 |  |
| [-] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
Prev | List | Random | Next |
If you think that last story was rough, try this one:
Sunni and Shia both stood and made the same claims. My translator began to speak, "A day of brotherhood, unity, and security. There was to be only one people; Iraqi Muslims. No more Sunni, no more Shia....."
My translator stopped speaking.
"What are they saying?" I asked.
"You don't want to know."
"Tell me."
"Okay, sir. Coalition Forces and Terrorists are no longer welcome in this country."
(As usual, via the Dawn Patrol.)
This might be the oddest story of the week. It's interesting as a conversation starter, but that's about the extent of the importance of the memo itself. However, the potential topics of those conversations aren't limited to the contents of the memo, and where those conversations might be held is another issue entirely.
Some of those conversations can be found here and here and here.
Sorry if all that seems cryptic - bit of a time crunch here, so more later if time permits.
Mike Totten's The Future of Iraq, Part IV.
I don't want to over-emphasize the opening paragraph of a well written presentation, but it does touch on a topic I've otherwise neglected:
In fact, I'm certain the pull out was cause for celebration and concern - and that celebrants could be motivated by the fact that Americans were leaving and/or the fact that conditions were "good enough" for Americans to leave.Getting an accurate reading of Iraqi public opinion is hard. It might be impossible. I've seen Iraqis cheer American soldiers, and I've seen some Iraqis hug American soldiers in Fallujah, Ramadi, and Baghdad. A few weeks ago, though, hundreds of thousands celebrated when Americans evacuated Iraqi cities as stipulated by the Status of Forces Agreement.
It's theoretically possible that what we've seen is not contradictory.
On what I thought was my last day in the Army in May 2007, my battalion commander gave me some parting words of discouragement. "I just want you to understand that you're leaving the most respected profession in America for one of the least," he said. It was his final attempt to dissuade me from pursuing a career in journalism.But some folks have a calling - so West Point grad/two-time Iraq vet Matt Mabe went back to school:
He won't be working in Iraq any time soon - he's been recalled to active duty and ordered to Afghanistan. Read the whole thing. (And let's hope we hear more from Captain Mabe.)As the semester progressed, I felt a creeping sense of isolation. I had my own criticisms about the failed strategy that plunged Iraq into chaos, but I was resentful of the hostility from prominent panelists and lecturers at the school that year. One evening, an award-winning photographer presented work he'd done in Iraq to my war correspondence class. During his talk, he ridiculed the hapless officers and scheming NCOs he'd dealt with on his various embeds, caricaturing them with tired labels and silly voices. He even delivered a mocking impersonation of one dim-witted private assigned to protect him.
These were extreme views, yet as some of my classmates laughed that evening, images of the soldiers my unit had lost swirled in my head. Brave men who had died serving a cause they believed in didn't deserve such desecration, I thought. I sought advice from a professor about how to manage the raw emotions these interactions provoked. Her response, as she later wrote in my performance evaluation, was hardly encouraging: "I would advise that Matt refrain from working in Iraq until he feels comfortable maintaining an emotional distance from his old life, so as not to impair his journalistic judgment."
Multi-National Force-Iraq becomes Mono-National Force-Iraq - in reality, if not in name. In the comments, a poem from Greyhawk. (There's another one here.)
With just a couple of clicks, you can help Soldiers' Angels win a $25,000 social media "makeover!" Just type "Soldiers' Angels" into the box at the link and follow the directions.
It's late in the game but Soldiers' Angels is now in 4th 2nd and that was in two days, however this contest runs through July 31st so it could easily change. Let's push and bring then to # one.
Bing West's Wall Street Journal piece is headlined How We'll Win in Afghanistan - but shouldn't be mistaken for a comprehensive explanation of just that.
But there are two quotes that immediately caught my attention:
1. "Al Qaeda, dominated by Arabs, is finished inside Afghanistan."
and
2. "As he did in Iraq, Gen. Petraeus wants to recruit local forces to protect their own villages."
Both, as they say, are news to me. If the first is true, we need stay no longer - mission accomplished. As for the second, if it is so there must be powerful forces opposed.
[Brig. Gen. Lawrence D. Nicholson, the commander of Marine forces in southern Afghanistan] ...had wanted his troops to conduct every patrol and man every checkpoint with members of the Afghan National Army, largely because people here take less umbrage at being searched by fellow Afghans, and Afghan soldiers have a keener sense of who ought to be searched. But plans to partner with the Afghan army have been scaled back because the Marines have been allotted only about 400 Afghan soldiers instead of the several thousand Nicholson had sought.
He has been promised more troops, but they will not start rolling in until next year. In the interim, he has asked his superiors for permission to arm young men and train them to serve as a local protection force. It is similar to the Sons of Iraq initiative the Marines created in Anbar that resulted in locals turning against foreign fighters in the group al-Qaeda in Iraq.
But senior commanders have shown no sign of approving the request.
Then again, no doesn't always mean no - at least not permanently. (Here's an earlier report, and here's a more recent update.)
The story goes back even farther, and unfortunately there are high-level politics involved. Such considerations often trump rational thought on military strategy.
As for awakening movements, l suspect the final chapter on that story in Iraq or Afghanistan is yet to be written.
I'm proud that this fraud was first exposed here:
...now Stars and Stripes provides a coda to the story of the little Major who couldn't:Because Cook waited to the last minute to take this action, either someone is going to get a very short notice non-volunteer assignment, or else the unit in Afghanistan will have to get by without one soldier for a while. Since that soldier would be a field grade officer, it's likely that the position will be of some significance.
But hey, at least he got his name in the papers. (However, those unfamiliar with the term "Blue Falcon" are encouraged to Google it.)
Lt. Col. Holly Silkman, a spokeswoman for SOCCENT, said the Army couldn't let Cook's critical engineer billet be hijacked by further legal wrangling. Cook was scheduled to deploy on July 15, and his position cannot sit empty.
The officer Cook was supposed to replace "is going to have to remain in Afghanistan a while longer," Silkman said, noting the Army is seeking a replacement. "No one has been identified yet, but it is a priority fill, so we're working on it and expect to fill it soon. Engineers are in high demand."
Taitz, unfazed by the facts, claimed victory.
No doubt the Army can use all hands in Afghanistan - but crackpots, cowards, and other varieties of the well known blue falcon need not apply.
Update: On a related note - as much as I'd like to keep the non-military politics out of it here, it seems to me Democrats would be well advised to do everything they can to keep the Birfer movement alive and kicking. I know the deepest desire of the "leaders" of the group is to get the rubes to loosen the purse strings and pony up some cash for the cause, but if that tactic seems to fail the Democrats might want to contribute their fair share. With the majorities in place at this point in time it will be hard to convincingly blame any of the nation's problems on Republicans next November (the fourth anniversary of a Democrat-controlled House and Senate) and nothing else current or on the visible horizon can possibly do more harm to the opposition than this group.
Elsewhere: Jonn Lilyea notes that "Cook has lost his second attempt at filing a lawsuit against his employer" who terminated him, apparently in part because he ain't right. Know what I mean?
This New York Times story (via Jimbo) is about sensing danger on the battlefield:
...but it tells another story, too:The sight was not that unusual, at least not for Mosul, Iraq, on a summer morning: a car parked on the sidewalk, facing opposite traffic, its windows rolled up tight. Two young boys stared out the back window, kindergarten age maybe, their faces leaning together as if to share a whisper.
The soldier patrolling closest to the car stopped. It had to be hot in there; it was 120 degrees outside. "Permission to approach, sir, to give them some water," the soldier said to Sgt. First Class Edward Tierney, who led the nine-man patrol that morning.
"I said no -- no," Sergeant Tierney said in a telephone interview from Afghanistan. He said he had an urge to move back before he knew why: "My body suddenly got cooler; you know, that danger feeling."
That could hardly be called an isolated incident.Sergeant Tierney gave the command to fall back. The soldier who had asked to approach the car had just time enough to turn before the bomb exploded. Shrapnel clawed the side of his face; the shock wave threw the others to the ground. The two young boys were gone: killed in the blast, almost certainly, he said.
The simple phrase above an inescapable truth in war. Planners are well aware of this point, that there is no "perfect" plan. This doesn't stop critics from claiming otherwise (witness Iraq) with varying degrees of intellectual honesty and equally wide-ranging motives.
As we begin to implement "new" strategy and tactics in Afghanistan, it's worthwhile to take a look at the response, starting with this report from al Jazeera:
Here's the video report:The Taliban in Afghanistan has issued a book laying down a code of conduct for its fighters.
Al Jazeera has obtained a copy of the book, which further indicates that Mullah Omar, the movement's leader, wants to centralise its operations.
The book, with 13 chapters and 67 articles, lays out what one of the most secretive organisations in the world today, can and cannot do.
It talks of limiting suicide attacks, avoiding civilian casualties and winning the battle for the hearts and minds of the local civilian population.
"The Taliban" should not be considered a coherent, nationwide, centrally-controlled all encompassing opposition group in Afghanistan. There are in fact several groups of varying degrees of (regional and idealistic) separation that may or may not use "Taliban" as part of their name - a topic worth noting but beyond the scope of this brief post. What's very much on-point is the similarity of this document to the well-publicized coalition plan for the area. To bring it to simplest terms, consider this document a Taliban statement that "we do hearts and minds, too" - and an acknowledgment that this particular battlefield is one on which the enemy is willing to engage. From that we might infer they believe they have an advantage. Given that in many regards they have "home field" then perhaps it is so.
Almost as soon as the Afghan government trumpeted a local cease-fire with the Taliban Monday, the purported deal fell apart. The breakdown of this minor agreement underscores the extreme difficulty the government and its international backers face in finding a political solution to the insurgency.
The government claimed it had struck a deal with Taliban leaders and tribal elders in the northern province of Badghis. Specifically, the local cease-fire would safeguard a road construction project and electioneering ahead of next month's national vote.
Within hours, however, clashes broke out in the region, and a Taliban spokesman told media that no deal ever happened.
Bill Roggio and Josh Foust are not surprised.
Frankly, no one should be. But if a brief, local "cease fire" is unlikely, does this mean it shouldn't be tried? The Government of Afghanistan certainly might have expected the same result - but now they can at least be acknowledged for attempting a peaceful route first, however unlikely the outcome. What - strategically or tactically - did they lose in the effort?
Here's how the Christian Science Monitor reports the outcome of the battle: "Suspected insurgents ambushed police, and fighting left two militants dead and two police wounded, Reuters reported, citing the Interior Ministry." We (rightly) don't want to use death tolls as metric - but once again we return to the title of this post.
Andrew Exum's Charlie Rose interview is here.
Click and view and you'll get an introduction to "the issues" in Afghanistan that you won't find anywhere else. This is the frame by which we (the United States) have chosen to view the conflict there. It's imperfect and a work in progress, but not directionless or without goals. Many would do well to familiarize themselves with the route of the march - especially now that we're demonstrably (and in some regards inexorably) on our way.
For those who might question the knowledge or motives of the presenter, Ex is the lead author of "Triage: The Next 12 Months in Afghanistan and Pakistan" (see video at link) and just completed a visit to Afghanistan as a participant in Gen McChrystal's initial on-the-ground review.
Others may recall him from this less formal panel discussion at the MilBlogs Conference a couple of months before the release of "Triage", which I can now look back upon and chuckle...
Watch those three videos in the reverse order I've presented them and you'll witness something of the development of the framework, strategy, and tactics that define where we are today on Afghanistan. Still to come: how all that plays out in the real world, where thousands of young Americans and allied forces (including Afghans) provide the blood, sweat, and tears equity to make it work (or not) - a factor with which the folks in the videos above are all well acquainted. We'll be watching (sometimes more than watching) those developments here - and striving to "maintain contact" with others doing the same, be they experts, "experts", or boots-on-the ground. Iraq was the first war where blogs and "new media" had some influence; for this "new war" in Afghanistan the return of the Agora is complete.
Elsewhere in the Agora:
Josh Foust: "So, Andrew "Abu Muqawama" Exum is doing the interview circuit about his experience as a part of General McChrystal's 60-Day re-review of the Afghan War. It's interesting to try to make sense of what he said beforehand and what he's saying afterward..."
Exum himself: "Who wants to watch me run my cakehole on Charlie Rose when you can hear it from McChrystal instead?"
J.D. Johannes is on his way to Afghanistan. You can support his efforts by buying one of his videos.
Vampire Six is home from Afghanistan. (This means it's time for some "thanks" in the comments section at his site...)
I'm extremely sympathetic to the man's plight, but the quote "Parks had just graduated high school and was 18 years old, he enlisted in the army in Spokane only to decide later that no longer wanted to serve" doesn't match the headline: "Chris Parks Says He Was Mistaken For An Army Deserter". If the remainder of the details provided in the story are correct, see poster above. Mistakes were made, that seems certain.
Update: Video report (via PoliGazette) "Army records show he went through basic training, then went AWOL from a base in Georgia."
However, Mr Parks' hair appears to have grown back out, indicating it's been a while since his forced hair cut at Knox. One wonders if the Army hasn't already decided to let this one go.
This might be the whole point of the story:
"When it boils down to it, who is going to say sorry to me?" said Parks, who is currently searching for a lawyer who is willing to represent him.
"An apology and some money would be enough to make it all go away," he said.
Dude, if the Army has decided to let it drop (something else that seems likely but isn't clear at all from the story, by the way) it might be best not to convince them to change their minds.
And as a Mudville public service to others: if you sign enlistment paperwork (also known as a contract) and take the oath of enlistment you have enlisted in the military. Do not do either for any reason other than to enlist in the military. I know, it sounds complicated, but it is just as simple as that.
Elsewhere: The Gun Toting Liberal
Mudville readers might be interested in this note from Andrew Exum: "I just filmed a long interview with Charlie Rose for tonight's show. I'll be talking strategy in Afghanistan and sharing observations from my trip."
As you might gather, his trip was to Afghanistan, where he's been helping some guy named McChrystal "conduct his 60-day review of strategy and operations in Afghanistan. So I have spent the past month traveling around Afghanistan conducting interviews and trying to evaluate ISAF's operations." Not bad for a former blogspot guy.
Also scheduled for the same program, Ross Douthat, former blogger for the Atlantic, now the NY Times "token conservative" columnist - who's latest NY Times op-ed deals with Iraq. Not sure that will be part of the discussion, however, as even the mightiest of bloggers apparently fear this man and what he says. (Most ignore, others fixate on small details.)
Both interviews online here later, presumably. (And worth watching, definitely.)
Readers here will recognize the chart below as from the Brookings Institute's Iraq Index. This particular version is from their April, 2007 report, and thus depicts casualty figures only for the first four years after the March, 2003 invasion. (The latest report can be found here, with a complete archive here.)
Viewing the data with the perspective of time affords an opportunity to examine "the big picture" - and on that scale one thing stands out as immediately obvious. While month-to-month variability in these numbers has always been extreme, a distinct and significant rise in American casualty rate after the first year of the war is apparent. In fact, one can draw a vertical line through March, 2004 on this chart and - as evidenced by the difference to the left and right of the line, surmise that here was a turning point in the war.
Such a conclusion could hardly be described as radical, surprising, or new - and given events of the day (the initial large-scale assault in Fallujah, the abu Ghraib revelations, the first open battle with Sadr's militia, and more) the point of delineation certainly can't be declared inexplicable either.
For additional perspective I've added graphical representation of the casualty rate to the same chart below (methodology to be explained later) along with vertical lines at the anniversary points of the invasion. At this scale (and it's the only scale we're discussing for now) most of the subtle changes are undetectable - except for the distinct upturn that commences at approximately March, 2004.
One might feel justified, then, in citing this as a contributing factor to the steep drop in American public support for the war through the remainder of the time frame depicted. Regardless of cause and effect, that plunge in public opinion is certainly "conventional wisdom".
However, neither wisdom or convention are synonymous with right or correct. The reader is invited to ponder the suppositions presented above, some of which are demonstrably wrong.
