The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
Follow this link and you'll find an awe-inspiring post from Blackfive. It reveals the raw courage and commitment of one of our troops, recovering from combat wounds at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. It's likely you've already seen it - several high traffic blogs have linked it this weekend. It's a sensation. It's that good - it's worthy of all the attention it gets.
And it's over a year old. Which is about par for the course on Iraq news in certain blogs these days. (Did you know Victory in Iraq Day was November 22 of this year?) Based on that one-year-behind timetable, in about six months or so they're going to discover this story:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – A few days after the New York Times published a story detailing network reporters’ concerns about war coverage, three soldiers wounded in Iraq expressed a dim view of how they see the war depicted on television.
"You always hear about the explosions or people being killed, but you never really hear about how the people are being helped, or how much they appreciate it," Spc. Hein Tran, 28, of Milpitas, Calif., said after receiving a Purple Heart today at Walter Reed Army Medical Center for wounds suffered May 10 in an explosion northeast of Baghdad.
Pfc. Alex Knapp, 22, of Shelby Township, Mich., who lost both legs in a roadside bombing on March 14, agreed with Tran.
"It's a little on the negative side because all we really hear about are deaths and injuries," Knapp said.
That's from June, 2008. Those folks who aren't overly excited from reading that part will keep reading and eventually discover this:
"It is time for us to come home, and I truly believe that," Tran said. "I think Iraq can hold its own right now if we were to leave."
Follow this link, and not only will you get to read the thoughts of Victor Davis Hanson, you'll discover a VALOUR-IT ad, space for which was generously donated by the good folks at NRO.
Oh, and the ad itself was created by the rather tireless Mrs G.
It's official: Barack Obama's "16 month" withdrawal from Iraq must begin no later than September, 2010. Unless conditions change, then it might be sooner or later.
*****
Thanksgiving in America, and in Iraq the Parliament approved the Status of Forces Agreement. The news was scarcely noted on our shores as coverage of our national day of plenty gave way to that of the busiest shopping day of the year even as both vied with reports of terror in faraway places for the attention of those not otherwise engaged.
And the English language version of the document was finally released, clarifying some of the issues raised by the previously available translations of the Arabic version. Those questions were noted here, but most are resolved in the now released official English version.
The withdrawal from cities and towns (Article 24):
All United States combat Forces shall withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages, and localities no later than the time at which Iraqi Security Forces assume full responsibility for security in an Iraqi province, provided that such withdrawal is completed no later than June 30, 2009.
And the total withdrawal (also Article 24) must indeed be accomplished "no later than December 31, 2011" - meaning President-elect Obama's "16 months" must begin no later than a year from next September. (The withdrawal of combat Brigades, however, began months ago and is ongoing.)
Unless both Parties agree that conditions have changed (Article 27):
In the event of any external or internal threat or aggression against Iraq that would violate its sovereignty, political independence, or territorial integrity, waters, airspace, its democratic system or its elected institutions, and upon request by the Government of Iraq, the Parties shall immediately initiate strategic deliberations and, as may be mutually agreed, the United Sates shall take appropriate measures, including diplomatic, economic, or military measures, or any other measure, to deter such a threat.
Meanwhile, as "combat forces" withdraw, training and support forces remain (Article 27):
The Parties agree to continue close cooperation in strengthening and maintaining military and security institutions and democratic political institutions in Iraq, including, as may be mutually agreed, cooperation in training, equipping, and arming the Iraqi Security Forces, in order to combat domestic and international terrorism and outlaw groups, upon request by the government of Iraq.
But (Article 24),
The United States recognizes the sovereign right of the Government of Iraq to request the departure of the United States Forces from Iraq at any time. The Government of Iraq recognizes the sovereign right of the United States to withdraw the United States Forces from Iraq at any time.
But at least the agreement is final, right? Well, maybe not:
The vote in favor of the pact was backed by the ruling coalition's Shiite and Kurdish blocs as well as the largest Sunni Arab bloc, which had demanded concessions for supporting the deal. The Shiite bloc agreed to a Sunni demand that the pact be put to a referendum by July 30, meaning the deal must undergo an additional hurdle next year.
And will provincial governments (after the provincial elections scheduled for January) also have input on these issues? One might expect they certainly would.
One final note (for now).You'll likely hear some chatter regarding "controls on private security contractors" established by this document. Much of this chatter will be misguided and uninformed. The SOFA only applies to military forces in Iraq - meaning the DoD. (See the definitions in Article 3. For example, "Member of the civilian component" in this agreement is defined as "a civilian employed by the United States Department of Defense". "Contractors" are defined as those in Iraq under contract with U.S. Forces, and U.S. Forces members are defined as members of the Army, Navy, etc.) This agreement has nothing whatsoever to do with the State Department.
Why does that matter? For the most part it's State, not Defense*, that employs the much (and usually wrongly) maligned "private security contractors" of the Blackwater variety. "Security contractors" employed by DoD are used to check I.D. at the DFAC. The SOFA defines who might have legal jurisdiction over one if they were to sneak off base and steal a brass lamp from a shop. It does not address the hypothetical fate of one of the members of State's (soon to be Hillary Clinton's) private Army if they were accused of shooting up a town square in response to a perceived threat.
Footnotes:
*There are (non-security) contractors for Defense that might hire (sub contract) private security; they may be covered under this agreement.
And if you think President-elect Obama opposes the SOFA, thinkagain.
Amazingly: one of those items has no bids on it at the time of this post. Someone's going to get a steal...
If none of those suit your fancy, there are still open auctions on autographed works by noted military science fiction authors David Weber and David Williams. These auctions will end Saturday 29 November - don't wait, this is your last chance to score one for VALOUR-IT.
All right, this ends our pre-movie public service announcement - on with the show:
at Amazon. Click through here, avoid the traffic, and they'll drop a few pennies in the Mudville coffer, too.
If you'd prefer a one-of-kind item for the second amendment enthusiast on your Christmas list, here's an author-autographed copy of American Rifle - a Biography, a Valour-IT auction ending today.
And it's not autographed, but if you've been delaying buying your copy of The War Within (one of Greyhawk's must reads on Iraq this year) here's a chance to add it to your library and support Soldiers' Angels in one swell foop. (Delay no more, this auction also ends today.)
Next up on the auction block, two thrillers that should appeal to Team USAF fans. Author Dean Ing has donated two (out of print) autographed hardcover techno-thriller classics for Valour-IT.
Dean Ing (born 1931) is an American author, who usually writes in the science fiction and techno-thriller genres.
Dean Charles Ing was formerly a member of the United States Air Force, an aerospace engineer, and a university professor who holds a doctorate in communications theory. He has been a professional writer since 1977.
Ing constructs this techno-thriller around a low-performance aircraft built from materials giving almost no radar signature. Light and highly maneuverable. Made of filament and ceramic, invisible to radar. Able to change color to mimic the background against which it flies. The most advanced, stealthiest bird in the world. "Black Stealth One" is an ideal intelligence-gathering aircraft, and is equally desirable to the U.S.S.R. American intelligence proposes to guard the secret of Black Stealth's true value by letting the Soviets buy the plane from a defector, in reality palming off an earlier, inferior version. The plan goes awry when the real Black Stealth is stolen by a rogue U.S. agent with a grudge. Ing's thriller is a heady mixture of spy story and romance. Petra, the young and beautiful engineer held hostage by Black Stealth One's captor, uses her wits as well as her charm to survive and attempt to escape. Both American spy-masters and their Soviet counterparts attempt to locate, then to snare this amazing trophy.
Drug lords forced out of Colombia and Shining Path guerrillas driven from Peru cooperate to establish a base in Mexico in this exciting techno-thriller. Key to the plan is a million dollars in drug money, to be flown out of Las Vegas with a planeload of hostages. But drug kingpin Simon Torres, in charge of the shipment, has a double-cross agenda. And the U.S. government has formed Task Force Enable to prevent the hostage-taking, recover the money and destroy the base. The clandestine operation depends on Nemesis, a new surveillance aircraft made by Aerosystems Unlimited, owned by Ben Ulmer, designer of Black Stealth One. This solar-powered light aircraft is able to land and take off almost anywhere, and to stay aloft for weeks collecting intelligence. When a Nemesis plane crashes in the Mexican jungle, the pilots, Wes Hardin and Colleen Morrison, are caught in the race between a CIA rescue team and revenge-bent guerrillas.
Get 'em quick - these auctions end Friday (28 Nov) morning.
All done!
Our mission has come to an end and we’ve passed the torch to our replacements. The vast majority of my unit has arrived home safely but a handful of us remain here waiting for a flight home and as much as I was hoping to report we’d spend Thanksgiving home with our loved ones, I cannot.
Meanwhile, over at Castle Argghhh, Bill (who's currently in Iraq "teaching Iraqi kaydets how to stay alive after slipping the surly bonds of earth") says "Every Iraqi soldier I saw this morning wished me a Happy Thanksgiving."
And you can, too! Over in the Dawn Patrol (in the right column if you're on the front page) the Mrs has compiled a list of milbloggers deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan this Thanksgiving. If you have a few minutes to spare this busy day, visit a couple and leave 'em a 'thank you' in their comments section.
