Hey Oceans, Always nice to hear from you even when we don't see eye to
eye but I don't think that's really the case here.

For starters, Gen Powell is one of if not the most honorable Generals
alive today. He fought and debated for what he believed in. And he did
it until someone asked him to resign. He may have departed his office
but his integrity and honor are more than intact. I was referring to
the Monday morning quarterbacks that say "Yes Sir" for the sake of their
careers and only after departing open their mouths. These are the
people that are screwing the very people they were supposed to be
leading and maybe I should have been a little more clear on the
distinction.

You're correct that we all have to ultimately obey legal orders but at
the same time when we see something that we "know" is going to get
people killed, place them in danger or is flat out illegal and wrong
then we owe it to both sides of the chain to tell the truth and fight
for what we believe is right.

I am faced with many of the same problems. I have numerous times risked
career advancement and taken heat because I pointed out things that were
wrong. I did it because that's part of my job. In contrast, in the
27 years I have been with this company I have never and will never
backdoor the boss but I have seen those that have. These people who
have become disenchanted with the current admin, retire and then
retaliate via a profit making book deal are not honorable or at least
they surely make themselves suspect. There are other venues for such
things.

Anyway, Nice seeing you again Lawry.. Gotta run. Jerry

A Journey That Ended in Anguish

Col. Ted Westhusing, a military ethicist who volunteered to go to Iraq,
was upset by what he saw.

His apparent suicide raises questions.

By T. Christian Miller, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON --

One hot, dusty day in June, Col. Ted Westhusing was found dead in a
trailer at a military base near the Baghdad airport, a single gunshot
wound to the head.

The Army would conclude that he committed suicide with his service
pistol.

At the time, he was the highest-ranking officer to die in Iraq.
The Army closed its case.
But the questions surrounding Westhusing's death continue.
Westhusing, 44, was no ordinary officer.

He was one of the Army's leading scholars of military ethics, a full
professor at West Point who volunteered to serve in Iraq to be able to
better teach his students.

He had a doctorate in philosophy; his dissertation was an extended
meditation on the meaning of honor.

So it was only natural that Westhusing acted when he learned of possible
corruption by U.S. contractors in Iraq.

A few weeks before he died, Westhusing received an anonymous complaint
that a private security company he oversaw had cheated the U.S.
government and committed human rights violations.

Westhusing confronted the contractor and reported the concerns to
superiors, who launched an investigation.

In e-mails to his family, Westhusing seemed especially upset by one
conclusion he had reached:

that traditional military values such as duty, honor and country had
been replaced by profit motives in Iraq, where the U.S. had come to rely
heavily on contractors for jobs once done by the military.

His death stunned all who knew him.
Colleagues and commanders wondered whether they had missed signs of
depression.
He had been losing weight and not sleeping well.
But only a day before his death, Westhusing won praise from a senior
officer for his progress in training Iraqi police.
His friends and family struggle with the idea that Westhusing could have
killed himself.

He was a loving father and husband and a devout Catholic.
He was an extraordinary intellect and had mastered ancient Greek and
Italian.
He had less than a month before his return home.
It seemed impossible that anything could crush the spirit of a man with
such a powerful sense of right and wrong.
On the Internet and in conversations with one another, Westhusing's
family and friends have questioned the military investigation.
A note found in his trailer seemed to offer clues.

Written in what the Army determined was his handwriting, the colonel
appeared to be struggling with a final question.

How is honor possible in a war like the one in Iraq?

Even at Jenks High School in suburban Tulsa, one of the biggest in
Oklahoma, Westhusing stood out.
He was starting point guard for the Trojans, a team that made a strong
run for the state basketball championship his senior year.
He was a National Merit Scholarship finalist.
He was an officer in a fellowship of Christian athletes.

Joe Holladay, who coached Westhusing before going on to become assistant
coach of the University of North Carolina Tarheels, recalled Westhusing
showing up at the gym at 7 a.m. to get in 100 extra practice shots.
"There was never a question of how hard he played or how much effort he
put into something," Holladay said.
"Whatever he did, he did well. He was the cream of the crop."

When Westhusing entered West Point in 1979, the tradition-bound
institution was just emerging from a cheating scandal that had shamed
the Army.
Restoring honor to the nation's preeminent incubator for Army leadership
was the focus of the day.
Cadets are taught to value duty, honor and country, and are drilled in
West Point's strict moral code:
A cadet will not lie, cheat or steal -- or tolerate those who do.
Westhusing embraced it.
He was selected as honor captain for the entire academy his senior year.
Col. Tim Trainor, a classmate and currently a West Point professor, said
Westhusing was strict but sympathetic to cadets' problems.

