next paragraph.

Response from CDR Ward Carroll  This U.S. Naval Academy graduate, class of 1982 and born 6/30/59 defends his friends, Mike and Stewie, and the Academy's new 'ethics' program in a manner that reveals some knowledge of my part in criticizing it. He appears eager to defend this program in a manner that suggests a 'circle the wagons' approach to criticism. It is probably true that our criticism of high-level flag-rank naval officers has resulted in pressure on the more junior officers in the program to take personally criticism aimed at higher levels. CDR Carroll is obviously trying to defend his friends who may be among that set of more junior officers.

       I answered Carroll's E-mail with a response[3] on 11 December 2000. It is posted at the link below.

Atkinson to Ward Carroll -- Part I   My reply reveals the record of the 'change agent,' Dr. Nancy Sherman, who designed and implemented the new 'ethics' program at the Academy. I also give due credit to '...the guys who are out there on the boat right now.'

       CDR Ward Carroll responded immediately with an E-mail[4], the body of which is repeated below:
"Beak,
I await Part II, I guess. I've already heard the arguments broached in Part I. You see, I'm not new to your world, Gerald. In most ways you should've been talking to me all along, not CAPT Geanuleas and not CAPT Clemente. I understand and see the merits of your side but am constantly put off by your jingoistic rhetoric. Your narrow-minded tone eclipses any valid points you make, to wit, your attacks on individuals at my level, to include the aforementioned officers and Dr. Nancy Sherman, for that matter.  Trust me, all the officers on the staff here kept her in check during her time as the Distinguished Chair.  I dare say she teaches at Georgetown now with a modified opinion of the modern military. This place is too seeped in tradition to be changed by one academic, which is both an asset and a liability.

"Check your readiness stats (re: F-14 FMC rates) against your Navy of the 50s and 60s. I think you'll find yourself guilty of selective memory. And while you're citing two widely publicized mishaps, why don't you check the current Class A rate (1.23/ 100,000 hours) against any of the rates of your day.  We have problems, no doubt. You're just not stating what they are accurately and therefore it's impossible to take you seriously.

"The irony here, Beak, is that we both want the same thing. The difference is I trust that my generation will get it done.  We're proving it daily. And I'm not defending the power elite when I say that, trust me.  I'm defending the guys that are out there on the Boat right now. You had a war. We've got a contingency operation. Neither of us invented the scenarios we were put into. Re-read the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, and Article II, Section 2.

V/R, Ward (not Eddie) Carroll"

       My reply[5] to CDR Ward Carroll is reproduced below.
"Ward,
Am sending this without cc: addressees. Since your message came the same way, I assume you wish this conversation to be between just you and me. Damn! After such a rocky start, I think we may just learn to like each other. If not, at least respect each other.
   
"I can't find much in your message to disagree with. Except that I am not personally attacking you or your friends. My 'counterattack' [on Mike and Stewie] was purely reflexive at what I considered a personal insult. It is a 'male' thing. As Daniel Bell, the Harvard sociologist points out (concerning human nature), "When two men first meet, it is a duel to the death." With fighter pilots, it is even more deadly -- as you know. [Note: At this point in the conversation, I thought Ward Carroll was a fighter pilot - not a backseater.]

"With respect to Dr. Nancy Sherman, I can believe that you may have the impression that you guys 'bested her.' And I am certain that you tried as best you could. But her view of this exchange is much different. For example, she used her experience at USNA to paint a much different picture for a national audience via the Baltimore Sun and Boston Globe. See my write-up of this view at the FORUM11-21-99 link on the Newspaper Articles page on this Web Site.

"If that is too much trouble, the following quote has most of the meat.
Begin quote:
   Dr. Nancy Sherman, the 'change agent' who instituted a new 'ethics' program at the U.S. Naval Academy, boasts of the new 'character development' seminars there ('In wake of scandals, Naval Academy splices ethics into lessons,' Neal Thompson, Boston Globe, Nation, 22 August 1999 -- byline Baltimore Sun).
   According to her, 'Character. Ethics. Integrity. They all have become buzzwords of a new era at the U.S. Naval Academy.' To hear her tell it, the Academy was a flawed institution where cheating, car-theft-rings, drug use, and sex abuse were rampant -- that is, before she arrived to 'square the place away' via a new 'ethics' program.
   Dr. Sherman's implication is that the 152-year tradition of training our nation's naval officers was faulty, corrupt, and just plain evil. Forget that this revered institution has produced some of the finest military officers this nation has known. Some of these officers were responsible for winning the Battle of the Pacific in World War II and reigning victorious in every war in our nation's history, including the Cold War.
End Quote.

"As to the readiness statistics and safety records now compared to those in my day -- you are absolutely right. At the time I was working very closely with Bob Caldwell, the Insight editor at the San Diego Union-Tribune on the Kara Hultgreen affair, he kept on me about the vastly improved safety record in today's naval aviation over that of my day. In his mind, that record argued against the fact-of reduced qualification and training standards for Hultgreen and Lohrenz.

"After looking into this, I found that the extensive use of flight simulators as a means of type-training was very effective in reducing the accident rate. My ACETEF friends at Pax River showed me their simulator and I am, indeed, a believer.

"This, too, is a 'generational' thing, technology I mean. If you want to talk safety, dig up some of the guys who preceded me -- the guys who flew jets on the old straight decks before the USS Forrestal came along. You don't even see pupils in their eyes when they talk of their experiences.

"As for the 'readiness' statistics, I used only anecdotal stuff from published accounts by civilians. I do receive stuff from active-duty guys -- some who have returned from operational deployments -- which are much more dismaying than what you saw in my essay. Obviously, I can't use the stuff you guys know about first hand. Cross decking, spares, low flight time, etc. This stuff comes from retired flag-rank naval officers who have sons in deployed squadrons and/or FRSs. We really do know most of what you guys know.

"And I fully agree with your statement,
'The irony here, Beak, is that we both want the same thing. The difference is I trust that my generation will get it done.  We're proving it daily.  And I'm not defending the power elite when I say that, trust me.  I'm defending the guys that are out there on the Boat right now. You had a war. We've got a contingency operation.  Neither of us invented the scenarios we were put into.'

"I know this because I saw it as recently as September 1998. A transcript at the link below reveals my admiration of and respect for your generation's 'guys that are out there on the Boat right now.' It also was published in the FORUM section of the Sunday Washington Times (FORUM10-11-98). Please visit that link -- which contains an E-mail to Stewie at the bottom of which is an essay entitled, 'Islands of Hope' -- to peruse its contents. The USNI 'Proceedings' turned it down. Why? It also tells the truth of what I saw on the USS Kennedy with regard to the fraternization of female sailors with male superiors aboard ship.

"The problem is, the 'power elites' of your generation -- the civilians and the current crop of flag-rank naval officers are just not worthy of your devotion to duty. As we saw in the recent post-election campaign, those 'power elites' didn't even want to count the ballots of our deployed military personnel.

"The essence of my message is that all of us, those who are not of the 'power elite' of your generation (70-or-so million of the 79M total) and those in the other living generations who can be so persuaded, must work to restrain the totalitarian 'impulses to power' of the 'power elites' of your generation until that generation drifts into elderhood.

"If that message is a bit too strident for some, or many -- too bad. It is a sound message based on reasonable evidence of potential for harm.

Best Regards, Beak"
------------------------------
       Shortly thereafter, I sent Part II of my reply to CDR Ward Carroll's original message in defense of the New Age 'ethics program at the U.S. Naval Academy. It is at the link below.

Atkinson to Ward Carroll -- Part II   This reply gives a detailed reason for objecting to an emphasis on the Enlightenment philosophers in the new 'ethics' program at the Academy. It reveals for the first time that the Academy's chaplains are specifically forbidden meaningful participation in this program while the study of the Enlightenment philosophers are mandated in the required NE-203 core course.  This reply insists that philosophy, as taught at the Academy, must be taught within the context of history. In that regard the reply includes my review of Balint Vazsonyi's seminal book, "America's 30 Years War: Who is Winning?"

       Ward Carroll responded to this message with a conciliatory E-mail[6] on 15 December 2000. Its text is reproduced below.

"Thanks for a thoughtful reply.  I like your allusions re: fighter pilots and our attitudes. [Reader please note here: Carroll implies to Atkinson that he (Ward Carroll) is a 'fighter pilot.' He is not, never has been and never will be a 'fighter pilot.' He is a former 'backseater,' an RIO in the F-14 Tomcat community. He is a pretender.]  You're dead on there, and you should be heartened by the fact that fire still burns in those with their hands on the tillers of today's Navy. I will also always share the view that to celebrate masculinity is not inherently at the expense of femininity.

"I've circulated your answer to Part II to all of the philosopher Ph.D.s in the building with the pitch that they give it a good read.  It was your most lucid essay to date. 

Happy holidays, Ward"

       I did not receive any comment on the subject of my Part II answer above. Evidently, the philosopher PhDs at the Academy did not think much of it. This was the last E-mail received from Ward Carroll for about eight months. His conciliatory attitude changed drastically after I posted two essays on this Web Site. One was the Judas Goat, which exposed the role of COL Paul Roush, USMC (Ret.), in cementing the radical feminist agenda into the 'ethics' curriculum at the Academy during his 11-year tenure there. The other essay was Secular Humanism at the U.S. Naval Academy, which  describes in detail how the New Age 'ethics' program at the Academy evolved to promote America's new state-sponsored religion -- secular humanism.

       In an E-mail dated 28 August 2001, CDR Ward Carroll made the following request.
"Dear Dr. Atkinson,
Is there any secular way to request my name be removed from your list?  I've been praying to God that I never hear from you again, but that hasn't seemed to work.

Thanks, Commander Ward Carroll, USN"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
       Then, in an E-mail[7] sent to the Hollow Force Debaters list on the day after the 9-11 terrorist attack on America, CDR Ward Carroll sent a congratulatory message to CDR Guy Maiden concerning Guy's response to Atkinson on the subject of those attacks. See the Hollow Force Debate Results essay for a detailed analysis of Atkinson's conversation with CDR Guy Maiden. CDR Carroll's message read as follows.
"Thank you, Iron, and God bless you, my brother in modern day arms. Gerald Atkinson's last missive was vulgar in its timing and opportunistic tenor. I was disgusted by it.

"Our thoughts and prayers need to go to the victims, their families, and our shipmates currently in CVICs at sea planning their pending trips into harms way. We who know them understand they will go with the same resolve as any that have gone before them.
"We will prevail.

V/R, CDR Ward Carroll, USN"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
       Soon after receiving this message, I posted an essay on this Web Site, which exposed CDR Ward Carroll's role as a COLLABORATOR with the Clinton agenda. This essay is at the link, Women-in-Combat After 9-11. It reveals that Carroll used the terrorist attack on America as a lever to publicize his new book, 'Punk's War,' on Fox News, a national TV news outlet. Immediately thereafter, CDR Carroll sent me a scathing letter vilifying my motives[8]. His message read thus.
"Beak, as you are fond of being called,
Every time I think you might just nibble at having a valid point on the outskirts of your polemic, you launch into an adhominem attack that eclipses everything else you write.

