Border Control My Ass!

Two Iraqis who paid alien smugglers in Mexico to help them gain illegal entry to the United States were arrested yesterday by Mexican authorities in a border town near San Diego.

The Mexican Attorney General's Office said Samir Yousif Shana and Munir Yousif Shana were taken into custody by Mexican federal agents, along with two suspected alien smugglers, in the Paso del Aguila district of Tecate, some 30 miles east of San Diego.

The Iraqis, according to a statement, had made contact with the smugglers in Tijuana, located south of San Diego, who then accompanied them by bus to Tecate.

Mexican authorities said investigators were told the Iraqis had been advised by an unidentified person in Baghdad that he could arrange for them to be smuggled across the U.S. border once they got to Mexico.

The Baghdad smuggler demonstrates that the porousness of the U.S.-Mexico border is becoming "common knowledge" on the Arab street, one U.S. law-enforcement official said yesterday.

U.S. national security officials have fretted often in the past about the Mexican border being an attractive conduit for Islamic terrorists.

Yeah, they fretted so much they called the Minutemen "vigilantes".

Stay tuned for the car bomb explosions coming near you.

Read More...

Summary only...

Little Words, Big Impact

The brothers at Iraq The Model have posted their on going update about the status of the constitutional process in Iraq. Good thing since we wouldn't know what was going on otherwise.

Baha' Al-'Araji, a member of the constitution drafting committee told Al-Mada paper yesterday that there are going to be 5 spots in each Iraqi province where citizens can find designated boxes where they can put their opinions and suggestion as to the process of writing the constitution.[snip]

One million "suggestion forms" are planned to be distributed nationwide soon and there will be specialized teams to read, sort the received forms and prepare summaries that will eventually be submitted periodically to the main committee.

However, the brothers point to a troubling line in the new Bill of Rights:

As you can see, the document is too big to translate but my 1st impression is that it's acceptable in general, especially when it comes to equality among citizens, the laws of citizenship and the freedom of expression except for that...well, there were probably too many clauses that contained something like "…has the right to…unless that contradicts with the basic values and teachings of Islam and the traditions of the Iraqi society".

The brothers hope that this gets ommitted from the final version and, for their sake, I hope so, too.

The danger, as we in America should know, of including this sort of limit on the rights of the people, means that their rights, instead of being expanded, are automatically contracted and made subjugated to something "higher" enshrined in law. In this case, the subjugation is to "Islam" and "traditions of Iraq" whatever those are.

Aside from the subjugation of the people's rights to this nebulous "Islam", there is a problem with defining which "teachings of Islam" since there is Shia and Sunni and inside of each of those there is Salafi, Sufi, Sadrist, Diyawa, SCIRI teachings...so, whose teachings take precedence?

Secondly, by subjugating the rights of people to these "teachings of Islam" where the Bill of Rights give people the freedom to worship God as they see fit, this means that by default Christians, Jews or any other minority religions in Iraq (of which there are several including Zoarastion) are subject to Islamic teachings, meaning that they could be persecuted by the state or others without protection.

As I noted in a comment to the brothers, the other disturbing issues going on is that the SCIRI/Badr brigade down in Basra have been doing their version of the Saudi "morality police" and going around forcing women to cover themselves, beating students, enforcing gender rules such as not being seen with anyone of the opposite sex who is not your direct relative, etc.

Enshrining the teachings of Islam above the rights of the people means that these groups can get away with this with little censure from the government because they will say they are adhering to the "teachings of Islam and traditions of Iraq".

Secondly, if some one should complain about these activities and make denigrating remarks about Shia Islam, they might be prosecuted for "violating the teachings of Islam".

Frankly, I see this as a back door attempt by the SCIRI and the Sunni religious parties to sneak in some sort of vague "sharia" or law of Islam after Jaafari indicated that there would be no such thing in their constitution.

My note to the brothers: This way leads to tyranny.

Read More...

Summary only...

Discussions and Phone Calls on CSPAN

This morning, I caught Rep. Blackburn (R) and Rep. Sanchez (D) on CSPAN answering questions and discussing Gitmo. These ladies are both on the House Armed Services Committee and were in the question and answer session on Tuesday with the commanders of Gitmo.

Before I go to far, I'd like commend these ladies for both avoiding, for the most part, partisan rhetoric on the subject. At least, until the last 10 or 15 minutes of the program. It got a little sticky there.

Both ladies had interesting points about what should be done at Gitmo. I'm not talking the abuse issue. I'm talking about who get's to make the rules and whether more guidance is needed. Do we need somebody to set the rules for tribunals? Who gets to say how long we will detain the EPWs?

Rep. Sanchez was good enough to point out that she believed these detainees were "EPWs" (non-uniformed combatants) as opposed to POWs and that, for all intents and purposes, under the Law of War and the Geneva Conventions, we do not have to give them any rights. However, we do choose to give them nearly every right guaranteed under the conventions except, of course, they are not immune to interrogations, particularly "coercive" interrogations, though all rules indicate that they cannot be tortured.

Rep. Sanchez did point out that it was Congress's job to regulate and over see the treatment and disposition of prisoners and that congress had abandoned the role to the administration. She said this without implying (too much) that the administration was intentionally trying to keep this out of congress's hands.

As it was a reasonable point, I thought I'd help Ms. Sanchez with a little back up (since she didn't come prepared to make that point beyond indicating the all knowing and all seeing Supreme Court told them so):

Article 1, Legislative Branch:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

So, Ms. Sanchez is correct. It is Congress's job. One might wonder if the Democrat party was too busy talking about "gulags" to remember that it was their job to make sure it didn't turn into it? Some caller called in and said that the President should be put in front of an international tribunal for these infractions. The guy had to be at least 50 (and a smoker considering his voice). One might ask a sitting Democrat in congress if they would feel the same should they know, as a member of "this administration" and person responsible for over seeing this process that dereliction of duty is not a good defense for themselves, either?

I digress. Ms. Sanchez was right.

Ms. Blackburn responded by saying the military did not need to be micro managed. She also made one brief comment about the danger of letting our known interrogation methods and information come out in public tribunals which Ms. Sanchez advocates. I understand Ms. Blackburn's concern about "micro managing" the military. Mainly because some of Ms. Sanchez's compatriots are, shall we say, challenged in separating partisan searches for destructive materials against the administration from securing the nation. Pelosi recently called for another "transparent" committee on the subject. I'm thinking the House and Senate Armed Committees are the right place to discuss it and no other committees seem necessary. Right behind her was Reid and Rangel making noises about lies and such which did not give me a good feeling about what these folks were trying to accomplish.

If I felt that this was strictly for the purpose of congress taking on its responsibilities, I'd be fine, but I'm not sure these folks wouldn't sell us down the river a time or two, getting sound bites in Al Jazeera while trying to score political points. Who knew that the subject of prisoners in a time of war would be beaten to death as a partisan discussion?

Of course, one could wish that Ms. Blackburn wuld not have used the word "micro managed" because it implies that congress should take its hands off the military. That is a big no-no. I understand her concern about the opposition, but that does not set the right tone. If I was the Republicans, I would insist on some clear rules about about the expectations of any bill, guidance on tribunals or release of information since I don't put it past these folks t let something out in a moment of laissez politics.

The other concern from me is that, if congress decides or demands to have the military hold tribunals in a specific time frame that was too short, it may compromise our activities in on going investigations.

Ms. Sanchez insisted that there really could not be any "actionable" intelligence after prisoners were outside the organization for three years in detention and, even if they knew about a person three years ago and that person moved up in the organization, how much good could this really be? Almost sounds reasonable. However, this is one of those "semantic" arguments that needs some discussion.

Sort of like, "depends on what your definition of "is" is."

Ms. Sanchez is thinking about how much info could a guy give you that would let you go out tomorrow and scoop up some terrorists or off set a planned attack directly off the detainees info. Certainly, if someone could give you that, it would be "actionable".

However, Ms. Blackburn is correct as well, that info does come out and get used. Even if the guy in Gitmo only knew Abu X three years ago for a year or so, he would know things like where he was from, where his family was, who he hung out with, if he had a preference for a part of the world, etc, etc, etc. From that, someone could build an investigation to start finding this new leader character.

NO, it doesn't mean that a detainee can tell us something and we could run out the next day to catch the guy, but we shouldn't be telling these folks what our detainee informants are saying about them since it would make them change practices.

So, Ms. Sanchez is right semantically, but wrong on the over all. Or, at least, should take in consideration our concerns about "open" tribunals held too soon. That goes for our friendly Supreme Court, too.

Ms. Blackburn, I would add, should not try to keep Congress from its job by continuously invoking the "this wil hurt our troops" meme. But, I would sincerely support her if she said, "Partisan BS keeps me from supporting this idea since we all know what certain members of your party really want to do with this idea."

But, she really can't say it, so I suppose the troop thing is going to continue to be their excuse.

On a quick closing note, most of the callers were pretty decent until around 7:30 AM. At that point, you could tell the normal folks had went to work and all that was left were unemployed or retired. Both Republican and Democrat partisans came out of the wood work with finger pointing at that point instead of the nice calm questions from the earlier folks. However, the second thing I noticed was that by 8 AM, the only people that were calling in were Democrats. Except one guy. They had about 5 callers that were spouting off some true idiocy about international tribunals for the President and big lies and stealing the Americans blind and...and...

Well, Haliburton of course.

Oh...and the Downing Street Memos where the caller then insisted that everyone in the US was an idiot because we don't believe those memos say, "We're going to war tomorrow so get me a nifty presentation that makes the enemy look like an idiot and, no, I don't care what the reason is, make one up!"

She kept saying we should all research and read for ourselves.

Some folks should take their own advice. I did research and, you know, there is this funny thing where we do threat assessments and make pans for possible wars all the time and include our allies in the planning. Doesn't mean that we were planning to go all along, but we were planning in case we had to.

PS...Rush to war? A whole year of talking with allies and prepping is a "rush to war?" I'd hate to see the tortoise part of this race. Damn thing would be dead and dried up in the shell before it got off the starting line.

Semantics, semantics, semantics.

That's what it boils down to.

Read More...

Summary only...

Reviewing "Knights Under the Prophets Banner"Part I: Creating Zawahiri

About four months ago, I put up a link to the book Knights Under the Prophet's Banner written by Zawahiri in 2001 and published by Al-Sharq Al-Awsat newspaper in an 11 part excerpt series.

In light of many current conversations going around the political world and blogosphere, I thought it was time to do a more thorough review of this book and note those important things which he wrote that have come to pass or apply to the current situation in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Special thanks to Liberals Against Terrorism for cleaning up the translated version from FAS and finding links to other books and information on the subject.

Introduction

In the introduction to the book Al-Jihad leader says: "I have written this book for an additional reason, namely, to fulfill the duty entrusted to me towards our generation and future generations. Perhaps I will not be able to write afterwards in the midst of these worrying circumstances and changing conditions. I expect that no publisher will publish it and no distributor will distribute it."

The main part of the book, his personal history, history of the Al Jihad movement in Egypt and issues with the west, including reasons and strategies for fighting, was written just prior to 9/11 and the remaining sections about the ongoing war in Afghanistan was obviously written in October and November 2001. Thus the introduction discussing "worrying circumstances and changing conditions" written at this time. This might even have been the reason why US commanders at the time felt that they had been very close to Zawahiri and bin Laden at some point of the war (Tora Bora?)

To understand Zawahiri, a brief history of his introduction and involvement in Al Jihad in Egypt and his development from fighting against the Egyptian government to recognizing the west, in particular, the United States, as the true enemy of Islam.

Al-Zawahiri, who comes from a wealthy Egyptian family, joined the ranks of the opponents of the late Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat when he was only 16 [as published; when Al-Sadat became President, Al-Zawahiri was already 20, since he was born in 1951]. He was later imprisoned on the charge of involvement in Al-Sadat's assassination.

Al-Zawahiri formed a group all of his own, of which he was the leader [amir]. It included his brother Muhammad, nicknamed the Engineer, who was extradited by the United Arab Emirates to Egypt in 2000.

Prior to October 1981 [month in which Al-Sadat was assassinated] Al-Zawahiri was introduced to military intelligence officer Abbud al-Zumar, who persuaded him to join Abd-al-Salam Faraj's group. Al-Zawahiri was arrested in connection with the assassination of former President Anwar al-Sadat and spent three years in jail. In 1985 he left Egypt for Peshawar and there he succeeded in uniting the Afghan Arab groups.

The question to answer is why after all that time being involved in the Islamic Jihad did they decide to assassinate Sadat?

On November 19, 1977 Sadat became the first Arab leader to officially visit Israel when he met with Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin and spoke before the Knesset in Jerusalem. He made the visit after receiving an invitation from Begin and he sought a permanent peace settlement (much of the Arab world was outraged by the visit). In 1978, this resulted in the Camp David Peace Agreement, for which Sadat and Begin received the Nobel Peace Prize. However, the action was extremely unpopular in the Arab and Muslim World. Many believed that only a threat of force would make Israel negotiate over the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and the Camp David accords removed the possibility of Egypt, the major Arab military power, from providing such a threat. As part of the peace deal, Israel withdrew from the Sinai peninsula in phases, returning the entire area to Egypt by 1983.

In September of 1981, Sadat cracked down on Muslim organizations and Coptic organizations, including student groups; the arrests totaled nearly 1600, earning worldwide condemnation for the extremity of his techniques.

Meanwhile, internal support for Sadat disappeared due to his style of government, economic crisis and suppression of dissidents. On October 6, the month after the crackdown, Sadat was assassinated during a parade in Cairo by army members who were part of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad organization, who opposed his negotiations with Israel as well as his use of force in the September crackdown. He was succeeded by his Vice-President Hosni Mubarak.

During Nasser's time in office he had received monetary and military assistance from the Soviets. By 1981, the Soviet money mill was already showing signs of weakening. Egyptian economy was suffering and needed another infusion of capital that would not be forth coming from the Soviets. Sadat made several conciliatory moves towards the west and Israel. The issue of the Sinai Penninsula can be explained by its location and the Suez Canal the total control of that and ports were important to improving Egypts economy.

While Zawahiri might have been against the secular, socialist government and wished to over throw it to establish an Islamic government, he found this to be the ultimate betrayal. On top of that, directly after the treaty, the crackdown on slamic dissidents began in earnest. Zawahiri felt that this was at the behest of the western powers in an attempt to save Israel and in payment for the financial aide package that was offered.

Further betrayal was on the way as Mubarak took control after Sadat and continued his brutal crackdown on the extremists while taking money from the west. Zawahiri determined that he and his compatriots idea for an Islamic Egypt would never take place as long as the United States was a tacit backer of the regime.

For the United States, these extremists were hardly a blip on the screen. Its major concerns at the time were in securing Israel's existence and off setting the growth of Communism in the African Continent and the Middle East in the post Viet Nam era. "Flipping" Sadat to the west was just one move in the game of chess being played.

For Zawahiri, it was much more personal.

Read More...

Summary only...

30 Days With Islam

I caught the new "30 Days" program that put a white Christian with a Muslim family for 30 days and had him attend Mosque, learn some about Islam, learn about prayer and customs.

Most of the program was the simple things that some of us already know, such as the concept that Islam is an "Abrahamic" religion, or traces its roots back to Abraham. Then it simply explained that Judaism believes in one God, but that the Messiah had not come yet. Christians believe that Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God. Islam believes that Moses, Jesus and Mohammed, the founder of their religion, were "spiritual sons of God" or prophets, but not the Messiah (if you've read here before, you know that Islam's name for the "savior" is the Mahdi; the name which Sadr took for his army of the Mahdi).

They explained simple things like prayer (including the "women in the back so men don't look at their rears while they're supposed to be praying; my one thought on that is, why don't these folks think that men's rears in women's faces are any more or less tempting to look at when they are at prayer?), haalal food and butchering. They took the time to review the whole "jihad as a personal struggle to submit yourself unto God" as opposed to "holy war".

That's nice. It's probably true for a large part of the Muslim population. It's too bad that you can't just buy that explanation straight out for everyone that is a Muslim. If you could, then we wouldn't have jihadists in Iraq and Afghanistan or coming from Saudi Arabia or Sudan or Nigeria. So, one must wonder which is the true jihad or maybe, one must just accept that there are two kinds of jihad and the only way you can tell the difference is if the guy is not strapping a bomb on himself but is simply refusing alcohol, praying and meditating?

This is one area that the program really didn't address well enough for me. As a matter of fact, it was a fairly shallow review of the subject of Islam. Maybe something you'd show your fourth grade class to get the basics out there.

There were two parts of the program that I did find most interesting and had they focused on the subjects more, I might have appreciated the program better.

The host and the guest (our intrepid Christian white male), had a discussion about whether the host believed there were any terrorists sleeper cells among the 250k Muslims in Dearborne, Michigan. The host declared sincerely that he felt the government was rounding up Muslims and declaring them "terrorists" just to make them look good. The hosts wife said that this problem was because Muslims did not step forward and try to mingle with mainstream America and was not vocal enough in condemning the acts of terrorism. Her husband responded that he felt he had nothing to apologize for, these men did not represent him.

Some thoughts on this subject. First, I don't believe that the government arbitrarily rounds up Muslims and declares them "terrorists". I do believe that their were Middle Eastern people, particular Arab Muslims that were associated with groups known to have relationships with certain charities and organizations that made them "persons of interest". I believe this happened a lot directly after 9/11. While I understand the erstwhile hosts concerns, I can't find myself as sympathetic on that issue. As far as today's arrests are concerned, I don't believe that it is the same method or reason and that the federal agencies are more careful about making cases and developing evidence before making arrests.

On the other hand, I believe I understand why this gentleman would feel this way. The first issue must be how difficult it is to accept that someone is claiming your ideology, your religion as their reason du jour for killing people, particularly when you must live among your own large group of people who do not follow that concept. On the other hand, I wonder if this guy was being purposefully disingenuous on the subject?

I was thinking this because of a comment he made later about, "we need to ask ourselves why 19 men would do such a thing. No one just kills themselves and 3000 people for no reason." Which leads me to believe that he has heard the discontent in his nieghborhood or among his fellows, possibly even believed it himself to some small degree. These comments always seem to smack of some sort of sympathy, even if the person, as he did, follows it up with "I condemn these acts, my friends and all of Islam condemns these acts."

From my perspective, I wonder why it is the victim must always establish themselves as completely blameless and pure in order for an heinous act perpetrated against them to be condemned without caveat?

But, his wife was interesting in that she said to him that Muslims should be concerned about making their voices heard condemning these acts. A further bit of discussion between all three (it was slightly heated) from the Haque's (Hawk) point of view, these men were simply fringe elements. Not just fringe elements of Islam, but fringe of humanity because their acts were inhuman. I can tell you that she came across very sincere. Of course, so did her husband.

In many respects, I agree that that they are "fringe", if I or others didn't really believe that we would be at war with a whole lot of other people. Unfortunately, this "fringe" element or "cult" as Prince Turki of Saudi Arabia once referred to them has gained an increasing number of followers and they come from Saudi Arabia largely where a rather larger number of religious and educational institutes appear to have a rather larger number of "cutl" figures running around. I'm not sure how else one could explain a couple thousand Saudis wondering in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan for "Jihad".

Watching this program has made me think about that both the Muslim community and the non Muslim community were both victims on September 11. We share a bond of betrayal in many respects. The betrayal I aluded to yesterday which is the betrayal of hospitality and what Bill Whittle once called "sanctuary". We might not all have the same culture, but we do have some similar views on what is acceptable behavior from your guests when you open your home to them. Maybe the feeling is worse among the main part of the Muslim community because it was like inviting your brother into your home that you share with these other room mates and your brother destroys the home and kills a couple of your room mates.

Mr. Haque said a couple of times that he condemns these acts, but does not think he should have to apologize for them. I wondered after that if it wasn't he himself who felt the guilt, right or wrong, and if he wasn't trying to convince himself?

Well, I'm not sure what other non-Muslim Americans feel about Muslims, but I never expected an apology. What I was hoping of course was that they would immediately begin to look around and see if there were any people in their midst that might be a threat and to help out in that regard.

I understand, also, in some respects the desire to draw back into the comfort of their own groups and not begin fishing for suspects among themselves. This is how cultures, tribes and even religions have survived over the centuries and decades. Pull in tight against the outsider and save the group first before you start looking internally. I also think if I was in their shoes, it would be hard to accept that there would be more within this group of people, the people that you have found refuge with this whole time in a place where you are the foreign and they are your connection to home and your comfort, that any more would betray them.

I think the second issue of the program I felt was interesting was the question of discrimination. The white Christian guy who took on the job of spending time with the family, grew a beard, wore a cap and a long shirt, not exactly a thobe or dishdash, and basically took on, as close as he could, the appearance of being a Muslim. What was interesting was that he was blond and green eyed. As he attempted to speak to people on the street, he received some very interesting responses.

Before I go on, while I understand there is some question about whether there was a preconceived ending for this program, during the program, this gentleman did present some sincere issues with praying in the mosque and did not participate exactly. He was concerned that he did not understand the prayers and their meanings and that he would be betraying his own beliefs and possibly country if he uttered the prayers without knowing what they said. He sought out information about what the prayers were and he did express issues with saying that Mohammed was God's only messenger as he clearly believed that Jesus was the messenger. So, whatever the other aspects of the suspected outcomes were, I felt that this was a truthful representation of the situation since I would feel the same concern.

At some point, he had discussions about discrimination and threats with some members of CAIR and with a local city council man. The first conversation was about the call to prayer which these gentlemen wanted to have broadcast over a loud speaker outside of the mosque. This caused some issues with the local populace who proceeded to send emails to the councilman. One aspect of this I thought was a little over blown was the characterization of the emails as "threats". While I'm sure that there have been threats because you can't know the extent of everyone's intent or behavior, the emails they were showing did not contain "threats" or were not really "threatening" as threatening an action so much as complaints. They showed two in particular. One was generally respectful but still opposed the call. The other did not contain rough language but was obviously more stringent in its plaints, noting that "this was a Christian neighborhood" and the people "did not all worship their God" and they felt they should not do it. I can't quote the email exactly, but I would say that even I, as a Christian, felt the email could be easily classified as bigotry.

An important note that was made, but not elaborated on, was that the actual "threatening" emails were being investigated by the FBI. Something that is appropriate as it is a threat against an American citizen and they all deserve protection under the law.

Back to the response to the "pretend" Muslim and discrimination, he took a petition from CAIR asking people to stand against racial and ethnic profiling of Muslims and went around asking obviously white, non-Muslim people (and one Asian gentleman) if they would sign the petition. Most of them just said, "no thanks". I believe that the show was attempting to show this as discrimination, but the sane part of me who has been involved in petitions and had petitions shoved at me, knows that people aren't necessarily judging the petition or showing prejudice towards Muslims so much as not wanting to be bothered by a political activist as they go into a restaurant.

On the other hand, when some people were asked directly what a terrorist looks like and there were direct answers that said, "dark, middle eastern". Our erstwhile pariticipant asked a Korean gentleman directly who were terrorists. He replied, "Muslims from the Middle East". Our participant then said to the Korean man, "Well, what about Oklahoma or the Atlanta Olympics?". The Korean man replied, "But that is who the terrorists are now." Meaning of course, Muslims from the Middle East. One couldn't exactly refute that point.

Except, that I will slightly. My own views on racial profiling is that it has inherent problems. For instance, Chechnyan's are largely white and speak Russian. Nigerians are largely black and speak a multitude of languages: English, French, and multiple languages from different tribal and ethnic groups. Of course, one might remember Padilla is Hispanic and Richard Reid was mullato.

Then of course, we have Walker Lindh and a few other caucasians from the US and Australia and France and Britain, etc, etc, etc.

It seems that once you profile, you may become lazy in looking at other potential threats.

So, all in all I felt the program was a little lame with only two even relatively interesting parts and they were only interesting because I had thoughts on the subject and wanted to expand on it. Otherwise, it never really dwelled on it enough to make a real impact.

I would be interested in someone making a much broader film encompassing a lot more discussion on the issues of import these days.

Read More...

Summary only...

My Town: We Don't Forget

Union Station is an historic site in Kansas City. A central rail station during the great days of rail travel, this historic site has seen the great movement of America. A few years back it was turned into a museum and event center.

One of it's current displays, which I will be going to see this week is September 11: Bearing Witness to History.

Union Station is privileged to present the exhibit dedicated to remembering the profound historical significance and the moving personal accounts of September 11. The Smithsonian's National Museum of American History presents the images, the artifacts, the emotions of 9/11. Visit the official exhibit Website.

You can see more about this exhibit at the Smithsonian website

I'll be taking pictures and posting if I can.

At the Smithsonian site, there are personal stories of people from all over the country and the world about witnessing September 11. They are asking for personal accounts if you have one. You don't have to be a resident of New York or Washington DC. Just tell your story.

They ask for a brief story and then they ask you a couple of questions. Here are some of the comments that I found interesting:

From the Pentagon:

Did you fly an American flag after the events of September 11th?

Yes. I think the flag is beautiful and that everyone in this country should fly it. I know everytime I hear the Star Spangled Banner I cry. The land of the free...I can't believe someone would attack us because we are free.

I picked this one because I was recently reading the words of our national anthem. Not just that first stanza that everyone knows, but the entire anthem. Every time I read it, everytime I hear it, I feel the same way.

[second stanza]On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, now conceals, now discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines on the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! O long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave

That always reminds me of September 11. "What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep, as it fitfully blows, now conceals, now discloses?"

From a nurse at St. Vincent's Hospital, New York:

I left for work on Tuesday morning and the thing that struck me most was what an absolutely beautiful day it was. I love New York in the fall. I work at St Vincent's hospital in downtown Manhattan. One of the surgeons called the recovery room from home to tell us that a plane had hit the WTC. He was watching it out his window. We immediately turned on every radio and television that we could find. We couldn't believe our eyes. How did this happen? It's a perfectly clear day outside. This, was not an accident. But, who? Who would do such a thing? I ran to the other side of the building which has a clear view of the trade center. There was the trade center with a huge, gaping hole in the side of it. Our patients were asking us to turn their stretchers around so that they could look out the window (They later would be sorry as they had a clear view of the second plane's impact). It was devastating. Then, over the loud speaker, we heard-Code 3-the external disaster code. No surprise, we had been waiting for the official announcement. As I was walking from one side of the building to the other, the second plane hit. This cannot be happening. We hurried to prepare for the casualties. Set up IVs. Get emergency meds. Sterile sheets, saline, gauze, fluids for the burn patients. Ready the ORs for the traumas. Teams of nurses and physicians braced for the onslaught. I went to look out the window and as I did, I saw Tower 2 disappear. Thousands of lives extinguished before my eyes. I sank to a chair and cried. Quite suddenly, I realized just how many people I knew who would be effected by this and how many may be gone forever. Where is my brother? He's a NYC firefighter. Where is my sister-in-law? She is a NYC police officer, working downtown, at 1 Police Plaza. Oh my God, what about Ed? and Tim? and.....I didn't have time to think anymore. We were getting patients and I had to get to work. It was busy. We didn't eat. It was hard to see all these people. Not only were you handling physical injuries, but also psychological and emotional ones. By the time night rolled around, we were tired but none of us wanted to sleep. We had hoped for so many more patients. The fact that no more patients are arriving is deeply saddening. We kept thinking that someone must be alive down there. Where are all the survivors? By now, I knew that my brother and sister-in-law were okay. They would be working at Ground Zero for months to come. Everyone I was worried about is accounted for. I felt incredibly blessed. I went out for some air on 7th Avenue. Unreal. Cameras lined 7th avenue, military covered the streets. F14s, 16s, Apache helicopters had been flying overhead all day. I feel like I am living in another country. Again, this cannot be happening. I cry somemore. I don't think Ive ever really stopped. [snip]

What do you think should be remembered about September 11th?

The way that we stood as a country, united in our sorrow but also in our resolve.

Did you fly an American flag after the events of September 11th?

Yes, I flew a flag. No, my feelings have not changed. I have always been proud, and felt lucky, to have been born in this country. I have always respected this country, and our flag, even when I might not have agreed with some of it's policies. I grew up listening to my Dad sing God Bless America, with his friends, at every large gathering. I knew the words to that song before I could feed myself. I love this country and that will never change.

I picked out her story because a number of phrases that she said echoed through my mind many times. I think it's true for many people. One of the things that I remembered was how blue the sky was that morning. I live near the airport and the sky was filled with many contrails of planes as they landed at the near by air port and then the contrails faded away and there wasn't even a cloud in the sky. It was blindingly blue and eerily silent.

Everyone seems to remember it the same. Right after I typed the above paraghraph, readthis man's account from Nashville, TN:

I live in Nashville, Tennessee, so I witnessed the events of September 11, 2001 from a distance, via TV and other media, like most Americans. This is what I remember most vividly from that day and the few days that followed: It was a brilliant late-summer day; the unrelenting heat that marks a Nashville summer had begun to die off, and the morning was crisp and clear. [snip]

I remember seeing the live shot of both towers burning, and commenting that the towers were engineered to stand a thousand years, and that this would probably render them unusable, but that they would stand. Seconds later, the south tower collapsed, and I initially refused to believe it, thinking it was the facade of the building. [snip]

There were no contrails in the sky, but I remember looking up and seeing a solitary plane, flying very high and very fast in an eastward direction--almost certainly a military aircraft.

I suppose one may wonder why I posted something about September 11 after my long post yesterday about abandoning freedom. Or would you? Maybe you are all like me and it creeps up on you once in awhile, like a voice whispering in your ear, "Remember".

I have found it hard to forget. Even in the cacaphony over Iraq and "quagmires" (shouldn't somebody give Sen. Kennedy a new dictionary that has more than one page from the "Q" section?) it's still there. It's there every time I see the pictures of car bombs and body parts. You know, the psychiatrists and therapists say that too much exposure to these images is bad for our people. I figure our men and women are seeing them up close and personal so I should not hold myself immune.

The only images I have not been able to make myself watch are the beheading videos. My AF brother called me the first time Nick Berg's video was released and asked me if I had seen it. I told him I had only seen the still shots, but not all of them. He said to me that I should watch it because I should know the enemy and should put the memory in my heart and mind, so I shouldn't forget who and what we are fighting.

I never did. Not because I didn't want to know or remember. I know who and what we are fighting. The media can continue to call these folks "insurgents". I have a few other words for them. None of which include anything nearly so romantic sounding as "insurgent" or "resistance". The words I have for them stick in my throat. My thoughts make me ball up my hands into fists.

I didn't watch the beheading videos because somewhere, deep down, I was afraid. Not afraid of these men or afraid that it would happen to me someday. But afraid I would lose my humanity and vengence would take over. Does anyone undertand what I'm saying? I fear the darkness in me, not in them.

Part of that darkness is because they hid among us. There can be no greater betrayal than to offer the hospitality of your home and then be attacked by the people that you gave shelter and bounty to. This was the betrayal of our freedoms and openness that these men planned and meant to use against us as an emotional weapon beyond the actual attacks on our people and land. The only thing that keeps me from exploding sometimes is the thought that in the tribal world from which they came, that betrayal is "haram", unclean and unacceptable. Except to practice "taqiya" which is the art form of "lying to deceive your enemy" which is acceptable, particularly if the enemy is a "kafir" or unbeliever.

That's some of what I've learned in the last four years. I've learned words that had never before entered by vocobulary and had to think through the morass of information that comes pelting our way in short little clips or long verbal notes from the enemy or on Jihad websites or books or from my Iraqi friends who are suffering under these same folks.

Most of us who read or write on these blogs know these things. We know them because we made it our business, dare I say our "crusade" to do so for so many reasons. To try to understand. To try to get a fix on the enemy. To try to determine what it would take to defeat them. To try to figure out how to protect ourselves from it again. Because, I do not accept that it must happen again. Not that I think that it can't or it won't. But I refuse to believe that it "must".

