Military Veterans and Patriots

Author: Paul Evancoe

  • Election Year – Deciding is Believing

    Election Year – Deciding is Believing

    By Paul Evancoe

    07 August 2020

    We are continually bombarded with media hype favoring one candidate, while character assassinating the opponent(s); it’s an election year. How are we to decide what to believe? Ultimately, it all boils down to three fundamental themes shared across all presidential politics: Appeal and Policy, Providence and Integrity, and The Question of Ethos.  Let’s take a closer look.

    Appeal and Policy  

    There are candidates who profoundly believe in their policies, and they sincerely intend to lead based upon what they have said on the record. Many in the electorate think leadership is founded upon a candidate’s stated ideas, policies, and ideologies. Thus, many people search for what they think the candidates believe rather than determining whether they mean what they say.

    The media’s talking heads and self-proclaimed policy experts disparage the fact that the public frequently appears oblivious of, and indifferent to, the naked policies those seeking power actually stand for. The public can be influenced by fatuous slogans, negative agenda-driven reporting (weaponized information), or simply by their perception of the kind of person they believe their candidate to be. We are manipulated to see the aura, not the person behind it. This “beauty pageant” approach to qualification exasperates the ordinary person’s perception of his candidate’s political position and ability to lead.

    What is leadership? In 1943 Navy Cross recipient, Admiral Arleigh Burke, who distinguished himself in both WW-II and the Korean War, disseminated his definition on leadership. “Know your stuff. Look out for your men. Be a man.” While not politically correct today (for 2020 palatability replace men with people and man with person), these three simple, yet powerful sentences remain teachable and are certainly scalable to the presidential level.

    Adm. Arleigh Burke

    Successful candidates lay out their plans (platform) in simplistic detail (usually in soundbites) so that almost everyone can understand them. Plans are typically derived from an ideology based upon personal values and are designed to represent a candidate’s intentions and goals. More specifically, an ideology is a broadly held system of beliefs with specific positions on a range of topics related to the achievement of the leader’s goals.  A candidate’s intentions have less to do with what the candidate would do, than what he thinks will persuade voters to elect him. But such a candidate, possessing more personal ambition than principle, would not be opposed to doing what he promised, as long as it suited his political agenda.

    For example, consider the relationships between intentions and outcomes in American presidencies. During the 2000 campaign for president, George W. Bush claimed U.S. involvement in the Kosovo War, undertaken by President Bill Clinton, was a mistake because it forced the United States into nation-building. This open-ended and costly policy always seems to fail. When Bush articulated this policy, there was every reason to believe that he meant it and intended to follow it. However, neither his beliefs nor intentions were fulfilled because of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. As a result, his presidency was determined by events beyond his expectations or control.

    This circumstance is not unique to the Bush presidency. The Cuban missile crisis defined John F. Kennedy’s presidency. Lyndon Johnson’s by the Vietnam War. The Iranian hostage crisis utterly inundated Jimmy Carter’s presidency. These significant themes overshadowed the very fabric of their administrations, leaving them void of the policies, plans, and ideological guidelines necessary for the hundreds of lesser challenges and decisions they encountered daily.

    A more recent example might be Barack Obama. When he began his campaign, his major theme was putting an end to the Iraq War and bringing our troops home. It was a noble goal, but soon after Labor Day in 2008, the Iraq War had become secondary to the global financial crisis. It became clear that Obama had no better idea than anyone else about how to manage it. By the time Obama took office, the method for dealing with it was already established by the preceding Bush administration, and for better or worse, Obama inherited it. The Bush plan was to flood the market with money to prevent punishment on major financial institutions and to redefine the market to stabilize the financial institutions. Obama continued and intensified this policy, and as it failed, he switched his focus to presiding over America’s decline.

    As many already recognize, the media does not help the voter understand policy-influencing circumstances. Instead, the media always seems to imply that the leader is in control or should be in control of everything worthy of media reporting. In truth, events more often control the leader, limiting his choices, and defining his agenda. Sometimes, as with the 9/11 attacks, or the recent pandemic outbreak of China’s coronavirus, it is a matter of unexpected redefining of the presidency. In other instances, it is the unintended and unforeseen consequences of a failed policy that redefines the administration.

