Letter from the Editor
National events have given me a fair opportunity to consider the First Amendment since I last wrote you.
You can fill in the blank with whatever outrages you most. I won’t offer examples as I refuse to participate in the national outrage pageant that has replaced public discourse and made us dumber as a people. Moreover, I’m not particularly interested in engendering the countless, “Oh yeah? What about when...” comments and death threats that seem to follow the expression of an opinion in 2025. But I will say September 2025 brought some genuinely repugnant behavior that never factored into my consideration of things I was supporting and defending in the twenty-seven years I swore to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
But isn’t that the point?
We swear to defend the Constitution, the First Amendment of which says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” That unequivocally means committing to the defense of speech we may personally find reprehensible. You don’t have to like it, but you can’t deny it.
I spent almost three decades blindly defending the right of people to have ideas I thought good, bad, and indifferent. I committed to it again when I became a member of the Georgia Bar Association during a brief detour into the law: “I will support the Constitution of the State of Georgia and the Constitution of the United States. So help me God.” Now I am a writer and editor, and the First Amendment is as dear to me as my rifle once was.
We are dangerously close to an abrogation of that first, most vital Amendment in ways I’ve not seen in my almost fifty-three years on this earth. And it seems like a swath of the population is just fine with being the frog in that boiling pot. I’d offer you examples, but again, regardless of how I came down on a specific issue, I would be assailed by slavering, mouth-breathing hordes of ideologues infuriated by my attempt to take a reasoned and reasonable position on any of our countless stunningly complex issues. So again, fill in the blank with your side and send me a message that says “So true,” or “Well said,” or “Why can’t the [other side] get this?”.
Actually, I should be honest. I wish Lethal Minds Journal had enough passionate readers to be assailed by slavering, mouth breathing hordes of ideologues. Still, the point remains: someone who doesn’t get the point that the First Amendment protects speech, period, would waste time and electrons explaining why someone they disagree with shouldn’t be allowed to speak. I don’t have the time for that horseshit; this is volunteer work after all. But suspend disbelief long enough to follow the thread:
I offer a definitive position. Then comes a Facebook group full of outraged people posting pictures they don’t understand are AI-generated as proof of my status as a card-carrying [insert thing they likely don’t really understand but definitely hate here]. Thereafter, cue the Instagram meme pages administered for and against me. X (formerly Twitter) and Bluesky would divide predictably. Then would come the lengthy LinkedIn posts by people using their status as a former motor vehicle operator in a PsyOps unit to qualify themselves as experts on the veteran mind and thereby explain what I am saying and why you should sign up for their four-day Webinar. Then cue the VetBro podcast grifters somehow turning that one time they got mortared while checking IDs at the Kandahar DFAC into an opportunity to discuss my opinion and likely why you should send them some cash to know more, and maybe get some pre-workout.
It’s all become so tiresome and depressing.
So, let me take a clear position:
I, and Lethal Minds Journal, stand unequivocally for free speech in all its forms. Words, photos, paintings, tattoos, street-corner utterings...we’re for it even when we’re against it.
That does not mean that I, the Editor-in-Chief, will not constrain or reject content or make editorial suggestions to ensure each monthly volume is in line with our objectives and standards. Because I’m not the government, James Madison said I get to do that. But we will always encourage and support the right of authors of accepted submissions to offer an idea and defend it well. I appreciate beyond measure the folks who have done so this month.
Don’t like it? Don’t read. This is a free publication; it costs nothing to not read it. More importantly, you’re free to tell me why I am wrong at lethalmindsjournal.submissions@gmail.com. In fact, I’d appreciate it if you did.
Fire for Effect,
Russell Worth Parker
Editor in Chief - Lethal Minds Journal
Dedicated to those who serve, those who have served, and those who paid the final price for their country.
Lethal Minds is a military veteran and service member magazine, dedicated to publishing work from the military and veteran communities.
Two Grunts Inc. is proud to sponsor Lethal Minds Journal and all of their publications and endeavors. Like our name says we share a similar background to the people behind the Lethal Minds Journal, and to the many, many contributors. Just as possessing the requisite knowledge is crucial for success, equipping oneself with the appropriate tools is equally imperative. At Two Grunts Inc., we are committed to providing the necessary tools to excel in any situation that may arise. Our motto, “Purpose-Built Work Guns. Rifles made to last,” reflects our dedication to quality and longevity. With meticulous attention to manufacturing and stringent quality control measures, we ensure that each part upholds our standards from inception to the final rifle assembly. Whether you seek something for occasional training or professional deployment, our rifles cater to individuals serious about their equipment. We’re committed to supporting The Lethal Minds Journal and its readers, so if you’re interested in purchasing one of our products let us know you’re a LMJ reader and we’ll get you squared away. Stay informed. Stay deadly. -Matt Patruno USMC, 0311 (OIF) twogruntsinc.com support@twogruntsinc.com
In This Issue
The Written Word
A Dangerous Breed
Marinara and Missiles
I Should Write About the Shooting
Poetry and Art
Where Can We Live But Days?
Walking Off the War
Health and Fitness
Formulating a Better Fitness Test for the Marine Corps
Book Reviews and Excerpts
Role Conflict
The After
The Written Word
Fiction and Nonfiction written by servicemen and veterans.
A Dangerous Breed
Frank Gonzales
Growing up, my father was a sergeant for a police K-9 unit. It was the last role he had before he retired and as his youngest son, that was the one I was exposed to. He was injured a couple of times on the job at the tail end of his career, and so his primary role became training-oriented.
After his retirement, we kept his working dog. His name was Django, a beautiful Belgian Malinois, and he lived for work. When he had no work to do, you could still feel an intensity around him that left most people feeling uneasy. My stepmother was afraid of him. I, however, don’t remember feeling any unease or fear near that dog, from the day we had him until we put him down because of his failing health.
