Dawn Patrol 07/21/2010
[Mrs Greyhawk]
Welcome to the Dawn Patrol, our daily roundup of information on the War on Terror and other topics - from the MilBlogs and various sources around the world. If you're a blogger, you can join the conversation. If you link to any of these stories, add a link to the Dawn Patrol too and your trackback will be added to the list. Hat Tips to the Dawn Patrol are greatly appreciated.
Always updating - refresh for updates.
Support Our Troops, Read Their Stories
----------------------------
Kabul Conference Endorses 2014 Afghan Security Takeover -- [Voice of America]
The donor conference in Kabul was the largest international meeting in Afghanistan since the 1970s. Security was tight in the capital. Coalition forces battled insurgents near Kabul the night before, but the conference proceeded peacefully.
...Analysts say while there is still work to be done, the Kabul conference was President Karzai's chance to show the international community his government is ready.
Recently, many coalition partners have voiced their desire to begin transferring security control to the Afghan forces. U.S. officials say they hope to start withdrawing forces next July.
But U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told delegates at the conference that this transition is not an ending, but rather, a new beginning.
"We have no intention of abandoning our long-term mission of achieving the kind of Afghanistan that President Karzai set forth in his speech," Clinton said.
Afghanistan Sets Security Timeline
Kabul Conference -- [A Major's Perspective - in Afghanistan]
A lot of news stories out there right now about the Kabul Conference that took place today, and rightfully so. (I wonder how much we really need to hear about Lohan going to jail -- I really dont care -- but I kinda expected that).
But I digress. Lot of great news stories out there, but there is something you didn't see in the news today, and it was a good thing. Why is this important? Because it was all the Afghans. Afghan led, and Afghan executed. For all the Taliban hot wind that was talked, the Afghan National Security Forces did a superb job in securing the conference.
A City Tour for V.I.P.'s Attending the Kabul Conference -- [At War]
In the opening scenes of Shakespeare's play "Measure for Measure," the Duke of Vienna takes off his fine clothes and disguises himself as an ordinary friar so that he can wander the streets and learn what the common people really think about the governance of his city.
The New York TimesIf Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Gen. David H. Petraeus could do the same, wandering the bazaars and back streets of Kabul instead of attending the carefully guarded Kabul conference ...
...They would see the capital of the place where their policies will succeed or fail, and they would hear talk not of capacity building and clusters, but of the daily lives of the poor, of the millions of Afghans whose lives have not been touched by the dollars pouring in from donors and who do not have connections to the wealthy and powerful who can get them jobs. They would see a world of criminal gangs and they would hear that for many in Kabul, there is no belief in the future.
US hunts wanted Taliban and al Qaeda commander in Kunar -- [LWJ - Bill Roggio]
Qari Zia Rahman has allegiance to both the Taliban and al Qaeda. ISAF said he maintained a safe haven in the district of Marawara until a recent operation to secure the region.
Highway to Hell -- [Kandahar Diary - in Afghanistan]
It's been a busy day on Highway 1.
One convoy, en-route to Bastion, was engaged at about 0930hrs with small arms fire from about a section-size group of insurgents using abandoned houses and gardens 300m south of the MSR as cover. Our guards dismounted from their vehicles and returned fire. Fortunately, this time, no injuries or damages were reported and the convoy quickly pushed on.
Another of my convoys was not so lucky today. ...
Riding with Ghosts -- [Free Range International - in Afghanistan]
Editors Note: This article is too good not to share in its entirety. The reporter, Mitch Potter, was kind enough to give me permission to do so. Mitch contacted me through the blog and Panjwaii Tim told me he was a great guy with lots of experience and knowledge who he was happy to host. In Mitch's honor I hereby officially change the name for Team Canada to Ghost Team knowing full well the name change was supposed to be agreed on at the end of the summer piss up. What did I say at the end of my last post? Armed, outside the wire, experienced, contractors - this is what I was talking about.
Riding With Ghosts...
Afghanistan's New Minister of Interior: A Potential Game Changer - [SWJ - Dr. Mark Moyar, Orbis Operations]
During the Obama administration's strategic review last year, the U.S. government and media paid surprisingly close attention to the selection of Afghanistan's cabinet members, and pressed Karzai to retain the ministers whom Westerners deemed most capable. The forced resignations of Interior Minister Mohammad Hanif Atmar and National Directorate of Security (NDS) chief Amrullah Saleh last month garnered less attention, despite the fact that they were two of the government's most important figures. The decline in Western enthusiasm about Atmar no doubt contributed heavily to the tepidness of the response. Soon thereafter,...
Riz Khan - Afghanistan: Cash and corruption - [AlJazeera]
UK troops could start leaving Afghanistan next year, says Cameron -- [
The Guardian]
Both leaders are under strong domestic pressure to bring troops home as the ... was far less welcome than that of his predecessor, Stanley McChrystal
Suspected Afghan army trainer opens fire on fellow instructors -- [Washington Post]
A suspected Afghan army trainer on a shooting range in northern Afghanistan opened fire on his fellow instructors Tuesday, killing two American civilian trainers and one other Afghan soldier before being killed himself, NATO officials said. On a day when world diplomats gathered in Kabul for an international conference intended to further a transition to Afghan security responsibility, the violence showed the risks and setbacks that can come with a rapid expansion of Afghan military forces. The shooting, at a weapons training base near the city of Mazar-e Sharif, comes just one week after another rogue Afghan soldier killed three British soldiers at a base in Helmand province. "It's a great tragedy," said British Col. Stuart Cowen, a spokesman for the NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan, the command responsible for building up the Afghan security forces. Few details were immediately available about the circumstances surrounding the shooting, and NATO officials said they had started a joint investigation into the incident with the Afghan Ministry of Defense. The name of the contractor that provided the U.S. trainers was also not disclosed.