    Providence and Integrity   

    In Machiavelli’s “The Prince,” he postulates that political life is divided between “Fortuna” and “virtu.” Fortuna means the unexpected event that must be dealt with, but virtu did not mean the religious virtue of abstinence from sin. Instead, Machiavelli meant “the virtue of the cunning man” who knows how to deal with the unexpected. None of us can adequately deal with Fortuna, but some people seem to have a unique ability to control, shape, and manipulate it. Fortuna works in their favor. History reflects that these individuals usually make the best presidents (leaders) while the worst is simply overwhelmed by the unexpected.

    Niccolo Machiavelli

    On the other side of the fence, some people rely on policies. In doing so, they make two assumptions. The first is that the political landscape is benign, and it will allow the leader the necessary time to do what he wishes. The second is that should the political landscape shift, there will be time to plan, think through what ought to be done, and develop and implement the “best” solution. These assumptions might be the case in ideal circumstances, but the unexpected must always be dealt with in its timeframe. Crises frequently force a leader to go in directions other than those he planned, or even oppose what he sought. It then becomes a matter of salvaging what can be recovered, limiting further damage to his agenda, and carrying on in a revised direction as best one can. A crisis is also the Achilles Heel political opponents seek to embellish negatively.

    Policies and ideology are testaments to what leaders “wish” to do. Providence determines the degree to which they will get to do it. If they want to pursue their policies, their professional integrity, gravitas, and the ability to cope with the unexpected (perhaps better understood as cunning) are far better indicators of how a leader will perform than his intentions. Policy and ideology may, therefore, be the wrong place to evaluate a candidate. First, the cunning candidate is the one least likely to take his policy statements and ideology seriously. He is saying what he thinks he needs to say to be elected. Second, the likelihood that he will get the opportunity to pursue his policies (assuming that they are anything more than a wish list with casual attachment to reality) is exceedingly low. Third, it is unlikely that the candidate will have the opportunity to pursue his stated platform to any degree of finality.

    Here are two examples. George W. Bush wanted to focus on domestic, not foreign policy. Providence (9/11) told him that he was not going to get that choice, and the beliefs he held about foreign policy, such as nation-building, became almost immediately irrelevant. Obama intended to rebuild the U.S. relationship with the Europeans and develop new trust with the Arab world, but reality trumped intention. For the Europeans, their relationship with the United States paled well below the many more significant problems they faced. The Islamic world’s objections to the United States were not acquiescent to Obama’s intentions. In the end, both Bush’s and Obama’s presidencies only incidentally resembled their stated campaign policies. Quite merely, world events did not play out as either president expected, and they were overtaken by events (OBE).

    President Trump’s first term has been no different. Trump’s wildly successful first three years of U.S. economic revitalization was entirely negated by China’s coronavirus epidemic, which derailed the enormous gains of Trump’s economic policies. Once again, providence took its toll. It’s fair to assume recovery will not be politically allowed (or achievable) until after the 2020 presidential election, and maybe not even then, if Trump is reelected.

    The Question of Ethos  

    When Hillary Clinton was running against Obama for the 2008 Democratic Party presidential nomination, she ran a television commercial depicting a 3 a.m. phone call to the White House, suggesting an unexpected foreign crisis. It showed a female’s hand reaching for the ringing phone on a nightstand, ready to answer the call. This picture implied that Obama did not have the experience to answer the phone, but she did. Whether the accusation was valid or not was the voter’s responsibility to respond at the polls. Implicit in the commercial was an important point, which was that the appeal of a candidate was as crucial as the candidate’s policy position. When woken in the middle of the night by a crisis, Clinton’s ethos was everything, and policies were irrelevant.

    Ethos competes within a leader who wants both power and something more. His precise position on the International Health Organization or the NATO alliance is not relevant. His underlying sense of decency and understanding of how to use the power of his office within his sphere of influence and authority is. Defining a candidate’s ethos is always tricky. Still, it comprises his ability to dissect a problem into its essential elements with extreme speed, to make a decision based upon the best information available, and then live with it. It requires having strong principles that cannot be violated save a relentless will to do one’s duty in the face of one’s principles.

