Read on Twitter
[Thread] On the Eddie Gallagher podcast "The Line" by @dtaberski and @jigsawprods which is, in my view, a truly irresponsible piece of journalism that obscures a very simple point: in the case of Gallagher, THERE IS NO BLURRY LINE.
It's crystal clear. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-line/id1560743789
It's crystal clear. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-line/id1560743789
For those who are unfamiliar with the Gallagher case, here is a quick background:
Gallagher killed an incapacitated and wounded prisoner and likely multiple non-combatants in Iraq. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/27/us/navy-seals-edward-gallagher-video.html
Gallagher killed an incapacitated and wounded prisoner and likely multiple non-combatants in Iraq. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/27/us/navy-seals-edward-gallagher-video.html
Bottom line up front: As a veteran and someone who has done a good deal of work on war crimes, mass atrocities, and genocide, I have repeatedly criticized US war criminals, the Trump pardons, and the tendency to condone such behavior. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/i-led-a-platoon-in-iraq-trump-is-wrong-to-pardon-war-criminals/2019/05/09/15b10430-71d5-11e9-9eb4-0828f5389013_story.html?noredirect=on
Let's be clear, though: I served one tour in Iraq as a cavalry officer and a total of 5 years in the Army. I am not a Special Operator, nor do I have the same experiences of the SEALs.
But...it DOESN'T MATTER. And here's why:
But...it DOESN'T MATTER. And here's why:
The entire thesis of the "The Line" podcast is centered around an idea of a line, a very gray and ambiguous moral line around killing, the laws of war, and the ethics of military professional decision-making.
It's a simplistic, sloppy, and dangerously morally relativistic idea.
It's a simplistic, sloppy, and dangerously morally relativistic idea.
To be clear, there ARE morally complex decisions in combat regarding things like collateral damage, weighing the mission vs. civilian (or friendly) casualties, targeting issues, etc.
These, however, are NOT present at all in the Gallagher case and Taberski doesn't see it.
These, however, are NOT present at all in the Gallagher case and Taberski doesn't see it.
For one very minor example of a heat of the moment decision, you might read this piece about one experience I had. Certainly, there are lots more difficult ones out there, but this should give you an idea of the distinction I am making. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/12/02/heres-what-split-second-combat-decision-looks-like-i-didnt-need-murder/
There are two issues in the Gallagher case: the shooting of unarmed, noncombatant civilians and Gallagher's murder of a wounded and unarmed prisoner of war.
In his OWN podcast, Taberski presents NO extenuating factors like a stressful combat situation b/c there are none
In his OWN podcast, Taberski presents NO extenuating factors like a stressful combat situation b/c there are none
Too much of Taberski's podcast is misconstruing the sometimes agonizing decisions of life and death that must be made in the HEAT OF THE MOMENT as the same as Gallagher's decision to murder a teenager in the safety of a SEAL compound. This is malpractice.
It's ironic, because in the podcast, he has a clear example of a tragic killing of a civilian due to hitting the wrong house. Few people would pass moral judgment on those responsible in this kind of case, but Taberski totally misses it.
What Gallagher did is not fouling a basketball player during a fast break. It's hacking him while he is shooting a free-throw (pardon the sports analogy) but the way this podcast misses the point is just absurd.
Instead, what we get is a Barstool Sports-style fanboying of SEALs with some halfhearted attempts at serious questioning.
Taberski is going for VICE but ending up with Joe Rogan. I hope most military and informed people will see this, but the danger is for the casual listener.
Throughout, Taberski is clearly admiring these guys (mostly for the wrong reasons). He wants to hang out with them. He wants to be their familiar. He loves listening to their war stories...but he doesn't HEAR them.
He doesn't hear his subjects say that they like killing, that they are ok being as bad as the enemy, that the rule don't apply to them.
Or, maybe he does hear them and then just drowns all that out with equivocation and relativism.
(He tells Eddie he would have acquitted him.)
Or, maybe he does hear them and then just drowns all that out with equivocation and relativism.
(He tells Eddie he would have acquitted him.)
Let's come back to the issue at hand. I'm not a lawyer and the witness claiming on the stand that HE killed the POW certainly huert the govt's case...but no reasonable person can listen (even just to this podcast) and think Gallagher is innocent. (We'll come back to this.)
Throughout this beer-soaked, frat boy romp through military porn, Taberski continuously laments with the SEALs how hard their jobs are, how tough their decisions must be, how hard it must be to have to render aid to someone who was formerly a combatant.
