Response To Robert Bateman Concerning Guns
BY Herschel Smith
10 years, 11 months ago
By way of preliminaries, I had promised to craft more detailed response to Mr. Bateman, but the context of the promise is this comment.
When my son Daniel was in the USMC (part of which was a combat tour) I followed the Small Wars Journal and associated writers so that I could monitor the silliness. It was an exercise in self serving navel gazing and pedantry. Bateman was among those who spent time on those pages writing worthless garbage for others to ingest. I’ve seen his stuff before.
Bateman wants very badly to be more handsome, younger, more important and smarter than he really is. And he wants people to pay attention. Thus, when he would write and it seemed that no one was paying attention, he would then seed it with something really, really outlandish and ridiculous so that people would pay attention to him.
He isn’t so much an ideologue as he is an attention hound who wants everyone to look at him even if you find him grotesque. Rather than a stooge, he is like a misbehaving child who throws tantrums in front of important people.
Rehearsing the subject which initially brought about this charge, Robert Bateman penned a piece in Esquire in which he bolstered his credentials as a collectivist. Basing his diatribe on a recent shooting over a college football game, he outlines his plans for gun control. Here are some excerpts from his commentary.
My entire adult life has been dedicated to the deliberate management of violence. There are no two ways around that fact. My job, at the end of the day, is about killing. I orchestrate violence.
I am not proud of that fact. Indeed, I am often torn-up by the realization that not only is this my job, but that I am really good at my job. But my profession is about directed violence on behalf of the nation. What is happening inside our country is random and disgusting, and living here in England I am at a complete loss as to how to explain this at all. In 2011 the number of gun deaths in the United States was 10.3 per 100,000 citizens. In 2010 that statistic in the UK was 0.25. And do not even try to tell me that the British are not as inclined to violence or that their culture is so different from ours that this difference makes sense. I can say nothing when my British officers ask me about these things, because it is the law.
But just so we are all clear on this, let me spell it out for the rest of you. During the American Civil War, a topic about which I know a little bit, we had a system of state militias. They formed the basis of the army that saved the United States. For most of the first year, and well into the second, many of the units raised by the states were created entirely or in part from militia units that predated the war. But even when partially “regulated,” militias are sloppy things.
Which is why, in 1903 Congress passed the Militia Act. Friends, if you have not read it I’ll just tell you: As of 1903, the “militia” has been known as the National Guard.
Bateman then turns attention to his proposals.
The only guns permitted will be the following:
a. Smoothbore or Rifled muzzle-loading blackpowder muskets. No 7-11 in history has ever been held up with one of these.
b. Double-barrel breech-loading shotguns. Hunting with these is valid.
c. Bolt-action rifles with a magazine capacity no greater than five rounds. Like I said, hunting is valid. But if you cannot bring down a defenseless deer in under five rounds, then you have no fking reason to be holding a killing tool in the first place.
2. We will pry your gun from your cold, dead, fingers. That is because I am willing to wait until you die, hopefully of natural causes. Guns, except for the three approved categories, cannot be inherited. When you die your weapons must be turned into the local police department, which will then destroy them. (Weapons of historical significance will be de-milled, but may be preserved.)
[ … ]
4. We will submit a new tax on ammunition. In the first two years it will be 400 percent of the current retail cost of that type of ammunition. (Exemptions for the ammo used by the approved weapons.) Thereafter it will increase by 20 percent per year.
You’ve seen enough to get the picture. A number of technical responses may be offered to Bateman. For example, Bob Owens has a takedown of the notion that well-regulated means under government control. Directing his instruction at Bateman, David Codrea remarks:
As for who is protected by the Second Amendment, it’s the people, just like it says. Alexander Hamilton addressed “well regulated” in The Federalist No. 29, conceding “To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss…Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped…”
There are other responses across the web. But mostly they are aimed at the content of Bateman’s commentary, which is good analysis technique, but there is more to understanding Mr. Bateman and why he wrote this diatribe.
Several years ago I frequented the pages of the Small Wars Journal. I linked them often and was linked by editors. Mostly what undergirded my advocacy was a concern over my son and his colleagues in the U.S. Marine Corps. The 2/6 infantry was soon to deploy to Fallujah, and I took a great interest in studying how the Marines did things, where they were going, and in watching the progress of the Battalion.