(More to follow...)
Mike Yon's latest is a photo essay from Helmand - he's with the Brits there.
The helicopter issue he mentions is a topic of great debate in the UK at this time, where Prime Minister Gordon Brown faces growing domestic pressure to commit more. Some heat was added to the debate this month as the British death toll in Afghanistan surpassed the number of fallen in Iraq.
Over the weekend I caught Yon's call-in to Pat Dollard's online radio program. It was near sunrise in Afghanistan at the time, in the background you can hear explosions and small arms fire. (At least, you can if you listen here) resulting in an interesting conversation between two guys who've been danger close - I don't think you'll hear anything quite like this anywhere else. (You'll have to fast forward to the 1 hour 20 minute point for Mike's call-in.)
Brief excerpt:
The rest is here.
But the most compelling bit of journalism you're likely to experience this week from Afghanistan (or elsewhere, for that matter) is in the London Sunday Times. Miles Amoore was in Afghanistan covering the war, but recently came home:
For three days we had hovered around Jim's bedside in Birmingham's Selly Oak hospital -- as he lay doped up on a cocktail of opiates, antibiotics and general anaesthetic -- since I had arrived with him on an emergency flight from Afghanistan.
"I am having some pretty weird dreams," Jim murmured as we strained to hear him.
I had always wanted to be a war correspondent. Ironic, then, that the first casualty of war I saw was my younger brother lying limp and lacerated in a field hospital in Helmand.
Fine reporting, and undoubtedly not an easy tale to tell. Read it all.
In the mail: The Surge: A Military History
Kagan's effort at documenting the events as military history is in part a counter to the popular narrative of success in Iraq as a result of anything but the increased number of US troops or strategy modifications in place by 2007. The point is not insignificant - beyond historical value, we're repeating the process in Afghanistan today.
US Navy Commander Jeffrey D. Gordon has filed a sexual harassment complaint against the Miami Herald's Carol Rosenberg.
FishbowlDC obtained a copy of the July 22, 2009 letter addressed to Miami Herald Senior VP and Executive Editor Anders Gyllenhaal. In the complaint, Gordon calls for a "thorough investigation" to put an end to Rosenberg's "appalling behavior" that includes comments about the Commander's sexual orientation. [Link]
Examples abound, with a full copy of the complaint at the link.
Here's Howard Kurtz on the topic in the Washington Post.
More: Navy (ret) milblogger Neptunus Lex was once button-holed in the foc's'l by a rather shameless (and foolish) NYT reporter. He notes a jarring non sequitur in Kurtz' report. Given that Cdr Gordon's complaint cites other (unnamed) journalists who witnessed some incidents of alleged improper behavior, it may be interesting to see how this story progresses - if at all.
I have seen reporters phrase questions in such a way as to elicit a certain emotional response. That's fair enough, I suppose - especially (though generally not as effectively) when questioning people whose job it is to deal with journalists. The incidents as described in the complaint, however, go far beyond anything I've seen or anything I'd imagine a professional would call "good journalism" - even with a nudge and a wink. Likewise I'm not familiar with this reporter's work, not aware of any "big stories" she may have broken regarding Guantanamo, but if this example is in any way indicative of the bulk of her output there's little reason to believe those efforts are the real point of contention. (Something about which any reasonable person might wonder in a case like this.)
...surrender, but don't give yourself away.
- "Surrender", by Cheap Trick
Heh:
"I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC News."It wasn't Hirohito" says Gateway Pundit:
On September 2, 1945, on the deck of the U.S.S. Missouri in Tokyo Bay, the Japanese envoys Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu and Gen. Yoshijiro Umezu signed their names on the Instrument of Surrender.
...which is correct, but only approaches the punchline:
Admiral McCain's grandson would have got that one right, which might be part of the reason the President would prefer not to invoke it.
Anyhow, I find it chuckleworthy. But I also think it's funny that so many people are responding to a Fox News story about an ABC news story. The good folks at ABC gotta be wondering WTF they gotta do to get some link love, baby...
(Oh, and the word "victory" - like so many other terms - became unfashionable last year.)
More milbloggers on "the V-word":
Bouhammer (Do NOT miss his bottom line...)
Jonn Lilyea at This Ain't Hell
Next day update: (Warning: party-killing commentary follows - but it ends with another chuckle.) I found some humor in the struggle with terminology and the chosen analogy (hence "chuckleworthy") and what it "invokes". I should clarify that I don't interpret the President's struggle with what word best describes "achieving our goals" as some sinister indication that he doesn't want to achieve our goals.
I also find the response to his comments chuckleworthy because in the immediate aftermath of the election last year I predicted that the only thing that would actually change about our approach to Iraq was the terminology used to describe events. Here's the full entry, but here's the conclusion:
At some point he - unlike Republicans - might even choose to declare "victory" there. (Americans love a winner, after all.)
But that's his call to make. Republicans have lost the opportunity to choose the words to be used to describe the process for the next couple of years. For now the approved phrases are "end the war" and "allow planning for a withdrawal from Iraq to begin as soon as possible".
"He" being President Obama, and quotes around the word victory implying that might not be the word used. (Yes, I was talking about Iraq then, and we're talking Afghanistan now. Point is the same.)
Beyond semantics, there's a good point in what the President is implying. Let me put it this way (because I already have): "Only the losers get to determine when a conflict has ended". In WWII we were confronted with an enemy that could sign a formal surrender document. In our current conflicts we are not.
There are many topics for reasonable (and humorous, even!) discussion here. Those who boil it down to "the President is opposed to victory" are ensuring that reasonable discussion won't happen.
Back to the funny - here's the Obama administration's victory declaration on Iraq:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Major milestone this week here in Iraq with the American troops pulling out of the cities. And I wonder if you can put the broader American mission in context. Are we in the process of securing victory or cutting our losses to come home?
BIDEN: Securing victory.
The New York Times explains the difference between Haily, Idaho and those nameless, failed, redneck backwaters that send their kids off to die in foreign lands for reasons unknown:
And here's local coverage of the candlelight vigil.Mr. Bergdahl's family does not appear to have had a strong connection to the military. Nor, for that matter, does Hailey, whose population is about 6,000. There are craft breweries and bike shops on Main Street, not the empty storefronts and Army recruitment centers found in some other rural towns. The most visible military presence is a small armory for the Idaho National Guard that is not open on a daily basis.
While there is an active American Legion post in the area, nearly all of its 215 members are from wars preceding those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Several people said they were not aware of the area's having lost a soldier in the recent conflicts. Some said the area's liberal politics have made for a strong antiwar sentiment locally, at least relative to other parts of Idaho, particularly among the newcomers who have arrived over the past few decades seeking life in the outdoors.
"Bowe is very much a product of this community," said Sue Martin, a family friend and the owner of a coffee shop where Mr. Bergdahl worked. "And he's misunderstood because of that."
"We're all struggling to define who Bowe is," Ms. Martin added.
"Hailey native Joan Davies said she has known Bergdahl since he was very young" - but is struggling to figure out why he'd go to Afghanistan:Hailey Police Chief Jeff Gunter choked back tears as he recalled memories of Bergdahl as a young boy with a "contagious smile." He remarked on the yellow ribbons tied to trees all over town in support of Bergdahl's safe return.
"I want to climb a hill with you when you return to look down and see what this town has done for you," Gunter said.
"It perplexes me that he is over there. Bowe probably loves those mountain people. I have three sons and this could have happened to any one of them. I hope to send a message of communication, rather than hostility. I'd like to see 'Three Cups of Tea' happening over there," she said.
Apparently the military is over there slaughtering people when they should be building schools and protecting the population and drinking tea with them and stuff. Maybe she'll look into it a little and figure the whole thing out.
Maybe put up a yellow ribbon, or light another candle.
Yesterday, here: Sergeant First Class Jared Monti: Medal of Honor
Today:
The Waltham, Ma. News Tribune:
The Boston Herald:RAYNHAM -- Janet Monti was home nursing a cold when the call came in.
At first, she thought it was a joke.
A person who claimed to be a White House aide asked if she would be around for the next half hour. Ten minutes later, she was on the phone with the President. "He said, 'I hear you're a little under the weather,'" she recalled of President Barack Obama's first words to her. His next words made her swell with a mother's pride.
The Boston Globe:"He spent most of his life doing things for other people, even when young," his father said.
On Tuesday afternoon, Monti received a telephone call from President Obama informing him that his beloved son has been named as a recipient of the Medal of Honor. It will be awarded in a ceremony at the White House in the fall.
WBZTV Boston:Monti's father, Paul Monti, of Raynham, said he received a phone call from President Obama Tuesday notifying him that his son had been chosen to receive the honor.
"He told me . . . the nation was proud of my son, and he was proud of my son and was sure I was proud of my son,'' he said.
Paul Monti said his son, who entered the service when he was a junior in high school, would have been humbled to be singled out for the honor.
"It ensures him a place in history,'' he said, "but I'd much rather have him with me.''
Monti's mother, Janet Monti, of Winterville, N.C., also received the bittersweet call from Obama Tuesday.
The White House (at time of this post):An Army sergeant from Massachusetts has been awarded the Medal of Honor three years after he died trying to rescue wounded comrades during a battle with Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan.
President Barack Obama called the family of Sgt. Jared Monti of Raynham earlier this week to inform them of the honor.
"Did you mean month? Search was unable to find any results for Monti, you may have typed your word incorrectly, have entered an empty phrase or are being too specific."
As 5PM Friday approaches, all other official sources wait to follow the White House lead, unable to "confirm or deny".
Update: via email:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
__________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 24, 2009
On September 17, President Barack Obama will award Staff Sergeant Jared C. Monti, U.S. Army, the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry. Staff Sergeant Monti will receive the Medal of Honor posthumously for his heroic actions in combat in Afghanistan. He displayed immeasurable courage and uncommon valor - eventually sacrificing his own life in an effort to save his comrade. Staff Seargent Monti's parents, Paul Monti and Janet Monti will join the President at the White House to commemorate their son's example of selfless service and sacrifice.
Not on the web site yet. Hopefully they'll straighten out the confusion over the rank issue before posting.
More: And here it is.
Previously: Sergeant First Class Jared Monti: Medal of Honor
Next: A gathering of friends and family
Will you adopt a hero? We need you- this LTC expresses how much it means....
Dear Soldiers' AngelsOn behalf of myself and the other members of the 438 Air Expeditionary Advisory Group, let me extend my heartfelt thanks for the package you sent. It is nice to know there are folks back home, besides our families, that support us. Your willingness to give of your time and money to provide us a little touch of home is greatly appreciated by all.
I have to say that the contents were much appreciated, if you judge by the speed at which word spread and contents disappeared! The sand scarves were, of course, the first to disappear, although the instant oatmeal, granola bars, and drink mixes were not far behind. As of this time, some hour after I opened them in our common area, there are only a handful of each cereal and some boxes of sunscreen left.
It is hard to describe the excitement, however shortlived, that comes when the mail is distributed and group care packages arrive. The word spreads, near childish joyful sounds come from folks that are usually quite mature. Thanks again for putting a smile on many faces today.
//Signed 23 Jul 2009//
Bryan K. Hasty, Lt Col, USAF
ANAAC Communications Advisor_________________________________________
The war has been particularly fierce in Afghanistan recently and as they take the fight to the enemy, living conditions for America's fighting men and women are a lot like they were at the beginning of the Iraq war. Life is very, very hard--many sleep in tents or even on the ground with no showers, eating MREs or the occasional goat, no PX for supplies, etc. The needs are basic: baby wipes, portable snacks, sand/cool scarves, hygiene items, hiking socks to line their combat boots, and more. There is also a higher ratio of females deployed to Afghanistan than Iraq, with their own unique supply concerns.
It's so important right now to ensure these men and women know they are loved and supported. Please spread the word and help in any way you can--by joining the Ladies of Liberty team, donating items for care packages, adopting a hero, or helping cover postage for the 5,000 packages Soldiers' Angels is sending to these heroes each week. Please help make sure our beloved warriors know we've got their backs as they face this challenge.
UPDATE: CNN: Letters precious to U.S. troops in Afghan outposts
Instead of near instant contact through e-mail, texts or even video conference calls, families back home often have to rely on something that once was rare: hand-written letters."Can you imagine we're going back to paper and pen. It's so weird to write an actual letter but that's what we have to do,"
...The new commander of NATO troops in Afghanistan is sending units out into remote villages to defend the locals from Taliban attacks. Rarely do those villages have modern communications systems. Some units have a satellite phones but the demand on the phones makes it hard for troops to use them to call home.
Please adopt a hero today!
...four - no wait. One, two, three, four, five, - wait, got him twice. Where was I?...
...thirteen, fourteen, oh, pardon me. Here, let me get that. There, good as new. Wait, where was I? Crap! One, two, three... ouch! You stepped on my toe, moron!
Now then - one, two three... ahh screw it. "Hundreds". I hate crowds, let's go get drunk.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki opened the door for the first time Thursday to the prospect of a U.S. military presence in Iraq after the December 2011 deadline for troop withdrawal set by last year's bilateral accord -- something President Obama appeared to rule out during a joint appearance on Tuesday.
More here.
It's not the same as the Security Agreement (or SOFA), but some might recall the drawdown plan Obama actually described during the campaign for the Democratic nomination:
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.Or the version he used as once he secured that nomination:
The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month -- which would remove all of them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 -- more than 7 years after the war began.
Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.
(Emphasis added to salient points.)
Like talk of a national referendum in Iraq regarding the SOFA, that's pretty much forgotten. But even if one sees hints that indicate that isn't the current plan, one could hardly condemn President Obama should he eventually decide to do what he said he would as a candidate.
(Via SWJ)
Update: Might as well add this:
I've also been keeping track of the apparent controversy over Iraq's (gasp) tough enforcement of the SOFA terms to limit U.S. operations. Is this really that much of a surprise? It shouldn't be--I'm not sure what else we were expecting. It was clear from the beginning of the SOFA negotiations that the Iraqis were deadly serious about it. They want to run the show, and we have to respect that. They might not be as "ready" or effective as U.S. forces, but it seems like we really have to learn to let go a bit on the security front. Let's wait a bit and see how this shakes out before pronouncing it a disaster.
There are supporting links to be found at the link, where I've already commented: The Iraqi response at this point seems to boil down to "thanks for your interest, we'll let you know if we need you". The implied "but probably not" may or may not be realistic on their part, but I don't see it as negative, ungrateful, or unexpected.
"Let's wait a bit and see how this shakes out before pronouncing it a disaster." Good advice. For many Americans that would be a radical new approach to Iraq.
In 2006, Sergeant First Class Jared Monti died fighting in Afghanistan. The Massachusetts native was inundated with gunfire, but that didn't stop him from coming to the aid of his fellow wounded comrades.
Years later, Sergeant Monti is receiving the highest military honor: The Congressional Medal of Honor.
As of right now, his casualty identification notice is the only mention of Sergeant First Class Monti on the DoD web site. His hometown of Raynham, Massachusetts is in Barney Frank's congressional district - no word on Frank's web page either.
Here's Bruce McQuain discussing SFC Monti - via quotes from his fellow troops - on Pundit review Radio's "Someone You Should Know". Here's the web page for SFC Monti's memorial scholarship fund.
Then:On 21 June 2006, SFC Monti, then a staff sergeant, was the assistant patrol leader for a 16-man patrol tasked to conduct surveillance in the Gowardesh region. The patrol was to provide up-to-date intelligence, interdict enemy movement and ensure early warning for the squadron's main effort as it inserted into the province.
As nightfall approached, the patrol was attacked by a well organized enemy force of at least 60 personnel. Outnumbered four-to-one, SFC Monti's patrol was in serious danger of being overrun.
The enemy fighters had established two support-by-fire positions directly above the patrol in a densely wooded ridgeline. SFC Monti immediately returned fire and ordered the patrol to seek cover and return fire. He then reached for his radio headset and calmly initiated calls for indirect fire and close air support (CAS), both danger-close to the patrol's position. He did this while simultaneously directing the patrol's fires.