"A few clarifications/corrections:

"Fox News came to my publicist after one of their execs read PUNK'S WAR. I went on as the author of the book. My thoughts were my own, not the Pentagon's. And what I do on leave is my business, last time I checked.  USNI Press sold 100 copies of PUNK'S WAR in a day and a half at Tailhook, by the way. [Note: The Tailhook Association would not even allow Stephanie Gutmann, the author of 'The Kinder, Gentler Military: Can America's Gender-Neutral Fighting Force Still Win Wars?' a table to sell her book at the same Tailhook convention. The book was considered too 'politically incorrect']. I'm sure that's more books than you've sold all year, if not your entire angry life. It's called 'marketing.' A lot of Americans are good at it, and those who aren't wind up publishing their own books and managing their own web sites along with those who have no talent. The fact you attack me for going on national television and traveling to conventions to 'shill' the book proves you have no clue about how to do the same - more proof of the natural order of things, I guess.

"Obviously you haven't read PUNK'S WAR. You should. I think you'll see I'm anything but a mouthpiece for the Boomers or the ruling elite. As a self-proclaimed moral man I'm not sure how you can stand in judgment of a 100,000-word book based on a 3,000-word first serial excerpt or a couple of reviews, good or otherwise. The book is available through most national booksellers and e-commerce sites (unlike yours, although I think I'm being gracious in referring to your offering as a 'book'). Please pay retail.

"I'm not sure why you wanted to make an enemy out of me, but if our battle is to be waged across the landscape of the publishing industry, radio, and television, I don't think you'll be able to keep up. Keep your eyes open. You see, I'm retiring to become what we call 'a writer,' which is wholly different than being a pedantic old fart with access to a computer. If the difference is baffling please contact my agent in New York. He'll explain it to you.

"My correspondence to you was never anonymous, so don't make a big deal out of revealing my identity.

"My father nicknamed me 'Ward.'  He spent 30 years in the Marine Corps as an attack pilot and flew out of Chu Lai and Da Nang in '67.  I am fond of the name, though.

"You're right about one thing:  I am arrogant. And I'm not afraid to treat others as I have been treated by them. I warn you before you show up at one of my signings or other appearances. I'm also an enigma, so don't project what you glean about me from random and disjointed sources onto the rest of the Navy. I sense you're troubled by the notion of officers as individuals - I never have been.

"You'd better get on board for the big win, Beak, or even those of us who despise you, your sole audience, I fear, are going to stop paying attention. The thing you decry is what you created; the thing we created is winning the war against terrorism.

"As Randle P. McMurphy said:  'See you on the outside; know what I mean?'  (Oh no, I've quoted Ken Kesey's work.  He took DRUGS!)"

Resolve and vigilance, Ward
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
       In this message, as well as in the text of others, CDR Ward Carroll exposes himself as a PRETENDER. In addition to his false claims of having been a Cold War Warrior, implying that he and his cohort 'won the Cold War,' and his implication that he is a 'fighter pilot,' CDR Ward Carroll is a POET. Let me explain.

       I experienced the POET mentality in the young Boomers who worked in the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) for ACDA, the State Department, the Pentagon, and on Henry Kissinger's National Security Council Staff. These idealistic young analysts, most with advanced degrees in Physics or other of the 'hard' sciences, were what I called POETS. They had no experience with the real world. They knew only what they had been taught in college or what they had gleaned from books. They were the kind of people who would write books about 'war' such as Ward Carroll's 'Punks War.' In their closed little world, they could just 'make things up' and believe them to be true. In Ward Carroll's case, he has never been in a real war. The 100-hour Gulf War doesn't count.

       Ward Carroll reminds me of those young Boomers on Kissinger's NSC staff. For example, I will never forget one of them, who had no appreciation for the fact that 'machines wear out.' He could not understand why the B-52 bomber (older at the time than the pilots who flew them) needed to be replaced. When I told him the story of my A4D Skyhawk attack aircraft that simply shut itself down in the chocks after taxiing in from a landing at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and that this was caused by a broken (engine vibration, metal fatigue) cross-shaft on the fuel control - he couldn't understand how such a thing could happen. Had it broken down 30-seconds earlier, while on the approach to landing, neither the aircraft nor I would likely have survived (separation from the ejection seat and parachute deployment at that time were not completely automatic, as they are today).  To this neophyte, machines did not fail catastrophically, and if they did, it was the fault of someone who should have fixed it so that it could not happen. No, we did not need to replace the B-52 bomber fleet - they would never wear out. It appears that this very same mentality is being applied today to the aging aircraft in the Navy's tactical aircraft fleet[9][10][11][12].

       Another example, from Kissinger's NSC staff days is that of Jan Lodal, who led the Verification Panel Working Group on SALT. One day at the White House Executive Office Building, Lodal proposed an obviously 'foolish' SALT limitation on 'averages' of certain weapon systems, rather than limitations on specific systems. As this White House Staff POET bore into his explanation of his proposal, eyes were 'rolling' in disbelief among the participants sitting at the table. Being unable to contain himself, CDR Atkinson asked Lodal, "Have you never heard of the Mexican who drowned attempting to wade across the Rio Grande River because he heard that its average depth was only three feet?" That ended the explanation and the meeting.

       CDR Ward Carroll is not only a POET, he is a PRETENDER. It is clear from his message that he is a PRETENDER, not a WARRIOR. The latter fights battles in real wars. The pretenders live off the glory of their fathers, uncles, and others who fought in real wars. The pretenders revel in the glory of their contemporaries who are fighting the air 'war' in Afghanistan. The pretenders write fictional accounts. The warriors, if they write at all, write non-fiction. For an example of the latter, please read 'We Were Soldiers Once ... and Young,' by LtGen Harold Moore and Joseph Galloway. This book, written on the basis of real life stories of the young men who fought the battle of the Ia Drang Valley, is the best book ever written about the Vietnam War. Ward Carroll's 'Punk's War' couldn't hold a candle to it.

       Another book, written by a real fighter pilot, J.D. Wetterling, entitled "Son of Thunder," is a novel which contains the stuff of enduring meaning. As opposed to Ward Carroll's "Punk's War,' which addresses the trivia of the modern 'pop culture' peacetime environment, Wetterling's novel digs deep into his fighter pilot days flying F-100s in Vietnam to attempt to explain the age-old human dilemma of an acultured civilian in a democratic society, turned warrior; 'How can I do what I am called on to do - kill another human being - in war?'

       'Son of Thunder' is a story of "...redemption in a disastrous war that changed the way America thinks about itself, and transformed two strong-willed souls in the process. And it's about the awful price of heroism...," says the dust jacket. In spite of a love affair with an anti-war nurse in the combat zone, John, the main character, "had the courage to risk everything, and never quit believing he was right to fight in that war."

       John, after a losing battle with a North Vietnamese surface-to-air missile and ejecting from his burning F-100, "left Vietnam as an unconscious passenger on a medivac plane - a passenger who had paid 9/10 of the pro-rata purchase price of a massive black granite slab. He would have shared it with 58,200 of his fellow Vietnam vets, but for the Grace of God."

       After recovering from his burns and other wounds, John (a Medal of Honor winner) married the nurse and became a highly successful businessman with the share of the economic American dream which that position garnered, as well as a church elder, and community spirited citizen. But, "...there had always been one of two [recurring] dreams; he was watching Vic [a friend and fellow F-100 pilot] die or Colonel Radman [whose leadership and warrior ethos John admired and tried to emulate], as it actually happened in lucid technicolor. The dream always induced an emotional volcanic eruption that brought him bold upright in bed, knowing, just as he knew the moment it had actually happened, that it had been within his power to prevent it. But the most depressing thought was the one he felt powerless to affect : His friends had suffered and died for absolutely naught - his country had walked away and allowed a massive blood bath of the sweetest, gentlest people John had ever known."

       "People whose only enlightenment on the war came from TV news or best sellers by writers with an agenda, yammered on about the 'atrocities' by a handful of frustrated American soldiers. The most outrageous atrocity, the one perpetrated by the North Vietnamese on their southern brethren after the Americans left, was completely ignored."

       "The 'heroes' were the elite draft dodgers who were now in positions of power in government and the press, and they were quick to justify their own cowardly actions by discrediting the war and the warriors who patriotically responded to their country's call. It was, in fact, high fashion to do so. Why, even a dodger from Arkansas, who hid out in England through his draft age years, had the unmitigated gall to make a run for President of the United States - Commander in Chief of all the nation's military men and women."

       John's experience at the Vietnam Memorial Wall is emotional and riveting. After locating and kneeling at the names of his friends who perished in that war, "He felt himself getting sick. Staggering to his feet, he headed for a wooded area to the side of the memorial, but he didn't make it. His legs buckled and he dropped to his hands and knees and vomited on the manicured meadow. He stared at the bile-drenched grass through glassy eyes as his stomach tried to turn itself inside out. Above the ringing in his ears, he heard a little boy talking. 'Mommy, whatsa matter with that man? Lookit his face!' His mother's reply, 'Come along, honey. He's probably one of those homeless Vietnam vets.'"

       In contrast to Wetterling's account of a real war, Ward Carroll's 'Punk's War' gives one the impression that the most important elements of 'combat' that naval aviators face are bureaucratic, personal, 'can't we all just get along' advice and an attitude that derives from cheering Navy on at the Army/Navy football game. From Wetterling, a real fighter pilot, we get prose that elicits a groundswell of admiration - from fellow fighter pilots. The only kind that matters. Steve Miller, Editor of 'Mig Sweep,' the publication of the Red River Valley Fighter Pilots Association, writes[13][14],^, "Son of Thunder is one of the finest Vietnam-era fighter pilot stories I have ever read...While the book is fiction based on actual experience, after a few pages any thoughts of fiction were gone. I thought I was back in Southeast Asia again myself...JD relates all of [the central character's] experiences, thoughts and emotions like no one else ever has. Having flown as a Lieutenant in Vietnam myself, I can tell you he is right on the money - from letting ego get in the way of good judgment to the forming of idols out of crusty old Majors and Lt. Colonels who were our commanders. If you ever flew in combat, you can relate one of JD's characters to someone you knew."

       J.D. Wetterling wrote a moving tribute to his fellow fighter pilots for the Wall Street Journal, entitled, "Still the Noblest Calling," which may be viewed at the link:
                                                     http://www.jdwetterling.com/stillthe.htm
More detail on his book is resident at:
                                                     http://www.jdwetterling.com/
It is well worth the visit to read the first three chapters and accompanying praise for this outstanding book.

       The most believable action in Ward Carroll's 'Punk's War,' however, is[15] "...a harrowing account of landing an F-14 Tomcat [into a barricade aboard ship] that's missing some of its landing gear," and another F-14 flying to a divert airfield ashore, running out of fuel and its crew ejecting into the night sky. The trumped up scenario of an engagement with an Iranian F4 Phantom and Iraqi Migs and surface-to-air missiles is about at believable as the 'romance' in a Danielle Steele novel. Otherwise 'Punk's War is filled with "...'Animal House' hi-jinks" with a large dose of New Age slang describing shipboard politics.

