Why did America’s elite green berets stand up and leave their meals unfinished the moment an Australian soldier sat down at their table? This wasn’t about bad manners. This wasn’t about military rivalry. This was about something far more disturbing. Something the Pentagon classified for decades. Something that challenges everything you think you know about who really dominated the jungles of Vietnam.
Picture this. Long been 1968. the largest American military base in Vietnam. A lone Australian walks into the messaul. Within 2 minutes, 2 minutes, every Green Beret, every Navy corman, every special operations soldier has cleared the area around him. Empty seats, abandoned meals, silence. What did these battleh hardened American warriors know that made them flee from an ally? Today we’re pulling back the curtain on one of the most controversial and least understood chapters of the Vietnam War. We’re talking about the
quote zero of NUI dot Australian SAS operators who achieved kill ratios that American forces couldn’t match, couldn’t explain, and ultimately couldn’t acknowledge. 500 confirmed enemy eliminated. Zero Australian losses in patrol operations. methods so effective that the Vietkong believed they were fighting jungle spirits and tactics so disturbing that the Pentagon buried the classified assessments rather than admit what the Australians had discovered.
How did 200 men accomplish what entire American divisions could not? What were the methods that made America’s finest refugees to share a meal with their allies? And why did it take 50 years for these secrets to begin surfacing? Stay with me until the end because what you’re about to learn will change everything you thought you knew about special operations, about Allied forces, and about the true cost of becoming the most effective hunters the jungle had ever seen.
This is the story they didn’t want you to hear. The mess tent at Long Bin fell silent when the Australian walked in. It was 1968, the wet season turning the base into a swamp of red mud and diesel fumes. and Sergeant Firstclass Raymond Kowalsski had seen plenty of Allied forces rotate through the largest American military installation in Vietnam.
He had shared tables with Korean Tiger Division soldiers who scared even the MPs. He had eaten alongside Filipino Civic action teams and New Zealand artillery men. But he had never seen anything quite like the man who stood in the doorway that August morning, and what he witnessed in the next 15 minutes would haunt him for the rest of his natural life.
The Australian carried no visible rank insignia. His uniform was not the standard jungle fatigues issued to American forces, but something older, more weathered, bleached by countless patrols until it matched the color of dead elephant grass. His boots had been modified in a way that made Kowalsski’s stomach turn. The soles cut and restitched in a pattern that left Prince resembling bare Vietnamese feet, and his eyes held something that the American Green Beret, a two tour veteran of the Central Highlands, recognized immediately. This
was not a soldier. This was something else entirely, something that had crossed a line most men never approach. But the real shock came when the Australian sat down with his ration tin. Three green berets at the adjacent table stood up simultaneously and moved away, leaving their half-finished meals behind.
A Navy corman muttered something about needing fresh air. Within 2 minutes, a radius of empty seats had formed around the lone Australian who ate his cold bully beef with the mechanical precision of a man long past caring about social conventions. Kowalsski watched the exodus with growing confusion, then turned to the master sergeant beside him, a veteran intelligence operative who had been running crossber operations into Laos since 1965.
The answer he received would reshape everything he thought he knew about Allied forces in Vietnam. Those men, the master sergeant explained in a voice barely above a whisper, were from the Australian Special Air Service Regiment. They operated out of Nuiidat in Futoui province and they had developed a reputation among American special operations forces that was equal parts professional admiration and visceral horror.
The Green Berets had not left because of any personal animosity. They had left because sharing a meal with the Australians meant potentially learning details about their operational methods. methods so controversial that American forces had been explicitly warned to maintain plausible deniability about their awareness of such techniques.
The snake eataters, as the Australians called themselves with grim humor, had earned their nickname through survival training that made the Green Beret qualification course look like a camping trip. But the name carried a darker significance that circulated through special operations channels and classified afteraction reports.
These men did not merely survive in the jungle. They had become part of it, adopting methods that blurred every line between hunter and hunted, between warrior and predator. And what happened next would reveal why the Pentagon spent years trying to bury the true story of Australian SAS operations in Vietnam. The statistics alone should have triggered a congressional investigation.
By 1969, the Australian SAS regiment had achieved a documented elimination ratio that defied military logic. Over 500 confirmed enemy eliminated against zero Australian operators lost in action to enemy fire during patrol operations. American special forces units operating in comparable terrain and conditions averaged ratios that were 10 to 15 times less effective.