A few years passed, and the department asked my dad if he would home another dog they were getting ready to retire. Another Belgian, his name was Eros, after the Greek god of love. After a short evaluation, he agreed. The only defect the dog had was that when he latched onto a chew toy, he would not let go, disregarding the commands to do so. Otherwise, he was obedient and so friendly we doubted he would guard against strangers at all.
After a while, we realized he had other quirks. Thunder and fireworks rattled him, causing him to run away a few times during monsoon season. He eventually started sleeping at the foot of my bed during thunderstorms. I never saw this as a defect or unusual behavior. It didn’t occur to me until later that those sounds might remind him of gunshots in a stressful situation.
Eros began to age as well. During my senior year, we had to let go of him, too. It was one of the few times I remember my dad crying.
Anyone following my writing knows that I grew up and enlisted in the Marine Corps, and continued deploying for other entities after my service ended. When I did get out, I knew I wanted to adopt a dog, but the timing wasn’t right until a few years later.
I found an organization called Mission K9, that paired retired working dogs with veterans. Given my upbringing, I thought I was up to the task, so I reached out and was paired with a young Belgian named Lux. A Latin term for “light”.
He was driven out to me from Texas, and I immediately noticed a few unusual things, and this time understood their cause. He rushed through doorways and other choke points. He flinched at the sound of loud cracks and the bang of kitchen cabinets closing. He didn’t sleep for two days, instead continually pacing the entire house until he became so exhausted that he collapsed. Even then, he wasn’t truly settled for a while, and to this day, he is typically too anxious to eat unless I am within eyesight.
This time, I recognized the symptoms for what they were: responses to stressors. I’m not going to tell anyone, even a dog, they have PTSD, because I understand how it feels to have that label thrown at you when a single stressor elicits a very acute response. Especially when in all other situations, the individual, human or K9, is a high performer, friendly, intelligent, and well-behaved. Lux is probably the most friendly animal I have ever seen and when we are out, he rushes to greet complete strangers with affection. Yet because of his breed and the stereotype they come with, most people give him a wide berth and interpret his movements as aggressive and threatening. Even though he is well-behaved enough now to lay at my feet while I work on a computer in a brewery, others who enter with their own dogs, often untrained, eye him cautiously, even though their animal doesn’t listen and is behaving in a way that would provoke others if I didn’t check mine.
It makes me think sometimes about my own responses. I, and many of my friends, have been in situations where the above label and other accusations were flung at us, with the only evidence cited for them being our own service records. Honorable ones, by the way, with zero record of misconduct. I’ve seen men accused of flying off the handle for justifiably defending themselves verbally, who maintained their composure in life-or-death situations. I wonder what they would be called if they had really lost control.
Here’s the kicker: for both K9 and human vets, it’s the well-trained one who we say needs MORE training. We send them to a dog handler. A therapist. VA mental health. Sometimes, prison. For the dogs, it’s worse: if they aren’t rehomed, they get euthanized. But then, a veteran struggling to adapt to his own home will simply “self-euthanize.”
I heard, “Thank you for your service,” a lot when I first became a civilian again. And I’ve seen lots of veterans tell their stories for the past decade, in great detail and in ways that might be best received. The problem is, if our civilian counterparts aren’t meeting us halfway and don’t want to understand, none of the talking does any good.
So even though veterans are the minority, I ask, is the burden on them? Are they obligated to continue training and retraining until they forget how to respond the way our country required them to while at war? Or is it possible that it is time for the rest of the nation to get educated and do their part? I ask the audience: in any team, does performance improve by training the most educated person, or the least?
Food for thought, from a Devil Dog and his dog. Both members of a “dangerous breed.”
Marinara and Missiles
Benjamin Van Horrick
Nick spotted the pattern again.
With the phone pressed to his right ear and another phone cradled on his left shoulder, Nick saw the orders flash on the screen. He felt like a Wall Street trader navigating a market crash.
But Nick wasn’t at Goldman Sachs. He was at Papa John’s selling breadsticks and pizza.
Papa John signage – a mix of green, red, and white mirroring the Italian flag – decorated off-white walls. Pictures at the pizza making station ensured uniformity. Clad in black polos and chinos, the workers moved at a frantic pace as the computer system tracked the time customers placed orders to the time workers slid the hot circles of dough, sauce, and toppings from the steel peel into their cardboard coffins.
A second DUI marooned Nick at Papa John’s within walking distance of his childhood home. The first DUI cost his reenlistment, and the second now trapped Nick in low-wage purgatory.
The order volume only rivaled Super Bowl Sunday, but this was a summer weekday, early evening. The order originated from the same place: The Pentagon.
Nick witnessed the pattern before: Pentagon staffers working late meant a strike or strikes were imminent. Soon, his Telegram trader feeds and Reddit threads would run wild. Oil would spike overnight if the hunch proved correct. He needed just a moment to get on Robinhood and go long oil.
1000 shares of GUSH.
If he was right, he could pay the fines, get his car out of impound, and begin piecing his life back together.
But before Nick could act, his manager, Brad, loomed.
Brad’s fervent adherence to Papa John’s protocols and repeating of Dale Carnegie’s sayings took on a religious fervor.
Nick detested Carnegie’s sayings and labeled him as Shit Jesus.
Be interested in others and start with the end in mind were some of Brad’s sayings.
Last week, Brad gave Nick a written counseling for not placing the correct number of pepperoni slices on the Shaq-a-Roni pizza.
“Nick, for all we know, Shaq is ordering for us.”
“Yeah…sure, Brad.”
Nick couldn’t believe his luck.
Marinara and mozzarella signaled the fat tail of risk.
“Nick, do you need a write-up for checking your phone? This is a rush that can make us legends. Opportunity and preparation are meeting.”
“Legends? We are making pizza, shithead.”
“Clean up the language, Nick. This is a professional workplace, not a truck stop. How is your ten-speed?”
“It’s better than Josephine’s.”
“What does my daughter have to do with anything?”
Josephine wasn’t just the center of Brad’s life; she was his reason for striving, devotion to corporate standards, and repeating Carnegie’s mantras to build a better future, not for him, but for them.
