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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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 insurgent in this round.

We've swept through Qaim and several other border towns, seriously wounding Zarqawi. We've pushed through Haditha and the new Operation Lightening to cordon off Baghdad is underway.

According to the latest and an email from a Marine officer to Blackfive, as I expected, they are rolling up a number of bad guys based on info they collected from the Qaim operation.

AP is reporting:

The battle killed two Syrians, an Algerian and a Jordanian and wounded two Saudis and a Moroccan, a U.S. military spokesman, Maj. Wes Hayes, said.

If you didn't hear it before, info says that the Iraqi citizens were kicking bad guys' butts before we even got there because they had tried to take over the town and insulted the local sheikh. Apparently, the "insurgents" have forgotten the basics of tribal courtesies and out stayed their welcome. Our guys actually stood back for a few hours, watching the fight and getting a feel for who was who on the battle field. Other info indicated that the villagers requested our presence in assisting them.

Pretty good PR when a largely Sunni town wants our guys to come in and kick other Sunni/jihadist/foreigner butt.

Today's news points exactly to expectations at this time as the insurgents bicker amongst themselves about who is in charge, whether Zarqawi can still lead them or if the news of his injuries and the back and forth about command have made the lower ranks nervous and untrusting about orders they receive. This will also slow down the recruiting for a few days (maybe even weeks) as the pipelines for trafficking wannabe jihadists are twisted and stomped by rumor and military.

Zarqawi's recent report to Bin Laden that he is fine and recovered is probably not exactly true. He may not be dead, but it is highly unlikely he is up to his old tricks with shrapnel in the chest even if this did occur in late February. He's still weak and could still be subject to an infection with the multitude of nasty germs running around Iraq. Our own soldiers have had to fight off these infections even with the best of treatment. It doesn't respond well to antibiotics. Zarqawi, if he's lucky, might get regular antibiotics and he might not. Sadly, there is more medicine available on the Iraq blackmarket than at the hospitals.

Zarqawi's message, as we all should have figured by now, was not for Bin Laden, not even for us. This was a message to his people to pick up morale and, mainly, to try to stave off the infighting and the collapse of some of his cells that aren't as strong and committed as his core group(s).

My predictions were for drive by shootings and one or two car bombs if they can get them off. The shootings could be "sectarian" or "insurgent". Suiciders, if you remember, are most likely jihadists.

The AP news gives us the run down for today's tallies:

The U.S. military said a Marine was killed Monday in a firefight near the restive city of Ramadi, west of Baghdad.

Read Blackfive. This is where we are operating with ISF (Iraqi Security Forces), training and supporting them. If you look over casualty counts for US military, while May was higher than the previous month or the highest this year, you can tell when we are going out to get the bad guys. We have higher casualties. That is just a fact. What I think is missing from most news analysis on the subject (if there is any), is that, even with all of these ops going on at once, our casualties compared to ops in November and last April and a few in between, are comparitively smaller. This means we're meeting less resistance in large formations and, additionally, we have learned from those other ops what works and what doesn't. MOUT training is improving as we speak and the main force is well prepared.

It doesn't mean we won't have more casualties or that this is over. This is the long haul. Insurgencies only overcome through hearts and minds, not tactics and weapons. Continuing ops against civilians by "insurgents" and the advancing political situation continues to whittle away any support.

Other news:

_Gunmen killed three Iraqi soldiers and wounded four in a drive-by shooting in western Baghdad's Ghazaliyah neighborhood, Yarmouk hospital reported.

This one requires more info. Ghazaliyah is largely Sunni if I'm not mistaken. Plenty of soldiers in the ISF are Shia. This could be "sectarian" instead of "insurgent", but "insurgent" can't be ruled out since this is also the area where some Saddam hold outs live (particularly Palestinian transplants).

_A suicide car bomber killed two Iraqi soldiers in an early morning attack on an army checkpoint near Buhriz northeast of Baghdad.