But, we know many citizens don't know, don't think about it as deeply or often. Whether from purpose or from distance, it's the way it is. It's this way because somebody, somewhere decided that it would be better not to go full throttle on exposure, on information, on explanation. After examining my own emotions, I think I understand a little bit why that might be.

Just my own theory, as I try not to swirl into the darkness that demands destruction, but I wonder if people really understood the enemy and the fight if they would be so complacent and so willing to let things unfold as they have? I wonder if people really understood what went on in Saudi Arabia or in Palestine in regards to television and education, would they feel so complacent and willing to accept that there are "good" Muslims and "bad" Muslims?

You know, without the ability to distinguish between that fact, people might have and may still one day, demand something more in the form of retaliation.

That is what I mean about why I'm afraid to watch those beheading videos. Because, in the thoughts of having to protect me and my family from such a thing, from such episodes as I see in Iraq and Afghanistan, I feel my humanity quake and the darkness whisper "annhilation".

Yes, yes. I know that sounds a little melo-dramatic. I remind myself that the important thing to remember is that I haven't advocated for that. Yet. Of course, I am not crazy and I understand that I'm not imagining anhilating the religion of Islam. I mean, that is, for all intents and purposes impractical and, deep down, residing beside the darkness, is the other part of me that reminds me "not all Muslims follow this creed or wish our destruction".

But, I know from which countries our original attackers came from and I know from which countries many of the hijackers come from and I know which countries have very bad records of inciting or harboring the kind of fanatacism that promotes this.

Then the calmer, reasonable side of me keeps kicking in and reminding me that it isn't necessary. We can fight this war differently. We don't have to revert to old methods. I mean, of course, the old method of total war.

When I see images of Iraq and the "Sunni triangle", it reminds me of why the Norman invaders of England set about burning down villages and fields and slaughtering the animals, even if they weren't going to eat them. It was the basic technique that was used to insure that the conquered had little time for rebellion and spent most of their time figuring out how they were going to survive. It's the concept of total defeat.

That idea, too, keeps wondering around down there with "the darkness", peaking out once in awhile. I stomp it down and recall that "mass punishment" doesn't always work. Does it?

Like I said, I think I have an idea why nobody wants to jam a lot of war information and reminders of September 11 down our throats. Not because of the mass psyche damage it would do, but because someone, somewhere must understand the usual human response to such things and know, maybe, as divided as we are today, had we kept seeing this and kept the people informed of the reality of the enemy and some of our so called "allies", they might demand some other response all together.

Maybe I give them too much credit? Maybe I give them not enough for not calling for such a thing. Who knows.

I find these thoughts wondering around at odd times. Tuesday night I went to get something to eat. As I drove up to the stop light, I saw the car in front of me was an unmarked police car. You know the kind that just has a government tag on the back and some red and blue lights in the back window, but no other markings? As I noted this, I also noted the beat up pick up truck that pulled up beside us in the other lane with an equally beat up plastic tool box in the back. The big kind that stretches across the back of the cab.

For a second, I found myself wondering what it must be like to drive in Iraq today and fear pulling up beside, in back or in front, of a police or military vehicle. I was thinking that it must be the most nerve racking drive to the grocer one could ever take. Little wonder that the people want to stay far away from these guys.

It would completely suck to be sitting at a traffic stop and have a car come barreling out of nowhere to plow into the police car and explode it, or just pull up, nonchallantly, like the truck next to me and then have it explode. No explanation. No warning. No, "excuse me, would you mind getting out of the way so I can kill these guys?".

Just me, listening to the radio and then, "boom!" Gone or damaged beyond belief.

For what?

That's always the question isn't it? I pretend to understand. I read up on the subject, I hear their words, they say why they are doing it and they "justify" it, but, I can't understand it. Not really. Probably because I have not let that darkness ever take me. I resist it as we in the civilized world always try to do. Not to say that people don't give into it. Obviously, some do, even here. Why else would you have a Dennis Rader on TV reciting his crimes so dispassionately as if he was talking about a book he read or simply chewing his food?

It's easy to think these men are a bunch of wild eyed fanatics, chanting themselves into a frenzy before they commit such acts. I know that some do. Especially the "cannon fodder suiciders" as I call them. The newbies that convince themselves to go on Jihad, pack their bags, kiss their families good-bye and tell them that they are going to study at university, only to have their names appear on a Jihad website a few weeks or months later, having driven a suicide car into a pack of kids near a US humvee or into the local restaurant full of police officers and other unknowing innocents.

Those guys do get a mentor that talks them through the process and gets them "revved up" to go do the deed.

But, there are men like Zarqawi and his little commanders who are not fanatics in that sense. They aren't wild eyed and crazy. Well, maybe crazy in our sense, but not in that "put them in a straight jacket before they hurt themselves" crazy. They are the cold and calculating kind. Like Dennis Rader, the BTK killer from Witchita. Calmly and coldly selecting their victims. If there are others around to get hurt, it doubles the pleasure. Then, they sit down and eat their meals, drink their black coffee and tell jokes to one another as if it was another day.

I think now, that even the "darkness" I talk about that lurks inside of me is not even that kind of darkness. In a strange way, I can almost relate to the actual suiciders becaus theirs is at least a passion. My own darkness that screams vengence is not the cold kind, but the angry passionate kind. It is the dispassionate killer that I cannot understand and pray that I never really do.

I believe there is another good reason not to let the "dark" over take us. That is the "passionate vengence" issue. Acts done in haste and poor planning never turn out quite right. Sort of like that old cliche, "vengence is best served cold".

It is so much easier to suppress the passionate vengence actually. Probably because I have had many years of indoctrination that says "civilized people are compassionate and caring and don't plan the mass murder of their fellow citizens".

It strikes me as interesting that this is the very thing that these men want to use against us. I know that there is a theory out there, swimming around that says they actually wanted to provoke us into an all out attack so they could have a big propaganda win that would convince many muslims to run to their side. But, on these days, I think that what they really want to use is that "civilized, compassionate" concept against us.

They think that it makes us weak that we would not readily or needlessly sacrifice our men and women or attack with disregard targets that include men, women and children.

Reminds me of that old, very first "Highlander" movie where the Kyrgyn is in the chapel with McLeod, holy sanctuary where they are not to fight, and Kyrgyn is talking to the priest, but really talking to McLeod when he says, "He cares for these silly humans. That makes Him weak." Or, something to that effect.

Not the first time an enemy has ever thought that about us.

It's also true more than not. I keep reading the military bloggers and they say, "we pulled back and didn't fire because we knew their were women and children in the building" or the one I read recently and wish I could find the link to where they were after a bad guy and usually would throw in a "flash bang" to knock the baddies of balance, but they knew women and children were in there so they didn't. Seems that the "flash bangs" can have a very bad effect on children. Instead, our guys went in without it and two ended up being shot by the bad guy before the others could bring him down.

That's not some made up story to try to "enoble" our military, but a fact.

So, here we are. In someways the same, but in many ways, the important ways, different than our enemy.

And they say it's our weakness. Maybe so. Maybe so.

But, I believe in all reality, that the enemy is a bit blind when it comes to this. They haven't really tasted our steal yet. Just the bare point of it. I wonder if they really think that their families are safe back in their home countries from retaliation or suffering while they galavant around playing Jihad Johnny?

In all reality, these guys don't and can't play in the big leagues. Even if, by some bizarre and pessimistic imagination, these guys do let off a dirty bomb or bio terror, do they know what we would do in turn? Do we know?

You know, the darkness I was talking about. September 11 was one massive, tragic event. It took some serious walking and talking to keep the war drums from beating out "bomb them into non-existence". What would it be like if tomorrow or the next day, a dirty bomb went off? What would it be like if today, twenty suicide car bombs went off in this country?

It is almost too painful to contemplate. Not just the thought of the injuries to our citizens, but what would begin after that.

Which brings me back to that swirling darkness. That's what I fear. Not the physical hurt, but the spiritual hurt. Because, it may galvanize a country that seems so split today about war into a machine that would be even less likely to contemplate mercy or ideas of "Muslim Arab" citizens wondering around free.

For the record, I'm not advocating anything. Just exploring my thoughts on what it might mean.

You know, it is amazing when I look at Iraq and see that, after all the violence, blood and killing, the Shia have not gone on a total rampage and demanded that the Sunni, good or bad, be locked up or driven out. Some part of me fears that we would not be so pragmatic and capable of separation. And, when I say "we", I mean to include myself. A part of me believes that I would not advocate any such idea or feel relief from it. Yet another part of me thinks that, if the circumstances were tragic enough, I'm not sure what I would support.

That's the "darkness" thing I think. I think that my survival and those of my family would start becoming more important to me than "civil rights". Aside from our internal security, I think about what the response would be on our external front. I wonder if we haven't, in an unofficial way, whispered in some folks ears out there in the great beyond, "If this happens again, you will be the first"? I wonder how many we've told that too? If the word was passed along in any significant way?

Well, who knows? Maybe yes. Maybe no.

In any event, I was thinking about it last night. I don't dwell on it all the time. If I did, if we did, I'm not sure I'd be able to function. Which is, of course, one of the reasons why they don't want us to keep watching 9/11 video or other such shots on TV.

Still, I don't want it to go away completely. To let it go means I am not vigilant.

So, I don't let it go.

Read More...

Summary only...

When Should We Abandon Freedom?

In the long course of struggles, it is not without precedent that humankind begins to dispair over the cost of the struggle; the pain of loss and sacrifice, the uncertainty of the outcome. One has cause to wonder if the course we have set, the cause we have supported cannot be won. In every heart, the darkness comes and tries to wipe away the memory, the reason for which we started this course.

In the ever changing tides of ideas and the bombardment of rhetoric, the original idea becomes murky and it seems that it would be so much easier to give up or turn back. It is at this time that we must take stock of all that we have done, how far we have come, the price we have paid and where we are going. In all the struggles of mankind, the battle of ideas has always been the most difficult to sustain. The prize for this battle is intangible unlike wars for land or wealth or power where the prize is a known quantity that can be touched or used upon it's conquest.

The battle for freedom and democracy has never been easy, nor simple because, as an idea, it has continued to evolve and expand over time, space and philosophy. It is not a single object or goal, but complicated and multifaceted. It cannot be held by a single man, but must be held and used by many in order for it to be realized. Yet, as long as one man holds this idea in his mind, it survives and comes again into the consciousness of mankind and the struggle begins again.

Of all things that man could fight for, this one thing can make men go beyond their endurance, can make men take one more step, give one more ounce of sweat and blood. No prize was ever so great or so valued before in the history of man that could turn the weakest of society into the strongest. Land, wealth and power turn to dust and are blown away, yet this thing remains. Its value is beyond compare. No travel to the stars, in oceans deep, in skies of blue, across unchartered lands can compare to the adventure. No gold nor silver nor diamonds nor anything else we hold of value could buy it for us. It has always been bought with the most precious of commodities: blood, sweat and tears.

And the adventure never ends, nor the struggle as we have been warned by those who know that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Throughout the history of this struggle, the idea of freedom has expanded. When once it was simple freedom from a tyrannical government, it became the struggle to free other men, once less valued even in free societies. The struggle to expand the blanket of freedom for all has left the borders of individual states and countries and became the idea that inspires men and women around the globe. In some places, where tyranny has reigned for decades and centuries, the idea of freedom refuses to die. It soldiers on, even in the darkest of prisons, in the last breath of dying men, the hope in the eyes of children and the dream of those yet unborn.

We who live under the blanket of security provided by our own freedom and bought with the blood of liberty's patriots long before us cannot always remember the cost, the uncertainty, the price. It is easy to believe that such men only thought of themselves and their own struggle, never intending or fore seeing that we should continue to fight or to ensure it for others. How easy it is to forget the words they said. How easy it is to forget for whom they struggled. If these men had been so selfish with their ideas, their strength, their blood, surely they would never have survived to create this nation. They would have perished under the weight and we would not exist as we do today.

We have struggled mightily in its defense and we have struggled often to expand it. We have fought for it at home, we have fought for it on distant shores and we the free have been the fire in the torch of liberty for millions.

Who among us then holds this thing so cheap, so selfishly that we would draw a line in the sand and say, "This is as far as I go?"

Would that they had been so weak of heart at Valley Forge or Bunker Hill, who then would we be? If they had abandoned Fort McHenry, what song would we sing? At the bloody ground of Gettysburg, should we have said the price was too much, who would be the slave? If men had not crawled over inches of bloody sand to the battlements at the top of Normandy, what world would we live in?

When have we become so complacent, so greedy, so selfish that we have put a limit on what we will pay for this freedom? When did we decide that freedom can only belong to some, to those we know and not to the many? When did we determine that we owe nothing to others and that they must stand or perish for their own freedom alone?

As we stand on gilded shores and look out upon the world, have we become so jaded that we can see our brothers, just there over the horizon, struggling and dying and remain unmoved by their cries?

Not long ago, as we sat comfortable and supposedly secure in our land and freedom, we were attacked. Thousands of our citizens died. "Why?" people still ask themselves when the answer is clear. It was not for some petty plaint, nor long grievance, nor suppression of others, but simply because free people, free ideas and free markets came in contact with despotic, tyrannical and stagnant ideas in a culture that had not moved significantly from its fuedal state in centuries.

From there comes an ideology so dark that it could conspire to take the lives of innocents without blinking an eye, its creators laughing as they sipped tea and watched it on television. We saw in the land that they occupied what they meant for the people they claimed to be fighting for, they meant slavery and tyranny. They meant the subjugation of women, the illiteracy and usary of children, the death of men who did not agree with them by arbitrary and extra judicial executions, without the rule of law except the law of their own power.

And they claimed to be fighting for freedom for their people.

In what world is that freedom? In what definition of murder and degredation does the word "freedom" appear? Those who claim that these men have any such worthy idea must not know freedom or must hold their very own freedom cheap and without meaning.

In countries around the region, this very ideology has permeated the culture and created a base of people willing to die for such a dark cause. There are those that claim that this cause has equal footing with the cause of freedom. Again, I say, do they hold their freedom, their very lives so cheaply?

There in Iraq, freedom took its first tentative steps the day the statue came down. The metaphor for tyranny was beaten soundly and in short order the real tyrant was captured hiding in a hole as many tyrants throughout history have ended. In that country we saw another dark idea, another oppressor who had no concept of liberty or freedom, but knew how to kill, how to oppress and how to terrorize. For three decades the complacency of the free world allowed this tyrant to exist. We gazed askance at his actions and thought nothing of them, far away as the place and the people seemed.

But we woke to a new day where "far away" was not far enough and greedy tyrants could and would make alliances with other dark forces to ensure their power and maintain their hold. People say that there was no reason or the reason to go was wrong. But, when our soldiers rolled into that land, we found prisons with women, children and old men. We found torture chambers. We found mass graves. We found golden palaces in a land destroyed by greed where the people lived in fear and disappeared for as little as not showing deference to a poster of the "great leader".

Some say this was not enough justification, but if it is not, then what in this world is worth fighting for? Some said that children flew kites and people drank coffee in the cafes, yet not far away behind closed doors, below the ground they played on, men screamed in agony as their hands were removed, their bodies beaten and starved, their very minds destroyed.

Not long after came the second war of Iraq. The war of ideas as those who remained from that evil regime struggled to regain power and they accepted into their midst the very darkness that had destroyed our buildings and killed our people. This same darkness set to work on the people of Iraq with a vengence for daring to believe, to dream of the idea of freedom and democracy.

There we have seen every privation that can be dealt to humans as they indescriminately kill men, women and children without regard to their age, race or creed. With vicious disregard and with only one desire, to gain power, to destroy anything that opposes their ideas, to destroy the dream of millions, they explode vehicles, place bombs on roadways where all travel, they imprison, torture and behead people for doing nothing more than trying to make a living much less believing in that simple idea, freedom, which we hold so dear and which these people have grasped on to as their lifeline.

In the midst of this, there are those who ask when we will leave. There are those that demand that we should leave now. They ask for a time table on which we will abandon the Iraqis.

I ask, "When should we abandon freedom?"

When, in history, should we have said that we are only willing to give this amount of time and no more to the cause of freedom? Was the time to abandon freedom at Valley Forge? Was the time to abandon freedom at Vicksburg or Spottsylvania? Was it in the trenches near Ardenne? Should we have abandoned it at Dieppe or Corregidor? In the mud of Inchon?

Was it already too costly in the ashes of the towers, the Pentagon or the plane in a Pennsylvania field?

We can count the times we abandoned freedom to the calls that it was costing us too much, that it was not our fight. Even from those places, still the people we abandoned looked to us, looked to the torch of freedom and reached for it. Coming from Viet Nam and Cuba in boats that should not float, but did by some miracle. The East Germans who died crossing "no man's land" to reach the other side. The Shia in Iraq who died by the thousands and escaped to refugee camps. Rwandans, Sudanese, South American, Chinese who still smuggle aboard boats to come to the dream that is freedom.

I ask again, "When should we abandon freedom?"

Every time we abandoned freedom, the cost was not just the payment in blood we paid later to retrieve it, but in the chipping away at the idea of freedom itself. And, if it is not our burden to bear, not our price to pay for living this dream, then whose is it?

Today, the price of abandoning freedom is as high as it has ever been. There in the Land of Two Rivers, the forces of darkness are arrayed against freedom. Should they succeed in driving us from this place, from this cause, the price that will be paid is dear, indeed. Not only will it be the blood of the Iraqis, but it will mean that the darkness of tyranny and false ideologies gains a strong foot hold in a land with resources a position from which they can attack the world of freedom at will.

In short, should we abandon freedom there, forsake those who have looked to us for several years, our own freedom will be diminished, our own security will be endangered. It is without a doubt that abandoning Iraq today means that the enemy will gain a victory and be strengthened.

So, when should we abandon freedom? Would we be so willing to toss away our own with such callousness? Are we willing to gain a moment of peace for years of tyranny for our Iraqi brothers? Are we willing to bargain for a second of calm for a future when we and our children will have to face a much greater foe?

When should we abandon freedom?

Update: Brendan Miniter echos my thoughts
Update II: John at Castle Arrggh! links and provides much needed grammatical correction.

Read More...

Summary only...

Long Wars - Recruitment and False Concepts of Popularity

I read this story in the Washington Post regarding recruitment and the concerns with, not just the numbers, but lowering standards and offering incentives that don't seem to be working.

I suggest that you read it all, but I wanted to point out some issues that others have commented on and, as always, give my opinion.

Three questions arise:

· Can the all-volunteer force survive a sustained and unpopular war, regardless of who sits in the White House?

· Will quantity in recruiting become a silent substitute for quality, leading to what is often referred to as a "hollow army?"

· Were serious flaws built into the system more than three decades ago when the Gates Commission (named for its chairman, Thomas Gates) issued its report on creation of an all-volunteer armed forces?

A few comments. First, I've been reading diligently about past "long wars" and their "popularity" before war, in the beginning and several years in. I've also focused on finding letters to and from home in the same context.

One thing is obvious, no matter what war you look at, before the war begins, before the point of "no return" has been upon us, it seems that "popular support" was always split. In most cases there were determined debates about whether Americans should enter into armed conflict. Many efforts were made to avoid it. In hindsight, every war seemed like it could be avoided, but, similarly, at some point, you could always see that war was coming. Of course, I have the benefit of hindsight to say that it was inevitable.

Once war was inevitable, it seemed that great effort was always made to engage the people in support, to volunteer personal service, money or product to the cause. When I read the letters, it seemed as it must always be, those on the home front had trepiditions about sending soldiers to war and possibly to die. Where the soldiers, also showing some trepidition have almost always been ready to go, to fight and to defend, spending their time comforting the people at home that they were doing the right thing.

Within the first year, it always seems that the citizens are behind the effort, but, within a couple of years, if decisive victories were not seen that would point to the end of the war, the worry and trepidition on the home front would begin to show. I noted that the letters and comments from home seemed to change tone by the beginning of the third year.

Even WWII, the grind was telling at home and on the soldiers. At those times, it took the leadership of the country to keep the people rallied around the cause and remind them what was at stake if we lost.

It seems we always have a rosy view of those "glorious" days when people appeared to always rally and support the wars and there was no such thing as "unpopular" wars. Real history, straight from the horse's mouths, seems to say differently.

Before I go on to other salient points, I wanted to say "Viet Nam" one time to remind people that, in all reality, Viet Nam did not start out as an "unpopular" war. There were concerns about sending support forces there, but once it was accepted that the North Vietnamese were being supported by the two largest Communist countries of the time, fighting it was not exactly unpopular. It was only years later when the idea of the war against the spread of communism was lost to the idea that this was really an internal war by Vietnamese for control of Vietnam and the fact that casualties amounted without clear and decisive victories that the war became "unpopular".

Why did this happen? Unlike Roosevelt who kept the people informed about the cause, the problems, the sacrifices AND the victories, Johnson by far, allowed the definition of the struggle to be taken from his hands without any real fight for public support and a definition against the evils of communism.

This is one real problem we face today.

Recruitment and material support are other important issues.

If the nation isn't in an all-out war, the Army and Marines are. If more recruits are in the nation's interest, a new commission could examine options and make recommendations without significant political taint.

Such a commission could consider why recruiting incentives seem insufficient to attract today's youth. Should we consider a new approach based on a different set of inducements? If young Americans and their parents understood why a favorable outcome in Iraq is in our nation's vital interest (and is not just a do-good effort to deliver the Iraqis from oppression) perhaps some of the stigma of serving would disappear.

I can't remember the blogger, but I believe someone has mentioned this already. I will also comment on what I've seen so far. Most of the recruitment advertisement I've seen has been the "pumped up" peace time recruitment advertisement that generally talks about "personal development", "education possibilities" and "growth/job opportunities after military service".

The only advertisement that seems to operate slightly differently is the Marines where they often show the new recruit meeting challenges, changing from a "normal citizen" and becoming a "warrior". I recall one such advertisement that shows the recruit climbing to the top of a mountain, pulling out a sword and vanquishing "evil", wherein his knight's sword turns into a Marine dress sabre and he becomes a well dressed Marine in dress uniform, standing with his other "warriors" in the same.

I'd say, based on the numbers, that the army could learn a thing or two about advertising for recruitment from the Marines. Mind you, they should not lose focus on getting "motivated" and "qualified" personnel, but I think they would do better by focusing on "threats to America", duty, honor and country. Overcoming tyranny, defeating evil.

Let me say, this would not be "false advertisement" either. We are in a battle of good and evil and we definitely need people to understand, this isn't your basic insurgency where two sides of an internal conflict are simply battling for control of a country.

In Iraq, there are two basic forces: old regime/anti-occupation and foreign forces. Both of which are bent on taking Iraq back to darkness and tyranny. Iraq does not stand alone. In Afghanistan, while most major fighting is over, the old Taliban and remaining extremists terrorists, who have linked themselves to the fight in Iraq by establishing "Al Qaida in Iraq" are the same forces and of the same ideological bent. This is the group that attacked us on September 11, 2001.

Despite claims by many that this is not a related war, whether it was in the beginning or not, it is today, without a doubt. It is not "American propaganda" that says so, it is the people themselves in their websites, communications and press releases.

The old regime/anti-occupation forces can be largely resolved with political moves that are underway, but fighting the hard core ba'athists and the Islamic extremists will not be resolved by words or political moves.

This is what the American people have to face and what must be conveyed, continuously, not just by the president, but by the leadership in Congress and other important leaders.

In every war, there comes a time when people have to recognize that there will not be a quick victory, that there are forces arrayed against us that are not ready to give up their idea of spreading their tyrannical ideology where ever they can and these same people, should we withdraw before they are defeated, will not consider it an end to conflict, but our loss of a battle and a time to attack while we are weakest.

This is no hyperbole, but the truth of every force that has ever been arrayed against us and against all other forces of freedom.

Iraq and Afghanistan are battles in the greater war. Not because America or her leaders have said so, but because the enemy has insured that it is so and they proclaim it loud and clear every day with every suicide bomb, with every destruction, with every murder of citizens of those countries and with every attack against us.

If we lose Iraq, we let the enemy reform and refit in Iraq, send support and trained fighters to Afghanistan to take up more vigorous fight there and, without a doubt, we give them a place to plan, recruit and prosecute attacks on the US, US interests and other free countries and people around the world.

I'll let the professionals talk about numbers and books.

The writer goes on to say:

Those who see value in a preemptive approach to public affairs make the case that our commitment to Iraq should be explained clearly before growing disenchantment becomes more widespread. How hard is it to acknowledge the obvious -- that the war we have now in Iraq bears little resemblance to the war we began? Yet the war we have today against fanatics and insurgents is far more serious than the one we started. Ironically, our enemies don't seem to have a recruiting problem.

Another thing a new commission could assess is the impact of fighting prolonged and unpopular wars. Our country will be threatened in the future, and some of the challenges will be ambiguous. If our adversaries sense they can win by wearing us out, surely they will exploit this vulnerability. How can a democracy adjust the national psyche to accommodate different threats in a changing world?

One of the few things that I disagree on with this writer is whether we need a "new study" or "commission". Do we really need to take time to do this when the situation seems clear?

If you want volunteers to fight, you have to give them something to fight for. Money, training and personal development are nice, but they aren't good motivaters nor the only motivaters that should exist in a military and country at war.

Read More...

Summary only...

Update: Rabbi vs. Neo-Nazi - Charges dropped

Just thought everyone would like to know that the charges against both men were dropped on Wednesday, June 22.

Read here

Read More...

Summary only...

Marines Killed and Injured in Fallujah from Suicide Car Bomb

I heard the pundits talking today so I decided I should get out in front of it ASAP.

They are all repeating the same thing: the death and injury of so many female soldiers, who are not supposed to be on the front line, will further damage the US citizens' support for Iraq.

I wonder if that will be the case? As I heard and read the news, I did not feel anymore or less about Iraq or these casualties than at any other time nor if they had been men. That is to say that every casualty hurts. They hurt no more or less because of their gender.

As a person that advocates women in the military and seriously disagrees with any idea that women as a whole cannot perform at the same level as men and believes that their are important roles that women can fill, I cannot feel otherwise when they are injured or killed in the line of duty.

They can and have proven capable of fighting alongside their male counterparts. They have also on many other occassions been wounded and killed along with their male counterparts. Mostly, not in combat but by mortars falling into their bases and from IEDs or VBIEDs while traveling in convoys. Sometimes simply moving from base to base.

As the women in this unit were injured by a car bomb while in a convoy, they unfortunately fall in with the other hundreds of soldiers killed and wounded in the same manner.

The question posed is whether or not this changes our view of the war or any concept of women in the military. The only thing it reminds me is that IEDs and VBIEDs are the number one killers of soldiers in Iraq and I hope soon that we have developed better equipment and better strategies for thwarting these deadly attacks.

Part of me recognizes that there is something in our society that demands women should be protected and, if harmed, should be avenged. I think that you will see this come forward just as much as any anger about being there and needing to leave.

Unfortunately, I believe that you will see both sides of the "women in the military" use this as an item to beat each other with. I hear already the media using it as a tool to beat the entire Iraq campaign with.

I am thinking that it is likely these women were largely volunteers for their mission. From several women military bloggers, I get the impression that they have to ask to go out with convoys and missions. They may get assigned if it is a matter of searching women, but I know several women also noted that they were happy to go do this so that they could play a greater role in securing Iraq. Not for some sort of "I am woman, hear me roar", but because they have the same ethos as their male counterparts: it is duty, it is honor, it is feeling that the direct mission or the over all mission is important.

That is what I want to focus on. Not whether it is right or wrong, but because these women serve, with little complaint and with just as much hardship as their male counterparts. When it comes down to the mission and their service, the women I have had the pleasure to talk to or hear or read, they don't want special recognition for doing the same thing the men do. They just want to do it because it's right.

Is it so hard for people to understand that women can have the same drive as men in regards to honor, duty and country?

Who among us can say that their's is more or less, is more or less valuable, is more or less necessary than any others?

Further, it is an interesting situation when attempting to remove women from the theater would result in a serious man power issue, already a problem in the military today with multiple rotations. Further, there are no battle lines. The only way women could be removed from the situation is to remove them from Iraq completely. If you don't understand this already, it is impossible to do so with out directly affecting our forces, unit coherency and loss of technical expertise. Whether they are clerks, MPs, analysts, pilots, they are there and they exist in a zone of danger no less or more than their male counterparts.

They ask for nothing beyond allowing them to serve as they can and as they wish.

On this post, I do not give you only the name of the woman that is reported killed, but the man who died beside her:

Lance Cpl Holly A Charette, Marine
Cpl Chad Powell, Marine


As the dead and wounded are identified, there will be other names to add to the list, but I believe that these two known and those that will be named deserve but one epitaph:

They served.
The few.
The proud.
The Marines.

On a separate note, with so many dead and injured, I hope our men and women go out there, find the guys responsible and kick their butts back to what ever third world country they came from or, preferably, all the way to Allah. Please give them their wish with a special note of "up yours" from me.

PS..can't resist. Found via Capt. Barb

Did you know that it was a woman that captured number 55 on the Iraq most wanted list? I mean literally ran him down and smacked him with the butt of her rifle. All he kept saying was, "You're a woman." Heh. Nothing gets past these guys.

Read More...

Summary only...

Iran and Syria

Iran elects hardliner.

What a surprise. Not!

Well, all I've got to say is that this either proves that more of Iran is full of crazy Shia Islamists that want death to America and nuclear weapons or this whole thing is such a big sham that this will cause one hell of an uproar and possible revolution.

Could be a middle situation though and that is that those that want political change will be imminently terrorized into not acting as this man will undoubtedly beat the dog out of them left and right.

Either way, we will see how strong the opposition is in Iran.

Bomb Syria?

Barbara Lerner makes an interesting point. Syria continues to directly or indirectly assist in the insurgency in Iraq by not putting additional resources on their border or in infiltrating and stopping extremists from gathering and traveling to Iraq. Maybe it's time to stop recognizing their sovereign borders and start bombing the crap out of the "rat lines"? Of course, I think everyone should know that some of these "rat lines" are actually commercial routes that are funneling people through as regular travelers, business men, religious travelers, students, etc.

One would have to completely cut off all travel in and out of that border which poses a problem with for border tribes who have historically traded across these borders.

So, what should we do?

I don't completely disagree with her idea since it isn't as if this type of activity doesn't have historical precedence. I hate to bring up the "V" word, but, in Vietnam, once we decided that Cambodia and Laos and North Vietnam were no longer off limits, we were relatively successful in cutting off a large amount of supplies and men coming in and out of the area.

Same thing in WWII, prior to our actual entry, we cut blockaded a number of ports in South America to keep ships from coming and going.

So, not sure if this is right now, but I would not take it off the table. As a matter of fact, I would pick some targets, float the info over to Asad and give him a time frame in which he needs to get his border patrol enforced and insurgent crossing decreased.

Syria Map

I note a few places I would start with.

Abu Kamal
Al Asharah
al Mayadin

Otherwise, bombs away.

Read More...

Summary only...

Iraqi Criminals and the Insurgency

Just a quick note, as I indicated on converging wars and tactics, another source, that I can't believe I missed, indicated the same issue:

free Iraqi

Operation lightning (I called it thunderbolt in a previous post so I apologize for that mistake) seems to be going better than what I expected in terms of reducing violence in Baghdad[snip]

Not just terrorist attacks that has been reduced but even regular crimes, as it seems that part of the operation is focusing on capturing regular criminals who are in addition to their usual criminal activities do form, in my mind, the right hand for the Ba'athists.[snip]

Back to operation lightning, a few days ago I witnessed one of these raids by the IP against some thugs in our neighborhood who were apparently part of a big gang specialized in kidnappings and selling arms.

Read the rest on criminals and the insurgency.

Read More...

Summary only...

Operation Home Front: Part II

I understand the President plans to give a speech on June 28th to talk about the progress in Iraq and Afghanistan. Finally. However, I hope he doesn't think that that's all he has to do every 6 months.

In any respect, I'm not the only one saying that the president has been lax and what he and the leaders need to do to keep the American folks en pointe.

