I mostly read the 80s stuff, with bits and pieces of the 70s fare, besides The Executioner.  I read one Death Merchant, which was just "okay."  Read two from the Destroyer series (both with Chiun's murderous nephew, Niuhc) which were good.  Never read the Nick Carter:  Killmaster updating of the old dime novel and pulp detective.  Never actually read more than the cover copy on Casca, no Penetrator or The Mercenary.  All of the first dozen or so of Able Team and Phoenix Force, which were companions to the Gold Eagle Mack Bolan updating, of which Able Team were a bit more enjoyable.  I read the first of the Black Eagles series, which was a special forces unit, in Vietnam.  Also the first Barabbas book, The Barabbus Run, which owed a lot to The Dogs of War and The Wild Geese.  Read another one that was supposed to be Vietnam vet special forces (Black Berets...I think).

The Mafia era Executioner novels (the original 38, from Pinnacle Books, before it was sold to Gold Eagle) are pretty good, though repetitive.  The first three are worth reading, for setting the foundation, and the "last mile" books (33-38, each with a day of the week as part of the title) are good, as Bolan launches his final assault on the Mafia hierarchy, before joining up with the government to become a terrorist hunter.  Those lead one into the next and build to an epic conclusion.  The first three set things up.  The original, War Against the Mafia, gives his backstory and he starts his crusade.  the second, Death Squad, adds some old comrades, from Nam and introduces Officer Carl Lyons, who is sympathetic to Bolan and allows him to escape.  Two of the Death Squad, Herman "Gadgets" Schwartz and Rosario "Pol or Politician" Blacanales, join Carl Lyons to form Able Team, in the later Gold Eagle spin-off series.  The third book, Battle Mask, features Bolan getting plastic surgery to alter his face, while on the run from the Mafia and the Feds.

The first "super-Bolan," The Stony Man Doctrine, gives you a pretty good feel for the 80s Gold Eagle Bolan, as well as Able Team and Phoenix Force, who all appear in the novel, working with Bolan to stop a terrorist cell, launching a series of attacks across the US.

The Casca series is an interesting concept:  the Roman soldier who pierces Jesus' body, with his javelin, is cursed to wander the Earth, until the Second Coming, and finds himself drawn into endless wars and conflicts.  It also featured a fanatical order that watches him, The Brotherhood of the Lamb, who are the main antagonists.  Sgt Barry Sadler, who co-wrote and sang The Ballad of the Green Berets, conceived the series and wrote some of the early books.  They are set in different historical periods, which gives them more of a variety over some of the other pulps.

With the 60s and 70s, you get a lot of spy series and detective pulps, depending on what was in vogue.  Greg Hatcher has written about some, in his columns, being reposted at The Atomic Junkshop.  There are other sites specifically devoted to the genre, which cover many, quite well.  If you enjoy 30s and 40s pulp heroes and novels, the better men's adventure pulps have similar tropes and characters, especially The Destroyer.  It also has a sense of humor to it that some of the other series lack.  Women are pretty much damsels-in-distress and sex objects, or femme fatales and sex objects; and, the sex is not exactly deeply erotic.  Gun worship was a heck of a lot stronger in the Mack Bolan and related series, with the 80s ones actually featuring one-page diagrams and write-ups of different weapons.  They also had at least a couple of "War Books," one during the Pinnacle days of The Executioner, covering the series up to that point, with a schematic of his War Wagon, various firearms, and dossiers on Bolan and supporting characters, as well as fan letters and comments from Pendleton.  The second covered the Gold Eagle series, up to that point, plus spin-offs. 

I bristle at the so-called "warrior culture," philosophies, that act like the Spartans and similar were some kind of role model.  Until the 1980s and more the 90s, the military didn't describe itself as "warriors," within its society.  We considered ourselves soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen....professionals.  "Warrior" means someone who wages war and kills the enemy to drive them back out of your country or conquer theirs.  The military, post WW2, saw itself as more preserving democracy and keeping the peace, internationally, with disciplined and trained professionals, not killer robots.  Vietnam, more than Korea, brought a lot of that out to question and the post-Vietnam Years involved a lot of soul searching and grappling with institutional problems.  I didn't start hearing about "warrior culture" until after the Gulf War, after leaving the military.  I heard it more from the business community, in management books, where they latched onto the Japanese business philosophies, which involved study of Sun Tzu's The Art of War, Miyamoto Musashi's Book of Five Rings, and even Von Clauswitz's On War.  Personally, I think that mindset is why modern conglomerates and corporations are so amoral and cut-throat.