It was a hard time and I spent many hours awake (while other men were asleep), waiting at my door in the dark for that Marine Corps officer and Chaplain (who never came). It was also a rich time in some ways. I had shot guns my whole life, but I had not purchased an AR-15 until then and Daniel taught me to shoot the way the Marines taught him to shoot, i.e., what some might call aggressive, plates-forward stance. It came naturally to me. Still, the hard and bitter times were far weightier than any good times from it.
During this misadventure, I was unfortunately introduced to Mr. Bateman on the pages of the Small Wars Journal blog. I invite you to study his prose. Don’t take my word for what I have said and am about to say. Read until you simply cannot stand it any more. He is a scholar, and warrior, and he is good at what he does, and he is great at what he does, and he laments the evil, and he advises and counsels the best, and everyone listens to him, and he knows virtually everything. If you don’t believe me, just listen to him tell you that himself.
Bateman can only go so long without the attention he so richly deserves, though. When things get a bit quiet and he wants to shore up his credentials once again, he starts fights with men of notoriety so that they will respond and give him the press he’s after. The fight between him and Victor Davis Hanson (see here, here, and here) eventually bored Hanson, it appears, and anyway Bateman was highly over-matched.
Bateman goes into a fury over fairly well established facts like the idea that the Western way of war is different. I’ve commented in a pedestrian way on that same issue, but again, I am under the impression that this is fairly well established. Either way, Bateman got the attention he wanted, and he was eventually reduced to personal attacks and name calling, with commenters telling him he was acting like a juvenile.
It doesn’t stop there. At Zero Anthropology (and I make no claims to a knowledge of what this site advocates or the subject of the disagreement), one author had finally had enough of Bateman, and responded this way. First, Bateman’s comment, and then the response.
Bateman:
Well, at least I now know that you, at least, see what I type. That evidence, at least, now exists for your readers. As does the fact that you ban free speech on your site. Since your readers now see that you openly posted, “This is from the man who is now claiming that I “silenced” him and tried to avoid him challenging my ideas. Of course, he is saying that in private, because he has been banned from this blog and has sent four more messages nonetheless (not included in the list above).”
Well Max, I really could not contrive a confession of oppression of free speech or discourse any more clearly than the way you just laid it out for your readers. Well played son. Well played indeed. “He claimed I ’silenced’ him” and “he has been banned” are wonderfully juxtaposed.
“OPEN” Anthropology.
Regards Max. And I apologize for the future. Not really my fault. But I am sorry nonetheless.
Bob
Response:
You apologize for the future. It was worth approving your message just so that others can see the veiled threat.
It is OPEN Anthropology…just no longer open to you, and your kind. You had your say, and became repetitive, and rather obnoxious, especially as you turned some of your comments on this blog into ad hominem attacks toward someone (me) who had been very analytical, even handed, calm, and reasonable with you. But then the military wolf in sheep’s clothing is all ready to pounce, eh Bob?
Remember, you have a right to free speech. But not on this blog: it is a privilege, and you abused it.
To the notion that Bateman has been “silenced” on that blog, the author lists 32 comments from Bateman approved by the editors. The straw that broke the camel’s back was this comment:
…your apparent lack of eductation (sic) on military affairs and international relations. But then, of course, you are a minor teacher without a single published monograph, so I suppose you have to try and make your academic mark somewhere, eh? Anything for tenure.
The final remarks by the author are telling:
Not only is it ad hominem, it is a basic lie. Mission accomplished, Bob, you live up to the values of your institution. An academic, you are not, not even a good poser and pretender.
Well, Bob, you wanted attention, now you got it. You have all of our attention now, with your very own post on this blog, all about you. Is this what you wanted?
Why yes, that’s exactly what Bob wanted. He got his attention, and you spent your time responding to this narcissist. Perhaps I’m doing the same thing, but if enough people understand who Bateman really is, then my ordeal will have been worth it.
Bob’s outlandish, exaggerated, extremist prose is his hallmark. It helps with the attention. Consider:
My entree was, “I think that Robert E. Lee, as a traitor and betrayer of his solemn oath before God and the Constitution, was a much greater terrorist than Osama Bin Ladin… after all, Lee killed many more Americans than Bin Ladin, and almost destroyed the United States. What do you think?”