Via Winds of change to Adventures of Chester

We witness this same preference two and a half millenia later. When our forces can seek decisive engagement, they are at their most destructive and receive the highest levels of support, and when they are involved in lower-intensity wars which seem to drag on, that same support soon falters.

I believe I said that on Wednesday. Further:

Here is our conundrum: while we are geared culturally, and militarily for decisive battle, our enemies do not give it so willingly. They instead seek to harrass, disperse, and fight against our softer targets, fleeing when we come in large numbers to kill them, returning when we don't find them all and withdraw. This is classic guerrilla thinking and it is being employed with great skill by Al Qaeda in Iraq. Thus it is not our forces which are targeted, and it is not our military which Al Qaeda seeks to defeat, but instead it is our will they seek to rend, and the political victory of our withdrawal is their goal.

This tactic and the issue of public support is the only thing that Iraq and Vietnam have in common. The only things.

Well, that and Ted Kennedy calling it a quagmire. Of course, that's what he said about Afghanistan right before we hammered Al Qaeda out of Tora Bora and drove through Khandahar.

President Bush has a major address planned for June 28th, the one year anniversary of the transfer of sovereignty back to the Iraqis. What will he say?

He needs to give the pep talk of his life. He needs to tell the American people that there has been great progress in Iraq and needs to lay that out explicitly. He needs to give concrete examples of the progress of Iraqi forces and note as clearly as possible how our own presence there depends upon their progress. He needs to spell out clearly where the path to victory leads, and he needs to be very, very clear about the catastrophic results of a premature withdrawal.

He then needs to ask people for sacrifice, and for two kinds of sacrifice. First, he needs to ask for people to join the military. He needs to ask those who've thought about it for awhile to come off the bench and get in the game.

Exactly. Recruitment is down. Why? We don't have the kind of "protect the country from terrorists, join the military today" that we did after Pearl Harbor. The original influx of people into the forces was right after 9/11. Nice recruiting tool, just like Pearl Harbor. However, even that only lasted so long and it took extra recruiting techniques to get people to join. Way back when, it was about service, duty and honor, not money and educational opportunities and I believe that Chester makes the right point when he says that this is not the right tone to strike. People are not looking at a military at war as a place to make their fortune and win degrees.

It should be about the truth. Their are bad guys out there and the military is taking them out and helping Iraqis and Afghanistan gain the American dream. Freedom.

But he also makes the point that I made regarding the citizens of America:

The second sacrifice needs to be from the rest of the population. What it should be I'm not sure, but there needs to be some kind of program that people can participate in, contribute to, and otherwise get a sense of involvement in the war. It needs to not just be such in spirit, but also in effect, such that it won't just give people a feeling of involvement, but it needs to actually help the war effort. It might be adopt-a-soldier, it might be war bonds, it might be a list of charities that help the war effort (like Spirit of America), or it might be something else entirely. There is a great untapped reservoir of popular patriotism and a similar reservoir of desire to be involved and to play a part in victory. The President must tap that vein and find a way for people in general to have a sense of ownership for the conflict in which we are engaged.

Amen.

And, from across the pond, Belgravia Dispatch

Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, acknowledged that U.S. troops, too, were becoming aware of the drop in the public's confidence.
"When my soldiers say to me and ask me the question whether or not they've got support from the American people or not, that worries me. And they're starting to do that," he said.


The Hugh Hewitt's will tell you it's the Dick Durbins of the world that are the root cause of Abizaid's concerns. Or the baddies of the MSM deflating war morale with slanted news coverage. People like Hewitt might have a point, to a fashion. But the real issue, I'd submit, is that no one in this Administration has come clean, really come clean, about how long and hard the war effort in Iraq will be. So the American people have been left surprised and dispirited about how bloody and difficult the going has been. Meantime, rank fools or spinmeisters are declaring victory in the blogosphere and in think tanks. This is as irresponsible and stupid as saying we have already been defeated and should pack up and go home.[snip]

The public needs to be rallied anew to the task at hand. Bush should likely give a speech to the nation spelling out what the consequences of retreat from Iraq would be. And ask the nation for patience and renewed committment to the war effort. He should neither be too optimistic, nor too pessimistic. But he has to treat his public as having heads on their shoulders--and keep the spin and rosy gloss to a mimimum.

I caught the hearings today and I will tell you that there were multiple comments from Abizaid, Casey and Rumsfeld regarding the issue of Public Support on the Homefront being the only way they could really lose this war and that it was one of their major concerns.

If I was the President, next week, when I gave my speech, I'd spend time, as I previously mentioned, talking about specific episodes like young soldiers who rescue their own, rescue civilians, help children, comfort dying children, working with Iraqi forces and episodes when this worked welll.

Then I'd talk about the problems with the borders with these other countries and what we are trying to do to stop it, both inside Iraq and with the surrounding countries.

I might even hav some decorated soldiers on the stage with me. Not a lot, but several including women. Introduce them and tell parts of their stories. Maybe a captain, lieutenant or sergeant that was well spoken, part of the "regular" soldiers, not the big time commanders, and have them tell their stories or observations.

I would be talking about specific bad things that the bad guys have done and who they are. Nothing like the present to get an opportunity to dig into the enemy's propaganda war. I would include things like rapes, drugs, beheadings, chaining people into cars and remote detonating to insure they actually blow whether they want to or not.

I would be making this a big focus on progress with a list of things that still need to be done. Then he needs to ask the people for support and talk about what it means to leave.

Lastly, if he wasn't planning it already, he should ask the American people to contribute to the program by getting them involved, as Chester says and Austin pointed out the other day, in volunteer groups, providing charity to Iraq, anything that puts them in the war with their fellow citizens in uniform.

When this is all done, I'd be looking at the programs we have available and put together an information program that keeps asking people to get involved, serve their country.

Lastly, I think the president should give regular conferences on this subject and in the same format.

Time to get our war faces on.

Read More...

Summary only...

Iraqi Tet Offensive?

No.

I just had to answer that. I heard some guy on CBS, didn't catch his name. He said the fear is that the insurgents will be able to pull of a "tet offensive" all over Iraq.

Let's be realistic here. First, the Viet Cong had a lot more public support. Second, there were a lot more Viet Cong then there are "insurgents" in Iraq. Third, while the insurgents have outside assistance like the Viet Cong that was able to get a lot more equipment sent to them from Russia and China. Foruth they don't have tanks or air force like the Viet Cong and NVA with which to pull it off.

Now, what they could do is what they did in May (to me, that's the closest they can come to a tet offensive) which is let off a bunch of car bombs at once and try to attack specific areas. What you won't see is these guys attacking our bases directly. They've tried. In Qaim, they got their asses handed to them. At Abu Graihb, they got their asses handed to them.

Tet offensive? I don't think so and that's the kind of over blown rhetoric we've all come to know and love.

Frankly, as I was just saying on Iraq the Model, you have to realize that the attacks that the insurgents have been doing have changed drastically. I do mean drastically. Last year, most of the attacks were leveled at police and Iraq military and US forces. They were attacking these forces at their bases, mortaring police stations, infiltrating army posts or driving car bombs into recruitment lines and trying desperately to blow up people at the entrance of the Green Zone.

Those attacks were very costly in time, money and resources (including men). What was proved is that, even when they could take over a police station, they couldn't hold it.

They cannot hold any territory. What sanctuary they have is in small enclaves, in small homes and maybe in the desert in Anbar. They cannot and do not control any of the major cities or even a block in a major city.

Now, in order to conserve resources and get more "bang" for their buck, they are forced to use car bombs to attack super soft targets. Largely civilians or police who are at lunch or dinner in civilian areas.

The number of attacks are quite frankly, no more than they have been. Unfortunately, softer targets mean more casualties. It also shows, as I point out, most attacks are low cost, low personnel, low risk to the leadership, car bombs with very few attacks by men on foot with AK-47s and RPGs.

Just read the miliblogs. They aren't saying that, but what they aren't saying is more important. Bad guys pop up, they go get them. IEDs are being scraped up more than they are going off (note less casualties than usual by these methods so our guys are learning).

However, as winds of change pointed out, IEDs are the major method for killing or wounding our soldiers. Not outright attacks. And since we are having less and less casualties via this method, we must be neutralizing more and more of these.

Thus, by every analysis, one cannot imagine or believe that the insurgents could ever really commit a Viet Nam "Tet Offensive". May was it. Their spring offensive. What is more likely to occur is continued attacks on the soft targets until September when the temperature starts going down an it's close to referendum time on the constitution and election of a new government.

If those come off without a hitch, it will be major blows to the recruiting ability of the insurgents. It would be the second and third process that shows the Iraqis want this. Nothing like showing what the populace wants to make others start thinking it's not worth their time to persue.

Why else would the democrats keep trying to point to American citizens feeling less confident in the war? Lose the people, lose the war.

Now, the question is, can we hold out on the home front long enough to let the Iraqi citizens win?

Read More...

Summary only...

Long War: Operation Homefront

At the onset of World War II there were still questions about the United States giving aid to England. Roosevelt had a difficult time getting the Neutrality Act repealed and convincing congress and the people that this war was important to American interests.

Once Pearl Harbor occured, the fact that war had come to the United States was unavoidable. That didn't mean that the populace wasn't nervous or that their original fervor for vengence and war was quickly replaced by the realities of war. Men died. Commodities became scarce. Victories were far and few between.

In the first two years of the war, McArthur was driven off of the Philipines. We lost Java, Wake Island, Timor, the Dutch East Indies, Corregidor. The battles of the Corral Sea and Midway were touch and go. That was just on the Pacific front. In North Africa, the US forces are handed a hard loss at the Kasserine Pass and in Southern Europe, allied forces made advances that cost thousands of lives.

In those years, it must have seemed the war was unwinnable and the losses unsustainable. Yet the stakes of the war had to be known. Still, it didn't stop the worry and the pain. Everyone participated and everyone sacrificed.

Roosevelt said, in his 1942 address to the nation,

"One front, one battle where everyone in the United States - every man, woman and child - is in action that front is right here at home, in our daily lives."

Today's war on terror barely matches the scale and scope of that global war, yet it has just as much importance for securing the United States, protecting it's interests abroad and reshaping the world where freedom can reign supreme.

Some would argue that this war is nothing like World War II. Certainly, the forces arrayed against us cannot match the production or scale of armies as the axis powers once did. The new enemy's tactics seem different, yet they are only so in terms of scale and method of attack. Their aims are hardly different nor the outcomes of attacks. They mean to kill Americans and any of their allies, damage our interests where ever and however they can and force our withdrawl from the field, allowing them control of a vital region that would not only effect the United States, but every nation in the world.

Which ever war is the preference for comparison, there is one fact that remains clear: without the support of the nation, without the participation and support of the American citizens, war cannot be won.

In Iraq, we don't see near the devastation and death that came to us in any past wars, discounting the little wars in Panama, Grenada, Desert Storm or Serbia/Kosovo where we barely committed war. There was no need for long term committment from the citizens. Battles were engaged and quickly completed. Massive forces were not required to take and hold land. It was easy to accomplish in comparison and easy to celebrate. The speed at which these were conducted gave Americans the false hope that all wars would and could be completed thusly.

Even Afghanistan saw major warfare completed within three weeks. Unfortunately, even there, the enemy is tenacious and small battles continue. Yet, in this war, unlike those other small wars, unlike Desert Storm, our job is to take territory from the enemy, hold it and deny him sanctuary. And, unlike these small wars, there is a true struggle of ideologies.

Afghanistan and Iraq are both fronts of the war on terror. There are those that think otherwise. This has been the failure of the administration to keep the focus on that subject and keep that idea in the front of Americans' minds. When there was no WMD, or at least, very little compared to expectations, suddenly the argument that this front, along with Afghanistan, was part of the greater war, lost some of it's strength and caused support to slowly swing away. Particularly in the face of few victories that would be recognized by the American populace. Unlike WWII where the battles were specific and were won or lost in straight forward decisions, this war, a long guerilla war, cannot be measured the same, but that is the expectation of the people.

The problem of keeping the focus on this war as part of the war on terror, is not really hard at all except that we have not done so in a concerted effort. The war in Iraq has been separated by the media and the opposition from the war on terror and labeled an "insurgency". While it is true there are anti-democracy Iraqi forces fighting in Iraq, it is also true that a wide swath of the fighters involved in killing people are non-Iraqis, affiliated with different jihadist terrorists groups and coming to Iraq specifically to kill Americans, kill our interests and take the land of Iraq as their base.

It is as straightforward as that.

After September 11, the president told people what they could do to help in this war on terror was to go home, to shop, to live their lives as they always have and help save the US economy, providing more tax money so the government could rebuild and conduct a war. He did ask the populace for patience and support and told them it would be a long war.

An excellent thought, but the wrong one in the long run. It was at this moment that the President could have and should have built on his support base and created a mechanism by which he could continue to engage the American population with information on the war, created a fighting force on the home front; one that would engage the public in the fight.

His few attempts at creating "tips" for American citizens and workers were shot down, but instead of turning it into an unregistered movement and continuing to press people to pay attention, it slipped from our sight. Instead of using American citizens to develop more home front security programs, the government developed "expert" programs where only a few would participate. Yes, he asked shipping companies to become involved, but he did not organize a port or coastal defense by the citizens. We're talking volunteer forces, of which a few went out and did it on their own. I read a recent story where retired military that had their own small planes had taken to flying their local coastline to look for problems. There were those that drive their boats around and look for the same.

Yet, we are only talking of a few intrepid folks who decided to organize and go on their own. There was no official support or recognition by the government.

The issue of border security came up. This was pointed to as a danger. There was talk of increasing money and materials to the official border patrol, but when a group of citizens calling themselves The Minutemen went to the border to help secure it, instead of the government using them as a resource and getting the CBP to use them as a resource and coordinate, the President called them vigilantes and the CBP engaged in a turf war.

At every turn, the president has rebuffed the citizens of this country from becoming involved in this war that is supposed to effect all citizens except for the military. Even then there is little in the way of asking citizens to step forward and join the fight besides the usual recruiting advertisements for the different branches. None of which talk about serving the country in a time of war. Instead we have Freedom Corps, which, while asking for citizen contributions to America, does not receive much in the way of advertisement nor verbal support by the President or any other officials. Further, there are only a few areas that would apply as being part or involved in securing the United States or assisting directly with the war effort. That's limited to emergency first responders and programs to send packages and letters to the soldiers at the front.

In short, the administration has failed miserably in engaging the public in this war. It may even be too late.

The question that has been perplexing the citizens these days is, "Are we at war or aren't we?"

They aren't talking about whether our military is abroad and fighting. From the way the President has allowed the discussion to come down to whether we should withdraw from Iraq and whether we should be there or not because the public now believes it is a civil war, not part of th war on terror.

If one wants to compare this situation to Viet Nam, there would be the comparison. Then the administration allowed the opposition to convince Americans that Viet Nam was simply a civil war and not a proxy war being fought by the Communists that were a threat. Instead, it was troop deaths and long war without a true ideological support of the populace.

Now it seems that we are to forget about the dangers, forget about the wars, pay no attention to those explosions behind the curtains, listen to the man about Social Security, Gay Marriage, Judges and Gitmo.

The most anyone heard about Iraq and Afghanistan was in the lead up to elections. And then, poof, it disappeared from the administrations dialogue.

The problem isn't just the president. Where were the senators and the representatives that voted for this war? While these folks are on recess, are any of them planning to take time to talk to the constituents and re-build their support?


Karl Rove says that the President speaks to the commanders every week. Why isn't he telling us at least once a month in a Presidential press conference the progress?

Where's the President? Where's the senators and representatives? Where's the returning soldiers and civilians that can talk about the people and the progress? About the importance?

American citizens have always been ready to step up. 9/11 proved that. The people have been rebuffed. Now the President is going to have to ask them to step up, get involved, serve in more than just the Freedom Corps, but serve in the military, help with homeland security issues.

We need an "Operation Homefront".

Read More...

Summary only...

Burning the Flag Bill and Other Free Speech

Today, I must write something that, deep inside I am conflicted about, but, also deep down, I realize that I must defend because I believe in this country and in the tenets of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

For several years, there has been a discussion about making flag burning, specifically the flag of the United States, illegal. Today, the house passed a bill by a wide majority that makes this activity illegal and is sending it to the Senate.

As much as I find the practice of burning our flag to be hateful and reprehensible, I must strongly disagree with this bill as it violates the tenets of the First Amendment guaranteeing the right to free speech.

Before anyone reading this flies off the handle, let me explain. This belief by me is not because of some protester screaming that they have the right, the ACLU or simply trying to interpret the First Amendment too broadly.

Amendment One

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.

No where does it say that the right to burn a flag is protected in specific language. ON the other hand, there is no language set out in the original consitution that prohibits it. But, the things that I find most compelling against making any such law is "congress shall make no law respecting...or abridging the freedom of speech...and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

Why did our founding fathers write this First Amendment? Was it simply because they were very smart and thought this was a way to insure the people held the government in check and accountable? This was a reason, but it had historical precedent, even in the short time before they wrote this.

During the American Revolution and just prior to, the citizens of the American colonies tried to make their voices heard to the appointed governors and King George. They wrote letters and news articles and, eventually, they assembled to protest the English government's activities including such things as the famous Boston Tea Party, the equally famous Boston Massacre. Thomas Paine and many others wrote pamphlets denouncing the activities of the crown and it's representatives.

On several occassions, as the rhetoric heated up, effigies of the king were burned, flags were burned, other activities were undertaken to show their displeasure with the British Government.

In return, the British would arbitrarily imprison people for "acts of sedition against the crown" which included the above acts. If pamphlateers were arrested, they were lucky not to be hanged.

Our forefathers knew this. They had been persecuted for seeking redress with their government of the time and, the only way they could get it's attention without open rebellion (which was soon to come since the government ignored them), was to take extreme actions including burning the British flag and the king in effigy.

Therefore, as painful and as disgusting as I find the act, I cannot with any good conscience, support any act or bill that diminishes this right, the first amendment.

Amendment 9

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I would prefer, of course, that people simply love this country like I do and respect the flag that represents the freedoms that are given by living in this great country.

That would be too much to ask.

However, as one military motto states, "This we will defend" and I defend with all vigor the Constitution of the US, the Amendments thereof and all guarantees provided and implied.

Therefore, I cannot defend nor support any law that would "disparage" those rights that are given and retained by the people, in particular, the right to free speech, up to and including the burning of the flag.

Islamic Thinker's Society LGF

You've probably heard about them on the TV. According to the article:

On the evening of July 11, 2004, Kristine Withers walked down 37th Avenue, a main drag in Jackson Heights, Queens, and passed what had become a familiar sight: a group of tables set up on the sidewalk by the Islamic Thinkers Society, a local group of militant Islamists. On the tables, copies of the Koran and books espousing the group’s strict religious beliefs shared space with tracts on Zionism, pamphlets on the dangers of homosexuality, and signs bearing messages like “Your Terrorists Are Our Heroes.”

According to the rest of the article, these men allegedly advocate "peaceful change", believe that America should be destroyed, peacefully, and become an Islamic country.

Now, at first glance, one might wondered why these men have not been arrested already. Well, quite frankly, they haven't done anything illegal. Wrong, reprehensible, disgusting, stupid, yes. Illegal? No.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of idiots running around this country advocating destruction, secession, talking about Zionists, the dangers of homosexuality, etc and they aren't all Muslims. Even the hatefull KKK has the right to free speech. So do these guys.

However, just like the KKK, I imagine that these groups are being monitored, as they should, for activities that give direct material aid in the form of money, logistics or personnel to the enemy.

Let me also remind us of historical facts. During the Revolutionary War, there were people who were outright Royalists and gave physical aid to the enemy, but there were just as many people who were simply vocal supporters and believed that we should stay within the British Empire. During the Civil War, there were people living in the North that believed the Southern States had a right to secede and did not support the war. They spoke, but did not give physical aid. During WWII, the reprehensible and disgusting American Nazi Party that went so far as to wear brown suits, swastikas and give the "sieg Heil" salute.

This was all, bizarrely, but honestly, protected free speech. However, what these groups could rely on was that they would be monitored, infiltrated and destroyed if they did actually give physical comfort to the enemy, commit an actual crime or participate direcly in the harming of citizens or property.

That's my expectations.

Frankly, I'm not scared of these punks. They are almost laughable if they imagine they can change this country. However, if they convince others to take action against this country from within or do so personally, then I believe that, as they are American citizens, they should be charged with treason and treated accordingly.

How do we combat reprehensible free speech?

Well, we've been doing it on the blogs and in person for a long time now. Basically, we combat it with more free speech, better free speech and ideas. We confront it for the stupidity that it is. Peacefully, but with vigor.

Now, where is the Protest Warriors when you need them?

Read More...

Summary only...

Bad News

A miliblogger was injured in an IED blast. TC Override.

His wife reports that he is on his way to Landstuhl and still full of humor. He wanted to know if he still had his legs and "package". Aside from that, info is sketchy. Go offer support.

Read More...

Summary only...

Linked By Blackfive

I just wanted to say a big "thank you!" to Blackfive for linking to my post on Converging War and Tactics.

And a special thanks to Beth who sent him the link.

Read More...

Summary only...

We Have Not Yet Began To FightInformation War

"Give us the tools, and we'll finish the job." [1]

Five months have passed since I spoke to the British nation and Empire on the broadcast. In war-time there is a lot to be said for the motto "Deeds, not Words." All the same, it is a good thing to look around from time to time and take stock. And certainly our affairs have prospered in several directions during these last four or five months far better than most of us would have ventured to hope. [snip]

So, if our first victory was the repulse of the invader, our second was the frustration of these acts of terror and of torture against our people at home.[snip]

Here, then, we see the beginnings of a process of reparation and of the chastisement of wrong-doing which reminds us that though the mills of the gods grind slowly they grind exceedingly small.[snip]

One of our difficulties is to convince some of these neutral countries in Europe that we are going to win. We think it is astonishing that they should be so dense as not to see it as clearly as we do ourselves.[snip]

But I must drop one word of caution, for next to cowardice and to treachery, overconfidence leading to neglect or slothfulness is the worst of martial crimes.[snip]

Put your confidence in us. Give us your faith and your blessing, and under Providence all will be well. We shall not fail or falter; we shall not weaken or tire. Neither the sudden shock of battle nor the long-drawn trials of vigilance and exertion will wear us down. Give us the tools and we will finish the job.

Winston Churchill February 9, 1941

Other Churchill Quotes

You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory. Victory at all costs - Victory in spite of all terrors - Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival.

Winston Churchill

I have not yet begun to fight!

John Paul Jones USS Bonhomme Richards 1779

Thoughts keep going round and round in my mind: "Stay engaged. Stay engaged. Stay engaged."

I'm not talking about me, I'm talking about the administration and the American people. In this war, as in every war, part of the battle is the battle of information. The war of words and images, both in the United States and abroad.

I'm not the only person thinking it or talking about it. I actually wrote Kit Bond, my local Senator on the subject. I asked him where was the administration's information war? Of all the things that one would think this administration would be half way decent about, considering the alleged prowess of one Karl Rove, it would be knowing how to prosecute a war of words.

Anyone that thinks that we can win this war simply by allowing the free press to say whatever they want without the administration having its say, too, is fooling themselves. And, as I've noted on more than one occassion, the administration has been absent most days on this issue. Barring a few moments like State of the Union Addresses and Innaugural Addresses, the administration has abandoned the field on the war of words concerning our fight against the terrorists and particularly the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, two separate, but equally important fronts on the war on terror.

They are making the mistake that has haunted us since Viet Nam: allowing the enemy and opposition to frame and define the battle.

As in political battles and, as John Kerry and John Edwards know, once you allow the enemy to define you and your cause, you now have an upward battle if not lost the war. Frankly, we are spiraling that way now.

It's not as if the opposition or the enemy haven't been trying to do it all along, but long wars require long and concerted efforts. It can't rest solely on the shoulders of Condi Rice going to the Middle East and talking about freedom and democracy. That is an excellent start, but it certainly shouldn't be the limit of our efforts.

And what about our other efforts?

Well, it's about like advertising a pogo stick when motorized scooters are all the rage. In other words, it stinks. Bad.

Let me say the obvious; there are two fronts in this war: the home front and abroad.

It should be more than obvious to anyone with eyes to read and see that we aren't winning this battle on any front. Yes, it was great that the Iraq election happened, but guess what? People are still dying over there. It didn't end the war. The terrorists still come and die and our men and women still get wounded or die. Thus, the war is not over and we should not be sitting back pretending that it will all just dwindle away eventually and we need not be concerned about the long term efforts to keep the public engaged in this "war of generations".

On the home front, the President has not been visible talking about the progress in Iraq. Neither have many of the senior officials. Press releases are nice, but they only get so much play time. Even the press releases from the front are drilled down to "number of US, Iraqi forces and "insurgent" deaths". And when I say that the administration should get out there and talk, I mean, instead of giving some general blah, blah, blah about schools built and construction underway, how about a weekly press confrence by the President or upper official that talks about specific positive incidents? Like this from Austin Bay:

The Iraqi Army is assuming responsibility –in large measure– for security operations outside of Baghdad. MOI is taking the lead in the Baghdad region. That noted, one particular Iraqi Army battalion has had huge successes in Baghdad. Led by a Sunni colonel identified as “Colonel Muhammad,” in early 2005 this battalion “cleaned up” Haifa Street. Last week a platoon from this battalion found and freed the Australian hostage, David Woods. (I should mention a second hostage was freed in that operation, an Iraqi civilian who had been kidnapped and was held for $50,000 ransom. A military source told me that the hostage takers were “former regime elements,” not Baghdad criminals, but had taken the Iraqi hostage to raise money. He saw this as an indicator that this particular resistance group was running out of cash.) [snip]

Haifa Street is indeed an improved situation. BG Horst and Colonel Muhammad had shared a cup of tea in a sidewalk cafe on Haifa Street. The notorious “boulevard of resistance” has changed. [snip]

Mike Hedges joked that Colonel Muhammad is the “Rudy Guiliani of Baghdad.” The man is getting that kind of reputation. He has also — so far– had 43 threats against his life. I’ve written about heroic Iraqis and we’ve seen the purple-ink stained fingers. Colonel Muhammad is a revolutionary hero.

Yes, Austin Bay is a national columnist, but these stories need to be recognized by the administration and spoke about specifically, to the public in general and at large. Pictures would be nice. You know, the only pictures we get to see are pictures of burning things, car and body parts. Why don't they give a presentation on a regular basis?

Let's see another story from Austin:

On June 7 SFC Villalobos and four Iraqi soldiers defeated a close-in urban ambush. Villalobos is the mortar platoon sergeant in Fox Troop, 2nd Squadron, 3rd ACR, but he was working with a US team advising an new Iraqi Army brigade. An Iraqi Army battalion was conducting the raid with back-up provided by US troops. Villalobos described the intense action –where a US soldier died– in a careful, humble voice, but then so often that is the voice of extraordinary valor. Five insurgent fighters ambushed a US adviser in a narrow, twisting street. The resulting firefight lasted ten minutes. Part of the Iraqi platoon withdrew, but SFC Villalobos and an Iraqi Army fireteam returned fire and tried to reach the wounded US officer. Villalobos finally threw a heavy fragmentation grenade at the insurgent position, killing one and wounding three.

These kinds of stories including specifics about rebuilding efforts and pictures of anything that resembles "normal life" would go a long way.

I said pictures because, despite all the hoopla about the sophistication and cynicism of the new generation concerning "propaganda", any person in advertisement will tell you that "pictures speak a thousand words" and I'm afraid the pictures coming out of Iraq say, "insurgents are running free blowing up our soldiers and Iraqi citizens at will and all our military can do is drive up after the explosion; by the way, exploded cars and screaming people are all that exists in Iraq."

Nobody, especially the administration, is making an effort to change that image or give it context or opposing views of our boys going in and rousting out a bad guy or taking children to the hospital after the homicide bombers do their disgusting deeds. Where's the images of the atrocities the insurgents have committed? They get about two seconds on the air and are quickly replaced by repeated images of white faced Jacko or Durbin's referring to our folks as "Nazis".

As I noted, I'm not the only one wondering. In the same article, also printed here at Real Clear Politics:

This return visit to Iraq, however, spurs thoughts of America -- to be specific, thoughts about America's will to pursue victory. I don't mean the will of US forces in the field. Wander around with a bunch of Marines for a half hour, spend 15 minutes with National Guardsmen from Idaho, and you will have no doubts about American military capabilities or the troops' will to win.

But our weakness is back home, in front of the TV, on the cable squawk shows, on the editorial page of The New York Times, in the political gotcha games of Washington, D.C.

It seems America wants to get on with its Electra-Glide life, that Sept. 10 sense of freedom and security, without finishing the job. The military is fighting, the Iraqi people are fighting, but where is the US political class? The Bush administration has yet to ask the American people -- correction, has yet to demand of the American people -- the sustained, shared sacrifice it takes to win this long, intricate war of bullets, ballots and bricks.

I concur. Certainly, the president's past speeches have been inspiring. But, I put Winston Churchill at the top of this post for a reason. He knew that he had to get out in front of the war effort and keep his people's spirits up and engaged lest the stiff upper lip begin to wobble and thoughts of committing peace with a terroristic, tyrranical regime start to filtrate into the public. Of course, they were under constant bombing so it probably stayed on the Brits' minds more than our own war, but it still makes the point: the leader of the free world must continue to engage his people and buck up their courage, even in the darkest hours, especially when the war is long and the end is not clear nor in sight.

I'm also reminded of Roosevelt's "fireside" radio addresses. In today's world, the President gives regular Saturday radio addresses still. What's wrong with that? Nothing except that it's not carried on major radio stations across the country and that television is still the major media market. Where's the budget for buying time on these stations? Where's the pressure on these stations to allow some time for the President to make addresses?

What are we worried about? That suddenly the President will become one of those "cult of personality" leaders? How about just convincing the stations that the President will have something interesting to say or present? Is there something wrong with developing a good information program to accompany this war?

I'd say "propaganda", but every time I say it, people shudder because the words have such negative impact, but, whatever you want to call it, propaganda or information, it's missing.

It's not just the efforts at home that are missing, but our efforts abroad are lacking funds, focus and creativity. Hey, you don't believe me, read what the folks in the "far and abroad" have to say about our efforts:

Daily Demarch: we have met the enemy and the enemy is us

Earlier this week an alert reader sent me a link to an article entitled "Real Men Moisturize" at Townhall.com. I did not, at the time, follow up on it. Now Little Green Footballs has beat me to the punch. The Townhall piece refers to an article from "Hi" magazine (Sharp-dressed Men). I have long been an advocate of aggressive public diplomacy (see here, and here, and here and here for a few examples), and I believe that the use of the Internet to reach out to audiences we may not reach with "traditional" methods, via an on-line magazine, is a great way get more bang for our PD buck. But this is ridiculous.

Mona Charen, the author at Townhall.com asks the following:

Is this what the U.S. State Department thinks America is really like? [snip]

Why? For the specific, stated purpose of ridding us of our macho culture. And so we must present ourselves as girlie-men (aka metrosexuals) to our opponents.
This is not some kind of blunder by the State Department -- it's a conscious policy decision.

Maybe the next issue of this stupid magazine will include articles like "Real Men don't blow up children" and "Real Men don't commit honor killings" or "Real Men don't get bent out of shape cus somebody looked sideways at their stupid koran"
Maybe getting them to moisturize is just the first step down the road to being civilized.

I agree whole-heartedly with the second commenter quoted above, and have to assume that there was some editorial control over the article, so it certainly is someone's policy. What I can't figure out is why. Why are we not providing articles on Muslim success stories in America?

