NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTE: Naming armored vehicles is a time-honored tradition in many military organizations, not just in the USA. My positon is that if it makes the soldiers feel better about their mission or their safety, go for it!


Marine tank's biblical name draws hefty criticism (http://www.military.com/News/Home/0,13324,4-XX-0-DAYX20050527,00.html)


By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

"New Testament": It's a mighty name for a 70-ton battle tank.
The biblical words are neatly printed on the main gun of an M1A1 Abrams tank rolling along somewhere near Haditha, Iraq. To the Marines of the 4th Tank Battalion, "New Testament" is a fierce beacon and impervious to insurgent mortar fire.
But some critics grumble that an official photo of the tank accompanies a Marine Corps press release about the company's mission with a caption that reads, "The 'New Testament' ... prepares to lead the way during a recent mission." The name of the tank is not mentioned in the story.
The Marine Corps declined to comment yesterday. Not so the pundits.
"When our own military seems to be advertizing an explicitly Christian identity in Iraq, then it's time [President Bush] took action. Whoever in the marines allowed this tank to be defaced in this way needs to be removed from his post. It's an outrage -- to both the New Testament and to our mission in Iraq," Andrew Sullivan, senior editor at the New Republic, wrote Tuesday at his own Web site (www.andrewsullivan.com).
Filmmaker Michael Moore cited the story, posting the photo online (www.michaelmoore.com) with the Marine directive, "This image has been cleared for release."
"What bothers me is that no one put a stop to this display of ignorance and disrespect before it was included on the official website for the Marine Corps," noted an entry at the Web log Evangelical Outpost (www.evangelicaloutpost.com).
Others called the outrage an overreaction.
"Sometimes all you have left is faith on the battlefield," said the Rev. Charles Nalls, a former military officer and vicar of the Parish of Christ the King in the District.
"On the one hand, given the volatility in the region, perhaps there might have been a better name. But this is not obscene or vile. There's a long history of soldiers, sailors and airmen naming weapons of war, or using helmet art. This is probably nothing more than that. They wanted a name and that was the one they chose," he said.
Names have proved a challenge in the war on terror. In 2001, Islamic groups faulted the Defense Department for giving the U.S. military response to September 11 the name Operation Infinite Justice. The Defense Department instead opted for Operation Enduring Freedom.
An uproar was created in 2003 when photos of bombs humorously addressed to Saddam Hussein, some with expletives, were published and broadcast.
A Marine spokesman could not cite regulations governing the names of battlefield vehicles. Naming policies apparently vary.
Classes of U.S. Navy ships are named after rivers, cities, towns, American battles and presidents, according to the U.S. Naval Historical Society. Aerospace vehicles must "characterize the mission" and not violate commercial trademarks, the Defense Department said. The Army has a similar policy.

I think names with strong religious connotations are a bad idea for military vehicles, but suggesting removing whoever allowed it to happen from his job is stupid. It's fairly likley that no harm was intended.

I feel it's in poor taste... but it's highly doubtful that unless anyone made a big fuss about it, like they're doing, there's no way an insurgent would get close enough to the tank to be offended by it. I don't really think that there's any harm intended or done, though it might please "the pundits" to believe so.

Well its not insulting anyone really.

The reactions are very over the top.

Being sensitive to other's feelings doesn't mean hiding your own. Our nation's ideals are founded on free speech and freedom of (and from) religion. Let the guy name his tank whatever he wants, and let the Iraqis say whatever they want about it.

"Oh, yeah, it's not a war on a religion at all. Just don't read what the tank says."

Couldn't they have been mainstream and just named it something macho, or after a woman?

I find this amusing, seriously.

How about a battle tank named "Jesussaves".... :D

Religion is just a dumb idea. And the tank commander is showing how dumb he is by placing that name on the tank.

Honestly... "New Testament"? Isn't that the book that alleges to be about peace and love? And could he have chosen a more offensive name to the local population? How about "I Wiped My Ass With The Koran This Morning"?

At least no one went with painting scantily clad women. That would cause problems.

I find this amusing, seriously.

How about a battle tank named "Jesussaves".... :D

lmao.

At least no one went with painting scantily clad women. That would cause problems.

Was thinking exactly the same thing...

Call it memphis belle and see what happens...

I find this amusing, seriously.