He remembered him as "introspective."
Westhusing graduated third in his class in 1983 and became an infantry
platoon leader.

He received special forces training, served in Italy, South Korea and
Honduras, and eventually became division operations officer for the 82nd
Airborne, based at Ft. Bragg, N.C.

He loved commanding soldiers.

But he remained drawn to intellectual pursuits.

In 2000, Westhusing enrolled in Emory University's doctoral philosophy
program.
The idea was to return to West Point to teach future leaders.
He immediately stood out on the leafy Atlanta campus.
Married with children, he was surrounded by young, single students.
He was a deeply faithful Christian in a graduate program of professional
skeptics.

Plunged into academia, Westhusing held fast to his military ties.
Students and professors recalled him jogging up steep hills in combat
boots and camouflage, his rucksack full, to stay in shape.
He wrote a paper challenging an essay that questioned the morality of
patriotism.
"He was as straight an arrow as you would possibly find," said Aaron
Fichtelberg, a fellow student and now a professor at the University of
Delaware.

"He seemed unshakable."

In his 352-page dissertation, Westhusing discussed the ethics of war,
focusing on examples of military honor from Confederate Gen. Robert E.
Lee to the Israeli army.

It is a dense, searching and sometimes personal effort to define what,
exactly, constitutes virtuous conduct in the context of the modern U.S.
military.

"Born to be a warrior, I desire these answers not just for philosophical
reasons, but for self-knowledge," he wrote in the opening pages.

As planned, Westhusing returned to teach philosophy and English at West
Point as a full professor with a guaranteed lifetime assignment.

He settled into life on campus with his wife, Michelle, and their three
young children.

But amid the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, he told friends that he felt
experience in Iraq would help him in teaching cadets.

In the fall of 2004, he volunteered for duty.
"He wanted to serve, he wanted to use his skills, maybe he wanted some
glory," recalled Nick Fotion, his advisor at Emory.
"He wanted to go."
In January, Westhusing began work on what the Pentagon considered the
most important mission in Iraq: training Iraqi forces to take over
security duties from U.S. troops.

Westhusing's task was to oversee a private security company,
Virginia-based USIS, which had contracts worth $79 million to train a
corps of Iraqi police to conduct special operations.

In March, Gen. David Petraeus, commanding officer of the Iraqi training
mission, praised Westhusing's performance, saying he had exceeded "lofty
expectations."

"Thanks much, sir, but we can do much better and will," Westhusing wrote
back, according to a copy of the Army investigation of his death that
was obtained by The Times.
In April, his mood seemed to have darkened.
He worried over delays in training one of the police battalions.
Then, in May, Westhusing received an anonymous four-page letter that
contained detailed allegations of wrongdoing by USIS.
The writer accused USIS of deliberately shorting the government on the
number of trainers to increase its profit margin.
More seriously, the writer detailed two incidents in which USIS
contractors allegedly had witnessed or participated in the killing of
Iraqis.

A USIS contractor accompanied Iraqi police trainees during the assault
on Fallouja last November and later boasted about the number of
insurgents he had killed, the letter says.

Private security contractors are not allowed to conduct offensive
operations.

In a second incident, the letter says, a USIS employee saw Iraqi police
trainees kill two innocent Iraqi civilians, then covered it up.

A USIS manager "did not want it reported because he thought it would put
his contract at risk."

Westhusing reported the allegations to his superiors but told one of
them, Gen. Joseph Fil, that he believed USIS was complying with the
terms of its contract.

U.S. officials investigated and found "no contractual violations," an
Army spokesman said.

Bill Winter, a USIS spokesman, said the investigation "found these
allegations to be unfounded."

However, several U.S. officials said inquiries on USIS were ongoing.

One U.S. military official, who, like others, requested anonymity
because of the sensitivity of the case, said the inquiries had turned up
problems, but nothing to support the more serious charges of human
rights violations.

"As is typical, there may be a wisp of truth in each of the
allegations," the official said.

The letter shook Westhusing, who felt personally implicated by
accusations that he was too friendly with USIS management, according to
an e-mail in the report.

"This is a mess -- dunno what I will do with this," he wrote home to his
family May 18.

The colonel began to complain to colleagues about "his dislike of the
contractors," who, he said, "were paid too much money by the
government," according to one captain.

