I find it fascinating that people choose the logic they want to hold on to so dearly. George Orwell would have probably taken up arms against the US imperialism in Nicaragua, Colombia, and most definitely in Vietnam. His "quote" is mis-attributed in the sense that he was referencing Kipling whose "grasp of function, of who protects whom, is very sound. He sees clearly that men can only be highly civilized while other men, inevitably less civilized, are there to guard and feed them." The bottom line is that the notion of "Rough Men" is taking this out of context. Basically, it is about people willing to stand in defense against subjugation. And it is those people that make it possible for others to rest easy (and from what one can surmise from Orwell's writings) and actually grow as a society. Orwell was very critical of british imperialism throughout India (and he servedin the british army), but he also joined the fight against Franco in Spain, sympathizing with the Anarchists. In this case then he took up arms not for an empire, but for an idea of freedom that was being subjugated, so did Hemingway. These people that were "rough men" in their own right fought against empire, they sided with people that were fighting for real freedom - not for expanding US markets, which is what the marines have been doign for the longest time - just ask Smedley Butler. The US is empire. Put that in your bonnet as you re-appropriate quotes out of their historical context. This ultimately speaks to the willingness to fore go critical thought, so that lately (this past century) "rough men" are actually more prone to be manipulated for the subjugation of people than they have been called to make peaceful nights for others. It is also important to note that these rough men (and all men/people in general) are also the perpetrators of violence in general. Hero one day, tormentor the next. (Look up: Police Commander John Burge).