As Nick remained unmoored, Brad remained grounded.
“Remember Soleimani, that Iranian General?
“No…”
Nick did. He was an intel analyst at the time. Pentagon pizza orders proved prescient.
“It’s happening, man. Something or someone is getting hit. Let me make the trade.”
“How likely?”
“More likely than Shaq ordering a pizza for us.”
“How about this - I will make all Shaq-a-Ronis for the next 30 days?”
“And if you’re wrong…”
Nick waged the only thing of value he possessed: his labor.
“I will take the late shifts for a month...”
“And…”
“I’ll make the Shaq-a-Ronis.”
“The perfect placement of all 66 pepperonis?”
“What do you have to lose, boss man?”
Brad paused for a beat. Nick’s offer or bet seemed unprofessional, yet intriguing.
“Make the trade. Fortune favors the brave.”
“Stop with that Carnegie shit.”
Brad raised his head towards the freezer.
“You can get service in there.”
Nick slipped into the freezer and fumbled to the Robinhood app. He felt on tilt again, like when he’d gotten behind the wheel buzzed, or bet on sports and crypto. Was this another chase for a spike of excitement, grasping at seductive straws rather than muddling through the mundane? He placed the trade, leveraging every dollar, heart pounding as he pictured the fines, the impound lot, a life pieced back together.
During the two-hour wait, Nick inventoried his unpaid bills and debts. His ledger of losses included burned exes, disappointed parents, sympathetic siblings, and a clinical attorney. The money hurt, but the loss of trust stung.
For two hours, Brad and Nick made eye contact with each other knowing the stakes of the trade.
Nick looked up at one point, and Brad wrote 66 on an empty pizza box in black Sharpie.
Brad would gain more control over Nick if the trade went south. But Nick dreaded the loss of even more control.
Nick fretted, thinking the trade was just another spiraling event, making it harder to pay fines and legal fees. Forget the 12 steps. He would be better off betting on baseball than wagering on strikes on Iran.
In a lull, Nick wiped down the chrome countertops as his iPhone buzzed. First from X, then Robinhood.
Middle East Strikes
His heart rate and oil prices surged.
Brad hovered over Nick’s shoulder, seeing a parabolic line on the screen.
Nick grinned, but wasn’t sure if the wins would stick. World War III might be kicking off, but the trade gave him desperately needed cash and bragging rights over Brad.
Now came the hard part: not losing it all again.
I Should Write About the Shooting Dexter I should write about the shooting. That’s what the writers are doing right? All my circles are talking about it. Even the ones who aren’t writers are writing about it. It’s in tweets and podcasts and threads and Facebook and Instagram and I can only assume on the other channels I’m not watching. I should open up my notebook and start writing. It’s 3 pm and the kids are getting out of school and I need to be in the pickup line. There’s a note from the teacher in a folder, two folders? That’s a lot of notes from teachers, two more than expected. Someone’s shoes are in the hallway, and that is not where shoes go. But both backpacks are on the hooks and that is where backpacks go. There is a bag of dirty clothes and one of these kids is wearing different pants than they went to school in and I suppose teenagers have accidents a lot less often than grade school kids and I tell myself that at least 3 times a day and I remember I need to change the sheets and then I tell them both to not go outside and don’t talk to anyone through the open windows and stay occupied and don’t get into the fridge and please don’t go outside I’ve told you a million times I’ll be back in 10 minutes. And I go and I’m waiting in the checkout line with my bottle of Tide and what if what if what if the cops are waiting at my door when I get back and they are asking who in their right mind would leave two kids unattended for 10 minutes, but I get back and there are no cops and nobody went outside but someone did get into the fridge and there are pickles on the counter and pickle juice puddles on the table and neither of them are wearing shirts anymore but I don’t blame them because I don’t want to wear this shirt anymore either. I should write about the shooting. One of them is in the shower and the other is using the hallway like a shuttle run and I am using the kitchen both as it is intended and as a church. There is a box of Kraft Mac & Cheese open and empty and a pot with noodles and you have to work fast because the noodles cook in about two minutes and then you add the powder and then some milk and then a couple thick chunks of butter and some shredded cheese if you have it and maybe some extra salt and then you have to call about three times for one of them to stop using the shower like a waterpark and pick up their dirty clothes and pick up the wet towel and please just dig through the clean clothes pile and find some pajamas I know they’re in there and I swear to gawd if I come in there and find your pajamas before you do. One of them is clean, the other is in the shower and we say all of the same things twice. The Mac & Cheese is ready and I have had a small taste which reminds me we are poor, but poor is ok sometimes. Thank god for free lunches. Everybody eats. Everybody talks. We talk about the kids we make friends with. We talk about how to listen. We talk about how it feels when someone does not share a thing with you and how it has to be ok sometimes for other people to not share things, but sharing is still a nice thing to do. They ask me if I know an octopus has more than one heart. They ask me if I know how a cruise ship is built. They ask me if I know how wheat is turned into whiskey. And I know all of these things and we talk until I am tired of answering questions which is a predictably short amount of time and please put your dishes in the sink and please hang up the towel I told you already and I have lost my patience because I still have to strip the sheets off your bed and that is my fault for forgetting we have no clean sheets and the waterproof mattress cover is also in the dirty clothes pile and I have more of those puppy pads in the closet we’ll just put that under a blanket and that will have to do for tonight while I get the laundry done. And one of them is asleep and the other is up because she forgot to use the potty. And then she is up because she wants to snuggle, but I cannot snuggle because I am in the kitchen/at church and doing the dishes/at prayer and I am curt and she is a baby again and I have no patience for babies please get yourself back in that bed before I make this unpleasant for the both of us. And they are both asleep and I have not done my own homework or found a new job or looked in the folders, or have I? It is 11:30 and I am also asleep. It is 6:30 and I will punch my snooze four times until it is a quarter past 7 when I roll out of bed and we are dressing ourselves from a pile of clean clothes and pouring too much milk into cereal and being told three times to clean off the table which smells and looks like it has been through a battle of pickles and cereal and art supplies and we are brushing teeth and thank god I did the dishes and cleaned out the coffee maker last night and when I am creating a minute of luxury for myself by frothing warm oat milk for the espresso bubbling out of the Mokka pot on the stove we talk. We talk about who is trustworthy enough to play outside without mom there (it is no one). They ask if I know it is the 11th of September, they ask why anyone would hijack a plane. We talk about how to survive a plane crash, we talk about why the deer eats my Hosta, we talk about why Luigi is still alive after being the trashiest dog we’ve ever had, we talk about why mom and dad live in separate houses, we talk about oh my god I told you to pack your snack in your backpack it is time to go where is your water bottle? We are in the drop off line and I love you I love you have the best day I will read your teacher’s note on that parent app thing from the school I can’t remember what it’s called I love you I love you I forgot to kiss you blow me a kiss from the door.