    Of the many political issues facing us in an election year, the nature of the candidates’ ethos is least evident. Recognizing a leader’s ethos is the fundamental responsibility of those who elect candidates to a particular office. The supposition that a leader should be followed based on his policy intentions is inherently flawed. Providence always moots the most deeply held policies, and the most exceptional leader may never reveal his exact plans. Lincoln, for example, concealed his intentions on slavery during the 1860 presidential campaign. German Chancellor Angela Merkel never imagined the crisis she would face when she ran for office, neither did the United Kingdom’s prime minister, Boris Johnson, and neither did Donald Trump. Intentions are hard to discern and rarely if ever, determine what happens.

    Also by Paul Evancoe:

    They Are Us

    The issues that our presidents have to deal with are never the ones they or we expect. Therefore, paying attention to a candidate’s intentions reveal very little about what they might do. It all comes down to a matter of ethos, of facing the unexpected by finding the strength and wisdom to do what must be done and abandoning the promised list of policies they intended to accomplish. The resolution and resilience with which a leader does this, define him and as history reflects, some are much more resilient than others.

    This is not to say that those voters who obsess over holding hard to stated policies and ideologies are wrong. It is only to say they will always be disappointed. They will never be let down by the candidate they initially supported, and the higher their expectation, the more profound their inevitable disappointment. It is necessary to realize that a candidate cannot win through policy and ideology, and not govern through them unless he is extraordinarily fortunate (damn lucky). Few are. Most leaders govern as they must. Identifying leaders who know what they must do, and then do it, is essential.

    The study of geopolitics and political-military strategic planning teaches that reality is frequently intractable, not only because of cultural and political differences, but because of the human condition. This condition is filled with fortune and misfortune and rarely allows our lives to play out as we expect. The subjective expectation of what will happen and the objective reality that we live are always at odds. Therefore, the tendency to follow a leader who appears to have established ethos, in the broadest sense of the term, would seem to most less frivolous than following based on ideology and policy.

    As to how one determines which candidate will be a great president, no one has any more exceptional expertise than you do. No university offers a degree major in “leadership and competence” studies, and there are no newspaper columnists who focus on “ethos.” Any broadcast discussion of such subjects is even further distant and skewed. The ground truth about such matters is none of us is wiser than any other. We need to vote thoughtfully. That said, let us close with this quote from Robert Kennedy, “Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever hope to achieve greatly.”

  • They Are Us

    They Are Us

    27 July 2019

    This nation began a virtuous path as one with high ideals. It was a nation that promised opportunity and the liberty to achieve it to its citizens. It was a nation founded upon the rule of law and the ethos necessary to govern across its vast territorial expanse. It was a nation that drew much of its strength from the qualities of many rather than the few. Newly arrived citizens raced to learn the common language, melding into the society to join its national focus. As a result, science, technology and the arts flourished and were advanced to a level of sophistication that no other society had ever before achieved.

    At its height, this nation had the finest, most well trained and professional military in the world. Several great wars were fought and won. But even as the victor, this great nation helped rebuild its enemies’ infrastructure in its own image, while providing them protection from others. This nation prospered for many years, gaining great wealth and empire status as the last remaining superpower with the defeat of its long time rival, but the golden age did not last.  

    This nation began to suffer gradual atrophy of its morality and national will beginning with the loss of an unpopular protracted conflict in a land far away, that was clearly the result of political meddling in battlefield matters. Political scandals continued to rock the very seat of its once proud Capitol. Justice suffered too. Corrupt judges and courts aligned with political agenda subverted the lawmakers, and social injustice ensued. 

    Towards the end, this nation’s legal system had become so corrupted by agenda, greed and political influence that perpetrators were touted as the victims, while citizens were discounted and disgraced. Special interest groups and ethnic polarization began to dominate political direction and national goals. The majority was left under attack and unrepresented. Taxes became so exorbitantly high that for many, fifty-percent or more of their income was taken by the government to provide for the numerous and expensive government-mandated social programs. Prostitution, drug use, lawlessness, corruption, and social discord were rapidly over taking this once proud nation, eroding the very core values that made it great. 

    The nation’s once invincible professional military now suffered many disheartening losses during piecemeal campaigns involving policing actions, nation building and peacekeeping missions which sacrificed unit cohesion, training and sense of purpose.  The citizens no longer trusted their government. Civil unrest mounted as political corruption grew, finally bringing this nation to its knees. This once grand republic was permanently divided between east and west. And, in the Fifth Century, 476 A.D., Rome fell.

