Venomous Snakes of the United States: Copperheads

The past few days, leading up to the Feb 16 debate on the Iraq war in congress has been an eye opener. The Democrat wing of congress has been planning to play both ends in order to appear to be doing something while actually not committing to any thing. I have noted they want to maintain their base "anti-war" crowd as well as chip away at the center, "we were for the war, but now it's too costly and confusing, but we don't want to lose" that cost them the last Presidential election. They are desperately trying to craft their message towards the 2008 Presidential Elections, while selling out the Troops, the Iraqi people and our allies in the region.

It's not just the Democrats. There are some Republicans that are willing to sell their (R) and their valueless souls in order to maintain their split constituency back in the home state.

There are no principles on Capitol Hill, just manouvering while our soldiers continue the mission and children are murdered by one group or the other.

The press paints all as "sectarian" fighting, trying to redefine the fight as a "civil war" while the President gives uninspiring speeches on why we should continue to the fight.

Is it any surprise the American people are thinking that this is no longer a war they should be involved in or worried about?

The entire time, very few even mention that Al Qaida is in Iraq and active.

The entire Capitol Hill is a giant snake pit of copperheads willing to sell out everyone for political position.

Rep. Murtha (D) Pennsylvania recently outlined the Democrat strategy: "slow bleed". Now that the Dems have control of the major military funding committees, they hope to limit available forces and funding to the military in Iraq by introducing individual bills that try to enforce extended times between deployment for units and individuals, try to limit the number of times a unit or individual can be deployed and limit the period of deployment.


All of which is to force the military to make do with fewer and fewer troops on the field who would still need to perform the same jobs, still be in the same danger, but would not have the amount of force protection to insure their safety or perform the mission. There is only one outcome to this strategy and it is a forced "redeployment" of troops. Lets call it what it is, a forced retreat that will mean more death and injury for our troops as it is slowly strangled by the snakes in congress.

It is not hard to understand how that will occur. It is a fallacy to believe that this "reduction" will force a depletion in missions thus keeping our troops out of harms way. To believe that is to completely misunderstand or purposefully ignore the types of missions that would still have to occur in order to supply our forces that will still be in theater as well as support the Iraqi Army and police, even if they were in a position to stand up in the manner and number necessary to do the job our forces have been doing.

Our troops are out routinely sweeping the roads for IEDs, watching for ambushes and doing reconnaisance. None of which goes away because we have "reduced" the number of troops in the field. We will still have forces in theater who will still need food, clothing, medical supplies and many other needs. Most of that comes via the roads and convoys. All of which are made safer by the aggressive patrolling of our forces who find and dismantle over 50% of all IEDs. Forces, who by their presence in the area, keep the heads low of any enemy who want to plant more IEDs.


If they are stuck on their bases because they do not have appropriate force protection, who will insure that they are not cut off from supplies or from back up by quick reaction forces by IED laden roads, ambushes and other tactics that would quickly leave individual bases vulnerable and thus huge numbers of our forces?

Worse yet, these units know they will need to protect their perimeters and have projected force into the area in order to defend themselves and keep from being attacked or over run by enemy forces, enemy forces organized and led by the continuing presence of Al Qaida that would like nothing better than to see our forces confined to bases where they can be attacked with impunity (as seen from the attack on Abu Graihb Prison).

It is only by continuing presence patrols that these enemy forces cannot gather enough men or in one place without being found and quickly eliminated. If our men can no longer leave the wire, they will not be able to maintain this security and will be vulnerable to mass attacks that will result in mass casualties.

At the same time, they denounce the Iraq forces as incapable of standing on their own, demand that they stand on their own and, simultaneously, imagine that these Iraqi forces will be able to maintain such security as to not put our men in jeopardy.

The entire purpose is to make the military's position untenable in Iraq and force the generals to abandon the strategies that protect them, protect the main population of Iraq and maintain its tenuous hold on democracy and unity. The military would then be forced to report that it was unable to continue the mission and the President would be forced to withdraw our forces or see a total disaster take place in the face of base bound forces.

In such a way, they hope to force retreat, but not call it retreat. They will simultaneous claim to be protecting our forces and saving the military while making the same vulnerable in the extreme with the very likelihood of increased casualties from IEDs, ambushes and straight on attacks.

Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania, tasked by Democrats to direct the next step, says his approach "stops the surge, for all intents and purposes," and would "force a redeployment — not by taking money away, by redirecting money."

News to Rep Murtha, that is the same thing. If you redirect it from the troops in Iraq, then they do not have it. That is taking it away. Only a fool would be fooled by such double speak. The Democrats have a habit of likening Iraq to Vietnam, but this is the closest "Vietnamization" of Iraq you can get. That is exactly what was done to force the troops home: redirecting the money to pay for flights home instead of ammunition and deployment of reserve or replacement troops.

Former Rep. Martin Frost, D-Texas, said Democrats have made a "very clear point" this week by putting the House on record against Bush's troop buildup and now must be careful not to overplay their hand by seeking to cut off funding or limit deployments right away.

"They don't want to be a scapegoat for the Bush administration's failures," Frost said. "This is Bush's war, and there should be no confusion about who's war it is, and Democrats should not set themselves up to have that done to them."

As if this entire war is about the twisted play of politics on the hill. It is only thus because the Democrats made it so.

They are not principled enough to say that they will not vote for the next war budget and demand retreat. Instead, they want to be like snakes crawling through the grass, striking from behind and then crawling away so they can pretend they are not responsible for the outcome, whether that is the death and injury of our troops, the death that will surely come en masse for the Iraqi people and the disintegration of Iraq and the region.

The venomous calculation that it takes to pretend to care about our troops, to care about the Iraqi people or be serious about national defense while zig-zagging through the morass of public opinion in order to establish a tenable position for the previous election and the next, is, frankly, astounding.

Make no mistake, there will be bleeding, but it won't be the figurative "slow" bleed of congressional support, funding or reduction of available forces. It will be the massive bleeding of our troops blood, the blood of the Iraqi people and the blood of many other people in the Middle East as our "slow bleed" leaves them vulnerable to the expansion of unchecked Islamist terrorists back into the surrounding countries. Many of which have been our allies providing intelligence to track down terrorist, stopping terrorists within their own countries and insuring the flow of vital resources to this nation, no only to enable continuing military activity in Iraq AND Afghanistan, but to insure our economy remains stable and even flourishes.

The Copperheads aren't just Democrats. On February 14, Congressman Ric Keller (R - florida) gave a speech in which he likened Iraq to a neighbor that is unwilling to mow his own grass:

Let me give you an analogy. Imagine that you have a next door neighbor who refuses to mow his lawn, and the weeds are up to his waist. You mow his lawn for him every single week. The neighbor never says thank you, he hates you, and sometimes he takes out a gun and shoots at you.

Under these circumstances, would you keep mowing his lawn forever? Would you send even more of your family members over to mow his lawn? Or, would you say to him, you better start mowing your own lawn or there’s going to be serious consequences for you?

This is what passes for intelligent thought on the subject. Iraq is not our neighbors "lawn" that needs to be "mowed". It is, in fact, a volatile country that is not simply presenting "unsightly tall grass" and driving down the value of neighboring property. That is the most you can expect from your neighbor's "unmowed grass".

From an uncontrolled and disintegrating Iraq you can expect that Iraqis will die en masse from the creatures crawling around it's "unmowed lawn". You can expect that Iraq's neighbors will be killed and made unstable from this "unmowed lawn". You can expect that these creatures will be building nests from which they can strike you and your neighbors, quite likely killing you; killing the people of the United States and any number of people around the world.

For this ignorant analogy alone, Representative Keller should be driven from Congress like the copperhead that he is.

Rep. Murtha recently stated that, when we leave, the Shia will drive al Qaida from Iraq. He leaves out the details of how that will play out. The Shia, long persecuted in Iraq and the victims of much of the violence from Al Qaida dominated attacks, will not only drive Al Qaida from Iraq, but many, many Sunni who are not involved and not responsible. There will be death on a scale not yet seen in Iraq for all the lamentations of the current conflict and its toll. While many scream of genocide regarding Darfur and lament the inaction of Rawanda and the delays of Kosovo, true genocide will again take place in Iraq. This time it will be the Sunni who pay, regardless of their affiliations or lack of.

But, not before the conflict expands as Sunni Arabs around the Middle East run to the rescue of their persecuted co-religionists. The battles will be repugnant in their barbarity. We cannot pretend we do not know as we have seen the results over and over again in the slaughter houses of Fallujah and the bullet riddled bodies in the streets of Baghdad. No one involved in this battle will ask who is "innocent" or try to stem the blood shed. They will truly force every person within the nation to take sides as the battle escalates and the barbarity goes beyond cruel.