The MACV soggy teams running crossber operations, widely considered the most elite American forces in theater, suffered casualty rates that would have wiped out the entire Australian contingent within months if applied to their operational tempo. How was this possible? How could a regiment numbering barely 200 operators at peak strength outperform American units with unlimited air support, superior logistics, and 10 times the personnel? The answer lay in methods so effective and so disturbing that American military leadership faced
an impossible choice. Acknowledge Australian superiority and adopt their techniques or classify the findings and pretend the disparity did not exist. They chose classification. But the truth has a way of surfacing even 50 years later. The story begins not in Vietnam, but in the brutal training grounds of Western Australia, where the Special Air Service Regiment transformed ordinary Australian men into something the jungle had never encountered.
Hunters who thought like their prey, moved like shadows, and operated under a tactical philosophy that American forces found almost incomprehensible. The first American Green Beret to formally observe Australian SAS training, was a captain named Thomas Hrix, dispatched in 1966 to assess Allied capabilities for MACV headquarters.
His classified report, portions of which were declassified in 2008, describes exercises that read like fever dreams rather than military training. Candidates were dropped into the Australian outback with nothing but a knife and a single day’s water ration. They were expected to survive for 3 weeks while being actively hunted by Aboriginal trackers, men whose ancestors had perfected the art of hunting humans across 40,000 years of continuous cultural practice.
But survival was merely the entry examination. Those who passed the bush phase entered what Hrix described as the most psychologically demanding training he had ever witnessed in any military force worldwide. Candidates learned to move through dense vegetation for periods exceeding 10 days without making a single sound detectable beyond 5 m.
They practiced eliminating centuries using methods derived from Aboriginal hunting techniques. Approaches so silent that training dummies equipped with motion sensors consistently failed to register the final approach. They studied the psychology of fear, learning to exploit every cultural and superstitious belief held by Vietnamese peasants and Vietkong fighters alike.
The Americans had their own selection process. Of course, Green Beret qualification was notoriously demanding, and Macy Visog recruited only from soldiers who had already proven themselves in the most dangerous assignments available. But Hendrickx noted a fundamental difference in philosophy that would prove decisive in the jungle.
American special forces trained to be superior soldiers. Australian SAS trained to be something else entirely, to cease being soldiers at all and become instead a natural phenomenon, a force that operated according to jungle logic rather than military doctrine. This distinction would cost the Vietkong thousands of fighters before they understood what they were facing.
The first Australian SAS patrols arrived in Fui province in 1966, establishing their base at a former rubber plantation called Nui Dat. The terrain was considered moderately hostile, not the mountain jungles of the central highlands or the dense canopy of war zone sea, but rubber plantations and secondary growth interspersed with rice patties and scattered villages.
American military planners assumed the Australians would adopt standard counterinsurgency methods. clear and hold operations, cordon and search missions. The familiar rhythm of helicopter insertions and artillery support that characterized American operations throughout the country. What the Australians did instead shocked their American liaison officers into near disbelief.
The first SAS patrols disappeared into the jungle and did not emerge for periods ranging from 7 to 14 days. They carried no radios capable of calling air support. They refused resupply missions. They moved in fiveman teams so small that American doctrine considered them suicidal. And they applied rules of engagement that existed nowhere in any official operations manual.
Rules that would later become the subject of classified Pentagon reviews and whispered debates in the halls of Fort Bragg. The results, however, were impossible to ignore. Within 6 months of commencing operations, Australian SS patrols had virtually paralyzed Vietkong movement throughout Fuaktoy province. main force units that had operated with impunity began refusing to enter areas known to contain Australian patrols.
Local Vietkong infrastructure, the tax collectors and political officers and supply coordinators who formed the backbone of the insurgency, reported to their superiors that a new kind of enemy had appeared. One that could not be detected, could not be ambushed, could not be engaged using any tactic that had proven effective against American or South Vietnamese forces.
The Vietkong called them quote one the phantoms of the jungle and the name was not mere propaganda. Captured documents from Vietkong regional headquarters translated by American intelligence analysts in 1967 reveal an organization in genuine crisis. One directive from the provincial military committee ordered all units to avoid contact with Australian patrols under any circumstances, describing them as possessing supernatural abilities to detect ambushes before they were sprung.
