Not that I have a big platform with significant reach or that anyone really cares what I have to say, but I want to preface what I am about to post by saying that I consider it very carefully before I speak ill of fellow veterans, regardless of their political views. Having said that, and having weighed the comments and actions of Mr. Mast very carefully against my own values and understanding of honor and integrity, I do not see his current service in the House and the associated positions surrounding armed conflict in a positive light. I have a deep respect for men and women who volunteer to serve their country, and that is only heightened for those who suffer such severe injuries, physical or otherwise, as a result of that service. Mr. Mast suffered such injuries as an EOD tech in Afghanistan and that can not be discounted.

Ignoring for a moment the fact that he showed up in our Capitol in the uniform of a foreign military, the issue that I have is with his persistent refusal to acknowledge that there is a difference between a combatant and the civilian population that is caught up in the conflict. He has repeatedly stated that there are no innocent Palestinian civilians - that they are all complicit in the actions of those that have taken up arms against Israel. He has rationalized this pointing to the challenges in modern combat, and that conflict in particular, of being able to distinguish between militants and civilians.

Sadly, I heard this from the mouths of many frustrated servicemen and women during my own tours. While it is an obstacle, it is not a legitimate excuse to treat every living and breathing person in the AO as an enemy, and even less so to actually engage them indiscriminately. This violates so many laws and norms that are meant to limit the number of civilian casualties. It goes against our training and RoE that emphasize positive identification of targets before engagement. Operational planning involves, among other key elements, accounting for civilians on the battlefield. While no conflict can expect zero, great effort in intelligence gathering and operational planning is supposed to limit the number.

The willingness of Mr. Mast and others who use this difficulty to justify the use of lethal force without regard for civilians is sickening and cuts against what we’re supposed to stand for. It may be explained by many things, I’m sure. For some it lays bare the underlying significant prejudice and cultural ignorance. For others it is a manifestation of the significant stresses of prolonged conflict. And still others just a callous indifference toward them, simply too lazy to even try. It’s not a stance that, to use the language of ceremony and commendation, is in keeping with the highest standards of service, nor is it a credit to them or their unit, branch, or nation.