Those that go to join the Sunni in defending themselves will be quickly swept up into al Qaida organized brigades and affiliations. For all the moaning about the number of terrorists "created" by our presence in Iraq, the number that will be easily recruited and assimilated into these organizations will be beyond comprehension.

Finally, when Rep. Murtha's one truly cognitive point comes true, where will the millions of refugees go? Where will these tens of thousands of more Al Qaida trained, financed and indoctrinated fighters go?

The refugees will go into neighboring countries where they will become an overwhelming economic and security burden on many of our allies such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia. It is also unlikely that, once tasting blood, brutality and embibing the religious ferment of al Qaida that these fighters will simply return back to their countries with no further danger. They will be rightly able to claim that the United States abandoned the innocent Sunni, along with the relative few that are culpable, to be murdered and driven out by vengeful Shia and allowed Iran to dominate the region.

There will be no need for conspiracy theories on the Arab street. It will play out for them on Al Jazeera in graphic detail. If we are worried about the "Arab street" now, it takes little to imagine the kind of hatred that will be generated after the oncoming slaughter and political instability.

By this and the foment sown by the al Qaida indoctrination, there is little stretch of the imagination to understand that the backlash will reach back into the United States. They will be even more driven to attack the US, its allies and vital resources that could result in death and injury to our citizens as well as a collapsing economy from the cost of energy resources to the restriction of all types of goods that traverse the waterways of the region.

To simply buy Rep. Murtha's pronouncement as an effective strategy is beyond stupendously ignorant.

Finally, our allies as well as our enemies will be shown that we cannot be trusted when we give them our hands in friendship, pledging defense. We will have shown, once again, that we weigh the cost to benefit ratio heavily in favor of our own political posturing while the lives and the freedom of our allies are considered less than a thistle on the wind.

When we abandon Iraq, it will not be simply ceding control to the Iranians or ceding territory to terrorist organizations, but we will have ceded a valuable position that has allowed us to offer protection to nascent democracies in Eastern Europe and break away republics from Russia.

What will we offer to them? A handshake on one hand and a copperhead in the other?

To paraphrase Congressman Keller, our neighbor's grass does need to be mowed, but our neighbor is not 9000 miles away. Our neighbor is in Washington DC and his overgrown lawn of crab grass and weeds has been hiding a snake pit full of copperheads. They need to be driven into the open so their venomous fangs can be seen as the danger they represent.

Because everybody knows, Copperheads Kill.




-Out with the copperheads! The only acceptable outcome is Victory over the Islamists!



Cross referenced at the Castle

Summary only...

The Paradox: Report Insurgents, Become Target; Don't Report Insurgents, Become Target

I thought this was a really interesting commentary on the complexity of Iraq and the Baghdad Security plan:

I don't live in my childhood home, but with my parents gone, I keep an eye on the modest stucco house that was designed by a pioneer of Iraqi postmodernism, Mehdi Hassani.

In early January, I went on an assignment outside Baghdad. When I got back two weeks later, my mother sent me a text message from Jordan, telling me to check on our house. When I called our neighbor, Abu Adil, he told me armed men had come through the neighborhood telling everyone to leave or be "slaughtered."

"Can you ask the Americans to intervene?" he begged.

I could not. The gunmen took over our house, Abu Adil's and others in the neighborhood. A few days later, Abu Adil's 22-year-old son went to his family's house. He argued with the insurgents. They killed him, dumping his body in the street.[snip]

A few days ago, my landlady's father was kidnapped by Shiite militias. While I was working on arrangements for his ransom and eventual release, Abu Adil called to say that U.S. forces had raided my house. They arrested the gunmen and discovered a car bomb in the garage.

The raid was good news, but the problem was now more complex. I worry that U.S. troops will think my family harbored insurgents. After all, we owned the house.

I fear that the Americans will share their information with Iraqi Interior Ministry officials, who have connections to death squads.

Summary only...

Duckworth's husband Iraq-bound

For those who don't know about Major Duckworth, her helicopter was shot down in Iraq (not "crashed" as the story states; shot down). She lost both of her legs and one of her arms. She ran for congress as a Democrat in Illinois, though she was defeated. She continues to work with the Department of Veterans' Affairs in Illinois. She was interviewed by News Week on her experiences as a recovering wounded soldier and her efforts with the VA.

NEWSWEEK: What kind of rehabilitation did you receive when you returned from Iraq?
Tammy Duckworth: I lived at Fisher House, at Walter Reed, from the end of February 2005, until December. It was a huge difference in the quality of my life and the quality of my family’s life on so many levels. It does that for all of the soldiers. One of the benefits of having a Fisher House on the campus of any of the Army medical centers is that they’re able to discharge you as an inpatient but you’re near enough that doctors feel OK about letting you go. It keeps you from having to stay in a hospital bed that whole time. If it wasn’t for Fisher House, I would have spent the last 13 months in a hospital bed and I would not have progressed as well as I did.

In a recent interview, she talked about realizing she could do anything after surviving the attack:

"I can do anything I want in my life," she says, "because I know ... until my last breath, I was trying to do my job as pilot, as a soldier, as an officer and I don't have to prove anything to anybody ever again. It's been very much a freeing experience to learn that when it got tough, I hung in there."

Duckworth, now 38, would need every ounce of grit during 13 months at Walter Reed, enduring dozens of surgeries, learning to walk with prosthetic legs.

She had her husband, a captain in the Guard, post a copy of The Soldier's Creed -- "I will never accept defeat, I will never quit" - on a wall across from her bed to serve as inspiration.

She was determined to be a model for other soldiers.

"I could be bone-tired and my husband would know that if he said to me, 'There's a new private in another room who's scared and needs somebody to come and talk to them,' he could get me out of bed," she says. "It's not anything heroic. ... If you sit around and feel sorry for yourself, then how do you expect an 18-year-old ... to get up and do what he needs to do if I don't set a good example?"

She's a real inspiration as a woman, a soldier and a human being.

The Chicago Tribune reports that her husband is going to Iraq with the Illinois National Guard.

While the reporter focuses on the difficulties she will face while her husband is gone and that her injuries were enough of a sacrifice, Duckworth doesn't whine.

It's Bryan's turn. He would not want someone to be deployed in his place," Duckworth told me Tuesday, seeking to head off any discussion that Bowlsbey remain behind because of her circumstances.

"It's not anything we can't overcome," she said.

But that doesn't mean the couple haven't started discussing the special preparations they'll need to make before he departs: everything from moving the heavy mixing bowl and pans to the lower kitchen shelves so she can more easily reach them to building another wheelchair ramp in the garage because he won't be around to shovel the snow off the other one.

"It's a lot of little things you don't really think about at first," Duckworth said, noting how it's usually her husband who picks up the dry cleaning and fuels her pickup truck because those tasks are difficult for her in a wheelchair.

"We'll just deal with it, I guess," said Duckworth, insisting, "all of our Guard families have to go through this."

Even though Duckworth ran on the Democrat ticket and opposed the President's policies on Iraq, she still said in the interview:

Duckworth, who has remained in the National Guard and continued to train during her recovery, told me during her unsuccessful campaign for Congress last year that she would go back to Iraq if called upon -- even though she had called the war a "mistake" and criticized President Bush's handling of it.

"I would go again, yeah," she reiterated Tuesday, but noted that her prosthesis is not in any condition for her to take on such an assignment.

From all past stories, I believe it.

Goodluck Major Bowlesby.

Summary only...

Life After Death: Fallen Soldier is Father Two Years After Death

I couldn't help but comment on this one since I don't know how I feel about it. It seems odd, yet normal for our current society. Apparently, wars no longer have to take the best of our young man and decimate society:

AUSTIN — Seven-month-old Benton Drew Smith is the spitting image of his father, with the same blue eyes, fair hair and infectious grin.
Bouncing on his mother's lap in olive-green overalls and slippers festooned with lizards, he also holds a special place in history: He is one of the first children to have been conceived from sperm left behind by a soldier who was killed in battle. Benton's dad, Army 2nd Lt. Brian Smith, was shot by a sniper in Iraq on July 2, 2004. [snip]

Benton was born July 14, 2006, a little more than two years after his father, 30, was cut down by a single shot while checking the treads of his Abrams tank in Habaniyah, Iraq, west of Baghdad. The bullet sliced Smith's liver, causing internal bleeding. His wife says she was told that her husband collapsed, muttered that he could no longer feel his legs, lost consciousness and died.

Death did not erase him, Carroll-Smith says. "I have a piece of Brian with me every day now."

Summary only...

Troop Surge: Local Soldier Quoted in AP

Reading the AP news on what's going on with the surge to secure Baghdad, I came across an article quoting a local soldier on the status of clearing operations:

Staff Sgt. Michael James, 32, of Chillicothe, Mo., said the area in northeastern Baghdad had been targeted before but not in such force.