Poetry and Art
Poetry and art from the warfighting community.
Where Can We Live but Days? R.H. Booker If I could make this enough of a poem it would have everything in it. The river, how alive it was at dawn, how when crossing it the horse under you was much louder and colder; the horseshoe rhythm on cracked earth and how lathered sweat escaped the saddle blanket; the noon sun oppressive, the branding iron red hot and the burnt hair and flesh and the old timer saying it smelled like Iwo Jima. It would have the feeling in your chest of saddling a fresh mount in the pre-dawn light. It would have the sound of cattle stampeding into the pens. It would make it all come alive again. Walking off the War Evan Young Weaver Steps unrushed, a self-guided audio tour Whole families even out on patrol Swifter without the grit and gear of war Campaign brim, back in vogue control Handrails, steps, gravel to friendly lines Better view as you know the higher ground Collapsed earthen holes, by blown up mines Remember what it was scattered around Windbreaker slaps from the wind, you are back That slap, like a crack, a snap of a switch Brain floods, now the wind has a sticky tack Shake it off, pull your zipper up a cinch Walk it off alone, find some calm in pace In shock that you ever left this place
Health and Fitness
Guidance for improving physical and mental performance, nutrition, and sleep.
Formulating a Better Fitness Test for the Marine Corps
Johnathan A. Wittcop (USMC, Ret.)
My training philosophy is rooted in martial arts and self-defense. I hold that training for self-defense is synonymous with training the body as a whole. This is not just about isolated movements, but about developing adaptable, multi-directional capacities that prepare the body for unpredictable, high-stress situations.
I speak here not only as a martial artist, calisthenics athlete, and powerlifter, but also as a retired Marine. From that perspective, I have seen how our standard tests—the Physical Fitness Test (PFT) and Combat Fitness Test (CFT)—define “combat readiness.” These tests are sufficient for establishing a general baseline of conditioning, but they are also limited. They do not reflect the full dynamic range of demands encountered in real combat. Combat is chaotic, multi-planar, and often depends on joint integrity, grip endurance, and leverage under fatigue—capacities that neither pull-ups, crunches, nor a 3-mile run fully capture.
Motor learning research reinforces this. Variability in practice—what scholars call “contextual interference”—produces more adaptable and transferable movement repertoires (Schmidt & Lee, 2019). Likewise, the National Strength and Conditioning Association’s (NSCA) Tactical Strength and Conditioning (TSAC) guidelines emphasize multi-planar, full-spectrum training, precisely because occupational athletes—soldiers, firefighters, fighters—cannot predict the exact angles or loads they will face (NSCA, 2017).
This explains why I draw from diverse disciplines and integrate them into conventional training. Standard powerlifting (bench, squat, deadlift) builds a strong base, but it does not prepare the body for key demands of combat: wrist pronation/supination, tibialis raises, hip internal rotation, ankle stability, or scapular control. These are fundamental capacities when survival depends on resisting control, maintaining leverage, and enduring prolonged fatigue.
Consider a scenario: a powerlifter is difficult to hold in a low mounted position, since his pressing strength creates space. But from a BJJ perspective, that same extension opens him to an armbar. Change the conditions, however, and say that the powerlifter cross-trains gymnastics on the Roman rings. Now, his connective tissue resilience, elbow extension strength, and flexibility make the submission much harder to finish.
This demonstrates a core asymmetry: strength disproportionately benefits defense. It extends survival time, raises the threshold for offensive success, and makes the defender more difficult to control or submit. Offense still benefits from strength, but only when channeled through leverage, timing, and technique. Wrestling snap-downs, judo kuzushi, guard squeezing, body triangles, and grip fighting all show how strength supports offense—but it is the technique that converts that strength into control.
Other modalities broaden this principle:
Mountaineering and skiing → ankle stability and endurance for base and footwork.
Strongman carries and wrestling drills → clinch endurance and positional control.
Calisthenics on rings and levers → scapular control for armbar finishing and shoulder defense.
Arm-wrestling and rock climbing → grip, pronation, and supination—directly relevant to grip fighting, Kimura, and Americana defense.
A fair critique is the risk of overemphasizing novelty. Exercises like tibialis raises or wrist rotations are valuable but supplemental. They should not replace compound lifts, which remain the most efficient trunk of systemic strength. Instead, they are branches that extend strength into the chaotic, multi-planar demands of combat.
In short, strength is not just about bigger lifts. In martial and tactical contexts, it functions primarily as a defensive buffer, while offense depends on the skilled conversion of strength into leverage, control, and timing. As a Marine and martial artist, I have seen both sides: baseline tests (PFT, CFT) define readiness on paper, but real readiness requires a broader spectrum of capacities that only diversified, combat-informed training can build.
Which brings me to formulating a modality that would better serve total unit readiness: here’s a practical, testable redesign that fuses the USMC PFT/CFT into one Combat Readiness Evaluation (CRE) you can run as a unit semi-weekly (for practice/readiness tracking) and once per year as a formal event. I’ve anchored it to current Marine Corps order language and to motor-learning / tactical strength and conditioning research, so it’s doctrinally defensible and evidence-based.