Exactly. That was exactly what I was thinking when I was reading this article from the Jordan Times, via Terrorism Unveiled:

Al Hurra, the US government-funded satellite television facility that airs its product to the Middle East, hasn't caught on. Kicked off with much fanfare on Valentine's Day 2004, the $100-million-plus station (the name of which means “The Free One” in Arabic) has been met with more disdain than acceptance in the Arab world. But abandoning it altogether is not an option at this point. What is urgent is determining how to fix it. [snip]

The station can provide a nuanced expression of the interest Americans have towards Arab lands in an effort to establish a dialogue. It could also stimulate audiences to find out more about the United States in all its complexity.

Al Hurra's strategy, however, does not jibe with these objectives. Its focus has been to win audience share in perceived Middle East “media wars” by aiming for slick commercial television — by trying, if you will, to out-Al Jazeera, [snip]

Judging from the Arab and other media, Al Hurra is in fact widely considered dull US propaganda, unsubtle American imperialism in electronic form, which does little to stir audience interest in the United States.

Which leads to several points he makes on what could be done:

Focus on C-Span-type programming relevant to Middle East audiences[snip]

Air in-depth documentaries on serious, relevant issues produced by local filmmakers. A priority theme should be the historical links between the United States and Arab countries[snip]

Create an effective website. Al Hurra's current site at http://www.Alhurra.com/ consists of only one page, an almost offensively simple listing of its programmes in English and Arabic. Given the increased importance of the Internet in the Middle East, especially among young people, the site should be far more detailed and user-friendly, providing up-to-the-minute news and links. [snip]

Establish a legal mechanism that would allow Al Hurra to be seen more widely in the United States, making it possible for interested lay persons and specialists to view its programmes easily and thus be better able to critique it constructively[snip]

Nonetheless, there should be a better way to inform Americans — including Arab-Americans, who could provide valuable feedback on Al Hurra's programmes — about what their government is doing in the field of information in the Middle East.

On this channel, I'd definitely be showing some reality TV or interviews of Arabs living in freedom and democracy, how they square their religious life with living in a democratic, liberal country, how they maintain their cultural ties, etc.

How about carrying sports? Baseball, football, etc? National Geographic? Right now I'm watching bull riding. Wouldn't that be an interesting thing to show once in awhile? Want to see cowboys? Here you go. Then some suburban and urban life.

There have got to be better things than what we're showing now.

Frankly, the guy that wrote this article says they can't operate 24/7 and can't afford to have stringers on site that can report incidents around the world or even locally. Why aren't we giving this more money? Because it hasn't proven legitimate yet?

I know that Arab music videos are very popular. Why don't we use a similar selection of music from Al Sawa radio for an hour? How about putting some effort into marketing and getting commercial advertisers?

This ought to be an all out effort and our politicians should be giving interviews to this station left and right, interviewing democracy movement folks from Egypt and Lebanon and Iraq. They ought to be showing Iraqis building their country. How about a 60 mins of the middle east? (sans Dan Rather of course)

How about some movies? The Patriot with Mel Gibson comes to mind. The recent A&E movie about George Washington and Benedict Arnold. Independence Day with Will Smith. Glory with Matthew Broderick? Of course, it doesn't have to be war movies, I'm just saying, something that shows that the American people believe in freedom. I'd even settle for some documentaries about the founding of the country, the consitutional process, civil rights movements, anything at this point.

What are we doing and why have we ceded this ground to the opposition? Why are we ceding the ground to the enemy?

We've got Gitmo and Nazi comments and Koran abuse. Where's the indepth stories about the bad guys torturing and murdering people? Rape, drugs, pillaging, chained into homicide cars and blown up remotely in case they chicken out?

Where's our propaganda war?

I intend to start asking this question a lot. It's being left to a few to try and get this done. It's being left to some writers, the blog world and Fox news to keep fighting the war of words in the US with little support or assistance from the administration with anything as simple as some decent press conferences.

Our Iraqi allies, particularly the bloggers that were pro-invasion, are getting nervous, too:

Dear Friends,

Just a quick note, to the American public: this is no time to lose heart, the fight is just now changing gear. We the Iraqis are confident of winning this battle. This so-called “insurrection” may be characterized as the “Unpopular Revolt” rather than the opposite. It is doomed to failure. We have never pretended that this can be achieved overnight. It takes time and struggle, but to those who think that the insurgency is growing I would like to say this: It is the power of the people that is growing, it is the strength and effectiveness of the new patriotic security forces that is growing, such forces that are for the first time in our history representative of the majority of the people. Time is on the side of the people and not their enemies.

Yes, this is no time to lose heart friends.

You think anyone could get this printed in the news papers, read on Fox News?

Just to be plain here, because I think that we should be plain spoken. As much as I am interested in the domestic scene and believe that we cannot abandon domestic issues, even during a war, the president wasn't re-elected because of gay marriage, social security or activist judges. Sure, that scores points with a nice group of Republican folks. Frankly, the social security issue concerns me, too.

BUT, and that is a big "BUT", this president was re-elected for two reasons and two reasons only: The war on terror (strong defense and foreign policy) and the fact that, after September 11, his policies kept us from falling into a depression, circa 1929.

That's it. He had political capital but he is quickly spending it away and he isn't getting it back. If the Republican party wants to be re-elected in '08, they better make sure that Iraq comes out right and we get a few more top bad guys. Another democracy movement would be good.

Anything. Otherwise, they can kiss '08 good bye.

Besides that, if we want to avoid another embarrassing pull out like Viet Nam (the only Viet Nam comparison I intend to make) where we left the people to their own devices for "peace with honor", the US citizens need to get involved. I'm not the only one thinking along these lines either.

Viet Nam Syndrome.

Cutting out in the middle of an insurgency would have incalculable consequences. Islamist extremists would see this as the defeat of the world's only superpower -- and a clear track for jihadi mayhem in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Pakistan, not to mention a civil war in Iraq.

But the American people know more about Social Security's cloudy future than about the stakes in Iraq. It is now incumbent on Mr. Bush to use the bully pulpit to spell out the tragic geopolitical consequences of failure in Iraq. Failure is not an option. But at present, failure is an all too tragic possibility.

Karl Rove can't wait for the dog days of August -- or another Michael Jackson circus to keep the president's poll numbers from getting any worse. But only Mr. Bush can do that. From Abu Ghraib to Sen. Richard Durbin's addlepated remarks about Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot, the U.S. continues losing ground all over the world. Repair work is long overdue there.

Austin Bay also made this comment:

One afternoon in December 2001, my mother told me she remembered being a teenager in 1942 and tossing a tin can on a wagon that rolled past the train station in her hometown. Mom said she knew that the can she tossed didn't add much to the war effort, but she felt that in some small, token perhaps, but very real way, she was contributing to the battle.

"The Bush administration is going to make a terrible mistake if it does not let the American people get involved in this war. Austin, we need a war bond drive. This matters, because this is what it will take."

She was right then, and she's right now.

My next post on this subject I will be exploring WWII Department of War Information and why it was so successful.

Just for starters, don't think it was successful because everyone believed in the war. Before Pearl Harbor, folks wanted to avoid the war, too. It was a big debate.

What's different now?

Update: Read Winds of Change

It remains to be seen whether the US and the current administration will be able to successfully counter this strategy while it still has the political will and capital to do so. If they want to, however, they're going to have be willing to fight for Iraq as hard politically as our troops have been on the ground.

Read More...

Summary only...

Should We Be At War With Saudi Arabia?

via Iraq Fils

Who are the Foreign Fighters dying in Iraq?

An NBC News analysis of hundreds of foreign fighters who died in Iraq over the last two years reveals that a majority came from the same country as most of the 9/11 hijackers — Saudi Arabia.

Among the suicide bombers was Ahmed al-Ghamdi, a one-time medical student and son of a Saudi diplomat. In December 2004, he climbed into a truck in Mosul and blew himself up.

On an Internet video, another Saudi says goodbye to his mother, then drives an ambulance full of explosives into a building.

They are among more than 400 militants from 21 countries whose deaths were celebrated on Islamic Web sites over the last two years.

"By far the nationality that comes up over and over again is Saudi Arabia," says Evan Kohlmann, an NBC News terrorism expert.

The NBC News analysis of Web site postings found that 55 percent of foreign insurgents came from Saudi Arabia, 13 percent from Syria, 9 percent from North Africa and 3 percent from Europe.

Or are we at war with them already and we just won't declare it officially?

Read More...

Summary only...

Time Tables and Withdrawal

So, here we are, replaying a bad moment from history with people insisting that there be a time table for withdrawal from Iraq.

Here, we are re-playing Viet Nam. Withdrawal is not strategic here. It is not a matter of allowing the locals to sort it out. This is a matter of winning and losing. Withdrawal from Viet Nam was not "peace with honor". That was admitting defeat with some pretty words to save people's egos. Those of us who remember history correctly remember that defeat has consequences. When you committ to a fight, you commit to win. You don't stop in the middle of the fight because you got punched in the nose and your lip is split. Particularly when your opponent has two black eyes and is slugging like Mike Tyson on barbituates in the tenth round. Sure, he might land another blow that hurts, but you know that defeat means you leave the big ring and don't come back, spending your days down in some dumps, fighting crappy little prize fights hoping to stay alive.

The consequences of Viet Nam withdrawal was the death of and imprisonment of millions. The millions we abandoned. There is no honor in giving your word and leaving. That is he cowards way. Too bad we have so many that were elected to office.

But, if we're honest with ourselves we will admit that it isn't the elected officials that are calling this shot. This is the American public. A public that hasn't found anything to fight for in decades. Sure, we like quick clean wars, but there are a lot of "fast food" folks that apparently can't hang for the long haul. A war that lasts more than a few months? Apparently, that's too hard.

The best of us are in Iraq, fighting it out. They know who and what we're fighting for and they know who will pay the price if we leave. It isn't just the Iraqis, though. Every democratic process underway will get weakened. We will be targets; big targets.

Despite those that insist the war is "creating" terrorists, the only thing it is doing is drawing the jihadists within Iraq fighting the military directly. We withdrawal and we invite them to create their next base of operations in the middle of the very territory that puts them closest to their logistic, material and monetary support. That means they can operate with impunity, spread out faster and set up operations that attack American interests or America directly.

Then what? What is our next option? Instead of limited war where we attrit their abilities and resources with minimal losses, you can bet, a big attack that comes out of operational bases in Iraq means another big war.

Unless we are prepared to set back and just let these folks hit us at their leisure?

We know what big wars mean. It means big ammunitions and big death, mostly of the civilian populace because you can bet, if we withdraw, these jihadist terrorists will embed themselves even deeper in Iraqi society, Iraqi neighborhoods, recruit more youth from around the area and Iraq proper. Then we will have real killing fields because, at that point, it will be the thing that people think happen last time. It will be carpet bombing and total warfare.

Is this what the American public wants? I know I've been impatient with the war effort and some moves, but I personally disagree with utmost strength and passion on setting timetables for withdrawal. It's limited war now, or major war later. A war we will apparently be unwilling and unable to prosecute since we can't even find the guts and strength to withstand this little war that we are undertaking.

Further, who in their right mind believes that leaving there will make the insurgency go away? It would only mean the war turns even hotter on the civilians and they are left defenseless as their under developed police and military are divided by sectarianism and anhilated in a civil war.

My final thoughts are the same thoughts I expressed a few days ago: where is the government information program on this war? Where is it? Why is this one area of fighting the war is so weak? There's no Karl Rove of the Pentagon?

Or, is this the plan all along? Keep the information weak in case the situation gets to hot and then the administration can withdraw under the pretext of being forced by the populace or by their opposition?

I wrote my Senator, Kit Bond and asked him these very questions. I will let you know what Senator Bond has to say on the matter.

Read More...

Summary only...

Now We Return To Our Regularly Scheduled Reasonable PostingIraq: Converging War and Tactics

The war is multi-facetted in Iraq. Like the Global War on Terror, of which this is a front, there are many actors participating at multiple levels. In Iraq, we see a microcosm of the larger war. There are multiple actors, support, operations and logistics. Some are actively opposing the US while others are simply middlemen taking advantage of the unique opportunity to gain wealth either as an individual or for their tribe.

As I explained in a previous post, the four main groupings appear as the following:

• Hard Core Jihadists: trained in other terror camps, experienced in fields of insurgency from either Pakistan, Afghanistan, Palestine, Sudan, Tunisia, etc. Core leadership, planning and logistics. Not often found on the actual battlefield or more likely to lead from the rear in order to maintain their viability to lead or plan future operations.
  
  
  • Subset Cannon Fodder Jihadists: no real training, recruited green from mosques or other political fronts. These are largely used to do suicide bombings or suicidal stands/attacks against American or Iraqi forces. In essence, cheap labor.
  
  
  
• Ba'athist/Anti-New Iraq Government Insurgents: part of the old regime or preference of old regime over any outside forces. This has leadership, suppprt and logistics in and out of Iraq.
  
  
• Sectarian/Tribal Groups: largely responsible for fighting amongst the different tribes or religious groupings. Has support and logistics outside of Iraq though main leadership is local.
  
  
• Criminal Rings: These are either an amalgem of many groups or tribal activity with entire tribes participating in one manner or the other. These supply materials, smuggle people, money, information, etc over known smuggle routes. these largely participate based on the money factor and make money from all three of the above noted groups with the largest monetary gain from the Jihadists and Ba'athists. Have no real loyalty or ideological support of any of the first two, though may have more loyalty to tribal groups considering their interactive capabilities.
  
  
  Subset Petty Criminals: small rings, not as well organized or led, take many different small jobs to create funds but less likely to obtain large funds from large operations. Interestingly, the jihadist and insurgent groups may have caused a bit of a conundrum for their future and continued use of these groups with overpaying for individual activities and now there is a desire to pay less as the funds must be budgeted and spent wisely. I believe that the over payment issue is apparent because the kidnappings of people have not resulted in more westerners being held by groups like Al-sunnah or their like. Most of the kidnapped victims these days are locals who are ransomed back on the local level or killed if ransom is not paid, in straight up criminal activity. Westerners are held for ransom instead of beheaded after demands of leaving Iraq. The kidnappers are more open to negotiation. While many of them use the jihadist phrases with demands for the outside forces to leave Iraq, it is more and more apparent that these statements are used as a knock off of the originals to create fear and press the advantage for ransom.
  
  If the funds were more available and considered beneficial, people like Douglas Wood would not have been held for months for long term negotiation, but would have been quickly exploited and then executed to show they mean "business".

I point out these different groups again because it means that we should be fighting these groups with assetts that are best suited for these separate yet converging aspects of the war. The military is doing its best, but I believe that the very nature of the military at large, to conduct war, is not always suited for or geared towards the types of activities that need to take place.

As we speak, the military is busily transforming itself into the necessary structures, behind the eight ball, using units that have not been responsible for or received training for all the activities that need to take place. They are often, quite frankly, flying by the seat of their pants. The best thing that can be said is that the youngmen on the ground are adaptable and more capable of accepting their changing roles than the officers above them. They are the first to recognize the need for training, tools and resources, but, those above them may continue to focus on a linear mission, mainly planning and fighting battles.

One thing that I could tell from several military blog postings is that the individual units have "budgets" and they must equip their men from this budget. Other funds could be obtained, but just like a business, requesting additional funds requires reams of paperwork and justification with the hope that a senior officer above will look at it seriously. In the mean time, new units that cycle in and have not had previous experience in Iraq get some information and assistance from returning units, but it still relies on the officers to take this information and develop the types of supplies and training the they need. When they get to Iraq they find the reality to be completely different. By then they've used a large part of their unit funds and must begin immediately developing requests and justifications. They are re-training their men on the ground on the fly, turning artillery and logistics men into investigators, police and civil affairs officers.

I was thinking back to last year when I read Thomas P Barnett's, "The Pentagon's New Map" and his thoughts on the need to change the military into to separate organizations: civil affairs and war fighting, to put it simply. The main thesis of the book indicated that this would be on a large scale basis, separating the branches of the military into these organizations.

After reading the reality on the ground from many bloggers, I would say that his original concept is right, but may have been too grand and unweildy to be immediately effective. Overhauling the entire military on these grounds can take years.

Well, in Iraq, we don't have years. So, reading the bloggers, it occurs to me that, instead of trying to change the entire military at once, it would behoove the military to change individual units, brigades or divisions into this separate, but intertwined activities.

Right now, this is actually occuring on the ground in Iraq, but the training and philosophy is not being done here in the US. At least, from what I can read and surmise. Certainly, we have civil affairs units that are involved in building civil society, but it is equally obvious that we do not have enough of these units and, when combat units get on the ground there, they are finding themselves being transformed or assigned by necessity to operations that they were not trained on or set up to perform.

Units are given responsibility for areas and, in those areas, they are responsible for being civil affairs, police, investigators, politicians, engineers, business managers and combat troops. This is at the unit or company level. And, we are not talking about entire units being civil affairs or an entire unit being engineers. I mean, literally, that one unit must contain or be able to perform all of these functions inter-unit.

I do not believe that the military units are created or trained in this fashion. Artillery units are trained to fire artillery. Combat units are trained to fight, tank units, MP units. No single unit comprises the whole.

Major K of Strength and Honor puts this in his "about" section:

I am, at this writing, a 34 year old Infantry Officer assigned as an S2(Intelligence Officer) for an Air Assault Infantry Battalion. We are here conducting full-spectrum operations in the Sunni Triangle of Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom

He talks about building his intelligence operations from the ground up with little previous training:


Needing support or materials not provided or deemed necessary but useful in prosecuting the different types of war here:

I have received dozens of e-mails offering help for my informants and the men of the Battalion with some of these gear issues. The Army sometimes has tendency to either move too slow, or decides in its infinite wisdom that we don't have a need for certain things. [snip]

Handcuffs are what we need in the greatest numbers. They just make life a lot easier and cut down on hassles and cuts. This is a good link to some reasonably priced ones.

- MP3 Recorders, I have had a few offers, but could use a few more. Please don't overdo it...

- As for the Body Armor, I am stunned by the generosity of JJ, who already has one set on the way, and Mr. M. who has offered to match any contributions for Body Armor up to $1000! Amazing. Mr. M. has set the condition that he wishes to remain anonymous. I am putting JJ in charge of this, so those who are interested in kicking in, please e-mail him, and he will get in touch with you.

and here.

This says to me that Major K is basically having to create a CID unit, develop informants, analyze information and go out to "get the bad guys" while, at the same time, his unit interacts with the political, reconstruction and combat aspects.

I'm not criticizing this activity, but pointing it out as the new reality of the new war. In essence things like what I point to above need to be taken into consideration. Even if the Pentagon is slow to act and develop these needs on a whole military, units should be prepared and take necessary actions to develop these necessities before arriving in theater.

Here is what I think a unit requires before arriving in theater:

Officers trained by the CID, FBI or other trained detectives in developing leads, organizing criminal investigations, basic interrogation techniques, methods for creating informants, supplying them, infiltrating criminal gangs, etc.

I realize there are MI units, but it seems to me that there are not enough of them to go around and it would behoove units to develop their own internal capabilities with assistance of two or three actual MI personnel and use the MI units to support second and third phase interrogations and intelligence as Ciggy talks about here:

1. Tactical Phase. In this phase, information in the "head" of the individual taken captive is fresh, probably still valid, and has the highest degree of likelihood to generate actionable intelligence for our troops. All interrogation geared toward intelligence-gathering should be focused on this phase, to be carried out by small Military Intelligence units (2 or 3 96Cs) attached to each combat unit at the Company level. [snip]

Intelligence that is gathered in this way should straight-flow to any combat unit that can benefit from it (preferably via encrypted text messages to unit commanders), as a first wave of notification, and THEN flow up the "chain" to add to databanks of more centralized intelligence warehouses accessible to various intelligence agencies.

If necessary, this is where "contracters" might actually be the most use. There must be many retired police officers, detectives, FBI or DEA agents, etc that have expertise in developing "cases". And, based on what Major K says in other sections of his blog, they don't simply take the word of an "informant" and go shake down would be suspects, though they have more leaway than a state side criminal investigation without as much legal oversight though JAG does give advice. When developing leads, they actually seem to do similar activities as a law enforcement officer stateside in getting their informants to get digitial voice or film recordings of activities to insure that they actually do have the "bad guys" and developing corroberating information.

If I was in the border areas near Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Syria, I would look at ways of infiltrating the smuggling gangs. These gangs work on money, just like drug, car thief and other gangs in the US. The same are in Iraq, but difficulties may arise because many of these gangs are tribal efforts and infiltrating a tribe would be difficult. Thus, to fight this aspect of the war, money, large quantities of money would have to be available to buy them off. Also, the possibility of making money "legitimately" by helping these smuggling groups develop business opportunities that would net them comparative or near to comparative profits.

The "stick" part of this operation would be to threaten the gang with forceful disbandment or imprisonment, seizure of assetts, if a tribe, relocation, etc. Every tool must be brought to bear against these groups.

For smaller criminal gangs, the pay off may be that they are not actively sought out in relationship to petty crimes or money. If they don't cooperate, the same treatment, they will be harrassed, arrested, brought in regularly for questioning, their houses searched, whatever it takes to disrupt their activities.

I would have a unit whose sole job will be to undertake these operations continuously within my own command.

I would also select "civil affairs" officers whose sole jobs were to develop relationships with tribal elders, political or urban leaders. Units specifically trained in civil affairs are not as abundant as they should be, in great demand and still don't get all the training necessary to deal with the culture. I understand that soldiers are given some basic information on interacting with the populace. Simple rules about the culture and interaction. However, posts from Iraqi bloggers regarding check point operations and misunderstandings and cultural contrasts 3, cultural contrsts 2, cultural contrast 1, lesson 2, lesson 1, speaking "Iraqi Arabic", and, my favorite, which pokes fun at the "cultural flash cards" given to soldiers .

I have wondered about the type of training are men and women are receiving. I've also noted from female soldiers blogging that they are often a point of fascination in the tribal areas and often asked for personally to come back and attend meetings. I have seen pictures of these meetings and hope that some sort of debriefing information on learned techniques of interaction are filtering up and out at the unit level to develop quicker and more accurate methods of interaction. I do wonder, aside from photographers or simply personal photos taken by soldiers, if each small unit is not provided with a digital camera to video tape these small meetings, not just the large political meetings or building openings, in order to distribute and use for training above and beyond photos or written manuals.

In my unit, I would get in touch with a unit already over, particularly the one I am replacing and ask them to send back videos, pictures, names, relationships, etc and have my selected group memorize them, learn the activities first hand, not wait until I got in theater to the FOB. Other preparations might include seeking out state side local families from Iraq or that particular area that could give real time lessons on cultural behavior, politesse and tribal politics on a personal, one on one level.

The best way to learn is to see and do. Waiting to do this on this detail level until the unit is in theater makes the operational pace slow down and can result in the incoming unit causing the progress from the outgoing unit to be reduced or completely lost, starting the process all over again.

In the same manner, military police units would not be guarding convoys. Military police would be better used to conduct basic raids, search and siezure activities. The things that they are trained to do. Combat units are, as Major K pointed out in another post, combat units are not scapels, but hammers and axes. He also said the iraqi military units are more like chainsaws. I also wonder if MP units are not assigned to work with, stay in station with and conduct operations with local police forces. This could help training these forces in real police activities, keep an eye on these units that have been doing business like the old regime and have been infiltrated by terrorists, criminals and their own tribal or sectarian associations taking precedence above the legal and civil protection activities.

It seems to cut off the lower level activities in support of the insurgents and jihadists would be the first step. Putting MPs with the Iraqi police will help develop civil society ops from a legal stand point, garner information and frankly, with eyes on the situation, would make the police more nervous about cooperating with criminal and "insurgent" elements as well as sow some distrust among these cooperatives, particularly when information from these types of ops result in capturing criminals and insurgents. This will also define to the police officers that they have only two choices: criminal, jihadist, insurgent, tribal relations or "police" for the people.

Civil Affairs designated units (whether trained MOS or designated for support) would be broken into four groups:

1) Think T.E. Lawrence. Pick officers and/or enlistees to live with the tribes or within the same environs as the local leaders. It doesn't take special forces only to take on this activity and certainly we don't have enough special forces, nor the resources to develop them, to do this activity with all the locals. Assign specific officers or small units to specific groups, do not change or rotate. Have them act as advocates for the tribe or leader to the local MNF forces' commander and political entities. In essence, go native.

2) Reconstruction/engineers: Assess development and over see local reconstruction. I understand we have these types of units already, however, on the small unit level, I would make sure that their sole jobs is to go from neighborhood to neighborhood, assess requirements and over see projects that would completely refurbish one neighborhood at a time. I'm thinking "broken windows" theory used in New York to reduce crime. Part of this required policing techniques as well as urban refurbishment that effectively made individual neighborhoods the "stars" of the areas. The problem I see with current activities is that they are wide spread and do not effectively resolve problems at a noticable level or to something that resembles "completion". This requires developing civil services like trash pick up, updating houses, electrical grids, schools, mosques, neighborhood watches (more part of the "civil society units activities but in conjunction with reconstruction).

Realizing that many of these activities take place, it still seems like it is a hit or miss activity and has not developed any "model neighborhoods" as a show piece to show what other neighborhoods or suburbs could receive if they cooperate and help force out the criminals and insurgent groups. I want to re-emphasize "focus". Obviously, other areas would still need focus and some activity, but I really think that one should focus on small areas and build out from there. When I say "small" I mean as small as a street in a neighborhood, work out from there. Obviously, hiring all the locals to do the work, either as construction, civil workers (trash, business and neighborhood association, etc).

It needs to be a showcase neighborhood that can be used for promotion. Pictures, films, and people from the neighborhood willing to speak to people in adjoining neighborhoods about the projects and outcomes.

3) Business Development: Unemployment and economics are still the main issue. It is fairly well known that unemployed men are easily used for criminal and insurgent activities. Men will place IEDs for a few dollars. Therefore, to control the security of individual neighborhoods, the entire neighborhood must be engaged from civil services to politics to security to reconstruction to business. Real efforts at developing businesses, employment opportunitinies, bringing internal and external money into the neighborhood with legitimate and long term opportunities. This could include bringing in simple manufacturing jobs near by if the security is sufficient. If in a rural/agricultural area, these specialists would learn about agricultural coops, irrigation, animal husbandry, marketing and transport of goods, etc. It is my bet that we have people in the forces that literally have this experience already and should be assigned based on this civilian experience.

Information and video of the area where the unit will be operating, data on current activities would be supplied with any information on business and economic activities currently being undertaken either by the military units or private individuals.

4) Civil society and political activities: this group would be responsible for working with the political process, helping develop organizations, working with the local MP/Local Police, the "native advocates" and the business management forces in developing the whole area. These forces would be trained about political processes, developing political parties, urban or rural councils, even if their original duties were not civil affairs.

Training prior to deployment would include seminars and lectures from political strategists, tours of local, state side city councils and a mock town with different "political" or "sectarian groups" where my unit had to develop consensus, political understanding, teach democracy, develop civil service activities, manage city money, hiring employees, dealing with claims from civilians, developing accountability within the city, etc.

I want to pause and tell you I believe that these activities do take place within Iraq. What I'm advocating is changing the scale and type of training or support given to our forces prior to deployment and recognize that no MOS that currently exists and is being deployed to Iraq can be expected to remain only operating in that MOS. It isn't happening. Therefore, commanders of artillery units must be prepared to act as civil affairs, police, detectives, business managers, etc and I'm thinking that this is not being driven sufficiently before deployment.

Also, I believe that this has to be developed at the small unit scale where these people would essentially become "managers" using Iraqi forces and sources more than even currently happening. I also believe that pre-deployment assessment teams from the units should be sent to Iraq (are they now) to assess, gather information on current activities and bring it back to the units in preparation for deployment. If I'm not mistaken, these units know that they will deploy well in advance so, as early as possible, assessment teams should be sent to gather information, coalesce and dessiminate the information.

The military has a tendency to centralize and dessiminate this information as "general rules" and "operational standards", but what they really need is the expertise of the on the ground folks passed on early and often to the units BEFORE they are deployed to accompany the usual few weeks of overlapping deployment with the previous unit where they try to learn the situation on the ground in a few weeks.

Even with MOUT, I don't think it's sufficient nor efficient and should be specific to the units and the area they are deploying too.

Now, I want to finish with comments on deployment of "combat troops". With the comment about troops being "sledge hammers" from Major K and the offsetting comments by Iraqi bloggers, even those that are pro-democracy and pro-American invasion, should tell us that continuing to use combat forces as "policing" forces on a large scale and in the phases they are used is causing a problem with the "hearts and minds" aspect of the war. Combat units should be used for backing up Iraqi military activities, supporting raids by Military Police that are supporting Iraqi police (not just soldiers supporting Iraqi military activities and should not be used in basic search, harrassment and seizures, but limited to large scale ops), guard convoys, do large scale cordon and interdiction efforts.

In regards to small units and developing neighborhoods, where ever we were undertaking the "broken windows" project, I would have a unit whose job was to completely surround and control access to this area in conjunction with local military or police. Otherwise, I would have them less apparent on the streets. Quick reaction forces to deploy in response to activities in "protected" neighborhoods undergoing rejuvenation or other hotspots.

We need to control neighborhoods completely, but with less intrusive footprint and appearance. Still, I think that a unit has to be able to focus on one area and that inside the unit, the officers and enlisted men have to be able to and allowed to focus on small areas and creating complete "model neighborhoods".

To me, it seems like money is being flung around, wide and far without having a noticable, immediate impact. I'm not talking about building schools here and there or digging wells. Those are useful and can have an immediate impact on the area, but do not really complete the development of the area or meet the expectations of the locals.

Also, it seems to me that, as well as our troops are handling it, small units are responsible for every aspect of these activities, involved in every activity and not focused or specially developed.

As many people understand, it is easier to teach small groups to be efficient and cohesive then trying to get large groups to know, understand and act on every need. We also know, as stated that the units being used are not originally MP, civil affairs, engineers, or military intelligence but they are taking on that responsibility.

If transforming the military on a large scale basis is difficult and time consuming when we don't have time for this large scale activities to effect activities in Iraq, then I would suggest that battalion commanders and smaller units should look at these necessities themselves.


Broken Windows 1

Broken Windows 2

The Tipping Point.

Thomas P M Barnett

Read More...

Summary only...

Did You Ever Want To Tell Someone...Just Shut the Fuck Up!?

I know I'm not the only one, but, wow, can you believe the crap that passes for "loyal" opposition politics these days? It is like an ear splitting discordant ringing of a broken gong.

Too bad it wasn't the gong show, at least we could have used the hook to pull them off of stage as the crowd boos. No such luck. This is what you get when aging, once upon a time protester baby boomers get elected to office.

I swear, if I hear one more time how "dissent is patriotic" I'm going to explode and beat the crap out that person. It's beyond "dissent" and hasn't even approached "patriotic" since Dean let out the infamous scream heard round the ballot box.

I'm sick of hearing "dissent is patriotic" because it is a bullshit response meant to shame anyone from telling them to shut the fuck up and to proclaim themselves innocent from any assistance to the enemy with propaganda when we all know that anything they say is released in a statement or on video with one Jihadi or another proclaiming it as a point against America. Instead of the requisite shame you would think some asshole like Dick "my daddy paid for my D in history" Durbin should feel, I have to hear him telling us that we misunderstood his use of "Nazi", "concentration camps" and "gulags".

Sorry, there was no misunderstanding. For that, Dick "my daddy paid for my D in history" Durbin deserves a big...

"Shut the fuck up!"

Of course, Dick isn't the only dick in congress. He's accompanied in his ignorance by several other assholes who haven't had their feet out of their mouths since probably one year of age when they first realized they could bend their leg like a pretzel and suck on their toes. Their reasoning skills are just about on par with that age group, too. They have a lot of followers. The kinds of followers that look more and more like the suicide cultists at Jones town. People don't call them "kool-aid drinkers" for nothing.

Conyers, Frank, Waters and a few others who simply cannot get over the fact that they lost the last two elections for the Presidency because they simply sucked decided, if they can't do it for real, they would have a "mock" impeachment of President Bush based on fake memos that never existed interpreting notes from a meeting that said no such thing.