"This is the final clearing. We're trying to hit all the major hotspots. I don't think it has ever been cleared as fully as it will be today," said James, of the 3rd Stryker Brigade, Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division.

James said he wasn't surprised that the troops did find more as they hunkered down in a so-called Joint Security Station in the area for the night.

"It's never clear. These guys are going to have safe-houses all over the place. Whenever we come into one area, I'm sure they just move on," he said. "Just our presence alone is enough to push the bad guys out. They're not stupid enough to fight an entire battalion, because they will lose."

My question to the angels, is anyone supporting this Stryker Brigade?

Some Iraqis are praying that our soldiers will stop the violence:

"My friends and I who are the old women of the neighborhood went to the soldiers and welcomed them and prayed that God would help them to defeat the terrorists," said Um Sabah of the Mashtaal area in eastern Baghdad. "Although, the presence of army and vehicles is not very comfortable, we welcome it because it is for the sake of Iraq."

There was little if any resistance. Soldiers even teased one young girl about her taste in music after they found her doing homework on a couch, wearing white and pink socks with a poster of Shakira on the wall.

Some people left their doors open as the troops arrived, and little evidence of hostilities turned up other than some pictures of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, an illegal bolt action rifle and a heavyset man watching an insurgent propaganda video that he said had appeared while he was channel surfing.

Shakira? We need to send better music over there! The most important part to recognize in this story is that our soldiers, regardless of claims to the contrary, are more often than not viewed in Iraq as the deliverers of justice and defense. I've never seen a poll regarding it, but I would bet that our forces are more trusted than internal Iraq forces (ie, police, army, etc). That's both good and bad since we need these internal forces of Iraq to be trusted and capable of providing justice and defense for all Iraqis in order for our men and women to come home.

Here's the tell on the operations...

At least 38 Iraqis also were killed or found dead nationwide, including four civilians who died when a parked car bomb struck a predominantly Shiite district in central Baghdad. Only five bullet-riddled bodies were found on the streets of the capital, an unusually low number of apparent victims of so-called sectarian death squads mainly run by Shiite militias that have killed thousands in the past year.

But, it's only quiet now. It is not unusual for the terrorists and militias to lay low as troops move in and continue "kinetic" operations (ie, aggressive patrolling) since there is a higher chance that these opposition forces will be noted, engaged and killed or captured. Once our forces have settled into any sort of routine, the opposition consolidates its intelligence and begins to re-organize around those routines.

Let's hope for the continued quiet and safety of our troops.

Summary only...

Moqtada Sadr and Osama: Wishful Thinking On Literal and Figurative Demise

I hate to go against the great blogs of our side of the war or even speak in pessimistic tones while all are hopeful that the first signs of the successes of the "final battle" are apparent in these two items at Captain's Quarters, but I must respectfully disagree with the analysis.

First, Moqtada Sadr in Iran. The Captain wrote:

And as for Sadr, this will destroy him and his Mahdi Army. ABC reports that Sadr wants to try to run the Mahdis from Teheran, but his credibility as a jihadi just tanked. Who's going to fight for someone who won't stand up for himself?

This is not the first time that Moqtada has gone off to Iran. If you've been Iraq watching, he's gone to Tehran and Qom rather frequently. It's not even the first time a large number of the Sadr leadership has gone with him, whatever the "leadership" that is with him means. It could mean advisors, etc.

It does not mean that Sadr will not be back or even that the return is a long time off. His party has thirty seats in the parliament. It seems like a bad move when he still has a lot of power to protect him, to just up and run, even if Maliki has publically gave the go ahead to dismantle the militias. Sadr has been far too wily in the last few years to simply throw that away on an unsubstantiated fear that he will get "JDAM"d in his house.

I doubt we were even thinking that considering the power within the Shia organization that he has and the serious disturbance it would cause in our "peace" efforts.

Second, I think many have forgotten that the leadership of the Iraq Shia have routinely taken refuge in Iran. Particularly, during Saddam Hussein's reign. There they were able to get money and political support that translated directly into political support in Iraq. That is why so many groups like SCIRI or DAWA were able to return post-Saddam, spin up a political structure and take power during the elections so quickly.

As for the comment:

"but his credibility as a jihadi just tanked. Who's going to fight for someone who won't stand up for himself?"

That totally disregards the Shia history and religious concepts of Jihad. Even before Saddam, the Shia were forced to be survivors in an Islamic world of Sunnis. While they may venerate Imam Hussein's martyrdom (not Saddam, we're talking 630 AD) at the hands of the Sunni, for centuries they survived by being true practitioners of the word "taqiya" or deception. After Hussein's death and long afterwards during many internecine battles of the Sunni/Shia conflict, Shia practitioners would disavow their Shi'ite beliefs in the face of an overwhelming Sunni presence in order to survive. If they hadn't, they would not exist today as a belief system within Islam.

They truly believe in "running away to live and fight another day." I doubt seriously that Sadr's departure for Tehran will be seen as a desertion of his followers. If he remains gone for any length of time, the Shia mosques will spin up a tale of the absent Imamah (Sadr) that will return to lead his people to power.

You really have to understand the culture to get that a leader in exile has even more mystical power than the presence of an ineffectual leader in the midst.

Finally, his death squads might "melt away", but it doesn't mean they won't be active. They will simply go even further underground. Even his politicos in parliament will not desert him since he will be bringing in money and support from Iran. At most, the Shia organizations that formed an alliance with him in order to insure Shia power in Parliament may feel a little less constrained by his demands. But, they will still need his party's votes if they hope to gain the necessary 2/3 votes to pass any laws or take any action.

This game is not over by a long shot.



Osama bin Laden has been called "dead" so many times, it seems ludicrous to even claim it, as much as one might desire it. However, the main point of the Captain's comments revolved around Zawahiri's latest statements that directed the "faithful" to follow Mullah Omar in Afghanistan.

This hardly denotes the lack of a "leader" (ie, Osama bin Laden). In previous speeches, Zawahiri has directed followers to get behind Al Qaeda in Iraq. Osama bin Laden told the "faithful" to join with the Iraqi Ba'athists and Sunni brethern (in Sept 2002, on the premonition that the US would attack Iraq; thus providing the back bone for Hussein's Fedeyeen) even though he was sure that the Ba'ath's time was over.

Frankly, Michael Yon and several others have been predicting a bloody Spring 2007. The tell-tale signs include the number of workers who have left the poppy-fields. In past history of Afghanistan, this is usually a gathering of the warriors to go a-jihad. With the poppy fields bursting as never before, it's fed a lot of money into the pockets of the Taliban and Al Qaeda that might eschew drugs as satan's work, but aren't adverse to selling it.

All I see from Zawahiri is a blatant call to arms. No hidden message regarding Osama or his status.

Most tend to see Zawahiri as the "second in command", but there is a rather large group of people that see him as more than the "spiritual advisor" and political master. In fact, some arguments tend to see him as the "king maker" behind the throne with all the power and OBL as simply the young and energetic man with money.

Whatever Zawahiri's personal status amongst Terror Inc, he has certainly put out his own messages routinely with Osama popping up every once in awhile like a bad Elvis impersonator every time there is a strong rumor he is dead. Last noted appearance was around election time 2004 and I expect him to show up this time as well.

However, however I disagree with the Captain's take on the rudderless Zawahiri, spreading rumors of OBL's demise is a good thing because he usually can't help but pop out and then we get another chance to pop him.

So....OBL is dead, short lives to all those that succeed him!

Cross referenced at the Castle

Summary only...

A Must See - Fighting Words

First, I just love Trace Adkins. Second, I love the song. Third, you can't miss all that paired up with some great photos of our Medal of Honor winners that tells a story you can't forget.

Fighting words

The last part says it all: First Amendment? First Amendment protects you from the government not from me. You can say what you want out there, but you come within 15 feet of me and I'll give ya' a good ol' fashion a$$ whoopin'.

Summary only...

Soldiers' Angels Snake Saturday

Lots going on at the moment. Ruminating on many points of Information War.

In the mean time, just want to remind anyone that reads here that I am with Kansas City Soldiers' Angels and we will be doing our first meeting on Tuesday to discuss our Snake Saturday Float.

Lot's of thoughts on how we can bring recognition and support to our troops.

If you're in Kansas City and want to help out, go on over to Soldiers' Angels and get involved.

Summary only...

Soldiers Are Us: I Was Published

I was published in our local paper. It was the letter I addressed here.

Of course, you have your usual suspects posting comments though several people did try to educate them with reports and graphs (visuals are everything in presentation), but they refused to read.