    See also: The 21 Gun Salute

    By Paul Evancoe (including his impressive bio)

    In 1787, around the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution, Alexander Fraser Tytler, a Scottish history professor and expert in social studies at the University of Edinburgh, wrote about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier. At the time, his scholarly perspective was classified as quixotic. “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government,” he wrote. “A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.” 

    Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee FRSE (15 October 1747 – 5 January 1813) 

    He went on to explain, “The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years [before showing decline]. Those nations always progressed through the following sequence: 

    1. Bondage to spiritual faith;
    2. Spiritual faith to great courage;
    3. Courage to liberty;
    4.  Liberty to abundance;
    5. Abundance to complacency;
    6. Complacency to apathy;
    7. Apathy to dependence;
    8. Dependence back into bondage” 

    See also: Commander’s Intent

    By Paul Evancoe

    Many Americans believe that we are invulnerable to such a prognosis. After all, from a national security perspective, we have technical superiority, energy sufficiency, good surpluses, and most of all, military superiority. But what about national cohesiveness? 

    When World Wars I and II were fought, the national leaders and especially the Commander-in-Chief, had relatively few political constraints on their war making abilities and strategies. Average citizens simply did not expect to carry on a national debate about how to fight the war — only that it ought to be won and won decisively. 

    Today conflicts are one part military strategy and nine parts public relations, precisely because an open society demands its daily information infuse and special interest groups require adoration. Courageous political and military leadership is at a great disadvantage in such a polity, and today’s agenda-driven media takes full advantage of their power to drive the narrative.

    Long hard wars, especially against stubborn and ideologically committed enemies such as Marxists and the Shari’a touting Islamic faithful, even conflicts prosecuted with a total war strategy, have become decidedly more difficult. Especially when the political leadership and – by implication the military as well – are subject to the nightly talking heads, polling data, the loudest in the crowd and a show of agenda-driven hands. While contemporary wisdom is that the greater the reach of egalitarianism – the better it becomes; this has never been established as fact or even as good theory.

    In World War II the Vichy French, Hungarians, Romanians, Croatians, Iraqis, et.al, never attacked the U.S., but they were our enemies nevertheless because they were allied with the Nazis. Today Iranians, Syrians, Palestinians, et.al, are likewise our enemies because they are allied to the extent that they want a U.S. defeat at the hands of an Islam bounded by the Shari’a.  So long as we continue to define the Middle East as the only enemy enclave, we are again headed for defeat because of our failure to deal with the fact neither terrorism, nor the fight against it, does not necessarily stop at national borders. 

    Secondly, we must recognize and fight an emboldened enemy within. The problem we face is that this enemy looks exactly like us. In fact, he is us and that takes many forms. But if this enemy is not stopped we will face the same end Rome faced. If nothing changes, nothing changes and change takes courage.   

    To win we must be courageous, not bold. The bold seek recognition for their acts. Boldness is a selfish, self-centered path, while courage is unselfish action that is offered from the depth of a person’s heart and soul. Boldness is non-directional, while courage has a rightful and virtuous resolve. Bold armies lose battles while courageous armies win them.

    You may wonder – must one need to have a degree of boldness to achieve a courageous act?  Perhaps…but boldness is more often a defense while courage always plays into a determined offense.  If there are any words that you should remember as veterans and patriots, it is simply this: Be not bold, be courageous. Allow your opponent to be bold and see your opponent’s boldness for what it is… a means to beat him.  

    Our veterans have unselfishly demonstrated the courage of their convictions by their many sacrifices in the never-ending fight to defeat all enemies who seek to destroy our way of life.  They do this amidst constant and vicious, personal and political attacks against them and their families and against the nation they protect. A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to “The United States of America,” for an amount of “up to and including [his] life.”

    In the next 10 years, maybe sooner, veterans will be crucial in a global-military, political and economic context.  As this country and the planet reach their violence-carrying capacity there will be a significant potential for global-scale disorder.  As a result, we may expect our military to be involved in maintaining order. Veterans may become an important asset in preserving the peace. Especially in the areas of education, training, logistics and support, they can help relieve manning and deployment stress on active duty and active reserve forces. Veterans will in essence become a force multiplier for the military. Think about that for a moment – have you ever talked to a single veteran who left the service honorably and was still not committed in one way or another – who would refuse to answer our country’s call?  

