In the century and a half since, “Eternal Father, Strong to Save,” was composed, it has come into widespread use by both Britain’s Royal Navy and the US Navy, becoming known as the Royal Navy Hymn in the former and the Navy Hymn in the latter. William Whiting of England composed the poem in 1860 for a student of his who was soon to sail for America. The music was composed by another Englishman, Rev. John Bacchus Dykes, an Episcopalian clergyman. The music was published in 1861, but I don’t know how the lyrics and the music came to be put together.

The hymn was sung at Franklin D. Roosevelt’s funeral, as well as the funerals of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. And as the 1999 movie, Titanic shows, it was sung during services aboard the doomed vessel the Sunday before she sank. (However, the version sung in the movie was not arranged until 1940.)

Since the hymn was penned, a number of other verses have been composed by various persons over the years. Some of these have been adopted by the Armed Forces Chaplain’s Board for inclusion in worship services conducted by military chaplains. These additional verses, prayers for the Marines, aviators, astronauts, the wounded, families at home and others, are included as an addendum on the US Navy’s web page devoted to the hymn.

Verses for the hymn are easy to write. The rhyming is simply, aabbcc, with each line consisting of eight syllables in iambic tetrameter (which, definitionally, is eight syllables anyway).

The original hymn itself, of course, long ago passed into the public domain, so anyone may use the music or compose a verse thereto. In my church service today, we will sing the hymn in five verses honoring all who serve at sea, on the land or in the air, finished by a verse of prayer for our country, thus:

Eternal Father, strong to save,
Whose arm hath bound the restless wave,
Who bidd’st the mighty ocean deep
Its own appointed limits keep;
Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee,
For those in peril on the sea!

O Lord of hosts, to you we turn
To give us grace we cannot earn.
Our soldiers guard our way of life;
Be with them all in times of strife.
Let courage flow from your command;
We pray for those who fight on land.

Eternal Father, grant, we pray,
To all Marines, both night and day,
The courage, honor, strength, and skill
Their land to serve, thy law fulfill;
Be thou the shield forevermore
From every peril to the Corps

Lord, guard and guide all those who fly
Through the great spaces in the sky.
Be with them always in the air,
In darkening storms or sunlight fair;
Oh, hear us when we lift our prayer,
For those in peril in the air!

Almighty God, whose arm is strong,
protect us e’er from doing wrong.
We pray to always do what’s right,
for justice only be our fight.
Let peace now reign across our land,
brought to us by your gracious hand.

Of the verses above, authorship is as follows:

Verse 1 - William Whiting, the original first verse.
Verse 2 - me, composed for this day as a prayer for the Army
Verse 3 - J. E. Seim, 1966
Verse 4 - Mary C. D. Hamilton, 1915
Verse 5 - me again

You can hear the US Navy Sea Chanters, the service’s chorus, sing the first verse by clicking here:
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/media/eternal_father.mp3

Update: Hmm … through referrer files I see that, as of today, this post is listed third on Google’s search results page, right behind Wikipedia’s entry for the hymn and the US Navy’s official page about it.

In the wake of the botched reporting, then coverup, of the circumstances of Cpl. Pat Tillman’s death in Afghanistan in 2004, the Army has ordered that “a formal, independent investigation into the death of every American in a hostile area” be conducted.

For those of you who’ve been living on Mars the past few weeks, Cpl. Tillman was killed by gunfire shot by his own unit’s soldiers. His death was properly reported as killed in action (KIA) but erroneously reported as caused by hostile fire. By the time the truth was determined, some weeks had passed and the mistaken report was not corrrected. Instead, officers covered up the truth, finally leading to a formal investigation run by the Inspector General, which recently issued a harsh report.

Retired Col. Jack Jacobs says that the Army’s new “formal investigation” policy is stupid, though:

[I]f the regulation had existed in World War II, we would have conducted 400,000 investigations, requiring perhaps as many investigating officers as we now have troops in Iraq.

In theory, the rule sounds commendable. Life is precious, and if one is cut short in combat then we owe the soldier and his family as full a report as possible. Having experienced more than enough combat, I understand this sentiment. Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s the motivating force behind the revised regulation. In my view, the provision is there for one reason and one reason alone: to put in place a protocol to prevent commanders from lying about the cause of their soldiers’ deaths.