Police are not "warriors," they do not wage war against the enemy.  Their job is to apprehend criminals, enforce the laws of the community, and keep the peace.  They act as agents of the court and the government, to bring law breakers before the courts to answer for crimes against the society.  Their job is not to "kill criminals," as a warrior would an enemy of its community.  Police are acting within their community, not fighting invaders.  That is why soldiers make poor policemen (apart from professional military police) and often vice versa.

I prefer the terms "professional," which implies a level of training, skill and experience, as well as "servant of the community, " which is what both are, at their core...but, aren't we all, when we act to better our community.


I've seen examples of good and bad, both within the military and among police forces.  leadership, training and discipline are always at the heart of the good ones, while power and the desire to obtain it is at the heart of the bad. 

First of all, thank you for your service. Secondly, whenever the topic of warriors and warriorship comes up, most people tend to take a very Eurocentric definition of the term thinking of "warriors" as a specific class within society. But for most of the world, at least in pre-modern times, warriors were simply all fighting age males whose obligation was to come together and defend their society from any external threats. By that definition, the military personnel who served in WWII and Vietnam were absolutely warriors whether the term was used explicitly or not. I don't know if the term was used in the American military prior to the 90s, though it has certainly become common in the last 30 years. But I know people who served in elite units prior to the 90s who definitely thought of themselves as warriors. And the rituals and symbols that all warrior cultures come up with, and which seem to be a necessary psychological component of warriorship judging by their world-wide ubiquity, have always been a part of the American military.

Most of which isn't germane to the topic of whether police should be considered or think of themselves as "warriors." I don't totally disagree with your view that they are not warriors and should view themselves differently than military "warriors" do. But the fact is, a certain segment of the police do view themselves that way and, in my experience, they happen to be on the high end of people in that profession. These are the cops you want responding when a gang of psychopathic home invaders is trying to break into your house at 2:00 in the morning. Is that self view they have really necessary for them to do their job? I don't know. Is it even an overall healthy view for police to have? Again, I don't know. But I do know, as I said, the very best people I've met in law enforcement tend to view themselves this way and seem to feel it's vital for an LEO to have this mind-set to most effectively do their job. As long as they can still conduct themselves within the regulations of their department, I'm not going to say they're wrong in this since I've never done that job.

But we've gotten way too far into thread drift so I'll leave it at that.

"You're not allowed to have an opinion unless you're friendly with police officers and they shoot the breeze" with you is not a good argument. It's the exact opposite; people with a dispassionate neutral position are in a better position. My opinions of police are informed by being an informed citizen who follows the news, but also by interactions in a professional capacity and as a member of the public. 

I don't want to get doxxed talking about work, but I literally worked a few years back on a matter involving allegations of police brutality. (And no, I wasn't working for the accuser). I don't owe it to you to talk about interactions just as a regular citizen (both good and bad), when you refuse to engage with my arguments and ask me to talk about my life instead. Have you talked directly to people who say they or their family members were victims of police brutality? 

That was here, in Illinois, in Springfield.  The officer in question had been discharged from the Army, with a general discharge and discipline for "gross misconduct (serious)."  The military only uses "dishonorable discharge" for serious criminal offenses and uses general discharge for a variety of things, from substance abuse, to weight issues, to disciplinary problems.  Gross misconduct is likely dereliction of duty and the "serious" tag implies there were dangerous consequences.  So, you have someone with judgement problems and discipline issues, before entering law enforcement.  He worked for 6 different Illinois police agencies, the a portion were only part time, before getting the sheriff's deputy job, in Springfield.  In one jurisdiction, he failed to end a pursuit when ordered and basically tried to cover it up in his after action report and was called out for it.  It was recommended that he needed decision making classes for high stress situations.  This was before working for the Sangamon County Sheriff's Police.  He also had two DUIs on his record, before joining the Sangamon County police.  Again, poor judgement is a theme in his life.  With that, he is hired and sent out on a call, responding to shots fired ad encounters a mentally disturbed woman and even his partners are chastising him for not even rendering assistance, after shooting.

This is what I mean about leadership.  Sangamon County has a history of poor leadership, while I lived there.  During an election, voters passed over an experienced former captain of the Illinois State Police, for the guy who appeared in the Crimestoppers PSAs, on local tv.  He had largely been in public affairs positions and not field law enforcement nor in leadership positions.  There were several botched investigations, including one after an explosion at a fireworks event.

Leaders set the tone for their forces.  They set and enforce the standards.  This is why, in the Navy, when a ship runs aground, regardless if the captain was on the bridge, he is relieved, because he is ultimately responsible for everything that occurs on that ship.  He certified the capabilities of his officers, the training of his crew and was responsible to maintaining those standards.

Police officers need to be able to make split-second decisions, under stressful conditions, acting to protect the innocent and to end situations, not escalate them.  Good leaders emphasize and demand these qualities and bring those who fail to account for their actions.