All right - the auction for John Ringo's Last Centurion is over, and you didn't win. Here's an intro to one of the authors in the next batch of books (two of which he co-authored with Ringo).
If you're not a big military science fiction fan (or don't know one who would appreciate one of these as a Christmas Gift) you can donate to VALOUR-IT here:
And if you aren't familiar with Valour-IT, start here.
We have two days left in our fundraising drive, and although donations are trickling in, more is needed and it really doesn't take much to get us to where we need to be. We have given approximately 2700 voice-activated laptops in the past, and the need is still very high. Just a few bucks you would normallly have spent on lunch will help, hows about brown baggin it for a day and puttin in $5.00.
As a reminder to those that may not realize the significance Valour- IT plays in the day-to-day healing process of our wounded troops let me refer you to Chuck Z's "Something For You To Try" post (the first injured troop to benefit from Valour-IT) .
And as John of Argghhh!!! reminds us, although many of us may remember the days of pen and paper, our troops today are of the Internet Generation, with email, MySpace, Facebook, etc... The use of computers keep them connected to family and friends, while they are in far off lands. They also use the internet to take care of their personal business, say banking, insurance, legal or something as trivial as Christmas shopping for their families.
Now as Chuck and and John poignantly point out, we take to using the computer for granted AND the pen and paper, but take away the use of your hands and eyes, and you can see how our injured can get disconnected from the outside world and this can be devastating in their healing process.
Valour-IT is not all about Voice-activated laptops, the program has expanded. In the years since its founding in 2005, the project has acted to meet emerging needs and its mission of supporting the severely wounded. In addition to voice-controlled laptops, Valour-IT now helps provide active and whole-body video games such as Wii Sports, which is used to great effect in physical therapy, and personal GPS systems that help compensate for short-term memory loss and organizational/special challenges common in those with brain injuries.
Note: Originally Valour-IT provided the voice-controlled software that accompanies the laptops, but now works closely with the Department of Defense Computer/electronic Accommodations Program (CAP): CAP supplies the adaptive software and Valour-IT provides the laptop. In addition, DoD caseworkers serve as Valour-IT’s “eyes and ears” at several medical centers, identifying patients in need of laptops and other technological support for their recovery. Wounded military personnel can also directly request a laptop through the sign-up form or through the Valour-IT/Soldiers' Angels representatives at the following medical centers:
* Balboa Naval Hospital
* Brooke Army Medical Center
* Madigan Regional Medical Center
* National Naval Medical Center (Bethesda Naval Hospital)
* Naval Hospital, Camp Pendleton
* Robert E. Bush Naval Hospital (29 Palms)
* Walter Reed Army Medical Center
Thanks to the efforts of the Military Order of the Purple Heart, Valour-IT is also able to reach patients in VA hospitals who would benefit from a Valour-IT laptop or other technology to support their recovery and independence.
To donate to other teams, click here, but want to know why to donate to the Air Force team?
In the second decade of the twenty-first century the world is struck by two catastrophes, a new mini-ice age and, nearly simultaneously, a plague to dwarf all previous experiences. Rising out of the disaster is the character known to history as “Bandit Six” an American Army officer caught up in the struggle to rebuild the world and prevent the fall of his homeland—despite the best efforts of politicians both elected and military. The Last Centurion is a memoir of one possible future, a world that is a darkling mirror of our own. Written “blog-style,” it pulls no punches in its descriptions of junk science, bad strategy and organic farming not to mention all three at once
First, your U.S. history trivia for the day: Henry Lewis Stimson, Secretary of War throughout World War Two under Democrat Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, was a Republican.
*****
And now back to the news. If the rumors are true, then Politico gets the headline right: Gates agrees to stay on under Obama. That's not the same as saying "Obama to keep Gates on at SecDef". Both might be true, but there was no "b" without "a", and as a certain local blogger opined shortly after a recent election:
SecDef? Current odds-on: Robert Gates.
I suspect he'll get to offer a private yea or nay to that question before anything more is heard.
Because if you're willing to be Secretary of Defense in the midst of war and a financial crisis, you aren't in it for the money and fame. And the same reasons that make Gates a great choice to keep at the Pentagon make him highly desirable in the private sector, too.
Don’t forget that Gates has a “vote” on this issue, too. More than anything else, the man deserves credit for staying on in what’s certainly an underpaid job with no safety net. If all goes well, good on Obama. If not, Gates screwed up - and BOTH are well aware of this. I’m not knocking Obama here (I agree that he made a great choice, assuming the choice has been made), I’m crediting Gates, whose motives might be described by that oft-ridiculed term “patriotism”.
Or perhaps simply "duty".
*****
We're about to take a look at some blog reactions to Gates as Obama's SecDef. Before proceeding, a quick look back at a story from early in the Primary campaign season...
The senator shook a few print reporters' hands -– told a few bloggers he doesn’t read blogs –- and then headed to the back of the plane -– a part he dubbed "the fun part of the plane" -– where the photographers sit.
The most important appointment decision Obama will make during the transition, bar none, is who becomes, or remains, Secretary of Defense. As I have noted in the past, the Department of Defense oversees the expenditure of 52% of all discretionary spending, rendering it literally impossible for any other cabinet Secretary to oversee as much federal money. Further, keeping Gates on would only worsen Democratic image problems on national security, as he would be the second consecutive non-Democratic Secretary of Defense nominated by a Democratic President. The message would be clear: even Democrats agree that Democrats can't run the military.
Actually, if your first response to "defense" is "budget", then you shouldn't even bother to involve yourself in discussions of the military. (At least not the Executive branch aspect thereof - Congress determines that budget.)
Unlike a lot of folks, I respect Bush 41ers like Gates. My one problem with this is that it sends the message that Dems can't do Defense. I would prefer General Wes Clark at Defense, but Congress would have to do a fix for that to happen (as a retired military officer, Clark is ineligible for the Defense post for 10 years after retirement. He retired in 2000.) I have no obvious eligible candidates for the job.
Retired generals don't always make good civilian heads of the military. (If for no other reason in this case - which there are - the USAF, Navy and Marines might feel slighted.) Isn't there a Democrat anywhere that can think of a well qualified civilian Democrat to be Secretary of Defense? If not, that sort of validates those feelings of inadequacy in that Department.
Actually, I like Talk Left. Because you can find thoughtful comment threads there like this one:
There was bad blood between the left and Gates.
If I recall correctly, the left was pretty upset that Gates was going to be appointed. We had days and days of video of Ray McGovern getting kicked out of some conference as he protested.
So my question is: given how he is staying on, how much of that prior upset of ours was justified, how much of that was understandable mistake, and how much was manufactured nonsense that does us little good?
by jerry on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 06:22:08 PM EST
There was very, very good reason to be alarmed at Gates's appointment by Junior, but either his attitude has changed or he's been "misunderstood" or something (I have a vague recollection of reading he supported Reagan's mad idea to invade Nicaragua or something along those lines) because he's been very good as Sec Def and has gotten pretty convincing plaudits from Democrats who've dealt with him.
by gyrfalcon on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 07:43:08 PM EST
Speaking for me only I was not upset with Gates' appointment by Bush 43.
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 06:25:35 PM EST
I was upset, but why? Kool-aid?
I don't like finding out that I drank the kool-aid or that people I supposedly trusted/admired/looked to as a reliable source poured me a glass.
I'm not qualified to judge, but it seems as though Gates has done a reasonable job.
And so what (if anything) does that say about us?
by jerry on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 06:35:08 PM EST
I do not know what you mean by kool aid.
I certainly did not criticize anyone for opposing Gates. I just did not share their view.
Not sure what you are getting at.
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 06:41:44 PM EST
I'm not saying you were criticizing anyone, I'm wondering if "we" (blogosphere, liberals, ... were overly critical of Gates and if so, why.) So when Ray McGovern and some others criticized him, IIRC, all the blogosphere (and AirAmerica) jumped into the fray to try and shout him down. But why? Should we have known he would be "reasonable". Were we being loyal opposition, or were our efforts just being (disloyal) opposition of the sort we are expecting in a few weeks.
by jerry on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 06:52:46 PM EST
Good question ...and one we should ask ourselves more often in retrospect.
<...>
I think it makes great sense for Obama to keep Gates on right now.
I think BTD also makes a strong point about how this plays into the perception that Dems don't do military matters well. BTD is right; it does, and that's a shame. But I think challenging that perception has to take a back seat to trying to get it right in Iraq so that we can start safely drawing down just as soon as possible. Gates seems to be the best person for the job right now, and Obama seems to be all about that--much to my relief.
by kempis on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 07:22:10 PM EST
In roughly 10 days' time, the first of four 101st Airborne Division brigades will be completely redeployed from combat — about a month ahead of schedule.
About 550 soldiers with Fort Campbell's 3rd Brigade Combat Team returned from a 15-month deployment to Iraq on Friday, and in a few days the brigade will finish its redeployment.
<...>
The DoD has also announced that the 2nd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division, which had been based in northwest Baghdad, will return home six weeks early. The unit that was scheduled to replace them will deploy to Afghanistan instead.