When SFC Monti realized that a member of the patrol, Private First Class (PFC) Brian J. Bradbury, was critically wounded and exposed 10 meters from cover, without regard for his personal safety, he advanced through enemy fire to within three feet of PFC Bradbury's position. But he was forced back by intense RPG fire. He tried again to secure PFC Bradbury, but he was forced to stay in place again as the enemy intensified its fires.
The remaining patrol members coordinated covering fires for SFC Monti, and he advanced a third time toward thewounded Soldier. But he only took a few steps this time before he was mortally wounded by an RPG. About the same time, the indirect fires and CAS he called for began raining down on the enemy's position. The firepower broke the enemy attack, killing 22 enemy fighters. SFC Monti's actions prevented the patrol's position from being overrun, saved his team's lives and inspired his men to fight on against overwhelming odds.
Staff Sgt. Heath N. Craig, 28 of Severn, MD, died on June 21 in Naray, Afghanistan. He was killed when his UH-60 helicopter hoist malfunctioned while attempting to evacuate Pfc. Bradbury during combat operations.More local coverage here, and the Army Times reports here. As of now, there is no official announcement from the White House.
Registan: "The U.S. Air Force just declared a major victory in the war on drugs in Afghanistan because it bombed a big pile of bagel toppings."
That's a well deserved slap well delivered, because it doesn't end there.
And it probably won't happen, but I can't help but imagine a large poppy field springing up around the blast site next year. Metaphorically, perhaps.
(Via the Dawn Patrol, where there's much more.)
Old Blue is back in Afghanistan - part of the team in the Counterinsurgency Training Center. Many will recall Bill and Bob's Excellent Afghan Adventure - the blog in which he detailed his previous deployment and weighed in on developments since. Others will recognize his commentary from other respected sites focused on the development and discussion of strategy and tactics employed in America's war - or wars, if you prefer.
There are more than a few parallels between Afghanistan now and Iraq circa early 2007 - and several distinctions. But one thing certainly unchanged is that there are those who go back. Say what you will of theory, of politics, of motive, of personalities, of cause, effect, right, wrong, and everything in between - those things are present in the minds of those who go back but insignificant after all once their time has come again to do.
They can be sure they'll make mistakes and put other mistakes right - often in the same action. They'll know courage and cowardice, convictions and uncertainty, geniuses and fools - and know those things can exist in each and every person they encounter every day. Some few of them - some very few - will overcome the desire to just quietly get the job done, will conquer the whispering inner voice that says no one really gives a damn and tell the tale they have to tell in what time they have to tell it.
So that some other few - who prove that unceasing inner voice so wrong - can have a glimpse of what might be and those of us who've been there can say yes, it is just so.
...against charges of rude behavior:
"I was able to figure out the allegation about my staff flipping off protestors [sic] at my St Louis office on Friday," McCaskill wrote on her personal blog Monday. "There was only one male staffer at the office on Friday, and I knew he wouldn't do that. He is an Iraq veteran, who handles almost all of our case work for our veterans. He is soft spoken and hard working and just not the type to lose his cool." [Link]
The "blog" entry is here.
Does the defense work without the phrase "He is an Iraq veteran"? Is that pertinent?
She opposed the war as a congressional representative - with too much passion to accept any message that conflicted with her own. She became one of the few Democrats to fail at a reelection bid last year. Now she's been appointed to a new job at the Pentagon.
And John of Argghhh has convinced me that's a good thing.
Col. Agoglia, Director Counterinsurgency Training Center will provide an update on the current curriculum and methodologies used in counterinsurgency training in theater.I missed out on this one due to circumstances beyond my control, but here's a great discussion on counterinsurgency training in Afghanistan. It ain't all happy talk.
From Robert Stokely:
Eight years ago I took a ride out I-20 from Atlanta headed to Augusta GA and along the way stopped to pick up Mike as he had first been to our house to visit while home on leave and then back to his mom's for a few days. Mike was given a four day pass to come home from AIT at Ft. Gordon where he had been for a few months after his graduation from high school. Mike was a member of the Georgia Army National Guard, having joined in March of 2000 as junior in high school on the split entry program, doing his basic training at Ft. Benning that summer and then finishing his senior year of high school.
I had never been to Ft. Gordon although I had ridden by it a number of times. I wanted to take Mike back because it would be an unknown time before he might get another pass and the several hours it would take us to drive there would be valuable time together. It was strange to go through the gates and drop him off at his barracks - although I have to admit they weren't the type barracks you might imagine compared to basic training. They were more like apartments. Mike greeted some fellow AIT buddies as we got there. He showed me around and then it was time for formation and I had to leave. I remember the hug goodbye, the "I love you dad" and straining to see him as long as I could in my rear view mirror. Funny how the ride home was a lot longer than the ride there.
Today (Tuesday) I made the ride out I-20 again and while I didn't go to Ft. Gordon I was headed to Augusta to take a Soldier's Angels supplied computer to a wounded soldier from the local National Guard Unit / Newnan GA where I live. SPC Charles Benson was wounded in Afghanistan in a fierce firefight taking a bullet to the lower body and suffering serious hand wounds from an RPG that hit his battle buddy CPL Jonathan Morita in the hand and wounding him seriously. Both survived and their wounds are non-life threatening with SPC Benson going to Eisenhower Medical at Ft. Gordon and recently being transferred to more long term care and rehabilitation at the VA Hospital in nearby Augusta (GA). CPL Morita is at Walter Reed and I hope to go see him soon, maybe even next week, and stop and check in on the seriously injured SFC Mark Allen who was shot in the head in the same firefight. SFC Allen is at Bethesda.
My visit today with SPC Benson at the VA in Augusta GA was a good one. He looked well for a young man who came closer to death than any parent would want their child to come. More striking is how good his spirits were. Laid back and take it as it comes is how I would describe it. Honestly though, he looked younger than even the young man he is and has served a year deployment in Iraq four years ago and came home to go to the University of Alabama where he was but 14 credit hours away from graduating when he was called up. I thought to myself how such a mild mannered young looking man could be such a rugged soldier fighting for America, and a medic on top of that. I guess it is true, looks can be deceiving. We talked and laughed in a way that few might have understood or dared go "there". He described how they had been on foot patrol all night about 12 miles from their base. I kidded him that they didn't even get one of the junker HumVees like they had in Iraq and he said no. Guess they didn't have it so bad in Iraq after all I said. He laughed. He kidded he might just not wait to get a pass and I said "so what could they do to you if you left - send you to Afghanistan..." And we talked about the battle and how he got hit and he was so down to earth matter of fact "I took a bullet and then the RPG came in and got me and Morita...." like it was no big deal. He has the bullet, thanks to a fellow soldier "digging it out" for him.
Then we talked about a mutual friend - one I didn't know four years ago and one he came to know two weeks ago. MaryAnn Phillips, Soldier's Angels Germany. Need I say more. But, yes I will. Just let it suffice to say that SPC Charles Benson and his family love MaryAnn because she was there at Landstuhl and checked on him constantly and saw him off on the flight to Andrews AFB. MaryAnn made a real difference in his life, such a difference in two days that it will last a lifetime, just as she has done for me and so many others. Thanks MaryAnn for looking after our soldiers when they come into Landstuhl and providing their families a measure of comfort to hear your compassionate voice right by their wounded loved one's bedside.
As I drove home today I thought how I was making this trip to begin with, how I have met and come to have so many new friends these last four years and how they give so much to our soldiers like SPC Charles Benson. It traces back to Mike, for if Mike had not been killed in Iraq, I would not know the many wonderful people like MaryAnn Phillps, Patti Patton-Bader, Mr. and Mrs. G, the Blackfive bloggers, David Marron at Thunderrun, like how many Soldier's Angels across the world, and so many others. I wouldn't have been riding to Augusta today and I wouldn't have been taking the computer sent by Soldier's Angels for CPL Benson. And, on my way back, I wouldn't have been stopping by to check on Mike's grave.... I wish Mike had not been killed by a roadside bomb, but was a choice I didn't get to make and I will just be thankful for the many good things that have come out of his death - blessings I call Romans 8:28 blessings.
As I stood at Mike's grave late this afternoon, I asked myself this question - "How could I have ever known that day eight years ago..."
DUTY HONOR COUNTRY.
Robert Stokely
proud dad SGT Mike Stokely
KIA 16 AUG 05 near Yusufiyah Iraq
p.s. - thanks Mrs. G for going to see CPL Benson last week
USA E 108 CAV 48th BCT GAARNG
and Co-chair Bravo 2 / 121 INF 48th BCT GAARNG Family Readiness Group
Iraq's Prime Minister visits America. This means that maybe (just maybe) you'll be hearing about Iraq in the news, with mention from folks who haven't been paying much attention to that country lately.
Maybe.
By the way, should you happen to meet this man, do not expect him to be impressed with a 25-DVD gift set. Those things are a dime a dozen in his country.
In light of a previous discussion, here's an interesting Naval War College Review article from 2004:
The poll upon which analysts Peter Feaver and Christopher Gelpi based their assertion of the relative willingness of the mass public to countenance casualties was conducted between September 1998 and June 1999. It addressed hypothetical missions to "stabilize a democratic government in Congo," "prevent Iraq from obtaining weapons of mass destruction," and "defend Taiwan against invasion by China." In each case the public identified a higher level of acceptable casualties than did samples of elite military leaders and civilian elite leaders. Significantly, in each case the number of acceptable casualties to the public was in the thousands. The question even included a description of how many casualties the U.S. had actually suffered in Somalia (forty-three), the Gulf War (383), Korea (approximately fifty-four thousand), Vietnam (approximately fifty-eight thousand) and World War II (approximately four hundred thousand). Results:
Polling sample: 623 military officers, 683 nonveteran civilian elites, 1,001 adults from the general public. In addition to Feaver and Gelpi's Washington Post article (note 17), see Triangle Institute for Security Studies, "Project on the Gap between the Military and Civilian Society: Digest of Findings and Studies," Conference on the Military and Civilian Society, Cantigny Conference Center, 1st Division Museum, 28-29 October 1999, available at www.poli.duke.edu/civmil/summary_digest.pdf, 8.
Those numbers raise many questions, but reinforce the assertion that the actual question asked was the wrong one in the first place - if one wanted to predict the extent of support for any casualty-producing military action. However, the intent of the study was to quantify a perceived gulf between the military and the general population (clearly in this regard one existed) and I've no idea if these results were ever a factor in any pre-war calculus performed in the months prior to March, 2003. Regardless, six years have passed since the invasion of Iraq - an action that clearly accomplished the goal stated in the question - and the number of Americans killed is far from what General Public thought would be "acceptable".
Here's the report on the study. While the numbers cited above are long forgotten, some of the other findings are considered conventional wisdom today.
From Afghanistan:
And here it is:General Stanley McChrystal has publicly released a revised tactical directive aimed at minimizing the risk to the civilian population as a result of the use of force.
The directive provides guidance and intent for the employment of force in support of ISAF operations and serves to communicate the commander's intent to the lowest echelons, whose tactical actions can have strategic consequences.
Protecting Afghan civilians is ISAF's top priority. The tactical directive continues the long-standing ISAF focus on protecting civilians and operating in a manner that is respectful of Afghan culture.
Headquarters
International Security Assistance Force
Kabul, Afghanistan
HQ ISAF 6 July 2009
TO: See Distribution
SUBJECT: Tactical Directive
The Commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), General Stanley McChrystal, issued a revised Tactical Directive on 02 July 2009. The Tactical Directive provides guidance and intent for the employment of force in support of ISAF operations and updates the previous version issued by the previous commander in October 2008. This directive also applies to all U.S. forces operating under the control of U.S. Forces-Afghanistan (USFOR-A).
Although the Tactical Directive has been classified for the protection of our own forces, portions of the directive are being made public in order to ensure a broader awareness of the intent and scope of General McChrystal's guidance to ISAF and USFOR-A forces.
What follows are the releasable portions of the Tactical Directive:
Our strategic goal is to defeat the insurgency threatening the stability of Afghanistan. Like any insurgency, there is a struggle for the support and will of the population. Gaining and maintaining that support must be our overriding operational imperative - and the ultimate objective of every action we take.
We must fight the insurgents, and will use the tools at our disposal to both defeat the enemy and protect our forces. But we will not win based on the number of Taliban we kill, but instead on our ability to separate insurgents from the center of gravity - the people. That means we must respect and protect the population from coercion and violence - and operate in a manner which will win their support.
This is different from conventional combat, and how we operate will determine the outcome more than traditional measures, like capture of terrain or attrition of enemy forces. We must avoid the trap of winning tactical victories - but suffering strategic defeats - by causing civilian casualties or excessive damage and thus alienating the people.
While this is also a legal and a moral issue, it is an overarching operational issue - clear-eyed recognition that loss of popular support will be decisive to either side in this struggle. The Taliban cannot militarily defeat us - but we can defeat ourselves.
I recognize that the carefully controlled and disciplined employment of force entails risks to our troops - and we must work to mitigate that risk wherever possible. But excessive use of force resulting in an alienated population will produce far greater risks. We must understand this reality at every level in our force.
I expect leaders at all levels to scrutinize and limit the use of force like close air support (CAS) against residential compounds and other locations likely to produce civilian casualties in accordance with this guidance. Commanders must weigh the gain of using CAS against the cost of civilian casualties, which in the long run make mission success more difficult and turn the Afghan people against us.
I cannot prescribe the appropriate use of force for every condition that a complex battlefield will produce, so I expect our force to internalize and operate in accordance with my intent. Following this intent requires a cultural shift within our forces - and complete understanding at every level - down to the most junior soldiers. I expect leaders to ensure this is clearly communicated and continually reinforced.
The use of air-to-ground munitions and indirect fires against residential compounds is only authorized under very limited and prescribed conditions (specific conditions deleted due to operational security).
(NOTE) This directive does not prevent commanders from protecting the lives of their men and women as a matter of self-defense where it is determined no other options (specific options deleted due to operational security) are available to effectively counter the threat.
We will not isolate the population from us through our daily conduct or execution of combat operations. Therefore:
Any entry into an Afghan house should always be accomplished by Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), with the support of local authorities, and account for the unique cultural sensitivities toward local women.
No ISAF forces will enter or fire upon, or fire into a mosque or any religious or historical site except in self-defense. All searches and entries for any other reason will be conducted by ANSF.
The challenges in Afghanistan are complex and interrelated, and counterinsurgencies are difficult to win. Nevertheless, we will win this war. I have every confidence in the dedication and competence of the members of our force to operate effectively within this challenging environment. Working together with our Afghan partners, we can overcome the enemy's influence and give the Afghan people what they deserve: a country at peace for the first time in three decades, foundations of good governance, and economic development.
Also online here.
Old definitions are changing. Call that what you will, but don't call it unforeseen."Adam Kokesh has been weighing options as to which party he would be running under, if any, for New Mexico's Third Congressional District," a campaign news release said Thursday. "Because his platform is post-partisan, he has been approached by many parties. He comes from a long line of Republicans and has been registered as a Republican since he was old enough to vote. He has indicated he filed with the FEC under the Republican Party."
But nobody would call Kokesh -- an Iraq War veteran and vocal anti-war activist -- a typical Republican. [Link]
Tonight on TV (and probably TiVo-worthy, at least mine is set):
Evidence of ineligibility based on birth and citizenship. Yes, some of this is based on attacks by political opponents, and part may be due to his father's membership by birth in what was considered a 'lesser race' at the time (and let's face it, many still think that way today). But still...
Here's a roundup of responses to a psyop by the targets of that psyop, most of whom have no idea they are victims of a psyop (defined) - even those who think of themselves as ever vigilant for such attacks. Proof again that excessive confidence equals vulnerability. (Update: more here.)
Part of that confidence-enhanced vulnerability is an unavoidable tendency to consider the enemy as incapable. (Why can't we beat a bunch of loons in caves!?!?!?!?) But rest assured, those loons ain't stupid at the propaganda business. Everything about that video is crafted and considered, with an eye towards viewer response. (That's one reason you didn't see a video within days of the event.) And "viewer" today means everyone everywhere.