How about a battle tank named "Jesussaves".... :D

Yeah, but if anyone actually knew why it was named that, even the soldiers would shoot the damned tank :D

Religion is just a dumb idea. And the tank commander is showing how dumb he is by placing that name on the tank.

Honestly... "New Testament"? Isn't that the book that alleges to be about peace and love? And could he have chosen a more offensive name to the local population? How about "I Wiped My Ass With The Koran This Morning"?
so true, so true

NOTE: Naming armored vehicles is a time-honored tradition in many military organizations, not just in the USA. My positon is that if it makes the soldiers feel better about their mission or their safety, go for it!


Marine tank's biblical name draws hefty criticism (http://www.military.com/News/Home/0,13324,4-XX-0-DAYX20050527,00.html)


By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

"New Testament": It's a mighty name for a 70-ton battle tank.
The biblical words are neatly printed on the main gun of an M1A1 Abrams tank rolling along somewhere near Haditha, Iraq. To the Marines of the 4th Tank Battalion, "New Testament" is a fierce beacon and impervious to insurgent mortar fire.
But some critics grumble that an official photo of the tank accompanies a Marine Corps press release about the company's mission with a caption that reads, "The 'New Testament' ... prepares to lead the way during a recent mission." The name of the tank is not mentioned in the story.
The Marine Corps declined to comment yesterday. Not so the pundits.
"When our own military seems to be advertizing an explicitly Christian identity in Iraq, then it's time [President Bush] took action. Whoever in the marines allowed this tank to be defaced in this way needs to be removed from his post. It's an outrage -- to both the New Testament and to our mission in Iraq," Andrew Sullivan, senior editor at the New Republic, wrote Tuesday at his own Web site (www.andrewsullivan.com).
Filmmaker Michael Moore cited the story, posting the photo online (www.michaelmoore.com) with the Marine directive, "This image has been cleared for release."
"What bothers me is that no one put a stop to this display of ignorance and disrespect before it was included on the official website for the Marine Corps," noted an entry at the Web log Evangelical Outpost (www.evangelicaloutpost.com).
Others called the outrage an overreaction.
"Sometimes all you have left is faith on the battlefield," said the Rev. Charles Nalls, a former military officer and vicar of the Parish of Christ the King in the District.
"On the one hand, given the volatility in the region, perhaps there might have been a better name. But this is not obscene or vile. There's a long history of soldiers, sailors and airmen naming weapons of war, or using helmet art. This is probably nothing more than that. They wanted a name and that was the one they chose," he said.
Names have proved a challenge in the war on terror. In 2001, Islamic groups faulted the Defense Department for giving the U.S. military response to September 11 the name Operation Infinite Justice. The Defense Department instead opted for Operation Enduring Freedom.
An uproar was created in 2003 when photos of bombs humorously addressed to Saddam Hussein, some with expletives, were published and broadcast.
A Marine spokesman could not cite regulations governing the names of battlefield vehicles. Naming policies apparently vary.
Classes of U.S. Navy ships are named after rivers, cities, towns, American battles and presidents, according to the U.S. Naval Historical Society. Aerospace vehicles must "characterize the mission" and not violate commercial trademarks, the Defense Department said. The Army has a similar policy.

It's very traditional to name tanks, aircraft, missles and bombs.

During one TLAM operation, our TLAM-C's were names "Thor", "Loki", "Zeus" etc.... General Pendleton (Civil War) who was Lee's cannon brigade, named his howizters "Matthew", "Mark", "Luke", and "John".... And made a passing remark about "Spreading the Gospel where ever they go...."

Ya'll need to grow some balls and name it something actually worth-while.Think about it!Does that not make more sense?

I think the Washington Times needs to find some real news to report. Sheesh,lighten up a little bit.

lol, that is hilarious

for greater impact, another such tank should be christened:

Koran Flusher

lol


the insurgents will lose their minds and charge the tank... making the insurgents easy to drop en masse

I think the reaction of the Christian right was a bit over the top; but I don't think that calling a tank "New Testament" and then deploying it to the Islamic country whose hearts and minds you want to win by not making the war look like a Crusade is a good idea.

Islamic people can have over the top reaction too, you know?

We chalked a lot of messages to Saddam on our bombs during Desert Storm. It was fun. If someone wants to call their tank "New Testament", PC shouldn't be an issue.