Combat Readiness Evaluation (CRE)
Purpose
A single evolution that preserves the core PFT/CFT constructs (aerobic capacity, anaerobic power, strength endurance, agility, casualty/carry tasks) while adding grip/control and ground-to-feet capacity—two domains repeatedly stressed in real fights and close contact. The CRE retains the spirit and events of the CFT (Movement to Contact, Ammo-Can Lift, Maneuver Under Fire) and keeps the PFT’s endurance demand, but compresses administration so it’s runnable by a line unit on a parade deck/track/IMF field with standard issue gear.
Why this structure:
USMC policy defines the PFT/CFT events and sequencing; the CRE inherits those events verbatim to remain compatible with existing standards and scoring practices.
Motor-learning data favors variable, multi-planar practice for durable, transferable performance—exactly what the mixed CRE event order provides.
NSCA TSAC emphasizes job-relevant, multi-planar, load-bearing tasks and simple logistics.
Event Menu (90 minutes total, one continuous circuit)
E1. Movement to Contact (MTC) — 880 yd sprint (boots/UOD).
Same setup and standards as CFT. Time to completion recorded.
E2. Ammunition-Can Lift (ACL) — 30-lb can, max reps in 2:00.
Same as CFT. Reps recorded.
E3. Maneuver Under Fire (MANUF) — 300-yd shuttle with crawls, buddy drag/carry, grenade throw, ammo-can carry.
Same as CFT. Time to completion recorded.
E4. Load-Carriage Complex (LCC) — 4–6 minutes work cap.
50 m sandbag carry (45 lb/20 kg), 50 m farmer carry (2×45 lb), 50 m backward sled drag (~1.25× body armor mass), 50 m sprint to finish. Time recorded.
E5. Ground-to-Feet & Control Battery (GFC) — 3:00 total.
60 s “tactical get-ups” holding a dummy rifle or 15 kg plate (count reps).
Max Pull-ups (count reps).
60 s prone-to-sprint shuttle (10 m down/back repeats; count touches).
Optional screen (admin-permitting): 30-sec go/no-go card test immediately post-GFC (simple cognitive gate under fatigue). Count correct hits minus false alarms.
Why E4–E5? They’re the missing “close-contact”/grappling proxies the PFT/CFT don’t explicitly test: load movement, grip endurance, floor recovery, and rapid posture changes—critical to clinch, weapon retention, casualty movement, and ground entanglements. TSAC supports these multi-planar load tasks; motor-learning literature supports mixing them within one evolution to increase adaptability.
Administration (unit-friendly)
Lanes: 4–8 lanes handle 40–80 Marines per hour.
Gear: track/flat deck, cones, 30-lb ammo cans, sandbags (20 kg), 45-lb plates or KBs for farmer carry, low sleds, dummy rifle or 15 kg plate, timing devices.
Sequencing: Marines rotate lane-to-lane in order (E1→E5).
Rest windows: 3–5 min between events; water shaded rest. (CFT guidance: all events within a single session with rest between—keep that rhythm.)
Total time: ~75–90 min per platoon-sized element.
Safety: standard CFT/PFT risk-man and medical coverage per MCO 6100.13A; heat index checks; hydration; technique briefs.
Scoring (compatible with USMC tables + CRE add-ons)
Baseline score (600 pts): Use official MCO 6100.13A scoring for MTC, ACL, MANUF (convert each to 0–200).
CRE extensions (400 pts):
LCC time → 0–150 pts (faster = more).
GFC total → 0–200 pts (get-ups reps 40%, pull up reps 40%, shuttle touches 20%).
Optional cognitive gate → 0–50 pts (hits–false alarms).
Composite: 0–1000 pts.
Color bands:
Green (Fully Ready): ≥750 and no red-zone sub-scores.
Amber (Ready-with-Gaps): 650–749 or any single red-zone.
Red (Needs Remediation): <650 or ≥2 red-zones.
Red-zone triggers highlight real-world vulnerabilities: very slow LCC, <30 s dead-hang, minimal get-ups, or poor MANUF—each maps to tasks Marines must perform under stress (carry, drag, regain feet, move under fire).
Age/sex fairness: Keep official PFT/CFT differentials for the three legacy events; CRE add-ons use body-mass-adjusted cut lines (e.g., heavier Marines get slightly longer LCC cut times). This preserves equity while honoring operational reality.
Schedule of Use
Semi-weekly “readiness circuit” (45–50 min):
Run E2 (ACL) → E4 (LCC) → E5 (GFC) as a short circuit; optionally rotate E1 or MANUF every other week. Keep official timing & recording to maintain longitudinal tracking.
Quarterly checkpoint (full CRE-Lite ~60 min): E1–E5 without cognitive gate.
Annual event (full CRE ~90 min): E1–E5 + cognitive gate, full scoring, awards, remediation plans.
This cadence honors the single-session principle in the CFT order and makes it realistic for a company to run on a training Friday or after PT.
Why it’s better at gauging “combat readiness”
Keeps what works: You still capture aerobic endurance (run), anaerobic/agility (MANUF), and upper-body strength endurance (ACL) exactly as doctrinally defined.
Adds what’s missing: Load movement, grip endurance, and ground-to-feet capacity—all decisive in close contact and casualty movement—become visible, quantifiable failure points or strengths. TSAC literature calls out these job-tasks explicitly; motor-learning data predicts better retention/transfer when these are practiced under variable conditions.
Administrative sanity: No exotic gear; can be run by three NCOs and a corpsman with standard issue equipment; scales to platoon/company.
Doctrine-aligned & current: Built on the latest MCO 6100.13A w/ Admin Ch-5 (28 May 2025), so you’re not fighting the order—you’re extending it.
References (quick anchors)
MCO 6100.13A w/Admin Ch-5 (28 May 2025) – Governing order for PFT/CFT standards, administration, and scoring (incl. plank updates).
MCO 6100.13 / CH-1 – CFT event definitions, sequencing, session guidance.