Yeah, I flunked “Subtle 101” in High School. Oh well. Like I said, I was not in a good place.
But the fact is that there was nothing that any of these men, and they were all men, could say in honest denial to my assertion. They sputtered and growled, spouted and shouted, but not once did it end well for them on any level. You see, if they were “unreconstructed rebels,” well then I was something almost none of them had ever experienced, an “unreconstructed Yankee.”
So that you understand him, he spells it out for you. He is not just a narcissist, he is a narcissist with an agenda (oops, that may not be so good for a dispassionate “historian,” no?). And his collectivist tendencies are usually obvious by the folks he hangs with. For instance, a search of “Bateman” at CNAS (the center that advises Obama on foreign policy) turns up some attention there too.
Now based on the discussion above, consider his recommendation to end ownership of weapons at death. Does anyone really think that this could ever obtain in America? Men who have spent $20,000, or $30,000 or $40,000 or more on guns, scopes, optics and ammunition, and who have taught their sons to use those weapons for self defense and bonded by hunting game with those guns, are expected to turn over those weapons to the government to be cut up with a torch rather than turn them over to their sons as a heritage!
Does Bateman know what he is proposing for the armed forces and police of America in the coming years under such a protocol? Of course he does. And the irony is that he claims to loath violence. Does Bateman know that it would take a violation of Posse Comitatus to even try to pull something like this off, breaking the law of the land? Of course he does. And does he know that tens or hundreds of thousands of men would perish as a result of his proposals?
Yes. And thus has Bateman shored up his progressive credentials one more time, and gotten the attention he so desperately wants, all at the same time. In the future, pay no attention to Mr. Bateman. He’s a publicity hound and attention seeker, and uses inflammatory and exaggerated rhetoric to evoke responses. The internet calls this a “troll.” It’s just that he’s a troll with credentials – and he’s an expert on everything. If you don’t believe it, just ask him.
|
|
On December 6, 2013 at 6:46 am, Dan Morgan said:
Hershel,
Thank you for doing the research and writing the article that I’ve wanted to put to pen. Fortunately for me, and your readers, you have the ability to use the pen well, while my favorite tool is the ball-peen hammer.
Usually, I succeed in ignoring distractions such as Bateman’s unimaginative use of the standard progressive dribble and talking points, and concentrate on our overriding mission, preparing for the coming troubles. However, in this case, Bateman’s implied warrior credentials caught my eye and his statements have been nagging in the back of my mind for a few days. Thankfully Herschel, after reading your post, I remembered one of the reasons I declined promotion to Sergeant Major and retired early from the Army a few years back.
Readers would do well to understand that this man’s methods and mentalities fall in line with the current U.S. Army requirements for officer advancement and it has absolutely nothing to do with preparing your troops for or the successful execution of a combat mission; To become a officer worthy of promotion you must assemble a staff that can conduct lengthy, worthless briefings (death by PowerPoint), be in all ways politically correct, toe the line of the current administration’s proclamations and to be very vocal about it (suck ass).
Another time tested way to enhance your OER , become a quasi-military author and write a new regulation such as requiring troops to wear reflective belts in a war zone. Even better, write changes to the AR 670-1, the 375 page monstrosity that details how troops have to dress to come to work in the morning. Remember, this is the U.S. Army and War Fighters need not apply, but are quickly shown the door, ala LTC Allen West.
Regarding Bateman’s suggestion that all civilians be disarmed; one wonders what would have become of the founding fathers had they not been armed with the “assault rifle” of their day, the smooth bore musket and the musket with a rifled barrel? According to his views, they should have fought the British Army with stone axes and the bow and arrow. Maybe if they had, he would have gotten his apparent wish and would now be a well regarded “Officer” in whats left of the British Army, overseeing the enlisted rabble. Most likely not, however. The British seemed to hold the Continentals in contempt (Cornwallis at the Battle of Cowpens).
By the way, if you noted my lack of the use of the military rank LTC before Bateman’s name, I reserve right to preface the name with the rank LTC, for those who truly deserve it, such as LTC West.
