Enemies, Foreign and Domestic: A SEAL’s Story is a new book by former Navy SEAL Carl Higbie. Higbie was on the Navy SEAL assault team that in the summer of 2007 captured the most wanted man in the Middle East (apart from Osama bin Laden) – Ahmed Hashim Abd Al-Isawi, known as the Butcher of Fallujah. But afterward, Higbie and others in his unit were charged with prisoner abuse when Al-Isawi alleged that they had bloodied his lip.
Suddenly, the “mission accomplished” became a much more challenging ordeal as Higbie et al were threatened with courts-martial over supposedly roughing up a ruthless terrorist. When he went public with his account of what happened, the Navy pushed back hard to save face and protect careers. But Higbie pushed back harder.
Higbie, also the author of Battle on the Home Front: A Navy SEAL’s Mission to Save the American Dream, became a SEAL in 2003 and deployed twice in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He is now a political commentator in national media including the Fox News Channel, Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Daily Caller, and Breibart. He graciously agreed to answer a few questions for FrontPage Mag about his lates book, Enemies, Foreign and Domestic.
Mark Tapson: About the mission to capture and extract this high-value target, the Butcher of Fallujah. You and your unit accomplished the mission, handed him over, and all seemed good – but then what happened afterward?
Carl Higbie: After turning over custody to the Master at Arms (MP), the MP admittedly left his post.
During this time the prisoner bit his lip (as testified by an oral surgeon) and spit blood on his clothing. Out of fear for his own career, the MP concocted a story that he saw many of us abuse the prisoner. This story was fabricated, as was apparent from his numerous changes in his official statement.
Note the consistent past tense language.
Note the closeness of the account.
Note that the account is called "a story", which is followed up with consistent language in "this story."
MT: The accusation should have been cleared up quickly, but instead, the Navy did its best to break you and the other suspects down and get confessions out of you. Tell us what happened.
CH: Initially we were investigated by NCIS and their investigation made the recommendation to not charge us. It was our Commanding officer along with General Cleveland that decided to proceed despite the facts. Because of the lack of evidence, they wanted to proceed “general’s mast” where there is no need for evidence and a punishment can be issued arbitrarily. They were doing to his to save face and “make an example” out of us.
We all requested a courts-martial so we would have a fair trial and be able to present evidence in our favor. The command tried to talk us out of this because they knew they would lose. They separated us and threatened us with all kinds of punishments, but we held strong and forced the courts-martial.
The need to explain the reason "why" decisions were made is presupposed and does not represent hyper sensitivity. It is expected.
Note consistent pronoun and verb tense.
Note the lack of qualifiers.
Note "we held strong" suggests that the resistance was not easy, and may even had been compromised by one (or some) seals wishing to end the ordeal.
The need to explain the reason "why" decisions were made is presupposed and does not represent hyper sensitivity. It is expected.
Note consistent pronoun and verb tense.
Note the lack of qualifiers.
Note "we held strong" suggests that the resistance was not easy, and may even had been compromised by one (or some) seals wishing to end the ordeal.
MT: Why do you think this guy made such a serious accusation about some of his fellow soldiers, and why do you think the higher-ups weren’t more supportive of the accused, especially considering that the so-called victim was a terrorist?
Compound questions should be avoided.
Compound questions should be avoided.
CH: The higher-ups were afraid of simple allegations, how that would affect their careers. They lost sight of the mission and their duty to their men. They put politically correct public image in front of their oath. They had us pegged for guilty from day one despite all the evidence. So much for “innocent until proven guilty.”
When discussing motive, the 'why' is essential:
When discussing motive, the 'why' is essential:
MT: What’s your opinion of the Rules of Engagement our warriors were bound by which were so strict that merely bloodying a terrorist’s nose could get you court-martialed? Do you think those ROE are proper or are they hindering our men in the field and perhaps even endangering them?
Both compound questions and a statement. He has given the subject a ready made excuse:
Both compound questions and a statement. He has given the subject a ready made excuse:
CH: Rules of engagement are different from guidelines for treating prisoners.
The subject refuses the ready made excuse. The Rules of Engagement and how a prisoner may have been treated are two different issues.
I think the Rules of Engagement are atrocious.
This is an important sentence. Thus far, he has spoken for them all; consistently. Now, with the emergence of the pronoun "I" he gives personal opinion with "I think"
You cannot have one side playing by a set of rules that does not apply to the other side. War is not a moral endeavor, it is people killing each other; therefore you must be willing to be as ruthless as your enemy.
Note universal 2nd person pronoun usage is appropriate and consistent
Note universal 2nd person pronoun usage is appropriate and consistent
As for prisoner handling, we should never have stood any discipline after NCIS cleared us and recommended not going forward. This is what investigations are for and they should not be overstepped by a commander who has no knowledge of the situation. Moreover, who cares if a terrorist that we had legal authority to kill had a bloody lip?