Motor Learning (Contextual Interference) – High variability → better retention/transfer under novel conditions.
Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (2019). Motor Control and Learning: A Behavioral Emphasis. Human Kinetics.
National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA). (2017). NSCA Tactical Strength and Conditioning Report. NSCA Journal.
Kraemer, W. J., & Ratamess, N. A. (2004). Fundamentals of resistance training: progression and exercise prescription. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 36(4), 674–688.
Suchomel, T. J., Nimphius, S., & Stone, M. H. (2016). The importance of muscular strength in athletic performance. Sports Medicine, 46(10), 1419–1449.
Reach out to Johnathan A. Wittcop (USMC, Ret.) with any questions - J0K3RCaRd@pm.me
Book Excerpt
The Stoic Approach to Role Conflict
An excerpt from Stoicism as a Warrior Philosophy
Commander William C. Spears, USN.
Let us briefly visit one of the Stoics’ many philosophical successors. During the German occupation of France in World War II, long after Stoics had become a historical footnote, a young man approached the existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre with a profound moral dilemma. On one side, he felt the pull of duty toward his country, yearning to join the Free French Forces and aid in the liberation of his people from a foreign oppressor. On the other side, he bore a responsibility to care for his mother, who was estranged from her husband and whose only other son had already been lost to the war.
Although Sartre did not articulate this account as such, we can recognize the young man’s situation as a conflict in specific roles. As a patriot, the young man feels compelled by his duty to country and moral principle, driven to join the resistance and contribute to the shared struggle for freedom. In doing so, his individual efforts would contribute to a virtuous and historically significant cause. Yet, as a son, his obligation to his mother holds immeasurable weight for one person; leaving her would mean consigning her to isolation and emotional suffering.
While the young man came to Sartre in hopes of a simple answer, Sartre refused to tell him what to do. Instead, he emphasized the young man’s freedom to choose and the necessity of taking responsibility for his decision. He argued no external framework—whether patriotic duty or filial obligation—could dictate the ‘right’ course of action. It was up to the young man to define his priorities and give meaning to his choice, fully accepting the consequences of whichever role he decided to honor.
Were it Epictetus the young man had consulted, we can be confident he would have reacted much the same way as Sartre. He would probably remind the youth to consider what he is. First, a human being, with all the moral imperatives this entails. After that, a son, a brother, a citizen, and a patriot. Epictetus would likely advise him to consider what he wants to be, but would firmly refuse to prescribe a role for the young man. “You’re the one who knows yourself,” he would likely say to the youth, just as he says to a student of his own who is conflicted about roles. Epictetus means the words literally; even if he were willing to identify the correct decision, he could not know what that is. What is reasonable for one person can be unreasonable for another and in the coming pages, I will explain how this is so.
The redirection to self-scrutiny is a classic philosopher’s answer to the young and searching, a motif that transcends cultures and eras. Philosophers, much like today’s psychotherapists, can frame a problem in ways that reveal self-evident wisdom, but it is ultimately up to the individual to identify their own path. Although this method of counsel falls short of the desired direct answer, we see Epictetus employ it masterfully to deliver a more valuable lesson. He compels his students to recognize they already have the equipment to determine appropriate action and only need to learn how to use it.
When it comes to conflict between specific roles, Epictetus acknowledges such conflicts may occur but he does not explicitly lay out a method to resolve them. As is often the case with virtue ethics, individuals must draw their own conclusions based on personal circumstances and their understanding of what best aligns with virtue. The first step in resolving role conflicts, then, is an appeal to moral coherency: any legitimate specific role must align with the universal human imperative toward virtue—the fundamental role. If a specific role imposes vicious or unethical demands on an individual, then either the role is not legitimate, or the obligations it imposes are misunderstood.
It remains possible some specific roles may pose no conflict with the fundamental role and yet still contradict one another. To explore how Epictetus might approach such dilemmas, we can consult key examples of role conflict from within the Discourses, each of which evaluates a tension between specific roles from a different angle. From these cases, we can extract a few proven approaches to navigating tensions between specific roles. While these strategies cannot resolve every conflict, they provide valuable insights to inform decision making when faced with such difficult choices.
The first approach applies to those who might suppose they fulfill a role of extraordinary distinction. We can call the resulting approach ‘confirming exceptionality’. It pertains to situations in which an individual’s distinctive abilities or circumstances seem to justify an assignment that requires bending or even breaking common conventions or expectations. Such individuals might include a noble contrarian (whom I will discuss in greater detail shortly), a misunderstood genius, or a creative prodigy whose extraordinary talents necessitate a departure from traditional paths. The relevant case from Epictetus’ Discourses involves a prideful slave who contemplates refusing to handle his master’s chamber pot, a task he deems beneath him. Implicitly perceiving some exceptional status that sets himself apart from ordinary slaves, this situation represents a conflict between the role of an ordinary slave and an individual of extraordinary dignity.
We might expect Epictetus to scoff at the slave’s self-importance and emphasize the moral indifference of an allegedly undignified task. However, Epictetus surprises by acknowledging the complexity of the situation, noting only the individual truly understands their own nature. It is to this prideful slave that he replies, “You’re the one who knows yourself,” presaging Sartre. Again, what is reasonable for one person may be unreasonable for another. Just as a typical individual lacks the capacity to perform the responsibilities of an exceptional person, an extraordinary individual might be considered unfit to hold the chamber pot. Either way, it is essential the individual figure that out on their own, rather than look to another to tell them.
The key to this approach to role conflict lies in an honest assessment of whether or not one is truly endowed (or, as the case may be, burdened) with an exceptional role. Epictetus insists such individuals cannot help but be conscious of their unique status, asking, “Isn’t it clear that the possession of such power is accompanied at the same time by an awareness of that power?” Critical self-reflection can help one to navigate role conflicts of this sort, with an important caveat: Identification with an exceptional role entails a commitment to that role and all the responsibility it confers. One does not rightly slip into and out of an exceptional role when it seems emotionally satisfying or expedient.