On December 6, 2013 at 6:53 am, Roger J said:
My concern is not with Bateman himself, but that he may be speaking, “unofficially” of course, for higher brass such as the Joint Chiefs. Otherwise you have him nailed, Herschel, and thanks for pointing out his long history on this subject. I was not aware of it.
On December 6, 2013 at 8:59 am, dan-O said:
Sounds like a man consumed by hatred.
On December 6, 2013 at 9:08 am, bobmark said:
Sounds like he wants everyone disarmed so he can trample freely over them. And he does sound like a man full of hatred.
On December 6, 2013 at 10:35 am, Tim ONeil said:
I’m a retired LTC, AUS, the latter initials signifying a reserve status, although I have a combination of active and reserve time in the Army and Marine Corps. I read the editorial in question and was appalled by Bateman’s lack of understanding of the Second Amendment and his outright dismissal of the Heller case. I posted that I thought him to be a poser and several other choice labels, based on the cavalier way he purposes just dispensing with the 2A. Bateman actually responded to me and threatened me with a UCMJ action for insulting a superior officer. That led to several more posts explaining A. That he was in no way my superior and being retired, and B. the UCMJ was not currently applicable. I also commented that his lack of understanding of 2A is closely matched by a similar level of confusion over the First Amendment. At that point, I heard nothing more from Bateman, although I did offer to let him follow me on twitter. As the Sergeant Major stated, Bateman wrote that article in part in order to please his superiors who are now being led by progressive politicians who would like nothing better than to initiate the
On December 6, 2013 at 10:40 am, Tim ONeil said:
Course of action that Bateman proposes. However with three hundred million arms in private hands, good luck trying. In my opinion, he is little more than a officer trying to earn brownie points with the current crop of Leftists in the Obama administration and perhaps earn a paid gig as a military analyst on a station like MSNBC.
On December 6, 2013 at 11:37 am, indyjonesouthere said:
Bateman is no different than Michael Mann. His perceived duty is to defend the removal of guns from ordinary people. Mann’s perceived duty was to defend the hockey stick. It is what progressives do in order to destroy the limits that are placed on government and damned be the Constitution.
On December 6, 2013 at 11:40 am, Carsie Young said:
It is probably best not to engage in arguing with an idiot like Bateman- he will drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience.
On December 6, 2013 at 3:45 pm, Ned said:
Great Post, Herschel. I posted on several other forums that wouldn’t post my comments. Incidentally, there was no profanity in those comments. Guess I didn’t post the progressive party line, so it was unacceptable.
On December 6, 2013 at 4:51 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Dan,
Thanks for the kind comments. I think about you from time to time regarding the conversations we’ve had.
One would think that if we’re constrained to huge FOBs where there is a concern for too many vehicles running over Soldiers doing PT such that we need to wear reflective belts, then perhaps that says something to us about how we’re conducting the campaign, yes? Perhaps there is a larger issue of the notion of a mechanized infantry and risk-aversion, rather than simply what PPEs do we need to minimize idiot drivers running over Soldiers.
Tim,
Exactly. Bateman is preparing for a new gig, or supplementing an old one, or moving on, or something. He’s doing the necessary suck-ups. Stanley McChrystal did his duty concerning guns:
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2013/01/08/stanley-mcchrystal-on-gun-control/
So Bateman has to do this too. It’s necessary to find work in this administration – or perhaps MSNBC. Good choice, Tim. Where else can one go and babble foolish, exaggerated, hyperbolic, outlandish nonsense and have it be taken for expertise?
And the fact that he threatened you with the UCMJ is just rich. I cannot think of a better close to this story than that. He speaks and expects that everyone will listen. He makes his comments over blogs and charges editors with violating his first amendment rights when they ban him. But when someone calls him and points out his errors, then the only recourse is to threaten. Armed Forces credentials to substantiate and allow him to speak – UCMJ when people respond. First amendment freedom for me, not for thee.
How … very … rich!
On December 6, 2013 at 8:44 pm, Tom said:
And the good Colonel likes to use words that sound right, but whose usage is woefully incorrect. This is from Bateman’s “Letter from a Semi-Foreign Land” Dec 16, 2010 from Small Wars Journal.
“Pub history is, like Pub math, understandably, somewhat fungible.”
“Fungible”? Really? Bateman is saying that Pub history is mutually interchangeable or substitutable with another, like a bushel of corn? So the ancient pub’s history can be replaced with the history of one built in the 1980s?