"Planning for a withdrawal from Iraq" has been ongoing, of course - so it's too late for it "to begin as soon as possible". But that sort of phrasing might placate Obama voters who bought in to a pledge to "end the war."
..."Many Iraqi officials are now calling the status-of-forces accord, or SOFA, "the withdrawal agreement," possibly as a way of marketing it to a wary public." That's as good as any description - because "The accord, which calls for complete withdrawal of U.S. forces by the end of 2011, has been the subject of tense negotiations for the past seven months." Although throughout that period American media have worked very hard to keep Americans ignorant of the proceedings. But once president-elect Obama gives a green light to the effort, they can start calling it the withdrawal agreement too. (And that's why keeping Gates is critical. Switching managers at this point could delay implementation. Ooops - I mean delay "planning for a withdrawal from Iraq to begin as soon as possible".)
And Obama has already seen and approved (and now you can, too) the SOFA. At least, that's one explanation for a sudden but quiet switch last week from a campaign-era demand that the U.S. Congress "must approve" it to a simple acknowledgment that Congress "should review" the agreement.
That's his third major shift in Iraq policy, by the way. The first was 'clarifying' that "immediately begin withdrawal/16 months" bit last July, the second was quietly dropping the call to eliminate "security contractors" (probably in light of reality) - and I give him much credit for those choices, too.
Many question marks and assumptions remain concerning Gates (will he?) and the SOFA (will they?) and other issues (Provincial elections?). As those are answered, clarified or eliminated, we'll keep looking ahead to what's next for Iraq...
*****
Wait - a bonus history trivia bit: Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War during the Civil War under Republican President Lincoln, was a Democrat.
There are some bits that are more interesting than others ("Iraqi airspace control and monitoring will be transferred to the Iraqi authorities immediately as this agreement becomes valid") but two points that have gotten the most discussion (and generated the most speculation) among those not involved in the negotiations are troop withdrawal and legal jurisdiction for U.S. troops and civilians. More on that jurisdiction later. From a quick glance: troops off duty and (not or) off post will be subject to Iraqi legal jurisdiction - but troops are never both.
Admitting to the performance of Iraqi forces, their increased capabilities and assuming full responsibility for security and based upon the strong relationship between the two parties the two parties agreed to the following:
All U.S. forces are to withdraw from all Iraqi territory, water and airspace no later than the 31st of December of 2011.
All U.S. combat forces are to withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages, and towns not later than the date that Iraqi forces assume complete responsibility of security in any Iraqi province. The withdrawal of U.S. forces from the above-mentioned places is on a date no later than the 30 June 2009. The withdrawing U.S. forces mentioned in item (2) above are to gather in the installations and areas agreed upon that are located outside of cities, villages and towns that will be determined by the Joint Military Operation Coordinating Committee (JMOCC) before the date determined in item (2) above.
The United States admits to the sovereign right of the Iraqi government to demand the departure of the U.S. forces from Iraq at anytime. The Iraqi government admits to the sovereign right of the United States to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq at anytime.
The two parties agree to put a mechanism and preparations for reducing the number of U.S. forces during the appointed period. And they are to agree on the locations where the forces are to settle.
One might wonder why this "All U.S. combat forces are to withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages, and towns not later than the date that Iraqi forces assume complete responsibility of security in any Iraqi province." Is immediately followed by this: "The withdrawal of U.S. forces from the above-mentioned places is on a date no later than the 30 June 2009." If the second phrase is taken at face value, the first is practically moot.
We'll see soon enough, I'm sure. What's certain is that President Obama's "16 months" must begin no later than a year from next September. In the meantime, let's look at Article 27:
Article 27
Deterrence Security Dangers
In order to support the security and stability in Iraq and to contribute to establishing international peace and stability, both parties seek actively to strengthen the political and military abilities for the Republic of Iraq and to enable Iraq to deter the dangers that threaten its sovereignty and political independence, the unity of its land and its democratic federal constitutional system, they agreed upon the following:
When any external or internal danger emerges against Iraq or an aggression upon it violates its sovereignty, its political stability, the unity of its land, water, and airspace or threatens its democratic system or its elected establishments and according to the request of the Iraqi government, the two parties will immediately start strategic talks and according to what they will agree on between them the United States will undertakes the appropriate measures that include diplomatic, economic, military or any other measure required to deter this threat.
Both parties agree to continue their strong cooperation to strengthen and maintain the military, security and democratic political institutions in Iraq in accordance with what they agree upon, cooperation, supplying and arming the Iraqi Security Forces for the prevention of local and international terrorism and outlaw groups, upon the request of the Iraqi government.
Which (among other things) basically means that if the Iraqis ask and we agree, we can leave troops in (or move troops into) Iraq for purposes of training Iraqi forces, fighting terrorism and outlaw groups, or for (internal or external) threat deterrence - to include threats to political stability, Iraq's democratic federal constitutional system, elected establishment, etc. etc.
Assuming that McClatchy has provided an accurate translation (and honestly, the last paragraph quoted above makes no sense to me whatsoever) of the final version of the SOFA, and that it is approved by Iraq's parliament (perhaps today), then McClatchy's own analysis of the agreement is flawed:
President-elect Barack Obama's campaign plan to leave a residual force of some 30,000 American troops in Iraq would be impossible under the pact.
But kudos to them for acknowledging that often-"overlooked" minor detail of his plan.
And speaking of overlooked, don't overlook this: "The United States admits to the sovereign right of the Iraqi government to demand the departure of the U.S. forces from Iraq at anytime. The Iraqi government admits to the sovereign right of the United States to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq at anytime."
Our Air Force has now been heavily engaged in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq since Day One in both areas of operations. As I mentioned here, while we don’t see or hear much about our Air Force activity, there's a lot going on behind the scenes.
Airmen from all walks of life in the Explosive Ordnance Disposal community answered the call when the Army asked for help in the joint effort against IEDs, thus again ensuring Air Force boots were on the ground and in the fight.
"Our primary (tactical control) mission (with) the Army is to clear IEDs, whether it's roadside bombs on supply routes targeting Coalition Forces or in the city targeting civilians," said Senior Master Sgt. Al Schneider, 506th EOD flight superintendent. "We also do post-blast analysis, collect (evidence) and come up with ways to counter (insurgent tactics)."
AF Team Member Laurie has a great post highlighting Staff Sgt. Matt Slaydon, an EOD technician, and his recovery from injuries suffered during his 3rd deployment. The improvised explosive device that blew up just a couple of feet from his face unmercifully claimed his left arm and left eye. It cost him his eyesight in his right eye as well, rendering him completely and permanently blind.
And of course we can't forget about the TAC-P guys (Tactical Air Control Party).
USAF Valour-IT team member Buck from Exile in Portales profiles the TAC-Ps here. TAC-P's are Air Force specialists that are assigned to Army combat maneuver units around the world. Tactical Air Control Parties provide numerous critical functions on the modern battlefield; from advising ground forces on aircraft employment and capabilities and coordinating and controlling aerospace operations, to participating in battle planning.
TACPs live, train, and deploy with the US Army units. When deployed, the TACPs live under austere field conditions, and are responsible for the coordination, de-confliction, and execution of all USAF attack aircraft. Qualified individuals, serving as Terminal Attack Controllers (ETACs), provide final attack control to the pilots while the fighters are inbound to the target. The ETAC is responsible for ensuring that the pilot identifies and attacks the correct target while minimizing the risk to friendly ground forces. During peacetime, training is the major focus. This training can take the form of common skills testing (mission readiness), various weapons qualifications, chemical warfare and combat first aid training.
Honor these men who deserve to be recognized as the heroes they are.
GO AIR FORCE!!!
Along with other team members mentioned, I also want to thank team member One Happy Dog Speaks for keeping up the fight. If any other team members have posted on Valour-it send me the link.
10 Questions for Colonel Peter Mansoor, USA (Ret.)
COL (Ret.) Pete Mansoor is currently the Raymond E. Mason Jr. Chair in Military History at The Ohio State University. COL Mansoor retired this past summer after more than 26 years in the United States Army. Most recently, he served as Executive Officer to General David Petraeus, then Commander MNF-I. Prior to holding that position, COL Mansoor served on a Council of Colonels that advised the Joint Chiefs of Staff on a new strategy for Iraq and was the founding director of the US Army/USMC Counterinsurgency Center at Fort Leavenworth, KS, where his team assisted in the final revision process of Counterinsurgency Field Manual 3-24.
All right, this is more the sort of report I was wanting to see:
MOSUL, IRAQ: Kiowa scout helicopters buzzed over the column of American and Iraqi troops, as they often do here in Mosul, hoping to deter insurgents from attacking. Iraqis in the blue camouflage of the National Police walked at the head of the column, while Americans kept to the center and rear, hovering protectively around the senior officer they were escorting.
Major General Mark Hertling, the commander of American forces in northern Iraq, had just walked about three miles through the heart of western Mosul, accompanied by a small detachment of soldiers and the commander of the unit responsible for the area, the 3rd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment.