What’s the problem with that? Well, it’s beyond insidious because it is an admission that the Army has determined it can’t trust anyone in the combat chain of command — that the actions of General Kensinger are the rule, not the exception, and that this kind of malfeasance among soldiers is expected to be so common that it requires regular policing. This is a catastrophic message to be sending our military, in large measure because it is wrong.

I agree that the new regulation is stupid. I agree that it sends a terrible message to staff sergeants and above in units deployed to combat theaters. And I agree that it is a solution in search of a problem. But I think Col. Jacobs misses the boat. He thinks that the Army’s high command has decided it can’t trust “anyone in the combat chain of command.” Sorry, no.

Having served in the five-sided puzzle palace, I am convinced that basis of the order is that the Army’s senior leadership - and I’d bet my next paycheck it is specifically the civilian leadership - have been cowed by the intensive media coverage, most of it quite unfriendly, that was turned on the Army because of the Tillman report and its preceding controversy.

Quite simply, this order does two things, and is intended to do only those two things: cover the tails of the Secretary and the Chief of Staff and keep them out of the media’s sights.

They issued the order not because they don’t trust the lower chain of command, but simply to protect themselves.

“Duty, honor, country.”

How else can you explain this asinine regulation?

July 30, 2007: The U.S. Marine Corps has decided that it is not good for the image of the Marine Corps for marines to wear their combat (”utility”) uniform off base. New regulations nullify many exceptions to this rule that had been established by the commanders of many marine bases. The new rule allows marines to wear their cammies (camouflage) uniform while driving form their off-base home to and from work. But they may not get out of their vehicle while wearing cammies unless it is an emergency (an accident, or some matter of life-and-death importance.) Marines may not get out of their car to gas up their vehicle while wearing cammies. If they run out of gas, they may then exit their car to deal with that. Marines are advised to pay attention to the fuel status of their private vehicles, and to carry a set of civilian clothes, or a marine service uniform, in their vehicle, in case they have to get out. The only exception is for marines driving military vehicles for long distances. Marines may exit their vehicles to use the toilet, but this must be done as quickly as possible.

The North County Times, serving San Diego, where is located Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base, reports that the new order was “issued Wednesday by Commandant Gen. James Conway, who said the camouflage outfit —- officially known as the Marine Corps Combat Utility Uniform —- is ‘not appropriate for a civilian environment.’”

The new rules say such stops are outlawed except for “bona fide” emergencies, such as an automobile accident or medical problem.

Drive-thru businesses, however, are fair game. Troops can still visit fast-food restaurants, dry cleaners and other establishments, as long as they stay in their vehicles, the policy states.

Marines can still wear the uniform while running errands on base, the order states.

Wow, at least the commandant is permitting his troops to wear their primary uniform on base! While running errands! Captain’s Journal observes,

Again, this is absolutely jaw-dropping. Here we have the Marine Corps weighing in on how quickly a Marine can use the bathroom during travel, and stipulating that if it isn’t fast enough, he will have to strip down inside the automobile to change into his service alphas (but only if he is traveling long distances and assuming he has either placed a pair in his car or has purchased an additional pair for his automobile).

In contrast, Army Regulation 670-1, Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia (note, large PDF file), February 2005, prescribes only the following:

3–3. Occasions for wear

a. Soldiers may wear BDUs [Battle Dress Uniforms, that is, camouflage - DS]on duty when prescribed by the commander. Soldiers may wear BDUs off post unless prohibited by the commander. They may not wear BDUs for commercial travel, unless authorized by para 1–10c of this regulation. Personnel may not wear BDUs in establishments that primarily sell alcohol. If the establishment sells alcohol and food, soldiers may not wear utility uniforms if their activities in the establishment center on drinking alcohol only.

b. Utility uniforms are not normally considered appropriate for social or official functions off the installation, such as memorial services and funerals. These uniforms are issued as utility, field, training, or combat uniforms and are not intended for wear as all-purpose uniforms when other uniforms are more appropriate.