It was a stage show so the far left of the Democrat party, the destroyers of the future of it's political power, could out their every conspiracy theory on the Iraq war from protecting Israel to oil to personal grudges of the President against another head of state; a mass murdering, sociopathic reincarnation of Joseph Stalin complete with stupid mustache (why do all of these guys seem to have bushy mustaches or funky hair cuts?) with a beret, scimitar and Arab accent.

Normally, I would ignore these folks or just write something reasonable about how wrong they are, but, lately, I've found them tiring. I don't want to speak for everyone, but does anybody else wish these folks would just...

"Shut the fuck up?"

The media. At least one half of the media should "shut the fuck up". Not because they report things that conflict with my ideas or on government activities, an essential to every open democracy, but because they have become "editors of history" and, when history doesn't exactly follow their ideas, they make them up. As if they were the arbiters of our conscience, the supreme conscience and we are supposed to believe them. Now they whine about why they are less trusted than the military.

From Rather-gate to Eason-gate now to the infamous "fake but accurate" Downing Street memos continues to show their impending failure to live up to the ideas that they insist they stand for and are protecting and instead, have taken it upon themselves to try to bring down and disparage the very type of government that provides them the security to write freely without fear of reprisal. I mean, can you imagine what would happen to a reporter in Soviet Russia who dared to even criticize the cut of Stalin's coat? Or, in Baghdad where any reporter that reported the rape and torture of Iraqi citizens, much less a "secret memo" from the regime, fake or real, would disappear after being tortured themselves.

Nobody wants the press to be suppressed or disappear, even I, the undersigned complaintant, wouldn't want that, but one could ask, with all seriousness, if these folks couldn't at least maintain the appearance of accuracy and honesty? If not, would they just...

"Shut the fuck up!"

The eight memos — all labeled "secret" or "confidential" — were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.

Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.

The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.

Now...Where have I heard this line before? [hat tip: LGF]

Holy Shit! I mean, Ho-lee-shit! Can you believe the balls of this guy or any members of the press that continue to press this story or those moronic Reps in congress that decided to play act an impeachment process on this info and claim it was sufficient for an actual impeachment?

You would think that the whole lot of them would have learned to...

"Shut the fuck up!"

These people need a dose of my grandmother's wisdom:

Better to be silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove yourself a fool.

Indeed.

Or, in my own simplistic and rather crude short hand...

Shut the fuck up!

There are so many others one would wish would simply "shut the fuck up". The scariest people, sometimes, aren't the Islamist crack pots, but American citizens who frequent the DU and many Europeans. The Islamists at least I actually can understand their opposition and they are clear as to their purpose. It is scary that people can continue to deny the reality that we are at war as hundreds of people are beheaded in Iraq and thousands slaughtered with car bombs or executed in the same manner as the Taliban had done in Afghanistan as Zawahiri, Zarqawi, Bin Laden and hundreds of other petty Imams and leaders of small terrorist groups continue to state that fact on their websites and in their own press releases. The Islamists know that they are at war. We know we are at war, but there are many people who refuse to acknowledge that fact. Like abused spouses that still insist that they love their abusive spouse. Sadly, we know what happens in those types of relationships: the abused spouse ends up dead in close to 25% of all cases and only 17% ever really leave their abusive spouse.

So, 25% of all DU commenters would have to be killed by a terrorist Islamist cell for even a modiucm of DU users to get a clue. Maybe then they would just...

Shut the fuck up?

Probably too much to ask, huh?

Let me add that I am not against reasonable debate nor am I wishing to step on anyone's right to free speech. However, it is my right and privilege to use my free speech to tell them I think they are idiots and should "shut the fuck up". Personally, I think there is a difference between "dissenting opinion" and giving the enemy propaganda points. Why is this difficult for people to understand?

Who knows? In the mean time, I'm just going to keep saying, "Just shut the fuck up!"

They are occassionally entertaining. Whenever the newest meme or conspiracy theory comes up, it's like watching the animals at the zoo when an electric storm is on it's way. They all start boucing around their cages roaring and bleating, throwing feces all over the cages and themselves, scaring parents into pulling their children close as the children point, "mommy, mommy, mommy! Look at that one! It keeps putting it's head up it's ass and the others are trying to do the same! What are they screaming?"

"Johnny! It's not nice to point!"

In my fantasy world, the zoo keeper comes in right about then with twenty other pissed off zoo keepers and a giant water hose, spraying them down, shooting them with Thorazine and yelling from around a big ass stogie clenched between his teeth...

"Ahhh....Just shut the fuck up!"

In the world of "shut the fuck up", I reserve my last and most resounding "shut the fuck up" for my favorite assholes and dickheads:

Zarqawi, Zawahiri, bin Laden and their assorted preacher freaks of death and destruction. Anybody else tired of hearing "Allahu Akbar", "kill the infidels", "Zionist conspiracy to the rule the world", yada, yada, yada...blah, blah, blah? Every time these shitheads speak it reminds me of that cartoon, "Pinky and the Brain".

"Tomorrow Pinky, we take over the wooooorrrrrllllld!!! Muuuauhaaahhahahahaha!!!!"

Puh-llleeaaase! Just shut the fuck up!

These dickheads couldn't rule a herd of camels without getting flea infested beards. I mean, who the fuck do they think they are? I'm always amazed at the jihad, "mission from God to cut off as many people's heads as possible" crowd. The only thing giving them their "divine mission" are the voices in their heads whispering things about "paradise". I really wonder if these men haven't looked at their deeds and shuddered? Probably not. They are programmed with their "mission", but one wonders how much of a total loser you would have to be in this life to put all your faith in the hope that killing people while singing God's praises as if they were blood thirsty, human sacrificing Aztecs, will net you golden streets, clear springs and a bunch of women to wait on you hand and foot. No mention of actually being at God's side and enjoying the beauty of his grace, just the usual, "give me, give me, give me" because they are loser scum who don't know how to really work for anything and think everyone owes them something, including God.

Since they don't know how to make anything of themselves, they have to destroy other people. The more gruesome and extravagant the better. Just like socio pathic serial killers.

And they get more press time than I do. I have some ideas on what to do with the world. The problem, of course, is that I haven't taken to wearing strange clothes, growing filthy, lice infested beard, marrying four or more husbands, carrying around an AK-47 and video taping my personal manifesto accompanied by various clippings of head cuttings and explosions ripping apart women, children, grandparents, etc, in the market place, local mosques or getting their monthly pension checks.

And those pictures of guys with their faces covered, shaking AK-47s or RPGs in one hand and the Koran in the other. Now that is "Koran Abuse".

I know a couple hundred thousand folks that would like to help these men...

Shut the fuck up!

Now... if they'd only come out of their caves and stop running long enough for them to get a nice, hot, steaming cup of "shut the fuck up" at the point of a JDAM or the end of an M16, served up by a smiling Marine, Sailor, Army or Airforce man or woman.

A few moments of stunned silence is all I ask.

Is that too much?

You think?

Ehhhh...Shut the fuck up!

This rant was brought to you by a week of forced vacation without access to regular computer and far too much exposure to the idiots elected to public office, television personalities, lying media and death cultist freaks.

We now return you to our regularly scheduled reasonable and researched postings.

span class="fullpost">

Read More...

Summary only...

Long Wars Correspondence

I would Inform you that one of Capt Nobles men Died last night His name is Taylor Four of Nobles men & four of our men Starts Home with his Remains in the morning Indeed Dear Miss there is thousands of Poor Soldiers that will see Home & Friends no more in this World If you was in Keokuk & See the number of Sick & Disabled Soldiers it would make your Heart Ache. they are Dieing *illegible* Every Day. But anough of the Hard Side of a Soldiers Life I would tell you the good Side If I know it But don't think that I am Home Sick or Disheartend for such is not the case for I am only telling you a few simple Facts of a Soldiers campaign Indeed I wish never to Return Home Permantly untill this Wicked & God Forsaken Rebellion is Destroyed--

If we had our choices of course we would Be at Home for we are not in the army for fun nor money & Furthermore we wish never to fill a cowards grave & Dear Miss we Have no Fears But that we will Ever Have the good will of those Kind Friends Left at Home. Success to the union Armys & Ere Long may we all Be permitted to Return to our Homes & Live a quiet & Peaceably Lives

Give my love & Respects to all Friends & Reserve a Share for yourself Please write Soon & tell all to Remember & write to the Soldiers for it gives them great Pleasure to hear from Home

In Friendship
Love & Truth
I am Truly yours

Camp Lincoln Keokuk Iowa
October the 24th 1862
To Miss Hannah. M. Cone

Soldiers never change.

Read More...

Summary only...

Long Wars Lincoln

September 11, 2001 was not the beginning of he "long war". Most of us who read the blogs know that Islamic terrorists have been waging some form of jihad against the west for at least three decades. But, then, we are not the common people. Or, aren't we?

In any case, most of us know that the September 11 was simply the opening shot of the official war. Like the "shot heard round the world" in Concord, the British marching on Washington in 1812, the Confederates firing on Fort Sumter and the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor, we were in confrontation with these opposing forces long before the first recognized opening shots of an official war.

The British had been arresting dissidents, charging men with treason, confiscating their property, imprisoning them without due process of the law long before they marched on Concord and were met by the Militia. In 1812, they were routinely stopping our ships, confiscating goods, kidnapping and press ganging our sailors along with numerous other moves that were acknowledged and finally became too much to ignore before a declaration of war.

Prior to the Civil War, partisan groups had been shooting, lynching, burning each other across state lines in support or opposition of slavery, of secession. Declaration of Secesseion and firing on Fort Sumter were just the official opening. We were at war long before those first cannon balls flew.

Prior to WWII, the Germans had been routinely sinking our ships and interfering in supplies both too and from the British. The Japanese were making moves on China and the Flying Tigers were helping to fight them off long before Pearl Harbor.

This war is no different. We've been at war with extremists Islamist terrorists for decades now. Something that will probably only be truly recognized by history.

Other things that we have in common with many wars before is the length of the war and the doubt that the common people experience as they watch the war churn on and the casualties mount. This wasn't just the case in Viet Nam, but in every war. Every leader of the United States had to face that moment when the length, depravity and desperation of the war weighed down on their men and on the people on the home front. The strain seemed almost unbearable.

It didn't matter if the war was on US soil or in a foreign land. Convictions waver in the face of blood and sweat even for the most ardent of supporters, even the leaders themselves often questioned the value of their efforts or whether a treaty for ceasefire and compromise would better than the constant death and struggle. It was only the their conviction of righteousness and the fear of what would be if they failed that pulled them from their despair in the long reaches of dark and stormy times.

What must have been the most difficult was relaying and strengthening the convictions of the people under them, the people at home, the men on the front lines. What must it take to be such a leader?

It is almost four years now since the opening of the official war with Islamist extremists. For reasons that surely must baffle the people on the home front as it has baffled me to some degree is the way in which we are choosing to fight this war, the limits we have put on ourselves and our continuing inability or lack of desire to clearly and utterly define the enemy.

We fear "demonizing" people, even those that are clearly and utterly irredeamable, much less those that are "cogs" or merely tacit supporters through money or language. There are strategic reasons for this. Even I understand that we desire to keep true world war from happening again. Still, I look at every war we've been in and I see that, in every war, we start out this way. Supporting it, though with some opposition in the ranks and at the same time, fighting it on a strangely limited basis, until, at some point, the war must be taken to the next level, to the next place, where war with all its real desperation becomes even more intense, more bloody, more desperate and, in complete juxtapositioning of the struggle, more noble for all that is endured and the triumph that comes from it.

The polls show that the American people are feeling the "fog of war", the confusion and the depression of the long war. While the president and many others have told the people in the past that it is a going to be "a long war", a "struggle for the generations", they have been lax in continuing to keep the focus on the war, the reasons for the war and what is at stake if this war is lost. The administration has failed in this respect. It has failed to fix the points and keep them in the fore front of the people's minds. It has failed to fix the enemy and explain what the enemy wants.

In long wars, there must be a focal point and people must be able to understand the end results of winning or losing, must understand what the enemy wants. This has been the one failure of the administration in this war that I feel is important above the others. This has been continuously ignored as a real tool for the war. It is being left to others to define the enemy, fix the points, those without true power or national exposure. The battle for hearts and minds always, always begins at home.

Even I at times have felt the darkness, the despair flit through my mind, wondering if this is worth the struggle, the death and the anguish that we see. Sometimes it feels almost overwhelming how long and tough this war has been and will be. It isn't the formidability of the enemy, as, however, organized they are, they cannot match our men or resources. The only thing that they have done better and continue to do better is understanding the importance of propaganda and using it as a major tool in the war. We have failed to match this ability even with all of the tools and money at our disposal.

Here is the thing that I will question the administration on. What will it take to get them to recognize this necessity and put more effort in to it?

In the end, it is this that keeps the effort going, the fires burning. Our traditional allies in this effort, the American press and the celebrities from film and broadway, are long absent. Today's press and celebrities do not resemble, support nor believe in the nobility of ideas nor causes worth fighting and dying for. The long war of forty years ago and the cultural revolution essentially diminished these ideas to nothing and affected a large part of our populace. Or, at least a part that is vocal and capable of their own propaganda efforts for their own agenda.

Today, we are caught out, defending ideas instead of creating them and spreading them. Today, the hearts and minds of the people are faltering.

My own heart has felt the twinges as I watch the casualties mount, little as they are in comparison to the past wars, but I also see the suffering of the civilians constantly attacked. I see the depravity of the enemy, killing randomly and with single cruelty. I have wondered in the long darkness of the war if this was the right thing to do.

Then I see the bodies, the dead, the wounded and they aren't just American soldiers fighting an enemy that can be cruel to soldiers, but and enemy that sees civilians, the traditional class of people who are to be protected, being taken out in the enemy's version of total war. I see the beheaded people who did nothing more than wave, sell a soda, speak to our soldiers being killed like dogs or worse. Beheadings and torture, real torture that cannot even be imagined by those that think torture is happening in Guantanamo, real torture that maims, bleeds, dismembers, is occuring at the hands of the enemy.

These are the same enemy that flew the planes into the towers and Pentagon. They come from the same groups, they have the same ideas, they desire more than the US being removed from the ME, they support an ideology that is completely and utterly incompatible with freedom, with our security and they fired the "shot heard 'round the world".

I remember. I don't forget what has been done, nor what is at stake.

Still, I look for words from the past to remind me that I am not alone in my worries, neither in the present tense nor the past.

Lessons from Lincoln

Message to Congress at its Regular Session. December 3, 1861_

[snip]A disloyal portion of the American people have, during the whole year, been engaged in an attempt to divide and destroy the Union. A nation which endures factious domestic division is exposed to disrespect abroad; and one party, if not both, is sure, sooner or later, to invoke foreign intervention.[snip]

Those nations, however, not improbably saw from the first that it was the Union which made as well our foreign as our domestic commerce. They can scarcely have failed to perceive that the effort for disunion produces the existing difficulty; and that one strong nation promises a more durable peace and a more extensive,
valuable, and reliable commerce than can the same nation broken into hostile fragments.

Letter to Cuthbert Bullitt. July 28, 1862_

[snip]The army will be withdrawn as soon as such government can dispense with its presence, and the people of the State can then, upon the old constitutional terms, govern themselves to their own liking. This is very simple and easy.

If they will not do this, if they prefer to hazard all for the sake of destroying the government, it is for them to consider whether it is probable that I will surrender the government to save them from losing all. If they decline what I suggest, you will scarcely need to ask what I will do.

What would you do in my position? Would you drop the war where it is, or would you prosecute it in future with elder-stalk squirts charged with rose-water? Would you deal lighter blows rather than heavier ones? Would you give up the contest, leaving any available means untried?

I am in no boastful mood. I shall not do more than I can; but I shall do all I can to save the government, which is my sworn duty as well as my personal inclination. I shall do nothing in malice. What I deal with is too vast for malicious dealing.

_His Letter to Horace Greeley. August 22, 1862_

[snip]As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing," as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt. I would save the Union. I would save it in the shortest way under the Constitution.

The sooner the national authority can be restored, the nearer the Union will be,--the Union as it was.

If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them.

_The Letter to James C. Conkling. August 26, 1863_

There are those who are dissatisfied with me. To such I would say: You
desire peace, and you blame me that we do not have it. But how can we attain it? There are but three conceivable ways. First, to suppress the rebellion by force of arms. This I am trying to do. Are you for it? If you are, so far we are agreed. If you are not for it, a second way is to give up the Union. I am against this. Are you for it? If you are, you should say so plainly. If you are not for force, nor yet for
dissolution, there only remains some imaginable compromise. I do not believe any compromise embracing the maintenance of the Union is now possible. All I learn leads to a directly opposite belief. The strength of the rebellion is its military, its army. That army dominates all the country and all the people within its range. Any offer of terms made by any man or men within that range, in opposition to that army, is simply nothing for the present, because such man or men have no power whatever
to enforce their side of a compromise, if one were made with them. [snip]

A compromise, to be effective, must be made either with those who control the rebel army, or with the people first liberated from the domination of that army by the success of our own army. Now, allow me to assure you that no word or intimation from
that rebel army, or from any of the men controlling it, in relation to any peace compromise, has ever come to my knowledge or belief. All charges and insinuations to the contrary are deceptive and groundless.

[snip]And then there will be some black men who can remember that with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet, they have
helped mankind on to this great consummation, while I fear there will be some white ones unable to forget that with malignant heart and deceitful speech they strove to hinder it.

_From the Annual Message to Congress. December 8, 1863_

When Congress assembled a year ago, the war had already lasted nearly twenty months, and there had been many conflicts on both land and sea, with varying results. The rebellion had been pressed back into reduced limits; yet the tone of public feeling and opinion at home and abroad was not satisfactory. With other signs, the popular elections then just past indicated uneasiness among ourselves; while, amid much that was cold and menacing, the kindest words coming from Europe were uttered in accents of pity that we were too blind to surrender a
hopeless cause.

_From an Address at a Sanitary Fair in Baltimore. April 18, 1864_

... The world has never had a good definition of the word "liberty," and
the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word, we do not all mean the same thing. With some, the word "liberty" may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself and the product of his labour; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men and the product of other men's labour. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name,--liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names,--liberty and tyranny.

The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep was a black one. Plainly, the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word "liberty;" and precisely the same difference prevails to-day, among us human creatures, even in the North, and all professing to love liberty. Hence we behold the process by which thousands are daily passing from under the yoke of bondage hailed by some as the advance of liberty, and bewailed by others as the destruction of all liberty. Recently, as it seems, the people of Maryland have been doing something to define liberty, and thanks to them that, in what they have done, the wolf's dictionary has been repudiated.

Some of my favorite words and some of Lincoln's last written letters:

Address to an Indiana Regiment. March 17, 1865

I may incidentally remark, that having in my life heard many arguments--or strings of words meant to pass for arguments--intended to show that the negro ought to be a slave,--if he shall now really fight to keep himself a slave, it will be a far better argument why he should remain a slave than I have ever before heard. He, perhaps, ought to be a slave if he desires it ardently enough to fight for it. Or, if one out of four will, for his own freedom fight to keep the other three in slavery, he ought to be a slave for his selfish meanness. I have always thought that all men should be free; but if any should be slaves, it should be first those who desire it for themselves, and secondly those who desire it for others. Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him
personally.

Indeed.

Stay tuned for more writings of Lincoln and other war time Presidents and people on the length and necessity of war. Gutenberg Project: Lincoln

Read More...

Summary only...

TECHNICAL ANNOUNCEMENT

I no longer have my laptop and need to get my home computer on line. Using my brother's computer to write this announcement. It may be a day or two before I can get back on line.

So, if you don't see anything for a day or two, don't worry.

I'll be back.

Now....where have I heard that before?

Read More...

Summary only...

Ali Free Iraqi: Update on Operation Lightening

Free Iraqi talks about a raid by ISP (Iraqi Security Personnel):

Anyway, back to our gang and the raid, a few days ago and as we were having lunch we heard bullets coming obviously from many sources that sounded like they were fired just in front of our door, and they were. The first thing that came to my mind is that one of these crazy teenagers is celebrating something, as anyone of these kids do fire in the air for any reason, like one of his cousins got engaged or the electricity came back after a long time or the Iraqi team won a football match.

However, we soon realized that this was different and when things got quite we went out to find out what was happening.

It appeared that an IP unit raided the house of one of these gangsters and arrested him and with him they arrested 3 other members of the same gang who are not from our neighborhood and who were gathering in his house.

Go read the rest.

Read More...

Summary only...

Tagged Twice: Book Meme

Well, it's Sunday, I don't have much to write about unless you want to hear me moan and groan about the state of my finances or the current lack of employment, so I decided that, after two tags for the same meme, I should answer it.

What will be funny is that I think my choices in books may surprise some of my readers.

Or not.

1) Number of Books You Own: I honestly don't know. At one point I had something like eight boxes not including what was on the shelves. I did give some away to the free library so I think the number is somewhere around two hundred.

2) Last book bought: Well, this may be a shocker, but it was Thea Devine (psuedonym, I'm sure) and the book was Seductive, an erotic romance. Although, not much of "romance" in most of her books, I own them all. Anybody surprised? I know most of my readers probably imagine me sitting around reading great tomes on world history, heh? I do, but not all the time.

3) Last book I read: Does reading books on the internet count? I can't find the site right this second, but there is a great site that has most of the best known historical literature on the net. I read Ivanhoe inspired by a post from the Cigarette Smoking Man to revisit some of my favorite books from my early reading.

4) Five books that mean a lot to me: Not in any particular order or influence:

The bible: Come on, even if you're not "religious" if you haven't read the bible, you are missing some good reading. Like all books, it has parts that get really slow and dull, like all the "who beget who", but otherwise, great book. Also read about 1/3 of the Koran (Qu'ran?). Haven't made it all the way through nor to the sub works, though Rasoul is like reading one of the gospels and getting the "side" story that fleshes things out.

Nietzche: Beyond Good & Evil. Do I have to explain Nietzche? I think everyone has to read Nietzche once in their life and I remember I was searching for answers, reading a lot of philosophy, trying to create my own basically. Then one day, I woke up and realized that there is "good and evil", even if you don't define it in strictly religious terms, if you don't believe in Satan, there are two poles of human ideas and actions. Watching interviews with serial killers, looking into souless eyes and hearing them talk about their activities as if they were nothing, just another act, even listening to people talk about what may have made them into what they are, it still reminds me that there are two poles, we could be either one but for something inside of us that tells us to be or not to be. Maybe that's what Nietzche was going for?

Doesn't matter, I read him and even as I did I knew he was both right and wrong.

Ishmail. I really loved this book and can fully recommend it.

The unnamed narrator is a disillusioned modern writer who answers a personal ad ("Teacher seeks pupil. . . . Apply in person.") and thereby meets a wise, learned gorilla named Ishmael that can communicate telepathically. The bulk of the book consists entirely of philosophical dialogues between gorilla and man, on the model of Plato's Republic.

Like Nietzche, Quinn seeks to change your mind about whether developing civilization was good or bad for man. And, like Nietzche, you will think about what he's saying, but it might not change your mind. You might even wrinkle your nose a few times. For the record, Ishmael is the Gorilla. Again, he is right and wrong, at least in my mind, but an interesting read if you want some of your ideas challenged.

Islam: A Short History. This was the first book I ever read about Islam after September 11. It was interesting and it put me on the trail of researching more information about the Middle East and Islam. In some parts it is the basic historic reading of the development of Mohammed's ideas on religion and his conquest of the tribes. I must say though that it had a rather romantic view of Mohammed's reasoning for developing his ideas and bringing the Arab tribes together. It was also rather apologetic and made Arab and Islamic culture to be a bit of the "child" that has been taken advantage of by all the other countries in the world, never really looking at what the internal power politics of certain leaders were that led to some of their own problems. Frankly, I found the Library of Congress, though a little dry, to be much more interesting read on the current issues of the Middle East for simple straightforward and rather unbiased historical facts. Contrary to what some might believe about "American history" writing being "biased", the library of congress put together simple facts about each step in the development of the different countries, the involvement of the west, etc. Add that to T.E. Lawrence "Pillars of Wisdom" and his letters, Zawahiri "Knights Under the Prophet's Banner", Hubands Warrior's of the Prophet, and Queen Noor's "Leap of Faith" and you see where I started getting my ideas about Islam, Arab culture and ME history. Fortunately, I have also read many bloggers from the ME and discovered we aren't all that different sometimes.

I realize, strangely, that all of these books are written by westerners on Islam. Maybe one of my readers with more experience could recommend some books written on the ME by an Arab or other writer?

The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. I could have said "Plato" or "The Iliad", both had profound effects on my ideas about western culture, freedom and heroism. Or, maybe Locke or Paine or de Toqueville, but I have to say that this book, long as it was, made me take a look at civilizations around the world, their rise and fall, the things that precipitate the fall. It's always like a little warning light in the back of my mind.


This Meme was brought to you by Alix in Wunderland and Sandmonkey from the APU.

I'll think about who, if anyone will get tagged.

Cigarette Man, care to take a turn?

Read More...

Summary only...

Bubba Democrats

Via Powerline one of the funniest things I've read in a long time and goes along with the post I wrote about 20 Lessons For Democrat Next Campaign.

Now read Hunting Bubba

Read More...

Summary only...

I Think I'm A Blog Mother

Well, this is a first for me. I'm not sure how all the blog etiquette works and whether convincing someone to change their minds on some political issues equals "blog mother", but, since Donal gives me credit for some of his changes in thinking, I wanted to make sure everyone took the time and go look at his blog, Ex-Liberal.

Let me say a few words about Donal. First, even during the most heated discussions about politics last year in the lead up to the elections, Donal has always been very reasonable. And, while he gave me credit in a post for changing his way of thinking on some issues, I can honestly say that he was equally able in influencing my ideas and thoughts on other issues.

In the blog world, where we pride ourselves on open communication and exchanging ideas, I have to say that our exchanges have always represented the best of this concept.

I can tell you that there are many people from left, center and right that I have enjoyed conversing with here and on other blogs. It has given me a respect for people's opinions far and above that which I would have enjoyed had we all just stuck to talking amongst ourselves.

In closing, I want to say, "Welcome to the Blog, Donal, good luck and good writing!"

[Now permanently linked under the Oasis Club along with several new links to friends and favorite blogs to read]

Read More...

Summary only...

Expression of Religion Act 2005 and Interview with Former ACLU Member

I haven't read the language of this act yet, but Jay at Stop the ACLU has an interesting interview with a former ACLU lawyer who fought for civil rights and now is concerned that the ACLU direction is no longer about civil rights, but re-writing history and attacking the civil right of Freedom of Religion.

Go here to read the interview.

Might I suggest reading my post below about the DNC agenda meeting held this morning and their comments on "faith based" voters at some point before or after reading the ACLU commentary.

Read More...

Summary only...

Blogging the DNC: Democrat Party Agenda

Missed Dean giving his entire presentation and did not record all of his comments. I'm sure I can find a transcript later this afternoon.

The basis of his presentation was about organizing the party, grass roots efforts, inter-communications and developing consistent message that the entire party will focus on and use to relate to voters.

As opposed to what Susan Estrich said about Dean's efforts several days ago, it seems that Dean has a strategy for working on the "nuts and bolts" of the party. He commented several times on the need to develop the DNC in ALL 50 states, not just in big states or states that will have a significant impact on one election or the other. I believe he disagreed with the last election cycle's program and feels that it harmed the DNC's ability to have their message heard universally throughout the country.

He indicated that the party needed to do more to be in contact with and support local candidates on the city, county and state level. If Democrats are not at these levels, how do they expect to win on national and presidential levels?

This may be the base reason why Dean was selected as the DNC chairman. His own campaign took wing from a totally grass roots effort, working at the base to get support. The DNC obviously wants to use this strategy. It was this strategy that also allowed the Republican party to take away seats at all the levels that Dean commented on.

This is why Dean is travelling to so many states and meeting with these parties as opposed to trying to focus on just the national caucuses such as the black community, Hispanic, Asian, etc which Estrich feels did not get the focus they needed in the last cycle to keep them from peeling away at the last election.

While many have pointed to the "evangelical" vote as the drive for President Bush's election in 2004, it's true that the Republican part was able to obtain more votes from these areas than in the past and together, these along with "faith based voters" drove the elections.

What may be at issue here is that Dean's strategy is a long term strategy. In essence, the party has to be built again from the ground up. This is a long term goal. He spoke about making sure that financial and organizational support must be focused downward to the lowest levels of the party and not just maintained at a national level. Without strong party representation at a local level, the national party cannot survive.

The split in the party may well be that some on the national level are looking for immediate results and are working from the old playbook when the party had this strong representation in 90's. Dean seems to recognize it doesn't exist. However, Dean's strategy will not necessarily result in near term election cycle wins. What he seems to focus on is the long term survival of the party and looking to the 2008 presidential elections. His strategy may have some effect on the 2006 election cycle, but I would take it from many in the party's comments that they are worried this grass roots type of focus will not net them the support they need.

If this was a business, one would have to know that both Dean's strategy and the short term strategy has to have equal focus. Niether is less important than the other. While there are long term survival issues, if you can't pull it together in the next year, many businesses go defunct. That must be the worry of the DNC.

The other issue is whether Dean's ability to reach out on the national level to large minorities exists while at the same time retaining the large majority of Democrat voters and not alienating them with some rhetoric that is best left to the politicians who are now actually running. Here, Susan Estrich may have it correct.

This leads into the part of the discussion that I did try to record. These are not verbatim quotes I note below, but my best short hand without killing their actual meaning.

Here the DNC looks at statistics.

What were "moral values" voters? A question that seems to still plague the DNC and now finally gets the correct definition.

Cornell Belcher, Democrat Strategists. Finally, this guy gets it. "Moral values" equals "standing up for what you believe" and "fighting for it".

Talking socio economic status and how decisions are made.

Moral values is not about "gay marriage" and "abortion". It's about raising your children with principles. Democrat party and Republicans are missing boat. People use their faith and religion to help guide them in these decisions.

Economic conditions approval is dropping for president.

{Showing slides}

Direction country is taking, poll indicates people not happy with it. [my edititorial note...this may be an issue for Democrats but they may still not get the point; imagining that the unhappiness in the way the country is going relates to political issues or government is a serious error for any party. This is often about looking around and seeing crime, drugs, prostitution, slipping morals, etc not exactly related to things like the Patriot Act or jobs over seas. A more defined poll on this question would help guage the issues better]

Cornell Belcher has very good grasp on what they should look at:

Pocket books, education and security.

Unidenitified woman now asking if they can make inroads into faith voters by addressing violence in the media.

CB: This is more important than "right wing judges".[ed...admonishing party on focus of this issue in the house and senate?]

Losing control of their families (voters) through economics that require both parents to work and leave their children in others' care or unattended when they first get home from school.

Dems are seen as more closely associated with Hollywood and tarred with that brush.

Strongly religious country (get statistics)

62% of African Americans say they vote based on their faith.

Not just "right wing evangelicals".

Unidentified man: why don't economics make people vote more Democratic?

CB: Need to keep voice on economics, but have to address "moral issues". People feel they can't always control their economics, but family is last bastion of control and they feel it is under attack.

unidentified man: values issue raise out of poverty by good education and economic.

James Zogby: faith based votes are not just "evangelicals" it cuts across the board.

CB: Republicans are seen as the conservative religious party. Democrats are seen as "anti-religion".

Man: Doing inadequate job of articulating "moral issues = economic"; need to get others involved

Woman: if dems don't have a "message" why do statistics show that Democrats are now more trusted?

CB: it is about unhappiness with the Republicans, not because we are better and really more trustworthy.

Alice Travis Germond: Terrorism is 82% of reasons for voting in "morals" (makes comments about terrorism level changes during elections)

CB: People don't feel safer. Do you live in DC? Do you know what to do if we're attacked? DC is ground zero for attacks. No plan, no idea how to react in the public sector.