Another document, a political officer’s report from a main force battalion recorded that morale had collapsed in units operating near Nuidot because soldiers believed the Australians had enlisted the assistance of jungle spirits. A third document, never officially released, but leaked to researchers in the 1990s, contained the assessment that would haunt American military planners.
The Australians were achieving decisive results in Futai Province using fewer men and less firepower than a single American infantry company typically wasted in a week of operations. But how are they doing it? What methods produced results that American forces with all their technological superiority could not match? The answers emerged slowly through incident reports and intelligence summaries and the reluctant testimony of American advisers who witnessed Australian operations firsthand.
And those answers explained precisely why Green Berets refused to share mess tables with Australian SAS operators. Because knowing the details created an impossible moral burden that no American soldier wanted to carry. The first element was patient observation that bordered on the inhuman. American patrols in Vietnam typically lasted between one and three days.
They moved through designated areas of operation, searched for signs of enemy activity, established ambush positions for a single night, then extracted for rest and resupply. This tempo reflected American doctrine emphasizing firepower and technological superiority. If contact occurred, the patrol could call upon helicopter gunships, artillery support, and tactical air strikes within minutes.
The jungle was an obstacle to be overcome through superior resources. Australian SAS patrols inverted this entire philosophy. A typical Australian reconnaissance patrol would insert silently at last light, moving to a concealed position where they would remain motionless for the first 24 hours. They watched, they listened, they noted every animal call, every insect pattern, every change in the quality of light filtering through the canopy.
They learned the rhythms of their immediate environment with the patience of Aboriginal hunters who had tracked prey across the outback for millennia. Only after establishing this baseline did they begin to move, and their movement resembled nothing in American tactical manuals. The Australians called it bush bashing in their typically understated fashion.
But the reality was far more sophisticated. Patrol members moved in absolute silence, communicating through hand signals refined over years of training. They placed each foot with deliberate precision, testing the ground before transferring weight, avoiding dry leaves and brittle twigs with an almost mechanical consistency.
They took hours to cover distances that American patrols would traverse in minutes. And they did this day after day for periods that American forces considered physically and psychologically impossible. But movement was merely the foundation of their methodology. The second element was tracking. Not the rudimentary fieldcraft taught in American Ranger School, but something approaching a science that had been developed over tens of thousands of years by the oldest continuous human cultures on Earth.
The Australian SAS had forged an extraordinary partnership with Aboriginal trackers, men whose ancestors had refined the art of reading the landscape long before written history began. These trackers taught the SAS operators to see the jungle differently, not as a chaotic tangle of vegetation, but as a vast record of every creature that had passed through in recent days.
A bent blade of grass indicated foot passage within the last 4 hours. A partial print in soft soil revealed not just direction, but the weight and probable equipment load of the individual who made it. Spiderwebs broken at particular heights suggested the size of the person who had disturbed them.
Even the behavior of insects could indicate recent human presence. American forces had tracking capabilities. Of course, Kit Carson scouts and experienced pointmen could follow obvious trails and detect recent activity. But the Australians operated at a level that American observers described as almost mystical in its precision. An Australian tracker could determine how many individuals had passed a location, how long ago they had passed, whether they were carrying loads, whether they were moving quickly or cautiously, and in many cases, whether they were regular
army or local guerillas based on subtle differences in movement patterns. This capability allowed Australian patrols to accomplish something American forces rarely achieved. They could find the enemy before the enemy knew they were being hunted. The third element was the most controversial and it was this element that Green Berets refused to discuss over shared meals.
Australian SAS patrols did not engage the enemy according to standard military doctrine. They did not seek the decisive engagement that American forces considered the purpose of military operations. They did not call in fire support when contact occurred. Instead, they employed methods that belonged more to predator ecology than military science.
methods designed to achieve psychological effects that pure firepower could never accomplish. The most documented of these methods was what American intelligence analysts euphemistically termed psychological operations, but which Australian operators referred to with characteristically dark humor as the ritual. When Australian patrols eliminated enemy personnel and their elimination record was extraordinary, they frequently did not immediately extract or report contact.
Instead, they arranged the scene according to principles that no American manual had ever contemplated. Bodies were positioned in ways designed to communicate specific messages. Equipment was removed or modified. Signs were left that exploited Vietnamese cultural beliefs about death, spirits, and supernatural forces.