Picture Of The Day - 20 JUL 2010 "Master Healer" -- [FaST Surgeon - in Afghanistan]
...We were fortunate at FOB Shank to have LTC H (AKA Podalirius). Over the last 10 years, the military has identified an injury pattern known as mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Most of us would refer to this as a "concussion". mTBI is an injury caused mainly by explosive force (e.g. from Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs)). In Iraq, IEDs were consistently mortally devastating to our troops. Recently, our soldiers of Operation Enduring Freedom have benefited by the addition of MRAPs. I believe that there is significantly less trauma (Although there are still many instances of significant trauma and death) inflicted on our soldiers because of the protection offered by these vehicles. However, being in the epicenter of an explosion still leaves many with mTBI.
Most soldiers with mTBI rapidly improve with the innovative therapies applied by CPT J. However, ...
Series of deadly attacks in Iraq related to US pullout plan: analysts -- [Xinhua]
Recent series of attacks by insurgents have left hundreds of people dead and wounded in Iraq
Iraq Briefing - Gen Ray Odierno
Suicide Attacks Kill Dozens In Iraq -- [AP /NPR]
Two suicide bombers targeting members of a government-backed, anti-al-Qaida militia struck within hours of each other early Sunday, killing at least 48 people and wounding dozens more, Iraqi officials said.
The bombings were the deadliest in a series of attacks across Iraq Sunday that were aimed at the Sons of Iraq, a Sunni group also known as Sahwa that works with government forces to fight al-Qaida in Iraq. The attacks highlighted the stiff challenges the country faces as the U.S. scales back its forces in Iraq, leaving their Iraqi counterparts in charge of security.
Al-Qaeda Women Used As Couriers -- [MEMRI Blog]
Al-Qaeda in Iraq is using a new strategy for transmitting messages and orders to its various cells, by using women known as mujahidat [committed to jihad] or mu'minat [believers].
US envoy: Diplomatic presence in Iraq will shrink -- [AP/WFAA]
The State Department is telling Congress that it intends to phase out a network of embassy branch offices in Iraq as soon as three years after the U.S. military leaves in 2011.
The Obama administration's choice to be the next ambassador to Baghdad -- James F. Jeffrey -- said an existing network of 16 military-civilian posts will be transformed by 2011 into a combination of three embassy branch offices and two consulates.
The three embassy branch offices will be phased out in three to five years, he said, while the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and two consulates will remain indefinitely.
Iraq's Conflict, Reflected in a Family Tragedy -- [NY Times]
When the Americans arrived, Hamid Ahmad, a former air force warrant officer imprisoned under Saddam Hussein, imagined a new life for his family, freed from the burdens of tyranny. In seven hard years, nothing went as planned.
He spoke good English and believed in America. He got a job, his family says, with the United States military. Late last month, he wound up dead at the hands of his 32-year-old son, who had turned into an insurgent who sought money and purpose in fighting the Americans.
Despite difficult relations, an Iraqi oil official said Monday that Kuwait has given initial approval to open its border for crossing by international oil firms working in Iraq oil fields.
Iraq Border to Open to International Oil Companies -- [Epoch Times]
The new border crossing will aid the inflow of equipment for oil companies working on the Safwan and Rumaila oil fields, said the director of the Oil Ministry's licensing office, Abdul-Mahdy al-Meedi, according Reuters.
Iraq wishes to upgrade its oil production capacity from 2 million to 12 million barrels a day in the next six years, according to a report by Iraq newspaper Al- Sabah. But insufficient dock space and corruption at Kuwait's Umm Qasr port, would impede the proposed expansion.
China Protests US-South Korea Joint Military Drills -- [RTT News]
In a statement issued ahead of imminent joint major military drills by the United States and South Korea in the Sea of Japan, China expressed stiff
U.S. Stealth Jets, Carrier Tell Norks: Back The Hell Up -- [Danger Room]
bout 8,000 U.S. and South Korean sailors and airmen are preparing for a big joint military exercise this weekend to tell a wilding-out North Korea to rethink its recent aggression. Get ready for Invincible Spirit.
According to Admiral Robert Willard, the commander of American forces in the Pacific, the carrier U.S.S. George Washington and a bunch of destroyers from the Navy's Seventh Fleet will head to the Sea of Japan, along with surveillance aircraft and "destroyers, frigates, and some patrol craft" from the South Korean Navy, including the South Korean transport ship Dodko. Over 100 aircraft from the Air Force's Seventh Air Wing and the South Korean Air Force are going to fly above. And since a torpedo from a North Korean submarine sank the South Korean warship Cheonan in March, there'll be anti-submarine exercises as well. It's going to unfold over several days.
Will a North Korean Attack Win the Yellow Sea for China? -- [One Free Korea]
Is the Yellow Sea a Chinese lake? Under ordinary circumstances, I'd understand China's complaints about a U.S. naval exercise in an inland sea near its shores. It's not as if I'd want Chinese ships in the Gulf of Mexico, either, but these are not ordinary circumstances. This time, North Korea has sunk a South Korean warship, and China has both shielded North Korea from any consequences for that attack and continued to provide necessary financial support to the regime that carried it out. Argue among yourselves whether this makes China an accessory after the fact, but it certainly destroys the myth of China as a mature, responsible power promoting peace and stability. That's why the U.S. Navy is now forced to deter without any help from China.