I answered several comments back, but typepad seemed to be acting up, so I don't know if it will be posted. So, I post the comment here (because I am educated enough to know to "save"):

As the author of this letter, let me clear up a few things:

1)The point of my comment is that you all seem to think there are two militaries - one in Afghanistan and one in Iraq

Apparently, either the soldiers in Afghanistan are all well educated specimens of the middle class or you think it's okay that they are stupid and poor dying in Afghanistan because you believe that war to be justified.

So, it's okay for them to be young, poor, stupid and dying in Afghanistan because they serve they national interest. You just object to them being allegedly young, poor, stupid and dying in Iraq.

They are the same troops. Many units that have served in both theaters. So, my question remains:

Are you fine with the stupid and poor dying for you in Afghanistan?

Either the answer is yes, or you are being hypocritical in casting your aspersions because of your opinions on the war in Iraq.


How much more succinct can I make that?

2) I doubt that anyone that writes such things about the "poor and uneducated" actually knows anyone in the military or knows much about the modern military at all. It's obvious that you refuse to read the reports that were sited to you above either because you are afraid it will undermind your prejudices or you think that it's from the government and thus cannot be trusted.

If you knew people in the military, had any interaction with the military and read the report, you would be disabused of such notions.

The person that talked about the NCOs is correct. In our modern military there are limited slots for NCOs (that would be corporals, sergeants and above Non-Commissioned Officers). You don't just get promoted because you are the next senior guy and have X many years in the military. Not even in our current push to increase the military.

NCOs are expected to have at least an Associates degree or have additional technical training that would serve in the outside world as CEUs (that's continuing education units for those who are "uneducated"). They are being trusted to lead men, make complex plans and operate complex, expensive equipment. It's the best man for the job, not the next idiot in line.

Furthermore, check your local universities because most of them accept time served in the military in certain jobs or capacities (I don't mean just officers, accountants and lawyers) as "real life" credits towards completing a degree.

If you think this is dumbing down the universities, then you would have to accept that all other students in the university are equally "dumbed down" and thus are equally "uneducated" (you know, they accept "real life" experience from civilians towards credits as well). Making the military on-par with the general population.

3) This is no naive patriotism or "uber" militarism that I speak from. It is because I have family and friends, both active duty and national guard, who serve. Through them and through many other organizations that put me in contact with the military, I have met what I would call a "cross section" of the military and these men and women do not support your theories on the common "poor" and "uneducated" myth. They are, as I said in the letter, policemen, accountants, the manager of your local grocery store, the mechanic, the nurse, the doctor and yes, even the guy that asks you if he can take your order.

Certainly, I am not going to tell you that EVERY member of the military is a brilliant, socio-economic specimen of our nation. If I did, then I would be equally as uneducated as you and ignoring all statistics to the contrary.

Of course, don't let my personal experiences sway you. I am a heretic. Just like once upon a time it was a commonly held belief that the sun orbited the earth and all those who opposed such beliefs were called heretics and persecuted until the "educated" leaders of the church agreed otherwise (that would be Galileo for the uneducated), so shall I remain a heretic and you will not change your beliefs until the "clergy" that feed you your beliefs tell you otherwise, all evidence to the contrary.

4) And finally, I do not believe we need "required" national service, draft or otherwise, and neither do I find such arguments of "if you believe 'this' then you should sign up for the military" to be particularly intelligent arguments regarding this debate. It is simply hyperbole meant to shut down the discussion because you cannot make your point with any facts, but rather silly assumptions we are supposed to swallow without a murmur.

But, if we must go there, let me turn the question back to you and ask, what does it say about the importance you give national defense if you believe and are willing to have serve the "poor and uneducated" while you, do what exactly besides make "uneducated" comments?

Oh, I know, you want "higher standards". Then who among you will fill the ranks of this "higher standard" military?

Disregard that question because asking it, as well as demanding others serve, makes the assumption that those reading here or posting comments would be of the appropriate age, economic and educational background required in this new, upgraded military.

As I've said previously, assumptions are poor substitutes for actual knowledge.

Summary only...

The Rambo Effect: Iraq War Veteran Tasered 12 Times

The video can be seen here: Taser Torture.

According to the report, Ashley Abbott, Iraq war veteran with 4 1/2 years in the Marines, was detained by police and shocked with 50,000 volts twelve times, many of which occured when he was already handcuffed with five officers kneeling or otherwise restraining him. He was also beaten with a baton and punched in the face several times.

According to police, Ashley Abbott was involved in a fight at the Fox and Hound Bar and Grille on 39th Street in Independence, MO. He was later pulled over by the Independence Police. Police reports indicate that Abbott did not respond to verbal commands, resisted arrest and seemed "impervious to pain".

It is unclear by the video what occurred prior to the taser incident. However, a young woman who witnessed and video recorded the incident insisted that he was not involved in the fight, that he had not threatened the officers in anyway and was clearly in pain because he yelled several times for the officers to stop shocking him, he was not moving. The video clearly shows that, after the officers had restrained him with his hands cuffed behind his back, he was punched and tasered.

The Independence police have been previously investigated by KCTV 5 along with several other police departments around the city regarding following policies on taking and resolving citizen complaints. The Duty Sergeant insisted that the undercover reporter had to speak to him first before being given the complaint form. The reporter refused, continued to ask for the report and pointed out the department's posted policy. The Duty Sergeant told the undercover reporter to leave. When the reporter refused to leave without the form, the Sergeant threw him against the wall, cutting his face, cuffed him and charged him with "disorderly conduct" and "causing a crowd to form".

The officer was not reprimanded though the Independence Police department did offer an apology and changed their complaint policy.

Unfortunately, I don't think that changed the culture of the Independence Police. The tasering incident occured in November 2006. The Independence Police refuse to comment indicating it was still under investigation.

You can make a comment on TV 5 here.

Personal Commentary

It is a practice of many police departments to have at least a second car back them up even on a regular traffic stop. There are too many incidents where suspects have pulled a gun, shot at police, wrestled with an officer, tried to run them over or evolved into some other incident that puts the police and the public in danger.

In some cases, when an officer calls in a stop or incident and reviews the person's history, he or she can ask for additional back up. This is usually done when the person/suspect has a history of criminal violence, is registered to carry a concealed weapon, has been involved in a recent violent altercation and/or has a personal history as a law enforcement officer or military personnel.

Again, this is a policy that is supposed to protect the police, the public AND the suspect from harm. The expectations of the police department when stopping or arresting a suspect is that the suspect says nothing and does nothing except follow the explicit directions of the officer. Any words, including denial of actions, refusing to turn around to be cuffed or searched ON THE FIRST COMMAND, can be construed as disobeying verbal commands and resisting arrest.

Whether or not Ashley Abbott did anything that could be construed as "resisting" is not apparent on the video. The real problem here is that after he was clearly constrained and even handcuffed, the officers continued to use the taser on Abbott who was clearly not moving and was screaming in pain. Another problem is that the use of classifications indicating possible violent behavior is clearly a problem when it results in an over-reaction by the police and assault on a citizen. In this case, an Iraq war veteran.

It would be easy to identify Ashley Abbott as a former Marine. It would be on any public records the police accessed to identify him during their stop. Maybe too easy. My local police source who spoke on condition of anonymity indicates that it is policy to treat any stop that involves a current or former military member as a "felony stop" or potentially dangerous requiring additional back up and special measures.



This is the sad effect of Rambo. While many watch the film and see it as a finger to authority, others, including police departments the country over, may have embibed the idea that veterans are simply too dangerous because they are "trained to kill".

The officers also wrote in their report that Abbott seemed "impervious to pain". This is usually written when above normal force is used to quail a suspect. Often it refers to suspects who are on an illegal substance and does not respond to normal efforts to subdue them. In this case, it was clearly written on the report (falsely) in order to justify the abuse of the taser.

Another problem is clearly the breakdown of training in the face of anger or "mob mentality". I suspect that these officers will be reprimanded, placed on leave and possibly fired for falsifying their report. I also suspect that there may be investigations into violating Abbot's civil rights along with the civil suit Abbott will be pressing on them.

Finally, as a daughter of a retired police officer with several relations who are currently officers, it pains me to relate this event that clearly tarnishes the reputation of many police officers who have and continue to serve in a dangerous job protecting the public. But, when officers clearly violate their oaths to protect, policies that control the use of force and the civil rights of a citizen, I cannot turn away and pretend it didn't happen.

Worse yet, when it involves a veteran. In any case, the Independence Police Department has problems that need to be addressed.

Related: Senior Airman Elio Carrion Shot by San Bernadino Deputy Sheriff.

Cross referenced at the Castle

Summary only...

Knights of Iraq

No, it isn't an al Qaida affiliate. It's the order that recognizes the sacrifice of Iraq Police and Military along the lines of the American Purple Heart or "Order of George Washington".