The details varied according to operational requirements and the psychological profile of the target audience, but the intent was consistent to transform every contact into a terror multiplier that would ripple through enemy networks for weeks. The effects were documented in captured enemy communications with almost clinical precision.
A Vietkong afteraction report from late 1967 describes the discovery of a supply team that had been intercepted by Australian forces. The bodies were arranged in a pattern that local cadres interpreted as an extremely negative spiritual omen. Word spread through the district within hours, and two local force platoon refused orders to move through the affected area for the next 30 days.
A single fiveman Australian patrol had achieved area denial that would have required an American battalion operating conventional doctrine. Another report from 1968 documents the complete disintegration of a local guerilla cell after Australian patrols systematically eliminated its members over a period of 3 weeks.
Each incident was staged to suggest that the victims had been targeted individually, that someone was hunting them with specific knowledge of their movements and activities. The surviving members concluded they had been betrayed by an informant within their own organization and began eliminating each other in a paranoid purge that accomplished more damage than the Australians themselves had inflicted.
This was not warfare as American doctrine understood it. This was something older, something that tapped into primal human fears and exploited them with surgical precision. And this was precisely why Pentagon analysts reviewing Australian methods and classified assessments recommended that American forces maintain strict operational separation from their Allied counterparts.
The fourth element of Australian methodology was perhaps the most difficult for American observers to comprehend. The complete rejection of body count as a metric of success. American forces in Vietnam operated under intense pressure to produce statistical evidence of progress. The body count became the measure by which units were evaluated, officers were promoted, and resources were allocated.
This created perverse incentives that distorted operations throughout the theater. Units engaging in firefights they could have avoided because contact produced countable results. Estimates inflated to meet expectations. Operations designed around the probability of high body counts rather than strategic effect.
Australian SAS commanders refused to participate in this system entirely. Their patrols reported contacts when they occurred, but they did not measure success by bodies. They measured success by intelligence gathered, by enemy operations disrupted, by the cumulative psychological effect of their presence in an operational area.
An Australian patrol that spent two weeks observing enemy logistics without firing a shot was considered successful if the intelligence gained allowed targeting of strategic nodes. A patrol that eliminated 30 enemy fighters was considered a failure if it compromised operational security and allowed the enemy to adjust tactics.
This philosophical difference created friction that surfaced repeatedly in joint operations and liaison relationships. American commanders struggling to justify resource allocations to MACV headquarters pressured their Australian counterparts to produce metrics that fitted American reporting requirements.
The Australians consistently refused. When American generals pointed to their own units body counts and demanded comparable statistics, Australian officers responded with data their American colleagues found difficult to dismiss. Province level casualty rates, enemy operational tempo, infrastructure disruption indicators, and most damningly, comparative friendly force losses.
The numbers told a story that American doctrine could not explain. By 1969, Fuaktui province had become an anomaly in the statistical landscape of the Vietnam War. Enemy initiated incidents had dropped by over 70% compared to comparable provinces. Vietkong main force units had withdrawn to border areas, seeding the population centers to government control.
Local guerilla infrastructure had been systematically dismantled through targeted operations that American observers described as almost surgical in their precision. And this had been accomplished by a force never numbering more than a few hundred operators, supported by a single Australian infantry battalion that itself operated under Australian rather than American tactical doctrine.
Meanwhile, American divisions operating in adjacent provinces, continued the familiar rhythm of search and destroy, battalion-sized sweeps, massive fire support, and body counts that filled reports, but never seemed to translate into lasting results. The contrast was impossible to ignore and impossible to acknowledge without raising questions that American military leadership did not want to answer.
The fifth element of Australian methodology was the one that American green berets found most disturbing. And it was this element that created the mesh hall phenomenon that Sergeant Kowalsski witnessed that August morning in Long Bin. Australian SAS operators developed what they termed jungle consciousness, a psychological adaptation that allowed extended independent operations, but they came with costs American forces considered unacceptable.
The training began with isolation exercises that pushed candidates beyond normal psychological limits. Men spent weeks alone in the bush, learning to find comfort and solitude that would drive most humans to break down. They were taught to suppress normal emotional responses to combat stress, to treat the elimination of enemy personnel as a technical task rather than a moral crisis.
They developed what psychologists would later term predator mindset, the ability to view human targets as prey rather than fellow humans, to track and engage them with the emotional detachment of a hunter rather than a soldier. This adaptation produced operators of extraordinary effectiveness. Australian SAS personnel could function at high levels in environments that degraded American unit performance within days.