       For God's sake. Many of us have seen more harrowing peacetime 'action' than that (e.g. a fellow A4 Skyhawk pilot making a wheels-up night landing [immediately after being catapulted off the deck into a thunderstorm when his canopy popped off and his instruments failed], catching a #4-wire aboard ship, and grinding to a screeching halt with no injury to anyone aboard. Or a flaming flight deck at night after an F3H Demon landed atop an F-8 Crusader taxiing forward, caught a wire and engulfed the after flight deck in a blazing inferno). And that was in peacetime. Those of us who have been shot at in anger by a determined and resourceful enemy can attest - as J.D. Wetterling does - that combat in a real war brings out the best, and the worst in human nature. War Carroll only attests to the trivial periphery of that transcendent experience.

       For example, Spud (Punk's Boomer-generation RIO in the book and Carroll's alter-ego) describes himself to Punk (the 13er generation pilot) with unearned braggadacio. Spud explains that he is a "politically incorrect" Cold War Warrior,  further explaining that "We won the Cold War." Making transparent his frustration at not being in 'command' of the F-14 fighter (the pilot is always in command), Spud "challenged common pilot perceptions about a backseater's second-class status in the fighter community. He often referred to Tomcat pilots as 'nose gunners' and liked to point out how all the classified gear in the jet, 'the important stuff,' was in the rear cockpit." This provides insight into Carroll's mind (speaking through his character, Spud, in the novel), one with an inferiority complex who constantly 'lorded it over' the junior pilots in the squadron. I can't imagine a real fighter pilot, unless junior in rank to Spud (Carroll), taking this kind of intimidation from a backseater - a fighter pilot PRETENDER.

       It gets worse. Spud (Carroll) plays up to the junior radar intercept officers in the squadron by asserting, to their delight, that "...it was, in fact, harder to be a good RIO than a good pilot because the RIO had to be even farther ahead of the airplane in terms of decision making. RIOs, Spud claimed, were in the business of predicting pilot moves and preventing pilot errors." If this is true in today's Navy, either naval aviation is really in the sad state of unreadiness as depicted by the double standards applied to LT Kara Hultgreen and LT Carey Dunai Lohrenz, the first two females who proved themselves unqualified and unfit for carrier aviation, or else Carroll is glorifying his own importance at the price of deprecating the performance of U.S. Navy fighter pilots in general. In my day in combat naval aviation, we may have conducted some light-hearted kidding about the front-seat/back-seat tasks, but if a backseater would have had the audacity to even suggest that he was needed to correct the inadequacies of a pilot, he would have had a control stick racked up side his head. In fact, if a backseater even made a sound during a carrier landing, especially at night, he would have received the 'stick up side his head' treatment. In those days, the pilot was in command. In most fighter squadrons today, that is still the case - unless one happens to be in the F-14 Tomcat community in Spud's (Ward Carroll's) mind.

       Of course, Carroll dreams up an action sequence where his Spud has to suggest to his pilot, Punk, (as well as the Air Boss and LSO's) that the F-14 which is about to attempt to land into the barricade, jettison its weapon stores before landing. In addition, Carroll invents the event where an F-14 pilot "shits his pants"  while making an emergency landing. Contrast this 'mind-set' with that of J.D. Wetterling who, as a young Air Force fighter pilot, admires and reveres his fellow fighter pilots and his superior officers. "John sure knew this much. He [Col. English, the squadron Executive Officer] was the man, professionally at least, that John wanted to be and the man that he could never adequately repay for all he had done for him - the man who considered 'Thank you' a form of groveling." For his squadron commander, John knew "...he was a unique soul in the world of fighter pilots. In the two months or so that John had known him, he never heard a swear word come out of the colonel's mouth...Everyone genuinely likes him. He stood up for his men."

       For Ward Carroll, however, everyone in his Spud's Navy chain of command is screwed up. The admiral, a non-aviator, is weak, incompetent and unknowledgeable. His commanding officer is a pompous, universally disliked non-Academy dolt with a fetish to become a war 'hero.' Pilots are fearful, unknowing, unstable creatures who are as like as not to 'shit their pants' in an emergency situation. Everyone on the ship is all screwed up except Spud (Carroll) and his RIO friend Smoke. His pilot, Punk, is only alive because "...he had lost count of how many times Spud had saved the day with a timely input from the backseat." CDR Ward Carroll reveals in his 'Punk's War' that he is a megalomaniac with a heightened notion of his own importance.

      There are major problems with Ward Carroll's book, 'Punk's War.' They are as follows:
· Although pretending to characterize Spud (Carroll's arch-identity) as a 'politically incorrect' naval officer who wasn't affected by the Navy's move toward total 'equality' (a subtle and the only reference to the 'feminization' of naval combat arms), the book doesn't even address the women-in-combat problem along with the concomitant reduced qualification and training standards that have accompanied the social engineering visited on the U.S. military by self-serving politicians during the 1990s.
       Instead of addressing the real problems that have caused the JOs to leave the Navy in droves, Carroll invents trivia. He doesn't even mention the systemic problems, dictated from above by a commander-in-chief with an agenda -- preferences in making the services 'look like America.' Nor does he address the problem of superior officers lying about unit readiness up the chain of command and  the spineless Boomer military leadership during the 1990s which led to a hemorrhage of 13er generation officers and enlisted from the ranks.
· Carroll had a golden opportunity to write a novel with characters who epitomized this generational schism. Instead, he completely misrepresents reality and invents 'weak leadership' in the Navy that is 'acceptable' to the 'corporate Navy.' That is, the weaknesses are all individual 'personality' faults - not systemic faults generated by the culture war that has been carried out by the counter-culture Boomer revolutionaries, civilian and (now, surprise, surprise) military officers. He invents a squadron C.O. who is incompetent, weak, stupid, and lusting to be a hero who carries out unimaginable acts - all humiliating and disastrous, and who does everything wrong but (unbelievably) becomes a national hero by getting shot down over Iraq, taken prisoner, and returning home a war hero. The Navy covers up the real story because it needs a hero to shore up its public image. Where are the high-tech e-mail circuits back home and to a scandal-hungry press in this book?

       All of the 'weaknesses,' including those of the C.O. character, are trivial shortcomings that have been part and parcel of commanders of squadrons, ships, and other units from time immemorial - there is nothing new here. They have not, however, acted in concert at the same time in every important character as they are portrayed in 'Punk's War.' Over history, this aspect of leadership has (thankfully) been sporadic, randomly distributed, and inconsequential to the Navy's conduct of war or peace. The Navy lived through these screw-ups in the past, just as it does in 'Punk's War.' But the real problems in the corruption of the Navy, which led to a vote of no-confidence by the JOs is exemplified by ADM Jeremy Boorda's suicide, the reduction of standards with the introduction of women into combat roles, and the 12/12/5 and 20 quota system invoked to make the Navy 'look like America.'

       In Carroll's book, 'personality weaknesses' are systemic and the cause of the mass exodus of young JOs from the nation's military. This is a complete copout - a coverup of the highest magnitude - as evidenced by the U.S. Naval Institute's full-fledged support in publishing and marketing this book. The Navy found a sycophant who would exonerate it in its calumny in carrying out the Clinton agenda of 'socializing' the U.S. Navy, indeed, the entire U.S. military.

       Ward Carroll thus misleads the public by pretending to 'tell it like it is' and being 'brutally honest' when in fact he is covering up the Navy's real problems with a story that is critical of flag-rank leadership - but for the wrong reasons. This snow job has won the acclaim of a sycophantic Naval Institute which has supported the Clintons' 'socialization' of the Navy with amazing steadfastness. Indeed, had Carroll written about the Navy's real problems, the Institute would neither have published nor promoted this book. Instead, Carroll participates in a 'whitewash' of the calumny of Navy flag-rank leadership in implementing the Clintons' 'right thing to do.'

       CDR Ward Carroll admonishes Atkinson for publishing his own books, implying that is the route traveled by those who are interested in 'vanity' rather than substance. What this neophyte 'writer' does not understand about the real world is that Atkinson gets full retail price for each of his books - Carroll gets only an author's pittance for each copy sold. In fact, the entrepreneurial enterprise of publishing one's own works is a stimulating and rewarding challenge that Carroll will never know. Carroll defends his crass commercialization of the 9-11 attack on America to publicize his fiction, 'Punks War,' as legitimate 'marketing.' He must have forgotten that he criticized Atkinson for mentioning his Eternal Vigilance journal in connection with the 9-11 attack on America as 'vulgar and opportunistic.' For Carroll, POETS and PRETENDERS can market their products but others are not allowed to do so.

       Ward Carroll's book is endorsed by the usual group of fiction writers, another 'wannabe war hero' RIO reserve officer who became Reagan's Secretary of the Navy, another Top Gun RIO, and only one real life fighter pilot (who rightly praises the book's message of 'why it is important for young junior officers to remain in the Navy instead of taking the easy road out into civilian life').

       On the other hand, Atkinson's books are praised by real life World War II warriors such as ADM Thomas H. Moorer, USN (Ret.), a former Chief of Naval Operations and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, RADM C.A. Hill, Jr., USN (Ret.), and COL Carl F. Bernard USA (Ret.) - all warriors, not pretenders. There is no doubt where the quality lies in the two books - it is Atkinson's, hands down.

       Carroll, the POET, has published one book in his adult life. Little does he know that Atkinson, his adversary in this debate, has authored 38 articles published in professional journals (see Atkinson's Publications) and classified SALT analyses for the National Security Council as well as two successful books. The professional journal articles were published by the American Nuclear Society, IEEE, the American Association for Artificial Intelligence, International Association of Knowledge Engineers, and other national level, first-rank engineering societies. Atkinson's Books have been reviewed in nearly every Navy publication that Carroll's 'Punk's War' has, including the U.S. Naval Institute 'Proceedings,' the Association of Naval Aviation's 'Wings of Gold,' Military Magazine, the 'Pacific Flyer,' and various newspapers across the country. The huge difference in Carroll's and Atkinson's writings, aside from the fact that Carroll's stuff is 'fiction' and Atkinson's stuff is 'non-fiction,' is that Carroll is backed by a huge and rich U.S. Naval Institute while Atkinson sinks or swims on his own resources. The most telling difference, however, is that Ward Carroll works for others on whose good graces (and subject matter approval) he depends, while Atkinson is an entrepreneur who makes all of the necessary decisions. Carroll's stuff is 'processed,' Atkinson's is 'pure.' Carroll's stuff is 'filtered.' Atkinson's is not. Carroll writes to an agenda. Atkinson writes to the TRUTH. Carroll is beholden. Atkinson is in 'command.'

       Atkinson received a follow-up message from CDR Carroll on 15 December 2001. It appears that he could not get enough invective in the first E-mail to fill his craw, so he took another shot. It is worth reading - just like an adolescent all full of himself - a typical Boomer. They never grew up. Carroll's message[16] is as follows.

