On SGM Archie who didn’t head butt a protester
So there’s quite a discussion going on about Sergeant Major Archie in yesterday’s post. First, I want to apologize to the Sergeant Major – clearly he didn’t “head-butt” Mr. Arguello. The title of the post was based on the news article description of the incident according to a witness. After watching the video, there was no head-butt as I understand the word.
There is a good story about Sergeant Major Archie in Stars & Stripes and an insurgent attack that he was involved in back in October 2006 when he was First Sergeant in Iraq. You should read it to get a sense of the man.
Thinking back on the event, Archie realized he was exposed running around the base, but that wasn’t a concern at the time, he said.
“When you’re in a combat situation, you are thinking about the Marines more than yourself,” Archie said.
Archie went to three different posts to supervise the Marines, bring ammunition to Marines who needed it, and fight the enemy himself.
“I’m a rifleman just like my Marines,” Archie said. “That means if they’re fighting, I’m fighting right beside them.”
The battle lasted for more than an hour, during which about 60 Marines fought between 20 and 30 insurgents.
After the shooting stopped, evidence was found suggesting that 11 of the insurgents had been hit, Archie said.
It’s probably no secret that I hate protesters, especially protesters like Mr. Arguello whose only point is that they’re attention whores. Mr. Arguello, according to reports, called around Parris Island trolling for someone to give him permission to wear his DI cover for his protest. One of the people he called was SGM Archie who told him that it wouldn’t be appropriate. Arguello, apparently, didn’t like the answers he was getting, so he wore it anyway.
You have to ask yourself “What was his point?” What did a DI cover have to do with Taliban prisoners? Like the IVAW protesters we’ve seen in our recent past, he only wore it for the moral authority that he perceived that the hat would lend his protest. And the attention that he could garner.
The sergeant major gave him a number of opportunities to allow the theme of his protest to have it’s own moral authority without the hat and Mr. Arguello couldn’t see the light.
In April of 2000, I trolled a protest against the World Bank in DC an found a youngster with a upside down US flag. I tried to explain to him about how wrong that was to display the flag in that manner. He wouldn’t listen to me, so I took his little flag and the pole to which it was attached. Arguably, that was similar to the Archie vs. Arguello incident. It was about a protest, it was about symbols, it involved me taking someone else’s property. But, I’m pretty sure that few of you would condemn me for my actions like some of you are condemning SGM Archie.
Mr. Arguello, appropriating the symbolism of the Drill Instructor’s campaign cover is no different, in my mind, than the stank-ass hippie who appropriated the image of a an upside down flag. Both were used to elicit an emotional response from opponents. Both got what they asked for. But, we all have our opinions.
Archie probably shouldn’t have injected his august presence in the protest, but Arguello shouldn’t have worn the cover for no good reason, either. There’s lots of blame to go around, but Archie should have elevated himself above the confrontation.
Category: Military issues
I’d be surprised if much came from it.
Pretty much hits all the major points. Neither of these gents are without fault, but SGM Archie is probably going to get hammered worse due to his position and the concept of “we expect more from you” than we do out of (allegedly) wife-beating protestors.
If it’s “alleged” why even mention it? Say it’s not true and here you are pointlessly bringing it up…
Still supporting the SGM on this one. He showed exceptional restraint in his reaction to a clown who was intentionally trying to cause much worse than he got.
Yep
I think the SGM did good not head butting him.
Most of us recognize that what is right and what is wrong in a particular situation is not the same as asking what is legal and what is illegal in the same situation. It is illegal to steal but if one steals food to feed a starving child or steals medicine to help a person in desperate need of it, is that wrong? The incident at the base pitted a man who had a legal right to wear a DI hat while protesting against a Marine who viewed the man’s doing so as wrong. Had the man been wearing a Code Pink baseball-style cap, there would have been no issue. In thinking over the matter, I have to say that the Marine is a throwback kind of guy, and I’m joing his fan club. What he did may have been illegal but it sure seems right.
Jonn I’m with you on this. I can’t stand when those who are supposedly on my side use the tactics Saul Alinsky tactics of the left wing radicals. If you do something to illicit a response you will get no sympathy from me when you get it.
“I can’t stand when those who are supposedly on my side use the tactics Saul Alinsky tactics of the left wing radicals.”
Aww dang. That means we can’t ever be bestest buds!!! 🙁
Imo, our need to be the “nice guys” is exactly why we are where we’re at. Losing on every front on every issue of importance, always.
Politics has always been a bloody knuckle affair in this country of ours. It’s only the ivory tower intelekshuls who’ve pretended otherwise.