That’s it. Installation commanders may restrict wear of the BDU further if they wish, and sometimes do, but since 9/11 the Army’s general view seems to be that this is an Army at war, and battle dress is what soldiers look like.

What was going through Gen. Conway’s mind simply escapes me. Is he ashamed of the way his Marines look?

OTOH, for someone to wear a military uniform when not entitled to do so is a violation of Title 10, US Code. If you don’t believe it, ask Reggie L. Buddle, who was sentenced this week to two years’ probation and 500 hours service for repetitively posing as a decorated Marine, brazenly even deceiving the Washington state Senate.

On Feb. 27, 2006, dressed in a Marine Corps uniform replete with the rank and medals he awarded himself, Buddle stood before the Senate and gave the prayer at the opening ceremony. Not everyone was so certain that Buddle was the real item. Doubters called authorities, who began investigating.

Among the unearned medals and service decorations with which Buddle festooned his uniform were those for valor and service in Vietnam; a Combat Action Ribbon authorized for wear by those who have fought enemy forces; a Presidential Unit Citation ribbon, issued to members of units that displayed extraordinary heroism under fire; and the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, a high-ranking medal authorized for “extraordinary” contribution to national defense.

So the judge sentenced Buddle to 500 hours of service tending the graves of veterans. Seems fair enough.

Update: I emailed the CQ link to sometime OHC contributor Maj. David High, USMCR, now serving in Iraq (in a civilian capacity), who responded in ire:

You knew this would get a rise out of me, and it’s 2140 at night while I am rewriting classes…I teach my first class tomorrow and am proud of the new direction — in both tenor, philosophy, and practicality — I’m trying to instill…

…and then you drop this ignorant pablum on me!!! It is not an abbrogation of our societal position nor a sartorial denial of our profession. Au contrare — it is a HEIGHTENING of our standards of public appearance. (First off — here’s the ignorance of the author on display — the reg is merely a restatement of the never-compromised policy that has always been thus. WE ARE MARINES…service “A” or “C” is the appropriate attire in public, if not dress blues (but let’s get real). Appearing in cammis is akin to wearing your oil-stained coveralls out on the town. Even the legion of Jiffy Lube employees have standards! When I was a young E-3 at LeJuene, I was talked into stopping by one of those old dives frequented by retired “lifers”. I was persuaded, it’s 1900 [sic]and we’re on liberty, and it’s OUR time! The old buzzards bellied up to the bar refused us service and scolded us in that we were in improper dress. This was 1982..before then, Marine uniforms were the early jungle fatigues, before that, herringbones, and before then, dungarees. IT HAS NEVER been USMC policy to allow Marines to represent the Corps while so shoddily attired. This is not a “jaw-dropping move”, although I suspect Mr. Herschel Smith is a slack-jawed mouth-breather.

In the same vein, the Corps does not permit PT attire while in the PX or chowhall (don’t get me started on the fact that a glow-in-the-dark belt is part of that permissable army uniform).

Once, while coaching in the then-new Superdome, a sideline journalism nape asked Bear Bryant why he wasn’t wearing his trademark houndstooth chapeau. With a quizical look, Bear replied, “My momma taught me not to wear a hat into the house.”

Besides, since when have Marines been known for moving anywhere incognito??? I am always pleasantly surprised when someone (even military folk) ask me if I’m a Marine — while I am in “incognito” civilian attire. Also, I doubt whether the Corps’ PR and recruiting machine will be crippled by this Draconian dictum.

Mr. Smith: “Sometimes one can only shake his head and” …hope the drool doesn’t fall on your trousers.

Don — copy, post, print, or broadcast this wherever you please. I haven’t the time nor inclination to burn another calorie on such tripe.

Having said that; LOVE YOU, BROTHER! Semper fi!

Well, okay, David, but I have to ask: why do Marines consider their basic uniform “shoddy attire?” They’re good enough duds to fight and die in, but shameful to be seen in public in?

Update: Here’s another reason to have a liberal policy for the wear of the combat uniform off Army posts or Marine bases.