"The esteemed Dr. Atkinson,
I'm sorry; I got busy last week grading papers, so I couldn't fully finish my part of the exchange.  You seem to want to know me, and I thought it best you be offered a more accurate picture than you've managed to date.   I flew Tomcats as a RIO [Reader please observe: An RIO doesn't 'fly' anything. The pilot 'flies' the fighter jet. An RIO is a backseater who operates the air-to-air radar and fire-control system as well as the FLIR sensor and laser illuminator components of the LANTIRN air-to-ground attack system. He does not have a stick and throttle with which to 'fly' the aircraft. Carroll stretches everything in this description of himself - including his own self-importance, another Boomer trait] (you have no frame of reference here even if you did fly Viggies) for nearly 15 years. [Note: Atkinson flew fighters (F9F-5 Panther, F9F-8 Cougar, F7U-3M Cutlass) and attack aircraft, including nuclear weapon delivery, in the A4 Skyhawk and A3D Skywarrior before flying the RA5C Vigilante for four years - 2 deployments, one a combat cruise off the coast of North Vietnam. He flight demonstrated the RA5C Vigilante in the International Paris Air Show in 1965. In addition, Atkinson flew and flight tested the F8 Crusader and F6 Skyray fighter aircraft and the A4 Skyhawk at the Naval Air Test Center, Patuxent River, MD. Atkinson actually FLEW these war-fighting machines. He was not, as was CDR Ward Carroll, a 'passenger.']

       CDR Carroll continues, "During that time I was also aide to AIRLANT and CAG Ops for CVW-1.  Because command of a fighter squadron wasn't in the cards, I elected to enter the world of academia (a world that obviously scarred and warped you during your days in Ann Arbor). So for the last four years I haven't been in the business of fighting wars, nor will I be (regretfully) in the future. I teach English and ethics (as you know). You talk about how much time you had as an officer (or didn't have) and how it's a waste of time that I should have enough free time to complete a novel. That's a bogus hit. Really, if you understood the path my life has taken all you should say is 'congratulations.' 

"In this world it's publish or perish, so I decided to publish in a big way. I now enjoy a credibility in Sampson Hall that I didn't before. Instead of dinging me on it, you should warm yourself with the knowledge that a military guy can succeed at anything he puts his mind to. You should understand that more than anyone, as a guy who had a very unorthodox career, one that didn't include command, that not all officers wind up on the tip of the spear at the end of their time in uniform. 

"I don't hear you bitching about the fact James Webb wrote books while he was on the faculty of the Naval Academy. You see, I'm just a fleet bubba whose thoughts on paper have caught on in the publishing world. You hint about how connected I am to the ruling elite and how Machiavellian the whole machine is in forwarding this culturally Marxist agenda. What a joke! Hey, man, after working my buns off I sold my manuscript to the same house that launched Clancy and Coonts (a good friend of mine, by the way). That's all there is to it. And now my book has been picked up by Signet. It's coming out as a paperback in May of 2002. First printing is 200,000 copies. They've asked for my second book, sight unseen. (My agent is holding them at arms length until it's done; I'm 300 pages into the manuscript at this writing.) PUNK'S WAR is also coming out as a book-on-tape this spring (your medium of choice, I'd guess). And there's a movie in the works.  'There's nothing new here,' you opine (from a position of complete ignorance). Well, apparently there's plenty new here. Your attack on me (brought to my attention by another officer; I don't read your web site) is so far off base it's slanderous, and if you were a moral man you'd remove it. Again, in five months I'll be out of the Navy and writing full time, so your accusations about what I am or am not in uniform will be even more moot than they already are.

"And I stand by my criticism of General Krulak. He treated us like hell around here.  If he wanted the ethics program modified, he knew who to talk to. He chose another, more sensational and self-serving avenue.  That's not leadership. I respect what he did in 'real' combat (how do you know about that any better than I, by the way? You've never even dropped a bomb as far as I can tell), but what he did around here was just plain wrong. The women in squadrons thing is all over my new book, by the way (ON PUNK'S WING). I'm sure you'll be hearing about it on Fox News and the Washington Post and the New York Times and other places, so be sure and pick up a copy. Again, pay full retail.

"Oh, and I love the way you've championed the 13ers. Your thesis is flawed in one major way, though.  If you read Howe's 'Millennial Rising' (he coined the term 13ers, by the way) you'd see that these folks also accept female integration as a fact of life. That uber generation you've come to love so well has no problem with women in combat or anyplace else, for that matter. Wow, so much for the return to Beak's glory days, huh? You don't know me, Beak, but you sure do owe me an apology. For some reason, I doubt I'll be getting one from you. That would require courage on your part.

"Merry Christmas, Ward Carroll, author PUNK'S WAR  
"P.S. - The Tailhook Association has told its members they're sorry about the fact you're such a pain.  That's kind of embarrassing for a former carrier aviator, don't you think?  And I don't think it has anything to do with the new politics of the organization, whatever they are; I'm pretty sure everyone that hears from you is simply put off by your message and your tenor.  Maybe you should take up shuffleboard or something.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
       What Carroll leaves out of his postscript is that fully one third of pre-scandal Tailhook Association members (15,000 strong) left the organization forever because it would not stand up and defend the Navy's 'warrior' culture. It had acquiesced to the 'feminization' of naval aviation. Thousands of those former Tailhook warriors bought Atkinson's books in spite of the fact that the President and Board of Directors of the organization attempted to stifle any favorable publicity for them. Indeed, the Tailhook Association's leadership presided over the 'feminization' of its own membership. Thousands of us 'old-timers' left the organization in protest. Those who left have been Atkinson's strongest supporters in his opposition to women-in-combat[17].

       It is amazing that our POET would not only brag overbearingly about his 'accomplishments' in his naval career - writing a book called 'Punk's War' - but continue to trash the reputation of a widely respected and renowned former Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, General Charles Krulak. In the parlance of athletics, 'Ward Carroll couldn't hold Chuck Krulak's jock' in any dimension of his life.

       Ward Carroll reminds me of another military officer who took the same POET route to literary 'fame.' Pat O'Connell is the son of a neighbor of mine. He is a former Air Force C-5 Maintenance Officer who bilged out of flight training and took the backup route to finish his obligated service. He was laid off from the Air Force in 1988. He is often seen driving his automobile around the neighborhood, joy-riding, with his window open and his tiny white dog in his arms as he and the dog peruse the surroundings -- his and the dog's nose upraised in utter disdain of any other humans within sight. It is a strange sight to behold.

       Pat O'Connell is the author of the 1993 book, 'Knight Hawk.' In this techno-thriller[18], "...a fighter pilot - wronged by the Air Force - steals an F-15 jet and sets out to destroy New York City and Washington, D.C. She almost succeeds. That's right, she...[O'Connell] decided if his leading character/villain was to be a woman, the good-guy pilot to shoot her down would also have to be female."

       The reviewer of O'Connell's book discussed the parallels between his leading character, CAPT Kim Kenada and 1^st Lt. Kelly Flinn, the nation's first female B-52 bomber pilot forced out of the Air force for adultery, disobeying an order and lying. O'Connell wrote 'Knight Hawk' back in 1993, long before anyone heard of Kelly Flinn, Tailhook (sic) or the sex scandals that are rocking the military. "'I decided to write about women pilots because back when I went through pilot training [1980], women were taking all kinds of abuse in a man's world,' O'Connell said. 'I had a lot of respect for them and as Gen. Chuck Yeager used to say, 'the ability to be a great pilot does not depend on the shape of one's genitals.'"

      In O'Connell's novel, Capt. Kenada's flying career ended after she charged a superior officer with rape. It was her word against his. She lost. She was exiled from doing the only thing she truly loved doing, flying. She was kicked out of the cockpit and off the base. She was sent to Langley AFB in Hampton, VA as an aircraft maintenance officer - a situation very similar to O'Connell's.

       It was during this similar period in O'Connell's life that he discovered the 'vulnerability' of security surrounding the fighter jets at his Air Force Base. He wrote a memo detailing how easy it would be to steal an F-15. The document immediately became classified. It also planted the seed for his first book.

       O'Connell's main theme in the book is that "Women can perform in combat." Ah, yes. From the vantage point of an aircraft maintenance officer with absolutely no combat experience - women can perform in combat. Period. POETS to the fore. Let us all listen, raptly at attention to their superior wisdom! The book reviewer who interviewed O'Connell states "While many, especially those with a military background, have been quick to condemn Kelly Flinn, O'Connell says, his heart goes out to the pilot whose major mistake was 'falling in love with the wrong guy.' I wouldn't judge her...It has to be breaking her heart not to be able to fly...That is punishment enough." Typical Boomer pablum.

       CDR Ward Carroll, our backseat naval aviator POET sounds as if his world view is strikingly similar to that of the Air Force POET, Pat O'Connell. I hope we don't see him driving around in our neighborhoods, window down, with a little white dog in his arms, sniffing out the window as well after he retires to write his second book, 'ON PUNK'S WING.' Another mass media 'throwaway' paperback which will most likely reside alongside Pat O'Connell's stuff - fantasy for the radical feminist left wing in America.  Both POETS extraordinaire - both PRETENDERS.

       Both Carroll and O'Connell are POETS in the tradition of their Secretary of Defense, William S. Cohen. The latter is a full-blown rag-time radical Boomer who, as a Republican, became Clinton's choice to administer the military bureaucracy in the Pentagon. Other than a 24-year career as a politician (eighteen as a Senator and six as a U.S. Representative) his military experience was nil. Born in 1940, he took the way out of serving in the Vietnam War that most of the elite Boomers did - college and graduate school. He has, however, written or co-written eight books, including two books of poetry, three novels and three works of nonfiction. His books sell for $1.75 in the used-book section of Amazon.com. An online reviewer for that outlet says of his 'One-Eyed Kings,' "Nothing much to write home about. I must have missed something, considering the amount of praise heaped on the author on the dust jacket, I thought I was about to read War and Peace. There was nothing new here, and the story line moved around like a heart monitor display - no consistent track - grabs something here, something there. This really is a very disappointing book." The same could be said of Ward Carroll's 'Punk's War.'

       This review of Cohen's book is not surprising. He has a huge case of 'self-importance.' Another reviewer of his book, "The Double Man" (1985) co-authored with Gary Hart has a story line[18] "...that a Connecticut senator walking the middle road between liberalism and arch-conservatism can still save the day for America." Sound like a typical me, me, me Boomer elite?

       In another book[20], "Murder in the Senate," Cohen is characterized as "...Amid the integrity-destroying influences [in the streets of Washington, D.C.] stands one man bent on making a difference. Tough times demand tough talk, demand tough words, and finally a readiness for tough action." Of course the powder-puff who would carry this out in his own mind is the self-important POET, William S. Cohen. He is the perfect example of the effeminate 'power elites' of the Boomer generation - one whom the former soldier, military analyst, and syndicated columnist, David Hackworth, calls 'the perfumed princes of the Pentagon.'

       Michael Ledeen of the National Review is a harsh critic of SecDef Cohen[21]. "One could not ask for a better example of the corruption of American politics than William Cohen, allegedly the secretary of defense. You will recall that Cohen was criticized some time back, when, after attending a Hollywood party, he stayed at one of the posh hotels in the Los Angeles Basin instead of spending the night with his troops on a California military base. Some, perhaps annoyed by his Armani wardrobe, suggested that a real SecDef would have shown more respect for America's fighting men and women than for a bunch of movie folks."

       "But then William Cohen has never been one to show excessive concern for our soldiers and sailors. He's signed off on the feminization of the military, and he's been fully on board concerning the scandalous policy of arming the People's Republic of China, for which he risks being long remembered. He was a co-conspirator in the criminal behavior of Kenneth Bacon, Cohen's henchman who leaked Linda Tripp's private papers to the media. And he has participated in the cover-up of the systematic erosion of the morale and readiness of our armed forces." This is quite an indictment of a Secretary of Defense - but maybe to be expected for a POET out of his milieu as Secretary of Defense.