Headquartered in Tikrit, Hertling’s 1st Armored Division keeps a forward element in Mosul under Brigadier General Raymond Thomas. But Hertling himself comes to the city, the most violent not only in his sector but across Iraq, often.
Three times during the patrol, gunshots rang out from somewhere off to the right, ...
Therein you'll find the answer to this: "Thirty jarheads in an eight-hour firefight with 250 Taliban, guess who wins."
From which, this spoiler:
"I didn’t realize how many bad guys there were until we had broken through the enemies’ lines and forced them to retreat. It was roughly 250 insurgents against 30 of us,” the corporal said. “It was a good day for the Marine Corps. We killed a lot of bad guys, and none of our guys were seriously injured.”
Ok nugget, kick the tires, light the fires, select Zone 5, tag the bogey but don’t get in a furball. Don’t boresight, check six, bingo to Mom — Got it?
Air Force needs to get hands on throttle , and get their birds in the air. This is starting to turn into a Charlie Foxtrot! If it weren't for the Coast Guard, we'd be in last place. This is no time for complacency.
Maybe a little team spirit is in order.
Via email from a USAF Cadets on exchange at West Point
Now that's the spirit.
As you can see here, Army is definitely the team to beat, they've got quite a lead. Navy isn't far behind, and the Marines seems to be staying afloat but as you can see the Air Force hasn't even got off the ground. And the poor Coast Guard seem to be dead in the water.
Sgt. Israel Del Toro continues talking to Airmen about his experiences in Afghanistan even as he struggles to recover from burns he received in combat.
The tactical air controller is fighting to stay in uniform so he can continue serving his country. The sergeant suffered severe burns over 80 percent of his body while on a combat patrol in December 2005.
After an improvised explosive device nearly killed him, it was three months before he had his next memory -- waking up at San Antonio's Brooke Army Medical Center. Burns and scars covered his body.
He awoke in intensive care in the burn treatment unit of Brooke Army medical Center in San Antonio. Burns covered 80 percent of his body. His wife was there and he wanted to hug her, but Carman was only able to squeeze a toe. She told him president Bush had been there to see him. Dressed in medical gloves and booties, stayed with him for about twenty minutes, thanking him for his valor. Israel remembered none of it.
"I could have been bitter and depressed," the sergeant said. "And at times I was. I mean, who wouldn't be?"
But he vowed not to give up. He wanted to get better for his family and to get back into uniform. It took him until June 2006 to earn a release from the medical center, but that was nearly eight months earlier than doctors predicted.
Since then, Sergeant Del Toro has been touring Air Force bases, speaking to Airmen about the importance of being prepared for deployments. And he talks to them about being responsible Airmen and noncommissioned officers. He even took part in a panel that focused on what type of combat award the Air Force should institute.
Sergeant Del Toro's recovery has not been easy, but his drive to be with his family and to get back into the Air Force has made it faster.
His recovery is beating all of the odds and medical professionals and physical trainers are amazed at the pace And extent of his recovery. He lost his face, one hand and most of the fingers of the other hand. His vision in both eyes has been weakened.
He loves the Air Force and wants to continue his fifteen-year career with the Air Force. He is working desperately toward that goal.
“I’m not very PC [politically correct],” Del Toro explained. And, considering what he has gone through, he deserves wide latitude. Del Toro doesn’t have much patience for opponents of the war. “We always hear these guys, like Spike Lee, going ‘blah, blah, blah’ about the war. But none of them ever came to see me. President George Bush came to see me, though. And he spent 20 minutes in the room with me in 98 degree heat,” Del Toro said. The burn unit at Brooke Army Medical Center is kept at 98 degrees.
<...>
“A lot of times, the media focuses on guys who passed away,” Del Toro said. “We [who sustained severe injuries] get passed over to the side. We’re trying to have a life. Look, this sucks,” Del Toro said explaining how he felt about his situation.
<...>
Del Toro wants to remain in the Air Force on active duty. He said he truly loves his job. If he cannot recover well enough to go back to duty, he hopes to serve the Air Force in civil service.
In the meantime, Del Toro is taking life one day at a time and approaches his therapy and recovery with a very positive attitude that helped him excel in sports and his profession before his injuries.
Del Toro concludes by quoting Lou Gehrig: “I might have had a tough break, but I have an awful lot to live for.” He added, “And I am honored to have worked with the finest people in the World.”
Soldiers' Angels is a non-profit (point out tax deduction, matching funds), and Valour-IT has ZERO overhead. IRS proof: http://soldiersangels.org/index.php?page=irs-non-profit-status
Regardless on team chosen, it all goes in the same "pot,".
Though things are looking up in Iraq, the need amongst the wounded is still great (about 30 laptops a month)
MOSUL, IRAQ — With Iraqi Christians a threatened and dwindling minority, U.S. forces are safeguarding a 1,400-year-old monastery — Iraq's most ancient — for a time when peace, reconciliation and archaeological detective work can occur.
St. Elijah's Monastery, with its main fortress-like structure looming atop a barren hillside, sits inside a sprawling U.S. military base.
Its bloody history makes clear why the monastery needs protection. In 2003, it was damaged during the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. About 250 years earlier, it was nearly leveled by a Persian ruler who ordered its monks slain.
Below the thick-walled compound lies the embattled city of Mosul, dotted with mosques but also churches. The city, Iraq's third largest, has seen an exodus of Christians reportedly sparked by killings and intimidation from Islamic militants.
While parts of Mosul appear normal -- men dine outdoors at a kebab restaurant, shoppers browse for fruit and vegetables at a market and children playfully stroll home from school -- a few miles away, multistory buildings lie in ruins, the streets are empty and most stores are shuttered, their twisted metal facades riddled with bullet holes.
But the battle in Mosul, a city of 1.8 million, is not just against Al Qaeda and other extremists who continue to lay deadly mines and carry out car bombings. It also is a conflict among the nation's religious and ethnic groups for dominance as provincial elections, scheduled for January, approach.
The Mrs has decorated the site for Thanksgiving. If you're viewing this from the main page, you'll see the cornucopia topping her side of the blog . She tells me it represents the cornucopia of milblog links found in the Dawn Patrol. She didn't explain the significance of the graphic here on my side.
Meanwhile, on the individual entries (reachable by clicking any entry title) the full holiday logo. My point in mentioning this? I just want to give her a much deserved hat tip for making this place look festive.
This movie is mis-named; it's about a lot more than fighter pilots. There's some serious all-around USAF badassery below.
I urge all to watch the whole (48 minute) thing for a fantastic overview of what your USAF does (with some incredible, made-for-IMAX camera work), but if you just want to see stuff blow up skip to about the 40-minute mark and enjoy.
I think John is right in his "years away" measure as applied to a fully functioning Democracy, etc etc. I think I'm right (and proven so by subsequent events) in my assessment of military victory over a year ago. As much as I appreciate the "Victory Day" sentiments, this means that by any reasonable definition they are very late or very early.
Which begs the question: What would be the right day?
Thirteen members of Congress and an association of interpreters this week urged the Pentagon to rescind a policy that prohibits interpreters who work with U.S. troops in Baghdad from wearing ski masks to conceal their identity.
Yes - it's safer in Iraq. But this seems like something the interpreters could individually decide for themselves.
I mean, if it's that safe the troops can quit wearing armor in the streets, too - right?
The logical and analytical type. They are especialy attuned to difficult creative and intellectual challenges and always look for something more complex to dig into. They are great at finding subtle connections between things and imagine far-reaching implications.
They enjoy working with complex things using a lot of concepts and imaginative models of reality. Since they are not very good at seeing and understanding the needs of other people, they might come across as arrogant, impatient and insensitive to people that need some time to understand what they are talking about.
Which sounds about right, except I'm a bit more understanding of people's feelings than what that last bit indicates. (And if you disagree, you can go #&%* yourself.)
Also, even with the Mrs co-blogging here, we are more manly than most. (But is she raising or lowering my score?)
Update: Hey, Gateway enjoys "adventure and risk such as in driving race cars or working as policemen and firefighters." Pretty unusual for a girl.
McClatchy: "Prison camp staff will soon start offering art and geology classes to long-held war-on-terrorism detainees. English is now being taught as military jailers tinker with how to distract captured jihadists."
In other news, they'll be getting news, too:
Copies of Al Ahram newspaper will soon circulate in Camps 5 and 6, if the camps' Egyptian-born librarian, Mohammed al Abdel Aal, makes good on his plan.
It would serve as an alternative to what commanders call the DNN -- Detainee News Network -- in which the captives pass between the cells whatever tidbits they get from their lawyers and guards.
On Election Night, says Zak, the results swept through the camps so swiftly the captives were chanting ``Obama, Obama, Obama.''
They'll wake up January 21st in Gitmo, perhaps further strengthening an imaginary psychic bond with those Obama voters who wake up January 21st in their mother's basements.
A British militant who was a liaison to Al Qaeda and was a main suspect in the plot to blow up trans-Atlantic airliners in 2006 was killed Saturday in a missile strike by an American aircraft in northern Pakistan, senior Pakistani and American officials said.