Such an error is a hallmark of the pseudo-intellectual who thinks he is just much more clever and learned than the rest of us.
Excuse me while I puke.
On December 6, 2013 at 10:26 pm, DD said:
Yeah, Bateman is a frustrated, bitter, know-it-all. That’s obvious to anybody who has read his stuff and even more obvious to anyone that has had the misfortune of serving with him. He’s been passed over repeatedly for full colonel, which is, apparently, his benchmark for self-actualization. It’s gotta burn him up to see “intellectually inferior”, no-time-in-service officers passing him by while he sits in a cubicle surfing the web and pondering where it all went wrong. My guess is that it all started when daddy fed him with a slingshot.
On December 7, 2013 at 12:50 am, scott s. said:
Have to admit I don’t know of this “Bateman”, but from what you provided I don’t think I agree with his history of militia forces. It’s true that “some” states had robust militia units prior to the ACW, but in general, those units weren’t really leveraged at all. Instead the (union) government relied on the “volunteer” system. The initial call for 90 days regiments was allocated across the states more or less by population without regard to existing militia unit setups. The result was a loss of unit cohesion and under-utilization for those units that did exist. It didn’t help that Gen Scott was fighting with the Lincoln administration (far from a “team of rivals” each cabinet member acted as his own “commander in chief”) over army administration.
It was the failure of the “volunteer” system, not the militia, in the Spanish-American War which resulted in the plan by Elihu Root for the “National Guard” , and battles continued through the National Defense Act of 1916 on how the small regular peace time army would expand during wartime (into what would become the AUS).
But regardless of army organization theory and law it has nothing to do with the inherent right of the citizens.
On December 7, 2013 at 9:46 am, Thomas said:
My memory may be faulty, but isn’t it illegal for an active duty member of the Army to have a political career? Proposing a plank for a platform of a self named ticket sounds to me like an announcement for political office. When I was in the service we were told it was not allowed to be involved in political action while identified in any way as being in the military.
On December 7, 2013 at 5:58 pm, ceemeinyourmirror said:
Bateman wrote the article and signed it. It is his to own, period!
Obama wrote his book (he-he) and in it he puts jihadists on a pedestal and rewards them and thanks them. He said ,(Obama) he wrote those words, and signed it. It is his to own, period!
You do the deed , you own it to the death…
Best Regards and peace to men of good will, and to those that are not of good will, not so much peace…
BIGBADBEAR!!!
On December 8, 2013 at 3:07 am, Colonialgirl said:
When I was in the Army; Some of the BIGGEST idiots around were Commissioned Officers and it didn’t matter what rank they were. Some were so stupid. You wondered how they managed to walk without tripping and avoided wetting on their own shoes in the Latrine (or the shoes of the fellow in the next stall.
They were handled by pretending to listen to their instructions, delaying UNTIL they left and THEN doing it the RIGHT way. In combat, they would have needed to wear their armor on thier backs; OH WAIT, they would have been “leading from the rear” like Obama.
Bateman is probably one of those morons.
On December 8, 2013 at 10:51 am, TeriDavisNewman said:
Here’s a copy of the email I sent to him since he was kind enough to provide it:
I find it reprehensible that a person who takes an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America thinks that it’s OK to pick and choose WHICH parts you think should be upheld. The Second Amendment is the lynchpin of all the freedoms we have in the country. God forbid a situation arises where armed rebellion against a tyrannical government becomes necessary, but if it should, and armed populace is the only way to do that.
You, of all people sir, should be aware of the value of an armed and patriotic populace. Your despicable plan to curtail our Second Amendment rights makes you unworthy of the rank you hold and the trust placed in you by the citizens of this great nation. Your disrespectful attitude toward the document that codifies our God-given rights and freedoms makes you no better than the lying scum occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue who spends most of his time trampling the Constitution and the rule of law.
For my entire life I have looked at members of the military as American heroes worthy of my utmost respect and support. My late father-in-law was a retired USAF fighter pilot who sat in an F-101 Voodoo jet in 1962 during the Cuban missile crisis waiting for orders to go. You may share his rank, but you aren’t worthy of the privilege of shining his shoes. You sir, are a disgrace to your country and your uniform. Shame on you.