       An example of William S. Cohen's poetry from his book, "Of Sons and Seasons," is the following verse - Epitaph[22];
                                         Here lies a man
                                         who died in youth
                                          for no apparent cause
                                          A post mortem chart
                                          said a question mark
                                          was wrapped around
                                           his heart.

       It is said that SecDef Cohen wrote love poems to his wife, the television personality Janet Langhart (his second wife), during his tenure at the Pentagon. If they were as drivelous as the stanza above, it is well that they are buried in the $1.75 rack of used mass media (cheap newsprint-quality paper designed for short lifetime, i.e. 'throwaway' paperbacks) at Amazon.com, Borders Books, or SAM's club. Which brings us back to the subject POET of this essay, CDR Ward Carroll, the military embodiment of his POET-in-arms, Secretary of Defense, William S. Cohen.

       I actually took Ward Carroll up on his offer to look for his book, 'Punk's War,' at SAM's and other retail outlets. I found that this book was on hand at Borders Books in the 'Mystery' section in the form of a 'throwaway' mass media publication - right beside Danielle Steele's romance novels, Stephen King's weird mystery novels, and other manna for the modern trivial mind. These are the kinds of books that are traded for pennies at yard sales across the country. Pop culture, and empty. Sell, but for what purpose? To 'entertain' those who live vicariously off the imagination of others and cannot DO THINGS themselves.

       If one compares Ward Carroll's novels with those of James Webb, the former Marine infantry officer and Secretary of the Navy and those of J.D. Wetterling (and many others who write of substance, not 'pop culture' trivia of the times), one finds that Carroll cannot hold a candle to their books. POETS, who have never been in a real war, simply cannot bring to life the full extent of the meaning of that enterprise to an audience which never participated. The battle in the streets of Mogadishu ('Black Hawk Down'), as seen from the eyes of those who fought there, and the battle of the Ia Drang Valley ('We Were Soldiers Once ... and Young'), as written by those who fought there in Vietnam, tell the truth of the courage, valor, and bravery of those who won those battles -- took decades to get the story out. In the latter case, the books and movies about the Vietnam War were written and directed in the interim by those who opposed the war, dodged the draft, and helped Ho Chi Minh win the propaganda war for the hearts and minds of the American people. This latter group included prominent counter-culture Boomers, who came to executive power in the 1990s, some of whom even demonstrated on foreign soil against that war in their young adulthood years..

       Indeed, there is a vast gulf between the POETS who would tell us what IS is and those hard-headed realists who can convey the essence of battle from their real-lived experiences in war. Ward Carroll, the POET, will never be able to do so because he hasn't been there.

       For someone who wanted to be removed from my mailing list, CDR Ward Carroll displayed a surprising level of wishy-washy changing of his mind. He wrote at least three E-mail messages to me with the above protestations and accusations, AFTER asking to be removed from the E-mail list. The most salient fact about all of Carroll's messages is that not once has he addressed a single issue or essay on Atkinson's Web Site to which he so vehemently objects. Not a word about the Frankfurt School. Not a word about the existence of or nature of 'cultural Marxism (simply put, a term that more truthfully portrays the historical record of the popular term, political correctness, which has exactly the same definition and meaning). Not a word about the nature of radical feminism. Not a word about double standards in naval aviation. Not a word about the 'sensitivity training' he and his cohorts had to endure over the last ten years or so of his Navy career. Not a word about those within his own department (English, Law and Ethics) who have written to tell Atkinson the truth about what is going on at the Academy concerning the new 'ethics' program and which Atkinson has published preserving the anonymity of the writers. All we get from CDR Ward Carroll is invective, arrogant snobbish insults, and personal defamation toward any and all who would disagree with him. Not one of his statements contains even a hint of historical or professional references to buttress his case. In sum, all we get from Carroll is blathering propaganda and opinion. He is a POET  and a PRETENDER, completely without substance. A perfect icon for the Clinton military.

       In his last E-mail[23] to Atkinson, CDR Carroll wrote:
"Beak,
Because you never replied to my e-mails around Christmas time I feared you might have taken ill.  Thank Zeus you're alive!  (Whoops, my cultural Marxism/paganism is showing . . .)

"Look at the e-mail addresses of the Hollow Force Debaters you've co-opted from Skipper Stewart's personal roster: These are the men currently fighting the war (hello to CAG Voetsch) or supporting those who are (all the boys in DC and at NAVAIR).  Do you realize how obtuse you are? And turn off the TV if it upsets you so much.

"Regardless of how you feel about female naval aviators it is vulgar for you to decry an officer who's putting herself in harm's way. You accuse her of braggadocio while at the same time you champion the male aviator over Afghanistan. (We all received that e-mail months ago, by the way. You see, we actually KNOW these people.  In fact, some of the folks on this e-mail tree ARE these people.)

"Further in the essay you intimate that Tomcat RIOs 'aid the pilot with visual acquisition' while performing the Tomcats 'secondary' mission (bombing), and that the female RIO was merely an observer.  Break out your log book and tell us how long it has been since you've strapped into a real jet.  You are clueless, Beak. The LANTIRN system is run from the backseat. All the Tomcat footage you see as you're glued to the TV all day long is RIO handiwork.  Nothing against my pilot buds, but the task sharing in the Tomcat is nothing like what you did in the Viggie. Get out of the house and go visit our good friend Commodore Clemente down at Fighterwing at NAS Oceana. (You remember Clem, right?  He's another of your diatribal icons.)  He'd love to bring you up to speed, I'm sure.

"You remain a cartoon, Beak. That's what makes your e-mails and web site worth reading [Note: I thought he said he never visits Atkinson's Web Site. Can't this guy ever make up his mind?], I'm afraid.

With limited respect, Ward Carroll

"P.S. - You railed about my novel in one of your essays. Have you taken the time to actually read it yet?  Perhaps $24.95 is a bit steep for a guy on a fixed income (and jonesing for a tapioca fix can really put a dent in the old wallet, can't it?), but if you wait a couple of months you'll be able to get it in paperback for $6.99.  I'm sure it'll be carried at Sam's Club.  (Right next to your book . . . oh, I guess not.  Sorry.)  Anyway, enjoy!"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      I am astounded at CDR Ward Carroll's snobbish, better-than-thou put down of Sam's Club. After all, even today Barbara Bush[24] "...does much of her shopping at Sam's Club." Even though I have probably never been in a Sam's Club more than once or twice in my life, I have a deep appreciation for the character of Barbara Bush. She is probably one woman for whom I would vote in public office if given the chance. According to NEWSWEEK, "George Sr. made plenty of oil money, but Barbara stuck to her Yankee frugality as a lesson to her children not to be wasteful. She cut up Christmas cards to make gift tags and hunted for bargains at discount stores. And she's been known to pilfer soaps from expensive hotel rooms to give to women's shelters."  And, of course, "even today she does much of her shopping at Sam's Club." I doubt seriously whether she would pick up a copy of Ward Carroll's book, 'Punk's War,' even though she could obviously afford the $6.99 price. So CDR Carroll should be well advised to keep his POET hands off our icon of American virtue - Barbara Bush. The Academy should have taught Ward Carroll better manners than that. If not the first time around as a Midshipman, certainly the last time around as an officer, a gentleman, and a military instructor of English and 'ethics' at the Academy.

       It is interesting that CDR Carroll would think that his book is such a success and that Atkinson's books are somehow of a lesser caliber. Atkinson's books are sold at the same mainstream outlets as his, Barnes & Noble, Borders Books, Amazon.com, and the U.S. Naval Institute - presumably the same outlets that he has for his book. And I get the full retail price for my books - all of which is spent 'spreading the word' regarding the disintegration of the nation's military. Carroll gets ten percent or less of the full retail price - and his royalties are spent in self-agrandizement.

       It is of interest to note that as a result of my E-mail conversations with Ward Carroll and his 'friends' in the Hollow Force Debate, the audience grew to many thousands - all military. Before I started the subject debate, my Web Site was receiving a small number (10 to 30 per day) of accessors or 'hits' (individuals who looked at and/or downloaded one or more files). All of these 'hits' were from civilian E-mail addresses. Immediately after the Hollow Force Debate started, my 'hit' rate jumped to nearly double and I started to notice a new set of E-mail visitors - active duty personnel from military sites - only a small fraction of the total at first, but increasing rapidly over time. At the present time my website's 'hit' rate is steady at about 1,000 per week with peaks at from 250 to 450 per day during periods immediately after a new E-mail notice that a new set of 'essays' is resident on the site. And, surprise of surprises, over two-thirds of the accessors now are from active-duty military personnel. They are visiting the site and downloading essays at a rate of 4,000 to 5,000 per week. This audience is now growing exponentially. It seems, contrary to his claim, that CDR Ward Carroll does not speak for the majority of his military contemporaries.

       The main point of Carroll's message appears to be the implication that he is somehow connected to the same danger, risk, and separation from loved ones as are those on his address list, the Hollow Force Debaters - some of whom are deployed in 'combat' zones near Afghanistan. Our POET is again living vicariously off the lives of others, while he sits in his comfortable chair at the Naval Academy. He would have us believe that he shares their life and their glory in fighting the war against terrorism abroad. CDR Ward Carroll is indeed a PRETENDER.

       Carroll makes a revealing commentary concerning Atkinson's essays which completely and responsibly rebut CAPT Clemente's defense of the new 'ethics' program at the Academy. It reveals more about CDR Carroll than anyone or anything else. Carroll appears to take my essays as personal insults directed at CAPT Clemente, rather than measured and reasonable criticism of that program. See the Essays section of this Web Site to read these essays. Then make up your own mind. Ward Carroll's over-developed limbic (emotional) brain appears to take everything personally. Just like a typical POET.

       I am not sure why CDR Carroll thinks it is so important that he received the 'Piddle Pack' E-mail from the fleet long before the rest of us. It would appear to us that, if that was true, what did he do with the information? Did he ask anyone how the female naval aviators flying over Afghanistan used the 'piddle packs' or have any concern for their dehydration on 8-hour flights if bladder relief was not available to them? Did he not see the serious safety considerations in such a situation? Apparently not. He was too concerned with making sure that his 'girls' got equal consideration for their risk of being in 'harms way.' What harm was he talking about? The USS Carl Vinson returned from a 'combat' deployment with not a single aircraft hit by hostile fire in the skies over Afghanistan and (thank goodness) not one aircrew member was killed in action[25]. What kind of 'war' are we discussing here. I have not made a single operational deployment aboard an aircraft carrier where we didn't lose at least two carrier aviators and one peacetime deployment resulted in nine aviation fatalities over a six-month period. We lost 13 pilots during a combat deployment on Yankee Station off the shores of North Vietnam.

       In comparison, the Navy's air campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan was just one big target shoot on a live bombing range - Afghanistan. There was absolutely no hostile fire involved. Bombing Afghanistan has about the same level of risk as the practice bombing range on Vieques Island in the Caribbean. Consequently, Atkinson's War as Entertainment essay stands on its own merits.