Including you.
You, however, know that your response is certainly not what the enemy had in mind. Because...? (Hint: the right answer is "no response".)
20 July Update - what have you done for the Taliban today?: The full video is now in wider availability - you can bet there isn't a word in it that wasn't written or approved by Bowe Bergdahl's captors.
And Ralph Peters has decided to be the firstest to say what a lot of people have thought (or heard) since the day this story first broke. Bad on ya, Ralph. Real bad.
It will be hard for someone to do the Taliban a greater favor - but folks are trying. I've seen blame placed on Bush, and accusations that Obama will somehow screw it up. I've seen calls for open war against every Muslim everywhere. All of which pretty much accomplish the goals described here:
And in that we see both the political savvy and naiveté of the Global Islamic Media Front. They recognize the advantage - and relative ease - of turning as many Americans against their President as they can (dividing the enemy into opposing camps to be eliminated in turn being a primary goal of effective propaganda) but fail to grasp the idea that this requires no effort on their part whatsoever. Still - you can't blame them for being willing to accelerate the process, or contribute to the cause.So far I'd have to declare the video psyop a smashing success.
<...>
But like it or not, Mr and Mrs Average American are involved in a propaganda war, the only battle of the war on terror currently being fought on U.S. soil - and those who choose not to be victims of that battle may wonder what the appropriate response should be. Perhaps just this - bear in mind the stated goal: "to throw fear into the American people's hearts", divide and conquer, weaken resolve, and defeat America. Be aware of the plan to reach that goal, and recognize it for what it is when next you see it in action, as you undoubtedly will. (And while you're at it, spread the word - this won't be on the evening news.)
In following links here you'll find a more in-depth survey (more in-depth than others we've seen lately) of the "right-wing" blogosphere on Iraq, circa early 2003.
There are a pair of entries from (decidedly non-right wing) Phil Carter linked here that seem to have stood the test of time. (Hey, sometimes a cliche is the right thing to say). But this quote from sadly forgotten Iraqi blogger Salam Pax seems odd, in hindsight: "No one is relying on the Americans. No one expects that they will do anything for us." He meant it in a "we're getting it done on our own" sort of way. Something certainly halted that nascent movement - perhaps even the somethings Phil was eyeing.
Move forward to the blogosphere circa now on Iraq, and you'll find mostly silence occasionally interrupted by bursts of "see - I was right all along" hyperlinked to some WSJ or NYT Op/Ed confirming that long-cherished belief.
On the other hand, when Michael Totten provides surveys of the variety of military/Iraqi public opinion today (collected on his most recent trip there) he is excoriated from some quarters for claiming that spectrum of beliefs exists.
Note: Bad link fixed - ! Here's the full paper excerpted below.
By way of acknowledging that some folks might prefer some reasonable alternative to shouting neener neener neener you're teh stupit from the safety of their blogs - that there might be some who prefer a reasonable reflection on events of the day @2003 - I offer this option as a good start:
We are awash in how-to manuals on stability operations, counterinsurgency, and how we should successfully do the next Iraq or Afghanistan, presumably because we got the first attempt wrong. While the various manuals, hints, cheat sheets, doctrines, wiring diagrams, proposals for the reform of the 'whole of government', and all the paraphernalia of post-conflict management pouring forth from every think tank, government research institute, and now-knowledgeable 'expert' are not totally useless, they are virtually impossible to make sense of or implement if one could. If for no other reason than they are mutually exclusive, navel-gazing, self-referential, and voluminous. But they also miss the point, misdirect, misinform, and muddy the waters. They are all after the fact, what we should have done not what we did. So, what follows is a 'How Not To' manual."As such," the author continues, "it will have no audience, no following, no conclusions, and no effect." I would hope you had a better motive, but you can prove at least part of that assertion wrong by clicking here.
Okay - let's have a contest: who did the best job of predicting how many dead Americans would result from the Iraq war?
Got no dog in the hunt myself, I tend to see war as unpredictable, understood the concept of "long war", wasn't blogging at the time, and knew that I (and friends of mine) - whether the answer was 10, 100, or tens of thousands - could become hash marks on the score card.
Nominations are open. The prize goes to whoever (a person, not some generic group) predicted this chart accurately. Pointing out that someone else was wrong (Joey said 60,000! Susie said 5!!) is not part of this discussion, that's best done elsewhere. We're seeking only to identify winners here!
Tie-breaker will be who predicted the yellow line accurately.
It's possible - in fact I believe it most likely - that there might not not be a winner. But since the game is on, "no one wins" is a cop out. So, what should be the prize? And what should it be called? (The Hawkins Prize? The Hilzoy Award?)
Last month:
This month:
Think of this as a caption contest. The original caption reads "Sgt. Aaron Cruz struggles up a hill under the weight of his equipment". It's part of a collection of photos from Afghanistan, the accompanying text reads:
After flying in helicopters during Operation Thunder Almasak, PM photographer Chad Hunt deployed with the 3rd Battalion, 509th Infantry Regiment (Airborne), Geronimo Scouts, in eastern Afghanistan during an air assault. On the multiday mission, called Thunder 2, he captured infiltration, the hardship of combat patrols, resupply by air and overhead cover by attack helicopters. The dry, mountainous environment again proved to be as much of an enemy as the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces the mission targeted--one soldier fell from a cliff and was rescued. The soldiers on the mission made arrests after finding bomb-making materials in an enemy weapons cache.
This is not a trick question. There is no right or wrong answer. Yours might be a quick one-liner or an essay.
When you look at the photo, what do you see?
Shifty Powers of the heroic Easy Company, 2-506th PIR, 101st Airborne Division, died on June 17th.
Which (sadly) reinforces the unintended irony of this. I met Ed Freeman once, when he visited a place I worked. I stand in awe of his story, which he didn't tell that day. One can live next door to such a hero and never know.
Notices of the passing of heroes, on the battlefield or years later, immediately bring to my mind final scene from Private Ryan - the film that led to Band of Brothers: Tell me I have led a good life. Each of us must ask and answer that question of ourselves in our own way, the answers are our own.
People like stories about untimely celebrity death, especially when the cause was avoidable - it demonstrates they are better off than celebrities, that while their life isn't lived in a mansion maybe that isn't so bad after all.
Soldier stories make them question whether they deserve what they have.
Old Blue returns for duty.
"On a separate note," Blue reports, "Vampire 6 left the country last night. We missed each other."
Vampire 6 has been "reporting" from Afghanistan here (Afghanistan Shrugged). The "I'm home" post isn't up yet, perhaps soon.
I was a seven year old kid, watching a snowy picture on a little black and white TV at grandma's, in awe of the whole thing. (That coverage was probably my first real exposure to computers...)
Hey - I'm a minority:
In a July 1967 Harris poll, two years in advance of the first moon walk, 43 percent of Americans were in favor of the effort, 46 percent opposed -- hardly a rousing endorsement. And in 1970, a year after the landing, 56 percent said it had not been worth its allotted $4 billion a year for nine years.
Of course, now we know it was all fake. Tonight if you print out a picture of the moon taken from one of those flights, run outside, spin in a circle three times clockwise then jump and hold that picture above your head while staring at the real moon and howling the truth will all be clear.
The soldier who is questioning the legitimacy of Barack Obama's presidency in federal court arrived in uniform this morning for his hearing.
Wearing Army uniforms is prohibited in the following situations:
* In connection with the furtherance of any political or commercial interest, or when engaged in off duty civilian employment.
* When participating in public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies, or public demonstrations, except as authorized by competent authority.
* When attending any meeting or event that is a function of, or is sponsored by, an extremist organization.
* When wearing the uniform would bring discredit upon the Army.
* When specifically prohibited by Army regulations.
Plus it's just disgusting to see someone like this in uniform.
Some great photos of soldiers in uniform here.
A federal judge this morning dismissed the suit filed here by a U.S. Army reservist who says he shouldn't have to go to Afghanistan because he believes Barack Obama was never eligible to be president.
Judge Clay Land sided with the defense, which claimed in its response to Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook's suit, filed July 8 with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, that Cook's suit is "moot" in that he already has been told he doesn't have to go to Afghanistan, so the relief he is seeking has been granted.
"Federal court only has authority of actual cases and controversies," Land said. "The entire action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction."
So much for "merit."
"Other soldiers have been supportive of his position, Cook said." Apparently he doesn't read milblogs.
Afghan vet TSO: "OK, Now I am pissed"
Jonn Lilyea: "Why I think you're crazy"
(Updating...)
What separates The Surge: A Military History
Roundtable with:
Lt. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, Commanding General, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth, will discuss how the Army is moving forward with the new Army Leadership Strategy, developing the next generation of Army leaders.
A bit of cross talk at the beginning as we await...
My question: Given the goal of be first with the truth and a perception that responses are released weeks later at 4PM on a Friday - what's a desired response time (beyond "we're investigating") for a hypothetical headline-making event with Army involvement wherein civilians are killed?
The answer - "immediately" - is certainly ambitious. He provides a much more detailed response. I'll add only that Lt Gen Caldwell has indeed done a great job of focusing training efforts in this area. (Added "training" as I realized that was my unclear meaning. I'm looking forward to seeing operational results.)
A much broader range of questions in the audio above - enjoy.
Well, some things never change: Soldier balks at deploying; says Obama isn't president. The attorney representing this lowlife is a "leading figure" in the Birther movement, a group that insists President Obama is not a citizen. "I hope that the men in this country, particularly in our military will finally revolt against this travesty of Justice" she said in January.But by the end of the day:
U.S. Army Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, the reserve soldier who says he shouldn't have to go to Afghanistan because he believes Barack Obama was never eligible to be president, has had his deployment orders revoked, Army officials said.
Lt. Col. Maria Quon, U.S. Army Public Affairs Officer, U.S. Army Human Resources Command-St. Louis, said Tuesday evening, Cook was no longer expected to report Wednesday to MacDill Air Force Base in Florida for mobilization to active duty.
That decision has Cook's lawyer declaring victory. However, there are other indications that the entire case may be somewhat of a fraud.
David Weigel revealed yesterday that Cook was a member of the Free Republic message board. While that is story enough for some, there's an overlooked detail to be gleaned from Cook's March 25th post there. In it he shares an "e-mail from Dr. Orly Taitz", detailing developments in a class action suit "on behalf 120 military officers, many of high rank" challenging the legality of President Obama as Commander in Chief.
Taitz has a history of unsuccessful efforts to get the Supreme Court to review the "Commander in Chief" issue, and she has actively solicited military participants for those suits. In fact, in his March 25th Free Republic post, Cook says "As a Plaintiff in this class action, I get mailing from Dr. Taitz from time to time. This is an attachment to one of those mailings."
Returning now to the news of Cook's "victory", here's the reported explanation for the Army's decision:
Earlier today, Quon said Cook submitted a formal written request to Human Resources Command-St. Louis on May 8, 2009 volunteering to serve one year in Afghanistan with Special Operations Command, U.S. Army Central Command, beginning July 15, 2009. The soldier's orders were issued on June 9, Quon said.
"A reserve soldier who volunteers for an active duty tour may ask for a revocation of orders up until the day he is scheduled to report for active duty," Quon said.
In short - Cook never had to go in the first place. Unlike most soldiers who deploy as part of a unit, Cook - a reservist - had volunteered to go as an individual augmentee. The Army generally seeks volunteers to fill such assignments first - if no one does so then a non-volunteer is tapped.
It may be helpful to recap the timeline here.
March: Cook acknowledges he's among the plaintiffs in a class-action suit "on behalf of 120 military officers" challenging President Obama's authority as Commander in Chief.
In May, Cook tells the Army he wants to be sent to Afghanistan.
In June, the Army accepts Cooks offer.
In July, Cook sues to "get out" of (see updates) regarding that assignment, based on the same grounds (Obama not qualified) and using the same attorney (who actively seeks military members to participate in such suits) for a previous suit he was involved in that pre-dates his volunteering to deploy to Afghanistan.
Even without going to court, the Army says - essentially - hey, no problem. You were the one who wanted to go in the first place.
Actually, there is one "Major" problem. Because Cook waited to the last minute to take this action, either someone is going to get a very short notice non-volunteer assignment, or else the unit in Afghanistan will have to get by without one soldier for a while. Since that soldier would be a field grade officer, it's likely that the position will be of some significance.
But hey, at least he got his name in the papers. (However, those unfamiliar with the term "Blue Falcon" are encouraged to Google it.)
Update: World Net Daily says this is a "bombshell" - but they aren't quoting Lt. Col. Quon. In fact, they're selling "signs and postcards asking for the president's birth certificate documentation".
More - Military.com:
The attorney representing an Army major fighting deployment to Afghanistan because he believes Barack Obama is not legally his commander-in-chief is declaring victory after the Soldier's orders were revoked yesterday.
California lawyer Orly Taitz says any service member may now refuse any order by questioning Obama's legitimacy.
<...>
"Can you imagine what are the consequences? This is disastrous" for the administration, she said. "We'll have no military. Because anytime any Soldier, any Sailor, any Airman does not want to follow any orders, all he has to do is call an attorney and say 'I don't want to follow this order because I question the legitimacy of the commander in chief.' "
That hardly seems like a valid interpretation of events. I would advise anyone contemplating that course of action to seek qualified legal guidance before proceeding.
When contacted, a spokesperson at U.S. Army Human Resources Command declined further comment, citing policy regarding ongoing investigations.
Still more: "The Commanding General of SOCCENT has determined that he does not want the services of Maj. Cook, and has revoked his deployment orders." Many more details here at Below the Beltway.
Elsewhere:
And it keeps on going: Taitz and Cook are continuing their action - meanwhile, it appears Mr Cook has lost his civilian job with a Defense contractor. (This may explain the "ongoing" comment above.)
And here's another straightforward statement, this from CENTCOM: "'Maj. Cook volunteered for the one year assignment to Afghanistan, in May of this year,' said [CENTCOM spokesperson Lt Cdr William] Speaks. 'After he brought this stuff to the fore, the unit that owned his billet canceled his orders.'"
Blue. Falcon.
Re-cap
Due to numerous updates and revelations through the day, let's review: According to linked accounts above - Major Cook - a member of the U.S. Army Reserve who had been a party to an earlier class action suit challenging the legal status of Barack Obama to serve as President of the United States - volunteered for an assignment to Afghanistan. (Somewhat of a semantic explanation: a volunteer receives "orders" to carry out whatever he volunteered to do; it could be correct to say that Cook "received orders from" or "was ordered to Afghanistan by" the Army.) Then, with the same attorney who had handled the earlier case, he filed another suit demanding the President provide additional evidence of citizenship by birth in the United States.
This case bears significant differences from other well-known cases where an individual refuses orders to deploy. As a volunteer, Maj Cook could request a revocation of orders "up until the day he is scheduled to report for active duty" - per Army Human Resources Command. There is no indication he did so, nor that he had requested the court to "cancel" his Afghanistan tour. However, he had requested an order from the court at least temporarily delaying his departure.
The officer who would have been his commander downrange "determined that he does not want the services of Maj. Cook". (This by-name statement is quite different than stating you don't need someone to do whatever job he had volunteered for.) Defendants in the case then filed a motion to dismiss. The plaintiff has countered that motion, and (apparently) a hearing will be held. (All linked above)
"Bad Form" - next post on this topic here.
Dick Cheney didn't have an assassination squad and didn't tell Congress, Seymour Hersh validated (he owes himself an apology for claiming he was wrong!) war resister ignored, military flybys - it's crazy from the heat, we are.
Well, some things never change: Soldier balks at deploying; says Obama isn't president. The attorney representing this lowlife is a "leading figure" in the Birther movement, a group that insists President Obama is not a citizen. "I hope that the men in this country, particularly in our military will finally revolt against this travesty of Justice" she said in January.