    The professional military we enjoy today is the most highly educated, most well trained and best equipped of any military in recorded history. They are us: our brothers, our sisters, our sons and our daughters.  They are our finest and smartest, our best and most courageous, but most of all, they are us. They carry with them our most sacred expectations, our hopes and our dreams, and they insure our future. They have written a check to the United States of America with a pay line that says, “for an amount up to and including my life.” They are us.

    Editor’s Note: Paul Evancoe is a retired, career Navy SEAL. His significant military service awards include the Joint Meritorious Service Medal, Bronze Star with “V” for valor, Purple Heart, Meritorious Service Medal (3 awards), Cross of Gallantry with gold star for heroism, Navy Commendation Medal with “V” for valor, Navy Combat Action Ribbon (3 awards), Navy Achievement Medal (4 awards), along with 12 other lesser medals and campaign ribbons. Paul holds a BS in Industrial Technology from Millersville Pennsylvania State University and an MA in Human Resource Development from the George Washington University.  He is the author of three novels; Own the Night, Violent Peace and Poison Promise (available from Amazonbooks.com), as well as many articles in various professional journals. His full bio is available here.

  • Commander’s Intent

    Commander’s Intent

    By Paul Evancoe

    July 16, 2020

    In 1862 during the Civil War Battle of Shiloh, after several days of fighting and maneuvering against the rebels, the forces of Ulysses S. Grant found themselves at a tactical disadvantage. They were outnumbered by Confederate forces and they had their backs to the Tennessee River with no clear means of escape. One of Grant’s senior officers, Col. McPherson, suggested that they might be able to cut their losses and retreat under the cover of Union gunboats across the river on wooden steamboats, if they did it quickly. Grant quietly sized up McPherson and calmly replied, “Retreat?  No.  I propose to attack at daylight and whip them.” And, the next morning that is exactly what the Union forces did.

    That is an example of what the military still refers to today as “Commander’s Intent.”  Commander’s intent is clear concise guidance – guidance that has no ambiguity. It is direction that everyone understands. It epitomizes the grandest principles of leadership.

    On September 12th, 1962 (and I remember watching this live on a black and white TV), President John F. Kennedy gave his famous speech that got us into the space race against the Soviets. This speech in particular, is a superb example of Commander’s Intent. Standing at the podium he firmly grasped both sides. “We choose to go to the moon,” Kennedy proclaimed in his characteristic New Englander’s accent. “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do all the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure our best energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one that we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.”

    What both the Grant and Kennedy examples have in common is that they are mission focused and designed to create unity of effort. Parallels may be made by watching a school of fish swim or a large flock of birds fly. Somehow, they have unity of effort, and acting like a single being, they all seem to change direction and turn at the same moment. They act, and even look like a self-morphing yet purposeful being. We can only wonder if they have a leader or, how they all just somehow know what direction to go at exactly the same moment.

    Man is a tribal being. Mankind has evolved that way and we are all wired that way no matter how sophisticated we think we are, or how many advanced degrees we hold. Some examples of our tribal roots can easily be observed whenever we deal with events we don’t understand and/or feel threatened by. 

    Take 9/11 for example. During and following the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks people banded together. There was a sense of unity, a sense of purpose. It was us against those who attacked us. Shortly following the attack, President Bush proclaimed to the world on national television, “In our pursuit of those responsible in this fight against terrorism, you are either with us or against us.” It was classic Commander’s Intent  – “you’re either with us or against us.”  Make your choice.

    Do you remember all the public gushing of Americanism following the attack? American flags were displayed everywhere. Flags of all sizes were hung on many buildings, on bridge overpasses and everyone had a flag flying from a small banner clipped to his car window. It was a time of great national unity. Do you remember hearing anything from the agendas of liberals, conservatives, Democrats or Republicans? No – there was a singular mindset – a tribal mindset, and that tribe was the United States of America.