BAGHDAD – More than 30 Iraqi Police officers were formally recognized for their dedication and personal sacrifice during a ceremony held in their honor at the 1st Battalion, 6th Brigade, 2nd National Police Division Headquarters in Baghdad recently.

This first-ever ceremony made the honorees a member of a new order known as the “Knights of Iraq.”[snip]

“I feel great on this great day because I’m recognizing my great soldiers, my best guys who were wounded, and the guys who sacrificed their lives in action,” said Iraqi Police Col. Ali Mohammed, who is the assistant commander. “These [policemen] work hard and put everything, even their lives in danger, for fighting the terrorist and even the bad people.

Read the rest.

Cross referenced at the Castle

Summary only...

Global War on Terror: An International Affair

Al Qaida in Iraq - Islamic State of Iraq downs helicopter:

The Islamic State of Iraq, an al-Qaida-linked group, claimed on Friday that it shot down the Apache near Taji in a statement posted on an extremist Web site.

"We tell the enemies of God that the airspace of the Islamic State in Iraq is prohibited to your aircraft just like its lands are," the statement said. "God has granted new ways for the soldiers of the State of Iraq to confront your aircraft."

10 Foreigners Among Captured in Somali - 2 Are Americans:

MOGADISHU, Somalia - Two Americans were among at least 10 foreigners caught by Kenyan police at the Somali border after allegedly fighting with Somalia's ousted Islamic movement, an official said Friday. [snip]

Among the foreigners in Kenyan custody were four Britons, a Frenchman, a Tunisian woman, Syrians and other Arabs, said the Kenyan official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the information. The date of their deportation was not yet known.

Iraq Central Criminal Court Convicts 15

The trial court found a Syrian man guilty of illegal possession of special weapons in violation of Order 3/2003 and Article 10/First/A of the Passport Law and sentenced him to 21 years imprisonment. [snip]

The trial court found a Tunisian man guilty of Article 194 of the Iraqi Penal Code for Joining Armed Groups to Unsettle the Stability and Security of Iraq. [snip]

Those convicted of passport violations, illegal possession of special weapons and entering the country illegally were sentenced from between one to ten years imprisonment. Those convicted include 11 Iraqis and one each from Tunisia, Jordan, Sudan and Syria.

Manila Military Chief Hostage at MNLF compound (Rebels?)

Muslim separatists in the southern Philippines are holding Manila's military chief, the head of the government's truce panel, a colonel and an undetermined number of soldiers hostage, senior military sources said on Saturday.

Members of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) were refusing to let Brigadier-General Ben Dolorfino, the commander of military forces in the capital, and Ramon Santos, government undersecretary for the peace process with the MNLF, leave their camp until their jailed founder was released.

This is why it's called the "GLOBAL" war on terror. In the 1990's, people talked about a world without borders. In a world without borders, not only can good things occur, communication and travel opens up. The disaffected no longer view themselves as simply victims of the system that they live under within specified borders. They see themselves as victims of an entire system that is leaving them behind. Who is responsible for their disaffection? The whole world.

Many people refuse to see the connections between activities in Somolia, Iraq and the Philipines, but it is very simple. In order for people to move to one theater of the global conflict or another, they must have money, they must have places to stay on the way there and they must have places to train. Every active battle space, whether low intensity or high intensity, provides onus and opportunity. In the case of Islamists, even seperatists whose main concern seems local are not immune to and do not object to providing assistance and services to ideological brethern. This is how they network, obtain supplies, money and even men for the fighting.

Foreign fighters from England, France, United States, Syria, Saudi Arabia or Jordan may travel via Indonesia or the Philipines to reach Pakistan to go into Afghanistan in order to cover their activities. On traveling to the Philipines, they may bring money to the local actors as a "gift" and/or they may be provided identity papers, a place to stay until the next leg of the journey and possibly weapons or names of contacts where more shelter, money and weapons and other assistance can be received. Money may be routed through Egypt to Yemen to a "charity" operating in Iraq that smuggles fighters, buys weapons and provides other material support.

Everybody gets in on it via the new reality of globalization. For many in the US and abroad, the idea that all of these activities are part of the active war on terror appears to be a conflation of local activities to a "Global War".

All politics may be local, but ideological terrorism is an International Affair.

Cross referenced at the Castle

Summary only...

In 2008 Everybody Wants To Eat Cake

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D) New York, at a DNC meeting said, "If I had been President in 2002, I would not have started this war." Yet, she voted for authorization to use force, she has supported previous troop rotations and voted in favor of the budgets and other monetary expenditures for the war. She publicly stated many times that she did not regret her vote, only the way the authorization was used, in an attempt to split hairs and maintain the centrist position that reflects the majority opinion of American citizens: Iraq War was okay to start, but is not going well and they'd like to see a different approach.

The Senator is on record as supporting a "non-binding" resolution to cap troops and set a time table for withdrawal. However, she has not supported any resolution to stop funding the operations and, has stated publicly that she would not damage the troops ability to fight by withholding critical funds to finance their safety and security.

She, and many Democrats, are desperately trying to hold on to a shaky position straddling both sides of the aisle while keeping the fiery "anti-war" base firmly in their camp. Without the two halves of the Democrat base, "anti-war" and "security" Democrats along with the "centrist" public that has decided the last two Presidential races, no Democrat can hope to be assured election.

The "centrist" public may still believe that Saddam had to go, but don't like the fact that the US is in a protracted guerilla war that doesn't appear to be resolvable. Some may feel that, after the death of Zarqawi in June of 2006, Al Qaida is not as big a factor or part of the fight as is the "sectarian violence" they are bombarded with every night. Add to that a general feeling that the Iraqi people have squandered the opportunity to be free, peaceful and prosperous at the cost of young American lives.

For the Republicans, the insistence on continuing the war for an increasingly blurry purpose, as well as scandals regarding corruption, uncontrolled spending and a general sense that little or nothing has been accomplished, will have a killing effect on any candidate running. The only thing going for them is the economy and even that has been overshadowed by the Iraq war and escalating oil prices.

Republicans cannot base their hopes on "victory" in Iraq. History has shown that the American public does not necessarily see the party that led them through the war as the party they want in peace.

Adding to the question of Iraq is the latest NEI report that, giving a wink towards the upcoming campaigning and election years, states:

Unless efforts to reverse these conditions show measurable progress during the term of this Estimate, the coming 12 to 18 months, we assess that the overall security situation will continue to deteriorate at rates comparable to the latter part of 2006.

On the otherhand, Democratic pronouncements regarding the war may be premature. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Illinois) reminded Democrats that he had been against the war from the beginning, had voted against it and his record was consistent. If Iraq stabilizes, Obama may not be able to count on the "cross over" votes that may feel he failed to support their ideas.

Senator Clinton may still be "triangulating" her position, covering all possibilities by insisting that, if she is elected President, she would end the war in 2009. She may be hoping that, by then, most of the fighting and political issues that plague the country will have decreased sufficiently to be able to "end the war" while still supporting her actual belief that a stable and democratic Iraq would benefit the US in the region. Then she will have upheld her campaign promise while securing American interests.


She is expecting the President to hold to his announcements that Iraq will continue to be the responsibility of his successor. However, if other problems in the Middle East arise or Afghanistan heats up as some have predicted, such pronouncements may turn into Sen. Clinton's "read my lips" moment.

In the meantime, Republicans are also trying to "triangulate" their position by sponsoring different "non-binding" resolutions that appear "bipartisan" and represents their own take on "centrist" America and the bleeding support of their own party members.

Triangulation, premature pronouncements from Democrats along with "non-binding" resolutions and the upcoming budget that includes $354 billion in spending for defense and expected requests for $120 billion supplemental spending for Afghanistan and Iraq may yet force a split in the Democrat party. This is where the rubber meets the road. The Democrat early campaigners are desperately trying to ignore the increasing calls for Congressional Democrats to stand by their anti-war rhetoric by refusing funding to the war.

Sen. Feingold (D-Wisconsin) held a hearing regarding Congressional power to end the war and few in the Democrat war critic camp showed up.

Mr. Feingold's reward for honesty was to preside over what might have been the least-attended hearing so far in the Iraq debate. And those of his Senate colleagues who did bother to show up looked like they couldn't wait to hit an exit door. "If Congress doesn't stop this war, it's not because it doesn't have the power. It's because it doesn't have the will," declared Mr. Feingold. Ted Kennedy--one of two Democrats who put in an appearance--could be seen shifting uncomfortably in his seat.

In the long run, as long as troops are in Iraq and Iraq remains unstable, the outcome of the Presidential race will end in Baghdad.

The Republicans may be playing it safe by not announcing candidates who will actually run for president. At the moment, several have only announced that they are forming "exploratory committees". Staying in the background may give the Democrats the podium and lead in rhetoric today, but it also means whatever they say today can come back to bite them in the future; similar to Sen. Kerry's "I was for the war, before I was against it". It's unclear how Sen. Clinton can make the same position work for her.