U.S. announces new sanctions against North Korea -- [Washington Post]
Searching for new ways to punish North Korea after blaming it for sinking a South Korean warship in March, the Obama administration announced Wednesday that it will strengthen existing sanctions against the North and impose new restrictions on its weapons trade and trafficking in counterfeit currency and luxury goods.
Al-Qaeda Second-in-Command Ayman Al-Zawahiri: The Only Hope for Palestine is to Depose the 'Arab Zionists' -- [MEMRI Blog]
In a new 1-hour 3-minute audio recording, Al-Qaeda second-in-command Ayman Al-Zawahiri reaffirms Al-Qaeda's basic strategy regarding Palestine and promised imminent victory in Afghanistan, and addresses words of praise and encouragement to the jihadist groups in North Africa, Somalia, the Arabian Peninsula, Iraq, the Caucasus, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
Fighting the Ideological Battle: The Missing Link in U.S. Strategy to Counter Violent Extremism -- [Counterterrorism Blog - Matthew Levitt]
As nonaffiliate terrorist actors begin to take center stage and al-Qaeda's core strength diminishes, it has become clear that America is at war with a larger enemy: the extremist ideology that fuels and supports Islamist violence. Unfortunately, the United States is not well equipped to fight on this ideological battleground, and U.S. efforts to confront the ideology worldwide have not kept pace with more successful military targeting of high-level al-Qaeda leaders.
In a new Washington Institute Strategic Report my co-authors and I argue that rather than avoid any mention of the religious motivation behind the terrorism of al-Qaeda and other like-minded organizations, the Obama administration should sharpen the distinction between the religion of Islam and the political ideology of radical Islamism to successfully defeat Islamist terrorism at its most fundamental source.
SSG Patrick Zeigler - Someone You Should Know -- [BlackFive]
Want to meet a real life superhero? A man whose strength and power defies what many believed was humanly possible? A man who defines the phrase "American soldier"?
Meet Staff Sgt. Patrick Zeigler.
For the past 8 ½ months, Zeigler has looked death in the face and refused to blink. He's battled back from eight brain surgeries and diagnoses that labeled him everything from "comatose" to "permanently disabled."
Zeigler was one of 32 who was injured on November 5, 2009 when accused gunman Army Major Nidal Hasan opened fire inside the Soldier Readiness Center at Fort Hood.
Soldiers' Angels Welcomes New Trustee -- [Soldiers' Angels]
Soldiers' Angels announces the appointment of military veteran, new media expert and lobbyist Mark Seavey to the Board of Trustees. Drawing on thirteen years' experience advocating for veterans, Seavey will work closely with COL (ret) Henry Cook on legislative liaison efforts.
A strong advocate for veterans, Seavey began his career with The American Legion in 1997 as an Appeals Representative and later served with the National Legislative Commission as an Assistant Director and Grassroots Coordinator. Recently promoted to New Media Manager, Seavey serves as steward of The Burn Pit and also runs a highly-respected personal milblog which specializes in debunking fraudulent military service claims.
BREAKING: Stolen Valor Act ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL (UPDATE 1) -- [BlackFive - Mr Wolf]
Sit back, take a deep breath, and get your BP meds ready. Stupidity has found another outlet in the judicial system. And be prepared to memorize this face.
One of our favorite impostors Richard Strandloff/Duncan has had the charges of Stolen Valor dropped due to a ruling from the District Court in Denver today. Judge Robert E. Blackburn issued a ruling today, dropping/dismissing the charges on the basis that says ''the Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional.'' And by 'unconstitutional' he means it violates the First Amendment. He writes:
Dozens of Kentucky Army National Guard soldiers returning home -- [WKYT]
Friends and family will gather at the Boone National Guard Center in Frankfort Wednesday to welcome home 86 Kentucky Army National Guard soldiers
Local Seabees Return -- [WKRG-TV]
Family members, relatives, and friends will welcome home more than 260 Seabees from ... to send an additional 30000 troops to Afghanistan late last year
Soldiers from the 278th return home -- [TriCities.com]
...every deployment is stressful because one parent ends up doing the job of two. In addition to taking care of their children by herself, Tara Spears said she also must do her husband's chores, such as mowing the lawn.
That's why she's thankful the Bootleggers have friends and family members who work together like an extended family during a deployment the same way its members become brothers while their in combat.
Technology also has come a long way in the five years since her husband's first deployment, and that's helped out a lot too. During the Bootleggers' 2004-05 deployment, Tara Spears said she was lucky if she could talk to her husband once a week. This year she's been able to use her Blackberry and Skype, an Internet-based video telephone service, to talk to her husband every single day that he's been gone.
URGENT!! OIF/OEF VETERANS DISCHARGED FOR PTSD -- [Some Soldier's Mom]
FOR YOUR INFORMATION
OIF/OEF Veterans: TIME IS RUNNING OUT. If you were discharged for PTSD and received LESS THAN A 50% disability rating from your service branch, you MAY be able to receive some additional benefits
New treatment for PTSD? Dropping some Ecstasy. -- [Stars & Stripes]
It's not the most likely prescription for veterans already suffering from paranoia and emotional imbalance, but a group of researchers with the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies in California are suggesting that 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (better known as Ecstasy) could prove valuable in helping combat vets in dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder.
The study, which tracked only 20 patients, found veterans using Ecstasy were more receptive to counseling sessions than those on a placebo.