The militant, Rashid Rauf, was among the five people killed in the attack by a remotely piloted aircraft in North Waziristan, close to the Afghan border, the officials said. He is perhaps the best-known of the figures killed in an American airstrike campaign there that has intensified since August and has caused increased strains between the United States and Pakistan.
In August 2006, Mr. Rauf, a Briton of Pakistani descent, was detained in Pakistan, leading to the arrest of 25 suspects in Britain in connection with what prosecutors said was a plot to destroy seven airliners headed for the United States and Canada. This September, a British jury convicted three of eight defendants of conspiracy to commit murder, failing to reach verdicts on the more serious charge of using beverage bottles filled with liquid explosives to blow up the aircraft.
The Pakistani government doesn't seem too unhappy about this...
Pakistani officials confirmed on Saturday that Mr. Rauf was the main target of the American missile strike, with Abu Zubair al-Masri, an operative of Al Qaeda. “Rashid Rauf and al-Masri were the targets and have apparently been killed in the missile strike,” a senior government official said.
In Washington, an American official confirmed the death of Mr. Rauf. “There are good reasons to believe, as the Pakistanis have said, that this major terrorist is gone,” the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
Obama fans are especially encouraged to follow those links. Sooner or later you're going to have to come to grips with the fact that this is exactly what he was talking about all along.
The Deuce Four Movie
Bruce Willis Never Made 11% 30
Saving Private Ryan 8% 23
300 8% 21
Lord of the Rings 5% 14
Gladiator 2% 6
Generation Kill 1% 4
The Last Samurai 1% 3
I'd say Band of Brothers is a clear favorite. In my opinion, it's in a class all its own. Unfair advantage: no two-hour movie can compete with miniseries done right - and Band of Brothers defines that.
Generation Kill, on the other hand, is near the bottom. I confess I haven't seen it, but that's because I'm not an HBO subscriber and the DVD hasn't been released. I have read the book (the latest edition is now available as a bargain book at Amazon - if you've read an earlier edition, click through and read the new afterword in this version that updates the stories of many of the Marines. The book was a fair account of men at war, I'm not sure if the movie version remained true to that or if not enough people have seen it or if its a good movie that doesn't quite top the others in the list. It's one of two I haven't seen, more on the second shortly.
I have seen The Last Samurai. I'm not a Tom Cruise fan, and I didn't expect much from this, but it far exceeded my expectations. Based on poll results, this could be an "overlooked gem" among warrior movies. If you've never seen it, give it a try. (You can even rent it online for 2.99)
As for that other movie I haven't seen, it's the one you haven't seen either: The Deuce Four Movie Bruce Willis Never Made. Throughout the life of the poll it was in a neck-and-neck battle for third place.
Encouraged by widespread opposition to the conflict in Iraq, Hollywood filmmakers are preparing to unleash an unprecedented wave of war films on moviegoers. In a notable break with the past — when antiwar films were released several years after the conflict in question — a whole new genre has been created even while American troops remain on the front lines of the war on terror.
...all of which failed miserably at the box office, proving (in the words of Hollywood's preeminent PR flaks) Americans didn't want to see movies about Iraq.
Mudville Night at the Movies - tonight's feature presentation: Rally 'Round the Flag, Boys!
A comedy break, with Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward:
It seemed like it was going to be a boring town meeting that evening in Putnam's Landing - the main topic: garbage disposal...
Woman speaker: We can acquire the perfect location for this plant - the old Yarborough property on shore road (applause)
Mr Crummit: Wait a minute! I own the old Yarborough property. And you're not gonna get it for a garbage plant...
Moderator: Mr Crummit, may I...
Mr Crummit: Now let's save some words Mr moderator. YOu're gonna ask me, 'why not?' and I'm gonna tell you I sold it. And you're gonna ask me 'who bought it?', and I'm gonna tell you who. The United States Army!
Grace Bannerman: What? Why is the Army moving into a peaceful little village like this?
Woman speaker: What about our daughters? Our daughters have been gently reared. What will happen to these pure innocent girls when the town is filled with... (gasp) Soldiers!
Moderator: Mr Crummit...
Mr Crummit: I knew you were gonna get back to me. Now you're gonna ask me 'what does the Army want with that property?' And I'm gonna tell you, word for word, verbatim - exactly what they told me: Nothing! Top Secret!
Crowd (erupts): Atom bomb! The whole town may blow up!
Moderator: Order please, must have order. His honor has the floor...
Mayor: Fellow citizens, as your mayor I can safely say that our town faces the greatest crisis since Samuel Putnam was scalped!
Crowd: Absolutely!
Mayor: Are we going to sit by and be calmly blasted to kingdom come?
Crowd: No!
Mayor: Let's forget all this silly talk about garbage and get on to the important problem we've got ahead of us! We've gotta keep this 'top secret' out of Putnam's Landing!
Reporting from Washington -- Antiwar groups and other liberal activists are increasingly concerned at signs that Barack Obama's national security team will be dominated by appointees who favored the Iraq invasion and hold hawkish views on other important foreign policy issues.
The activists are uneasy not only about signs that both Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates could be in the Obama Cabinet, but at reports suggesting that several other short-list candidates for top security posts backed the decision to go to war.
"Obama ran his campaign around the idea the war was not legitimate, but it sends a very different message when you bring in people who supported the war from the beginning," said Kelly Dougherty, executive director of the 54-chapter Iraq Veterans Against the War.
I believe they're in for some additional disappointment.
Those who weren't paying attention when the Senator clarified his views on Iraq in July ("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" was replaced by "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.") probably didn't notice his latest subtle shift involving the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the US and Iraq.
To fully understand the significance of the shift, you must know what a SOFA is. Basically, it's an agreement we have with most countries where we have troops stationed on a long-term basis (as Obama, perhaps to his supporters' dismay, desires for Iraq). The obvious exception: countries where we are at war. The agreement covers legal niceties such as criminal jurisdiction, basing, financial commitments, and other critical details necessary for continued presence of U.S. troops on foreign soil. The US has SOFAs with Germany, Japan, Korea, and several other nations where troops are stationed throughout the world. And for months (at least since early 2008), the U.S. has been developing a SOFA with Iraq in hopes of eliminating the requirement for the United Nations annual resolution authorizing our continued presence there.
Rumors about the content of that agreement throughout the months of negotiations caused Senator Obama to prominently include this statement as a key point in his Iraq policy: "Obama and Biden also believe that any security accord must be subject to Congressional approval. It is unacceptable that the Iraqi government will present the agreement to the Iraqi parliament for approval—yet the Bush administration will not do the same with the U.S. Congress." That oversight can be assumed to to be desired as a way to ensure that any incoming president would not be tied to a treaty that didn't suit their own plans for Iraq.
But this week, the strict demands were quietly replaced with a "sort of maybe": "Obama and Biden believe it is vital that a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) be reached so our troops have the legal protections and immunities they need. Any SOFA should be subject to Congressional review to ensure it has bipartisan support here at home."
Gone are "must" and "approve" - the new terms are "should" and "review". What could explain the lack of concern for congressional oversight? I can offer two likely reasons:
One - the president elect, having read the SOFA in its near-complete version (it lacks only that mandatory Iraqi parliamentary approval) has determined that it offers an acceptable framework for future US-Iraq relations
or
Two - the President-elect no longer cares what it says or what Congress thinks, he's going to do what he pleases with (or to) Iraq come hell or high water.
I believe option one is the more likely scenario. Perhaps I'm delusional in that regard (and certainly circumstances on the ground can change between now and January 20 or thereafter, especially since the document is not yet official) but I'm also inclined to believe that whatever the outcome, IVAW and the other folks quoted in that LA Times article are in for much greater disappointment than I am.
Tom Andrews, national director of Win Without War, said that ...Obama should be given the benefit of the doubt.
"I take him at his word that he is committed to ending the occupation of Iraq in 16 months and that he's going to assemble a team that's committed to that goal," Andrews said.
But Kevin Martin, executive director of the group Peace Action, is expressing more concern: "There's so much Obama hero worship, we're having to walk this line where we can't directly criticize him," he said. "But we are expressing concern."
But assuming Iraq agrees to the SOFA, the only real remaining question is will the U.S. leave an unspecified number of troops in Iraq for an unspecified amount of time, per the remaining unchanged portion of Obama's Iraq plan, or will all troops be removed, per unverified reports on the content of the SOFA.
And perhaps for the "peace activists", there's the question of Afghanistan. The drawdown of U.S. troops from Iraq is ongoing, and one Brigade scheduled for Iraq later this year has already been re-programmed for Afghanistan. Obama has pledged that others so scheduled will follow. He's likewise promised to "kill bin Laden" and to make "crushing al Qaeda" our "biggest national security priority." However, unlike Iraq, any plan or policy for Afghanistan has never been included on the candidate's (or the President-elect's) web site(s).
Read the whole thing for a good discussion. I'll offer a bit of a quibble on this line, however:
Truman fought in Korea and lost the next election. LBJ had to give up the White House over Vietnam. George H.W. Bush won in Iraq and enjoyed 90% approval ratings but lost the next election anyway.