       For a naval aviator who has never made a single carrier landing (RIOs don't land the aircraft on the ship, they are 'passengers'), CDR Ward Carroll sure talks a big game. While many of us, who flew jets aboard carriers and were fired on in anger by a resourceful and determined enemy, still flew after we separated from active duty, I doubt that Ward Carroll will do so - it would be a new experience for him to actually be in command of an aircraft, any aircraft. I, for one, got my jollies in those after-jet-flying years by 'flying' hang gliders over farmers' fields until my wife gave my 'aircraft' away while I was overseas with SALT in Geneva. She probably knew when it was time to move on much before I would admit it. Nevertheless, I still have a love for being in the skies and have taken that emotion with me in my professional endeavors.

       That led me to join the DARPA team that developed the Pilot's Associate as a management and technical consultant during the early-to-mid 1990s. As President of Systems Software Engineering Corporation, I assisted the Naval Air Test Center (now called NAWCAD) in designing techniques for testing the Artificial Intelligence software for the Associate. You may know that the Pilot's Associate was designed to take the place of the 'backseater' in future fighter aircraft. Features of that design by Lockheed Marietta were to be incorporated into the F-22 and later fighter aircraft.

       In fact, prior to 'un-retiring' and writing and publishing books on the 'feminization' of the U.S. military and editing and publishing the Eternal Vigilance journal of American culture, Dr. Atkinson was a nationally recognized leader in the application of Artificial Intelligence technology to problems of defense and industry. He was the President and Chief Scientist of Systems Software Engineering Corporation, a small business enterprise which assisted the Naval Air Test Center (NATC) at Patuxent River, MD prepare a technology base for evaluating the Pilot's Associate technology. Dr. Atkinson is a former U.S. Naval Test Pilot (winner of the Most Outstanding Test Pilot Award -- Class 46) with hands-on experience in test and evaluation of weapon systems. He was an invited technical reviewer of DARPA's Pilot's Associate Program. He attended Demonstration Two of Phase I conducted by MACAIR/Texas Instruments during June 1988 and attended Demonstration Three of Phase I conducted by Lockheed during November 1989. Dr. Atkinson worked closely with personnel in the Air Combat Environment Test and Evaluation Facility (ACETEF) at NATC in evaluating this technology. He produced for these ACETEF sponsors a report suggesting ways of utilizing and testing Pilot's Associate technology to enhance the DECM suite of the F/A-18C/D strike fighter aircraft. This included suggestions for the further coordination of the ALR-67 radar warning receiver, ALE-47 countermeasures dispenser system, ALQ-126B ECM jammer, ALQ-165 airborne self protection jammer, ALQ-162 jammer, ALQ-156 missile detection system, and the Harm Command Launch Computer with the pilot to improve combat survivability. He developed and demonstrated to the Naval Air Test Center a prototype expert system that demonstrated possible improvements for such a system.

       It is difficult to understand why CDR Carroll thinks it is so important to have a backseater in the F-14 operate the LANTIRN (Low Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infrared for Night) air-to-ground system. The system was designed[26] by the Air Force for the F-16 and F-15 aircraft, both single-seat fighter/attack aircraft. It is deployed on F-16C/D, F-15E platforms, and has been retrofitted into the Navy's F-14 Tomcat fighter. LANTIRN had to be tested in competition with the FLIR-pod Ford Aerospace had developed for the single-seat F/A-18, which has the same day or night laser-guided bomb dropping capability as the F-14 with LANTIRN, including the cockpit laser designator[27].

       The main sub-systems[28] of the LANTIRN targeting pod are a FLIR (Forward-Looking Infra-Red sensor) and a laser. The FLIR operates in two modes; a wide field-of-view (6x6 degrees) for target acquisition or a narrow one (1.7x1.7 degrees) for zooming in. Data from the FLIR is fed into one of the head-down displays in the cockpit and is used to identify terrain features and/or targets at long range.

       The laser designator can 'illuminate' targets for laser-guided bombs. Another use for the laser is to determine the exact distance of a landmark in order to update the aircraft's inertial navigation system. This can be critical to deliver both guided and unguided ordnance without visual references. The FLIR provides a clear view of the ground scenery at night or in adverse weather (not when raining: the FLIR can't see through rain or thick clouds because water has an absorption peak at infra-red wavelengths).

       After acquiring a target via the aircraft's radar or visually through the imagery on the HUD (Heads Up Display), the PILOT can bring the targeting pod's FLIR to bear and identify the target. In the case of the AGM-65 Maverick (an anti-tank weapon), the missile's seeker head can simply be cued on target by the aircraft's Fire Control computers and thus to LANTIRN (which feeds its data into the FCC). Target acquisition by the missile would be almost immediate after the AN/AAQ-14's FLIR had acquired it. The PILOT need only check that the Maverick has locked on, fire it, and slew the FLIR to the next target after which he can directly fire another missile.

       If the PILOT wishes to use other weapons, the built-in laser designator can illuminate the target for laser-guided ordnance (the primary mode of operation in Afghanistan), or can obtain accurate range information for accurate delivery of 'dumb' ordnance such as cluster bombs or iron bombs. The maximum height at which the laser can be used is 12,000 feet (due to attenuation of the laser beam in the air).

       For a laser-guided bomb, the PILOT aims the laser designator, and the bomb seeks out the target thus designated[29]. The designator is a four-digit PRF-coded laser that can designate for its own weapons or for other acquisition devices or munitions. In Afghanistan, many targets were 'designated' very accurately by Special Forces troops on the ground[30]. These features simplified the functions of target detection, recognition and attack and permitted PILOTS of SINGLE-SEAT fighters to attack targets with precision-guided weapons on a single pass.

       In an interview of CDR Alex Hnarakis, Commanding Officer of Fighter Squadron 103 aboard the USS Enterprise, the NAVY TIMES states[31], "Ask any F-14 Tomcat pilot [in 1996] if he thought he'd ever be practicing laser-guided bombing runs into southern Iraq and chances are the reply [would be] 'Hell no.' Converting the Tomcat after the Gulf War to drop conventional bombs was no big deal. But without the ability to deliver precision laser-guided munitions, F-14s have been all but relegated to the sidelines in recent operations like...[the] bombing campaign against the Bosnian Serbs. What they needed were the same types of laser designators, infrared radar and night vision gear used by the F/A-18 community...The new LANTIRN system has been added to many of the squadron's planes, enabling them to make precision strikes when called upon. In simple terms, LANTIRN gives the F-14 the same day or night laser-guided bomb-dropping capability as the F/A-18."

        "'Dropping dumb bombs is like firing a pistol,' says Hnarakis. 'You have to practice a lot to be good at it.' But even then good is relative. Even the best bombardier would have a tough time putting steel on target from the kinds of altitudes [above 10,000 feet] that are common with laser-guided bombs [Note: the weapon of choice for those who assert that the American people will not support a war that entails American casualties]. But with LANTIRN, says Hnarakis, 'it's like we've got a pistol that can put a little red laser dot right on the bad guy's forehead. Wherever we put that dot, that's exactly where the bomb goes.'" The implication is that there is very little to 'operate' in the LANTIRN weapon system. The technology (guidance system and fire control computer) does most of the work.

       Hnarakis continues, "We really don't see the fighter stuff as our bread and butter anymore. [Note: Obviously, the Taliban posed no airborne threat and the weak Iraqi Air Force would easily be eliminated or neutralized in the first day or so of any conflict]. Now, it's getting airborne, dropping things and making them go boom. Blowing up tanks, bridges and bunkers, that's our bread and butter now." A backseater in the Hnarakis' squadron explains the difference in the two F-14 missions. "In air-to-air, it's 20 percent preparation, 80 percent execution because you never see what you expect. In bombing it's the other way around - just about everything is preparation." Observe what this statement implies - the execution of the backup mission for the F-14, air-to-ground attack with precision guided munitions makes very little demands on the backseater, the RIO. Another F-14 naval aviator further explains the difference in the two missions, air-to-air and air-to-ground for the Tomcat fighter[32]. In the latter mission, "'You don't have a guy to share the workload and check your 6, looking out for bad guys,' he said, referring to the clock position that signifies his back." The implication here is that the PILOT could do it all in the air-to-ground mission, just as the single-seat F/A-18 PILOT does.

       In summary, about all the F-14 RIO has to do in the operation of the LANTIRN system is operate the FLIR and point the laser target designator at the target - functions that the PILOT in the Air Force aircraft handle by themselves. In addition, the Navy's F/A-18 has the same capability, including a laser designator[33] - handled easily by the PILOT. About the only thing the RIO in the back seat of the F-14 can do that cannot be accomplished by the PILOT in a single-seat aircraft is communicate[34][35] back to the Saudi-based central command post in real time. This feature will be accomplished by digital communication technology in the future.

       There we have it -- from the mouths of fleet F-14 pilots and RIOs as opposed to CDR Ward Carroll, the Naval Academy POET and PRETENDER. The predominant precision-guided munition ground attack system was operated in the skies over Afghanistan primarily by the PILOTS of single-seat Navy F/A-18s (with a smattering of Air Force single-seat F-16s, F-15s). Of course, B-52  and B1 bombers also played a role[36] (the B-2 flew only six missions), but their ordinance was primarily 'dumb' bombs or bombs guided by the Global Positioning Satellite system. The operation of the LANTIRN system by the superfluous RIO backseater in the F-14 only leads to such silly commentary as 'chicks rule' from the great IMAX theatre in the sky as was described in Atkinson's essay, War as Entertainment. Atkinson stands by his factual essay. No apologies needed. No apologies tendered.

       It is clear that CDR Ward Carroll, the POET who would like to be known as a 'warrior' is actually a PRETENDER - a public relations dream. And a COLLABORATOR with respect to the issue of the 'socialization' of the nation's military.

       So, just who IS Ward Carroll? We have learned more about CDR Ward Carroll, his background and current position at the Academy. CDR Edward Pollister Carroll, II is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, class of 1982. Up through June 2002, he was an English and 'ethics' instructor at the Academy, in charge of the Behavioral Sciences[37] Masters Degree Program for Executive Office officers (O-3s and O-4s) who administer the Midshipman Brigade there. Of course, Behavioral Science[38][39][40][41][42]]43][44] - a new field of study introduced in place of much of the 'hard-science' curriculum, formerly emphasized at the Academy, is the radical Boomers' 'therapeutic' entre to the naval service. This 'science' had its beginnings with Wilhelm Wundt of the University of Liepzig in the 1870s (Lionni, Paolo, 'Liepzig Connection,' pp.2, Heron Books, 1993). It was founded on the principle that, "...man is not accountable for his conduct, which is said to be caused entirely by forces beyond his control." Wundt is known as the 'father' of modern psychology.

       CDR Ward Carroll is singled out here because he is typical of what I call the 'elites' of the Boomer generation - a significant minority of whom now serve in our armed forces. Replying to his childish invective would not be worth the effort if he weren't the perfect personification of a me, me, me Boomer generation elite in today's Navy. Therefore, his attitude may represent a significant and influential portion of today's military. In that case, it is important to understand what the Ward Carrolls in our nation's military are thinking and saying. I have addressed this subject, and Ward Carroll's part in it in the essay at the link War-as-Entertainment.