Oh, poor Blogetry! -- [Jawa Report]
Oh, the poor 73,000 blogs they hosted!!
Why, the FBI won't take my blog until they pry my cold dead fingers from the keyboard!!1! /sarcasm.
1. A site hosted by Blogetry was distributing Inspire magazine from al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula.
2. The FBI asked for nothing more than information about the particular site, one of 73,000 hosted by Blogetry.
3. BurstNET, acting on their own initiative, and in accordance with their own Terms of Service, pulled the plug on Blogetry.
The FBI did not shut down 73,000 blogs, period. But why let the truth get in the way of a good story...
WH Press Briefing- Top Secret means Top Secret -- [BlackFive - Uncle Jimbo]
I posted this over at Big Peace but since it is an ongoing series here I wanted a copy on our servers. I think some of the hype over whether this compromises classified information may have been overblown. That said, I don't think it really added anything to the debate and put too much of our secret business out in public.
JournoList Members Discussed Whether the Government Should Shut Down Fox News -- [The Volokh Conspiracy]
It appears from the last few days' stories that JournoList was even worse than I'd always suspected. The Daily Caller reports that UCLA law professor Jonathan Zasloff first raised the possibility of a government shutdown of Fox News and then defended pulling their White House press pass
Breitbart On Sherrod's NAACP Speech: 'I Did Not Edit This Thing' -- [TPMMuckraker]
The crux of the Shirley Sherrod controversy is what she said outside of the two-minute video clip posted by Big Government -- whether she was, as she claims, telling a story about how she overcame racial prejudice while helping poor farmers in Georgia, or whether the clip is a good encapsulation of her views. So we asked Andrew Breitbart, the founder of Big Government, why he hasn't posted the full video.
"I don't have it," Breitbart told TPMmuckraker in an interview. Breitbart said his source sent him just the edited clips at first, but is in the process of sending the full video.
Breitbart said he'll post the full video, if he can get permission from the video production company who filmed it for a local NAACP chapter. He also maintained that he didn't edit the clip and that it was sent to him already edited.
VoteVets still whining about Fox -- [This Ain't Hell]
This morning I awoke to to some more VoteVets whining. They have new million-dollar ad that they're trying to cram down Fox's throat about this Clean Energy bill in Congress.
War is Boring: Fourth Time the Charm for NATO's Afghan Militia Plan? -- [WPR]
The impetus behind the scheme was simple enough. "We clearly do not have enough police forces to provide security in enough of the populated areas," top Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell admitted.
Nevertheless, reaction to the plan was swift and alarmed. Afghan President Hamid Karzai reportedly objected to it -- and for good reason. On no fewer than three occasions in the last three years, NATO has experimented with militias and local security forces. All these previous efforts failed, sometimes spectacularly.
Morrell tried to downplay concerns. "These would be local community policing units," Morell said last week. "They would not be militias."
"It is clearly a sensitive issue for President Karzai and the Afghan government and the Afghan people, given their history with militias and warlords," Morrell told reporters. "And we are certainly understanding and sensitive to that."
"But that is not what Gen. Petraeus is proposing here,"
The real Star Wars: Laser used to shoot down a moving aircraft for first time -- [Daily Mail]
Star Wars-style laser beams have been used for the first time to shoot down aircraft in flight, it was revealed last night.
The anti-aircraft laser shot down four unmanned drones at a US Navy test range off the coast of California.
Mounted on a warship, the space age weapon was fired over two miles to hit one drone travelling above the Pacific Ocean at more than 300mph.
The invisible beam can only be seen when it strikes its target.
The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force -- [White House]
President Obama signed an Executive Order establishing a National Policy for the Stewardship of the Ocean, Coasts, and Great Lakes on July 19, 2010. That Executive Order adopts the Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force and directs Federal agencies to take the
appropriate steps to implement them.
Meet the National Ocean Council -- [White House Blog]
Find out who represents your new National Ocean Council.
In Midst of Gulf Disaster, New National Ocean Policy Gives Hope for Our Seas -- [Huffington Post - Sigourney Weaver Academy Award nominated actress]
I have always loved the oceans. My father was a Navy man and one requirement he had for us growing up was that we had to live near a body of saltwater. I was raised listening to foghorns by night and being chased by horseshoe crabs by day.
...This is the most significant action any U.S. President in history has ever taken for our seas. It will help make our oceans stronger and healthier, and help them fight off the myriad of threats they face today. It will help clean up the pollution that contaminates our beachwater, protect endangered species, keep the seafood we love on our plates, and make the oceans more resilient to the impacts of climate change.
Kagan and the Military: What Really Happened -- [WSJ - Pete Hegseth]
Her intellectually dishonest opposition to our armed forces during a time of war shows bad judgment. She doesn't belong on the Supreme Court.
Hegseth on Kagan -- [This Ain't Hell]
Out buddy, Pete Hegseth, the executive director of Vets For Freedom, takes on Elena Kagan, the Supreme Court nominee, in the pages of the Wall Street Journal this morning on her contention that she's friendly towards the military
American Civil War: It Begins at Bull Run -- [about.com / Military History]
July 21, 1861 - Union forces are beaten at the First Battle of Bull Run. Under pressure to defeat Confederate forces, Brig. Gen. Irvin McDowell advanced into Virginia in July 1861. Encountering Confederate troops under Brig. Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard behind Bull Run, he attempted a sweeping march around the enemy's left flank. This largely succeeded on July 21 and Union forces achieved early success before pausing their advance. This allowed Beauregard to rush recently arrived reinforcements, under Brig. Gen. Joseph Johnston, to the scene. As the battle progressed, the Confederates gained the upper hand and ultimately routed McDowell's army sending it reeling back towards Washington.
