It's all about the W

A few days ago I was reviewing second-round contract negotiations with a colleague in the office. At one point, I said that we should give in on a particular item of contention, as it wasn't worth the fight to get it in comparison with other, more important negotiating points. The colleague, who hasn't been with the company long, expressed amusement at this; I asked him why. The conversation went something like this:

Him: I'm surprised.

Me: At what?

Him: That you'd give in on that.

Me: It's not worth fighting over. I'd rather get that thing than this thing, and I don't think we can get both.

Him: Oh, I agree. It's just that I'm surprised you don't want to fight it.

Me: Um... I thought I made it pretty clear...

Him: No, I understand your point. I just thought you'd fight it out of principle.

Me: What "principle" would that be? Stupidity?

Him: Well, you're a Marine, yes?

Me: Yes.

Him: Everybody knows Marines love to fight. You're always looking for a reason to fight, right?

Me: ...

I feel I need to clarify something, as this is apparently a common misconception: Marines do not like to fight. Marines like to win. Idiots and psychopaths are the only people who actually like combat.

Only suckers commit to a "fair fight." In a "fair fight," all other factors being equal, there's a 50% chance you're going to lose. The United States Marine Corps has a winning record -- by quite a lot -- and we didn't get it by running at the enemy with our hair on fire while screaming like besrerkers. Yes, sometimes the grab-your-gun-and-charge-the-enemy approach is the proper one -- but very rarely. That's usually just a quick way to get everyone killed, and thus lose the battle.

For an example, look at the Japanese in World War II. They famously confused honor with how you fight, and that's horseshit. The "if you do that you'll become as bad as your enemy" line is the biggest load of pseudo-intellectual crap every peddled to the American public. That blinkered concept has been sold by modern Hollywood, but it has nothing to do with real fighting. Ideally, you want to kill all of the enemy while losing none of your own troops, and you do that by contriving to attack the enemy while limiting his ability to retaliate -- an ambush being the most common expression of that technique.

"Everything depends on whether we have for opponents those French tricksters or those daring rascals, the English. I prefer the English. Frequently their bravery can only be described as stupidity. In their eyes it may be pluck and daring." - Manfred von Richthofen (The "Red Baron")

Richthofen also once stated that 90% of the pilots he shot down never saw him. He simply came out of the sun or a cloud and killed them in so-called "cold blood" before they had a chance to react. That's how battles are won, and winning enough battles wins wars.

The honor of the Corps lies not in fighting battles, but in winning them. There are two things on which the honor of the individual Marine hinges: 1) Accomplishing the mission; 2) Preserving the lives of his fellow Marines. What the enemy or an outside observer thinks is irrelevant to our honor.

If you challenge me to a duel, flintlocks at ten paces or some other nonsense, I'll gladly accept. Then I'll sneak into your house and kill you in your sleep on the night before the duel is to take place. Wanna have a bare-knuckles brawl? Sure, just one minute while I get the keys and wallet outta my pockets and put 'em in the car -- at which point I pull out the crowbar under the driver's seat and brain you with it.

Winning, not fighting. There's a big difference.