Note the lack of accusation specifics here. Keep this in mind as the interview progresses, considering the Commander in Chief, Barak Obama, and the following:
1. Obama's refusals to call Islamic terrorism "Islamic"
2. The cleansing of the training manuals according to the 'recommendations' of the Muslim brotherhood
3. The freeing of prisoners
4. The exchange of prisoners
5. The denial of confessed motives
6. The arming of Iran and the deceit that was used to influence the American public
7. The importation of Islamic peoples into the nation
8. The setting of imans teaching Islam in federal prisons
9. The direct attacks on Christian chaplains
What is the relationship between the subject (Navy SEAL) and his commander in chief? (consider this as current to the date of the interview for proper context)
Note the lack of accusation specifics here. Keep this in mind as the interview progresses, considering the Commander in Chief, Barak Obama, and the following:
1. Obama's refusals to call Islamic terrorism "Islamic"
2. The cleansing of the training manuals according to the 'recommendations' of the Muslim brotherhood
3. The freeing of prisoners
4. The exchange of prisoners
5. The denial of confessed motives
6. The arming of Iran and the deceit that was used to influence the American public
7. The importation of Islamic peoples into the nation
8. The setting of imans teaching Islam in federal prisons
9. The direct attacks on Christian chaplains
What is the relationship between the subject (Navy SEAL) and his commander in chief? (consider this as current to the date of the interview for proper context)
MT: After you were eventually cleared, you wrote a book – as a private citizen, not as a SEAL – called Battle on the Homefront based on your experiences, in which you complained about various ways in which Americans are failing to live up to our country’s own exceptionalism. But the Navy brass gave your manuscript the runaround and did their best to suppress publication. Why do you believe they did that, particularly since many of them privately agreed with what you wrote?
CH: I spent almost two years, 24 times the length of time the DOD has allowed by their own standards for the review. At every corner, they stonewalled me, refusing even to conduct a review. I had been consulting an attorney throughout the process who was dumbfounded, as we had continuously jumped through hoops to accommodate their ever-changing requirements.
Consistency noted.
this provides an excellent opportunity for a lesson:
"I consulted an attorney" versus "I had consulted an attorney" versus "I had been consulting an attorney" in Statement Analysis.
This brief change goes against the "Law of Economy" where the shortest sentence is best and must represent a change in reality.
"I studied law" versus "I had studied law" shows a change in the past tense usage that represents time.
In criminal cases, this is often the 'missing' moment in time where a violent act may have occurred.
He said, in less than a micro second of time, "had been" as additional language. This takes a specific past tense reference in time, and 'spreads it out' over time.
Here, in context, it is explained by the subject, himself. Often, this is not the case.
This is a very strong signal that the subject is telling the truth in this point. He said, "throughout the process", which limits time, but to no specific definitive point in time.
It is consistent with "had been" as an 'imperfect' past tense reference.
Consistency noted.
this provides an excellent opportunity for a lesson:
"I consulted an attorney" versus "I had consulted an attorney" versus "I had been consulting an attorney" in Statement Analysis.
This brief change goes against the "Law of Economy" where the shortest sentence is best and must represent a change in reality.
"I studied law" versus "I had studied law" shows a change in the past tense usage that represents time.
In criminal cases, this is often the 'missing' moment in time where a violent act may have occurred.
He said, in less than a micro second of time, "had been" as additional language. This takes a specific past tense reference in time, and 'spreads it out' over time.
Here, in context, it is explained by the subject, himself. Often, this is not the case.
This is a very strong signal that the subject is telling the truth in this point. He said, "throughout the process", which limits time, but to no specific definitive point in time.
It is consistent with "had been" as an 'imperfect' past tense reference.
The book was controversial and no one wanted to review it because they were concerned about how it would affect their careers if they were the ones with the approval stamp on it. The military spent more resources trying to bury it than it would have taken to conduct the review. After a review from NCIS on security, and under advice from my attorney, we published without command approval since they had failed to comply with their own rules.
A frightening point where the subject 'broke' the rules with the need to
a. bring his attorney into the pronoun "we" regarding publishing
b. the need to explain why it was published without approval: "since they had failed"
Note "had failed" and not "failed" (see above) uses this as a spreading over time.
This suggests:
The subject and/or attorney and/or publishers likely debated various dates to "well, just go ahead and publish" with some veto, argument, etc, pushing it off until "we" were comfortable that the approval was well past a deadline.
A frightening point where the subject 'broke' the rules with the need to
a. bring his attorney into the pronoun "we" regarding publishing
b. the need to explain why it was published without approval: "since they had failed"
Note "had failed" and not "failed" (see above) uses this as a spreading over time.
This suggests:
The subject and/or attorney and/or publishers likely debated various dates to "well, just go ahead and publish" with some veto, argument, etc, pushing it off until "we" were comfortable that the approval was well past a deadline.
MT: Since leaving the Navy, you’ve pursued a path as a political commentator in the media. Is that another way you feel you can best serve your country? Do you have political ambitions in the future as well? Tell us about what you’re doing to help reinvigorate the American Dream.
3 questions
The question "why" is met with "because"; it is not sensitive.
3 questions
The question "why" is met with "because"; it is not sensitive.
CH: I have pursued the political route because I believe that to be the root of the problem today. I am unsure whether I will run again but I am heavily involved with this presidential race and many other races as well. If we want to fix this nation we have to start at the top.
Question: What is missing from the interview?
Answer: Accusing a specific leader.
Note that even in the political context, there is the absence of blaming the Commander in Chief.
Analysis Conclusion:
Although the IR was favorable and conducted a poor interview, the answers given are reliable.
Carl Higbie has told the truth about the process and avoided blaming the Commander in Chief which is likely something very important to him and to Navy SEALs and other dedicated military professionals.
It suggests honor and that the book is not likely to have blame shifting, responsibility shifting or other such divergence from "what happened", as an account.
Question: What is missing from the interview?
Answer: Accusing a specific leader.
Note that even in the political context, there is the absence of blaming the Commander in Chief.
Analysis Conclusion:
Although the IR was favorable and conducted a poor interview, the answers given are reliable.
Carl Higbie has told the truth about the process and avoided blaming the Commander in Chief which is likely something very important to him and to Navy SEALs and other dedicated military professionals.
It suggests honor and that the book is not likely to have blame shifting, responsibility shifting or other such divergence from "what happened", as an account.