Combat and the problem of forgiveness

For someone who professes to follow Jesus Christ, or at least follow his teachings, the subject of forgiveness is probably one of the most vexing. Jesus taught plainly that his followers are obligated to forgive, for example, “For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Mt. 6:14-15).

On the face of it, this would seem simple enough because most of the wrongs we suffer are petty enough that it is not worth carrying a grudge. In fact, we tend to think someone odd or a little unbalanced who nurses such grudges and always wants to balance a score, no matter how slight and unimportant the offense by any objective standard.

But hardly any of us suffer wrongs by someone who can realistically be called an “enemy.” An adversary perhaps, even an opponent, more likely a friend of family member, but how many of us have actually enemies, who seek to do us actual, genuine harm? I don’t mean only physical harm. Even so, I’d wager a small minority of people endure the blows, physical or otherwise, of actual enemies.

Except combat soldiers, who face very real and very lethal enemies practically daily. I use “soldiers” in its ancient, generic sense of any member of the armed forces who engages in direct combat or suffers its lethal effects.

Soldiers have actual enemies who really do wish them lethal harm and try to achieve that end. Are soldiers, the ones who profess loyalty to Christ, required to forgive those who try to kill them, or who succeed in killing or harming close friends?

If, in combat, an enemy takes the life of your best friend, or blows off your leg, and if you think of yourself as a disciple of Jesus Christ, are you required to forgive that enemy? Is a Christian soldier required by the commandments of Christ to forgive those who have sought to kill him, or who have killed or wounded his comrades?

Do soldiers in battle do anything, absent atrocities, for which forgiveness is required by their enemies?

I know that ordinary soldiers, fighting for the right, can commit heinous acts that later repulse their own consciences. I have known former soldiers who have carried guilt of such deeds for many years. But I am not addressing whether soldiers need to be forgiven for deeds they have committed - a topic for another post, perhaps - but whether they are required to forgive their enemies. I reiterate, I speak from a Christian perspective.

“All alike have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God,” whether fighting for justice or oppression. To say “just warrior” implies that the just warrior’s enemy is unjust, yet both alike will be judged by God.

By this question, I do not mean that warfare somehow provides a magic exemption from the commandments of Christ. If so, where would we stop naming other exemptions?

I mean, Is soldiering in war generally just a all-around “suckathon” for which the enemy’s mere participation incurs no offense requiring my forgiveness, though God must still be faced by us both alike?

Jesus again:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.” [Matthew 5:43-45]

It’s a little flip to say that the command to “love your enemies” cannot possibly include killing them in battle; I’m not going to argue that point here. Go read Aquinas. This post is not about the abstractness of Just War Theory but about the concreteness of a seemingly simple question: Do the duties of a Christian soldier vis-a-vis armed military enemies include forgiving them?

Comments on

Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez has been making noises about “Greater Venezuela,” meaning taking control of the south Caribbean islands of Dutch West Indies, lying near Venezuela’s coast.

What if the nutcase running Venezuela actually made a grab for the islands? Is it farfetched to anticipate? Venezuela’s economy is in the pits, wrecked by Chavez-flavored socialism. Hearken back to 1982, when Argentina was headed by a military junta, controlled by General Leopoldo Galtieri. Faced with economic crisis and growing opposition to the regime, Galtieri launched an invasion of the British territory of the Falkland Islands, about 400 km east of the country. Argentines have long considered the Falklands actually to be Argentine territory, las islas Malvinas, and Galtieri played on this sentiment in invading.

Could something like that be running through Chavez’s head? Like Britain of today, but unlike Britain of 1982, Holland has practically no power-projection capability. There is a modest Dutch military force stationed in the Dutch West Indies, but it would quickly be outmatched by Venezuela’s military.

In 1982, Britain sent a naval task force of two aircraft carriers, submarines and surface combatants to retake the Falklands. Other vessels brought Royal Marines and British Army troops. It was a bitter, hard-fought struggle and the British suffered significant losses, especially from Argie air power. However, the conscripts of the Argentine army in the Falklands were no match in the end for the Brits and the islands were returned to British control.

So what if Chavez moves against the DWI? Strategy Page analyzes the situation.

Just watch this video.

If the rocket doesn’t kill you, a heart attack will - video at Strategy Page.