    Here’s another example. If you look anyplace on our planet where people are geographically isolated, and lacking infrastructure ties to the population centers, you will find clans. Afghanistan is an excellent modern day example, as is the Middle East as a whole, which shares religion-based clanship. Due to the rugged geography, so might be parts of Kentucky and West Virginia, especially during the 1800 and early 1900’s. Even today they are clannish. Unlike large population centers, the terrain of these rural locations lends itself to isolation by retarding easy transit.  Infrastructure is largely lacking. The people who inhabit these areas reside in small semi-isolated pockets. Hence, clanship flourishes.

    This is not necessarily bad. In fact, it might be explained as our tribal roots – we are wired that way and it is nothing of which we should be ashamed. We are after all, simply human. But there is for many of us a painful side to being human, and that is our failure to recognize and act upon success. There’s a difference between failing (which is a natural and normal part of life) and being addicted to failure. When we’re addicted to failure we enjoy it. Each time we fail, we are secretly relieved. For example, Hollywood’s culture glamorizes failure and embellishes victimhood. Starving poets, romantic suicides, America-hating and other self-defined victimized souls invert failure and warp it into a perverted success. In truth, it results in cultural incapacity, so that we no longer have to ask and answer Stanislavsky’s famous questions: Who am I? Why am I here? What do I want?

    See more by Paul Evancoe: The 21 Gun Salute

    Becoming one’s self means becoming authentic. It means striving to become better than yourself. It means defining your individual worth and identity, and not leaving it to others to define for you. It means making good people into better people, not the reverse. We should never fear self-definition; we should celebrate it. We should not wait for inspiration; we should practice our lives in anticipation of it. Practice is the key. Practice means following a rigorous, prescribed regimen with the intention of elevating the mind and the spirit to a higher level. Practice implies engagement and belief, and without them there can be no Commander’s Intent.

    Reporting by today’s agenda-driven media cannot be trusted. Politics is more polarized and less honest than ever in our country’s history. The American culture is under attack from within. If we could write a Commander’s Intent on behalf of the USA, perhaps it would go something like this: “Give countenance to no act of national dishonesty. Advocate no wrong, defend no error, deny no truth, for the sake of party or personal interest.” We must never forget who we are and what we are. As veterans and patriots, we must practice.

    Honorable mention: I want to credit my friend Steven Pressfield for many of the words you have read in this article. Steven is a bestselling novelist who has written a number of excellent titles based on historical fiction. A few years ago he published a non-fiction book titled, “Turning Pro” which I have adopted into my own philosophy about “getting things done.”

    EDITOR’S NOTE: We are again proud and honored to be able to publish one of Paul Evancoe’s outstanding pieces of original prose here at milvetsandpatriots.com. It is a privilege to be associated with him. You can check out his impressive bio on his first post with us, The 21 Gun Salute. Mr Evancoe does not participate in social media commenting, but if anyone has a question or concern that they would like to direct to him personally, please submit using our Contact page, and they will be forwarded.

  • The 21 Gun Salute

    The 21 Gun Salute

    by Paul Evancoe

    July 11, 2020

    Have you ever considered the origin and meaning behind the military’s 21-gun salute? We know it’s a formal rendering of honors performed by military personnel on behalf of the United States of America and it is always performed as a solemn show of dignity and respect. But how did it arise as such a weighty high valued tradition? The story is intriguing.

    The 21-gun salute tradition can be traced back to the 14th century – about the same time period that rifles, pistols and cannons were amalgamated into warfare replacing blades and spears as the mainstay weapons of choice. In those times, firing an unsophisticated (by today’s firearms standards) black powder gun or cannon rendered them useless until they could undergo a somewhat timely reloading process. And, during the reloading process, the gunners were vulnerable. Thus, by firing one’s guns (in a safe direction) to demonstrate they were now unloaded, became a means of instilling trust, e.g., that you weren’t planning to attack the other party.

    Similar actions are recorded throughout the history of warfare. For example, tribes dragging spears behind them with the point down, or the Samurai laying their Katana’s  on the ground in front of them during formal meetings, were symbolic demonstrations that attacks were not planned. The purposes of these displays were to visually and symbolically demonstrate a clear lack of hostile intent.

    Naval vessels were the first to adopt this tradition as a symbolic custom that quickly spread to field cannons and artillery, but the number of guns used can be credited to the Navy. In the day of “wooden ships and iron men,” most ships had seven guns per side and this number eventually became the standard for the number of guns used in the salute, regardless of whether the guns were sea or land based.