Both parties are trying to have their cake and eat it, too.

Cross referenced at the Castle

Summary only...

Information War: American Media v. Military Doctrine v. Enemy Propaganda

Watching from the sidelines, it's hard to tell exactly how or why we are losing the information war. Depending on one's perspective, the American Media (often referred to as "Main Stream Media) is thought to be "anti-military/anti-war". Not surprisingly, people point to polls regarding how journalists and other media staff identify themselves politically as to the reason the war is not being covered "favorably" or why soldiers are not portrayed succeeding in their every day efforts.

In between this is trying to balance operational secrecy (opsec), public's "right to know", protecting the public from government information programs (propaganda) and winning the information war.

There was the infamous incident with Geraldo Rivera who was with the US forces and doing a pretty good job of presenting their operations in an upbeat and pretty supportive manner. Then he made the mistake of stooping down and drawing a little map in the sand on live TV. All the good work in reporting and representing the troops efforts went up in smoke.

Geraldo was eventually allowed back with the troops, but he was limited in his interactions. For the military, this highlighted the first concern of embedded reporters: operational security.

However, the embed program was, overall, successful. Millions of Americans (and probably the enemy) were glued to their television sets watching the war unfold. Some worried that the images were being treated "like a video game" and would numb the public to war. But that was soon unfounded by controversial images after. For the most part, whether because the war was "going well" or because people could see real time actions of the military, support for the war was high.

That presents the first nexus of operational security, information war and public opinion.

The second controversy came on April 9th: the day that Baghdad fell to US forces. The world watched, over and over, as Iraqis came into the streets to celebrate. They gathered in the square and attempted to pull down Saddam's statue. US forces at first, keen on keeping with the over all vision of the mission, "Iraqi Freedom", stood back and didn't interfere. For sometime, the Iraqis worked, but couldn't pull it down. Finally, an officer gave his forces the go ahead to help the Iraqis.

A sergeant jumped up on the boom of a tank tower and wrapped a chain around the statue. As he stood at the top, he pulled out an American flag and covered Saddam's face. It seemed, above all the dancing and the later joy when the statue came down, that one moment stood out above the rest. For some, it was the final honesty: not Iraqi Freedom, but American Hegemony.

A short time later, an Iraqi handed up an Iraqi flag. The American flag was quickly taken down and the Iraqi flag went up. The breaths held back at Centcom came out in a big sigh of relief, then the statue came down and Iraqis beat it with their shoes and danced in the streets.

Still, the minute damage to the information war had been done and there was rumbling in the foreign press and in the US. That image did not jive with the political message and gave people around the world cause to believe that this one moment when the soldiers were celebrating their victory, represented the true American intent.

However, the question can be asked, did this do any real damage to the over all information war? Did it so over shadow the live images of the fall of Baghdad and the joy of the Iraqis that the presence of reporters was now, once again, a liability? Or, were all the other images up to that moment more than worth those few seconds.

Then there was Kevin Sites. The infamous incident where a marine entered a room in Fallujah with several insurgents lying around. Some were dead. One was apparently "pretending" to be dead. A marine walked up and kicked him and yelled in his face. He yelled that the man was breathing and, in a split second decision, he put several rounds in him, on film, right in front of the reporter.

Before that moment, Kevin Sites videos were the "video to watch" on the internet. It caused a huge controversy. Kevin Sites was verbally attacked for everything from anti-Americanism to Anti-Military to sedition. The real story may be something entirely different. In this one case, the military may have waived off the opportunity to review and comment before hand. Then again, maybe they weren't give the time to re-act. Then again, maybe "military time" is too slow in the age of instant media.

Other arguments ensued about whether the marine had acted correctly. Some thought he had murdered an unarmed man. Others thought he was doing what was necessary to stay alive in an atmosphere of fake surrenders, suicide bombers wearing vests or booby trapped dead bodies.

But the real issue here was that it high-lighted the very problem the military had been concerned about all along: how would the public react to real war in real time? It was bad enough in Vietnam. The military experience showed that real war, the killing, the set backs, even the "successes" that were messy and didn't look a John Wayne film, gave the public a negative perception of the war.

This one incident high-lighted that concern and once again showed the military that there was a danger in allowing "too much" coverage of the war. The public's right to know ran smack into the biggest fear of the military and the need to win the "information war". At the same time this was occuring, a "doctor" inside Fallujah was reporting about severe civilian casualties from the bombing. It was being aired around the world. There were misrepresentations of military activities inside Fallujah, though it was true civilians were dying, either from air-strikes or by fire fights; US military bullets or the bullets and knives of the terrorists who had declared Fallujah "an emirate" and proceeded to enforce their version of Islamic Law.

From the military perspective, the embed program was a bust. It seemed, from that moment on, embedding reporters began to dwindle. Was it because "major battle" had ended and everything after that was the "boring" everyday work of soldiering in a "reconstruction period"? Or, was it equally because, to the military, it was too damaging to their attempts to win "hearts and minds?" Had it confirmed, in the minds of the enemy or would be supporters or even the "neutral" citizens they hoped to sway, that the reports from inside Fallujah were accurate?

Or, had the military looked at it from the wrong perspective? Not allowing certain images or not getting these images, like soldier's being attacked by "surrendering" forces or booby trapped bodies left out a major part of the story that may have presented a different perspective on the marine's actions?

What about the story that existed before the assault on Fallujah? There were many reports about the Islamists torturing and killing people, but few images appeared before the assault. Images of Iraqis escaping Fallujah and being put into "camps" prior to the assault seemed to give the aura of "concentration camps".

Yet, one marine captain, reporting via his blog from an FOB outside of Fallujah told the stories of people escaping Fallujah and begging the marines to go in and save the city, save them from the murderous mujihadeen. He told stories of bodies being dumped outside of the city, headless, bullet riddled and tortured. This included men, women and children. Yet, few images were broadcast.

Was this about the public's "sensibilities"? Was this because the military and politicos did not want to be pressured into action before they were ready by an outraged public? Was this because they did not want the build up of forces for the assault to be broadcast?

What ever the reason, while stories existed about the attrocities, the images to go along with it, were missing. This meant that a major part of the story of Fallujah was missing. This meant that the actions of the marine were judged without the appropriate context. Thus, the fickle opinion of the public was formed through half information and ideas.

After the fall of Fallujah, there were many images available of dead bodies, torture chambers, some tortured and dead victims (it seemed that the same bodies were shown over and over again), blood on the walls and huge caches of weapons and enemy propaganda. Very few of the "thousands" of dead enemy fighters were shown. At the same time, images of the refugees in camps were being broadcasted along with plaintive cries from the populace about damaged homes and dead relatives. There were images of burnt out, destroyed homes with clothes, toys and other household items strewn around, seeming to imply, again, that the only thing really dying in Fallujah were the regular citizens.

This again seemed to bring back memories of Vietnam body counts and destroyed villages with dead villagers. The information war once again swung in favor of the enemy and the military, once again, saw this as a vindication of their lack of trust in the media for telling "their story".

But, whose fault is that? Is it the media? Was it the military's concern for operational security and negative images? Was it because, as a signatory to the Genieva conventions and, as a country that prided itself on certain concepts of battle (such as not showing the dead from respect or from needing to notify family or from some over all concept of decency that prevents us from showing the ugliness of death?) Was it because the public was not capable of understanding the images of war without losing perspective or withdrawing its support?

The truth is, information is going to come out of the battlefield. The enemy has the capability of creating their own news programs, videos, letters, CDs, music and everything else. They use hand held digital cameras and cell phone images. There are foreign press that are invited to "embed" with the insurgents/terrorists. The enemy delivers their own images and reports straight to news organizations around the world, including, straight into the homes of the American populace.

A recent controversy over the potential use of video footage from the battle for Haifa Street highlights this problem. The video has appeared on Al Qaeda websites as proof of the "attrocities" against the Sunni as well as the "courage and triumph" of the fighters, showing images of dead Iraqi soldiers.

Demands were made that the media do a better job at vetting the sources for their material. But, that is only a small part of the over all problem. The real problem that was highlighted is that the enemy is much better at and much faster at obtaining images of their war as well as distributing those images. Thus, shaping the image of the over all war once again.

The military released its own short video of the actions: American and Iraqi soldiers firing from a window, talking about seeing the enemy and firing out them. But, what was missing, as any citizen who has seen a war movie will tell you, is the "bad guy". He never makes an appearance on this video. Once again, leaving the impression of the "invisible enemy" or, the question, who was being killed on Haifa Street?

Was it fast enough? Complete enough?

