an icepick through the keyhole

I was quite pleasantly surprised when I learned how seriously the Marine Corps took its history, after I got to Parris Island in 1972. During the 13 weeks of basic training we were steeped in the long history of the Corps, including a lot of stuff that wasn't even mentioned in high school history classes. Much of it was not exactly complimentary either. We learned about Smedley D. Butler, and his famous "War Is a Racket" condemnation of the policies of the US government.

Many years later, when I was an analyst at Quantico, I asked one of the command historians there about this institutionalized policy of teaching *all* of our history to every Marine. His opinion was that it began during the Mexican War, with Marines who were troubled by fighting against children. It's a way of building up an internal conscience, by perpetuating the knowledge of what we've done in other places and times.

It's not perfect, by a long shot. But I think it's good. It sure beats the Army's approach, which is largely non-existent.

Since you mention the Philippine campaign, have you ever had a chance to study the legal conflict between the Army and the Navy in that little mess? The Navy (and by extention the Marines) had a policy that "the Constitution follows the flag," and that was their guide in the Philippines. The Army, by contrast, went in using policies based on the Indian Wars, with no Constitutional protections afforded to the Filippino people. The two different views eventually led to a US Supreme Court case. The Supreme Court found for the Army, and that decision is having repercussions in Iraq today.