Sit on that.
Teri Davis Newman
Creative Solution Consultations
Notary Public, State of Illinois
My Commission Expires January 17, 2016
On December 8, 2013 at 6:43 pm, Brad said:
Yeah, Bateman is a troll. That explains his anti-gun diatribe in the September Esquire where he advocated the mass deportation of Americans who did not agree with his anti-gun proposals.
——————
4. We believe that advocates of massive home armaments/weapons stores should be sent to a country where this is a reality and see how well that is working out for the inhabitants of that nation. Specifically, we propose mass deportation of those who espouse this theory to the place where they can see it in action. To wit, Baghdad, Iraq, where every household is entitled to own and maintain an AK-47. Said relocation is to be paid for by the USG.
———————————————
On December 8, 2013 at 6:50 pm, Desertrat said:
Bateman? All hat and no cattle. Young and mouthy know-it-all who knows damn-all.
Me? NE Asia war games, ’54/’55.
On December 8, 2013 at 11:22 pm, Robert Riley said:
Lt.Col Bateman is unworthy of the rank he holds and his recent foray into amateur journalism illustrates the fact, that he is nothing more than a military “yes-man” who owes his career to Obama. I doubt this politician (I will not give the respect to call him an Army officer) who survived the purge that is destroying our Armed forces ever saw combat and his position in the DHS does not bode well for us. Bateman is a paid political troll and that he he is a member of the United States Army is a slap in the face to those of us who served, are serving and made the ultimate sacrifice for this country.
On December 9, 2013 at 4:45 pm, Floyd R Turbo (American) said:
My guess is that Bateman figures his career in the military will be ending shortly – he either has to get backing from highly placed civilians to make full Colonel, or he wants to establish himself as a military “expert” so that he can pontificate for pay in the pages of “Esquire” etc. If stabbing his country in the back is what it takes -then so be it.
.
It is pretty commonplace to find civilians who write stuff like Bateman – in the civilian world Bateman’s articles would be distinctly second-rate. The reason that Bateman gets attention is because he is in the military (although there is no record that he ever served in combat). That status gives him some credibility that civilians lack.
.
Of course it’s only fair to ask: “What percentage of military officers feel like Bateman”? A posting at the: “Daily Kos” (no less!), gives a strong indication that Bateman’s opinion is very much in the minority amongst the active duty military:
[[Then he asked, “If it came to it, how many of you would resign to support and defend the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution?” Every hand in the room went up, including the instructor’s. Then he asked, “How many of you would fight, become a combatant against the government, to support and defend the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution?” Every hand in the room went up, including the instructor’s, and nobody was laughing. After class, I went down and asked the instructor if that result was common, and he replied, “As far as I know, in the 7-year history of this presentation, not a single 2nd Lieutenant has failed to raise their hand.”
Years later, in a room full of mid-level to senior Marine and Naval officers, the same issues were discussed, and the same questions were asked, and the result was exactly the same.]]
.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/06/1207263/-The-Law-of-Unintended-Consequences-Threaten-the-2nd-Amendment-Alienate-the-Military#
.
This piece is well worth reading, coming as it does from an active duty DEMOCRAT officer (one of only FOUR that this guy knew of).
.
If we are willing to believe Bateman (I am not), because he is in the military – why are we NOT willing to believe the other 99% of military officers (and enlisted) – who believe exactly the opposite?
On December 17, 2013 at 12:59 am, timb said:
Sweet takedown of a Ranger, historian, and combat veteran…he should know the blood of the tree of liberty requires watering by a the death of schoolchildren….and women….and civilian Navy personnel….and wives…..and kids who find guns lying around. Heck, that tree has been watered 194 times since Newtown! Let freedom ring! Mainly, so it can drown out the church bells of another funeral and crying of the parents.
On December 17, 2013 at 1:12 am, Herschel Smith said:
He isn’t a historian. Don’t kid yourself. You just believe that because he told you so.
On December 19, 2013 at 12:34 am, Robert Bateman said:
Actually Herschel Smith, as I taught military history at West Point, George Mason, and Georgetown universities, and have published two books and contributed/co-authored 13 others, and am one of the bloggers at the Society for Military History, I sort of think that the profession does consider me a “historian.” But if you like, you are welcome to check on all of these facts. Not sure what you would consider the qualifications to be a historian might be, if not teaching, researching, and publishing within academic circles and for the general public do not meet your personal standards.