The second approach involves resolving role conflicts by modifying one’s specific circumstances to accommodate competing roles. It is derived from a discussion in which Epictetus argues it is impossible to reconcile the demands of a Cynic lifestyle with the responsibilities of having a family. Recall that the Cynics were seen as monk-like radicals who pursued philosophical purity through a lifestyle of deliberate poverty, rejecting all material encumbrance. Epictetus’ presentation of the conflict frames a family as so much baggage, irreconcilable with the activity of a Cynic philosopher:
For consider, there would be some duties that he would have to fulfill towards his father-in-law, some that he would have to fulfill towards other relations of his wife, or towards his wife herself, so that he would finally be shut out from his calling to act as a sick-nurse and provider. Not to mention all the rest: he would need a kettle to heat water for his baby, so that it could be washed in the bath-tub, and some wool for his wife when she has had a child, along with some oil, a cot, and a cup (see how the gear is mounting up), leaving aside all the other things that would take up his time and distract him.
Epictetus acknowledges such a combination of roles might be conceivable in an ideal “city of wise men,” where the Cynic’s calling would be recognized and shared, but he observes no such city exists. To his frustration, Epictetus is challenged by students who point to the example of Crates, a renowned Cynic philosopher who married Hipparchia of Maroneia, also a Cynic philosopher. Epictetus acknowledges the challenge as a niche example still irrelevant to the circumstances of ordinary people. The marriage of Crates and Hipparchia was unconventional, based on personal affinity rather than the economic arrangements typical of the time; Hipparchia, being an extraordinary woman, and their unconventional marriage, did not impose any responsibilities on Crates that would conflict with his role as a Cynic. Epictetus’ acknowledgment of Crates and Hipparchia as an exception emphasizes that roles and whatever conflicts arise between them must be addressed in terms of individual circumstances.
Thus, to “marry Hipparchia,” so to speak, is to resolve a perceived conflict in roles by adjusting the specific circumstances of a given role so that its obligations do not interfere with competing responsibilities. Importantly, it is not necessarily the case that Crates chose Hipparchia for marriage solely because of her compatibility with his philosophical views (nor that she chose him for the same reasons, for that matter). If Crates had married another woman for more conventional reasons, it is possible we might never have known him as a philosopher. However, given his legendary commitment to Cynicism, this seems unlikely. More plausibly, finding Hipparchia did not enable Crates to pursue his philosophy so much as it allowed him to marry. As an approach to role conflict, “marrying Hipparchia” does not resolve the conflict by eliminating or prioritizing one role over another; instead, it qualifies the obligations in such a way the conflict is avoided altogether.
The third approach intriguingly involves the subordination or ‘nesting’ of some specific roles underneath the umbrella of a higher and yet still-specific role. It is demonstrated in an analogy wherein Epictetus compares specific roles to the individual responsibilities of soldiers and sailors. What distinguishes this example is the delineation of subordinate specific assignments within the overarching role of a soldier or sailor, which supports the arrangement of specific roles into a hierarchical structure. This perspective facilitates an appeal to a higher role to clarify priorities between subordinate roles. The relevant excerpt should be appreciated in its entirety:
Don’t you know that this life is like a campaign? One man must keep guard, another go out on reconnaissance, and another go into battle. It isn’t possible for all to remain in the same place, nor would it be better that they should. But you neglect to perform the duties assigned to you by your general, and complain when you’re given an order that’s at all hard, and fail to realize to what state you’re reducing the army, so far as you can; because if everyone follows your example, no one will dig a trench, or build a palisade, or keep watch at night, or expose himself to danger, but everyone will show himself useless as a soldier. Again, if you embark on a ship as a sailor, settle down in a single spot and never leave it. If it should be necessary for you to climb the mast, refuse to do so; if you have to run along to the bow, refuse again. And what captain will put up with you? Won’t he throw you overboard as a useless piece of tackle, a mere obstruction, and a bad example to the other sailors? So likewise in the present case, the life of every one of us is a campaign, and a long one subject to varying circumstances. You must fulfill the role of a soldier and carry out every deed as your general bids, divining his will so far as is possible. For there is no comparison between this general and an ordinary one, with regard either to his power or to the superiority of his character.
We should note it does not appear Epictetus presents this analogy to address matters of role conflict. Instead, he deploys it to convey how one should approach hardships; specifically, that one should receive their situation in life as a series of tasks set before them. Implicitly, the superior general to which he refers is the personified universe: God, fate, or universal causality, one and all. Rather than balk or complain about my assignment, I am expected to salute and get to work.
Even if it is not expressly meant to address role conflict, the analogy is powerful in that it accommodates roles within roles. Underneath the overarching role of a soldier, for example, there exist the mutually exclusive roles of trench digger and watch stander. Again, “it isn’t possible for all to remain in the same place,” as Epictetus says, “nor would it be better that they should.” A conflicted individual might seek a resolution by appealing to their higher role, such as that of a soldier, which would entail aligning their actions with the general’s intent, “divining his will so far as is possible.” This hierarchical organization permits an evaluation of priorities from a higher perspective than whatever roles might come into conflict.
Of course, this approach does not necessarily provide a cipher with which to decode the will of the universe. Instead, it offers an additional lens through which one can contemplate their position within it. An intriguing aspect of Epictetus’ analogy of soldiers and sailors is the emphasis on one’s contribution to a moral system. Through phrases like “if everyone follows your example,” “to what state you’re reducing the army,” and “a bad example for the other sailors,” he reiterates in cadence the significance of one’s impact upon the harmony and moral trajectory of a collective—a concept we will revisit in later chapters. To discern what is desired by the superior general, then, one should ask what is right for the greater system.