Our usual pattern of sticking to the “moral high ground” has gained us ab-so-freekin-lootly nothing except to have our positions isolated, surrounded and defeated in detail, time and time and time and time and time and time again.
Fight in the streets. Fight in the gutters. Fight in the sewers. Fight were ever the domestic enemy attempts to maneuver or gather their forces.
Yep. Fight and enemy are strong fighty type words. If you think the domestic enemy doesn’t see us all in that exact manner, you’re not paying attention.
So how do you feel about this Marine and his use of the uniform to make a vacant political point?
Dumb.
But I’m not going to steal his uniform items on camera in front of the police while on active duty in a leadership position thinking I have the authority to do so.
1st amendment means you’re going to be offended.
Don’t like it? Change the law.
If that about Kokesh was aimed at me as a question… I’ve nothing good to say about that guy. And, iirc, he was violating criminal code in one of two ways. 1. He was still under military authority and was wearing the uniform at a political function without authorization.. or… 2. He was not under military authority and wearing a military uniform. #2 might be iffy. Not sure on the details. Is it an actual military uniform if it’s not all put together complete? Is it an additional factor if the uniform was being worn in order claim legit authority while engaged in actions in possible violation of – 18 U.S. Code § 2388 – Activities affecting armed forces during war (a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so— or… 18 U.S. Code § 2387 – Activities affecting armed forces generally a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States: (1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or (2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States— … anyhoo, I’m not a lawyer, so probably way off. Kokesh might have been a Marine, once upon… Read more »
Concur – completely.
There comes a time when turning the other cheek is no longer an option, and that “time” is different for every one of us.
Sometimes, you just have to get down in the mud, the blood, and the beer.
I think the Sarn’t Major showed considerable restraint. I’d buy him a cold one in a New York second.
The Left is very good at using our Virtues against us. Our enemies always have. Finding the balance between restraint and taking the fight to them – irregardless of the consequences – that’s the hard part.
I pray for Wisdom, always. For all of us.
I think he should have changed into civies, approached him, head butted him properly and while the protester was curled up in a ball holding his nose cying “you broken my effing nose”, he should have retrieved the cover and walked away.
Any Scots or Irishman would have done the same thing.
Just sayin’.
Awe shit, reading these responses is starting to get my German up. I’ll try to contain it, but there is a concerted effort to piss me off, today.
To all the doom and gloomers; if displaying a fucked up uniform is the only way a person can protest and get their point across, we are in bigger trouble than you folks think. If a person can’t protest without wearing bits and pieces of, or a full, uniform then all the tin foil in the world won’t help keep your world turning. There is no point to wearing it. Why not wear a t-shirt that says Marine Vet? It means the same thing; right?
To those dumb bastards that say it was disrespectful of the Sgt Maj to confront the former Marine; wake the fuck up. The only one being disrespectful was the former Marine to every other Marine that wears or has worn that uniform. As a former DI, he knew that, but chose to show his ass anyway. No, he didn’t earn the right to wear it as he sees fit, just as I didn’t earn the right to wear my uniform all jacked up, whether it’s one of my fatigue shirts or any other part of my uniform that has anything on it that states “US Army”. If the former Marine had taken the Globe and Anchor off the cover, then no muss no fuss and I’m sure the Sgt Maj wouldn’t have confronted him in such a manner, but as I said in the previous thread; he wanted to get the reaction he did.
It doesn’t matter what he was protesting. I could agree with his cause and disagree with how he presents his protest. The subject of his protest isn’t the problem.
I don’t care if all the tender snowflakes get their underoos all twisted up over what I said, but they need to grow a pair and knock the sand out of their vaginas.
Amen.
Looking at the former DI’s FB page I get the impression his t shirt and shorts wasn’t getting th attention he was looking for so he stepped out up…
OldTrooper, you said it.
First, for the former drill instructor to wear the campaign cover is wrong. As Marines we are taught which gear and clothing are appropriate to wear with civilian attire. It is and will be disrespectful to the Corps to improperly wear the stuff regardless the reason for the display. It is the symbol of the office, not an entitlement.
Second, the rank is Sergeant Major or SgtMaj when shortened. SGM is strictly Army and is not reflective of his rank which the proper equivalent would be CSM. As a retired Master Gunnery Sergeant, my Army equivalent would be SGM. We have drill instructors, not drill sergeants. As the most pure meritocracy of our branches, each grade is special and demands individual recognition. While the Army may consider it appropriate to address members between the grades of E5 -E7 as ‘sergeant’ that is not the custom of the Marines. We are quick to clarify that, no matter the grade or service.