The military has learned many concepts of war and translated them into operations complete with its own jargon. It often speaks of "getting inside the enemy's decision making cycle". In otherwords, knowing how the enemy will react in advance and acting faster than he can decide how to react to your actions. This causes confusion, a melt down of command and, if done correctly (with a little bit of luck), defeat of the enemy.

The military has developed new and faster ways of collecting, coalating and desiminating intelligence on the where abouts and activities of the enemy. Information that allows the military to "get inside" the enemy's "cycle".

Yet, a lesson it has not learned or has dragged its feet in learning or, better yet, refuses to learn, is how to "get inside the enemy's information cycle". In a globalized, networked, intranet world with 24 hour news cycles, international flights and overnight delivery closely entertwined with and used by the enemy as, paraphrasing Zawahiri, half the battlefield, the inability to wage war effectively on this front means that "half the battlefield" is already ceded to the enemy.

When you've lost half the battle field, unless you can call up re-enforcements or a miracle occurs, you've lost the battle. That is why the American people believe that Iraq is lost and US forces should be withdrawn. That is why the enemy continues to be able to recruit from a base that should be largely leary of supporting or tacitly agreeing with any part of the Islamists program that would most likely result in even worse restrictions, repressions and reprisals.

That is why people like Mr. William Arkin of the Washington Post can write "mercenaries", "murder" and "rape" in regards to the American soldier asking for support from back home without being shouted down from every corner of the American public except for those who are intricately related to or directly supporting soldiers.

It's a lesson they could not learn in Vietnam and, thirty five years later, they still haven't learned. While we invest in million dollar UAVs or "non-lethal" laser weapons, the enemy is beating us to death with $150 digital camera, $500 laptop and a few minutes of internet time.

Marine Corps Commandant Conway recently said:

"We have, frankly, talked with the president some about maybe changing his message," Conway said. "You know, after 9/11 he said the best thing you can do, America, is live your lives normal. . . . And we think today that it may be time to rally the country to war."

He's right. But that is not a good enough reason to let the military, the DOD or any of its arms off the hook for not taking up the fight.

Stay tuned for follow up posts on "Information War" regarding the internet, blogs, military websites, public relations, the law that governs military information within the American public sphere and the problem of performing information war when the global media also appears in American homes.

Summary only...

Send This Sheihk a Case of Marlboros

Whatever is happening in the big strategic picture, in places on the ground, some guys in Ramadi are making progress and a local Sheihk takes an unprecedented and dangerous stance to try to bring the violence to an end.

RAMADI, IRAQ — At 35, he is younger than many sheiks. And his Sunni Arab tribe is not one of the largest in Al Anbar province. But Sheik Sattar Bazeaa Fatikhan projects the aura of power and seriousness that comes to a man who has taken a stand.

After Sunni insurgents killed his father and four of his brothers last year, Fatikhan declared war against the insurgency.

He convened a summit of about a dozen prominent sheiks. From that meeting came a document called "The Awakening," in which Fatikhan persuaded all but one sheik to join him in opposition to the insurgency.

The sheiks pledged to encourage young men to join the police force and even the Shiite-led army. The document states that killing an American is the same as killing a member of their tribes. Since the gathering, Fatikhan said, the sheiks have "eliminated" a number of insurgents.[spin]

Drinking tea and smoking Marlboros, Fatikhan listened to questions and then gave an unvarying response: The U.S. military and Iraqi tribes must unite to rid Sunni-dominated Al Anbar province of men who would "try to engineer our future with mortars and roadside bombs."

For U.S. forces, Fatikhan's stand is a significant boost in a bitter fight with insurgents who, until recently, controlled large segments of Ramadi, the provincial capital.

Army Col. Sean MacFarland, commander of the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division, credits Fatikhan and other sheiks for an increase in police enrollment, a decrease in insurgent recruitment and new courage among Iraqi forces.

A year ago, insurgents blew up every police station in Ramadi, and officers were afraid to return to duty. The U.S. military rebuilt many of the stations. During a recent attack, Iraqi police officers stood their ground.

"They would not be intimidated," MacFarland said. "Why? Because their sheik, whom they respect, told them, 'You must do this.' "

Among all the noise and clutter, as has always been the case, groups of men keep chugging along, doing what they need to do.

This sheihk's family was killed by the insurgents/terrorists. He refers to them as "foreigners". Very likely that his father was simply trying to support his family and tribe by doing work to get money; from the Americans and Iraqi government most likely. In the world of Iraq, insurgents/terrorists don't see the people as "neutral". As once said by the President of the United States, the insurgents actually live by, "You are with us or you are against us." Doing business with the government or Americans, regardless of motivation is "against" the terrorists.

Just like the concern about American's losing the war by losing the hearts and minds when they take actions that injure or kill an Iraqi that results in his family or tribe joining the opposition, it stands the same for the terrorists. In this case, they made a big mistake thinking they could intimidate or eliminate the power of this sheihk. They obviously underestimated the power of this sheihk and the power of family.

A lesson we should not forget.

Hat Tip: Jules Crittendon

Summary only...

What If Democracy Died...

...and nobody came to the funeral?

Convening in a downtown plaza in a session that resembled a political rally, lawmakers unanimously gave Chavez sweeping powers to legislate by decree and impose his radical vision of a more egalitarian socialist state.

"Long live the sovereign people! Long live President Hugo Chavez! Long live socialism!" said National Assembly President Cilia Flores as she proclaimed the "enabling law" approved by a show of hands. "Fatherland, socialism or death! We will prevail!"

The part they leave out, literally, from the entire piece is the power to dissolve the national assembly of Venezuela.

Some idiot from the US State Department said:

But the top U.S. diplomat for Latin America, Thomas Shannon, said the enabling law isn't anything new in Venezuela.

"It's something valid under the constitution," said Shannon, the assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, told reporters in Colombia. "As with any tool of democracy, it depends how it is used," he added. "At the end of the day, it's not a question for the United States or for other countries, but for Venezuela."

So, we can go to Iraq and install Democracy, but when a Democracy in our hemisphere is in it's death throws, we give the equivelent of, "dude, it's not my job"?

Maybe the Mad Dog of Iran got some pointers from Hugo on tossing out, what now appears to be the "restraining" hand, of the Khomeinists.

As seen at the Castle

Summary only...

Previews of the Coming Sunni/Shia War

Enter the Egyptians

The people who read me regularly and know me personally know that I am a believer that the next war in the middle-east won't be fought between the arabs and the jews, but rather between the Sunnis and the Shia. Iran seems to be overstepping its influence in the region, with meddeling in Iraq, Lebanon and Bahrain, which is freaking Saudi and the other sunni gulf states out, and for some reason Egypt's as well. It makes sense that the gulf states would want Mubarak to join the effort, since Egypt is the only country in the region wih population to equal Iran's and a military in par with it (What is Egypt now if not a big ,yet not very efficient, military structure?). The Egyptian government (i.e. Mubarak), for its part, has been very big on persecuting the Shia in Egypt

Egyptians Part II

My fellow egyptians, you will so be psychologicaly prepped for a war with Iran by the end of this year, it's not even funny.

US to Iran: Backdown
Saudis Say: US leaves Iraq, Saudis will "protect their interests"

Over the past year, a chorus of voices has called for Saudi Arabia to protect the Sunni community in Iraq and thwart Iranian influence there. Senior Iraqi tribal and religious figures, along with the leaders of Egypt, Jordan and other Arab and Muslim countries, have petitioned the Saudi leadership to provide Iraqi Sunnis with weapons and financial support. Moreover, domestic pressure to intervene is intense. Major Saudi tribal confederations, which have extremely close historical and communal ties with their counterparts in Iraq, are demanding action. They are supported by a new generation of Saudi royals in strategic government positions who are eager to see the kingdom play a more muscular role in the region[snip]

And it begins with economics:

If Saudi Arabia boosted production and cut the price of oil in half, the kingdom could still finance its current spending. But it would be devastating to Iran, which is facing economic difficulties even with today's high prices. The result would be to limit Tehran's ability to continue funneling hundreds of millions each year to Shiite militias in Iraq and elsewhere.

Already happened

American Iraq: The Sunni Are Going to Hate It

Pity those men now hunkered down in Baghdad as they walk a fine, thin line between the yearning for justice and retribution in their land, and the scrutiny of the outside world. In the annals of Arab history, the Shia have been strangers to power, rebels and dissidents and men on the run hunted down by official power. Now the ground has shifted in Baghdad, and an Arab world steeped in tyranny reproaches a Shia-led government sitting atop a volcano. America's "regional diplomacy"--the name for our earnest but futile entreaties to the Arab rulers--will not reconcile the Arab regimes to the rise of the Shia outcasts.