I'm going to be blunt. SO WHAT? Our operators are SUPPOSED to the best that we have. They are SUPPOSED to be the ones we expect to make hard decisions and to BE PROFESSIONAL.
(again, remember, that Eddie's case isn't even a tough decision).
(again, remember, that Eddie's case isn't even a tough decision).
Again, Taberski blunders into some good ethical content (for example, the SF operator who was supposed to train an Iraqi to conduct interrogations but then had no power to stop him from conducting torture instead.) THAT is a difficult line. Not stabbing a wounded kid to death.
As for Gallagher's guilt, well, it's just not believable that Navy SEALs would fabricate charges against him like this and go through all the stress of the process b/c he stole their care packages (dick move, btw.)
Or, as his wife argued, that they were cowardly millennials.
Or, as his wife argued, that they were cowardly millennials.
What we need is a careful, complex discussion and analysis of those who commit war crimes in our name, not some Real Housewives of SEAL Team 7 podcast that can't make up its mind what it wants to talk about.
To be clear, Taberski comes across some really interesting things, albeit in a schizophrenic manner that means they often get lost in the noise.
His discussion of "moral injury" is important as is his description of the kinds of people who join the SEALs and the effects of TBIs.
His discussion of "moral injury" is important as is his description of the kinds of people who join the SEALs and the effects of TBIs.
The problem is that these issues are simultaneously important and irrelevant. We DO need to have a serious conversation about the cultures and climates we are creating as they relate to treatment of civilians and command environments (where was the LT in this btw?)
However, none of those issues remotely excuses, mitigates, or explains the actions of Eddie Gallagher when he stabbed an incapacitated kid to death and then took photos with the corpse.
Which brings me to another point: Why does Taberski fail almost completely to push back against some of the most grotesque statements? He often lets them slide without saying, wait a second, how can you possibly say that?
Despite himself, Taberski does make a convincing argument that Gallagher is an awful human being who murdered at least one and likely many noncombatants. Gallagher himself basically admits this (because he is dumb and arrogant). https://www.thedailybeast.com/eddie-gallagher-now-claims-seals-intended-to-kill-unarmed-isis-fighter
So, there is that. What's sad is that one really needs to listen to this podcast with a massive cheat sheet of corrections and caveats and, if you are former military, probably a couple valium. I thought I couldn't despise Gallagher (and his wife) more, but, I can.
I will close with some personal thoughts that I think are relevant and perhaps helpful for those with only a passing knowledge of these events.
1) War is a serious business for professionals. (esp. if they are to be the MOST professional of the profession). Wanting to be a badass and kill a lot of people is NOT an acceptable reason to join the military. (It's disturbing, actually.)
One of the reasons (comparatively) that the US military has enjoyed a reputation for professionalism is precisely because we have had leaders who made the hard, right decision, even if it endangered them, rather than committing atrocities.
(Yes, the US military is absolutely not blameless for any number of atrocities and war crimes. I'm not minimizing that.)
2) If you want to help change the garbage "warfighter, alpha male" culture in the military and you are a journalist, don't report on those people like you want to have their children. YOU need to be a professional, too.
When you have a big time podcast on Apple which is connected to a big time documentary, you have a large podium to speak from. Rather than reaching down for the pulpy stories, you need to risk some ratings in favor of responsibility.
Because, sadly, I think too many people will listen to this podcast and say, "meh, good guy in a tough situation. Lots of difficult things going on. Who am I to judge?" ISIS guy probably deserved it.
Let me reiterate for those in back: YOU absolutely CAN judge here. This is not a situation that requires years of experience in stressful special operations to interpret. You cannot murder a prisoner with a custom hunting knife and take pictures with the body. Period.
Moreover, these people represent YOU (if you're American.). You have EVERY right to demand the best of them because it matters and it ultimately affects all of us in ways we probably cannot imagine.
3) Too bad the podcast didn't focus more clearly on those Navy SEALs with the courage to come forward about Gallagher's ethical failures and who tried to stop him. THEY are what we should reinforce and expect in our operators. Kudos to them! 
I want to know THEIR stories. I know Gallagher is trash. I want to hear what made these guys different. What gave them the moral compass to take heroic and unpopular steps in such a tight-knit community when they could have stayed silent? How do we make more of THEM?
We CAN hold the Gallaghers accountable for their crimes while still being a lethal military.
But we have to stop pulpy fanboying over their very existence.
But we have to stop pulpy fanboying over their very existence.
As always,
Punch your local Nazi (metaphorically).
Support your local historian.
Get your vaccine.
Read critically.
Punch your local Nazi (metaphorically).
Support your local historian.
Get your vaccine.
Read critically.