I think the reaction of the Christian right was a bit over the top; but I don't think that calling a tank "New Testament" and then deploying it to the Islamic country whose hearts and minds you want to win by not making the war look like a Crusade is a good idea.

Islamic people can have over the top reaction too, you know?

Tanks and other armorments are named by their commanders/crews when placed on deployment. This was named by "soldiers", and are not "official" names, but rather personal "nicknames" given to the "object" by their crew/operators...

Islamic people can have over the top reaction too, you know?
Bit of an understatement there.

How many people in Iraq can actually read English?

How many people in Iraq can actually read English?
Probably a higher percentage than Americans who can read arabic.

Tanks and other armorments are named by their commanders/crews when placed on deployment. This was named by "soldiers", and are not "official" names, but rather personal "nicknames" given to the "object" by their crew/operators...
I know that. And that's a very fine tradition. But the CO could have told them "You know, chaps, that name can give us a headache later".

How many people in Iraq can actually read English?
Not many, and of those who do, the phrase "NEW TESTAMENT" might be interpreted as something other than a reference to the Christian Bible. As a matter of fact, I'm not really sure it's not.

Probably a higher percentage than Americans who can read arabic.


Yup all of those poor Iraqi's found enough time to learn English while they were starving under Saddam.

Yup all of those poor Iraqi's found enough time to learn English while they were starving under Saddam.
Actually, Iraq had a decent education system pre 1991 (compared to other countries in the region) and some people were sent abroad to study. It wouldn't surprise me that more than a few of them have enough English to at least understand the phrase.

Perhaps not put it in the right context, and maybe those educated enough to put it in context are also educated enough to not make a fuss about it, but still.

I'm not at all opposed to the Tank being named "New Testament". Is it a name I necessarily like? No, not really. But there's nothing wrong with it.

I don't think the Marine Core should have used a photo of this in a press release, though. Not for religious reasons at all. No, it's a blatantly stupid blunder by those in charge. People don't want their whole "Peaceful" religion being associated with weapons. Really, they should have known that people were going to get pissed off by this.

I know that. And that's a very fine tradition. But the CO could have told them "You know, chaps, that name can give us a headache later".

I don't think it crossed his mind, and It shouldn't to begin with. Because the name does not mean diddlysquat to those outside of that particular crew/unit.

To be honest, if I "name" something, and it pisses someone else off that I would name this thing, that.... The other person can go fucking screw themselves... Because their opinion does not matter in the least bit.

I'm sick of bleeding heart idiots who run around getting pissed over small things like this... I could care less whether they names it "New Testament", Ball Basher", or "Skullcruncher"...

These people do it for their own enjoyment, and it help them get by on the battlefield, and make a personal connection with their unit and its equipment...

They generally pick names PERSONAL to them... They don't give a fuck about other people on this matter.... That tank, to them, is a person, and member of their unit. It provides them protection, and in many ways is like a "spouse" to the unit/commander....

I have ZERO tollerance for PC (Political Correctness or Pure Crap; you pick, because their is no difference) mentality.....

I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand the tradition of soldiers naming their weapons, and writing messages on bombs (missles) goes back quite a way, and really shouldn't be messed with. If you told these soldiers (or pretty much any soldiers) that the name was gonna piss somebody off, they'd tell you (in a very colorful way) how little they cared about that.

On the other hand, in this particular set of circumstances, giving a weapons a biblical name may not be the best idea for reasons mentioned above.

And on the third hand (? :rolleyes: ) there's a war going on here, and probably a whole lot more important things to question/discuss than what a couple of GIs name their tank.

Does anyone see the funny side to this. Compare the Old and New testaments: in simple terms

New Testament: Baby Jesus is born sees shepherds grows up creates a large amount of fish and is killed.

Old Testament: Thousands of people are slaughtered including homosexuals, heretics, unbelievers and the unfaithful.

Now which one is the better name for a tank :P

To be honest, if I "name" something, and it pisses someone else off that I would name this thing, that.... The other person can go fucking screw themselves... Because their opinion does not matter in the least bit.

I would normally agree with you. If you have a tank and you want to name it "Fag Crusher 2000" you are free to do so. But, guess what? This tank isn't the crew's. It's property of the USA, and the USA is using the tank to enforce certain policies and get some particular results. Such results may be suffer (either at the battlefront or the homefront, a little or a lot) by the choice of words the assigned crew painted on it.