Thanks for that clarification. I wasn’t sure when I made my first comment on this topic, so just followed Jonn’s lead. Oops.
My support remains with the active duty Marine DI, of course. The clown wearing the unauthorized cover gets no sympathy here. He knows better and is expected to do better.
As an aside, the deeper I get into retirement, the more difficult it becomes to keep up with all the appropriate ranks and their abbreviations. Arrrrrgh.
That clown is protesting what we should all be standing behind..Letting our enemies free. Who gives a rats ass about a damn hat, he is a civilian, who cares..The real issue is what he is protesting for and the men and women who lost their lives to such enemies.
Out here in the real world you understand that your message will not be heard if you deliver it incorrectly, in an inappropriate place, to an audience unwilling to listen, and a few other simple PR principles. Wearing an unauthorized piece of Marine uniform in a place where Marines are likely to be the only people who see it is an supremely dumb idea.
In other words, he might have had the greatest message in the world, but he deliberately irritated his audience. Sort of like those open carry guys who purposefully do too many unnecessary, foolish things designed to be in your face to support them in any way.
Looks to me like SGM Archie was just enforcing Marine Corps regulation and the respective US Code. To summarize, so you don’t have to read the following regulation I copied and pasted in part, former Marines may wear the uniform and distinctive items (i.e. campaign cover), but only under certain circumstances, none of which include during a protest. Violators, under US Code, can be punished by a $250 fine and/or up to 6 months in prison. I think you could also make the argument that the uniform and distinctive items are in theory still property of the USMC. You are authorized to wear those items under a strict set of conditions. Violation of those conditions constitutes a right to seizure of the aforementioned USMC property. Link to full regulation follows the text below. MCO P1020.34F MARINE CORPS UNIFORM REGULATIONS 11002. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DIRECTIVES PERTAINING TO UNIFORMS 1. Implementing 10 U.S.C. 772, the President, by Executive Order 10554 of 18 August 1954, delegated to the Secretary of Defense the authority to prescribe regulations under which persons may wear the uniform. The following excerpts from DoD Directive 1334.1 of 11 August 1969 outline these regulations: b. Former Members of the Armed Forces. Unless qualified under another provision of this Order or under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 772, former members who served honorably during a declared or undeclared war and whose most recent service was terminated under honorable conditions may wear the uniform in the highest grade held during such war service only upon the following occasions and in the course of travel incident thereto: (1) Military funerals, memorial services, weddings, and inaugurals. (2) Parades on national or state holidays; or other parades or ceremonies of a patriotic character in which any active or reserve United States military unit is taking part. ‘Wearing of the uniform or any part thereof at any other time or for any purpose is prohibited.’ 11004. LAWS PERTAINING TO THE UNIFORM 1. Per 10 U.S.C. 771, no person, unless other-wise authorized by law, except a member of the Marine Corps may wear the uniform or a… Read more »
I stole the stuff you quoted in your post. You should review the training and standards of your watch standers.
You can sue me later.
Is this the Strawman Blog now?
Archie’s service history is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is a active duty Marine, in uniform violating the law in front of the police, and on camera. Bonus for acting unprofessional and exceeding authority.
He should know better. Just because you sympathizer with his cause doesn’t negate the facts of what occurred.
Both acted the fool, but Archie has higher standards to uphold especially while in uniform.
You can sit there and pretend civilian derp was disrespecting the Corps, but Archie on camera doing what he did in response was more disrespectful to the Corps. Apparently the US Constitution should be taught at MCRD with the general orders.
Quit making excuses for unlawful and unprofessional behavior in response to a persevered insult under our 1st amendment. You’re better than that.
Never thought I’d be defending unsat vet protestors, but some of you are being pretty ridiculous about this especially since it was all on camera.
Your moral outrage regarding the free speech actions of others regarding uniform apparel doesn’t give you free reign to violate their rights and it didn’t give SGTMAJ Archie the right to steal his campaign cover.
Herp derp.
We should really be upset at a Commander in Chief that is aiding the enemy instead of bickering at each other regarding sensibilities. We are missing the whole point here.
“We should really be upset at a Commander in Chief that is aiding the enemy instead of bickering at each other regarding sensibilities. We are missing the whole point here.”
I agree completely. It is a rather unfortunate sign, imo, that more good men and women aren’t out and about being properly expressive in their outrage over a whole host of issues this potus has gotten up to in the last while.
Unfortunately, those wanting to jump on the Sgt Maj for not being a perfect pussy of a plastic saint are muddying the water at the moment.
Semper Fi, Marine.
I wonder what COL Jughead, SFC Veronica and MAJ Betty think about SGM Archie’s actions?