Dean: People don't know what we stand for because we aren't in all 50 states. (major part of his strategy).

Republicans supress votes, Democrats want people to have the right.

[insert previous Dean commentary]: Earlier, as part of the national agenda, Dean indicates that they will focus on voters rights and increasing the number of eligible voters and not supressing them as the Republicans have in the past. Part of their major strategy is to retain and build upon the group of lawyers that were employed during the Kerry campaign and have them set up a national hotline and education board that can answer questions on voting rights. Per his commentary, the main issues revolve around election workers not knowing the laws or "thinking" they know the laws and keeping people from voting (ed...just saw this occur in Egypt as well during their referendum). Said that over 700 incidents were corrected same day of election with assistance of these attornies. Things ranging from college students not being allowed to vote in the state they attend college (supreme court ruling indicates that they can) to other small infractions. Mostly from misunderstanding the law.

He indicates that the Republicans don't want to change the status quo because the large number of disenfranchised voters come from lower economic areas that historically vote Democrat. Insisted that he wants the largest number of people to vote, even if they don't vote for Democrats because that is what is best for democracy. Inclusive and interactive populace. [end insert]

Begins loosing focus that Cornell Belcher brought to the table and equating "moral values" with a large list of things from economics to education.

No stealing of pension funds equals "moral values". This was part of the workers' contract with these companies, part of their benefits and salaries, and they should not be allowed to shed them with such ease.

Honesty in government is "moral values"

Dean says can't be pointing fingers at other party and have problems inside own party. Democrats need to stand ready to point it out, take the hits where they have their problems and resolve to stop doing it just because the other party is. No golf trips or tours of Hong Kong on other people's dimes. Public sees that as just politics as usual. Corporations and organizations have more influence on politicians than the voters.

Operation American Freedom not Operation Iraqi Freedom (ed...that probably still won't work; unhappiness about Iraq is not based on whether we should or should not have gone there but on the length of time it is taking to pacify and depart; if Dems are serious, they will remember that concept)

Responsibility to one another and the elderly. That is social security issue. Obligation to care for our parents.

Old business: Establish Veterans and Military Families Council. Can't be strong on defense without right equipment and having good leadership in military at the top. Not the party that cut health benefits for veterans. Stood up for vets in congress. Christine Pelosi (Nancy Pelosi's daughter) is part of program.

Still looking to have different view on Iraq. Notes statistics that people are not happy with direction of Iraq.

Outreach to veterans. DNC stands for vets all their lives not just when they serve.

Need to get message out. Needs to be strong and consistent.

Essence of good politics is saying the same thing 50 million times 100 days in a row.

Need state chairs to get involved, get email addresses.

Resolution: Virgin Islands electoral votes in the electoral college
Resolution: Honor Gloria Johnson
resolution: Honor Jean O'Leary

New Busines: Resolution S 39 Apologizing for lynching in the house. sponsored by allen of virginia and landreu of Alabama. Please support this.

Evan Gates Black National Caucas.

ATG: we need to coordinate information on our very local DNC parties. List is incomplete. No email addresses, phone numbers and incomplete names and addresses.

Dean: Democrat party looks like what America. There will be no majority in the US in the next 50 years. Need to get message out that Dems are party of opportunities for all different people.

Blogger Analysis:

Basically, this meeting was about developing the "nuts and bolts" and looking at different areas that affected their performance in the last election. This meeting did not focus on developing a message so much as it threw out some ideas that they should look at in developing their message.

From several comments made, there are opposing views of their own party. The strongest view seems to be that the party does have a message, does have a plan, but it is not being spread among their constituents consistently and widely. The smaller view seems to say that, whatever the message, it isn't the right one and it needs to be redefined and THEN coordinated and dessiminated. This will be an on going struggle in the party.

I did find it interesting that Cornell Belcher noted the Judge issue as not really making in roads with the group of "moral value voters". It was one little sentence, but it seemed to stand out among the rest. A Polite admonishment that this is not winning them any points. I reviewed that issue earlier, but I want to flesh it out. From my perspective, the party members who are attacking the judges on the grounds that they are "extremists" and may allow their religious or political views to interfere have missed the boat. People see judges with "faith" as having "moral values" that my represent their own or be very close to it. As Belcher points out, the people of faith who are concerned about morals aren't all Republican right wingers.

Whether this admonishment will influence any of the Senators on Capitol Hill is another story all together.

Development of a uniform, concise and resonating message that begins to be espoused by all of their party from local to national politics will be the party's main issue while they struggle over whether building the base parties at the local level or putting national caucuses first.

For Dean to be successful, he will have to be able to focus on all three simultaneously or at least have a strategic plan that focuses on them consecutively with the same amount of effort: base party building; national caucuses and message. While at the same time, keeping the focus there and not on Dean's occassional lapses into inflammatory rhetoric.

In short, the party is where the Republicans were almost 30 years ago: needing to rebuild themselves from the ground up.

Read More...

Summary only...

History: Learn From It or Live it Again

I don't know where I found this link from, but I've often enjoyed reading The American Thinker which has an article Iraq's Jihad: Past as Prologue.

It's fascinating because it prints letters and diary notes from Gertrude Bell, a British Diplomat who lived and worked in Iraq during the 1920's in post WWI, in which she elaborates on issues of the day and talk about the tribes, the mosques, the Shia, the Sunni and Kurd relationships along with some families of prominence who are still in the mix of today's Iraq situation:

It is edifying to review that experience through the writings, and unfulfilled hopes of the British diplomat, Gertrude Bell. One wishes that a careful reading and thoughtful discussion of Bell’s detailed analyses were a required exercise for all our policymaking elites and chattering classes. Regardless, Bell’s narrative sounds eerily familiar as the cast of characters—from the 1920s, versus the present—seems quite literally frozen in time: Shi’ites led by the very same Sadr family; irredentist Sunnis educated in the Wahhabi tradition; Kurdish “separatists”; and the indigenous, pre-Islamic community of Assyrian Christians, soon to be preyed upon, primarily by their traditional Kurdish Muslim enemies, joined by the other Muslim communities.

Yep. The same thing, over 80 years later. The only time these long simmering fueds have been anywhere near silent was under one strong arm leadership or another. Even then there was infighting amongst the groups, you just didn't hear about it.

Post Faisal's crowning and attempts to westernize Iraq through the 1950's, the other mix into the group has been "urban" vs "tribal" and Iran being much more powerful and influential.

So, the question is whether we have read this and learned anything about it and what should we learn? That Iraq can only survive through strong men ready to kill and consolidate their power? Have the tribes never learned that they are the first to be persecuted in times of trouble? Not erudite bureaucrats that have the helm of power, but scape goats who they use to consolidate their power through position. And the tribes are willing to be used apparently.

Also, read this interview from Col. Hunt regarding readiness and issues of leadership while promoting his new book.

Read More...

Summary only...

Women In Combat

Iraq Files posted two opposing articles on the presence of women in combat.

This piece written by Phyllis Schlafly opposing it and this piece by Cathy Young, essentially supporting it, or, at least, supporting the current situation.

I noted comments from both that made me cringe, but, I must admit that Phyllis Schlafly's piece made me cringe the most.

My cringes from Cathy Young:

The notion that women deserve special protection from violence is not just a male plot to keep women down, as many feminists charge; it is also an expression of sincere concern for women's well-being. But such chivalry is ultimately infantilizing.

In response to this, I don't find "chivalry" or the idea that anyone would consider protecting another as "infantilizing", whatever that means. However, as far as we've come in today's society of accepting women as at least equally intelligent and capable of leading, we do still have areas that always seem to be off limits because of ideas about what women should be. It's a strange paradox. Maybe traditionalists are correct in their idea of male and female roles? If they are, I must surely be an abberation.

My cringes from Phyllis Schlafly:

Feminists are lining up their media allies to demand that women be forced into land combat situations, while falsely asserting that Hunter-McHugh is "changing" the rule.

"Forced"? I was watching a recent interview with Maj. Tammy Duckworth, one of a few women who have had bilateral amputations due to injuries received in the war. She indicated that her position as a combat pilot was her decision. When she was signing up, combat positions were not available for women except as pilots. When she had to select her five MOS (specialties she would like to work in the military) she did not have to enter any combat or combat related positions. Unlike her male counter parts that had to list three combat MOS within the five total they listed.

This is still true in today's recruiting. No woman must list a combat or combat related support role for her desired MOS.

Of course, I was thinking of Major Duckworth when I read the next item that made me cringe:

Much of the demand for women in combat comes from female officers who are eager to obtain medals and promotions. Enlisted women are acutely aware of the heavy lifting that must be done by combat infantry.[snip]

Major Duckworth did not mention medals or promotions in her desire to have one of the few combat positions allowed for women. Her sole comment was that she knew her male counterparts had to do it and she did not feel that she should be exempt.

I also have an issue with this statement from Ms. Schlafly as I feel that it paints a very wide swath across the female officer corps of "medal seeking gung ho nutjobs". I'm sure there may be a few, just as there are in the male officers, but I'm thinking that "earning medals" is not the primary goal of most female officers anymore than it is their male counterparts. This seemed to me to be the instant give away that, while Ms. Schlafly was busy quoting some statistics (which she gives no reference link) about what enlisted women supposedly think compared to women officers, Ms. Schlafly has really not sat down and spoke to any female officers and asked them their opinions or ideas on the subject, much less an enlisted female. I'm thinking that Ms. Schlafly really doesn't know much about the military at all.

Just simply putting myself in the place of a female officer that is currently serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, I am thinking that my primary concerns would be:

a) Stay alive and come home
b) Keep the people under me alive and bring them home
c) Do the best I can to support the mission and make sure other units' men and women stay alive and come home.

I'm thinking that "medals" and "promotions" would be far down the list of things that I was thinking about right about now. Maybe in Centcom or other secured areas or even back at home bases in the US and around the globe, far away from combat, the idea of promotions and commendations would be a concern and I would spend time comparing my performance and outcomes to my fellow male officers, but, some how, when you are in close quarters to the possibility of being blown to bits or shot or taken hostage, I'm thinking that it wouldn't be the primary concern of female officers any more or less than their male counterparts.

I think it is a shame that Ms. Schlafly took such a nasty swipe at women who are serving honorably in the officer corps of the military.

As for "enlisted women being acutley aware" of the heavy lifting done by grunts, I imagine that enlisted men understand that they are the front lines, too, in more danger than some of the officer corp stationed comfortably in the green zone or at centcom or any number of logistic positions far away from battle. This isn't a new idea or thought for female enlisted soldiers alone. This has been the grumble of enlisted men since armies have been on the field. Some how enlisted women's thoughts on the subject are unique?

Putting women in military combat is the cutting edge of the feminist goal to force us into an androgynous society. Feminists are determined to impose what Gloria Steinem called "liberation biology" that pretends all male-female differences are culturally imposed by a discriminatory patriarchy.[snip]

What is there to say? I'm not sure that "feminist agenda" is to create an "androgynous" society though I imagine that the stringent feminists have made some robust and inflammatory comments about "discriminatory patriarchy". Just as I'm quite positive that women who join the military and consider having combat positions are not all card carrying members of NOW, joining for the purpose of promoting this hidden agenda. Again, I wonder if Ms. Schlafly has actually interviewed any women in the military and asked them whether they even knew who Gloria Steinem is or why they joined?

Women, on average, have only 60 percent of the physical strength of men, are about 6 inches shorter, and survive basic training only by the subterfuge of being graded on effort rather than on performance.

I have a few issues with the "60 percent of physical strength" though it may be true (I haven't seen any studies and she doesn't reference them). Six inches shorter may be true as well, but I do wonder again if Ms. Schlafly has ever taken the time to watch any programs or observe actual basic training? I distinctly recall that the women must now complete the "crucible" to obtain their anchors and globes, just as the men do and these are not activities for the weak of heart or those who use "subterfuge" to get by. Maybe it's true they don't have to complete as many push ups or pull ups, but I dare Ms. Schlafly to say "subterfuge" to any female marine recruit that drops down in exhaustian after a three day stint in the crucible.

I think she'd get a painful reminder of just how tough basic training is and what it takes to become a member of our armed forces.

Denial of physical differences is an illusion that kills. That's the lesson of the March 11 courtroom massacre in Atlanta's Fulton County Courthouse. That's where authorities have returned a murder indictment against 6-foot, 210-pound Brian Nichols, a former college football player. Nichols is accused of overpowering a 5-foot-1, 51-year-old female sheriff's deputy, taking her gun and going on a crime spree that left four people dead, including the deputy, a judge, a courtroom reporter and a federal agent.[snip]

For the record, female officers have served as court officers, bailiffs and transporters for years without suffering any more inordinate amount of attacks or dangers than their male counter parts. I also wonder if Ms. Schlafly thinks that if a 51 year old, 5-foot-9, 180-pound male deputy wouldn't have been over powered and had his gun taken away from him, too? Maybe she doesn't watch "Cops" or "Real TV"? I am quite certain I've seen a number of episodes where officers alone and without back up have been over powered by their detainee(s)?

This seems to be one of the worst examples I've seen from opposers of women in the military, police, fire department, etc. If your attacker is bigger than you, you are at a disadvantage. Period. It doesn't matter what your sex is.

Of all the things that Ms. Schlafly had said in her column, I have to say that the closing gambit was, quite frankly, the most idiotic:

The Army is wondering why it can't meet its recruitment goals. It could be that the current 15 percent female quota is a turn-off to men who don't want to fight alongside of women who can't carry a man off the battlefield if he is wounded. Forcing women in or near land combat will hurt recruiting, not help.

Anybody really think the military is missing it's recruitment goals because a quota for female enlistments is turning men off or that there is a substantial amount of men who are concerned about fighting alongside a woman that "can't carry a man off the battlefield"?

I imagine that the real recruitment issues are that men are concerned about having to be carried off the field of battle wounded or dead. Period.

I also imagine that this idea concerns potential female enlistees as well.

Frankly, I think back on history and am continually amazed at the amout of subterfuge and denial that people in general will committ on themselves concerning women in combat and it's potential dangers. Maybe my history is a little fuzzy, but I'm thinking I remember that female officers and other women in the navy and army were taken prisoner by the Japanese in the Philipines; were being shelled in the battle of the Bulge; Pearl Harbor the Japanese didn't seem to have much care as to whether their bombs were striking women; Korea where military medical units were over run or in danger of; Viet Nam; shall I go on?

There is no safe job in the military. Since the first time women followed men across continents whether as family or camp followers or members of the military even in support units, women were in danger, suffered injury, death and imprisonment.

One of my favorite stories of the Revolutionary War is the story of Molly Pitcher commanding the cannon after her husband fell. Something we've celebrated for two centuries.

From my perspective, it seems that we continue to play word games with ourselves on the matter.

As for support roles being safer in any concept, I beg to differ. Women driving in convoys from one support base to another have been wounded and killed. They have fought and killed the enemy. It may take someone 6 foot tall and 210 pounds to lug a BAR .50 around the battlefield, but it doesn't take near as much to lug an M16 nor pull the trigger.

I believe that women are capable of doing the same jobs as men at the same level in the military. I don't believe all men nor all women are capable of doing all the jobs. Some are better fit for support, logistics and communications.

If they're capable and they want to, why don't we let them?

Read More...

Summary only...

Distancing Dean

I caught Susan Estrich, Democrat Strategist, talking to Hume on Fox News early Wednesday evening. I think I couldn't have been anymore surprised than I was to hear her talking about the possibility that Dean might be "replaced" as the Chairman of the DNC and commenting on Dean's comments regarding Republicans as all "white Christians" as a follow up to his comments about Republicans never really having to work.

Susan was doing a darn good job of distancing herself from Dean's comments as much as Boxer, Biden and a few others who are now trying to swim away from alienating "white Christians". She also commented on his poor performance at working on the nuts and bolts of the party and "reaching out to people". She felt that he was possibly being even more devisive though, speculating on a reason for his comments, she noted that he might be trying to "fire up" his grass roots, far left folks. She even went so far as to say the words "far left".

When Susan Estrich is warning the Democrats about catering too much to the "far left" and alienating groups they should be trying to peel off from the Republicans, you know that it's a serious issue.

I find this whole situation intriguing. Parts of the party, including Boxer and Clinton, have been attempting to reel back in some of the middle of the road "white Christian" people by talking about their own beliefs and even throwing in some occassional scriptures while others in their party have been attacking as fundamentalists set on creating a theocracy . Both parties appear to have their schizophrenic identities, but it does appear that the DNC schizophrenia could be more harmful than helpful.

Let's face it, white Christians are still the majority of voters in this country. Some parts of the Democrat party have been going on over drive about "evangelicals" and it is hurting the DNC. Susan Estrich admits that the RNC is out pacing the DNC fund raising significantly. It isn't necessarily a case of angering "white Christians" so much as still, this far away from November 2004, having anything that they can really turn the "middle of the road" voters on.

Seems like everyone was running for the hills after the latest Dean Scream.

In the mean time, congresses recess is about to occur, judicial nominees are still languishing, border security is far away from expectations, social security is still dying a lingering death and spending is out of control in congress.

It's hard to say what people on the street are thinking about on these issues. In several general conversations with people I've gotten replies that indicate "same old same old". No one is looking at the current congress with anything close to admiration much less with expectations.

People still wave it away as if it was something far away from them in a foreign land being spoken about in a foreign language.

The fire is only a dull ember in the DNC and the Republicans are barely keeping a torch lit. Both parties are in need of a little oxygen to get their fires going. The question will be if the upcoming recess will be the fire starter or just a long summer before the "same old same old" commences again.

It will be anyone's guess if the 2006 elections will actually result in a change for either party.

Read More...

Summary only...

State of the Insurgency Part VI: Splitting It Open

Today's news is an interesting paradox of good and bad. Monday had seen very little activity in the way of explosions and killings. One car bomb, some sectarian assassinations, one "revenge" killing of an ex-Ba'athi and some criminal activity.

Tuesday was different. Defying my original estimate, the insurgents were able to coordinate quicker than I had originally anticipated and organize multiple attacks, four days earlier than I predicted. Interestingly, the military bloggers stationed in Iraq had noted that Monday was much too quiet, like the quiet before the storm. They were correct.

Opposite of these planned attacks, news came that two groups were willing to open talks:

Former electricity minister Ayham al-Samarie told The Associated Press the Islamic Army in Iraq and the Army of Mujahedeen — or holy warriors — were ready to open talks with the Shiite-led government aimed at eventually joining the political process.

The claim appears consistent with comments from a senior Shiite legislator, Hummam Hammoudi, who told the AP last week the government had opened indirect channels of communication with some insurgent groups.

Interestingly, while the Sunni Association of Muslim scholars continue to decry the recent actions of rounding up insurgents and insist it is causing hard feelings within the populace, it cannot be noted strongly enough that this action may have precipitated these organizations desire to join the political process and avoid being thrown into prison as their organization is depleted. Coupled with the question of Zarqawi's continuing ability to lead in light of recent news and it may have caused many to reconsider their prospects.

Either way, if it is possible to bring in parts of these organizations or the organizations as a whole, it will have an effect on the insurgency. How much is a speculation on anyone's part.

As reminded by commenter mavenette, these groups are not one large organization, but many smaller ones that cooperate and make up the whole. When one falls, another may be there to take its place. Also, each group, like the Army of Islam, is made up of even smaller groups, some of which may break off and continue their efforts.

What's important is "whittling away" at the groups, splitting them open and, hopefully, leaving the active ones weaker with less support financially, logistically and within the population.

I expect that these talks may go on for two to four weeks before any real progress is made. The groups coming in from the cold will want guarantees that may be difficult for the government to give considering the amount of damage and the anger among their constituents over the attacks that these groups have perpetuated.

It will be interesting to see what occurs in the next month.

One thing I wonder about, considering that the Association of Muslim Scholars always seem to have their fingers on the pulse of the insurgency, able to negotiate releases of hostages, etc, I must wonder if we have this group sufficiently under surveillance?

How would one go about doing that in Iraq?.

Read More...

Summary only...

State of the Insurgency Part V: Tactical Errors, Unintended Consequences and Quagnmires

Belmont Club posited a question about whether increased terrorism from Islamists with access to WMD would create a self destructive atmosphere in which Muslims would possibly annhilate each other before they could annhilate the west.

I was thinking this long before Wretchard's commentary. It seems to me that "radical, wahhabist" Islam has more enemies than friends. Or should. It also seems to me that Islam itself is a sectarian war waiting to happen.

I don't mean simply the concept of "radical" Islam versus "rational" Islam. Looking at the microcosm of Iraq and it's sectarian violence with Shia being second class citizens in Saudi Arabia, Iran being largely Shia, Syria having Arab/Kurd issues, Pakistan with its radical Islamists and Afghanistan being torn between Pashto and Dari speaking Taliban vs. "leave me alone and let me grow my poppies" and, let's not forget, Yemen or the Gulf Countries that would just like to sell their oil, drag in money and be left out of the entire insanity...oh, yes, the Islamists in Indonesia and Thailand attacking everyone and anyone...it just seems like...chaos.

Is there a plan in there somewhere? I know what Zawahiri wrote and wanted to happen, but I think, just from looking over the situation, there was a huge tactical error on Bin Laden's part. Maybe two, three or four serious errors. Compound that with the Beslan atrocity and Zarqawi attacking the Shia in Iraq left and right, I think you can get a picture of the problems bin Laden and his other compatriots have gotten themselves into.

It only takes one error, one time at the beginning of a war when forces aren't massed correctly, choose the wrong target or decide to attack a target before it is properly prepared and...poof...the war is over, you just don't know it yet. Unless, of course, your enemy makes a similar mistake or two and then it can drag out as each tries to make corrective actions.

Aside from ideological issues, there were multiple errors on the part of Bin Laden that has, from this perspective, doomed his plan to failure.

The first of which, Zawahiri wrote in his book, "Knights Under the Prophets Banner", was to obtain and hold a nation state from whence the great Islamic Revolution could sally forth, support and plan, operations around the world. Afghanistan appears to be the chosen place. Bin Laden and Zawahiri expected to hold Afghanistan and cause the United States and other western forces to be "bogged down" and expend blood and treasure until they were exhausted, a la USSR in Afghanistan in the 80's, eventually sapping their will and breaking their economies to the point where the citizenry would no longer accept war and casualties, allowing the Islamist movement space and time to move onto other objectives.

Regardless of a few incidents here and there in Afghanistan, it cannot be said loud enough or long enough that this was a complete tactical error on Bin Laden's part. He expected that the same bon homme support that he and the mujihadeen had received during the USSR/Aghan war would still exist amongst the population. I wonder if he ever left his little compounds to actually walk in the countryside and see what his erstwhile hosts were doing to the population? Enternecine warfare between factions; summary decrees and executions; a beaten and much impoverished citizenry that was just plain tired of all the war and would like to have grown their poppies in peace; what was he expecting?

Yes, he did receive some assistance and was able to escape with a number of other top personnel, but it was obvious that it was by the skin of his teeth.

Did he really think after twenty years that these people would be the same who opposed the "Godless" Ruskies?

That was in fact his primary error. He did not take into account the political climate of the country he thought to use as his stepping off point. OBL should have came out of his camps more and hobnobbed with the common people. He spent too much time with his commrades in arms, insulated from the reality and receiving praises and assurances they would fight to the bitter end. He forgot that it was the common people supporting him that made him able to fight the Russians to the end along with some heavy lifting by a much greater force opposing the Ruskies on the world front politically and economically.

I think that this was an error of delusion on his part.

His second tactical error was not taking into account that weapons and technology had long changed since the time of the Ruskies. Hiding out in caves high up in the mountains no longer gave security. Bombs could find him there easily.

His third tactical error was in assassinating Massoud. His expectations were that he would send the opposition, the force that knew how he fought and how to fight back in the same manner, into a tail spin and possibly cause internal fighting, splintering the group and rendering them useless as allies to an invading force. He failed to consider that these occassions are often rallying points for demographics. The same failure that the Syrians had this year when assassinating Rafik Harrari.

His expectations of US reactions and capabilities were also quite wrong. I don't believe that he didn't expect retaliation in a massive form as opposed to a few missiles as seen in the Clinton Administration. He fully expected a full frontal assault, but, again, was planning on a Ruskie/Afghan effect that would cause many mujihadeen to hurry to their cause and fight the Americans there. Afghanistan was to be the rallying point, the consolidation of Islam against the west. The war in Afghanistan did not last long enough nor present large enough targets to allow the Arab demographic to rally to his side in support. I also believe, while some people in the ME may have supported a strike against the US, the type, size and outcome of the strike may have actually given some governments and their citizens pause. Unlike Bin Laden, these governments understood what was at risk if they allowed or participated in a support for the Taliban.

Bin Laden and Zawahiri were attempting to choose an the battle field. There in Afghanistan, he knew the terrain, he had resources, he had egress for many more expected fighters through Pakistan, he had set bases that he could move around in, weapons caches, supply lines, cash flow.

His primary error made this a moot point. Politics and war go hand in hand and Bin Laden had made the fatal error. The war was over in short weeks, not years and they could not inflict more damage on the enemy than the enemy could inflict on them.

With Afghanistan gone, Bin Laden must have thought he received a gift from Allah when the US attacked Iraq. There it was, a second chance to bog down the US in long warfare and create the cause du jour for mujihadeen everywhere. For all intents and purposes, it must still appear that way to him as would be mujihadeen who grew up on the legends of the fighters in Afghanistan continue to wonder into the Iraq theater. Some logistics already existed there at least as operational support to the terrorists, if not direct planning for operations in Iraq once they new it was coming. Where else could you get a built in insurgency, weapons galore and egress into a country from no less than three bordering countries?

However, post liberation, even as planning and attacks began to occur against the coalition, the movement was still anemic. They needed big publicity to catch the idealistic youth, dreaming of going on jihad. Beheadings are, in effect, double edged swords, both politically and militarily. Internally, Zarqawi as bin Laden's deputy, must have received a less than warm reception amongst the Ba'athist. Cooperation was not the first thing on their minds. There was and is a real question of ideology and who would "rule" should they be succesful.

At the same time, US errors in intelligence regarding the situation on the ground in Iraq had some major flaws in it. It appears that no one expected the incredible deterioration of the Iraqi infrastructure. It seems also that the expectations were to prop up a government, get the requisite agencies in place and allow the Iraqis to have at it before the insurgency could get a real toe hold in the area and draw us into pitched battle. I have thought, more and more, that it Iraq was not planned as the US picking it's battleground to draw in the terrorists and kill them, as it was a "holding" action, taking out a potential ally for the terrorists and decreasing operational and financial support.

As straight forward and as simple as the first presentation to the UN. Occam's Razor. The simplest answer is the most likely answer.

The second tactical/intelligence error of the US was to not take into account the sectarian stress boiling just under the surface of the Saddam regime. While it is understood that a majority of the "Ba'athi" were Sunni, I think that there was an expectation that there was an "elite" Sunni Ba'athi core group that was responsible for all the attrocities and that all the others were simply Cogs in the machine and victims of this oppression would give them common cause with their other Iraqi brothers and sisters, allowing for reconciliation and common ground for establishing a representative Iraqi government.

But, down deep inside, there were two obstacles to this path: the Shia believing that most Sunni were involved in their oppression, either directly or complicit, and requiring some vengence and the Sunni/Ba'athi who have long seen the Shia as actual or possible traitors, consorting with Iran who killed thousands of Iraqi during the Iraq/Iran war. While many would point to Saddam as the culprit in this war, it still does not settle the heart of Sunni expecting to be betrayed into the enemy's hands.

Zarqawi noted this in his letter to Bin Laden in February 2004 and planned to take advantage of it to stir up strife, get more publicity and draw in more fighters to confront the US. Here, he and Bin Laden make another mistake. Bin Laden had been much more egalatarian in his acceptance of Shia as part of the whole "ummah" and "mujihadeen" as possible recruits in his grand Islamist scheme. Zarqawi convinces Bin Laden that the Shia are dogs and traitors and should be killed. With Bin Laden's consent, Zarqawi begins a campaign against the Shia.

Was it really meant to stir up "sectarian violence"? Yes, but, again, I believe that Zarqawi and Bin Laden make more mistakes, expecting too quail the Shia quickly. AFter all, he had the logistical support, supplies and monies. What did the Shia have?

Now the Shia have guns and tanks and money and control of the political process. They aren't weak or victims anymore. Zarqawi wanted to stir up a civil war between Sunni and Shia in order to create chaos, cause failure of the Iraq endeavor with US withdrawl. The question is, what did he expect to happen afterwards? If the US withdrew and left them to themselves, how would he stop the civil war? Or not? They didn't care, seems to be the answer and, regardless of any assistance he may be getting from Iran, once the Shia and Sunni were at each others throats and the US was withdrawn, the law of unintended consequences would kick in.

I believe this was a major tactical error. Shia have not resorted to all out sectarian war against all Sunni, but have been waging slow but sure selective "assassination" and "retaliation" against any who they knew to have ties with the Ba'athi or that they suspicion have assisted the "insurgent" wahhabists. While the Sunni (mostly tribal or religious politicos) decry these operations, whole groups of Shia are rounded up and killed. Retaliation by Shia comes swiftly against those whose tribal names are recognized.

As Wretchard at Belmont indicated (and a few others in the past), this battle may have started with Bin Laden attempting to draw "Islam vs. Western Civilizatin", but it may well turn into an internal war that has been brewing for several centuries: Shia vs. Islam.

The destruction of Islam, if it ever comes, will not be at the hands of the west, but at it's own hands. As Wretchard points out, if these people get hold of weapons of mass destruction, it could well be that Mecca is taken out, not by the US, but their own devices.

This isn't just from reviewing Iraq. As I noted earlier, there is sectarian violence in Pakistan, Syria and now Nigeria, not to mention the Janjaweed Arab militias killing any black Muslims or others that they can find. So much for Bin Laden, Zawahiri and other groups great plans for a unified and strengthened "Ummah".

One thing I found interesting, Zawahiri in his book "Knights Under the Prophet's Banner", actually lambasted the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt for giving up most of their violent resistance against the government and attemtping to join the political process. Today, it seems more likely that the Muslim Brotherhood will get their wish before Zawahiri and Bin Laden.

Looking back into Iraq, the killing of mostly Muslim citizens and the other attrocities committed by Zarqawi and other extremists juxtaposed against Iraqis going to the election box, continues to slowly whittle away at support across the Arab and Muslim world. It is small and barely trackable, but still there as recruits slow down, al Jazeera and Arab news refer to their activities as "terrorist" and fronts continue to move in on an ever smaller circle to the leadership, operational and logistical support.

Today, I was reading an interview at Right Wing News with Jack Kelly, a columnist, and he made an observation in a few short words that directly coincides with this analysis:

We can defeat the terrorists, we are defeating the terrorists. The terrorists are held in much higher regard in Western newsrooms these days than they are on the so-called Arab street. That’s partly because the unrepresentative nature of their goals has been publicized throughout the Middle East thanks to the huge turn-out of the Iraqi elections and the negative response throughout the Middle East to Al-Qaeda suicide bombing attacks. Iraq has proven to be a quagmire, as the people on the left have asserted, but it’s a quagmire for Al Qaeda, not for the United States.

I think that last sentence explains it entirely. Afghanistan was too far away and too out of touch in the heart of Arabia for any Arab or Muslim citizen to relate, see or understand on a regular basis what occured to the people there during the Taliban. It was just a feint echo in their lives and easily dismissed as false or mitigated by the "good works" of the Taliban.

Now the stories are up front and persona, on their door steps every day, staring at them from news papers, TVs and across the border. Now they must fear the battle coming to them directly and not necessarily on the wings of a US jet.

In short, while Bin Laden and company had been insisting that the West was splitting Muslims from the true religion of Islam, it would appear that Bin Laden, Zawahiri and Zarqawi will accomplish this on their own. Whether this is a tactical means of "sorting the chafe from the wheat" or an unintended consequence, instead of unifying the Umman, they have succeeded in cutting it into many pieces, sects and strenghts.