On December 19, 2013 at 1:05 am, Herschel Smith said:
Oh, I don’t know. When I think of historians I don’t usually think of the sort of rants like I cited. I typically think of men like Carl Becker, Edwin Yamauchi, my own professor C. Gregg Singer, and so on.
On December 19, 2013 at 11:22 am, Josh said:
Robert Bateman is just an asshole. It’s not any more complicated than that.
Fuck you, Bob. Stay in the utopia that is the UK. Don’t come back.
Or if you do return, make your first stop upstate South Carolina and come visit your rhetoric on the hills and hollers. You see, all these mass shootings and bombings – they’re blue state problems. That is, they occur almost without exception in states or locales run and managed by people like you.
You’re fucking it up, Bob. You’re blowing it: your whole career, everything you’ve worked for so hard, everything you want so badly. You’ve lost: now throw another tantrum like my 2 year old.
On December 22, 2013 at 6:33 am, Robert Bateman said:
Josh,
A well reasoned and cogently argued response. I congratulate you on it sir.
But my family already came through South Carolina, 149 years ago. We think that was sufficient, as the treason was stamped out at that time. Unless you are suggesting that treason against the United States might appear there again, created by people who hate America, as those who killed Americans 150 years ago did?
Bob Bateman
On December 22, 2013 at 9:04 pm, Josh said:
On December 23, 2013 at 12:11 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Robert,
I think you might be misinterpreting Josh’s comment, who is probably speaking to the issue of gun control being a non-starter in S.C. (and most other red states), and thus your having been a failure in said advocacy. But I’ll let him speak more to the issue if he wants.
But your response is interesting, and the more you talk, the more you divulge how out of control you really are. Sherman didn’t stamp anything out in S.C. Sherman laid waste to infrastructure and terrorized women, children and livestock. He was a terrorist. And you see him in heroic proportions.
To you, there is no such thing as a group of people deciding that the rulers have broken covenant with the people and thus ended the covenant. No, there is no covenant, and there is only the state. You have decided the philosophical question of “the one and the many” in favor of the one. The state embodies deity. Whatever it says is right by very definition. There is deontological status to laws. Whatever some collection of corrupt politicians and crony capitalists have decided to do to enrich the rulers is good because they have decided it to be so.
Thus, I honestly don’t believe that there are any limits for you. I think you would willingly march people off the gas chamber at the point of a gun if the state said it was the right thing to do (thus your willingness to start a war and see hundreds of thousands of deaths over gun confiscation in America). And don’t give me the claptrap that the civil war was fought over slavery. If Lincoln had really cared about that issue, he would have freed the slaves in the North too. He didn’t, because the war was fought over something entirely different.
Now, as for my rather incomplete reply to your last comment, you know that guns were literally ubiquitous in colonial America.
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2012/09/25/christians-the-second-amendment-and-the-duty-of-self-defense/
With men being required to bring their weapons to church and practice every Sunday. Whatever the Second Amendment means, it cannot possibly mean that because there was such a thing as the militia, men have to check their weapons into a state-approved armory. You know that because of historical context and the upbringing and beliefs of the men who penned the second amendment. The Supreme Court justices know that too – and don’t care.
But you ignore that because you’re not a real historian. You’re an impostor. Thus my remark that men like Carl Becker is what I think of when I think of historian. He will be remembered throughout time. You, on the other hand, are a cheap impersonation of Will Durant, also a revisionist, and who has been roundly repudiated, but who at least is well known as one who reads into history what he wants to see. You do the same thing, but you aren’t famous. Calling you a historian is sort of like saying that since I once had a military blog, I’m Ernie Pyle. People know better.
On December 23, 2013 at 12:38 pm, Josh said:
Bob knew exactly the point I was making. He didn’t like it (because he knows it true), thus, instead of speaking to the point – mass murder events happen almost without exception in the liberal, utopian urban areas his kind proliferate and adore – he went to his fallback plan: trolling. He’s not even very good at being a troll, either.