"The meetings [with contractors] were never easy and always contentious.
The contracts were in dispute and always under discussion," an Army
Corps of Engineers official told investigators.

By June, some of Westhusing's colleagues had begun to worry about his
health.

They later told investigators that he had lost weight and begun
fidgeting, sometimes staring off into space.

He seemed withdrawn, they said.

His family was also becoming worried.

He described feeling alone and abandoned.

He sent home brief, cryptic e-mails, including one that said, "
didn't think I'd make it last night."

He talked of resigning his command.

Westhusing brushed aside entreaties for details, writing that he would
say more when he returned home.

The family responded with an outpouring of e-mails expressing love and
support.

His wife recalled a phone conversation that chilled her two weeks before
his death.

"I heard something in his voice," she told investigators, according to a
transcript of the interview.

"In Ted's voice, there was fear. He did not like the nighttime and being
alone."

Westhusing's father, Keith, said the family did not want to comment for
this article.

On June 4, Westhusing left his office in the U.S.-controlled Green Zone
of Baghdad to view a demonstration of Iraqi police preparedness at Camp
Dublin, the USIS headquarters at the airport.

He gave a briefing that impressed Petraeus and a visiting scholar.

He stayed overnight at the USIS camp.

That night in his office, a USIS secretary would later tell
investigators, she watched Westhusing take out his 9-millimeter pistol
and "play" with it, repeatedly unholstering the weapon.

At a meeting the next morning to discuss construction delays, he seemed
agitated.

He stewed over demands for tighter vetting of police candidates, worried
that it would slow the mission.

He seemed upset over funding shortfalls.

Uncharacteristically, he lashed out at the contractors in attendance,
according to the Army Corps official.

In three months, the official had never seen Westhusing upset.

"He was sick of money-grubbing contractors," the official recounted.

Westhusing said that "he had not come over to Iraq for this."

The meeting broke up shortly before lunch.

About 1 p.m., a USIS manager went looking for Westhusing because he was
scheduled for a ride back to the Green Zone.

After getting no answer, the manager returned about 15 minutes later.

Another USIS employee peeked through a window.

He saw Westhusing lying on the floor in a pool of blood.

The manager rushed into the trailer and tried to revive Westhusing.

The manager told investigators that he picked up the pistol at
Westhusing's feet and tossed it onto the bed.

"I knew people would show up," that manager said later in attempting to
explain why he had handled the weapon.

"With 30 years from military and law enforcement training, I did not
want the weapon to get bumped and go off."

After a three-month inquiry, investigators declared Westhusing's death a
suicide.

A test showed gunpowder residue on his hands.

A shell casing in the room bore markings indicating it had been fired
from his service revolver.

Then there was the note.

Investigators found it lying on Westhusing's bed.

The handwriting matched his.

The first part of the four-page letter lashes out at Petraeus and Fil.

Both men later told investigators that they had not criticized
Westhusing or heard negative comments from him.

An Army review undertaken after Westhusing's death was complimentary of
the command climate under the two men, a U.S. military official said.

Most of the letter is a wrenching account of a struggle for honor in a
strange land.

"I cannot support a msn [mission] that leads to corruption, human rights
abuse and liars. I am sullied," it says.

"I came to serve honorably and feel dishonored.

"Death before being dishonored any more."

A psychologist reviewed Westhusing's e-mails and interviewed colleagues.

She concluded that the anonymous letter had been the "most difficult and
probably most painful stressor."

She said that Westhusing had placed too much pressure on himself to
succeed and that he was unusually rigid in his thinking.

Westhusing struggled with the idea that monetary values could outweigh
moral ones in war.

This, she said, was a flaw.

"Despite his intelligence, his ability to grasp the idea that profit is
an important goal for people working in the private sector was
surprisingly limited," wrote Lt. Col. Lisa Breitenbach.

"He could not shift his mind-set from the military notion of completing
a mission irrespective of cost, nor could he change his belief that
doing the right thing because it was the right thing to do should be the
sole motivator for businesses."

One military officer said he felt Westhusing had trouble reconciling his
ideals with Iraq's reality.

Iraq "isn't a black-and-white place," the officer said.

"There's a lot of gray."

Fil and Petraeus, Westhusing's commanding officers, declined to comment
on the investigation, but they praised him.

He was "an extremely bright, highly competent, completely professional
and exceedingly hard-working officer. His death was truly tragic and was
a tremendous blow," Petraeus said.