"Insurgent/Terrorist/Jihadi". Still, it didn't do much and it was only one. Small op to keep the news focused. Not well planned and probably not done by a jihadi who was real excited about killing himself. In the last few weeks, the Iraqi soldiers are getting as good as the American's at threat assessment and shooting the crap out of the cars before they can actually hit the intended target. Still, the drivers have a tendency to push the button as they're dying which leads to some casualties, but not the 10 or 20 they would hope for running into a check point.

_Gunmen killed Jerges Mohammed Sultan, an Iraqi journalist working for state-run Al-Iraqiya, in the northern city of Mosul.

Insurgents/possibly even Ba'athi Saddamists. It's the truth that journalists are being targeted in Iraq, but it is usually the insurgents since their propaganda war requires that they take out anyone that might be impacting their own ability to conduct PR. Al Iraqiya is the station that plays "Iraq's Most Wanted Confess" and the insurgents keep trying to intimidate them.

_Residents of Hit, 85 miles west of Baghdad, found the bullet-riddled bodies of four former Iraqi soldiers who were kidnapped last week.

I found the word "former" Iraqi soldiers interesting. Makes me think "former" is "Saddam's Army". Which means they were most likely Sunni, most likely taken out for revenge and most likely taken out by Shia.

As predicted, insurgent op tempo has been greatly slowed down. I expect this to continue for another 10-14 days as insurgents re-establish communications, leadership and they fall back to other supply areas. If you read Zawahiri's "Knights Under the Prophet's Banner", he documents some of the history of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt along with some of their operational standards. One of which is to have between two and four fall back positions at all times. Once they have to dump one or two, as soon as they settle in the next one, they re-gear, re-establish communications and establish or insure full operational ability of the next two or so fall back positions before doing the next ops. This is basic insurgent tactics. Without it, they wouldn't have lasted long after Fallujah, much less Mosul.

Not to say that there aren't more than two or four "fall back" positions already. Might be 10 with only a few fully stocked (ammo, food, money and men). One thing is certain, having that many positions available at all times means that, even if some fall to our military, they still have others to run to. But, a plus for us, not many people can know where all the sites are or it's for certain we'd know, too. Info has a way of getting out. So, if main fall back positions are compromised, that's all the better for us considering it will take them longer to get back up to full operational ability in their new area.

As always, intel is the key. The faster we know where the insurgents set down, the faster we route them and the less time they have to establish fall back positions and the less secure they can feel to plan and conduct operations. It is also more likely that more medium and large fish get caught in the net.

Right now, intel is better, but no where near "knock out" stage. We're still in Round 5 delivering body blows and a few upper cuts to the jaw line. The enemy is staggering, but not down for the count.

If patterns hold true, between 15th and 21st day, we should see a large or semi-large attack of car bombings so that Zarqawi can prove he's stil in charge. That would around Friday June 10 or forward. When I say "large", I mean five or more coordinated attacks or an all out assault on an Iraqi or American base. One thing I've been thinking is that, the few times that they have led full scale attacks, they've had their butts handed to them. They have not been able to over run an American position and their ability to over run Iraqi positions has gone way down. That in itself makes it a very wasteful tactic on their part. On the enemy's cost to benefit analysis, they continue to see this as an opportunity, not to win, but to inflict damage, cause casualties and erode support back home. I think that we have an advantage for awhile longer. Support at home continues to wax and wayne, but large scale calls to bring the troops home before we are finished are not making the news anymore. The American people are getting used to the op tempo and can see now the progress. Not because the news is reporting any "real" progress, but because the reporting of the bad stuff has gone down to a paragraph or bullet points.

It's what's not being said, instead of what is.

With operation lightening setting up check points, the enemy will move as quickly as possible to take advantage of so many targets. That will also be a plus for us. That means bad planning and a rush to develop explosives and recruit jihadists who might not be as dedicated to blowing themselves up. That usually means they do stupid things like start driving at their targets very fast from too far back and swerving through traffic. This gives the check point operators time to target and belay the attacking vehicle and makes them less effective.

All in all, I won't count my chicken's before they hatch, but the next 10 days out to be comparitively quiet.

Summary only...