(Need more? Dawn Patrols Archives are here.)
Posted 8:35 AM |
Permalink |
Comments (0) |
I waded into the comments section at the NYT in hope that some of the readers saw how incredibly crass Obama's photo op of this. If he had visited quietly without cameras, I'd have been very impressed. But the photos... I am literally ill with the thought of the Commander in Chief using a dead soldier as a PR photo op.
I perused the first page of comments and most people thought it was "fantastic" and "showed more empathy than the Bush-Cheney administration ever did." They called him a hero and a man of great integrity for doing this.
I want to cry.
So if he goes to pay his repsects, he's just looking for a photo-op.
Or if he doesn't go pay his respects, he's dishonoring their service.
Without the photos, there IS no respect. Without the photos there's nothing to care about, and no coverage of the soldier's return home. If he visits "quietly," so what? Nobody cares, and nobody remembers.
By showing up, Obama guarantees press coverage and reminds all the head-in-the-sand lazy, fatbody Americans that there's actually two wars going on.
So yeah, it's a photo op. It did its job, and it got people's attention.
I don't care about whether people see it as "empathy" or "integrity" or any nonsense like that. They rationalize their way if they want. It's not about Obama, or any politican.
He could have gone any time he wanted since the day he was sworn in. instead, he picks now? What is different between then and now? ANSWER: Then, he was still playing gung-ho about Afghan being 'the real battle.'
Now? Not so much, so get the press gaggle in tow and put on a show.
I'm (grudgingly) willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt and believe that he would've "gone to Dover" anyway. But it's hard for me to read this - "Bush spent time with grieving military families but never went to Dover" - from the Guardian and not infer that the Guardian was taking a slap at Bush... when the salient fact is that Bush was unstintingly attentive to military families and chose not to turn their private tragedies into circuses, however inadvertently. (Being a President tends to gain you an entourage, however little you may want one.)
I would've liked Obama's choice better if he had, say, "gone to Dover" but had assiduously avoided the cameras. However, since he's never assiduously avoided the cameras, I recognize my sentiment as bootless...
NS Webster, I couldn't disagree with you more. If there had simply been a press release from the WH detailing his visit, and no cameras on him, it would have meant just as much to his supporters and would not have offended families of service members like myself. It is telling that only one family agreed to allow cameras when usually more than half do so. The families saw this for what it was, and you are naive to not realize that.
I'm sorry, but in context of the hits he's getting for dithering/waffling about strategy while Americans are dying for lack of backup, it can be nothing but a photo op to his own personal benefit. Just read the comments at the NYT and you'll see it played exactly as intended: "Oh, look at his compassion, I can see why he's taking so long to decide! Oh, this is so special, see how much he cares? Oh, oh, oh, he's such a leader!"
Meanwhile the physical embodiment of a family's love, and now-dashed hope and dreams, touches back down in the country for which he gave his life. I guarantee you, 99.9% of the people commenting there know not a thing about that man, nor will they ever think of him again. If the point was to drive home the "reality of war," it failed miserably.
"The images and the sentiment of the president's five-hour trip to Delaware were intended by the White House to convey to the nation that Mr. Obama was not making his Afghanistan decision lightly or in haste."
I'm not seeing anything about honor, empathy, or integrity in that quote.
Actually, I haven't been in the least offended that he hasn't "paid his respects" at Dover before. That is a deeply personal and intimate thing, and something that it never occurred to me Bush or any other president should attend. The ceremony associated with it, being carried by bothers in arms, etc.... He may be the Commander in Chief, but on occasions like this he is an outsider. And as president, his visit could never be anything other than a photo op unless he did it privately.
As Commander-in-Chief he is NOT an outsider and obviously took great care to make sure he did what he did correctly. He rendered a very good salute, he stayed in step and formation, and by being prepared he did his best to honor their service. I respect him for doing so.
Right on, Sarge! It was DESIGNED to make HIM LOOK GOOD, not to make people aware that there's a war on.
As a commander in chief, he's a disgrace. Lead from the front, not from the funeral. Get off the golf course and go to A-stan. You want the ground truth? Get your Brooks Brothers butt over to where the men are fighting and dying.
It bugs the crap out of me that he got a photo op out of this... but I am glad to see that he's finally paying respects to those who have given all for our country. He could have done this a long time ago, but waited until we had a terrible day, with 14 dead, to do so. The fact that only one of the 14 families gave photo consent says a lot to me about the remaining 13.
Bush met with MANY families of the fallen- and wounded- during his two terms, but he never made a big deal about it. I respect the hell out of that decision. Those who know... know. And those who do not make silly comments like "he showed more empathy than the Bush-Cheney administration ever did."
I cannot fault him for showing up or spending time with the families. Press coverage of the event was not planned by Obama- it was granted by one of the families. I will, however, tear him to shreds if he falters and becomes too weak-kneed to issue the orders to get the job done in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Of course he got a photo op out of it. Do you honestly believe the most media-savvy president ever would have done it if no families had agreed?
Without the photos, there IS no respect. Without the photos there's nothing to care about, and no coverage of the soldier's return home. If he visits "quietly," so what? Nobody cares, and nobody remembers.
Mr Webster, This is what it is, using our fallen as a prop for a photo-op.
The only respect he needs to earn is from the families of the fallen and they don't need a camera because they're right there. Trust me, they care and they remember.