       It is important to recognize that the versatility of the super-carrier in its ability to flexibly house complete Special Forces combat groups with their accompanying insertion helicopters is proving to be even more effective than the strike-fighter air groups acting alone to find and destroy ground targets from above 15,000 feet in places like Afghanistan. Such wars will be fought and won on the ground - not from the air. In that context, Ward Carroll and his misconception of his and his female companions' role in such a war is not transcendent. The 'war' in Afghanistan was not a real war - as far as naval air is concerned. It was a live-fire practice bombing range where ordnance was dropped without any risk of return fire from the enemy. The USS Vinson's Air Group returned from a six-month 'combat' deployment off the coast of Afghanistan without a single casualty[45]. In fact, "...not a single plane returned with a bullet hole or war damage. No one was killed or seriously injured during the six-month cruise." We should be thankful for this fact because, as the USS Carl Vinson's Air Group Commander, CAPT Chuck Wright, said upon returning from a six-month deployment, "...the most significant story of the war was that more than half of the aviators were on their first overseas deployment and 95 percent had never been in combat."

       This resulted from the fact that so many mid-grade officers, Lieutenants and Lieutenant Commanders, had left naval aviation in droves during the late 1990s as a result of their lack of confidence in those in leadership positions above them. These young aviators saw the leadership of the Boomer cohort (including CDR Ward Carroll's contemporaries) and voted with their feet - they walked.  Indeed, CDR Carroll's role should be that of thinking ahead to the time when naval carrier aviation will be called on to fight a first-rate world power in a war that will be more analogous to our World Wars than those which he now faces. Such a war could likely come over our defense of Taiwan. CDR Ward Carroll and his 'chicks rule' girls had better be ready.

       The fact is that Ward Carroll and his 'girls' will never be ready for such a war. Their 'oral' histories do not go back far enough in time to know what is required. They denigrate World War II veterans such as RADM 'Mark' Hill, Jr. USN (Ret.) with catcalls of 'dinosaur,' 'out of touch,' 'anachronistic,' and worse. [See Mike Stapleton's Blast at RADM Hill and Atkinson's Answer to Mike to see this.] But they know not of what they speak. They know not what they do. In time, they will. But will it be too late for the rest of us?
       It may already be too late for young Americans entering the U.S. Naval Academy where CDR Carroll spent his time writing books and teaching English and Ethics. While he was asleep at the switch, the English, Ethics, and Law Department in which he taught implemented three insidious, divisive, and damaging 'shadow' Distinguished Chairs. One in the 'ethics' of animal rights and child neonaticide based on Peter Singer's writings in bio-ethics. See a description of this at the Peter Singer link. The second is the 'shadow' Jane Fonda Distinguished Chair of anti-Vietnam War studies featuring Tim O'Brien's novels which are required reading in the English Literature course. The third is the 'shadow' Distinguished Chair of Women's Studies and African-American Studies, which includes required readings of the racist and radical feminist Toni Morrison's books. Each of these developments degrades by an order of magnitude the teaching of tradition, American exceptionalism, and naval leadership at the Academy. And it all became vogue while our 'Cold War' hero, CDR Ward Carroll, was teaching there in the very department where this subject matter was and is required reading.

       I have been quite harsh in my criticism of Ward Carroll. I do not intend to discredit the man himself. Attention is directed at him here simply because his attitude and world view so closely track those of a substantial number of his Boomer generation that it is instructive to take him apart to understand what is at the heart of the destructiveness of that cohort of Americans. Indeed, Ward Carroll seems to wish to speak for that cohort which is in the U.S. military. Thus, in effect, Ward Carroll is the embodiment of the military segment of the counter-culture Boomer revolutionaries who started their 'revolution' in the mid-1960s and attempted to complete it in the 1990s as they came to executive power. It should be expected that a military which has been mandated (by the Clinton administration) to 'look like America' would, indeed, pick up some of the flavor of the counter-culture revolution in spite of the emphasis on tradition that has been the hallmark of the military education of our nation's core combat leadership at our premiere military academies.

       Had CDR Ward Carroll been a hard-headed 'traditionalist' of the old-school U.S. Naval Academy, rather than a New Age Boomer, he might have taken a realist's view of the world before him (as did those alumni who fought and won the Battle of the Pacific in World War II) rather than a POET's view.

       For example, a Marine Lt. Col., A. J. Diehl, who graduated from the Naval Academy in 1974 (born in 1952 - a RESISTER in the Boomer generation) recently retired from the Corps, and gave his concluding remarks at his retirement ceremony. In part, he asked the question, "What are your dreams? This is a question that began to bother me in South Com, when I confronted the cultural influences upon ethics. Looking to understand others' motivations, I began to look for universally accepted aspirations. Well, I found one: every parent wants a better world for their kids. Tough to harness, but it brings me to the second question.

§ What kind of world will our kids inherit? I for one am concerned about what I see going on in this country and how it affects our armed forces. As a midshipman, I kept GEN MacArthur's Thayer speech on my bulkhead - which doesn't say much for one's judgment, keeping a West Point plaque at the U.S. Naval Academy. But it says, in part, that we should 'let civilian voices argue the merits or demerits of our system of government...These great national problems are not for your professional participation or military solution.' Well, perhaps that part of his speech is outdated. Consider how incredibly close we came in the last election to having a commander in chief who thought that acceptance of gays in the military was an appropriate litmus test for future Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs. Skipping over the bottomless moral cesspool that was the last administration, consider just the impact on our warfighting ethos of mixed gender recruit training in three of our sister Services, or the impact of having a fifth of a warship's crew lacking the upper body strength to pick up and employ a standard P250 submersible pump. Or the stupidity of 'soldiers' who can't throw an M67 frag grenade far enough so that they can pose a greater hazard to the enemy than they do to themselves.

§ I am concerned about a moral schism between our military and the society we serve. To most civilians, the Macarena is a funny dance craze from a few years ago. To those who follow insurgencies, La Macarena is one of four towns in Columbia ravaged by the FARC only three days ago - and Columbia is a four-hour flight from Miami. It's tough to bridge these two world views...But we've simply got to become better communicators.

§ Furthermore, we can no longer passively rely upon elected politicians or judges to protect what is right. A clear example was the situation in which the Chief of Staff of the Air Force deemed it appropriate to punish a female officer for having an adulterous relationship with a subordinate. The reaction of a powerful, moderate Republican Senator? I quote: 'Get real.'

§ No, I'm not advocating a uniformed mutiny, but I am suggesting that it may be time for another 'revolt of the Admirals.' For the benefit of those not familiar with the term, the scenario in the late 40s was that President Truman and his Secretary of Defense, Louis Johnson, (the same team of strategic geniuses whose collective mismanagement of our military invited the Korean War, for which we were woefully unprepared) were advocating mothballing our carrier fleet and using the 'savings' to buy B-36 bombers. (And you thought that 'global reach' was a new concept...) A group of Navy admirals retired, and successfully took their cause to the Congress and the American people, in a campaign similar to the USMC's experience with the Chowder Society. If you want to read more about it, I'd point you to Millett and Maslowski's For the Common Defense or Hoxie's Command Decisions and the Presidency. My point is this: Our PASSIVE paradigm needs to be re-considered. Each of you must know, in advance, how far you will bend. Rephrased: at what point will you place your career on the line and let the chips fall where they may? This is not a new concept. The men who took their places at Thermopolae, or those who mustered into four ranks and advanced into the wheat fields at Belleau Wood, or clambered over the side and into landing craft at Iwo didn't decide after breakfast whether or not they would stand and fight - you do that thinking and committing ahead of time. And from this individual and collective resolve springs the legacy of battles and traditions, such as regiments hand down forever. Men who will die for their country in battle MUST be willing to think through in advance what they are willing to sacrifice in peace.

§ I can give you another example. Our WWII doctrine specified a frontage of 1200m for an armored division, but the enemy's effective range was twice that; we lost a lot of men, tanks, and time before officers came along who recognized the need to change the doctrine. Ladies and gentlemen, our paradigm of civil-military relations is similarly outdated and needs to be changed. I have never understood men who are willing to die in battle and yet shrink from political dangers or yield to the seductive siren song of successive compromises in peacetime. The Chairman of the JCS recommends that every flag or general officer should read Col. McMasters' 'Dereliction of Duty;' I think every field grade officer should do so, too. For those of you who are looking for a more sophisticated construction of this decision process and its effects, let me suggest 'Exit: Voice, or Loyalty,' or almost anything by Sissela Bok, a prominent ethicist.

§ To those who still disagree or harbor skeptical reservations, let me leave you with this analogy. Can a security guard at the front gate of an English country estate truly call himself a faithful servant if he should see an assassin sneaking toward the children's nursery, and yet does nothing because he reasons that he is only responsible for external security at the front gate? I think not.

§ I do not advocate that we threaten resignation in a trifling manner. It is, after all, a course of action that can only be exercised once. But I believe that we need to hold reveille on our profession, and do the tough thinking now. Conservatives have been content to fight delaying actions - and yet I know of no wars which have ever been won relying solely upon defensive delaying tactics. Ladies and gentlemen, we need to retake lost ground?"

       Compare this reasoned analysis of the military-civilian culture gap by a just-retired Marine Lt. Col., firmly grounded in the real world of the first years of the 21^st century, with the smart-ass, wise-cracking, smug invective of CDR Ward Carroll, the POET, PRETENDER, and COLLABORATOR who fails to even address the important real world ills that befell the military during the 1990s.

       Another major issue that one would expect the CDR Ward Carrolls of the military to address, especially those trained from the beginning to be our nations core combat leadership, is the problem of 'criminalizing' acts carried out in the 'fog of war.' During the 1990s we saw lawyers taking a hand in exerting legal pressures on both commanders and our combat troops in carrying out their warfighting duties. Many would be surprised to find out that lawyers were vetting targets to be struck in Afghanistan[46]. This is covered in my essay at the link: JaxUSNA-AlumniSpeech, the relevant part of which is reproduced below.

       "In today's war, every bombing run, every missile firing, every raid by U.S. soldiers is vetted by teams of lawyers who are experts on international rules of war. There are lawyers in the top secret operations center, called The Tank, deep inside the Pentagon, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, signing off on the legality of raids and strikes. There are lawyers at the Combined Air Operations Center at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia, pouring over lists of potential bombing targets. [Shades of President Johnson, SecState Dean Rusk, General Wheeler, and other civilian advisors in the White House on their hands-and-knees in the map room selecting targets to strike in North Vietnam]. Before they jet off into Afghan skies, Navy pilots are briefed by lawyers based on aircraft carriers on what they can and can't shoot. When special operations forces head out on top secret missions, a lawyer is often at their side."

       "Lawyers, often seated at the right hand of commanders, vet the list to determine whether the target is being used for a military purpose and to judge whether the potential for civilian deaths is clearly outweighed by the military utility of the strike. [Could this be the main reason for the 8.5-hour missions over Afghanistan, requiring piddle packs -- pilots waiting for a lawyer's authorization to strike 'last minute' targets of opportunity? This was certainly the case when Gen. Tommy Franks called off the Predator strike on Mullah Mohammad Omar, the Taliban supreme leader, when it had him in its sights with a Hellfire missile[47][48][49].^,,] The lawyers review the types of munitions commanders plan to use to ensure that what is ultimately dropped is least likely to harm civilians. They can recommend a bomb be dropped at a different angle or at a different time to minimize civilian deaths. [Shades of Vietnam, where by the time the civilians decided such things for an alpha strike, the enemy knew we were coming and set their air defenses accordingly?]. The final decision is the commander's."