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, to find no mention of this from the various "anti-war" groups. Usually they rapidly mobilize (along with their PR firms) to provide info on where people can donate to the defense fund, and nationwide media coverage ensues. This case is covered only in a local newspaper. I'm sure that will all change very soon.
Some folks will do just about anything to avoid combat in Afghanistan:
Afghanistan -- U.S. Marines trapped Taliban fighters in a residential compound and persuaded the insurgents to allow women and children to leave. The troops then moved in -- only to discover that the militants had slipped out, dressed in burqas, the loose enveloping robes some Muslim women wear.
The fighters, who may owe their lives to the new U.S. commander's emphasis on limiting civilian casualties, were among hundreds of militants who have fled the offensive the Marines launched last week in southern Helmand province.
When he's ready to change tactics to something the "anti-war" crowd can support, maybe U.S. Army (Reserve) Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook will consider donning a Burqa.
Stop the presses! The CIA did not have an assassination ring, and Congress didn't know!!!! "The plans remained vague and were never carried out, the officials said."
So - what else are we not doing that Congress doesn't know about?
"...the plans were never completely shelved..." is certainly another interesting way of saying this never got past the idea stage. But quizzically, this non-existent "program" is referred to as a "program" throughout the "news report".
For some reason (apparently "initially at the instruction of former Vice President Dick Cheney") Congress was never informed that the CIA did not have an assassination squad running around the globe killing al Qaeda members but had considered creating one and decided not to. I guess there's an egregious outrage here that needs to be set right, but I'm not clear whether that entails the Executive branch a) providing Congress a comprehensive list of everything they aren't doing (a workload increase - and some in the White House are already working over 12 hours a day); or b) immediately establishing a secret CIA assassination team; or c) just stop thinking up these "ideas". I hate multiple-choice journalism - things certainly seemed clearer in times past.
Regardless, I for one think the intrepid NY Times reporters who broke this story should be considered for a Pulitzer Prize.
Ahhhh... clarity. We are blessed indeed to have the intrepid bloggers at the Huffington Post and The Daily Kos to explain the news to us in ways we can understand.
So what are the "significant actions" that these seven lawmakers insist were kept from Congress? Another theory being bandied about concerns an "executive assassination ring" that was allegedly set up and answered to former Vice President Dick Cheney. The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh, building off earlier reporting from the New York Times, dropped news of the possibility that such a ring existed in a March 2009 discussion sponsored by the University of Minnesota.
"It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently," Hersh said. "They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. They did not report to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or to Mr. [Robert] Gates, the secretary of defense. They reported directly to him. ...
That bombshell helps explain why they haven't had time to support the courageous efforts of war resisters lately.
Of course, a more complete Hersh quote (not available at HuffPo or Kos links) will clarify why it would matter whether Defense Secretary Gates was informed about CIA actions or not.
"Right now, today, there was a story in the New York Times that if you read it carefully mentioned something known as the Joint Special Operations Command -- JSOC it's called. It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently. They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. They did not report to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or to Mr. [Robert] Gates, the secretary of defense. They reported directly to him. ...
It's good they left off the part where Hersh carefully explains he's talking about the U.S. military - that would further confuse things. It's much more simple and straightforward to acknowledge that the NY Times report that we don't have a secret assassination team validates Hersh's claim that we do. Again, it's a good thing we have blogs like that to tell us what the MSM won't.
Which has led to calls for an apology to Hersh. I for one call on Seymour Hersh to be the first to apologize to Seymour Hersh - and the bloggers who furiously supported his claims. "Vice president Cheney does not have a death squad", Hersh said, responding to reports that Hersh claimed that he did. "This is another example of blogs going bonkers with misleading and fabricated stories and professional journalists repeating such rumours without doing their job - and that is to verify such rumours." Now that we have even more evidence that Hersh was right it's become clearer that Seymour Hersh was wrong - maybe even lying. All those folks who supported him against his attack on his credibility can certainly feel good about themselves now.
Anyhow, at least for the Daily Kos/HuffPo faithful the obvious answer to my earlier question is "c: stop thinking".
WTF? Via (Instapundit)
Yes, that is a Chevrolet Corvette ZR-1 in a drag race with a Boeing (formerly McDonnell Douglas) F/A 18 Hornet.
Why?
Because some folks from GM and some folks from the U.S. Navy Blue Angels and some folks from Motortrend thought it would be cool.
Now, don't get me wrong. This IS COOL. And very MANLY. And, ordinarily, I would totally approve of a publicity stunt like this. Except we are in a budget crisis - and a multi-front war - so reckless spending of military dollars is probably not the smartest thing.
I'd acknowledge the "coolness" too, but can't imagine any circumstances where I'd approve of it, budget crisis or no. But my approval doesn't matter.
So who at the appropriate level did?
At least it's a better quality picture than this:
Chicago Boy Shannon Love exhibits no love for Nazi's, Illinois or otherwise.
A few other groups get a lash or two, too. (And is there a version of Godwin's Law that predicts the likelihood of a D&D; reference on a post that starts out about Nazis?)
I posted this on a comment thread elsewhere - an earlier comment I left had been misunderstood, I thought I should explain where I was coming from. In writing it down I realized I had extended a courtesy I should likewise do here. Given that we are at war (this point is critical, what I say here has no bearing on whether we should be at war or not), where do I stand? Do I support the effort? Do I approve of the strategy and tactics currently employed? The answer is yes, but what does that mean?
We are right now at the beginning of a new phase in the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now seems a fine time for a bit of introspection, as things are about to get interesting. Reasonable people can differ, but those who haven't considered where they stand on such a topic as this could probably benefit from a brief pause to do so.
I believe it's foolish to expect or predict success for any given strategy or tactic - which is different then saying any specific strategy or tactic shouldn't be tried. But very few people with any experience express unqualified belief in the inevitable success of any plan at it's outset in the first place. "Worth trying" or "best option available" is about as far as anyone can reasonably go. Unreasonable people will also support the effort, however.
On the other hand, there's no shortage of those who will predict inevitable failure and disaster for the specific strategy or tactic. They may or may not have a different plan in mind; their motives may be clear or not, as might their intentions. For various reasons some will accuse others of painting "rosy scenarios" for merely saying some version of the reasonable statements I used above. (Being compared to the unreasonable members of that first group will annoy the reasonable members beyond belief. This will increase the glee with which some will do it.) Another large percentage of people will simply declare the whole thing a waste of time from which we should flee. In time the distinction between people described in this paragraph ("group B") especially when viewed by those in the previous paragraph ("group A") will blur, and vice-versa. Because group B is confident they will be loud - both adjectives relative to group A, whose best response will be some version of "shut up and let us fight the war." (But the unreasonable group A members will make unreasonable arguments that the reasonables will then be accused of supporting.)
On the battlefield we'll try things out, the enemy will respond, we will adapt or die. Each adaptation will be declared a small victory for group B. Ultimately, whether we adapt and win or lose, group B will claim they were right all along. Group A-reasonables will just be glad it's over. No one will care what the group A-unreasonables think or say.
In the real world we just completed that process with Iraq (this is different than saying Iraq is "over") and folks are switching teams for Afghanistan. I did the best I could to be a group-A reasonable member throughout Iraq (probably failed from time to time), and intend to do the same for Afghanistan. (Yes, I know it isn't the "new" war - but then again it is.)
So for those new to the group, welcome aboard. It sucks and the abuse is unrelenting. We're a minority, get used to it.
"Hard is not hopeless," general Petraeus famously stated at the outset of the surge in Iraq. Now, under a new president (who campaigned under a banner of "Hope"), a new surge into Afghanistan has begun.
Its motto is as yet unwritten.
Rajiv Chandrasekaran is a fine writer, and his report from Afghanistan is a must-read.
This town does not merit a dot on most maps of Afghanistan. But U.S. civilian and military officials believe what happens to the chockablock market here will be a key indicator of whether President Obama can salvage a war the United States has been losing.
In fact, as things now stand he can not. He could - but there's another war he must win first. He would have my complete support in that conflict too, but thus far he's shown no inclination to fight it at all. That war is not in Iraq, where we've truly done all we could militarily - it's in Washington. It is not with the loyal opposition - there is no significant Republican call to deny him resources to accomplish the task. A more likely source of that as a problem would come from within his own Party. However, occasional sound bites of varying degrees of sincerity aside, it's difficult at this point to imagine current concerns growing to seriously destructive proportions. As for opposition from the media - is there any point in maintaining the charade? This Washington Post, with "Obama's War - the surge begins" above a headline that assures us we're in "a fight for peace" is the same newspaper that sneeringly "fact checked" a point in the vice Presidential debate (Palin: "the surge principles will work in Afghanistan" Biden: "no") in favor of the guy who was quite obviously (and pointlessly and foolishly) wrong. Water under the bridge, as they say; he is the VP, she is not, and the surge is on.
But who, then, is this opponent, this final roadblock on the path to victory, this potential public enemy number one?
It's none other than Barack Obama.
I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.
-Barack Obama, October, 2002
In Kabul, Obama calls Afghan front 'central' to war on terror
"We have to understand that the situation is precarious and urgent here in Afghanistan, and I believe this has to be the central focus, the central front, in the battle against terrorism," Obama said in an interview with CBS News.
<...>
"Losing is not an option when it comes to Al Qaeda, and it never has been," Obama told CBS.
Senator Obama, July, 2008.
The United States must overcome the 'trust deficit' it faces in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where many believe that we are not a reliable long-term partner. We must engage the Afghan people in ways that demonstrate our commitment to promoting a legitimate and capable Afghan government with economic progress. We must engage the Pakistani people based on our long-term commitment to helping them build a stable economy, a stronger democracy, and a vibrant civil society.
- President Obama's plan for Afghanistan, March, 2009
The United States must look for a way out of the war in Afghanistan, President Obama said, in a signal that the military build-up in Afghanistan will not be open-ended and will lead to the eventual withdrawal of American and NATO troops from the country.
"There's got to be an exit strategy," Mr. Obama said in a wide-ranging interview shown Sunday on "60 Minutes" on CBS.
- President Obama, March, 2009
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is having trouble finding the hundreds of civilians it wants to bolster its troop buildup in Afghanistan, so military reservists might be asked to do many of the jobs.
- April, 2009
Well, Jones went on, after all those additional troops, 17,000 plus 4,000 more, if there were new requests for force now, the president would quite likely have "a Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment." Everyone in the room caught the phonetic reference to WTF -- which in the military and elsewhere means "What the [expletive]?"
Nicholson and his colonels -- all or nearly all veterans of Iraq -- seemed to blanch at the unambiguous message that this might be all the troops they were going to get.
- July, 2009
Nicholson had wanted his troops to conduct every patrol and man every checkpoint with members of the Afghan National Army, largely because people here take less umbrage at being searched by fellow Afghans, and Afghan soldiers have a keener sense of who ought to be searched. But plans to partner with the Afghan army have been scaled back because the Marines have been allotted only about 400 Afghan soldiers instead of the several thousand Nicholson had sought.
He has been promised more troops, but they will not start rolling in until next year. In the interim, he has asked his superiors for permission to arm young men and train them to serve as a local protection force. It is similar to the Sons of Iraq initiative the Marines created in Anbar that resulted in locals turning against foreign fighters in the group al-Qaeda in Iraq.
But senior commanders have shown no sign of approving the request.
<...>
Nicholson's superiors -- including National Security Adviser James L. Jones, who recently visited Leatherneck -- are making clear that the clock is ticking: The Obama White House wants results within a year.
- July, 2009
Or else it may turn out to be your war after all.
Two comments on the Hurt Locker:
One: "The movie is from a Soldier's point of view," director Kathryn Bigelow said at the premiere. "The movie shows what it's like to be on a bomb squad in Baghdad in 2004."
Two: "It's definitely Hollywood," said Spc. Mike Wells at the premiere, referring to the over-dramatized plot of the film. Wells served in Iraq with an EOD detachment.
Ouch - that had to hurt.
Those from this review:
More here. (Via Some Soldier's Mom.)WASHINGTON (July 6, 2009) -- Fast-paced, heart-stopping, explosive action fill the new movie "The Hurt Locker," even though Soldiers say many of the scenes are inaccurate.
The movie, which opens in major cities around the country July 10, follows the day-to-day bouts of three Soldiers in an explosive ordnance detachment in Iraq.
Capt. Robert Busseau and two EOD Soldiers from the 20th Support Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., attended a premiere showing of the film June 24 in Washington, D.C.
Matt Sanchez, with the Marines in Afghanistan:
HELMAND PROVICE, Afghanistan -- It's the middle of the night at the east corner guard post of Fiddler's Green, a Marine fire base in Afghanistan's Helmand Province, along the border with Pakistan.
Corporal Ryan Joseph Bernal is on perimeter security duty.
Matt tells me the Marines aren't exactly happy with that name. I suppose there must have been some Cav guys there first.
Marching past, straight through to Hell
The Infantry are seen.
Accompanied by the Engineers,
Artillery and Marines,
For none but the shades of Cavalrymen
Dismount at Fiddlers' Green.
He tried to taunt me with a claim that Afghanistan dust is worse than Iraq, too, then added "I was with these two Marines when they were killed".
DoD Identifies Marine Casualty
The Department of Defense announced today the death of two Marines who were supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.
Lance Cpl. Roger G. Hager, 20, of Gibsonville, N.C., and Master Sgt. John E. Hayes, 36, of Middleburg, Fla., died July 8 while supporting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan. They were assigned to 2nd Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C.
Rivalries aside, I suspect the Cav guys wouldn't mind if they stopped for a bit of water and talk of dust at Fiddler's Green.
Semper Fi.
"You know boss," I once said to my boss, "in this organization of over two hundred people, anything you can think of, from talent to perversion, we've probably got one here somewhere." - Or something to that effect.
Over my career I served with thousands of young Americans. Some were into Star Wars. Some were talented singers, or had a knack for drawing. Others were skilled carpenters or mechanics. I have no doubt some were gay. Michael Jackson fans? We had 'em. Led Zeppelin, Johnny Cash and Green Day fans, too. I've worked with, for, and over Christians, atheists, Muslims, Wiccans, Buddhists, Jews - brown yellow, white, "all of the above" - northern, southern, city, country, American, foreign...
Some were alcoholics. A few were busted for drugs. (One declared he would never use the stuff - he just supplied it to others...) Every base/post newspaper has an at least once a week "blotter" section that lists the names of the small (but unacceptable!) percentage of the population busted for one infraction or another (many unique to the military, others not) that week, along side stories of those getting medals and other recognition for achievement, courage, or a job well done. The vast majority never made the paper at all.
Some had blogs (I swear, it's true!) Some uploaded pictures of themselves to "Hot or Not". Others had pictures of themselves crawling drunk in the streets on their MySpace page. I know the last two for certain because they proudly showed me. (Bad judgement, says I - but at least they weren't in uniform, though I've heard of others who were...)
I don't know if I ever met any Nazis or not.
But there's one other thing that dozens of members of newsaxon.org, a white supremacist social networking website, have in common: They proudly identify themselves as active-duty members of the U.S. armed forces.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, the Montgomery, Ala.-based watchdog group that tracks extremist hate groups, has compiled a book containing the online user profiles of at least 40 newsaxon.org users who say they are serving in the military, in apparent violation of Pentagon regulations prohibiting racist extremism in the ranks.
<...>
By this spring, a Department of Homeland Security report said law enforcement groups should beware of extremists coming out of military duty or groups trying to recruit susceptible veterans for their combat skills.The report was criticized by some veterans and conservative groups as inherently anti-military.
I hate Nazis - Illinois or otherwise.
There's an almost overlooked but interesting datapoint on military suicide in the story, too:
This week, Stripes e-mailed interview requests to more than a dozen newsaxon.org participants claiming military affiliations. Only one responded.
The user, "clarkpatrick88," said he would not reveal his real identity for fear of reprisals, but he said he was a 19-year old sailor. His profile includes a picture in which he is holding a Confederate insignia while wearing his blue Navy working uniform with a name patch reading "Clark." The number 88 is commonly used among neo-Nazis as shorthand to the greeting, "Heil Hitler."