Westhusing's family and friends are troubled that he died at Camp
Dublin, where he was without a bodyguard, surrounded by the same
contractors he suspected of wrongdoing.

They wonder why the manager who discovered Westhusing's body and picked
up his weapon was not tested for gunpowder residue.

Mostly, they wonder how Col. Ted Westhusing -- father, husband, son and
expert on doing right -- could have found himself in a place so dark
that he saw no light.

"He's the last person who would commit suicide," said Fichtelberg, his
graduate school colleague.

"He couldn't have done it. He's just too damn stubborn."

Westhusing's body was flown back to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware.

Waiting to receive it were his family and a close friend from West
Point, a lieutenant colonel.

In the military report, the unidentified colonel told investigators that
he had turned to Michelle, Westhusing's wife, and asked what happened.

She answered:

"Iraq."

From The Los Angeles Times, 11/27/05:

Jerry, Alex....

I am really wrestling with this question. I have friends who in VietNam
saw US troops do some terrible things, and who participated in the
Phoenix assassination program. They remain haunted to this day. They
'did nothing' -- let us be clear. But it is hard for me to see them as
dishonorable people. Or at least, in the normal world they always acted
with honor. Then VietNam happened. Does that mean they lost their honor?
Or that it simply had never really been tested?

Is suicide (if that is what it was in Alex's article (thanks for posting
it!) or open and continued defiance the only option for someone put into
these situations if they wish to retain their honor?

Jerry, good point about Powell. He stood what what was right and was
forced out. But there are many here in Washington, including me, who
felt that he should have resisted more strenuously. He was caught in a
balancing act: speak out and lose influence, or be a good soldier and
retain influence to try and head off the looming disaster? Was there a
clear path for him?

In my own life, I have been very lucky. I have several times
'sacrificed' career advancement for doing the right thing, and each time
I bounced back better and stronger than I had any right to hope for. So
I learned that being stubborn and doing the right thing was not so risky
after all. But a lot of people don't have the self-confidence or sense
of commitment to principle that I, or either of you have, Jerry and
Alex.

Do we have a right to say to them: Risk, or face dishonor?

Thank you dear friends, for working tackling this issue.

Oceans

i posted this article to demonstrate that mental & emotional damage due
to Traumatic stress does not discriminate.

if he of all people could not meet the demands of his position,

it says something very important and he is for me like the monk who set
himself alight in TJenimen Square....

he set himself alight so that people would wake up to what he was
sacrificing his life for. that if someone like him would take such an
uncharacteristic action and end his life, then WHAT FOR???

his depression was what finally overode his logic and education....
and he died of a broken heart

bl8ant...thanks for posting that article ..I heard a radio show about
that suicide..think it was on Rense if I remember correctly...

all of this just demonstrates the fundamental problem with modern
warfare..especially from the point of view of the US in Iraq...wars are
not just action against tyrants anymore...but more often than not it is
a political action...big difference...everyone is scrambling for ground
rules and a new set of guidelines for places like Iraq...that is why we
need to look back at our history...

Our constitution outlines the use of our army...to defend our
shores...period...

Our generals take an oath to the constitution & the people of the
US...period..

Any general that would step in front of the american people & say that
they cannot participate because this action is contrary to our
constitution ...would be considered a true patriot...
those that continue to heel to the whims of a rogue administration
during an illegal war are nothing more than yes men and political hacks
at best...

as mentioned before...read the words of Smedley Butler...eisenhowers
farewell speech,,
MacArthurs farewell....Patton....Imagine how any of those leaders of men
would have reacted to GWB and his punk ass flunkies most of whom have
never served...

Good Questions Oceans,

There are no really simple answers but I don't think any of the people I
have mentioned had problems with self-confidence or a sense commitment
to principle. At least they shouldn't have had a problem with it given
their positions. To me their behavior was driven by personal gain with
little or no regard to either end of the chain of command.

I don't believe it would be fair for me to compare the behavior of
people under the stresses of direct combat operations with those having
the background and experiances of these Generals. Those involved in the
Phoenix and similar programs were not operating in the normal world like
these Generals. That doesn't excuse their actions or lack of action but
at least they realize their mistakes and the mistakes made were not made
for personal gain.

Gen Powell has always stood up for what he believed in. The same was
true for Swartzkopff (sp) during the 1st gulf war. Had they not, things
would not have turned out as well as they did. There was a push then
just as with this war to move earlier but they did not bend to the
pressure. Gen Powell made a choice and I think he did what he believed
to be in the best interest of the service, his military and the country.
That it how I define Honor.