    Originally the guns were only fired once to empty them, signifying an absence of hostility and therefore, it was then a seven-gun (or seven-shot) salute. Over time with the invention of metallic (brass) cased ammunition, guns became quickly reloadable and adaptions were made to the salute based on the importance of the person or nation, being saluted. Eventually, the number was internationally set to 21 shots.

    Today, the tradition is used to recognize the sovereignty of a foreign nation, their chief of state, or a visiting member of a reigning royal family. It’s also used to honor national flags as well as the president, the president-elect of the United States, or a former president. The salute is also given on the day of the funeral of a president and is always performed at high noon.

    A 21-gun salute may also be given to senior military and civilian leaders both of the United States and other nations, but in those cases the number may be less than 21. The number given to these leaders varies, based on their rank or title, but it’s always an odd number.

    The 21-gun salute is not performed at funerals. The salute performed at a military funeral is called a “three-volley salute” or “three-rifle volley.” It is intended as a show of respect and remembrance and it is regularly performed at locations such as Arlington National Cemetery and at other military funerals.

    The three-volley salute is always performed by an odd-number of honor guard – composed of three to seven service members – in full dress uniform. Upon command, they raise their rifles to their shoulders and fire three successive volleys. The weapons are loaded with blanks and fired in a manner so the muzzles are over the casket. If mourners are present, the honor guard stands a safe distance away and fires in a safe direction away from the bystanders.

    The purpose of the modern 21-gun salute is meant to be an acknowledgement of respect and dignity. While modern firearms fire more quickly than earlier-era weapons, the honor comes from upholding the tradition and rendering the recipient with a time-honored sign of respect (and trust).

    Given that times have changed and we’re no longer placing ourselves at the mercy of the other party by unloading our weapons by firing them off, the gesture is now purely symbolic. Nonetheless, that symbolism has the same meaning. By doing so, we place ourselves in symbolic supplication, which is, in itself, a sign of respect and acknowledgement of one’s dignity.

    While many traditions have fallen out of favor in today’s fast-paced politically correct environment where history is rewritten on a daily basis, thankfully, the 21-gun salute endures. The very tenets of today’s professional military are founded upon symbolism, respect and dignity. We must cherish that datum and let it be evermore.

    Editor’s Note:

    We are proud to include Paul Evancoe as one of our team.  He brings a wealth of cred to this endeavor.  The following is a short (…ahem) bio.

    Paul R. Evancoe

    Paul is a retired, career Navy SEAL. Following his 25 year military career, he continued government service as the Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Special Operations in the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism at the U.S. Department of State.  He next took a position with the National Nuclear Security Administration where he later headed the Office of Emergency Response, which has responsibility for worldwide nuclear and radiological accident and terrorism incident response. After 38 total years of government service he became the Vice President for Military Operations at FNH USA, the largest military and sporting arms company in the world.  He left FNH to become the president of Aegis Industries, doing research and development in Human Electro-Muscular Incapacitation and cancer research using apoptosis.  He returned to government service in 2010 to head DHS’s Explosives Division Inter-agency Technical Liaison Program in support of the DHS Science and Technology Directorate. Paul has been working as an executive consultant since 2013 in support of the intelligence and counterterrorism communities. Paul currently holds the position of Executive Vice President for Business Operations with SIS.

    Paul is the published author of three novels; Own the Night, Violent Peace and Poison Promise (available from Amazonbooks.com). Paul also regularly authors feature articles dealing with geo-political events, counterterrorism, and weapons technology published in various journals and magazines.

    Paul holds a BS in Industrial Technology from Millersville Pennsylvania State University and an MA in Human Resource Development from the George Washington University.  He additionally holds proven sub-specialties in Political Military Strategic Planning and Weapon Systems Engineering from the US Naval Post Graduate School – Monterey, CA.  His significant military service awards include the Joint Meritorious Service Medal, Bronze Star with “V” for valor, Purple Heart, Meritorious Service Medal (3 awards), Cross of Gallantry with gold star for heroism, Navy Commendation Medal with “V” for valor, Navy Combat Action Ribbon (3 awards), Navy Achievement Medal (4 awards), along with 12 other lesser medals and campaign ribbons.