"As for my political views, I have never once put them before my duty I signed up for," the sailor said in one of his e-mails. "I didn't outwardly show my beliefs or cause trouble."
The sailor said he grew so frustrated at military life and at being closely quartered with servicemembers of other races that he sought psychiatric counseling for suicidal thoughts. He spent three days in the "psych ward," he said, and is now being separated from the service on its recommendation.
I suspect responses to the "Clark" story would reveal many people's real thoughts on the military suicide issue. For example, the Stars and Stripes story didn't even mention what level of disability rating he might receive, or what access to veterans' health care he might have for the rest of his life. It's almost as if they aren't the least bit concerned.
Update: Nazi - it's the new gay!
A comment from Boing Boing's coverage of this story:
Interesting to think about closeted gays in the military. I'm sure there have always been gays in the military, since back when "gay" still just meant "happy." But I heard about heterosexual guys claiming to be gay in the Vietnam era just to get out of the the draft. The corporal Klinger character on MASH was a cheesy version of this stereotype. But on that PBS documentary from last year about the Nimitz aircraft carrier (called "Carrier," I think) there was a guy from Oklahoma who wanted an early out from his enlistment contract. He loudly and annoyingly told everybody that he was a racist. Sure enough, the captain kicked him out of the Navy.
I'm sure there are some jerks in the military who think of themselves as neo-nazis. But if they're caught coming out with skinhead pride, like these newsaxon.org fools, they're in a position similar to somebody in the 50's military who got outed as a "homosexual pervert."
I met many folks over the course of my career who may or may not have been gay. But I knew one guy who coincident with getting orders to Korea (back in the "pre-war" days when many - gay or straight - saw that as the worst thing that could happen to you) decided to "come out", even though it meant certain discharge from the military. That process took months, of course. During which 1) he continued in his job, was very effective, and was well treated, and 2) no replacement could be named for his Korea assignment (it couldn't "officially" be canceled until the inevitable conclusion was actually reached; ultimately someone else got a very short notice assignment.)
Anyhow, imagine a future where gays are allowed to serve openly. I'm all for that, but I suspect "Nazi" (more likely "racist") would indeed become a fall back for someone wanting out of the military. Under those circumstances you might see a sudden rise in self-identified racists in the ranks. (Oddly enough, many are using a fraudulent "gays bad/Nazis okay" angle on this story in an attempt shame someone - right target: congress, wrong target: the military - into acting on the gays in the military issue.)
As for the issue of authentic militant racists in the military - I know they're there, I'm against 'em, and I won't discriminate based on the color of their skin. The question becomes (and I'm not aware of any answer provided by the SPLC) what to do? "Kick them out" certainly ends the problem from the military POV (until those suicide stories start and the "victim's" racist status is conveniently forgotten) but most of these folks don't sport "racist" tattoos on their foreheads or exhibit any other outward signs of membership in unacceptable groups. This also harkens back to the DHS Report on right-wing threats, a document many labeled as "prescient" for citing an obvious problem for which no one proposed any answers. (My thoughts on that here - having made them clear I've got zero tolerance for those who might accuse me of holding any certain position that I do not.)
But Congress is about to clear the table for a presentation regarding "dozens" of people on a web site who claim membership in the U.S. military - one of whom has actually been confirmed (and who is on the way out). This undeniably represents the tip of an iceberg of unknown size - and congressional attention indicates a significant problem. I'd rather they acted to give back the money they just stole from the pockets of military members, but I don't set the agenda. But given the impact of that congressional solution ("protection") I'm concerned with any other future "protections" congress might determine we require.
So if anyone has any real solutions, feel free to provide.
Elsewhere -
Other milbloggers:
My buddy Grim, just back from Iraq, points out the proper path to a solution.
Gawker? Raw Story? (Gosh guys - I didn't know you cared... sniffle...): "It's all about teh gayz!"
Reason: it's about the gays.
Think Progress: It's all about Iraq, and Chimpy ignored the problem. (Oh, and by the way, gays should be allowed to serve openly.)
Crooks and Liars tags: Greta Van Susteren, Michael Savage, Military, neo-Nazis, Obama, poplawski, stripes, tiller - 'nuff said?
More: In searching for a report on what action congress took today, all I find is this AP story:
Morris Dees, the founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center, says researchers have identified 40 personal profiles of people who list the military as their occupation on the Web site New Saxon.
The site is run by the Detroit-based National Socialist Movement and describes itself as an "online community for whites by whites." Its leader, Jeff Schoep, says site operators remove any violent comments they find.
Dees sent a letter to four congressional committee chairs asking for an investigation.
"Sent a letter"? Is that what "On Friday, the SPLC will present its findings to key members of Congress" (from the original story) actually means? If so, I was mistaken in stating "Congress will clear the table for a presentation..." above.
Still more: Yep - this entire story is based on a press release regarding a letter sent to four members of congress announcing the discovery of 40 "whites only" chat room participants who claim to be military. (This in no way invalidates any good discussion begun on issues raised, but does serve as a reminder that "news" must always be read with extreme caution, sucker.)
Recap:
1. SPLC issues press release about letter sent to congress regarding claims by white-only chat room participants.
2. Stars and Stripes investigates, finds a suicidal racist about to be discharged from Navy.
3. Milbloggers take the report seriously. (Suckers all, we are.)
4. Other courageous bloggers hint that the military ban on gays should be lifted, the Iraq war was a mistake, the DHS report was "prescient", and Greta van Susteren is a threat to America who must be silenced.
So far, no comment from congress.
And ACTION! Here's a great idea - let's ban smokers from the military!!!
So to return to my original point ("in this organization of over two hundred people, anything you can think of, from talent to perversion, we've probably got one here somewhere...") - if somewhere in the military there are suicidal gay Nazi smokers who just want to serve their country and watch Greta van Susteren when off duty is that really so wrong?
Stars and Stripes on a fiftieth anniversary this week:
It was July 1959 and Stanley Karnow, Time magazine's chief correspondent in Asia, was on his first trip to Saigon when he heard about an attack at an Army base about 20 miles north of the city.
Six northern Vietnamese had attacked the Army's residential compound in the town of Bien Hoa, killing two American men while they watched a movie on a home projector. Karnow wrote three paragraphs about it for Time.
"It was a minor incident in a faraway place," said Karnow, who reported from southeast Asia from 1959 to the early 1970s. "Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that these two guys would be the first in a memorial to 50,000-some others."
The Pritzker Military Library will present a live webcast with Doug Stanton (author of Horse Soldiers: The Extraordinary Story of a Band of US Soldiers Who Rode to Victory in Afghanistan
If you've never seen previous events in the series, check them out here. Recent guests include David Bellavia and David Kilcullen, in addition to Medal of Honor recipients and other luminaries.
More information on today's event here. The live (6PM CST) webcast should be viewable at that link or the library's front page.
...or: "How the 'Helping Families Save Their Homes Act' screws the Troops"
We're from the government - we're here to help you.
The good news: Believe it or not, our Congress and President have found a way to save a few bucks.
The bad news: They're going to yank it right out of the pockets of U.S. troops.
Ever seen one of those gangster movies where the mob sells "protection" but it turns out it's protection from them? I believe many of our elected officials have seen those movies too. But their definition of protection seems a bit less honorable than any racket a self-respecting criminal could conceive. In their legal version we pay to protect them. (My apologies to any unelected members of non-political crime syndicates out there if I've been unclear - I'm not in any way shape or form accusing you of being congressional.)
The above audio is an excerpt from a recent DoD Roundtable with U.S. Army Col. Shawn Shumake...
Col. Shumake, an Army lawyer and Director of the Office of Legal Policy for the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel & Readiness, will discuss actions that the DoD has taken to help military renters during the current foreclosure crisis. He will also discuss how military members now enjoy the protections offered by the recently signed Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009.
The guy asking the questions is me. The full version of the podcast is below, but I believe the excerpt above covers most of the salient points. I'd add that I have no doubt that Col Shumake is dedicated to ensuring the best outcome for military personnel in the matters under his control - and none of this problem is of his making. Hopefully he'll be able to help remove the financial burdens placed on military members by a new law signed by President Obama in May.
Here's the background: historically, military personnel were not reimbursed for moves within a local area (exception: on-base housing initially unavailable at time of arrival on station, individual resides off-base until it is).
However, as the "foreclosure crisis" grew, the DoD identified a need to alleviate strains caused by forced, short-notice evictions of military renters whose leases were terminated due to foreclosure on the landlord. Colonel Shumake informs us a policy was put in place (by DoD even as Congress passed a bill signed into law by President Bush) in July, 2008 to fund moves mandated by such foreclosures. Good deal - as the Colonel explains, it wouldn't eliminate the pain of an unexpected move, but at least the servicemember wouldn't have to suffer financially for it.
In May of this year, however, President Obama signed the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 - part of the larger Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009. Under the terms of this law, tenants are "protected" in case of such a foreclosure in that they can not be evicted prior to expiration of an existing lease. (An exception - if the "new" landlord sells the property to a buyer to use as their principal residence the current tenant is allowed 90 days to vacate.)
As a result, military families now won't be forced to vacate until their lease expires, therefore their move may be delayed a bit - but they will no longer be reimbursed for the expenses of that move because it's due to a normal lease expiration - not a foreclosure action. They'll still have to move - maybe with a bit more advance notice but no reduction in hassles - only once again they'll be the ones writing the checks.
Or as someone else pointed out to me, they used to get screwed for free - now they have to pay for it. (And the only explanation offered is that well, maybe the landlord would have chosen not to renew the lease anyway - who knows?)
Banks are screwed too, of course - they are forced to act as landlords for the duration, a role for which they are likely not currently postured. (For example, who at the bank will be in charge of dealing with leaky roofs, broken appliances, other tenant complaints...?) While I'm sure they'll find a way (just as soldiers will figure out something they can live without in order to pay for their moves) and few among us are going to shed tears for the poor banker, you might also want to look in a mirror (assuming you have some sort of bank account) to see who's actually going to pay for any shortfalls there.
On the upside - the government just saved itself a few thousand bucks - they're the only ones benefiting from this. Hey, great job, guys! Maybe now we can afford those seven extra F-22s after all. (Just kidding - we're not talking about that much cash here - just a month's pay or so from every junior soldier "protected".)
Regardless, I encourage all Americans to please congratulate your Senators, Congressional Representatives, and President (even if none of them actually read this bill before voting for or signing it) for finally discovering a way to save a few bucks - make the troops pay.
And who knows - maybe someday soon Congress and the President will "protect" you, too.
Postscript/prediction: more attempts will be made to explain this using The Mysterious Words of Power. Fortunately, I'm immune.
Yeah - without that we wouldn't have Sarah Palin on the national scene.
Ed Morrissey: "Reuters calls this a "pointed quip," but unless Obama wanted to deliberately insult Russians, the only point is that Obama has still not figured out what diplomacy means."
I just wonder if that comment came before or after they put him in the kiddy chair.
More - Glenn Reynolds: "Maybe Obama's just covering for Joe Biden."
There certainly seems to be a challenge on for the most embarrassing diplomatic junket in this nation's history (I know - at least neither man vomited on his host) but I think Biden wins hands-down. Whether either achieves "most disastrous" status will be determined as time goes by. (For the record: I hope neither does.)
Glenn's comment is also a link to Marc Lynch's discussion of the red light/green light issue (would the U.S. mind terribly much if Israel bombed Iran?) sparked by a sound bite from George Stephanopoulos' interview with Biden immediately following his Iraq jaunt.
Several such sound bites have been evaluated in isolation (and found questionable). But I think his comments on Iran, North Korea, and other garden spots around the world when examined as a whole are much more revealing on broader U.S. foreign policy regarding perceived threats. So, after cutting out the rambles and getting to the real "action statements", here they are:
Iranian elections: "we have to acknowledge as a free and sovereign nation that we abhor the violence that took place. We think it was inappropriate, the way in which they treated those protesters."
Iranian Nukes: "As I said to you, we have to wait to see how this sort of settles out."
Potential Israeli responses to Iranian nukes:"Israel can determine for itself -- it's a sovereign nation -- what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else."
North Korea: BIDEN: "The question is, is there anything that we should do about it? Some of it seems like almost attention-seeking behavior... STEPHANOPOULOS: And you don't want to give the attention? BIDEN: And -- no, I don't want to give the attention."
And there you have it. Again, he said much more, but these are the "action statements" - by all means, check the source and see if I've mis-represented that
I also know you can find Obama or Biden quotes elsewhere countering anything Obama or Biden say, but I 'm confident these quotes represent our actual position. They are also direct quotes - not interpretation. My interpretation is they all mean the same thing: what we're going to do in each and every case is nothing. That's not necessarily bad - although public declaration of our intent could be. Obviously (hopefully) that plan of attack could change with circumstances, but I don't think Israel is the only nation that we should clarify is not getting a green light. Somehow though they're the only ones people are worried might misunderstand us.
In the mail: A Line through the Desert
"Events portrayed in the novel are factual and thoroughly researched," Stroock tells me. "I interviewed or consulted over 25 veterans of the regiment."
I'm looking forward to the read. There's an ad for the book in the left hand column, click through to visit the official site.
A discussion from the comments:
hope | July 8, 2009 7:19 AM
A complete disconnect in society or the MSM? BOTH?
I know that when my son was in combat in Sadr City last year, no one that I spoke with knew about it. They would ask how my son was doing, I would respond, "I don't know, he's in combat". They would say, "What do you mean?" I would repeat, "Combat, you know fighting, weapons, people trying to kill them?" They would look at me with vacant stares then respond with, "Well, we shouldn't be there anyway." Or my favorite, "Iraq was better off under Saddam". It was disheartening and disgusting. During his deployment I got to the point where I would not even socialize for two reasons. I did not want to hear one more person say something inane in their self-aggrandizing way (for fear that eventually I would be hauled off to the poky for assault when I popped one of them in the kisser) and didn't want to miss a phone call from my son. Disgusting. So we are lauding a man who died of drug addiction/overdose and forgetting those who are truly making sacrifices. Appalling. This is one messed up world.
And thank you, Hope. Thanks for being a military mom and thanks for helping me solidify my thinking on that topic.Greyhawk replied to comment from hope | July 8, 2009 11:02 AM |
Hope, I'm afraid this is a case of the MSM giving viewers exactly what they want.
Take Twitter, where users control what's "hot" - Jackson has dominated the discussion there since he died - although Miley Cyrus has occasionally broken through. Twitter - and most of the internet - "crashed" when news of Jackson's death broke.
People like stories about untimely celebrity death, especially when the cause was avoidable - it demonstrates they are better off than celebrities, that while their life isn't lived in a mansion maybe that isn't so bad after all.
Soldier stories make them question whether they deserve what they have.
Soldiers support boy in battle against cancer
Rachel Pertile tried to pay the bill anonymously, but was caught and thanked by the Soldiers before she could leave the restaurant. The day after Thanksgiving, Pertile's 5-year-old son, Evan, was diagnosed with brain cancer.
Evan, now 6 years old, has had two neurosurgeries, radiation and is now having chemotherapy. All of his treatments have been at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, Tenn. In January, Pertile was on a flight making her way from Memphis back to her home in Colombia when she broke down in tears.
<...>
Sitting next to Pertile on the flight was Brenda Bowen, who works in Classroom Services at the Command and General Staff College. Bowen offered Pertile an ear and a shoulder, and when she found out Evan's affinity for "Army guys," she knew there was something she could do to help."She told me about her son and how he loves Soldiers, and I thought 'I bet I can get a few Soldiers to send him messages,'" Bowen said.
After the flight, Bowen contacted Col. Bob Burns, the director of the Center for Army Tactics at CGSC.