They maintained operational security in conditions that caused American soldiers to make noise simply from the psychological pressure of extended silence. They processed the moral complexities of counterinsurgency combat without the immediate trauma responses that afflicted many American veterans. But the adaptation was not without consequences.
American liaison officers assigned to Australian units reported a consistent observation. Something was different about the Australian operators. Something subtle but unmistakable. They moved differently. They reacted differently to stimuli. Their social behaviors in garrison exhibited patterns that trained observers found unsettling.
The normal bonds that formed between soldiers in combat environments seemed attenuated in the Australians, replaced by something more functional but less human. Military psychologists who later studied Vietnam era SAS veterans documented long-term effects that supported these observations. The psychological adaptations that made them devastating jungle operators did not always reverse when they returned to civilian life.
Some veterans reported difficulty reconnecting with normal human emotional patterns. Others described a permanent alteration in how they perceived the world, a lingering predator awareness that never fully subsided. The Green Berets who avoided sharing meals with Australians were not acting from prejudice or rivalry. They were protecting themselves from knowledge that might require similar adaptations.
American special forces were elite by any standard. But they operated within a psychological framework that preserved normal human responses. The Australians had gone somewhere else, somewhere that American doctrine could not follow without abandoning principles that defined the American military ethos.
And yet the results spoke for themselves. The controversy over Australian methods reached its peak in 1969 when a classified assessment commissioned by MACV headquarters attempted to quantify the comparative effectiveness of Allied Special Operations Forces. The document, portions of which have been released through Freedom of Information requests, contains statistical analysis that American military historians have struggled to explain for over 50 years.
Australian SAS patrols operating in Fuaktoy province achieved confirmed elimination ratios exceeding 50 to1 against enemy forces. American units operating under comparable conditions averaged ratios between 8:1 and 12:1. When casualties were included in the analysis, the disparity became even more stark.
Australian SAS lost not a single operator to enemy action during patrol operations throughout the war. While American special forces units suffered casualty rates that if applied to the Australian contingent would have resulted in the elimination of the entire regiment multiple times over. The assessment attempted to explain these differences through various factors.
Terrain variations, enemy force composition, support availability, mission profiles, but none of the explanations adequately accounted for the magnitude of the disparity. The document ultimately concluded that Australian methods produced results that American doctrine could not replicate, but it recommended against wholesale adoption because the methods raised concerns under international law of armed conflict and would expose American forces to political and legal risks that Australian forces operating under
different command structures did not face. This assessment was immediately classified at a level that prevented distribution beyond a handful of senior officers. Its conclusions were never incorporated into American tactical doctrine. The disparity it documented was never publicly acknowledged, but the soldiers who served alongside Australian SAS knew the truth, even if they could never speak it openly.
The story of the Messaul incident at Long Bin became part of special operations folklore, repeated in countless variations through channels that official history never captured. Green Berets who served in Vietnam returned home with stories of Australian operators that sounded like mythology rather than military history.
They spoke of patrols that functioned like wolf packs, of methods that seemed to belong to a different era of human conflict, of results that defied everything American doctrine assumed about warfare. And when younger special forces operators asked their predecessors about working with Australian SAS, the answers were consistent.
respect, admiration, and an acknowledgement that some capabilities could not be adopted without costs that American forces were not prepared to pay. The legacy of Australian SAS operations in Vietnam extends far beyond the statistical record of their effectiveness. The methods they developed influenced special operations doctrine in ways that are still being discovered through declassified documents and veteran testimonies.
Long- range surveillance techniques that became standard in American special forces drew directly from Australian innovations. Psychological operations that targeted enemy morale rather than enemy personnel reflected lessons learned from Australian success. Even the concept of hunter killer teams that would define special operations in later conflicts owed intellectual debt to the Australian approach.
But the most significant legacy was philosophical rather than tactical. Australian SAS demonstrated that modern warfare could be approached differently than American doctrine assumed. They proved that small units operating with patience, skill, and psychological sophistication, could achieve results that massive conventional forces could not match.
They showed that the jungle, far from being an obstacle to be overcome through superior technology, could become an ally to forces willing to adapt completely to its requirements. These lessons challenged American military culture in ways that extended far beyond Vietnam. They raised questions about the assumptions underlying American approaches to counterinsurgency.