That's all I'm saying.

I would normally agree with you. If you have a tank and you want to name it "Fag Crusher 2000" you are free to do so. But, guess what? This tank isn't the crew's. It's property of the USA, and the USA is using the tank to enforce certain policies and get some particular results. Such results may be suffer (either at the battlefront or the homefront, a little or a lot) by the choice of words the assigned crew painted on it.

That's all I'm saying.Okay, don't get nutso about what I say next...

Yes, the tank belongs to the US. Yes, the US is at least ostensibly trying to enforce certain policies, achieve certain goals, change local thought patterns in particular ways.

We (the US) gave these soldiers (warriors) the tank to use for what? And lets all be honest about our answer. They don't go around practicing "policy enforcement" with these things when they're training. They practice fire-and-maneuver tactics, and marksmanship with the guns. So...if we teach 'em how to use the thing to kill, and then send 'em somewhere with it where they either kill, or get killed - how can we make 'em change it's name because it might annoy somebody?

So...if we teach 'em how to use the thing to kill, and then send 'em somewhere with it where they either kill, or get killed - how can we make 'em change it's name because it might annoy somebody?
I know it's a delicate issue, and I'm in no way suggesting that they should be forced to change the name. Maybe if somebody explains to the crew how it could make the job of the USA harder they'll change it by themselves.

Yeah, so when we say we're not crusaders the Iraqis see a tank with the words "New Testament" on it...

That's just great when we're combating a religious insurgency. Wonderful.

I know it's a delicate issue, and I'm in no way suggesting that they should be forced to change the name. Maybe if somebody explains to the crew how it could make the job of the USA harder they'll change it by themselves.That's a nice sentiment, and I understand what you're talking about. See my post above, about my own ambivalence about this.

But these are soldiers in combat. Contrary to what anyone has said, or thinks, or heard, that's all they are. They are NOT "ambassadors" - they're warriors. A warrior in the middle of a war (and that is where they are) will get killed if he/she starts playing diplomat. And their commanders don't really care (or have time to care) about ANYTHING except executing the mission, and getting as few of their soldiers killed as possible doing it.

If we don't want soldiers pissing off the locals - then we shouldn't send soldiers.

If we don't want soldiers pissing off the locals - then we shouldn't send soldiers.
Now, this I can totally agree with! :D

I don't see the problem. The "Insurgents" will view this as a religious war even if the tank were named "Allah's Servant", so it really doesn't matter.

Yes, the Tanks are government property. So, too, are the Crewmen (There's an NSN to requisition an Infantry Soldier, did you know that? Our BN supply Officer didn't, and so instead of a piece of equipment, we got a fresh-out-of-AIT 11Bullet-sponge transferred to our unit. He ended up working for the S-1's office.)

In general, allowing the boys to name the gear they spend a large proportion of their lives in, is good for morale,which in turn enhances performance.

Wow, they're pissed over this?
WTF is this country coming to???!

Does anyone see the funny side to this. Compare the Old and New testaments: in simple terms
New Testament: Baby Jesus is born sees shepherds grows up creates a large amount of fish and is killed.
Old Testament: Thousands of people are slaughtered including homosexuals, heretics, unbelievers and the unfaithful.

Then again your forgetting REVELATIONS!! :)

Sky turn red falling down 1/3 earth ppl die, plagues, locusts you name it.

I can think of a few cool biblical names. (not all are cool though, just trying to crack my brain on a few names)

Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Appolyon, Redeemer, Rapture, The Rock, Leviticus, Goliath, Methuselah, Divine, Baalzebub, Samson, Canaan, Jericho, Gideon, Abram, Passover, Alpha and Omega... :)

You wanna see the PC nazis really get mad name the tank "FDR Couldn't Walk", "Vizualize World Peace" or "Baby Seal Clubber".

Yup all of those poor Iraqi's found enough time to learn English while they were starving under Saddam.

Prior to the Kuwait war and the trade sanctions very few people were starving in Iraq and education was quite well arranged. Dictatorships often offer a surprisingly high standard of living -it is just that you cannot decide who is in charge and that you or a familymember can disappear without a trial every once in a while.

Aside: Muslems accept the New testament as a holy book. A distorted one, but still.