In conclusion, I believe that Bin Laden and Company, lost this war before it even got underway. They did not prepare the political ground work; they greatly under estimated it. Something that should have been news above and beyond the attacks of the same on the US intelligence and administration. While there might have been anger on the "Arab Streets" it was not great enough for some not to question if the cost to benefit ratio as inordinately lopsided.

Secondly, his main strike to cut off the command and control structure of the US failed miserably. With the US congress still whole and in session, the US could and would retaliate immediately. The time he was hoping to gain from the chaos and political infighting that would occur before action, did not happen. He lost this battle in the skies of Pennsylvania.

Third, he failed to know his enemy and worked off of perceived ideas, some right and some wrong, but mostly relying on his past experience with a similar enemy. He falied to know their technology and he certainly did not know much about equipment or the men on the forces.

Fourth, he failed to prepare the physical battle ground and hold it, losing much time to escaping, re-grouping and re-arming.

Fifth, he chose Zarqawi to command in Iraq and opened up what is essentially a second front against the Shia.

Not good tactics at all.

Read More...

Summary only...

D-Day Anniversary

I was reminded while traveling the blog world that today is the anniversary of D-Day.

Last night I was watching "Saving Private Ryan". Say what you will about the movie, but it has some of the most realistic battle scenes I've yet to see in a movie regarding the period.

I've seen "The Longest Day", "A Bridge Too Far" and a number of other movies done in the fifties and sixties on the subject. Maybe because of the realistic fighting scenes or because I'm older now and we are at war, whatever it is, I've always been interested in the period and felt how important it was to our existence today. I've always been thankful. But, lately, it's seemed so much more important.

The characters of "Saving Private Ryan" seemed to represent the gamut of real emotions and ideas, the intelligence of the men, some understood, some who had been doing it for so long they just wanted it to be over and those that new that they had a duty to perform, even if sometimes it seemed so damned hard to do.

The scenes that stick in my mind are of the beach. It seems so chaotic and disorganized, yet, specific instances still resonate. Maybe because my grandfather had shared similar stories about his time ferrying men to Iwo Jima and Okinawa on flat boats. In the beginning, several men are sea sick as the boat drives towards the shore. Then, as it hits the beach area and let's down the front of the boat, men are scrambling off, but getting shot before they can even take a step, falling into the water and drowning. My grandfather told me the same stories about the Pacific war back in '87 before he died.

The water had an overlay of pink froth from the blood and men were drowning before they could reach shore. The sheer number of dead and dying before they could even begin attempting to take the guns above is still mind boggling to me, yet the movie brought it closer to home. I can recall each scene on the beach, huddling behind the steel I beams welded in X's, the scramble from one place to the other, the attempts to get men to move forward because it was "die here or die there". There were the men screaming, parts gone, bullet holese, equipment everywhere and medics were crawling or running from man to man with bullets whizzing by them.

Seeing those scenes reminded me why we called them "the greatest generation".

The other scenes might have just been part of the backdrop, but I recall, as they gathered at the berms below the whithering fire from mortars and machine gun nests, Hanks' character is trying to gage who is left from his group, who has the equipment, and what they need to do. He realizes that he has less than half of the men he started with and virtually none of the equipment he needed. He tells the radio man to call back and say the first wave was "ineffective", implying they need more men or that the attack might need to be called off. Then the radio man dies and he, Hanks', realizes that they are all being cut to pieces behind the berm, there is no going back, there is no more assistance and moving forward again is their only chance to live, even if he knows men will die, at least some would live.

I could feel the sheer fear, the anger, the confusion asking "why", and, finally, the resignation that they must do what they have to do. After they scale the cliff area and take out the bunker, some German soldiers come out to surrender and the US soldiers shot them dead, even while they were holding their hands in the air. It was obvious by the words and actions of the men, they felt little or no remorse, but felt satisfaction at getting back some of their own for the hell they went through and the men that had been cut in half by the German guns. Hanks' character sees this. By his expression, you can tell it pains him, but you can also tell that he too has some resignation about what war can do to a man, what it will make him do.

Later, Hanks gives a report to his commander. His report is all about the action and places that his men had taken, but he doesn't give the number of wounded or killed. His commander asks him for the numbers. It's as if Hanks doesn't want to give them up. Was he protecting himself mentally from the idea that he led men into carnage? Was he reluctant to make them a statistic, but instead wanted to hold them to himself as something personal and not just a number?

That was just the opening scenes. The others that stick in my mind are when they meet up with the Airborne glider group. Yes, the scene with the dog tags and looking at the names, stick in my mind, but actually, the one that is most sticky is when the lieutenant is expalaining that, as men wondered into the rally point, officers and others would get a group together to "go cause trouble". It wasn't a linear war either.

Then, when Hanks orders his men to take the machine gun nest, even though they don't have to. His men are angry, but he yells at them that another group of men could come along and be ambushed. Finally, some of them start realizing the truth of that point and the others, who don't want to be seen as cowards, decide to join the effort, even if it is reluctantly. It makes you realize that, regardless of orders or discipline, men have their own minds and followed for a couple reasons. They were more often than not, not about glory and death, but about getting the job done so they could go home faster, saving the guy beside them or after them, sometimes about anger and a few were about idealism.

That's the movie in a nutshell. It wasn't all "idealism" that made people act. It was many other things in between. Idealism seemed to have died in the bloody water or only existed in the political minds of the people back home. Later, Hanks explains that, when his men died, he always told himself that each man was insuring that tens, hundreds or thousands of men were being saved. It seemed hard for him, so close to the battle, to keep that illusion. Now, through space and time, we know that it was true. Yet, it still didn't make it easier for the men that were there.

Just like today's war.

I think the two scenes that made the biggest impact on me were: When the army drives up to the Ryan house. You see the four blue star flag proudly hung in the window. You know what's coming already, but, when the Mom walks out on the porch, there are no words, just music and you know she knows before they even speak. She collapses.

I imagine that scene played over and over again, thousands of times.

It never fails to bring tears to my eyes.

Lastly, the scene at the end, where Hanks tells Damon's character to "earn it".

I always knew that he was talking to us, the audience.

I remember.

Always.

Earn it.

Read More...

Summary only...

Thieves

Well, it happens to the best of us. I lost my Visa/Check card on May 20th. I believe I left it in the ATM machine at a bank down the road late that Friday when I went to Taco Hell and got cash first. Saturday afternoon, I found it gone when I stopped to get gas. I figured, "no big deal, I'll call the bank I left it at and ask them if they have it Monday morning". I called and they did not have it, told me to call back around 3pm. I called back, and still no card.

I called my bank and told them the card was missing. I didn't have time to come and fill out new paperwork, so I decided I would just write checks and get cash out the old fashion way until I did. This was working okay and I thought that it was keeping me from spending a lot of money. I was keeping my records up better this way, too.

So, this morning, I went to get some cash out and asked the teller for a print out of my account so I could balance it to my check book. When she handed me the print out, it said I had about $372 in the account. That was wrong. I should have had over $1k. I looked at the last transaction on the printout and it was a visa check card (ie, ATM) transaction at a local Applebee's on a day when I had been at the office in another state.

HOLY SHIT!

Immediately, I asked to see the rest of the account print out.

There were transactions all over the place. Applebee's, Blockbuster, Burger King, Wal Mart, you name it, they were having a high old time with my card. Immediately, I asked to see a manager.

All told, they spent $920 in less than a week.

I asked the bank why my card wasn't stopped when I called. They don't have record of the stop. They said they will now pull all the transactions and compare my signature with the one on the receipts. Ten days to decide if they are putting it back in my account.

Son of a bitch!

Mortgage is due and I just wrote checks on the account this weekend.

I am so highly pissed right now I could fucking hit something.

There are a lot of thieves and scumbags in this world.

Read More...

Summary only...

State of the Insurgency Part IV Operation Lightening Effect

With reports of Zarqawi's injuries and his on again/off again availability to lead, Operation Lightening is taking advantage of the disarray of the insurgency efforts.

In today's reports http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158565,00.html, the insurgency managed to kill eight and wound a few dozen others with some poorly placed explosives and incompetent suicide drivers:

Sporadic attacks around Iraq killed eight people Friday in one of the least
violent days since the Shiite -led government took office about one month
ago.

Sunni clerics were calling for an end to the operations because they felt it was targeting Sunni unfairly. Reminds me of claims of certain minority groups in New York when Guiliani kicked of "broken windows". Amazingly, the crime rate went down in New York even while people were declaring descriminatory focus on their people. Sunni leaders are doing the same in Iraq and the effects are the same: the operation continues on and the insurgency continues a downward spiral.

Interestingly, Iraq the Model points to other Sunni Clerics who are calling for an end of the violence by Sunnis and, while concerned about the raids, actually give a reason not reported by the media:

The clerics said that they clarified to Jafari that their groups are trying hard to raise the voice of reason among the extreme mosque preachers and that they're leading an educational campaign to counteract the "takfiri" ideology (takfiri means considering anyone who disagrees with your view of religion an infidel). They said that their campaign includes convincing people that using arms against American forces is useless and illogical for the huge difference in capabilities that makes it crazy to fight a superpower.

The clerics also voiced their concerns to Jafari about the intensified raids of the security forces in their regions and that they're not feeling "safe" because the majority of Iraqi forces are comprised of She'at Iraqis and those She'at members of the forces think that everyone with a beard is a terrorist.

If the shoe fits...

Moving on to today's blood shed:

In northern Mosul, a suicide car bomber blew himself up near a police station in the southern part of the city, killing three police officers and wounding another five, Capt. Ahmed Khalil of the police operations room said. Two officers were seriously injured, hospital officials said.

Islamist terrorists/suicide bomb.

A mortar attack in Tal Afar, a city about 50 miles west of Mosul, killed two Iraqi men and injured three, police chief Col. Ishmael Mohammed said.

These shooters missed their targets so my thoughs are that they are new "jihadist" recruits the better trained mortar men appear to be ex-regime soldiers/ba'athi that are able to coordinate, triangulate and direct fire, walking the fire into the target using a spotter which seems to indicate, in Iraq anyway, that someone with previous military experience is directing it.

Read also, a report from Steven Vincent in Basra from several days ago about receiving mortar fire.

Gunmen killed Brig. Sabah Qara Alton, a Turkman official at Kirkuk City Council, after he left a mosque in the ethnically mixed northern city following Friday prayers, police Capt. Sarhad Talabani said.

Kurdish/Turkman/Arab sectarian fighting. Kirkuk continues to be a sticking point in Kurdish/Turkman/Arab relations in Iraq. The Arabs are there because Saddam put them there over ten years ago. The Kurds want it back and the Kurds suspect the Turkman population of being in cahoots with their long time nemesis and persecutors, Turkey.

Earlier, gunmen killed Razzouq Mohammed Ibrahim, an Iraqi contractor in charge of renovating a mosque in western Samarra, and stole his car, police Lt. Qassim Mohammed said.

Sorry, but I think this is criminal activity and not anything to do with "insurgents, terrorists or sectarian" fighting. Seems like people are stretching for some blood and guts to report

Insurgents also fired mortars at the Baghdad Medical City complex shortly after midday, damaging one of the roof of a building. They then shot and killed an Iraqi man standing outside the complex, U.S. military spokesman Sgt. David Abrams said.

Jihadist/terrorists. By their doctrine, jihadists attack government, security forces, journalists, professors and medical personnel in order to take out the "intellectuals" that would naturally oppose them. Standard insurgent operations.

That makes a total of eight dying today, though, according to the report, several dead bodies were found that were at least 24 or more hours old. Five bodies were "terrorists" according to the local police chief which makes me think that the police chief knew all about it and the Sunni might be right in fearing retaliation from "official" agencies acting in unofficial ways.

Two Iraqi civilians, including a child, were also killed when their car swerved into a U.S. Bradley fighting vehicle near Khalis, 50 miles north of Baghdad, the U.S. military said.

As I was noting earlier, stretching to find some blood and guts to report when you have to include traffic accidents.

In short, more deaths, but seriously decreased since the beginning of "Operation Lightening" and the detention of hundreds of possible terrorists.

Col. Mark Milley:

Milley said 84 suspects were detained Friday, while a "half a dozen suspected al-Qaida cell members" and several other "foreign fighters" from Sudan, Syria, Egypt and Jordan had been captured since the operation began.

"Al Qaida cell members". As previously noted in parts I, II and III, with Zarqawi's wounding and subsequent confusion within the ranks about who is in charge, information and "chatter" is flowing a little more freely. As predicted, many low and mid-level people are "showing" themselves and being picked off. A few high value targets have also been picked up as expected.

Maybe the violence was less because the jihadists were at "prayers"? Probably not.

The last three days were nothing compared to the end of April and mid May. Still predicting major attacks (five or more attacks per day) are down until next weekend or later as these groups try to coalesc, re-organize command and control and establish com lines. Sweeping up some additional people may be able to put it off another week.

Reserving opinion until then.

Major K Reports

Also, a suicide car bomber, succeeded in only blowing himself up while his following sponsors in another vehicle who tried to follow up with an impromptu ambush on the IP's were outflanked and captured by the Iraqi Army from a nearby checkpoint. Good on 'em. This particular battalion is known as "The Lions." They are far from perfect, but they sure got it right this time. In spite of all this, arhabi activity in our zone is decreasing, partly due to the leathernecks out west like Howdy and Hurl, as well as the continuing efforts of our guys and the Iraqis. Baby Steps. Rome was not built in a day....

And don't miss Hurl of Howdy and Hurl talking about raids netting bad guys and getting intel.

Got one....

.


Yep, we got one of the guys involved in an ambush earlier in Hadithah. It was a flawless raid at about 3am. Howdy and I supported a recon team sent in to snatch a particular fellow who would provide some very critical intel on a lot of the big shots in the area and their organization.

This guy lived in a house just to the West of the town of Haqlaniyah – just South of Hadithah. We held out to the West and observed with our FLIR as the recon bubbas ingressed and crept up to the house. They did an explosive breach, poured into the house – but nobody was home. Fortunately they had intel that a house nearby was a relatives house.

They moved to the next house, kicked in the door and entered. It turns out the target individual was cowering in the corner under a blanket, hiding behind some children. He was positively identified, bagged and carried away.

I see bad things ahead for the "insurgents". With the Syrian boder towns sowed up last month, egress from the area will be difficult. Some will try to go to ground and "disappear", but it's likely we'll be able to sweep them up with a few less "safe harbors" and entry of new fighters and materials.

This time we got a big shot – a moneyman – a sheik. As mentioned in an earlier post, our intel is really paying off.

Hurl also gives an explanation of why these folks are sometimes eager to talk when one would think they would keep their mouths shut:

I am guessing that it doesn’t take much to make these guys talk. All that is needed is to threaten to turn them loose. The torturous death they would probably receive at the hands of their fellow terrorists is more than enough incentive to start squawking. In a recent raid, an Egyptian “militant” who failed to perform his mission was found tortured, chained to a floor, and buried alive in concrete. These guys are brutal.

Might be another reason why "recruitment" is down. Wonder if Al Jazeera reports these activities?

Read More...

Summary only...

Guantanamo Bay - Quran AbuseStill Ridiculous

AP Reports Pentagon Confirms "Quran Abuse".

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon on Friday confirmed for the first time that a U.S. soldier deliberately kicked a Guantanamo Bay prisoner's Muslim holy book in violation of the military's rules for handling the Quran.

OMG! The horror! It's inconceivable that a US soldier could be pissed off enough at a detainee to want to kick something (sarcasm). Fortunately, for the prisoner (and the guard) he restrained himself and kicked the Quran.

In other confirmed incidents, prison guards threw water balloons in a cell block, causing an unspecified number of Qurans to get wet; a guard's urine splashed on a detainee and his Quran; an interrogator stepped on a Quran during an interrogation; and a two-word obscenity was written in English on the inside cover of a Quran.

Okay, water balloons? Whose idea of "abusing prisoners" was that? Come on! If they're going to do something that gets them labeled as operating a "gulag", where's the unrestrained beatings, hanging from the ankles and electric shock? Criminy! If I got to keep hearing this stuff, I at least want to make sure that it was somewhere in the vicinity of "gulag" guard behavior. Of course, a reasonable person would understand that this is not "wide spread", "systematic" or "routine", particularly as the AP was generous enough to indicate that the activities were "against military policy".

I do wonder what a guard was doing urinating near a Quran or a prisoner with a Quran. The mind boggles. Whatever. I imagine that the guy kicking the Quran got a little reprimand since that type of behavior, though understandable, may not be helpful in prepping the detainee for interrogation, but may make them even more belligerent and insistent on being uncooperative. Most likely, the interrogation incident happened in 2002 when the Pentagon was going through multiple ideas on countering resistance to known interrogation techniques.

I will add here that, when I read the policy regarding treatment of the Quran and read the interrogation manual that makes recommendations on how to best obtain information from detainees, someone, a long time ago, determined that this behavior was counter productive to the program. That's why there is only ONE instance of that occurring. Probably didn't turn that interrogation around.

And, honestly, I don't blame the person that wrote the two word obscenity (I kind imagine what it was) in the Quran. I'm thinking when you got a bunch of crazy bastards that use their religion as a political ideology and justification for blowing up civilians, cutting their heads off and screaming "allahu akbar", one would be hard pressed not to want to tell them a thing or two about their ideas or how you feel about them.

On with the story, because now the AP says, "see, Newsweek was right and the US government was wrong for accusing them of lying":

The findings are among the results of an investigation last month by Brig. Gen. Jay Hood, the commander of the detention center in Cuba, that was triggered by a Newsweek magazine report — later retracted — that a U.S. soldier had flushed one Guantanamo Bay detainee's Quran down a toilet.

The story stirred worldwide controversy and the Bush administration blamed it for deadly demonstrations in Afghanistan..

Okay. Just so we're all on the same page, the Newsweek story was still a lie. Further, these incidents are almost laughably miniscule compared to the whole endeavor, one wonders why this much attention has been given to it? Probably because the other information regarding "detainee abuse" just has too many nuances and legitimate explanations along with obvious review and oversite continuing at administrative and unit levels. It's getting hard to claim policy driven abuse. Unless you're Amnesty International or the ACLU.

There were over 640 detainees at the onset of Guantanamo. Today, there are still 520 disregarding the 38 that will be released shortly.

Out of 640 detainees and over 24,000 interrogations, five, count them, FIVE incidents of actual "abuse of quran" could be found and I would lay my life savings of $5 down that soldiers received disciplinary actions for at least three of the incidents, policy regarding interrogation practices and handling of the Quran were clarified for two reasons:

1) We have an obligation under the Geneva Conventions to treat prisoners' religious ideas with respect and provide them with access to religious texts and "chaplains".

2) Mishandling the Quran has led to issues with control, security and interrogation within the facility.

I'll let the reader decide which of these two items probably drove the administration to make changes to policies more than the other.

In closing, the whole "Quran" abuse story is still a ridiculous red herring. I wonder, after reading the redacted FBI version (Lord knows what's in the full classified version) why no news agency is reporting some of the comments made by the detainees and show Americans what they are really about?

Document number 2, pages 11 and 12, the man had previously made statements that he had been to Pakistan, was met there by [name redacted] who helped him and other Arabs travel to several countries, finally arrived in Pakistan and ended up staying at a mosque related to an Islamist group related to Al Qaida. Then the guy says he was lying and it was coerced by the Pakistani interrogators. Then the FBI asks if he would take a polygraph test. The guy then states that he can't take the polygraph test because it's against his religion.

Right.

Or the character on page 10 of the same document who admits to training with Al Qaida, admits to meeting bin Laden, admits that he went to Afghanistan to train for "true jihad". He says that he didn't receive any training because he did not have his parents' permission to do so and it is against Islam to lie about having your parents' permission.

Now, if you all have been paying attention and the MSM wanted to report something of interest, how about the number of young men who have lied to their parents about going to visit friends, going on religious travels or going to university and then their parents get the surprise of their lives when their sons' names appear on the "martyrdom" website saying he had blown himself up and 30 innocent Muslims on a street in Baquba?

Anyone that pays attention and actually reads this stuff would know what it's about.

Quran abuse? A pain in the ass in regards to policy and interrogation obstruction, but it's not the real story here. Neither is the seven cases of "abuse" that have been reported and disciplined.

The real story here is that these men that remain are not just some poor Afghani guy, minding his business and his sheep when he got swept up by US, Northern Alliance or Pakistani forces. All of those folks were released some time ago or not even transported to Guantanamo.

What remains are men who have participated in or havknowledgege about organized Islamist movements and have admitted to it, recanted, told lies, couldn't keep their stories straight if their lives depended on it and we're supposed to sit back and be distracted by voodoo stories about Quran abuse and the "gulag" of Guantanamo, while our enemies laugh in our faces or behind the same Qurans, enjoying their air conditioning, culturally sensitive food, volley ball courts and soccer games.

To the media.Thehe story is dead. You played your part in the bullshit and we think you suck for it.

Report the truth. If the MSM wants to be objective, why don't you report even the unclassified portions of these investigations? Tell the American people and the rest of the world what these men believe in and what they should expect by men going to "true jihad".

The guy from page 15 and 16 that knows several of the fighters and where they're from.

The guy on page 17 who swears he doesn't know anything, didn't know about the attacks on September 11 in the US, but had made previous statements otherwise and was now trying to claim that he would just go back to Afghanistan and raise his family, although, he insists that there should only be one religion, Islam and that all others are false and insults to Allah.

The guy on page 23 that says he "feels sorry for Americans" because they will be targets abroad and specifically in the middle east, but refused to give specifics. This was in 2002. If the media wanted to report anything, how about this guy's statement with a little run down of the violence perpetuated against "westerners" in Saudi Arabia and many other places by jihadists exploding bombs?

I'm sure this guy was innocent. /sarcasm

Page 24, our detainee is talking about an organized mass suicide that the detainees will expect to "solidify" anger against America by its propaganda. I recall in 2002 when reports of this were leaked out and everyone started worrying that conditions in Guantanamo were so bad, men were willing to take their lives. Well, guess what? While they were complaining about conditions, they were planning organized psychological warfare and propaganda of their own.

Anybody in the media going to report that? NO? Because then it wouldn't make these "poor slobs" look like victims of the big oppressive regime anymore.

Speaking of the man on page 24, how about the fact that contract workers were passing information to them about outside events and one of the detainee's brother was responsible for killing two marines and was most interested in insuring that they, the detainees, were able to talk to these contract workers so information about their condition and imprisonment in Guantanamo could get out "to the world" and cause a fuss? Can you say "propaganda"? Organized, with specific intent.

These aren't some poor rug merchant in the wrong place at the wrong time with no idea on how to wage "insurgent" war.

Pages 30 and 31 detainee talks about a young man who had been residing in the west (name redacted), had been very tempted by western ways which went against his religious beliefs, became angry and decided that he had to fight against the west.

All the things that the government has been saying for several years now.

Further, he indicates that one speech from {redacted} would havMuslimsms lining up to fight the Americans with Jihad. He seemed well educated in all the propaganda about western influence, Israel and Palestine, troop withdrawals from Saudi Arabia. This was not simple man without contact to the outside world. He had previously admitted to going to training, then denied it, then pressured some more said that he could not answer without first "praying" about it. He also stated that Americans got what they deserved on 9/11 because of "foreign policy" and presence in the ME (we're talking prior to 9/11).

He seems well informed and has al the talking points down, don't you think?

That was one document. The first document actually had a detainee stating he wanted to kill Americans and if he was released, he considered it his duty to kill as many as possible.

So, why doesn't the chickenshit media want to report this information? Is it old and stale? No older or staler than the accusations aboumistreatmentnt or abuse. Yet, I don't see any media agency pawing through these interviews and coming up with compositeit of what these men are, what they believe, what they've done and what they would do if given the chance.

I believe in free press, but I also believe that they have a responsibility to report NEWS that impacts the American people. Questions about command, control and policy in the military are important to insure that the expectations of the people, whom the military represents, are met, that they are not put in harms way and not needlessly exposed to danger or legal actions because regulations and procedures were not followed.

We also want to make sure that information being used, true or not, as propaganda is heard, understood and refuted whenever possible because this is part of the war effort.

But, for some reason, the media refused to report on the specifics of what the detainees said outside of "allegations of abuse". Why?

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd say because then they'd have to rethink all their stories that they have put out that contradict this idea. Because, it might show that the government, whom they believe is out to manipulate the public and should not be given any press that supports their ideas, actually knows what they are talking about in terms of the threat of Islamist terrorists.

That's if I was into conspiracy theories.

Without that, I can only assume, as I've noted in the other posts on this subject, that the media is full of lazy, incompetent researchers that just parrot the headlines off of AP, editorialize things to make them "exciting" and don't really know anything about "investigative" reports or giving "context" to information so people really can make their own decisions on the topic.

Then again, it rounds back to who thinks they should be the ones shaping public opinion.

The major media outlets have lost their edge.

These reports continue to magnify the ridiculousness of reporting.

Tell the people the truth, not just the truth according the CNN or AP.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin Gets Email from ex-guard and Full Military Report

Your article describing the treatment of detainees and their access to books other than the Koran is accurate. The detainees also have their own medical facility and an exercise yard where they run, play soccer and engage in other physical activities.
I know these things because I was a guard there from Dec. 2002 to Sept. 2003. I was in a National Guard infantry unit assigned to man the towers inside and the checkpoints around Camp Delta. I have seen these things firsthand.

I will never forget seeing an MP waiting at Guantanamo Bay Naval Hospital after being splattered by a detainees bodily fluids. You never hear about these incidents in the media and you never hear about MP's having to be tested for hepatitis and other infections due to these incidents.

Gitmo, like most detention facilities, will never approach any state of perfection. However, from what I have observed, most injuries to detainees were self-inflicted, such as attempted suicides.

Read More...

Summary only...

Guantanamo Bay - Conditions and Status of Prisoners

Recently, I took the time to read all of the released, highly redacted documents from FBI interviews of detainees from Guantanamo Bay posted at ACLU site that they obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. I also read a study called Road To Abu Graihb: US Army Detainee Doctrine and Experience posted at Castle Argghh!

The FBI documents are long and sometimes difficult to put together with the redacted areas, but it was extremely interesting reading as was the Detainee Doctrine study. For the record, I read the actual FBI documents at the top of the ACLU page and did not restrain myself to the call outs indicated on the ACLU page.

Looking over the documents, I tried to maintain as much objectivity as possible. I read them as if I was researching a information and processes as I would at work to determine problems and what could be done to resolve them, if required.

Why Guantanamo Bay Treatment of Prisoners Is Important

Information, correct and accurate, is the best foundation for developing opinions, ideas and appropriate responses when necessary. It is neither helpful nor appropriate to ignore information that would otherwise challenge our ideas or opinions. Sensationalist journalism, overt propaganda from opposition forces and internal activists, as well as protectionistic instincts of the military and government institutes have led to formulation of opinions within the US and on the world theater that adversely effect the war effort (ie, War on Terror; Iraq).

Under the microscope of free information, world media and information technologies that flashes news and ideas around the world in a matter of seconds, old ideas of "operating as usual" cannot stand nor be allowed to stand. We cannot and have not been able to operate in secret or without public censure since World War II. Corrective measures, appropriate attitude and actions must be developed and adhered to more stringently than ever. This is both stressful and difficult on all military and non-military personnel involved in the effort. We must not only identify the issues, but ensure that appropriate tools and education are available to assist our military personnel in performing their duties and ensure that they are not inadvertantly exposed to danger or legal actions due to our lack of ability to understand the issues or demand change and assistance with this endeavor.

In a war of ideologies, when we wish to claim the "moral high-ground", we must expend every effort to obtain and maintain this "high-ground", as difficult and sometimes unreasonable as it may appear, even in the face of abhorent and inexplicable behavior of the enemy.

Our military personnel come from a wide swath of the American populace and represent all aspects of society from the highest educated to high school graduates, from every economic, ethnic, cultural and social background. It would seem both inappropriate and unreasonable to expect behavior above and beyond what one might find in the general populace. And yet, due to the very nature of the war and our military, its strength of force, its adherence to development and discipline within its ranks, its projection of American idealism around the world means that we must not only expect it, but demand it.

At the same time, armed with accurate information regarding this issue, we can formulate responses and defuse some of the sensationalism and propaganda put out on all fronts of the war both domestic and foreign. As Guantanamo Bay continues to be a source of sensationalism and propaganda, we must continue to confront it, understand it, ensure that appropriate and accurate information is available to the public and corrective actions, if necessary, are taken.


Review of the FBI Documents

This is what I found in the FBI documents pertaining to Prison and Staff behavior:

Normal operating procedures for detainee and staff safety

• Stripping detainees before moving them to solitary confinement (typical in all facilities as previously noted in posts; for search of contraband, weapons or to take away any items the prisoner may use to harm himself or guards)
  
• Random searches of cells for contraband (though not described as such by detainees in their deposition, the nature and actions can be easily determined). This included flipping through the pages of the detainees' Korans, also basic operational procedures in regular prisons since detainees have a tendency to hide things in books, including weapons, drugs, messages, etc.
  
• Restraining detainees: Hand, feet and belly chains whenever moved from cages or transported for interrogation; other restraints and holds in response to detainee behavior
  
• Removal of personal and comfort items for punishment due to infractions of rules
  
• Restriction of activities for punishment
  
• Restriction of food for punishment (though, not for days and not all food)
  
• Placement in medium security cell blocks for reward or removal to high security cell blocks or solitary confinement for bad behavior (see also CBS News: Guantanamo Bay
  "Officials acknowledged this week that more than 10 detainees moved to a medium-security block as a reward for useful information have been returned to high security cells in the past three months because they passed along bad information or behaved badly."

Physical and Psychological intimidation of prisoners not related to interrogation activities and generally not categorized as "abusive".

• Intimidation to include shoving or pushing, making deragatory remarks about the prisoner, his ancestry, his associations, comments about his religious beliefs or personal habits
  
• Certain intimidation techniques are used in order to insure that the control of the prison or specific situations is maintained by the guards

Physical and mental "coersion", typically upon first retaining the detainee on or near the battle field prior to transport to Guantamo either by US allies (ie, Northern Alliance) while advisers were near by or by US military personnel directly. Also occured at Guantanamo Bay. Some details are not available so determination of whether these tactics were appropriate or against any laws, regulations or treaties, may be difficult to establish.

• "Coersion": attempting to get the detainee to give up information regarding his status, who he knew, what he knew, when he knew it, etc
  
• "Physical": Shoving, punching. Typically described by the detainees as "beatings", though most of the detainees who were interviewed within specific times of their complaints showed little or no damage one would associate with "beatings", one detainee did suffer a broken orbital bone and broken teeth allegedly from being "kicked" while down (unsure whether this was "abuse" or response to detainee behavior in struggle for control).
  
• "Mental": use of female interrogators (on at least two occassions) to sexually intimidate or to unsettle the detainee; repeated questioning with rotating interrogators (actually a common practice in interrogation even by civilian authorities) to illicit information, catch the detainee in inconsistencies; sleep deprivation (though actually limited reports of this from the detainees) mostly by leaving lights on 24/7 (possibly standard procedure for security as opposed to actual attempts to cause "deprivation").

Physical Abuse: Punching and kicking; sitting on prisoners; possibly unnecessary use of force. Some instigated by the prisoners' behavior although some of it appears to be over and above necessary response to some incidents. The incidents reported were "non-linear" or "non-routine". In other words, not apparently a procedural or policy practice, but may be related to disciplinary issues with specific guards and control and command of the prison.


From my review, I cannot find nor establish anything that I would call "torture" in these reports. My expectations of "torture" would be linear or routine beatings or other physical abuse (ie, tying; hanging from hooks or cell bars by feet, hands, arms or other appendages; electric shock; mock executions; cutting; whipping; etc) for coersive or sadistic reasons. None of which appears to be the case by the reports given to the FBI.