Israel benefits from Sunni/Shia split

On the other hand, a commenter over at Sandmonkey said (paraphrasing), "What? Are you kidding? Benefit Israel? Egypt and Saudi Arabia are now talking about getting nukes! How does that benefit Israel?"

As seen at the Castle

Summary only...

Poor, Duped Soldiers, Oil, Iraq = Vietnam

As I said in a letter to the editor...

I have it up to my eyeballs with the whole "poor youths duped into war to serve the Military/Republican/Oil conglomerate and turning Iraq into Vietnam". I may have to puke. Frankly, I think anyone that repeats such nonsense should be whipped through town, tarred and feathered and rode out of town on a rail.

Or, at least protect us from having to read such idiotic garbage in the letters to the editor section of my local paper.

I tried to leave a comment there, but for some reason, typepad wouldn't let me sign in. So, I opted for a letter to the editor. A toned down letter to the editor, edited down for print and certainly did not contain all the other thoughts I had about the short, but ignorant letter by a fellow Kansas Citian.

If you've read me at all, you know that making it "short and to the point" was very painful. Let's see if it gets printed. If not, here it is for your edification:

I've had it up to my eye balls with the whole "American Soldiers are uneducated rubes escaping poverty by joining the military" meme. Usually these remarks are directed at soldiers who are serving in Iraq because this is the controversial war. No one seems to mention Afghanistan and this alledged mass of poor idiots that are serving there. I suppose soldiers in Afghanistan are somehow immune to this disease because they are fighting on the popular front in response to the 9/11 attack.

George Baggett wrote in a letter titled "What we’re doing to Iraq" -"President Bush continues to justify bizarre adventures to control Iraqi oil at the expense of a volunteer force that includes many poor youths seeking escape from poverty. "

Mr Baggett fails to recognize that many of these same troops have had tours in Afghanistan. They are poor and stupid in Iraq, "parading around", but apparently wise and capable everywhere else.

Let's be clear, American Soldiers are us. They are the policeman who patrols our streets, they are the accountant the does our taxes, they are the mechanic that fixes our cars, the neighbor across the street, and, yes, they are even high school graduates that may have never held a job before. They are from every walk of life, every ethnicity, every religion, every economic background and every educational level. They are a cross section of America.

To portray them as uneducated and poor victims because they are currently serving on a front that people see as unpopular is, well, ignorant.

I signed my name and gave them a number to call. I didn't address the rest of his idiotic letter. I just saw the "soldier's are victims" section and then I saw red.

As for the rest of his screed, it was barely worth anything after his "poor youths" being "paraded" around Iraq. But, I have news for these folks:

We didn't go into Iraq because of it's abundance in oil. We went into Iraq because it's oil was a pittance and any interruption to that flow would cause the minimum damage to the oil market, oil prices and the economy. If people think the raise of gasoline to $2 to $3 dollars/gallon or a 15% increase in heating and electricity costs was painful, imagine had we done what any number of idiots were demanding and gone into Saudi Arabia.

Imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth after that. Not that we had to worry. Much as the Democrat party used oil or Saudi connections to lambast the Republicans, I don't think any of them had the the cajones or the sheer ignorance it would take to do that. Not to mention the damage to their own investments and political contributions from these nasty oil profiteers.

Further, any folks concerned about the war profiteering of oil companies should check their 401k and IRA portfolios. It's very likely that you are planning your retirement on the blood of our soldiers.

Second, the reason we went into Iraq is because Saddam was an unstable, murdering sociopath who was a well known state supporter of terrorism. Maybe he didn't have a direct line to Osama. I'm sure he didn't call OBL up and say, "Yo, Obi-wan, why don't you get some guys together and fly planes into some buildings in the US."

Nope, the real issue here is the if or, more likely, when, he'd say, "Yo, OBL, nice job on the towers and Pentagon. You sure had those Americans stepping and a crying. I've got some stuff that will really rock their world."

And, folks, the fact that we didn't find all the "WMD" we expected to find (yes, we found some), scares the bee-jees out of me. We're talking bout the guy that tried to hide a biological warfare plant in a plant that allegedly made vetinarian medicine (al-Hakim 1995) at the height of sanctions. So, pardon me if I find the whole "WMD" thing still a major concern and a good reason to kick butt.

Third, we'd been "at war" for a decade with this moron routinely shooting at our jets. In the middle of a war with some crazy middle eastern guys, it doesn't seem like a brilliant idea to leave another crazy guy in a "war posture" on our flanks. I'm no military strategist, but it does seem like a bad idea.

Fourth, the reason we went into Iraq is because, if you want to kill the beast (ie, Islamist nutbags who want to kill Americans and rule their part of the world via the new, old caliphate), you have to stab that beast in the heart. Know your history. Baghdad was the heart of every Caliphate except the last couple hundred years under the Ottomans and even then Baghdad sat on the intersection of the empire. Even the Mongols (Ghengis Khan, Mr. Kerry) knew they had to take Baghdad to own the empire. Nothing will kill the beast faster than turning the heart of their future empire into a Shia dominated democracy.

When it all works out (I don't say "if", I say "when"), it has a bunch of side benefits like being a prick in the side of Iran and Syria. Not as military threat, but because they will be trading partners. Where the greedy capitalist democratic economy goes, so goes the ideas; democratic ideas.

Well, Iraq could fail. We could withdraw.

That's where we get Iraq = Vietnam - Abandon hope all ye who live in Iraq because, now that we've torn down your government, we've decided it's just too hard to finish the job. You'll just have to die by the thousands (if not a million or so), abandon dreams of democracy and live under the next murderous dictatorship.

Lot's of folks probably think that's what they deserve because they are obviously as poor and ignorant as our troops and can't do anything else but submit.

But hey, back to the Vietnamese, I'm happy to see folks feel some guilt over it. Let me tell you that 1 million Vietnamese did not die because the US meddled in it's affairs. They died because the Communists who took over Vietnam killed them. They died because they did not conform to the Communist manifesto. They died because they wouldn't swill Communist re-education. They died because they refused to give up their religious beliefs.

They died because that is what totalitarian regimes do to consolidate their power. They don't simply defeat their opposition and then spend years debating their political and economic beliefs, they eliminate by death all those who oppose them.

Ask the Cambodians, the Nicarauguans, the Russians and the Chinese, just to name a few.

In a few years, after we abandon the Iraqis, we can ask them, since it's likely that the Iranian backed factions will take over. Those folks are as extreme and totalitarian as the last murderous dictator. Or maybe, the Sunni and Shia will finally decide they have to fight it out in Iraq and hundreds of thousands more (a million?) will die in incessant warfare, far more than die today, at the hands of blood thirsty extremists. But, at least in the eyes of some folks, it won't be America doing it or America present while it happens.

These folks can sit back in self-righteous, self-flagellating glee and insist that abandoning Iraq was the right thing to do since we will have given them the power to kill each other or be killed by competing regional powers or Islamist extremists as our last guilt laden "gift".

Very humanitarian of us. Liberty at last for Iraq. The freedom to die in the hundreds of thousands.

Oh, and let's not forget, like the Vietnamese, as soon as we withdraw and the killing really gets started, we'll be flooded with a least a hundred thousand refugee seekers who don't really want to live in chaos or be murdered for their political or religious beliefs or because they had the gall to work with Americans to try to better their country and make a living.

There's some "Iraq=Vietnam" for you.

Then, ten or twenty years from now, folks like the writer of this letter in the paper can revise history and paint Iraq as the struggle of a people to fight off the empirialist oppression of the new improved Oil/Military complex of the United States.

I have just one question..if our current Military complex is after oil...what was the military complex after in Vietnam? Rice? If so, we must have actually won the war and didn't know it because this nice, quiet prosperous country (per Mr B in the KC Star) sales most of it's rice on the American market.

I nearly forgot, after we leave there and all the terrorists we supposedly created have a hay day training up and gathering in the hinterlands of Iraq, they can traipse over to Saudi Arabia and cause a big internal war that actually does interrupt the flow of oil to the US and every nation, sending the world into a depression or world war over remaining supplies. Or, these same folks can have a free pass at transiting through Iraq to Syria and Turkey to really lay some terrorist bombing on Europe or, you know, in the flood of refugees, come on over to the US and blow some car bombs up in downtown LA or New York. They don't need dirty bombs to set off panic and cause a recession/depression.

They need three well placed car bombs.

Then, all the self-righteous self-flagellators can sit back and take no responsibility for it (kind of like the whole "Vietnam" thing). They can just point at "Bush's War" and say something really brilliant like, "Why didn't the government protect us?"

Poor, dupped soldiers, oil/military complex and Vietnam. Who knew we'd have to live with this regurgitated nonsense???????

Okay...I did. Somewhere about March 19, 2003.

I've had all I can stands and I can't stands no more.


As seen at the Castle

Summary only...