Questions that would resurface repeatedly in later conflicts. They suggested that effectiveness in irregular warfare might require sacrifices of conventional military values that American forces were not willing to make. The Green Berets, who refused to share rations with Australian SAS operators, understood something that official doctrine could never acknowledge.
There are forms of military excellence that exist beyond the boundaries of normal human society, and approaching those boundaries carries costs that not every force is prepared to pay. 50 years after the last Australian patrol extracted from Puaktai province, the story of the snake eataters of Nuiidat remains one of the most controversial and least understood chapters of the Vietnam War.
Official histories rarely mention the statistical disparities that classified assessments documented. Veteran testimonies that describe Australian methods in detail have been dismissed as exaggeration or myth. The true story of what happened in those jungles and why it worked so devastatingly well remains partially obscured by classification, by institutional embarrassment, and by the simple human reluctance to confront uncomfortable truths about the nature of effective warfare.
But the truth persists in fragments, in the stories that special forces veterans share among themselves, in the tactical innovations that emerged from Australian methods, and in the enduring question that the Mesh Hall incident poses to anyone who hears it. Why would elite American operators refuse to share a meal with their Australian counterparts? The answer lies not in rivalry or prejudice, but in something far more profound.
The recognition that some forms of excellence require transformations that change men in ways that cannot be reversed. That the most effective warriors are not always the ones you would want sitting across from you at breakfast. And that the true cost of mastery in the most demanding form of warfare is paid not in blood, but in humanity.
The Australian SAS who served in Vietnam understood this cost. They paid it willingly for reasons that mixed patriotism with professionalism with something darker and harder to define. And they achieved results that their American counterparts, for all their resources and courage and tactical skill, could never quite match.
This is their story. Not the sanitized version that appears in official histories, but the true story that circulated through special operations channels, that shaped doctrine in ways that are still being discovered, and that answers the question that Sergeant Firstclass Raymond Kowalsski asked that August morning in 1968.
Why did the Green Beretss leave the table? Because some knowledge comes with burdens that not every soldier is prepared to carry. Because some methods work precisely because they cross lines that most military organizations refuse to cross. And because the snake eataters of Nui dot had discovered something about warfare that American forces for all their dominance of the Vietnam narrative never fully understood that the jungle does not reward the strongest or the best equipped, but the most perfectly adapted. The Australians
adapted completely. And the evidence of that adaptation in the statistical record, in the captured enemy documents, in the stories that soldiers told each other in whispers rather than official reports, remains one of the most remarkable and most disturbing legacies of the Vietnam War. The messaul emptied because the soldiers who left understood at some level beyond conscious thought that they were in the presence of something that their training had not prepared them for.
Not enemies, not rivals, something else. hunters who had become so effective that they no longer quite fit within the normal categories of military personnel. This was the secret of Nuidat. This was why the Pentagon classified the assessments that documented Australian effectiveness. This was why Green Berets, the elite of American special forces, chose to leave their meals unfinished rather than share tables with men who had gone somewhere they could not follow.
And this is why 50 years later, the true story of Australian SAS operations in Vietnam still generates controversy, still challenges assumptions, and still raises questions that comfortable histories prefer to avoid. The snake eataters earned their nickname. and the price they paid for their effectiveness, psychological, moral, human, remains a subject that military historians approach with caution, that veterans discuss with carefully chosen words, and that official doctrine has never fully acknowledged. This was new.
This was the Australian SAS in Vietnam. And this was the truth that American forces learned to avoid at the messaul tables of long bin, where the empty seats around a solitary Australian told a story that no official report would ever capture. Some excellence comes at costs too high for most organizations to pay. The Australians paid those costs.
The results speak for themselves, and the questions they raise about warfare, about effectiveness, and about the limits of human adaptation remain as relevant today as they were in those jungle patrols over half a century ago. The snake eaters of Newat have taken their secrets to their graves, most of them.
But the echoes of their achievement persist in doctrine, in legend, and in the enduring mystery of how 200 men accomplished what divisions could not. That mystery deserves to be understood, not celebrated, not condemned, understood. Because understanding is the only appropriate response to excellence that transcends normal categories, that challenges comfortable assumptions, and that reveals uncomfortable truths about the nature of warfare and the costs of mastery.
The Green Berets who left the messaul that morning understood something important. And now perhaps so do