       Can you imagine where we would be today if General Ulysses S. Grant or General Wm. Tecumseh Sherman or General George S. Patton, or General Douglas MacArthur, or General Dwight D. Eisenhower had consulted lawyers in the conduct of their battles in our nation's history? Our military leaders must be watching too much of the TV series, JAG, wherein lawyers are the heroes. I don't remember ever seeing a lawyer aboard ship and certainly NEVER in an aircraft squadron ready room. In fact, the most devastating insult one could throw at another pilot was to label him a 'ready-room lawyer.'

       The above comment is made somewhat in jest. The truth of the matter is much, much more serious. If one is reading the headlines in today's national newspapers, one is aware that a World Court is trying Slobodan Milosevic for 'crimes against humanity' as a result of his role in the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo. But if one reads the stories of this trial in some detail, one finds that Milosevic is accusing the U.S. and its military commanders[50][51] with the same crimes for the killing of civilians in Serbia during the war over Kosovo. It is clear from this situation that U.S. commanders are a bit nervous about eventually being charged with the same 'crimes against humanity' for the killing of innocent civilians during the conduct of the war against the terrorists in Afghanistan or other countries with whom we might risk armed conflict -- our protestations of 'collateral damage' notwithstanding. The above report on the use of lawyers may be an indication of this possibility.

       This possibility becomes even more threatening to our military commanders when one remembers that the Clinton administration was favorably disposed to the establishment of a permanent international court for prosecuting war criminals. In its first five years, that administration backed the movement to establish such a court. In June and July of 1998 representatives of the world's governments gathered in Rome to vote on a treaty to establish such a court. President Clinton (via his representative, David J. Scheffer) signed[52] the treaty in 2000. As might have been predicted[53], "...the treaty is a disaster from the point of view of both American interests and American values, so much so that the Clinton administration has refused to sign it or send it to the Senate." Nevertheless, the 69 signatories of the treaty give the International Criminal Court (ICC) the power to prosecute nations or individuals in nations which are NOT signatories of the treaty.

       One of the last policy acts made by the Clinton administration a month or so before leaving office was to again propose that the U.S. support the formation of a permanent World Court, under the United Nations, to try just such 'crimes against humanity.'  The fact of this tribunal's existence has already impacted our involvement in peacekeeping missions around the world. For example[54], "Washington has already begun re-evaluating which U.N. peacekeeping missions are worth the risk that American troops could be held accountable to a supernational tribunal. The first to go is East Timor. The Pentagon has decided to withdraw nearly 80 Americans from the U.N. mission there, saying that it's not worth exposing three military observers and 75 civilian police officers to the possibility of prosecution by the world court."

       Our military has just cause to be suspicious of a certain element of our nation's possible future civilian leadership. Its members may become liable to prosecution for conducting war in such fashion that a future president could press for retribution under a World Court which countervails American sovereignty over its own people[55]. Indeed, many human rights activists in the United States will likely be the first to condemn civilian and military actions that they believe should be under the jurisdiction of the World Court. For example, the American communist cum pundit and media-popular political analyst, Christopher Hitchens[56][57][58][59], has openly called for the prosecution of Henry Kissinger for his role in bringing Augusto Pinochet to power in Chile in the early 1970s. This prospect is not in conformity with Victor Davis Hanson's historical account of 'The Western Way of War.' It could portend dire consequences for the survival of American civilization.

       If Ward Carroll were a serious player in the ongoing debate about the Hollow Force and/or the military/civilian culture gap, he might think seriously about the unintended consequences of the precision-guided munitions that he praises so much - rather than deal with the trivia of current naval aviation affairs. One might expect a degree of serious thought from one who has benefited from one of the most prestigious, if not the best, military education on the face of the earth.

       For example, he might have pointed out after having thought about it that our airborne weapons may be too smart for their own good. Michael Schrage, a senior advisor to the Security Studies program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology believes that is the case[60]. "The Geneva Conventions ostensibly require belligerents to take every possible precaution to minimize civilian casualties. So if an air force drops dumb bombs that might inadvertently kill civilians when it could have dropped smart bombs that probably would not, doesn't it leave itself open to accusations of war crimes?"

       Schrage quotes James Roche, currently Secretary of the Air Force and a former aerospace executive as half-jokingly saying, "...there [is] a high-tech race between U.S. and Israeli pilots as to who would be indicted first for war crimes." Schrage points out that this prescient and cynical remark [made before he assumed his present office] would not be taken as humorous now. "Roche identified what are emerging as painful military, legal and public relations challenges to winning America's war on terror. These challenges pose awkward questions for the military, its lawyers and its civilian overseers. Why? Because our weaponry is becoming too smart for our own good. Our technological superiority is creating expectations among our allies and enemies that place unrealistic demands on how we deploy it."

       "By most measures, America's high-tech armaments have performed superbly in Afghanistan...the Pentagon found that more than three-fourths of U.S. bombs - smart and dumb alike - hit their intended targets. And the precision of the smart bombs (meaning bombs and missiles guided to their targets by lasers or satellites) was breathtaking. The Navy, for example, claimed a 90 percent target hit rate for its smart bombs...Compare those figures with the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the 1999 NATO-coordinated strikes against Yugoslavia, where fewer than half of all allied munitions hit their intended targets."

       "The recent successes have bred a new conventional wisdom both inside the Pentagon and out: If smart bombs are good, smarter bombs are better. Greater precision means greater mission effectiveness and a reduced risk of collateral damage. This sounds terrific, but it's not. Those assumptions create a dangerous trap."

       "There's no doubt that more precision can increase military effectiveness, but even the most brilliant technological breakthroughs pass the point of diminishing return...America's overwhelming superiority in military technology will actually undermine our ability to prosecute a war successfully. That's because, ironically, our promises of precision will increasingly be turned against us, providing incentives for our enemies to mix military targets with civilian populations and making us more vulnerable to misleading or deceptive intelligence. Moreover, those promises give rise to foolish expectations: If America's weapons are so superb, the accidental destruction of innocents must represent a contempt for human life and be attributable to willful negligence rather than the fog of war."

       "It becomes easy to imagine America's more sensitive allies, and perhaps even an international court, arguing that we are ethically, if not legally, obligated to make our smart weaponry even more discriminating. For example, a soldier laser-guiding a bomb to a targeted convoy might be able to disarm the bomb in flight if he sees too many women and children in the convoy. But even if smart bombs were every bit as smart as the pilots or special forces operatives who launch them, they would still require precise targets, which require precise intelligence. And precise intelligence is a scarce commodity in the war on terror." The accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy in Serbia during the Kosovo campaign is given as a prime example.

       Col. Charles J. Dunlap Jr., an Air Force judge advocate general, in a 1997 article for Parameters, the U.S. Army War College Quarterly comments on the thesis that 'This country's technological edge also creates perverse incentives for enemies to use noncombatants as hostages and exploit America's precision weaponry for their own ends. He says, "If killing civilians can complicate a democracy's war effort, then those intent upon waging neo-absolutist war will not hesitate to induce 'collateral damage' situations. Critical supply facilities as well as those communications nodes that can't be miniaturized and dispersed may be buried below POW camps, schools, hospitals and similar facilities."

       Schrage concludes that "Since the end of World War II , American has invested hundreds of billions of dollars in weapons of mass destruction that it has never had to deploy. Since the end of the Vietnam War, it has spent hundreds of billions on weapons of most precision. Those smart weapons represent a triumph of technology. The surest way to facilitate their future success is to remember that precision is a means to an end and not an end in itself. The best way to preserve the effectiveness of smart weapons is to become smarter about using them." The question is, why hasn't CDR Ward Carroll used his active-duty time at the Naval Academy thinking about this problem rather than writing superfluous novels about trivial aspects of naval aviation? And marveling at the War-as-Entertainment aspect of the precision weapons he sees every evening on CNN.

       So, who really is this Ward Carroll, the icon of the Boomer elites in today's military? A military that has been 'sensitivity trained,' COOed, 'feminized,' and whose senior leadership has been corrupted beyond measure. If we take Ward Carroll as the 'spokesman' for this group who would protect America from its enemies, foreign and domestic, we must ask a few pertinent questions. What has Ward Carroll stood for, what has he supported, what influences has he promoted at the U.S. Naval Academy and in his book? The answers gleaned from his participation in the Hollow Force Debate are revealing. He stands for:

· The Clinton agenda of 'socializing' the U.S. military. For example, in spite of claiming that he and his contemporaries 'handled' Dr. Nancy Sherman at the Academy, he fully supports CAPT Mark Clemente's defense of Ms. Sherman (see the link at Rebuttal to Mark Clemente) and her New Age 'ethics' program there. His support of her program implies that he buys into Ms. Sherman's radical feminist agenda, including her public support of legislation granting homosexual domestic partners the same health care benefits as others receive. See the link at The Nancy Sherman Dilemma.

· His acknowledgment of Tim O'Brien for "answer[ing] the call for thoughtful feedback or whatever I asked for" in the forward of his book, 'Punk's War,' implies that he fully supports the 'shadow' Jane Fonda Distinguished Chair of anti-Vietnam War Studies within the English Department at the Academy. This must make his father, who "spent 30 years in the Marine Corps as an attack pilot and flew out of Chu Lai and Da Nang in '67," very proud. His son promotes the agenda of the Cultural Marxists (excuse me, the 'political correct' Boomer elites - for those too sensitive to call a spade a spade) who have almost won the culture war at home while we (and his father) were winning the Cold War against communism abroad.

· Carroll's teaching 'ethics' at the Academy without protesting the 'shadow' Peter Singer Distinguished Chair of neonaticide and animal rights exemplified by Singer's text being required reading, implies that Carroll supports Singer's views.
· Carroll's teaching English at the Academy without protesting the 'shadow' Women's Studies and African-American Studies program in the English literature course via Toni Morrison's radical feminist and racist books (again, required reading) imply his full concordance with this program.

· His claim of being a Cold War Warrior and 'winning the Cold War is a typical Boomer self-aggrandizement -- a me, me, me fantasy. His claim is pure hogwash. See the Rebuttal to Stewie link that shreds this silly claim. He was not even born until after the Korean War, the first major 'battle' in the Cold War was fought and he was commissioned nearly a decade after the Vietnam War, the second major 'battle' of that war, was fought. His claim can only be based on the fact that he and his cohort were alive and in the service at the time the Soviet Union collapsed. For a depiction of a true Cold War Warrior, see the remarks above regarding J.D. Wetterling's superb book, 'Son of Thunder.'

· His tenure at the Naval Academy as the administrator of the Behavioral Science master's Degree Program implies his complete acceptance of the tyranny of 'sensitivity training' which was visited on the military by the cultural Marxists in the Clinton administration and the weak-kneed military leadership that accepted it, condoned it, and implemented it - at all levels. He knew or should have known the origin of, the growth of, and the destructive potential of this 'behavior modification' technique and its utilization as a 'mind cont