There's an exception to that rule - F.D.R., whose (depression-ending) leadership through WWII didn't cost him much in the way of voter support. Of course, in those days the media were more inclined to support the Commander-in-Chief, too.
But that's something to think about given our current economic crisis (worst since the depression!), the number of global hot zones ("Gird your loins... mark my words... he will be tested...) and unrivaled media popularity of an incoming CinC.
We have fought two world wars, but the first one ended in 1918. The man in the video may make a fine President, but a history buff he is not. (Hopefully this hasn't crushed anyone's hope.)
Perhaps we can rely on an older, more experienced V.P. for history lessons...
"When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened."
Continuing a series begun here, in which General Petraeus was unanimously confirmed by the Senate and sent to Baghdad with instructions not to involve himself in political arguments back home.
From part one: This is the ideal; politicians engaged and aware of the issues they debate, hopefully achieving a consensus that meets the needs of the republic and reflects the will of a majority of informed Americans. But over the past two years the ideal was abandoned for the absurd as the reality gap between the war in Washington and the actual war in Iraq widened and Americans were informed by media with standing armies in Washington completely overwhelming a small corps of reporters in Iraq.
In this series we'll examine that "war in Washington" and the widening of that gap, in hopes of explaining to at least a few members of that public exactly why a war was won without their knowledge or consent.
*****
In March, 2007, General Petraeus gave his first press briefing from Baghdad. He updated the progress of "the surge" and also mentioned positive developments in Anbar Province that had begun before the troop increase:
Iraqi and coalition forces are steadily building their strength to support the operation in Baghdad. The last of nine Iraqi surge battalions and the second of five U.S. surge brigades have just entered Baghdad. This buildup will continue throughout the spring, with all U.S. and Iraqi forces dedicated to the mission in place by about early June. <...> Beyond Baghdad, moreover, a number of tribes in Anbar province have in recent months finally said, "enough," and begun to link arms against extremist operatives who have killed their sheikhs and sought to poison their young people's minds.
The General had already realized the significance of turning insurgent groups - and "neutral" Iraqis - into government supporters, and knew that while some could be recruited, others - especially groups filled by foreign fighters - could not. (For example, al Qaeda in Iraq.)
He defined them as "reconcilables" and "irreconcilables":
Q (Through interpreter.) (Name inaudible) -- from the NBC. I have two questions ...Second question: You said that the host country can determine who are the reconcilable groups. But everybody should be under the supremacy of law, and all military activities should be cancelled. So how are these people going to be part of the solution?
GEN. PETRAEUS: With respect, again, to the -- you know, the idea of the reconcilables and the irreconcilables, this is something in which the Iraqi government obviously has the lead. It is something that they have sought to -- in some cases, to reach out. And I think, again, that any student of history recognizes that there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq. Military action is necessary to help improve security, for all the reasons that I stated in my remarks, but it is not sufficient.
Those comments actually echoed those of President Bush, who in announcing the surge just two months previously had said:
The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq's sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves, and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis. Only Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.
Adding also that "A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations."
We'll look closer at military progress in Iraq in part three of this series, but our primary focus is on the war in Washington - far removed from the reality of Iraq. In the American capital, even as the General was briefing, congress was preparing to submit a troop withdrawal bill for certain presidential veto. In support of that withdrawal, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi argued that General Petraeus was on her side:
Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, challenged President Bush on Saturday over his threat to reject an Iraq spending bill if it calls for a troop withdrawal...
"With his veto threat," she said in a statement, "the president offers only an open-ended commitment to a war without end that dangerously ignores the repeated warnings of military leaders, including the commander in Iraq, General Petraeus, who declared in Baghdad this week that the conflict cannot be resolved militarily."
The longer the Bill spent before congress, the morepork was added. Twenty billion by April, including "...$25 million for spinach farmers, $74 million for peanut storage, $120M for shrimp research, $283 million in income subsidies for dairy farms, $400 million to rural counties hurt by cutbacks in federal logging, $400 million in additional heating subsidies for the poor, and $1 billion to prevent or prepare for a possible bird flu epidemic."
Meanwhile, even before the last surge brigades had deployed, Democratic Presidential candidates were declaring the surge a failure:
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) said yesterday that the Bush administration's "surge" strategy in Iraq is doomed to fail and criticized Gen. David H. Petraeus for offering what he called an overly optimistic assessment of the situation on the ground.
By mid-April, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would use two retired generals as props in a speech declaring that President Bush was using General Petraeus as a prop:
Flanked by two former Army retired generals Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) blasted President Bush for "clinging to a failed escalation strategy" in Iraq and "failing our troops and our country."
One general went so far as to say that active duty military officers were being used as "props" by the Bush Administration.
Reid is scheduled to meet with the White House this week to negotiate the Iraq supplemental spending bill Congress passed before Easter recess that contains a timetable for withdrawal. President Bush has vowed to veto any bill that would cut funding for the troops or dictate a withdrawal date, but Reid said "the President is not going to get a bill that has nothing on it."
With a banner behind them that said "Support the Troops" and "Transition the Mission" Reid stood with Ret. Lt. Gen. Robert Gard and Ret. Brig. Gen. John Johns and said that the surge should be abandoned.
<...>
Gen. Johns said active service military officers, like Gen. Petraeus, were being used as "props" by the administration.
DANA BASH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The phrase "the war is lost" really touched a nerve. Do you stand by that -- that -- that comment?
REID: General Petraeus has said that only 20 percent of the war can be won militarily. He's the man on the ground there now. He said 80 percent of the war has to be won diplomatically, economically and politically. I agree with General Petraeus. Now, that is clear and I certainly believe that.
BASH: But, sir, General Petraeus has not said the war is lost. I just want to ask you again...
REID: General -- General Petraeus has said the war cannot be won militarily. He said that.
<...>
BASH: Is there something to that, an 18- and 19-year-old person in the service in Iraq who is serving, risking their lives, in some cases losing their life, hearing somebody like you back in Washington saying that they're fighting for a lost cause?
REID: General Petraeus has told them that.
<...>
BASH: General Petraeus is going to come to the Hill and make it clear to you that there is progress going on in Iraq, that the so-called surge is working. Will you believe him when he says that?
REID: No, I don't believe him, because it's not happening.
The misquoted 80/20 reference is explained here - we'll revisit it later in this series. As for "General Petraeus is going to come to the Hill" - that reference was to his brief April visit to Washington, during which he offered to update congress in a closed-door session. Initially Democrats refused the invitation, but Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner publicly taunted them for the refusal:
Earlier this year, top Democrats in both houses of Congress refused to attend a bipartisan briefing offered by General David Petraeus to discuss the challenges in Iraq. Next week they'll have another chance when the General comes to Capitol Hill to brief lawmakers in the House and Senate on our progress in the Global War on Terror.
General Petraeus was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate to be the U.S. commander of the Multinational Force in Iraq. He has a clear track record as a straight-shooter and as someone who gets things done. So one has to wonder why next week's important briefing almost didn't happen. According to Roll Call, when the Pentagon tried to schedule the briefing through House Democrats they were declined - twice - because Democrats were originally "too busy" to schedule anything.
Still, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) did not attend. It was not clear where she was Wednesday afternoon. Aides did not return calls Wednesday. <...> "I think the speaker's got better things to do, frankly," agreed Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.). "They didn't say anything they haven't said in public."
Let's dispense with this one right off. On how the debate in Congress might affect conditions in Iraq:
Democrats: It's helpful. Hoyer said he asked Petraeus about recent comments by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that the congressional debate warns the Iraqi government that American patience and resources aren't unlimited. "It seemed to me that Gen. Petraeus certainly did not disagree," Hoyer said.
General Petraeus had already been warned in his January confirmation hearings to be careful in his comments. In his own interviews in Washington, he would exercise that caution:
Q (Off mike.) What would be the -- in your assessment as a military man, what would be the consequences on the ground in Baghdad if the United States was to pull back from its security mission in the capital by the fall, withdraw its forces, say, to the forward- operating bases in the capital and maybe withdraw from Iraq by the summer of '08? I'm not asking you about congressional legislation, about timelines. I'm asking you for your military assessment of the effects on the ground if the U.S. were to end its security mission in Baghdad in the fall, in terms of insurgent activity, the vulnerability of the population and sectarian violence.
GEN. PETRAEUS: I have, as you know, in fact tried to stay clear of the political minefields of various legislative proposals and so forth...
Democrats know they might lose this month's showdown with President Bush on legislation to pull troops out of Iraq. But with 2008 elections in mind, majority Democrats says it is only a matter of time before they will get their way. Senior Democrats are calculating that if they keep the pressure on, eventually more Republicans will jump ship and challenge the president - or lose their seats to Democratic contenders.
"It's at least my belief that they are going to have to break because they're going to look extinction, some of them, in the eye," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., of his Republican colleagues.
Added Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.: "We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war."
A week earlier, the President had forced Congress to fund the war for three more months with no timelines for withdrawal attached. But he hadn't quelled the the discontent within his own party.