This press coverage is not getting the attention of the "head-in-the-sand lazy, fatbody Americans" they're at the mall and don't care.
This is ALL about Obama.
How does this make him look good? It's not exactly a feel-good image.
All the hippies who were demanding Bush go to funerals would have said the exact same thing if he had ever actually gone to one - that it's a cynical photo-op, blah blah blah.
Believe me, I have no respect for the people who are saying this somehow proves Obama's "integrity" - it has nothing to do with Obama, and they're just using him to make themselves feel better about their faux patriotism. It's not his moment - he's sharing someone elses, the returning soldiers. It's not like he was a campaign speech there. He showed up, saluted the soldiers, and left. He's the President, and he gets to do that.
As for the quote: "The images and the sentiment of the president's five-hour trip to Delaware were intended by the White House to convey to the nation that Mr. Obama was not making his Afghanistan decision lightly or in haste."
Who said that? It's not a quoted remark, it's a news reporter's analysis. And I don't even know what it means, anyway. What's one got to do with the other?
"How does this make him look good? It's not exactly a feel-good image."
I think it was a bad idea from the get-go, but in the minds of many it does make him look good - so what I think doesn't matter.
And unless he pulls out of Afghanistan he'll have plenty more chances to look good for them in the years to come. The question in my mind is how long does he think they'll continue praise his caring nature? And what will he do when they stop?
What can I tell you? If it's "ALL about Obama," then it was "ALL about Bush."
It's just two sides of the same coin, and it's always cynical and it's always bitter. It's sad, is what it is.
What can I tell you? If it's "ALL about Obama," then it was "ALL about Bush."
But Bush didn't position himself behind caskets for photo ops! Nor did he invite press cameras into his meetings with families of the wounded and fallen!
He should have! A picture of his meeting with Cindy Sheehan would have gone a long way to dispel her claims that he refused to meet with her.
No one believes that, everyone knows that he met with her, she has even admitted it.
For my part, I always thought the decision to let families choose whether or not they wanted photos was the best one the DoD could have made.
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the blog post From the Front: 10/29/2009 News and Personal dispatches from the front and the home front.
As I said when I opposed repealing the ban on photographing the coffins: If it takes a photo of a flag-draped coffin to "honor" the dead, then honoring the dead is not their intention." How effective to the political statement the WH was making would this have been if "A small contingent of... [WH advisors] accompanied Mr. Obama to Dover, where he arrived at 12:34 a.m. aboard Marine One. He returned to the South Lawn of the White House at 4:45 a.m." after paying his respects to the war dead would have been buried on page 10??
As I also said then, "Is there a political or monetary profit to be made [from lifting the ban]? Yes, I see." I still see.
"But Bush didn't position himself behind caskets for photo ops! Nor did he invite press cameras into his meetings with families of the wounded and fallen!"
If that's how you see it, that's fine, because I think any CinC needs to sometimes stand in front of the caskets of the men he sent to battle...so we just agree to disagree...I personally believe Bush owed it to the soldiers - as their commander - to show up when some, not all, returned home at Dover. BUT, I'm not at all upset or irate that Bush didn't, and I don't see political calculation in that decision. He made a choice that he felt was appropirate with the situation. I have an opinion, but I'm sitting on my couch. Bush had to make a real world choice, same as Obama.
And of course the hippies used it against him - "oh Bush is disrespecting the dead, oh why can't he go to a funeral, oh it's so terrible!" Which is absurd.
So there's really no difference between that, and to seeing cynical intentions when Obama actually shows up. Switch the words around and it's basically the same partisan argument.
You see it that Bush should have stayed in the background, despite that left-wing criticism. No problem. As long as you're consistent that Clinton, Nixon, Johnson, Reagan should also have never appeared at these return ceremonies, I have no problem with your point of view critiquing Obama. I know that Reagan was there when the Marines came back from Beirut, and I think he should have been. So, we simply disagree philosophically and we're obviously never going to come to the same position.
To me, it's not a political issue. It is ANY CinC's choice of how to honor the dead, and I'll take their intentions at face value. People want to call me naive? Whatever. There's a million other things to be cynical about.
Considering the timing, its hard not to be cynical and see a political motive in Obama's visit to Dover. Charges of dithering on making a decision about Afghanistan, while getting in 22 rounds of golf in 9 months have been making the guy look pretty bad. It has also been coming out that Bush gave up the game when the shooting started, as he did not want a family to see photos of him on the course on the day that they received news of their loved one's death. It appears to me that considering the timing, and how unusual this type of gesture is from Obama, the visit was pure damage control.
If it wasn't political then we wouldn't have known it happened.
" As long as you're consistent that Clinton, Nixon, Johnson, Reagan should also have never appeared at these return ceremonies, I have no problem with your point of view critiquing Obama."
Look out, it's someone with some intellectual integrity. Quick, everyone find a reason not to acknowledge this.
I bet that'll go down as well as me pointing out that if the idea is that bodies of fallen soldiers shouldn't be used for partisan political point scoring, you'd have made a far more compelling case if you'd disabled the comment function.
I'm sorry but I have a hard time seeing any non-veteran like Obama rendering a salute. Bush served, Obama didn't and that tells me all I need to know about the latter.
Well on Imus this morning it was all-
"That creep Bush never did anything like this"...
Well duh!
The ban was just lifted six months ago and but since President Bush didn't telegraph meeting with the families all over the world-it never happened. That's not just how The I-Man thinks that's about how everyone thinks.
If the press never told them it happened-it didn't happen. That's the danger of a bias or lazy press.