<...>
What Evan began doing next surprised everyone. Pertile said Evan had been receiving messages on his Web page saying he needed to eat to be Army strong and that Army Rangers have to eat to be strong."He started eating - he had completely quit eating and he was like 'I gotta eat,'" Pertile said. "It was remarkable, it was just incredible, like this unseen force helping my child - the generosity of others."
You can leave a note to Evan here.
Blackfive posts "Partially because all of your thoughts, prayers and efforts, Evan Pertile is going through his last chemo treatment today! This last chemo will be tough as his immune system is not working effectively."
TankerBabe has updates here with video - Tissue alert.
The ACLU teams up with Fred Phelps:
The American Civil Liberties Union sued Maplewood today on behalf of a controversial Kansas-based church that protests at the funerals of soldiers, alleging that the city's funeral protest ban is unconstitutional.
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in St. Louis, is a first in eastern Missouri but part of a broader effort by the ACLU to go after state and local laws that have been passed in recent years targeting funeral protests, said Tony Rothert, legal director of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri.
<...>
The church has already won an initial victory against a Missouri law that banned funeral protests.
We've been tracking Fred for far too long here. And last time I checked, the Constitution of the United States does not authorize him (or anyone else) to invade a funeral.
That's the name we used for a game I played as a kid. One person would stand with his back to the rest on the other side of the yard. He'd announce "green light" - they'd approach until he yelled "red light:" and turned around. If he caught anyone moving they had to go back to the starting line. Seems like opportunities for cheating were endless, but if there was any point to the game I don't remember it now - it's been a long time since I played.
But enough of childish nostalgia - I'm well past the age for those sorts of games now. So here's the news:
Has Israel received a "green light" from both the U.S. and Saudi governments to execute an air raid on Iran's nuclear complex? Those were stories that came out over the weekend, one from a television interview of Vice President Biden and the second from The Times that reported that the Saudi government had given permission to the Israeli air force to overfly Saudi Arabia en route to Iran.
Since Monday, the Obama administration has made a somewhat confusing attempt to walk back Mr. Biden's statements.
Either that or we have yet another case of saying one thing and the exact opposite, then explaining what you meant after someone acts (and depending on the results of that act).
Is there a name for that game?
Update: Here's a version of the game where anyone who "it" catches moving is out; if everyone is caught before someone reaches "it", "it" wins. That's slightly different than how we played it, where eventually someone reached "it" and got to be "it" for the next round. But no matter how you play the game, the rules are stacked in favor of "it" - who essentially gets to decide who wins.
So I guess the point of the game is to teach kids that it's good to be "it".
More - Sarah Palin said it first: "When Palin says it, it's stupid. When Biden says it, he gets graded on a curve: The problem is that other people are too stupid to understand the deep subtlety of Biden's thinking." A round-up of then-current responses to Palin's quote - and the same commentators' current responses to Biden's identical remarks - at the link.
Click for larger version if needed...
Hint: don't overlook the red and yellow banner near the top of the screen cap...
We must support the troops - in many ways that phrase sounds hackneyed now, even though many who used (and still use) it actually follow up with action - from emails to care packages to grabbing a lunch tab to spending time with the recovering wounded or petitioning their congressional representatives on specific issues that might impact the troops and their families. I'm proud to know many of those action-oriented folks myself, and while I was one of those troops for quite a long time and couldn't personally use the phrase without experiencing a sort of discomfort as potential beneficiary I certainly appreciate those who meant it when they said it.
But I also know that there are many who derided those who said it (or had it on a bumper sticker - as my wife does) based on the possibility that they didn't really mean it or that their definition might be different. I can speculate endlessly on logical (and illogical) justifications for that position, but regardless of the validity of the arguments I can also concede that the phrase itself has become somewhat worn with the passage of time. Like the bright yellow ribbons that are (to so many non-subscribers to the ideal or non-participants in the effort) the only visible manifestation of that ideal, much of the luster of the new has certainly faded away. Still, that doesn't diminish the simple truth: we must indeed support the troops. Don't you agree?
Perhaps we need a new phrase, then. New terminology, new words to replace the old - with the original meaning (and good intent) intact. Or maybe we already have them...
Securing Victory:
No doubt those who voted against Obama/Biden last November did so in part because they remember the sorts of quotes from the first half of this video...
...but while likely disgusted with the outright hypocrisy revealed in the second half, they can't possibly be as disgusted as the folks who voted for Obama/Biden based in large part on the same sorts of comments from the first half. The sense of betrayal among authentic members of the latter group must be consuming, I'm not sure how it could be otherwise.
NPR via Instapundit: Top 10 Reasons Why The BMI Is Bogus.
And bogus it is - very much indeed. I've written about this before ("using BMI of 25 to define "overweight" is a measure of nothing but ignorance.") in the context of scare stories about how fat military members are these days.
But BMI is still the DoD "gold standard" - senior leaders will look you in the eye and call it good enough. It is anything but. (An odd issue on which to destroy your credibility, but to each his own. There's sometimes a fine line between "demonstrating followership" and "maintaining credibility" - but I see this example as a clear and pointless breach thereof.)
...from a troop who was deeply affected by the man:
Current and future Secretaries of Defense (actual and armchair variety) would do well to read and heed.My feet quit hurting this morning. I wondered why.
Then I found out. They were celebrating the fact that former Defense Secretary McNamara is dead.
Before the beginning: Certainly the Iraqis aren't looking forward to having him back for more milk and cookies. So given the history, don't you think maybe it would be better for all parties if he did this job from that closet under the stairs that everyone told him was Dick Cheney's bomb shelter? As long as he had no communications gear (okay - maybe one of those "help I've fallen and I can't get up" things...) I'd be okay with that. Otherwise this is FUBAR.
It occurs to me that there are those who may not be familiar with the term "FUBAR". (Or who thought I was joking.) My apologies to you for using an undefined term. Now that Operation EPIC FAIL has reached its inevitable conclusion, here's a definition.
Well, there goes wacky ol' Uncle Joe*, talking crazy talk again:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Major milestone this week here in Iraq with the American troops pulling out of the cities. And I wonder if you can put the broader American mission in context. Are we in the process of securing victory or cutting our losses to come home?
BIDEN: Securing victory.
Footnote: *Joe Biden is Vice President of the United States of America.
Previously: July 4th, 2009: Baghdad
Afghanistan:
"Afghanistan My Last Tour" - 4th of July in the combat zone
We have a couple Chicago Tribune reporters embedding with us for a while and they did a story about our 4th of July celebration...
Some made it home for the fourth: Soldier who fought in pink boxers home for the 4th
However some fireworks did take place in Afghanistan and sadly, there were sacrifices made on this Independence Day with the loss of two of our finest in Afghanistan...
Aaron Fairbairn - KIA Afghanistan July 4 2009
And few in Afghanistan didn't even realized the date was July 4, as they battled the heat: Marines march in grueling Afghan sun for July 4 but "Some Marines ate watermelon from a farmer's field"
CSAR Gunners Provide Cover for Lifesaving Missions
At the end of the day, it's the goal of the rescue mission that leaves the biggest impression on the crew."Being a gunner - I'm part of something much bigger than myself," Matthews said. "We go in and get guys who, if we weren't there, may not make it to the next day or even the next hour."
"One of the greatest things a person can do is risk his life for another's," Sgt. Pellaton said. "It's an awesome thing and something any of us is willing to do. It's not just a motto to us, it's the soul of the mission."
It's hard to imagine what Americans back home are willing to risk their lives for, but here no imagination is needed. The reality of the tasks and sacrifices the infantrymen flowing into Helman leave very little doubt that Americans like the Marines fighting in Southern Afghanistan not only make the grade, they create a whole new class.
Iraq:
Iraq is hit by worst sandstorms in decades
Fortunately, the insurgents didn't celebrate it with any fireworks. Actually, it was a work day for us. Our holiday is today, July 5th. Don't ask me why. We have the full day off, which is why we were out gallivanting around the IZ and taking pictures of all the dust.
A fourth of July with a different kind of family:
As I sat at a desk in the office, I looked around. I realized I'm not the only one away from family and friends on this day.
However, I remembered I'm with a new family this year. We've been deployed for almost seven months now. No matter how much you may or may not get along with some of the people you deploy with, they become your family. At least it did with this unit especially with me. You have the father types, the mother types, the sisters, and brothers that you can't always stand. You have the ones that get on your nerves because they won't leave you alone and the ones that you talk to when something happens. Everyone here contributes to the 314th family.
I was always told that the people you deploy with become some of your closest friends. I didn't really believe that until I deployed. The bonds you form are indescribable. Even though I'm miles and miles away from home I feel in a way my family is here.
The 4th of July and Other Important Events
There are a myriad of odd days and events that each of us find cause to celebrate. Here are just a few I have noticed that people get excited about. ...Any day a soldier returns from an extended mission...The arrival of care packages from home...As menial as these events may seem, they are banner days for us. They are often the topic of conversation throughout the day - and while we may not be sending up fireworks or broiling some burgers on the barbecue to celebrate the events, they are the moments that make some of our dull days more eventful.
A little while back a unit was on patrol nearby when it was attacked and one of its armored vehicles was hit. A soldier inside was sitting directly in line with the blast and suffered multiple, extremely severe wounds. His buddies worked a miracle and were able to keep him alive long enough to be evacuated to the CSH (Combat Support Hospital) here on base. The docs and nurses at the CSH worked another miracle and saved the soldier. They weren't able to save his limbs though. He lost all four, high up. His helmet and body armour kept his head and trunk intact but his arms and legs were too badly damaged to be saved.The soldier is back in the States now. His father sent the staff at the CSH a letter thanking them for his son's life. The soldier is 19 years old.
So when you don't read about much happening to our troops over here, or not happening often; it's true, not much is happening right now. But when that occasional something does happen, it can be a very great tragedy borne by someone very young.
And let's not forget Colonel Karcher: Colonel Karcher is on his way home now.
An Explosively Formed Penetrator (EFP) pierced the armor, took both of Colonel Karcher's legs off, above the knees and killed his driver....Colonel Karcher is one of thousands of unsung American heroes. It is men like him that have made it possible for us to celebrate this American Independence Day.
There are many stories not listed here so to all our troops, Thank You for your service, sacrifice and reminding us "Freedom Isn't Free"
Godspeed
Over 200 U.S. military members became citizens of the Republic today - here's coverage from the AP:
VP Biden celebrates July 4 with US troops in Iraq
BAGHDAD (AP) -- Vice President Joe Biden celebrated the Fourth of July with his son and other American troops in Iraq on Saturday, a day after warning Iraqi leaders that U.S. assistance will be jeopardized if the country reverts to ethnic and sectarian violence.
Biden began Independence Day by greeting more than 200 U.S. soldiers who were becoming American citizens at a naturalization ceremony in a marble domed hall at one of Saddam Hussein's palaces at Camp Victory, the U.S. military headquarters on the outskirts of Baghdad.
He then had lunch with the 261st Theater Tactical Signal Brigade from Delaware to which his son, Beau, belongs. Beau Biden stood in the back as his father greeted the troops. The vice president, who's known for his often colorful language, told the brigade about the naturalization ceremony.
"We did it in Saddam's palace," he said. "That S.O.B. is rolling over in his grave right now."
"It may sound corny," Biden told the assembled troops, "but damn I'm proud to be an American. Thanks for choosing us."
Hey, no need to apologize, Joe. You're among friends.
Video highlights of the event:
Update: Another slightly different version of the AP story begins with this paragraph:
BAGHDAD (AP) -- Vice President Joe Biden spent the Fourth of July with his son and other American troops in Iraq on Saturday, while the Iraqi government spokesman publicly rejected the American's offer to help with national reconciliation, saying it's an internal affair.
Previously: Travels With Joe
Next: More Travels with Joe: The "V" word
And it didn't generate much media coverage, but last July 4th saw the largest re-enlistment ceremony in history (1200 troops) held in Baghdad.
Just in time for the Fourth of July - here's the full version of our excerpt from Doug Stanton's Horse Soldiers: The Extraordinary Story of a Band of US Soldiers Who Rode to Victory in Afghanistan
Ride along with the first Special Forces team to enter Afghanistan in November, 2001. The words are Stanton's, the voice and formatting are mine - the pictures and video were found all over the web and in most cases serve only as a reasonable facsimile, and not images of the actual individuals involved. Hopefully altogether they convey some of the sense of what it's like to fly a few hundred feet above the ground in a combat zone.
Jut push play...
And if you haven't bought the book yet, you can do so here
ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- Gov. Sarah Palin will resign her office in a few weeks, she said during a news conference at her Wasilla home Friday morning.
Stealing Scott Ott's line from Facebook message: "Sarah Palin Steps Down as Governor to Spend More Time with Charlie Gibson, Katie Couric"
Update: Now that line's a ScrappleFace story.
For those who keep a few MREs stashed at home, Stars and Stripes alerts to a recall:
A militarywide recall has been issued for Dairyshake powders found in Meals, Ready to Eat (MREs) and Unitized Group Rations-Express (UGR-Es).
Plainview Milk Products Cooperative in Minnesota issued the voluntary recall after a Food and Drug Administration inspection found salmonella contamination on some of the facility's equipment, according to an FDA news release dated June 29. Plainview sells its products to distributors and manufacturers who may then use them in their own products, and not to the general public, according to the release.
The dairy cooperative might have shipped nonfat dry milk, fruit stabilizers, whey protein, and gum products contaminated with the bacteria between June 2007 and June 2009, according to the Defense Supply Center.
People should not consume the Dairyshake powder rations and should destroy any Dairyshake powders contained in the meals.
The products affected by the recall are the vanilla, chocolate, strawberry and strawberry-banana flavors of the Dairyshake powder.
"The remainder of the MRE/UGR-E menu is consumable and should not be discarded/destroyed," a DSC news release said.
No illnesses have been reported from consuming the powder, and an investigation to determine the source of the contamination continues, the FDA said.
George Stephanopoulos updates from "just outside" of Baghdad*:
Biden spent a couple of hours this morning getting briefed by the Commanding General here in Iraq, Ray Odierno, and the new Ambassador, Chris Hill.
After the meeting he told me the reports were more optimistic than he expected.
*In keeping with the SOFA, Victory Base Complex will no longer be reported as "Baghdad".
Previous entry here.
So, will NBC TeeVee execs gets to pick the bad guys for this new reality show? Or someone else?
Will Keith Olbermann be involved?On Monday, July 20, join NBC News for a groundbreaking television event when it sets forth on an international hunt for an accused terrorist with "The Wanted" at 10 PM ET.
"The Wanted" brings together an elite team with backgrounds in intelligence, unconventional warfare and investigative journalism. The show focuses on real operators, in search of real targets -- all in an effort to see individuals brought to justice.
"We hope this program sheds light on an overlooked story," said David Corvo, executive producer at NBC News. "It is surprising how many people with serious accusations against them are living openly and avoiding any sort of judicial process."
<...>
"'The Wanted' is about seeking justice for the many victims of terrorism and atrocity around the world," said Crane. "It will start a national conversation, an important dialog about war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and international terrorism, as well as the indifference and political cynicism that hampers international criminal law and the quest for justice. 'The Wanted' drives home the point that the rule of law is more powerful than the rule of the gun."
I've added multiple updates with quotes from news reports as they become available to the original story below. As you read, bear in mind that first reports are always wrong. Rumors and scuttlebutt are frequently passed on as news - they may or may not turn out to be completely (rare) or partly (often) true. I'll add only that a soldier can't just accidentally wander off a military installation in Afghanistan or Iraq. In fact, one shouldn't be able to exit without authorization for a specific mission. Determination or duress could overcome that obstacle. But any speculation as to how one apparently did get "outside the wire" in this case is just that - purely speculation at this point. I can confirm only that a soldier is missing, his family has been notified, and a massive manhunt is underway. Please keep that soldier and his family in your thoughts and prayers this weekend.