On May 26, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky kept up the drumbeat of Republican dissatisfaction with Iraq. "The handwriting is on the wall," he said, "that we are going in a different direction in the fall, and I expect the President to lead it. I think he himself has certainly indicated he's not happy with where we are."
Key Republicans said they expected a new strategy the the coming fall after Petraeus reported to Congress.
"I'm not going to dime the guy," the President later told me, declining to elaborate on what McConnell had said privately. "There was a lot of members that were sending signals, some directly to me. So I don't want to speak about a single guy. But I was getting word from all the senior team that were getting pinged by members that were saying, 'Petraeus better pull out,' 'We'd better do this,' 'We'd better do that.' 'Progress can only be made if fewer troops are there,' was kind of the attitude.
"I understand the politics of war, and I will listen to these allies and friends. But for me, the overriding concern is to succeed in Iraq. These political concerns are short-term compared to the long-term consequences of failure. And I would, from my perspective, I am more than willing to sacrifice short-term popularity to do what is absolutely right, so that in the long term, people will say, 'Now I understand why he made the decision he made.'"
The lack of progress three months into the surge wasn't sitting well with many Republicans. Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, who had lost his chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee when Democrats gained a majority in the fall, was particularly worried... So Hoekstra had spoken privately with Representative John Boehner, the House Republican leader.
"The President is about to lose all Republicans on the Intelligence Committee," he had said.
As for the president's role as public spokesman for the effort, Republican congressional leaders demanded he, like Petraeus, stay out of it.
Bush met with the Republican leaders from the Senate and House.
"Mr. President," said Representative Roy Blunt, the Missouri Republican and the Party's number two House leader, "you have no credibility on communicating about Iraq."
"I know," Bush replied.
"The worst thing you could do is talk about Iraq," Blunt said.
If President Bush was ineffective in engaging in the Washington war (or the media war), it may be because neither bore much similarity to the war in Iraq, with which he was more familiar. In May, he met (not for the first time) with General (retired) Jack Keane, an early proponent of the surge, and a mentor to General Petraeus.
In May, Keane went to Iraq and reported back to VP Cheney, detailing "a significant shift in momentum" but adding his assessment that "The operations must go into '08 to have any chance of success."
Petraeus had publicly promised to return to Washington in September to report to Congress. Keane thought that was a problem, considering the expectations. "In a sense, it's become a timetable in itself to make an up-or-down" evaluation of the surge. It was supposed to be only a progress report. By September, security would in all likelihood be much improved, but "we probably will not have met everyone's political benchmarks. And the danger is: Should that political uncertainty trump the very real progress that has been made? In my judgment it should not.
"This is doable," Keane insisted. "We can succeed. We have to be given the time to succeed."
<...>
Cheney arranged for Keane to come to the White House on May 31. He joined the president, vice president, and [National Security Advisor Stephen] Hadley for lunch in the small dining room just off the Oval Office.
<...>
The strategy was working, Keane said. "The issue is time." He didn't want to lecture or sermonize, "but at the risk of doing this, there's something I have to say to you. This military that we have in Iraq may be the most idealistic force we've put on a battlefield since the Revolutionary War"
"Maybe include the Civil War," the president said.
"That's possible," Keane said. "But the American people have soured on the effort and are no longer supporting the war." Similarly, Congress. " But nonetheless, every single day, they go out there and are willing to risk everything that they care about in life."
<...>
"The good news," Keane continued, "is that Maliki is moving away from Sadr. And that Maliki has never turned down a Petraeus request to kill or capture a Shia militia leader. That is absolutely astounding." Maliki had approved about 50 such requests.
<...>
"Maliki doesn't like Petraeus much," Bush said.
"No, of course he doesn't," Keane said. "George Casey's strategy was to turn over to the Iraqis and let them do it. Therefore he was giving them the lead and letting them drive all the issues and being somewhat passive. Enter Petraeus. He is putting demands on Maliki. Every time he walks in his office, it's about something Petraeus wants from Maliki." Keane said that [U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan] Crocker needed some help. "None of his new people have arrived."
"They're going to be due in there in summer," Hadley said.
That was because the State Department still had a policy of not transferring its people during the school year, Keane explained. He noted that the military moved people when the military needed them, period.
Keane said it was unfortunate that Congress had insisted that Petraeus come back in September and give a public report. Requiring an American field commander to return to Washington and brief was setting a bad precedent. The field commander should report only up the chain of command, he said.
"I had nothing to do with that," Bush said.
Congress had passed a law requiring that Petraeus testify.
More from Woodward:
On June 6, 2007, I spent three hours in New York City with Bill Perry, the former Clinton Defense Secretary who had been very active in the Iraq Study Group. Perry, like most of the study group members, recognized that Bush had dismissed their main recommendations by adopting the surge. He was particularly dumbfounded because both General Casey and General Chiarelli had told him that adding forces would not be effective.
"Let's make a forecast," said Perry, normally a cautious man. "In October, there's going to be a major change in the way the war is conducted. The reason I say that is because when Dave Petraeus testified to the Congress at his confirmation hearing he told them he would come back in September and give them a report. Dave's an honest guy, so he'll give an honest report. My own forecast is that the so-called surge is not going to be successful. So his report is going to lay out a continuing disaster and he'll say it honestly... then I think the president's going to lose about a third of the Republicans in the Congress, who up until now have been holding their noses and supporting him. At that point, the dynamics will change altogether." Congress would then have the votes to override any Bush veto, Perry said. "The legislature will gain control, and the ones who are in control are going to want to end the war."
*****
Amazingly, the events described above occurred before the final surge brigades were deployed. But by mid-June they were all in Iraq, and Operation Phantom Thunder - the first "all-out effort" of the surge - was launched on the 16th.
General Petraeus says the operations are targeting areas that have been al-Qaida safe havens, and bases for launching car bomb attacks. "A fairly large, coordinated offensive operation, with all of these surge forces, has only just now been launched," he said.
The general said he is taking advantage of the fact that the last of the extra U.S. forces have finally arrived, bringing new capabilities he can use to go after insurgents on their home ground. He would not provide any details of the operations. The general also announced the arrest of two key insurgent leaders in recent days.
"Coincidentally", three days prior to the battle, the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House had been invited to a meeting at the White House. Briefed on the battle, they knew if they didn't act fast to grab headlines, actual news from Iraq could potentially leak to Americans.
Iraq surge a failure, top Democrats tell Bush
Top US congressional Democrats bluntly told President George W. Bush Wednesday that his Iraq troop "surge" policy was a failure.
Senate Majority leader Harry Reid and House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi challenged the president over Iraq by sending him a letter, ahead of a White House meeting later on Wednesday.
"As many had forseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended results," the two leaders wrote.
"The increase in US forces has had little impact in curbing the violence...
<...>
The next critical point in the showdown between Bush and Congress over Iraq is expected in September, when US commander in Iraq David Petraeus is due to report on progress in the strategy to "surge" up to 30,000 more US troops into the war-ravaged nation.
Even senior Republicans have said they expected the president will have little choice but to make adjustments in the Iraq strategy, once the report is made public.
For "attention" - had folks been reading the accounts of milbloggers downrange (you can still find active ones here) this whole "victory" thing wouldn't be such a surprise. (The links included here might also be helpful for catch up.)
On the same day the first woman was promoted to the rank of four-star general, the “Fly Girls of World War II” exhibit opened in honor of the first U.S. military-trained women aviators.
Like Army Gen. Ann E. Dunwoody, the Women Airforce Service Pilots, better known as WASP, understood they were the first of their kind, but knew others would follow, said National Public Radio news analyst Cokie Roberts, who spoke at the exhibit’s grand opening here today at the Women In Military Service for America Memorial.
“Women have contributed to all of America’s Wars since the Revolutionary War,” Roberts said. “And it’s so beautiful to have these WASP here with us today.”
The WASP flew everything from bomber jets to ferry planes but most importantly, they paved the way for future generations of military women to serve, she said.
One such woman to follow in the WASP footsteps is Air Force Maj. Nicole Malachowski, who also spoke at the ceremony. She’s currently a White House Fellow but is an experienced fighter pilot with more than 180 hours of combat flight time. She was also the first woman to fly with the Air Force’s Thunderbird demonstration squadron.
<...>
Public attention and praise didn’t always come easily for the original fly girls. The WASP program only lasted for two years and was disbanded in December 1944 because Congress wouldn’t grant the women military status. They were considered civil service employees until the issue was brought up again in 1977 when they were finally recognized as military veterans. A few years later, the women were authorized to wear the World War II service and American Military campaign medals, said Mary Cox, who served as a WASP through the program’s duration.
...“We think it’s marvelous that people remember what we did,” said Scotty Gough, 86, who served with the WASP for only one year because she was one year too young when the program started. “I loved flying so much that if I had had the money, I would’ve paid the Air Force to let me fly.”
“For many, many years people knew nothing about us, and it’s important for generations to know what we did and what we were. We were the first ones to fly for the Army, and that’s why today’s women are flying jets and in the Air Force.”
Now you can thank these women for their service by helping another service member in their recovery with Voice Activated Laptops.
GO AIR FORCE!!!!
"
One team, one mission!" "One over all!"