On the same show, Thomas Freidman was presented as a big "expert" on Afghanistan-because he "visited" three times.
He according to Friedman has thought seriously and long about Afghanistan and because he studied the Middle East during college he was able to draw certain conclusions and wrote a piece for the paper.
Ghee how many military people did Friedman consult?
Friedman talked to Obama for five hours over golf. How much time has McChrystal had with Obama?
But, even on he FOX Business Channel-during the Imus show-
Friedman is the expert.
Friedman,is the go to guy because-he's dedicated three visits to the area-of perhaps a couple of days a piece.
Never mind the military who have done three tours...
Beside the point that most of Friedman's nouvelle observations where based on parallels to old nation state conflicts and not the new parameters of terrorism.
The arrogance of the media in full bloom-and the Presidency that loves them.
FbL
"Do you honestly believe the most media-savvy president ever would have done it if no families had agreed?"
I think that question was answered way back when Obama took his triumphal campaign march through Europe, where he actually cancelled his visit to Landstuhl, when he discovered he couldn't drag a photographer along. He decided to pass the time in his hotel gym instead.
Let's do the math in Obama Time-
McChrystal-
15 minutes on the tarmac in Copenhagen.
Friedman the Arrogant Poseur five hours.
It's the Maholo/hollow Presidency.
I despise Obama, but this is a shitty report - let the man be President for God's sake. He is honouring dead American soldiers. He isn't campaigning, for once. This kind of reportage should be left to the lefties - you should be ashamed of yourself.
I do not appreciate the President's actions. Can, or should, he be there every time a fallen member is brought home? Why does any one service member or group "deserve" his personal attention and honor more than another?
President Bush's decision to not attend ceremonies at Dover or funerals was because due to the requirements of the office he could not guarantee he could show the same respect to all fallen members. What he could, and did, guarantee, though, was to make time in his schedule to personally meet the NOK for any who desired.
He also managed to meet with his commanders in the theater a bit more frequently than every seventy days.
The great lie in the media's coverage is the explicit implication that Bush avoided dealing with the war dead. In fact he was a regular visitor to families all across the nation after the bodies had been returned. See this from 2003 in the LA Times
http://articles.latimes.com/2003/nov/25/nation/na-bush25
Here is the truth
"White House officials say Bush eschews public memorials in favor of private meetings with families, which he feels show more respect for their grief.
"The president believes that this is an appropriate way to meet with them, to meet privately with them, to express his appreciation both as commander in chief and on behalf of the American people for all that these families have sacrificed," White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said on the way to Ft. Carson."
How about this story from 2005
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2005/08/15/bush-meets-with.php
Here is the truth
"Privately, Bush has met with about 900 family members of some 270 soldiers killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. The conversations are closed to the press, and Bush does not like to talk about what goes on in these grieving sessions, though there have been hints."
I'm pleased President Obama went to Dover to pay his respects, but given how little he's done so far, the media hosanna's are disgraceful when measured against President Bush's behavior.
I know when I first heard it this morning all the BREATHLESS reporting about the "surprise" visit I thought I was going to hear he was in Afghanistan but NO he crawled out in the dead of night to witness his failure to ACT in person!
This jerk BEAT up on President Bush every single day and made the war in Iraq DRAG because of politics here but this is the "good" war and the one he was going to win but he is too lily livered to WIN IT!
Obama's having the time of his worthless life; junkets, AF-1, golf, date nights, WH parties - and 'best' of all, dismantling the very foundation of this once-great country.
And why the Scots-Irish of the DoD sit by like catatonic zombies while Obama campaigns on the graves of our fallen soldiers, that's the mystery, and the insult.
"As long as you're consistent that Clinton, Nixon, Johnson, Reagan should also have never appeared at these return ceremonies"
I won't criticize a President for going to a return ceremony, nor for not going. Turning them into photo ops is another matter, and any President (of either party) can legitimately be subject to criticism for doing so. The photo op makes it about them, and not about the fallen servicemember(s).
I recognize that this is a generality, and that there can be exceptions... for example, attending a return ceremony on Memorial Day could be a legitimate and powerful message.
In my opinion, of course.
This bastard has as little use for the military as Clinton did. He used this dead serviceman as a prop to try and convince the gullible that he actually cares about the military who sacrifice so much for the nation. Sorry, this man's not buying it. I know too much about this liar.
I'll ask the same question I've seen asked lots of other places: If Obama truly hated the country and wanted to destroy it totally, WHAT WOULD HE HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY TO THIS POINT?
My answer: nothing. Thanks 52%.
What I noticed is that his Marine guards have taught him how to render a proper salute. Notice the contrast between his hand salute and the Navy/Army/Air Force dude next to him.
Semper fi!
My understanding is the original plan was for the president to raise the fallen there on the ramp, but Republicans opposed the measure.
US Troops and American allies,
prepare to be abandoned
The strategy he devised in March is a failure. His dithering caused this, then he has the gall to salute the death he caused, for a photo op. Sickening.
We shouldn't be surprised though. He did say in his book, he Would Stand Muslim when the political winds shifted. I would say they have shifted.
I made the error in looking at what the Obama fan club was saying about this stunt - it was appalling. You'd think he turned water into wine. Yet, not one word about the troops, the DEA agents or the families. Their insults against Pres. Bush did outweigh their congratulations to Obama though. It was like a sporting event. I have been annoyed all day.