From Chuck Z:
Need some help spreading the word on this. Below is a bit of info on the Gun Blogger Rendezvous IV, which is kinda like the milblogcon, but with gun bloggers. I went to GBR II, and spoke for a few minutes about valour-it, and the various bloggers all held a raffle and raised close to $2100 for valour-it. Last year they decided to make valour-it their dedicated charity, and raised over $2k again, both times from their own pockets. (When I was there, they numbered less that 25 bloggers.) This year GBR IV, and they are trying to do an internet raffle.On a more personal note, I met Joe and Barb Huffman while I was there. Their nephew was at WRAMC while I was there, and it was the second time I'd met them, Their nephew, unfortunately, did not make it. Joe writes the View from North Central Idaho, and is a must read for 2A information and constitutional rights in general.
Here's where to go next.
Hello from Camp Victory just outside of Baghdad. I landed about an hour ago on Vice President Biden's C-17 for what will be the most extensive visit to Iraq by a president or vice president since the war began in 2003.
Before we landed Biden called a few of us traveling with him into his aluminum sided airstream trailer strapped to the floor of the C-17.
"This is the moment," he told us, "we have to make sure the Iraqis don't take their eyes off the ultimate prize."
He then explained the latest job President Obama has given him. A few weeks ago he was talking to the president about the challenges Iraq would face after US troops began to withdraw from Iraqi cities on June 30th and what the US needed to do about it. The president got right the point, Biden said, "Quote: Joe, go do it."
Do what exactly?
"Help the Iraqis resolve what they have to resolve."
"He was greeted upon landing by Gen. Ray Odierno, commanding general of Multi-National Forces in Iraq" - Chris Hill (U.S. Ambassador to Iraq) does not appear in this story.
CNN: "Soldier's family has been informed". (I've heard this from sources in Afghanistan, too.)
I'm adding quotes from news reports as they become available below. As you read, bear in mind that first reports are always wrong. Rumors and scuttlebutt are frequently passed on as news - they may or may not turn out to be completely (rare) or partly (often) true. I'll add only that a soldier can't just accidentally wander off a military installation in Afghanistan or Iraq. In fact, one shouldn't be able to exit without authorization for a specific mission. Determination or duress could overcome that obstacle. But any speculation as to how one apparently did get "outside the wire" in this case is just that - purely speculation at this point. I can confirm only that a soldier is missing, his family has been notified, and a massive manhunt is underway. Please keep that soldier and his family in your thoughts and prayers this weekend.
Brief (as of now) AP report here:
KABUL -- Insurgents have captured an American soldier in eastern Afghanistan, the US military said Thursday.Spokeswoman Capt. Elizabeth Mathias said the soldier went missing Tuesday.
"We are using all of our resources to find him and provide for his safe return," Mathias said.
Mathias did not provide details on the soldier, the location where he was captured or the circumstances.
Here's the U.S. Forces Afghanistan statement (via their Facebook page):
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 2, 2009
Release Number 20090207-01
KABUL, Afghanistan - A U.S. Soldier, who has been missing since June 30th from his assigned unit, is now believed to have been captured by militant forces. We are exhausting all available resources to ascertain his whereabouts and provide for his safe return.
We are not providing any further details at this time in order to protect the welfare of the Soldier.
I was in Iraq for a similar event - the rescue effort was unprecedented in intensity and number of people involved. I expect the same is happening in Afghanistan now.
CNN reports that the soldier's family has been informed. (They also pass along a rather dubious Taliban claim. (Made by a target of a recent high-profile drone strike.)
(CBS) A Taliban commander told CBS News' Sami Yousafzai Thursday that militants had captured one U.S. soldier and three Afghan nationals in Paktika province, near the Pakistani border.
<...>
The Taliban commander, who spoke to Yousafzai via satellite telephone from the region, said a group of militants cornered the American soldier and his Afghan counterparts near a U.S. military base and took them hostage.He said the captives' fate would be decided by Taliban leaders, but that the Islamic extremist group "would not mind an exchange of prisoners in this case."
The BBC and other British news sources are reporting "The US has just begun a major operation against the Taliban in the southern Helmand province, but the captured soldier was not involved in this."
MSNBC says "enlisted soldier".
Military officials in Afghanistan, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the situation, said the missing soldier appears to have walked off his base into an unsecured area.
A U.S. official in Afghanistan said the soldier's absence was discovered when he did not show up for morning formation. It is highly unusual for a U.S. soldier to leave a military base unaccompanied by other American troops.
<...>
"Our leaders have not decided on the fate of this soldier." the AFP quoted the Haqqani commander, identified only as Bahram, as saying. "They will decide on his fate and soon we will present video tapes of the coalition soldier and our demand to media."While the AFP report quoted the Haqqani commander as saying that the soldier was captured with three Afghan "guards," the U.S. official said the Afghanis who reportedly were seized do not appear to have been soldiers.
From Afghanistan, Vampire 6: "we are conducting operations in an attempt to locate the missing soldier."
U.S. forces from the region have been diverted to the area where the soldier went missing. The region borders the South Waziristan tribal areas , where the Pakistani military has launched an offensive to capture top Taliban commander Baitullah Mehsud.
Maj. Jose Aymat, the executive officer at Camp Clark, said reports from Paktika indicate that the soldier was captured by two individuals in a four-wheel-drive vehicle. He said battalions deployed across eastern Afghanistan have each committed one or two platoons to join the search effort and they have cordoned off the area where they think the soldier is being held.
"All the roads (in and out of the area) are pretty much under the control of U.S. forces and the ANA (Afghan National Army)," Aymat said. "All activities in the region other than force protection have ceased because the effort now is to find our soldier."
Information heard over radio communciations indicate that the Taliban is considering whether to negotiate a deal or ransom in exchange for the soldier's release, Aymat said.
At Clark, there was a sense of frustration at the situation created by the soldier's capture. Troops wondered not only why a soldier would take such a risk, if his disappearance happened as reported, but also whether he'd indicated to his fellow soldiers his plans. Many questioned why the soldier's leadership was not aware that he was in distress.
Other soldiers said they were concerned that the concerted effort to find the soldier was putting so many forces at risk, while leaving other areas with less forces to carry out their own missions. Several missions were canceled because so much air power was diverted to Paktika.
More from Bill Roggio: "Late last year, the Haqqani Network kidnapped a reporter for the New York Times and brought him to North Waziristan in Pakistan. The reporter escaped from the compound last month."
Completing our ride into Afghanistan...
This is the conclusion of a three-part selection from Doug Stanton's Horse Soldiers: The Extraordinary Story of a Band of US Soldiers Who Rode to Victory in Afghanistan
(Part one is here, part two here.)
Once again, the words are Stanton's, the voice and formatting are mine - the pictures and video were found all over the web (and in most cases serve only as a reasonable facsimile, and not images of the actual individuals involved). I hope you enjoy the end result as much as I enjoyed putting it together.
Jut push play...
And if you haven't bought the book yet, you can do so here
My good friend* Grim, just back from Iraq:
"So, Grim, you're just back from Iraq... what does it mean that we're 'out of the cities?'"
It means that the ISF -- especially the Iraqi Army, and the National Police -- are the first line of defense for urban Iraqis.
"Will it work?"
No.
Read on...
*We hung out in Baghdad together, and he's been a guest in my house. Welcome home, Grim.
From the archives: I wrote the following from Iraq the day after the January, 2005 elections there.
Greetings from a land of bent and broken things
Some of you may have noticed I didn't post my own thoughts on yesterday's elections. My reason is simple: it wasn't my day. I watched through tearing eyes. Yes, this old trooper shed a few tears of joy at what had happened. Like the amazing fall of the Berlin wall, the peaceful "revolutions" that freed Eastern Europe, this was another great victory in my lifetime, and one I felt a little bit involved in. This wasn't George Bush's victory, this wasn't America's victory, this certainly wasn't my victory, this was a victory for the people of Iraq and those who love freedom everywhere. I was an observer, a very close observer, but an observer nonetheless.
I liked what I saw.
Now note the header above. The work has just begun. I see bent and broken, scarred and ruined things here every day. Many were damaged years ago. 1991? 2003? In between? After? It's often hard to tell. Many will be fixed in time, others are beyond repair. Now substitute the word "people" for "things" in the preceding and read it again. Meet a group of Iraqi people and one will tell you how grateful he is that we have given him freedom. He will tell you he lived in fear for his life every day under Saddam. His joy is real, and fundamental, and obvious. Then the next will tell you he lost his entire family in the invasion. He's glad Saddam's gone, but he's paid a price that few would be willing to pay were they given the option.
What would you say to him? "Sorry about that. But cheer up, old boy! Other than that you must admit this freedom thing is pretty great, eh?" No - there's nothing that can be said. He may or may not hate the United States, he may blame Saddam for what happened, but here is a man with the rest of his life before him, and he'll live each day without his family.
The greater good, of course, is served. Many Americans died in this endeavor too; such things temper the celebration. I think Iraqi blogger Alaa offers the right perspective:
My condolences to the Great American people for the tragic recent losses of soldiers. The blood of Iraqis and Americans is being shed on the soil of Mesopotamia; a baptism with blood. A baptism of a lasting friendship and alliance, for many years to come, through thick and thin, we shall never forget the brave soldiers fallen while defending our freedom and future.
I'd add our Coalition allies to that sentiment too.
So amidst the triumph, I saw yesterday as a Memorial Day, of a sort, for those many who fell to make it possible. Some might try and use those deaths for their own ends, or to justify their belief that we should never have walked this path. Such people don't believe in heroes. They can't even comprehend this simple fact; no one is more opposed to war than the soldier. He knows the cost and has seen the carnage. But as I wrote at the top of the sidebar long ago: The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior, who prefers to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day he stands fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
Today we re-build broken things. Grab a hammer or get out of the way.
ABC's Martha Raddatz has been filing an awe-inspiring series of reports on LTC Col Tim Karcher. This is from her latest:
LTC Karcher was riding in an MRAP just before noon on Sunday, June 28th. The MRAP is considered the Army's heaviest and safest personnel carrier. But the multiple and powerful EFPs (explosively formed penetrator), those Iranian made shaped charge that penetrate metal, struck the door near where Karcher was seated. His legs were gone. Normally a medevac helicopter would be called, but the soldiers were socked in by a dust storm, and nothing was flying.This is from the first
I keep looking at the pictures I took of Lt. Colonel Tim Karcher a few months ago in Sadr City, Iraq. Even though we are walking through alleyways of raw sewage and rotting vegetables, Karcher has a soft smile on his face in every shot. In the interview we did he is optimistic, but realistic about Iraq's future. No spin.
Now this big bear of a man is lying in a hospital bed fighting for his life, both his legs blown off above the knees. It breaks my heart, and judging from the tons of emails I have received from soldiers, reporters and others who knew him, many feel the same. LTC Karcher was on his 3rd deployment to Iraq. He felt a profound responsibility to his soldiers, and two years ago despite a gunshot wound to his shoulder that ripped out much of his deltoid muscle, he fought hard to get back to the point where he could return to his soldiers. He said he felt guilty if they were in the fight and he was not. He also profoundly loves his family -- his wife and daughters aged 14, 12 and 9.
She also spoke with Mrs Karcher, as recounted here.
July 3rd update: "Today, for the first time since he was transported from Iraq to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, Lt. Colonel Tim Karcher woke up." He'll soon transfer to Walter Reed.
Here's something to chew on while enjoying your next five dollar foot long:
While serving in Afghanistan with the U.S. Army Reserve, Leon Batie Jr. dodged roadside bombs and scrambled to safety when rockets pierced the night sky.
When he returned to Dallas in early 2006, another battle loomed. Batie learned he was being stripped of the two Subway restaurants he bought before mobilizing.
The stores were sold to Subway insiders, with one transaction yielding a Subway executive a $100,000 profit, according to a lawsuit. One issue in the case is set for trial this week.
The suit, which alleges violations of the U.S. Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, seeks more than $6 million from the Subway affiliate that controls leases.
<...>
Larry Fowler, an attorney for Subway Real Estate Corp., the main defendant, said, "Corporate policy is not to comment on pending litigation." The company has filed a motion to dismiss the suit.
An employee with the Subway area developer in Dallas and a spokesman at the chain's headquarters in Milford declined to comment.
I've read this three times and it still says the same thing:
"There will be difficult days ahead," Obama said. "We see that already in the senseless bombing in Kirkuk earlier today. And there are those who will test Iraqi security forces and the resolve of the Iraqi people through more sectarian bombings. ... But I'm confident that those forces will fail."There are those who will test Iraqi security forces, but I'm confident those forces will fail? Maybe the speechwriter is disoriented or something... I hear that's been going around there lately.
Update:
The news in a moment, but first, to properly set the stage - a quick flashback to April, 2007. "The surge" had been announced, the Senate had unanimously confirmed General Dave Petraeus as Commander, Multi-National Force - Iraq. Just two of the surge brigades were actually operating in Iraq, the others were in transit or still stateside. Then-Senator Joe Biden declared the effort a failure, claimed "no one" in the Army agreed with Petraeus that violence could be reduced, and proposed destroying the Iraqi Constitution and rebuilding their government in a manner more to his liking. Here's all that in a three minute video:
The full version can be found through this link. (Biden looks even worse in the finer details to those who know what was going on at the time. For instance, his claims of increased violence in "the belts" around Baghdad were likely made in full knowledge that those locations were where the remaining surge brigades were to be deployed.)
Which brings us to today's headline: Biden Tapped to Oversee Political Reconciliation in Iraq
As the U.S. military met its deadline to withdraw from Iraqi cities, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said President Obama asked his No. 2 to work with Gen. Ray Odierno, the top commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Christopher Hill on mending fences in Iraq.
<...>
But his call for a partition of Iraq angered Iraqi leaders a few years ago.
<...>
In a May 2006 New York Times column, he and former Council on Foreign Relations president Leslie Gelb argued that Iraq could follow the Bosnia model by being divided into "ethnic federations."
If that doesn't get your blood pressure up - here's an even more egregious example of bad behavior by Obama's number two. This time in September, 2007, when in the immediate aftermath of General Petraeus' "progress report" to Congress, Biden went to Iraq. While there, he addressed a group of leaders of the Anbar Awakening movement, and told them that if the Iraqi Government didn't support them, we wouldn't either.
[West] describes a September, 2007 meeting in Anbar Province, hosted by the governor and presided over by Iraq's deputy prime minister. By that time the Awakening movement had turned the tide of the war in Anbar, and economic recovery and rebuilding were next on the agenda for what had been the deadliest quarter of Iraq. But while the purpose of the meeting was economic planning, West says "the real guest of honor was Sheik Sattar" - the Iraqi leader of the movement.
But someone else was in town, too - and he wanted to send the Sheiks a message on behalf of the American people: "Not good enough".
Senator Joseph Biden, who visited Iraq frequently, then took the podium to issue a blunt warning. "The American people can't want peace more than the Iraqi people", he said. "It's encouraging to see central government assisting you in Anbar. In America we are waiting to see how extensive that cooperation will be. If it is [extensive], you can count on America to stay. If it is not, you can say goodbye now."
After the meeting, the sheiks mingled, nibbling on chicken and pita bread. Several were puzzled by Biden's lecture. They had expected to be congratulated for having thrown out al Qaeda. When I chatted with [Iraq's] Deputy Prime Minister Salh, he was annoyed. "It took your country thirteen years," he said, "to get a constitution and a set of laws. Why are you talking defeatist?"
Bear in mind that it wasn't, strictly speaking, up to the Shieks at all if the Iraqi government was going to support them or not - they were just a bunch of potential insurgents trying to decide if they were going to stick with the U.S. or not. (Excerpt from Bing West's 2008 book The Strongest Tribe: War, Politics, and the Endgame in Iraq
Certainly the Iraqis aren't looking forward to having him back for more milk and cookies. So given the history, don't you think maybe it would be better for all parties if he did this job from that closet under the stairs that everyone told him was Dick Cheney's bomb shelter? As long as he had no communications gear (okay - maybe one of those "help I've fallen and I can't get up" things...) I'd be okay with that. Otherwise this is FUBAR.
Next: And then the clouds parted and a single ray of sunshine broke through...