Bob, when you have to reach back generations in your family tree to boast of how they “won” a civil war (a pseudo-intellectual’s version of “my dad can beat up your dad”), you’re just exposing how much of a bitch you are. Historian, Super-soldier, troll. Pick one, Bob. You’re currently sucking at all three.
Now as for the civil war (which is irrelevant to this anyway), the union didn’t stamp anything out in South Carolina. They disrupted some logistics, but we’re otherwise terrified of the natives, routinely suffering mass casualties in the Appalachian foothills. What you did stamp out entirely, down to the innocents, was the state of Georgia and notably, Atlanta. That’s why they’ve taken ownership of the Phoenix; a symbol that could be shared with the WTC: Sherman left nothing but ashes by means of indiscriminate terror.
I realize I’m just feeding a troll, but perhaps it will help to educate you to better yourself in its art. You’re doing it wrong.
On December 25, 2013 at 4:14 pm, Paul Veritas said:
Dear Master Bateman,
If you are so proud of your beliefs, then why Sir, are you using the photo of an Air Force Lt. Col. Mark Anarumo in your Esquire profile? Is the name real and the pic fake, the name fake and the pic really you, or are they both fake (as I suspect)??
The Esquire profile photo used for this “Lt. Col. Bateman, US Army” is actually that of USAF Lt. Col. Mark Anarumo, and was taken/stolen from here:
http://www.pacaf.af.mil/photos/mediagallery.asp?galleryID=6539&?id=-1&page=1&count=48
Regardless, congratulations on losing what ever meager scraps of personal integrity and credibility that you may have been desperately clinging onto after flushing most of it down the toilet by writing that laughable propaganda piece for Esquire.
On December 25, 2013 at 4:15 pm, Paul Veritas said:
Link reposted:
http://www.pacaf.af.mil/photos/mediagallery.asp?galleryID=6539&?id=-1&page=1&count=48
On December 25, 2013 at 4:19 pm, Paul Veritas said:
Replace the semicolon (;) before the 2nd question mark (“…=6539&?id…”) in the URL with an ampersand (AKA the “and sign” &)
http://www.pacaf.af.mil/photos/mediagallery.asp?galleryID=6539&?id=-1&page=1&count=48
On April 5, 2014 at 12:14 am, TiredOfBanksterScum said:
Go fuck yourself, LTC Bateman.
On April 5, 2014 at 12:17 am, TiredOfBanksterScum said:
You want my gun, Bob?
Come and try to take it. Don’t send some 19 year old privates and specialists. Bring your own soft fat sorry ass and be the first one in the stack at my door.
You fucking pathetic phony soldier. You’ve never spent a day in combat. You’re nothing more than a loud-mouthed asshole who sucked enough dick to make it part the O-4 bottleneck.
On May 19, 2014 at 12:29 am, rightontheleftcoast said:
Outstanding- found this blog again after reading it years ago. Really good writing. Bookmarked and will be back again for more.
Bateman is clearly an example of the worst sort of staff puke that the Army is occasionally stuck with, and can’t get rid of- but he’ll never promote to O6.
On May 19, 2014 at 12:37 am, rightontheleftcoast said:
Bateman, I believe you have been bitc4 -slapped into the next dimension, there.
On June 15, 2014 at 2:30 pm, J.B. said:
Bateman is a “Chairborne Ranger”. He’s an FA-59 by trade and sits in an air conditioned trailer, if he sees the field at all. He may have went through Ranger School (tabbed), but he never worked as a practicing Ranger in the field (scrolled). He’s all hat and no cattle, so disregard whatever he says. He’s full of it.
On June 15, 2014 at 6:54 pm, madoradataman said:
Cornwallis wasn’t at Cowpens — Tarleton was (tho I forget who was in actual British command — but it wasn’t Gen. C.). Cornwallis was at Guilford Courthouse, where a similar tactic was used. Gen. C managed to save it tactically for the Brits there, but still had to retreat. Tactical Victory Brits., Operational/Strategic Victory for the Continentals).
But all that said — I agree with most of the above.
On March 8, 2018 at 6:35 pm, Nick Willis said:
I have some comments about Mr. Bateman. Can you give me a shout sometime please!
On January 9, 2024 at 4:14 am, Leon Broniszewski said:
I had the displeasure of serving under him in the 90’s when he was a Captain. Guy was as crooked as they come.