I could be way off here, but it seems to me that this Arguello guy was simply looking for a reaction. Well, he definitely got it. Why protest the Gitmo 5 release in front of a military base? Seems like that’s preaching to the choir. A better place would have been in front of the White House. Could SgtMaj Archie have handled the situation better? Probably, but that’s no excuse for the behavior of Arguello. He knew that wearing that cover would inflame emotions, yet he chose to wear it even after being told it wasn’t appropriate.
Had a little chat with a friend who lives on that coast and knows a bit more about the situation.
The campaign cover wasn’t the real issue here. I’ll leave it at that.
Under cut me, why don’t you.
I’ve been arguing with good folk over at Free Repub on the cover being the issue.
You already talked in your drink, so spill it, boyo.
The Cover,,,, well its the “cover”, and a good one. A couple of active duty and recently retired relatives and friends have some background on it. Nothing scandalous or personal in it, just something a bit disappointing.
Could you possibly be more cryptic?
I’m sure he could if he put some serious effort into it.
He’s messing with us.
I say we wait until he falls asleep, then break out the magic markers and camera!
Or the old shavig cream on the hand and tickle the nose with the feather trick.
Pahleeze!
Don’t go trying to distract me with fun methods to punish you for with holding pertinent info.
Meany.
Now. The reason I keep refreshing this page in the hopes that Just an Old Dog will get up off his info stash and share is because…
Since I’ve refused to assume that the Sgt Maj was politically motivated by a deep and abiding love for Obama… supposedly obvious by the Sgt Maj’s skin color, then I support the attack on pro-American protestors in general, in an ongoing roundy round with some guy on Free Republic on this vid thing.
If it is so, then I need to know, so’s I can back my truck up and do so mea culpas and such like.
So, share, buddy. Please 🙂
I will not confirm or deny such rumors.
Just an Old Dog:
I am really not liking you right now.
Seriously. Mean thoughts are spamming the aether in your AO in a time on target, H&I Fire, FPF sorta way at this time.
Seriously.
As I mentioned in the other posting, this is why we tell our troops not to engage with Protestors. (Perhaps engage from up to 550m would be acceptable?)
No matter whether you are “right” or not, they’ll use it against you and you’ll lose.
If you try to peacefully debate with them, they will find a way to turn it against you and you will lose.
You can’t and won’t change their minds, they are set on their path and if you try to change that path, you will become a propaganda tool to show how evil, over-aggressive, scary, unintelligent, etc., you are (or however much they can perceive you to be).
I’m not saying he shouldn’t have done it, but I knew after the first paragraph of that story he’d end up being charged. Why? Because he engaged with a protestor and “lost”. It’s tough to say what will happen next, but it will be unfortunate for sure.
Oh shit! Finally get to use a Howard quote. Seriously bros, read some Robert E. Howard sometime. Anyway, here goes:
“Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.”
Good ol’ Howard. The protester should be thankful the Sergeant Major didn’t split his skull to the teeth. I mean I get it. The dickhead has 1st amendment protection and the smaj had no authority over him; but, I don’t care. Dude was being an asshole.
I was technically a member of IVAW back when I first ETS’d. I got a sticker and a t-shirt out of it. I never went to any meetings or anything, but if I had and a sergeant major jumped in my ass I would comply. I get the feeling that this guy and his ilk were shitbirds.
1 – Arguello pestered everybody who would answer the phone about wearing the campaign cover (hat) for a political protest, and everyone very properly said ‘N-O, NO!’ Uniform gear is NOT to be worn when making political statements.
2 – He wore it anyway, outside the gates at Parris Island, and got someone’s attention for doing so.
3 – He pissed off the person whose attention he got, and result was predictable.
4 – And he got this attention on camera, too!
I don’t know what you all are quibbling over, or why anyone is citing this or that regulation, but this is about an attention whore doing something to get attention, doing it on camera, and not much else. Arguello had NO reason to engage in a protest at the gates of Parris Island in the first place. He had no reason to be there, OTHER THAN TO GARNER ATTENTION. He wasn’t worth the bother.
SGM Archie’s response was predictable, as well, but someone should have told him that Arguello was an obnoxious, self-serving snot who was NOT worth the bother. And Parris Island’s command structure could simply have called the local cops and asked them to escort Arguello to a different location AWAY from Parris Island.
Yes, it IS that simple.
Maybe one day these attention whores will understand that free speech isn’t free if the person that “headbutts” you is willing to accept the consequences for his actions. True the SgtMaj probably couldn’t have handled it better, but he believed in his actions at the time.
could have…