One of the issues of attempting to establish any case of "abuse" or other activities is that these reports are all taken from the detainees and military logs or reports on the subject do not appear at the ACLU website. Thus, while some of the reports definitely seem to point towards some abusive behavior, without the guards' reports on what was occuring with that detainee at the time of the incident, it is difficult to make anything more than assumptions.

Prisoner Behavior:

Prisoner intimidation, threats or actual physical violence against another prisoner

• One statement by a prisoner indicated that the prisoner had personally asked to be removed into protective custody because he was being threatened and intimidated by his fellow cell block mates due to suspicion of cooperating with guards or interrogators against other prisoners. (something I alluded to in my previous post Associated Pinheads and Prison Life and War Effort)

Defiance, physical or psychological, of orders, during moving of detainees, etc on the part of individual detainees.

Passing messages and attempts to maintain contraband in cells (including things that could be made into weapons: pencils, pens, metal and wooden objects; all typical behavior in most prisons, but especially dangerous at Guantanamo)

Planned or attempted organized physical resistance against the guards

Planned or attempted organized psychological resistance against the guards (including threatening to go on hunger strikes; passing disinformation regarding treatment of other prisoners; passing disinformation on disrespect of religion or other social taboos; etc)

Legal Status of Detainees

From the study on detainee doctrine, some issues are clarified in regards to categorizing, retaining and releasing prisoners. In AR 190-8, Enemy Prisoners of War, Retained Personnel, Civilian Detainees and Other Detainees, it spells out how, when, what and where the status of a detainee is made as well as what controls the treatment and condition of these prisoners:

Chapter 1, Introduction, section 1b. This regulation implements international law, both customary and codified, relating to EPW, RP, CI, and ODs which includes those persons held during military operations other than war. The principal treaties relevant to this regulation are:
(1) The 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (GWS).
(2) The 1949 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea (GWS SEA).
(3) The 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (GPW).
(4) The 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (GC), and In the event of conflicts or discrepancies between this regulation and the Geneva Conventions, the provisions of the Geneva Conventions take precedence.

"Other Detainees" include sabatuers and terrorists. While no details of individual prisoner status exists, based on released information, the detainees at Guantanmo Bay have been classified as "other detainees". Based on Army Doctrine and AR 190-8, these prisoners must be treated as EPWs under the Geneva Conventions until their status is otherwise defined by law. The detainees legal status is determined by either formal or informal tribunals (informal tribunals can consist of three military officers) and the conditions of the operations being undertaken at the time of capture. There are no timelines or restrictions (such as habeas corpus) that require immediate legal definition of the detainee when not held within the continental US or areas directly under its control and subject to jurisdiction of US federal courts (most likely why Iraq prisoners of war have not been brought to any prison camps within the US boundaries). During war or other military operations, there are no legal restrictions on how long detainees can be held, either by treaty, by the law of war, by US Constitution or military regulations.

Historically, prisoners have been held up to one year or slightly more after the cessation of war, surrender or end of operations (see WWII, some prisoners not released or repatriated until 1947).

One of the issues with the Guantanmo Bay prisoners is that, without a formal opposing government or recognized body with command structure that can make treaties or officially "surrender" and with continuing operations by "Taliban" and other combatants, the end of "operations" and the official release of detainees cannot be undertaken on any large scale or official capacity. Thus the prisoners can be held indefinitely. However, the Supreme Court in June 2004 indicated that the prisoners could not be held indefinitely without having a tribunal or charges brought against them establishing their condition or status.

While many hailed this as a triumph of law and assumed that the prisoners would have their status as EPW or other determined by US courts of law, the actual decision by the Supreme Court only indicated that habeas corpus should apply to these prisoners because they are held within US territory and that they should have access to legal counsel, be charged and brought before a tribunal to establish legal status. However, this did not mean that all of these prisoners would suddenly be flooding the courts since military tribunal are the normal standard for these activities and would suffice as tools for determining legal status (as is also written as common policy and procedures in the military manuals). Thus, tribunals have been regular and ongoing since the ruling.

As of March 2005, all detainees status have been reviewed. The original number of detainees was 640. As of this review, there were still 558 detainees. According to the review, 520 have had their legal status determined as "enemy combatants" and will remain at Guantanmo Bay while 38 will be processed and readied for release.

While reviewing the detainee statements in the FBI files regarding the conditions under which the detainees were found on the battlefield and information they gave regarding knowledge of other prisoners, the prisoners appeared to me to be of three basic categories:

1) Foreign combatants purposefully and of their own will on the field to do battle with the US. Ideologically opposed to US and statements which indicate that they would continue to do battle with the US if released.
2) Afghanistan citizens purposefully and of their own will on the field to do battle with the US. Ideologically opposed to US and statements which indicate that they consider themselves still at war with the US and would continue to confront the US in battle if released.
3) Afghanistan citizens who were "conscripted" by the Taliban or other forces to fill out their ranks, did engage in hostile activity or provided support to forces in opposition to the US; has no ideological opposition to the US and would consider themselves no longer in opposition or in need to do battle if released. (One such "conscript" was assigned a "post" to guard their small village that was later over run by US forces; there was no information available as to whether he had actually used his weapon against the US.)

Determining the status of these combatants has been difficult since the decisions have to be made based on interviews of the detainee and other detainees as well as reports on the conditions under which the detainees were captured. Reviewing the FBI files, some detainees were very cooperative with interrogators, others mildly so and still others were absolutely and unequivacobly uncooperative.

According to the March 29, 2005 Defense department briefing:

As you know, we do not discuss individual cases, but I can share with you some of the common features of those cases to give you a sense of their complexity. Each case is different, and each case is difficult. Even for the detainees who have been determined by our CSRTs to be no longer to be designated as enemy combatants, the files on those detainees often contain information that suggests that they could be classified as enemy combatants. There is often conflicting information that has to be sorted through very carefully by the CSRT members.

It should be emphasized that a CSRT determination that a detainee no longer meets the criteria for classification as an enemy combatant [EC] does not necessarily mean that the prior classification as EC was wrong.

For example, information obtained subsequent to the detainee's original capture can shed light not only on the circumstances of capture but also the detainee's activities before capture.

Command and Responsibility

Several organizations and attornies have brought suits against the government for the alleged abuse as indicated by the FBI reports. One aspect of this situation that seems to slip by most of the main stream reporting, is that the interviews by the FBI were conducted with military criminal investigation departments in 2002 and early 2003. Which means that allegations of abuse were made and were being investigated long before the media became involved or outside counsel was retained for the detainees by friends and family. Additionally, in March 2003, directly after these investigations, a new commander was assigned to the prison and discipline and conditions were greatly improved. Most of the allegations of mistreatment, abuse or coersion are being made based on activities that occurred before this change in leadership and updated policies and procedures.

The person responsible for reporting "suspected or alleged violations of law committed by or against military personnel or civilians" is the Army Deputy Chief of Staff for operations and plans. The "secretaries of military departments" are responsible for (AR 190-8 Military Police; Chapter 1, section 1):

(1) Develop internal policies and procedures consistent with this
regulation in support of the Department of Defense (DOD), EPW/CI and other detainee programs.
(2) Ensure that appropriate training, as required, pursuant to DOD Directive 5100.77 is provided so that the principles of the Geneva Conventions, and the rights and obligations there under, are known by members of their service.
(3) Ensure that suspected or alleged violations of the international law of war are promptly reported and investigated per DOD Directive 5100.77.
(4) Conduct a periodic review of the EPW, CI and RP Program and training to ensure compliance with the law of war.

Based on all information available, it would appear that these situations have been reported and investigated through out the establishment of Guantanamo Bay to current. Policies and procedures are under review. One of the issues that is under review:

The paper says revisions under consideration include granting prisoners more power to challenge charges against them

This is not only in consideration of their legal status as EPWs, but also charges that are brought against them while detained, such as assault on guards or prisoners, infractions against prison rules (such as having contraband in cells; passing messages; stealing and other activities that threaten the security and stability of the prison, prisoners or guards). According to military regulations (also common within civilian prisons), prisoners who break prison rules can be assigned arbitrary punishment by the prisoner commander (such as removal of personal and comfort items; removal of privileges like yard, physical or associating with other prisoners). Prisoners involved in other activities such as assaults on prisoners and guards, can be brought before a tribunal and other punishments (including solitary confinement) can and will be inflicted.

The Army Judge Advocate General will "provide advice and assistance to commanders on legal aspects of violations by EPWs, CI, RP and OD". In other words, a JAG officer will advise a EPW camp commander on whether an offense is chargeable, under what conditions and what punishments can be legally provided for based on the law of war, the Geneva Conventions and military policy or law (UMCJ). (AR 190-8; chapter 1, section 1-4)

One item that continues to be bandied about or questioned is who is ultimately responsible for the care and condition of the EPWs (which engendered calls for resignation or firing of Rumsfeld)? According to AR 190-8, chapter 1, section 1-4, responsibility for prisoners of war are directly related to:

Combat Commanders

Task Force Commanders

Joint Task Force Commanders

In direct line of reporting, once the policies and procedures are developed, issued and trained upon, all commanders are responsible for ensuring that their subordinates adhere to the rules, receive regular training and treat EPWs accordingly. Those who directly committed the acts of abuse, those in direct command and their over all commanders may be subject to article 32 hearings and possible court martial or article 15 reprimands depending on the actions and severity of the abuse. One thing that is overtly and routinely made clear is that the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war, supersede any orders or policies.

However, based on the noted regulations in AR 190-8, since direct responsibility was given to specific commanders in theater or in charge of the EPWs, it is highly unlikely that a Joint Chief of Staff or even the Secretary of Defense would be held accountable or charged in abuse unless direct orders were given had substantial witnesses or were written that directly countered military policy, UMCJ or Geneva Conventions. (As my brother says, if the order isn't in writing, it never happened; therefore, it is the responsibility of subordinate commanders to know and ensure adherence to all policies, military codes and Conventions)

This is why, in the case of Abu Graihb, despite allegations by Gen Karpinsky (now retired Colonel Karpinsky) and others that she was the "scapegoat", she was suspended and charges were considered against her. As a commander of Military Police, she would have been (or should have been) very familiar with the policies set out in AR 190-8 and probably would have had the manual (or several copies) within her command. In which case, ignorance of the situation was no excuse as it was also her repsonsibility to regularly review the conditions, train and control her personnel.

Further discussions on the military doctrine and Abu Graihb to follow at a later date.

Summary of findings:


As of yet, from a layman's perspective, I have not found "torture" in the statements of the detainees. There are policies, laws and treaties which regulate treatment of EPWs. ALL military personnel receive some instruction on (depending on what their standard interaction with EPWs would be) how to treat EPWs. Military Police manuals actually refer to specifics and give copies or directions to the necessary documents outside of the manual that references these items.

There is no law or policy that prevents the interrogation of prisoners. There are laws, regulations and treaties which establishes the limits of information that an EPW must give as well as limits to "coersion" for obtaining such statements. However, certain aspects of the Geneva Convention may not apply to prisoners classified as "Other Detainee". This issue continues to be an area of contention between the International Red Cross, which would apply the strictest interpretation and considers the detainees to be "prisoners of war", thus given full rights and obligations under the convetions and the United States, which considers the detainees to be "sabatuers" which, even under the conventions, do not receive the same treatment as uniformed combatants or legitimate "civilian militia" in defense of their country.

It is possible, if not probable, that some techniques used during interrogation are "coercive" in nature and cross even the minimal standards for EPW treatment. Again, based on detainee reviews, this does not apear to be "standard operating procedure" as the reports of these tactics are limited.

It is possible, if not probable, that some techiniques did not cross the line, but, civilian idoelogy on what it should look like, based on movies, books or other influences, cannot or does not relate to best demonstrated and legally upheld practices that even occur in civilian interrogations by police.

Prisoner abuse does not appear to be part of "policy".

Physical violence was perpetrated on the prisoners, though whether this was solely "unprovoked abuse" or appropriate reaction to prisoner behavior cannot be well established or substantiated by the FBI documents alone.

Investigations were well underway before the media, legal or activist groups became involved.

The military did take action against guards that were accused and found guilty of such abuse.

Change in command of the prison was immediately made after investigations ensued and allegations could be substantiated.

Policies were reviewed and updated based on information found in the investigation.

Some allegations of "abuse" appear to be related to safety precautions and standard operating procedures that are common in most US civilian prisons. That includes some issues regarding the treatment of the Koran by guards.

Some allegations of "abuse" were rumors and disinformation spread by detainees. That includes "physical" abuse, coercive techniques during interrogation, and disrespect of the Koran.

Detainees at Guantanamo have behaved as many prisoners in civilian prisons. Including violence against guards and other prisoners; disruptive behavior; stealing; hiding contraband; making false statements in attempts to get better treatment or spread disinformation; used rumors and other devices to motivate other detainees to take action; etc.

In short, torture and wide spread, routine or policy driven abuse does not appear to exist. Instances of abuse were investigated and charges preferred when necessary and substantiated. However, while rules, laws and policies have been reviewed and more stringently enforced in Guantanamo bay, additional training and review should be given to troops in the field regarding treatment of detainees.

Stay tuned for continuing review of documentation, regulations and statements by prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. With specifics on detainee statements and how they relate to historical problems with interrogation, control of prisoners and discipline within EPW camps since Korea.

Reference Materials Updated 9:02 AM:

FBI Documents: Guantanamo Bay Detainee statements
Detainee Doctrine and Experience
AR 190-8: Enemy Prisoners of War, Retained Personnel, Civilian Detainees and Other Detainees
Guards Charged and Disciplined for Abusive Behavior
Global Security: Guantanamo Bay Reference Page
Living Conditions at Guantanamo Bay
No "Abuse" by Medical Personnel; Seven Instances of NOT reporting abuse being investigated
Church Report on Abuse: Per Request of Department of Defense
Field Manual 34-52: Interrogation Procedures
Freedom of Information Act
FBI Reading Room

Read More...

Summary only...

Valiant MenSad News On the Home Front

I don't know how to say this, but, if you read my post "I parted then with valient men" from Memorial Day, I told you about my uncle Louis who was in Vietnam and was disabled-military related.

I received a call at 6:34 this morning that he was in the VA hospital in critical condition. He has diabetes and neuropathy in his feet and legs. He had an ulcer on his foot that wouldn't heal and became gangrenous. They are saying that the infection has entered his blood stream and he's in the ICU. No news on the exact status beyond that.

Normally, I wouldn't ask, but, if you can spare a few moments, please say a prayer for him and our family.

Thank you.

Read More...

Summary only...

One Year BlogiversaryGoing Down in the Well

Yes, you heard it here. June 1, 2005 is my one year anniversary for having this blog. It was really lucky that Mister Ghost decided to do an "in-t-view" with me so close to the anniversary and give me a chance to talk about how it came to be.

It's morphed over time. For awhile I was strictly researching and writing up info. Then I did opinion and rants and, finally, some personal stories.

One thing that I said on the interview to Mr. Ghost that I wanted to repeat here again: this blog has meant a lot to me as a place to throw out my ideas and get feed back (positive and negative). It helped me grow in my opinion and analysis of situations. It made me feel connected to something that I felt so far away from, but was very important.

Excuse me if this sounds corny, but, in some ways, I feel like I've done something, however small, for the war effort. Sometimes, all it really amounted to was me reading and getting things straight in my mind. It's helped me keep my morale up, even when some really terrible things have happened over there. Even though I'm far away from the every day struggle, the war is on my mind. Every day, almost every hour. I keep extra windows up while I'm at work so I can cruise during conference calls or on lunch break and catch the latest news or the military blogs.

I don't know about others, but I feel like I've got to know as much as I can because, to put it frankly, I supported this war from it's inception. Honestly, I supported taking out Iraq throughout the nineties. I would have supported, whoever was the president, whatever his politics, because I thought it was important to take out somebody who was a tyrant whenever we could and where ever it is feasible.

Even though I didn't give the command, by supporting it, I feel that I am responsibile for sending our men and women into harms way. I elected the people to government that represent me. By their representation, my voice was heard and they make decisions based on my selection. I know it isn't perfect and that we don't all get what we want when we vote for people, but, in this instance, I did.

Some people have said to me that I didn't give the command for soldiers to go as if that somehow negates my responsibility. If there is one thing in this life I've learned, that is to take responsibility for your actions and words, even if they don't turn out the way you would have wanted it to. In this case, I refuse to shirk any responsibility for these actions. Even when people are shouting at me (in bold face on the internet) about being stupid, or a sheep or supporting "atrocities" or anything else the crazy folks have said in my time in this internet world, I have never and will never say that this war is not my responsibility.

To do that would throw away everything I believe in and throw away the sacrifices of our men and women that I demanded from them. Sometimes, I feel like I have a small inkling of what the president must feel whenever the casualty reports for the day comes in. Every small victory, every "defeat", every soldier's name, knowing that it was by your decision that it happened.

Knowing also that most of them went without a complaint, leaving their families, their friends and everything that they know as right and normal in this world to live in a tent, in the sand and the mud, burning, freezing, rain or shine, doing what we asked of them.

I demanded it of them. Me, with my vote, last November, I could have changed the course of the war (well, me and about 3 million other people if they hadn't believed in it either). But, I think most of you reading here understand that.

No, this isn't self flagellation. This is about why I do it. Why I blog. I'm old (at least older than any recruit the army would actually want without a draft or changing rules to draft women). I'm out of shape. I don't have a degree in anything that would be helpful to the war. Saying my piece here or in the comment section of a soldier's blog is about all I can do besides writing letters, sending packages or donating to charities to assist soldiers and their families when I can.

It's not much, but it's all I have to offer.

Late at night, when I'm sitting here trying to write something, sometimes I can't write. Not because I don't have anything to think or say, but because I have so much and it's hard to know where to begin.

I don't have some romantacized vision of our soldiers. I know who they are because they are me. They are my family. They are my friends. And, I know me, my family and friends and we aren't perfect. I don't expect perfect. In all actuality, the fact that they are "imperfect" and still doing a job that must alternate between boring and depressing to heart pounding insanity and the narrow focus of just trying to stay alive, makes them just about "perfect" for me.

It makes them "heroes". Not mythalogical or invincible kinds of heroes, but the kind of people that you hope you can be on your best day. That kind that gets up and pulls their boots on every morning (after shaking them out for spider and scorpion checks), checks their weapons, shakes the sand out of their DCUs and goes out again, knowing that you don't control your destiny and today might be the day some asshole pushes the button, rams you with his explosive laden car or gets a lucky shot off with an RPG. Maybe you're just an FOB support punk, but even walking to the latrine or standing in the chow line could be the last thing you ever do.

So, it's for them, because I sent them there, that I write this blog. Even on the days that I don't write about the war or politics, they are still on my mind.

Well, I didn't mean to get all maudlin, I just wanted to talk about what makes me write this blog.

Back in the day, when I used to hang with the rodeo crowd and follow the circuit, there's a term used in bull riding that everyone understood exactly what it meant. All you had to say were those five words and anyone that was in the know could picture exactly what you were talking about.

"Going down in the well."

When you're riding a bull, particularly a crazy, wild eyed variety, they are trying to do everything that they can to buck you off. Sometimes the kick up their hind legs really high and then twist them to the side, causing the back of the bull to roll side to side under the rider. Repeat kicks like that can unseat a rider pretty quick. Usually sends them flying pretty far over the bull's head. Then there are "belly kicks" where the bull takes short hopping jumps and kicks his feet up under his belly. Since he doesn't kick out far, this makes for a short, rough ride that doesn't give you much chance to get the rhythm of the bull. It also doesn't look as good to the judges and you don't score as high (the bull's performance is part of the cowboy's score: 50 possible for the cowboy and 50 possible for the bull) if you manage to stay on.

The other thing you don't want the bull to do is to come out of the chute and start running down the arena. Then the clowns (cowboy rescue workers) have to chase the bull and, if you get thrown off, they might not reach you in time to save you from a good hooking. It also gives you a crappy score.

What these cowboys are looking for in a bull is, when the chute opens, the bull jumps out of the chute and then turns back, spinning and kicking in a nice high and rhythmic dance. If it's done right and the cowboy knows how to do it, he can make it look so damned easy. Almost looks like art.

But there are moments, even in that perfect turning, kicking and plunging, when your health and your life are in the most danger. Sometimes the bull will "flatten out" or do a "flat spin" where they aren't kicking very high and they are jerking the rider around in a fast, tight spin, making them hang on the end of one hand. Every time that bull spins, they are throwing the rider to the outside and then jerking them back towards the inside. A lot of cowboys over compensate in one direction or the other. If they're lucky, they over compensate to the outside and the bull throws them off outside of the spin. There they still have a few seconds to get up and run like hell to the fence or have the "clowns" jump in between them and a ton of beef with sharp points, distracting the bull long enough for the guy to get his wind back and his legs under him to run.

Only the clowns stay in and face the bull.

But, the worst moment in a ride is when the cowboy "goes down in the well". That means, as the bull jerks them towards the inside of the spin, the cowboy, either slowly or quickly, finds himself riding on the side of the bull, on the inside of the spin, where the bull is throwing his head back inside in preparation for kicking his hind legs around. It's right then when your life must pass before your eyes. As the bull throws his head around, bull horns or bull head often meets the head of the cowboy and knocks them silly. Sometimes it knocks them out. I've seen these guys with their hands still stuck in the rope, being drug around by the bull like a rag doll, who proceeds to step on them, over and over. It's a scary sight, even if you're just in the stand.

Bull riders wear kevlar vests, too, but guys that go down in the well, usually get up with a broken head, broken arm, broken shoulders, you name it, some bad stuff can happen down in the well.

Usually, the clowns try to rush in and get the bull to straighten out. Then, one of them will run beside the bull, dodging horns and hooves, trying to help get the cowboy's hand out of the rope. You might think that it's weird for a guy to dress up in funny, oversized clothes and paint his face. A lot of people don't really understand the clown's role in rodeo. People always cheer the bull riders and have them as their rodeo "heroes" and stars. Some folks think that they're crazy for getting on a bull in the first place. But, every bullrider knows that his best friend in the arena is a clown. They are literally cowboy life savers. They are the craziest, bravest, balls of steel sons of bitches you may ever meet (short of a battle field, though I happen to know a number of these men who are in the military, too).

I've seen a clown jump on a cowboy who was unconscious or hurt really bad, covering him with his own body, when a bull was charging the fallen cowboy, head down and horns ready to hook him and toss him, taking the horns or hooves instead. Compared to the bullriders, who, if they ride well, can take home some hefty prizes, the rodeo clown gets paid a pittance for laying his life on the line.

Kind of reminds you of some folks, huh?

But, going down in the well doesn't always have to end bad. One of the most amazing rides I ever saw was Adriano Moreas, a Brazilian cowboy in the PBR, get shuffled off on the side of a bull, hanging down inside the well, with one spur on top of the bull and his one hand hanging on by the finger tips, the bull horn wacking him in the head and he still had the presence of mind and strength, using that one boot spur and his fingertips, to pull himself up out of the well and finish his eight second ride. He didn't get a good score because the bull's performance stunk, but he did get a score. And he jumped off afterwards, strutting like he'd just won the superbowl.

With the law of averages, getting out of the well unscathed or at least able to walk under your own power IS like winning the superbowl for a cowboy.

Life is kind of like bull riding. Sometimes you get a good ride and jump off with no problem, sometimes you get tossed head over heels and sometimes you get dragged down into the well. If you're lucky and you have the strength of arms and will power, you can pull yourself up. If you're real lucky, when you get dragged down into the well, somebody is there to save your ass and you get to stand up and walk away. If you're not, they carry you away on a backboard while the audience stands on it's feet, watching your unconscious and broken body all the way to the ambulance. Then they sit back down and watch the next fool try his luck.

One thing I noticed about cowboys, they never wanted to talk about the guy that got hurt. If they had to think about it, they'd lose their nerve and either stop riding or get out of focus during their own ride and end up doing something crazy to get themselves hurt.

There's been a time or two that I thought I was "down in the well". There's been times that I felt like I'd been stomped on by 1 tons of beef with sharp horns and hooves. But, lately, I've come to realize, most of my life has been the "good ride" with a few "head over heel" moments.

Self Pity
DH Lawrence

I never saw a wild thing
sorry for itself.
A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough
without ever having felt sorry for itself.

Monday, I was watching CSPAN and they were interviewing soldiers at Walter Reed hospital. The first one I saw, I didn't catch his name, but he was 23 and his left arm had been blown off by an RPG. He had one of the new prosthetics that respond to muscle movements and tension in the shoulders. He was pretty up beat and kept talking about his goal was to stay in the army. He was part of a recon or scout unit. I didn't catch all the details except that he was certain he wouldn't be able to go back to his old MOS. Still, he wanted to do his part, whatever it was. He was learning to use his new arm in the rehab facility at Walter Reed.

The interviewer mainly stayed on him and his progress, his story from injury to his recovery efforts, but she did ask him if it had changed his mind about the war or if he was angry at anyone for his injury.

I could tell that he got a little angry at that question. His answers were "no and no". He told the lady interviewer that people in the states don't really understand the war at all. They don't understand that these men hate America and everything it stands for. They would kill them and their children if they could and they don't care if you support the war or not. To them, the enemy, we are all the same and we all deserve to die if they can make it happen. He said he would rather be fighting them there then fighting them on the streets of New York City. He also said that Americans don't really know what it's like to live in fear and desperation every day of their lives like the Iraqi people did. How many of us would stand up and fight for freedom tomorrow if it was taken away or under threat in our own country? Too many had forgotten 9/11 and these were the same men, however they came to be in Iraq.

He said he was proud of what he had done over there, giving the Iraqis their freedom and giving back their dignity. And, he'd do it again if he could.

The interviewer then made a comment that I was thinking myself: he was really mature sounding for a 23 year old. We think that they are boys at that age, but they turn into men quickly.

That man had been down in the well. He'd been stomped on, but he was standing now and walking out of the arena under his own steam, looking for his chance to get back on and go again.

The next person they interviewed was somebody who is my new hero or heroine as the correct term should be. It's Major Tammy Duckworth whom I first heard about from Blackfive last December. She was a blackhawk helicopter pilot in the Army. Her helicopter received a hit from an RPG. The round came up throught the plexiglass window in the bottom of the helicopter (they use it for eyeballing the ground during landing and maneuvers) and exploded between her legs. Her left leg was amputated below the knee and her right leg was amputated just below her hip.

Back in December, they had fitted her left leg with a prosthesis, but they were still trying to determine what, if anything, could be done for her right leg. She had very little leg left and you need something in order to fit the prosthesis. Her one goal is to get back to the Army National Guard and fly helicopters. In this interview, actually recorded in March of this year, Tammy had her left leg prosthesis and a new, special prosthesis developed just for her to fit on the small stump remaining of her right leg.

Tammy talks about the care she received at Walter Reed Hospital before congress and the need to insure these hospitals get every penny they need to help wounded soldiers recover and return to service if possible.

What was so damned amazing when I saw her was how upbeat she was. Not a false, overly bright "upbeat", but genuinely happy to be alive and to be working on walking again. She had a goal, too: to fly for the military again. Both of the prosthetics she received are state of the art. The prosthetic technician at Walter Reed (some of the unsung heroes, the "rodeo clowns" of the military) had promised Tammy that he wouldn't give up looking for a way to get her a right leg prosthetic. Without it, she would be released from the military and never fly a blackhawk again. He told her, if she didn't give up, he wouldn't either. And, he didn't. So, back in March, she had a special prosthetic and was learning to walk with her walker.

Pretty amazing for someone that had been injured only four months before that interview.

The interviewer asked her the same question, was she angry with anyone about her injury?

Tammy took it better than the first young man and told her "no", she wasn't angry with anyone. How could she be when she had been doing the thing that she loved the most and when so many others had paid more dearly than she?

When they were speaking about her career, the interviewer asked her how she had become a combat pilot and why. Tammy said, when she joined up, everyone had to select and rank five MOS they would want and the men had to list their top three as some sort of combat position. However, she did not have to do the same, she just wanted to because it didn't seem fair to her that they had to take those kinds of risks and she didn't. The only combat positions open to women were fighter pilots and helicopter pilots, so she listed those as her top two.

That's how, many years later, she came to be in Iraq, flying a combat mission and becoming a casualty of war.

Aside from her goal to stay in the military and fly helicopters, she was doing what I think she must have done all her life, not feeling pity for herself, but becoming a peer who spent a lot of time with her fellow wounded and amputee soldiers, encouraging them and helping them whenever they felt down or frustrated. The commander of the hospital had a lot of praise for Tammy.

This is why she represents the best of our soldiers, the kind of officer you'd want leading your men, the kind of person you'd want to be if ever in that situation.

She had gone down in the well and knew what it meant to face your worst fears. She had made it out alive and was working for the day when she would come back and beat that bull again.

I was more than impressed with this lady. In the scores of people through out history that I've always read about: Audy Murphy; Sgt York; Valley Forge; the men of the 54th Massachussettes; Wake Island; the Battle of the Bulge; Inchon; Khe Sahn and every other place where men did what they had to do, more than most of us will ever have to do or have the will to do; here was a real live hero, inspiring me as she had been inspring her fellow soldiers at Walter Reed regardless of her own troubles.

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure she's not perfect. Working with people in Maj. Duckworth's condition, I know that she probably gets frustrated sometimes when she can't do what she thinks she should be doing by now. I know she probably cries sometimes when she's by herself and she doesn't think anyone's watching. I know that it hurts sometimes and she's tired sometimes and would just like to tell the rehab workers to take a hike, she didn't want to play that day.

She's been down in the well, hanging on by one spur and her fingertips, but still she's managed to pull herself up on that bull and is insisting that she is going to finish her eight second ride.

Major Tammy Duckworth knows how to "cowboy up".

That's one of the great things I've learned doing this blog. I've learned that I haven't ever been that far down. I've learned that people can and have yanked themselves back up on the bull when every thing seemed to say they were going down before the buzzer sounded.

If ever I get down in the well, I know that I can pull myself back up.

It's just one more thing I have to thank soldiers like Major Duckworth for showing me.

If you ever want to know what happened to the "heroes", stop wondering; they exist and Major Duckworth is one of them.

So, what have I learned in a year?

I've learned that there is a lot more to writing than just tossing up links. I've learned that I don't know near as much as I thought I knew. I've learned that there are some really fantastic people on the internet and in the real world whom I've been privileged to talk to or learn about.

I've learned that there is no such thing as "quick victories" and if our soldiers can bear being away from everyone and everythng, being shot at or shot up; I can bear just about anything.

I've learned what real tyranny looks like and I've learned to take my freedom very seriously. I've learned that this war is going to be long and, if people like the young soldier and Major Duckworth can take it, can still believe in it, I can do no less than be unwavering and supportive, doing whatever little I can.

I've met some great people on the internet and found out that some people in this world really are just plain crazy, conspiracy freaks whom you must wonder about. Like, are they sitting in their houses, tin foil everwhere, nineteen dead bolts and the shades drawn, waiting for the men in black to roll up and take them out. As if they were ever that important.

In closing, I want to say, thank you, my friends and acquaintances, for staying long enough to read this post and for any posts that you've read before. Particularly, the ones where I go off on tangents or have been full of pompous, self important bloviating. Thank you for commenting and being my sounding board in the great wide space of the internet. Thank you for sharing links and pointing me in new directions. Thank you for listening when I griped and ranted. Thank you for teaching me a thing or two about communicating. Thank you for sharing your own knowledge and humor.

Without you sometimes, I don't think I would have or could have kept going.

Thank you for making this a better year than I expected it to be.

Read More...

Summary only...

Iraq State of the Insurgency Part III: Round 5 out of 10 Rounds

As noted in the other two parts of this series, State of the Insurgency and State of the insurgency Part II, the insurgency is in a state of disarray. I'm not going to claim this is the end or the turning point. To me, it's to early to tell what will happen. It is, by no means, the final round, but the scoring for this round has it 96 Coalition and Iraqi Forces to 75 for insurgen