In summary, the capacity to take on multiple distinct roles ensures conflicts between them are virtually unavoidable. Epictetus’ Discourses provide several examples of these tensions, from which three fundamental approaches to resolving such conflicts can be identified. The first is to engage in careful self-evaluation, particularly if one believes they occupy a role of exceptional distinction. The second is to “marry Hipparchia,” or, in other words, to tailor the circumstances of one role to avoid clashes with another. The third approach is to evaluate specific roles hierarchically, nesting some beneath others, so that insoluble conflicts can be resolved by appealing to a higher priority or authority. Since Epictetus avoids laying down systematic theory, we shouldn’t assume these approaches are all-encompassing, nor that they can resolve every conflict. However, they are still useful tools for navigating role tensions. Ultimately, the first step in resolving any perceived conflict between specific roles is usually sufficient; that is, to weigh one’s situation against the fundamental role of a rational human being.
Commander William C. Spears is a submarine warfare officer in the U.S. Navy and the author of Stoicism as a Warrior Philosophy: Insights on the Morality of Military Service, forthcoming in November by Casemate Publishers.
Book Review
The After: A Veteran’s Notes on Coming Home by Michael Ramos
Nick Efstathiou
Of the many books I’ve read, this is the only one that should come with a ‘trigger’ warning.
The triggers aren’t about violence, however. The triggers are about the camaraderie of the military, those bonds that are forged during service. Is there violence in this book? Of course. It is, after all, a work that focuses on the ‘after’ of military service.
The After is a collection of short essays written by Michael Ramos, a former Religious Program Specialist (RP) in the Navy. During his time in the Navy, Mr. Ramos was assigned to a Navy chaplain who was, in turn, attached to a Marine unit. The Navy provides both chaplains and medics to the Marine Corps, taking care of Marines both spiritually and physically. With his assignment to the Marines, which is where Mr. Ramos wanted to be, he had to keep pace with the Marines, no small feat considering the motivation, drive, and determination of a Marine Corps infantry unit.
Before Mr. Ramos brings us into his life post-service, he gives the reader – both civilian and veteran – a fair warning; at times it will seem that he hates civilians, hates their inability to understand what the veteran has been through, and what the veteran continues to go through. With that warning put forward at the beginning of the book, he then leads us into the present and the past, the two of which are intertwined and inseparable.
The writing in The After flows.
Imagine turning on the faucet (one that is new and works well) and watching the water come out. It moves around or over obstacles, whichever is easier. The water doesn’t struggle against barriers, and neither does Mr. Ramos’ writing.
He moves us from his enlistment, only a short time prior to the attack on the World Trade Center buildings on September 11th, 2001, to his eventual departure from the military. We learned about his desire to be with the Marines, his decision to become an RP since he could not free himself from his Navy contract, and the fact that, as he goes off to basic training, he is leaving his wife and son behind. We meet not only the men he served with, but his first wife and his second. We struggle with him through writers’ groups and seeing individuals on the street who wear uniforms they have not earned, uniforms they have no pride in.
War is in the background of all this.
How can it not be?
The United States had boots on the ground until 2021, and thus, the Global War on Terror is a lurking monster in the back of our contemporary stories and essays. It is this monster who loiters in the background.
Mr. Ramos puts the monster on display. He shows us the monster through his interactions with his son, and the boy’s eventual decision to become a Marine. He shows us the monster in his classroom at the University of North Carolina. The monster is present in the questions his students ask.
In his writing, Mr. Ramos controls the monster as deftly as he controls the reader. He exercises this control carefully, easing the reader into the racing thoughts of a veteran, of a man who has difficulty understanding why there is no purpose in the civilian world, why there is no sense of urgency. These racing thoughts swallow the reader whole and plunge them through Mr. Ramos’ thoughts.
There are several points in the book where Mr. Ramos does not use punctuation. No periods, commas, exclamation points, question marks, colons, semi-colons or any other way to slow a sentence down. You don’t realize it until you’re five lines down on a full page of print and you are mentally gasping for air as you rush headlong toward the end of the paragraph.
As you struggle to slow your mind down and realize you cannot, Mr. Ramos strikes you with lines that rip the breath out of you.
When he discusses suicide, the epidemic among veterans that is killing thousands of us a year, he speaks on how veterans are killing themselves at a ‘cyclical rate.’ It is a brutal and terrifying image, and one that forced me to put the book down.
There are many places in this book where I had to stop reading. Places where I needed to catch my breath, and some points where I had to deal with memories that had long lain dormant, were brought to the surface by someone with whom I share a similar background.
I am not a combat veteran, and so I have not experienced war and its effects. I am a veteran, however, and what struck me on a visceral level was missing ‘the boys.’ I miss the men I served with. The men who were, when we served, only boys like me. Reading The After, I found myself missing, again, those days when we sat around the barracks doing nothing but running our mouths. Sitting around and complaining. Sitting in the dark, in the rain, and laughing about something no one else would find funny. Receiving praise or a compliment from a person you admire.
Michael Ramos brought all this back many times throughout the book. If you are a veteran, brace yourself. He hits you hard. If you’re a civilian who has family members who are veterans, this is the finest look into veteran relationships that I have ever read. Mr. Ramos brings it home in a way that is devastatingly clever and well done.
For my brothers and sisters out there, grab a copy, read it, and then give your brothers and sisters a call. RP reminds us of how much we need one another.
Give us your thoughts! What do you agree with, what do you disagree with?
Email Lethalmindsjournal.submissions@gmail.com to be featured in the next monthly publication.
——————————
This ends Volume 39, Edition 1, of the Lethal Minds Journal (01OCTOBER2025)
The window is now open for Lethal Minds’ Fortieth volume, releasing November 01, 2025.
All art and picture submissions are due as PDFs or JPEG files to our email by midnight on 20 October 2025.
All written submissions are due as 12 point font, double spaced, Word documents to our email by midnight on 20 October 2025.
lethalmindsjournal.submissions@gmail.com
Special thanks to the volunteers and team that made this journal possible:
Please continue to write and express your opinions, and don't be concerned with the mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, idiots who may disagree with what you say and your absolute right to say it.
Another great editorial to start this latest volume of LMJ... thanks for taking a stand for one of the key freedoms that most Americans take for granted, and those of us who served accepted (as part of the job) some limitations on while we were in uniform.
S/F
Carp