Of course it was a political gesture; the President is a politician. But it was also the right thing to do. Whatever hay Obama hopes to make from the photo-op, at least he got this right: showing respect to a fellow American who sacrificed a whole lot more than he ever has for the country. By no means am I a fan of the current commander-in-chief, but we ought to give him credit where it's due.
I was appalled by the photo op of a man saluting who not only did not serve (some presidents didn't) but who I think we can all agree would never have served and would have escaped to Canada had the Draft ensnared him. He hates this country and he loathes our military. I am in a large group of friends on FB (many of whom are retired military, as is my husband) and the opinion is uniformly negative on this photo op. The most common complaint was the picture makes them want to puke!
One can argue it was the right thing to do, it's about the fallen and their service, not Obama, yada yada yada. A huge swathe of the country ain't buyin' it and are outraged. And that's the truth.
I couldn't disagree more.
I am former military and married to a retiree, and we both found the President's honoring the service of the military members he commands comforting and well executed. He is not required to salute if he has not had former military experience, but as Commander-in-Chief he has the option to do so and he obviously took the time to learn to do it right and not render a sloppy salute or awkward steps. I respect him for trying, and just plain being there.
Many commenters here find Obama's appearance at Dover offensive based on their impression it was just a photo op. Others suggest such a presidential visit was long over due.
Bush 43 made a practice of meeting privately with family. We know what he did and his stated reason for doing so. If Obama now makes a practice of being present to witness the return of our fallen we will know this is the observance he has chosen to make. If we never see or read of him being in attendance in Dover again we will know this was just a crass attempt to burnish his image with the public.
Only time will demonstrate the truth behind this visit.
The 'never served' crowd here seems very unmilitary to me. Very uniformed. Must be a bunch of commenters who don't understand the U.S. military, or have zero experience with it.
Every American President serves.
Reagan went to Dover. Clinton went to Dover. Bush's dad went to Dover. Obama went to Dover. It's all about the chain of command and respect for those who serve under you.
Obama is not fit the shine the shoes of the newest military recruit.
In mind mind, meeting the return of American service members who have died in a terrorist attack (as Reagan did) at a time when we are not at war is a very different context than Obama's visit amid a politically-charged America and debate about the war and questions about his leadership of it. I would've been appalled if Bush had done it, too. Actually, I'd have been shocked, as that was not Bush's style (as has been pointed out above).
@Ed Garland - your comment is offensive to the entire military community.
The President is fit to shine a recruit's shoes, to give him his orders for battle, and to mourn his passing.
As was the President before him, and the one before him.
It's called the American form of government, our way of life, embodied in the flag those men died for.
I wonder if the families were inconvenienced by all the extra security that goes into a Presidential visit. It had to have added to their stress at least, one more thing to deal with. I understand Obama met with the families, including the ones who didn't authorize media coverage. Did they have a choice? Did they feel pressured in any way to spend time with him? (Bush only met with families who wanted to meet with him.) Maybe the families were happy having Obama there, I don't know. Who can know? It's not enough to refuse media coverage if the President and his entourage decide they want to show up anyway and share in the moment.
The NYTs must have received a friendly phone call from someone at the WH.
They changed this quote:
The images and the sentiment of the president's five-hour trip to Delaware were intended by the White House to convey to the nation that Mr. Obama was not making his Afghanistan decision lightly or in haste.
to this:
The image of the commander in chief standing on a darkened tarmac, offering a salute to one of the soldiers, highlighted the poignancy of a decision he is facing.
I read an earlier NYT article that said Obama had saluted one of those soldiers. Later in the article it was noted that only one family approved the photo op. I wonder if it's coincidence that he saluted just one soldier and it was the soldier whose family approved the photo op.
"Turning them into photo ops is another matter, and any President (of either party) can legitimately be subject to criticism for doing so. The photo op makes it about them, and not about the fallen servicemember(s)."
"Can" is a useful word, isn't it.
I recall seeing Bush standing on the rubble of the WTCs talking into a bullhorn and not once wondering how fortunate it was that the cameramen got a good footing just in time to catch that speech, for obvious reasons.
Now I won't criticize him for doing that, because that was the whole point of him being there, to be seen doing that. But I sure as shit know you never did then or since pal.
This being the pitfall of the after-the-fact invented principle to be applied to the team you don't like. It only works if your team didn't play the last game and won't play the next.
John | October 30, 2009 2:06 AM | Reply
"I read an earlier NYT article ... I wonder if it's coincidence that he saluted just one soldier and it was the soldier whose family approved the photo op."
Why would YOU wonder about this if you're the only source of this ridiculous lie ?
Just say he pissed on the coffins as they rolled off and get it over with you pissweak little coward.
The president was there for every soldier. He saluted each. The media was only authorized to cover one. Media coverage is at the discretion of the family of the soldier.
The rightness or wrongness of the story is up for discussion, reasonable folks can disagree (some without Party politics involved) but facts are facts.
Taking the cameras along ruined the whole thing as true gesture of respect for the fallen, as far as I am concerned.
We'll see if this was a one time thing - or perhaps he will meet with familes, ala the last POTUS.
I guess the real question is: would he have gone or has he already gone there without permission for a photo op?
I don't know what was in Obama's mind when he started this trip. No one but him knows for sure. The best I can hope for is that the whole episode becomes a learning experience for him. He needs to know that as President his words and actions have serious, profound consequences. At times he seems to forget what office he holds. It's past time he stops playing at President and starts being a real leader. He can't vote present for the next three years and he needs to learn that asap. A flag draped coffin is a stark reminder.
Fucking GHOUL!!!!
When you think that he can't sink any lower....