Finally, I don't think we have to say to people "Risk or face Dishonor"
I think we should be saying if you are incapable of Integrity, Loyality,
Selflessness and lack the ability to grasp the basic principals of
Leadership then it's time to shut up and find another job. You
obviously understand and live those core values. Unfortunately, some
who should and do understand don't act appropriately.

Take care.. Jerry

DaVinci and Jerry -- eloquent rebuttals and much for me to ponder.

I will do so. Thank you.

I very much like the notion of reiterating unequivocally the expectation
of our military leaders you describe, Jerry, and think it may be
necessary to do so. Washington is a moral trap, and it is not helped by
the baying of special interest groups and the lobbyists.

All the big defense companies spend large amounts to convince Congree to
give them lucrative contracts. The region is dotted with companies that
wish nothing more than to get contracts to do the government's bidding.
No time is spent thinking about principles of conduct, or the moral
rights and wrongs of government programs. A lot of money is floating
around, and lots of officers have an eye to getting hired as they
retire.

These near-retirement officers are not about to soil the nest, either by
recommending against wasteful programs, or by alienating themselves from
the rest of the military, because it is to their former colleagues still
in the military that they will have to go in search of contracts once
they sign on with the 'defense' organizations. The retired officers are
used as marketing staff by the defense contractors, and anyone who can't
deliver gets fired pretty quickly.

The military officer corp, in my opinion, are among the best of leaders
in terms of moral principle, but we get the 'bad apples' the ones who
disgrace the uniform. How does a bad apple become a bad barrel?

Oceans

This might not have a lot to do with the topic, but I thought I might
mention it.
These people go to war, fighting for what they think is right, and
others come and say it is wrong, taking something away from these
people, the cause they were fighting for, isn't that like a little bit
of a death in itself??????

I think it must be, Andrea. There is this social contract -- the lads go
off to war in return for unquestionning adulation. If the adulation
turns to questionning, the soldiers have a right to feel betrayed.

Collin Powell, viewing the disaster that Viet Nam represented to the US
Army, forluated what has come to be called the Powell Doctrine. It
addresses the conditions under which the military should and shouldn't
go to war. One of the elements is that the country be genuinely united
behind the venture.

The deceits of the Bush adminsitration guaranteed that when the deceits
became known the country would repudiate its support for the venture,
and fairly or unfairly this translates to some extent into questionnning
of the troops themselves, especially when the
abuses/torture/murders/rapes/and rapes of fellow soldiers that some of
them commit become known.

Powell's Doctrine was designed to protect the social contract between
the people and the Army, but it was violated by the President and his
neocon team.

Other elements of his Doctrine, which guided US military and
international policy up until the time of Bush's election in 2000, have
also been ignored, but perhaps none with as much deep consequence as
this one.

Oceans

So GWB lets all these soldiers die this little death for his own
benefit?
Isn't that cruel?
Has anybody ever pointed it out this way?

Oooops.
In the second para, "forluated" should be "formulated." Sorry.

I think your idea is very asture, Invisable!

Sheesh! That's 'astute'!

I'd better go make some tea.

Oceans, I'm just trying to see things from all angles.
I think sometimes the human is taking over in me.

Well, in my view, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the seizure of
thousands from their homes around the world, the torture and deprivation
of legal rights, the loss of US credibility and cooperation around the
world, the skewing of our internal legal and privacy laws, the $1.3
trillion in costs to date, the chaos we introduced into Iraq and which
threatens in Afghanistan, and, last but far from least, the 650,000
Iraqis who have died or never seen the light of day -- has ALL been done
for no valid reason.

Is it Bush's ego? I don't think it was, initially. I think like a lot of
other people he pancked after Sept 11 and was easily manipulated by the
neocons that he had appointed to senior positions in his government. But
even the neocons are abandoning Bush, now. Fukuyama, Brooks, etc, are
back peddling furiously. I think now that it is Bush's ego and nothing
else that keeps us at these dismal and self-defeating policies.

Cynically, I think he now simply wants to hold on until we elect a new
President in a year and a half, and he is off the hook. Is this
bordering on insanity? Yes, if we define an insane man as someone who
keeps doing the same thing while expecting something different to
happen.

Meanwhile, more people die, more treasure is lost, and the social
contract is further rent asunder.

Oceans

Well, I have a certain view on this, but due to my heritage I refuse to
state a few things openly, so forgive me when I opt out at this point.