It's Ladies like these who paved the way for women like this:
"For us, there's a zero-tolerance policy of adding or subtracting actual content from an image," said Santiago Lyon, the AP's director of photography.
Lyon said the AP is developing procedures to protect against further occurrences and, once those steps are in place, it will consider lifting the ban. He said the AP is also discussing the problem with the military.
Shocked, shocked I tell you. What did the military do? Get ready to be outraged, outraged I tell you, by this manipulation of public perception:
In the original photo, the general appears to be sitting at a desk with a credenza and bookshelf behind her. Three stars on her uniform identify her as a lieutenant general, her rank before Friday's promotion.
The altered photo, distributed by the Army and run on the AP's photo wire Thursday, shows Dunwoody in fatigues in front of an American flag. Her rank, affixed to the front of a soldier's tunic, is not visible.
Fairness update: It's in the linked piece, but I should add - "Col. Cathy Abbott, chief of the Army's media relations division, said the Dunwoody photo did not violate Army policy that prohibits the cropping or editing of a photo to misrepresent the facts or change the circumstances of an event. She did not know who changed the photo or which Army office released it, she said."
"Obama and Biden believe any Status of Forces Agreement, or any strategic framework agreement, should be negotiated in the context of a broader commitment by the U.S. to begin withdrawing its troops and forswearing permanent bases. Obama and Biden also believe that any security accord must be subject to Congressional approval. It is unacceptable that the Iraqi government will present the agreement to the Iraqi parliament for approval--yet the Bush administration will not do the same with the U.S. Congress."
(FWIW, me on that on November 7: "This... might not be so important any more, though a pro forma submission might be "doable".")
Obama and Biden believe it is vital that a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) be reached so our troops have the legal protections and immunities they need. Any SOFA should be subject to Congressional review to ensure it has bipartisan support here at home.
That's probably not as dramatic a change as the mid-July switch (see here and here) on troop withdrawal.
The candidate for the Democratic nomination pledged*: "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."
The candidate for president purged that line from his web site, and replaced it with: "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."
Or whatever the SOFA calls for. And then they go to Afghanistan.
Some supporters might still be surprised to learn about that July switch, though. Here's an August 12 "fact check" that erroneously insists "His [Obama's] campaign Web site says: "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."" And here's an about.com explanation of why Obama won the Presidency that claims "Obama's stance on the Iraq War is unambiguous: he plans to 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."
At least one thing hasn't changed, however, candidate Obama's pledge to keep "a residual force in Iraq" of unspecified size for an indeterminate amount of time beyond his 16-month timeframe remains intact (although their mission description - and presumably numbers - continues to grow) on President-elect Obama's web site. Most reports on the SOFA (reports I view with some skepticism) indicate all troops are to be withdrawn. So those who voted for him based purely on nit-picky interpretation of his Iraq plan still have some hope that at least part of it won't change.
And perhaps, by the end of President Obama's first term, most of the American servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly might be home from Iraq - a functioning democracy, even if still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. If the United States maintains a military presence there, it will at least be much smaller and won't play a direct combat role.
For those of you on the cruise who were a little taken aback by Bing West's assertion during one of the panels that "The war in Iraq is over, we won!" (as I was, I admit), well, Bing may have read this document already.
Which he might have - but Bing has got some sand in his boots, too.
While at the castle, check out this Q & A with Admiral Mullen on the Iraq SOFA, Gitmo, and the role of the CJCS, too. I'm not sure how much of all that the press really understands; from the nature of the questions and some of the subsequent reports I've seen it's somewhere between little and none. But that's not due to any lack of effort or clarity on the part of the Chairman, there's just a massive disconnect between how reporters feel about certain subjects and what he knows. (A similar disconnect could develop between a certain future president and some of his most erstwhile supporters. That might be something to see.)
I first mentioned last summer that folks should be ready for the upcoming Iraq withdrawal "timelines". With the war being over and won they were inevitable, as is the fact that regardless of what the SOFA says they will be conditions based, which means a denial of a "win" for both sides of the political war - which means they can keep on fighting to their heart's content long after the troops come home.
Whoops - I meant long after the troops go to Afghanistan. There's a distinct difference.
Best-Selling Authors Provide Autographed Books to Support Project Valour-IT
[Mrs Greyhawk]
Best-Selling Authors Provide Autographed Books to Support Project Valour-IT
Seven noted authors have stepped up to support Project Valour-IT by donating autographed books for auction, and more are anticipated to join them. The books are being auctioned on eBay to help raise money to help Soldier's Angels provide adaptive laptops to wounded or disabled service members.
David Weber, David Drake, John Ringo, David J. Williams, Dean Ing, Mark L. Van Name, and Travis "Doc" Taylor have all agreed to provide works for auction as part of the annual fundraiser, which kicked off on Veterans Day and ends Thanksgiving Day. The works are being auctioned on the eBay Giving Works listings (seller spliffslips) with the money raised going directly and fully to the Project Valour-IT fund.
Currently, there are seven items up for bid on eBay:
Works by David Weber, Dave Williams, and Dean Ing will be posted for auction soon. The end time for each auction is different, so please check each listing to determine its end date.
John Ringo is a New York Times best-selling author with more than a million copies of his works in print. A veteran (Airborne!), he is known for his solo "Posleen" and "Ghost" series, as well as his "Empire of Man" series co-authored with David Weber.
Travis S. "Doc" Taylor is a rising light in the science fiction sky. He's earned not only a Ph.D. in optical science and engineering, but Master's degrees in physics, aerospace engineering, and astronomy and a Bachelor's degree in electrical engineering as well. The author of several books, he may be best known for the "Looking Glass" series co-authored with John Ringo. The start of a series of video interviews with Taylor can be found here.
David Drake is the New York Times best-selling author of the "Hammer's Slammers" series. Having written on a variety of subjects, his Hammer's Slammers work is based on his service in Vietnam and he is known to describe the series as the 11th Armored Cavalry with ray guns. The start of a series of video interviews with Drake can be found at here.
Mark L. Van Name is an author who also runs a technology assessment company in the Research Triangle area of North Carolina. A former Executive Vice President for Ziff Davis Media and national technology columnist, he's published over a thousand computer-related articles in addition to his "Slanted Jack" series and numerous short stories. The start of a series of video interviews with Van Name can be found here.
David Weber is the New York Times best-selling author of the acclaimed "Honor Harrington" series. The author of multiple best-selling books and series, he has seen his works develop a world-wide reach and following. The start of a series of video interviews with him can be found here.
David J. Williams is another rising star in the science fiction universe. Born in Hertfordshire, England, he now resides in Washington, DC. Mirrored Heavens is his first novel.
Dean Ing is the author of multiple science fiction and techno-thriller novels. After serving in the U.S. Air Force, he earned a doctorate in communications and worked in aerospace engineering. He served on the Citizen's Advisory Council on National Space Policy.
Project Valour-IT, in memory of SFC William V. Ziegenfuss, helps provide voice-controlled/adaptive laptop computers and other technology to support Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines recovering from hand wounds and other severe injuries. Technology supplied includes:
Voice-controlled Laptops - Operated by speaking into a microphone or using other adaptive technologies, they allow the wounded to maintain connections with the rest of the world during recovery.
Wii Video Game Systems - Whole-body game systems increase motivation and speed recovery when used under the guidance of physical therapists in therapy sessions.
Personal GPS - Handheld GPS devices build self-confidence and independence by compensating for short-term memory loss and organizational challenges related to TBI and severe PTSD.
The experience of Major Chuck Ziegenfuss, a partner in the project who suffered serious hand wounds while serving in Iraq, illustrates how important these laptops and other technologies can be to a wounded service member's recovery.
Established in 2003, Soldiers' Angels is a volunteer-based 501(c)(3) non-profit providing aid and comfort to the men and women of the United States Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard, as well as veterans and military families. For more information, see www.soldiersangels.org or call 626-529-5114. Tax ID# 20-0583415
Some very predictable (and unfortunate) reactions to military victory in Iraq. Imagine the surprise so many of these people would feel if they discovered the war was won a year ago. I don't think we need to worry about that, however - most of these folks think of war as 'something fought in Washington, D.C.' and strategy as planning for the battles fought every other year in November. Their 'war' can never end, and they'll have a difficult time understanding actual wars that inevitably do. Demonstrably, when one does they merely incorporate an argument on that point into their ongoing "battles".
Here we look at war as armed conflict between opposing forces, and do our best to keep people informed about what's going on in the wars in which the United States is involved. But we keep an eye on Washington, too, as decisions made there can have obvious impact on the actual war. Their words and deeds can simplify and complicate the life or death tasks with which we are confronted. This is the ideal; politicians engaged and aware of the issues they debate, hopefully achieving a consensus that meets the needs of the republic and reflects the will of a majority of informed Americans. But over the past two years the ideal approached the absurd as the reality gap between the war in Washington and the actual war in Iraq widened and Americans were informed by media with standing armies in Washington completely overwhelming a small corps of reporters in Iraq.
In this series we'll examine that "war in Washington" and the widening of that gap, in hopes of explaining to at least a few members of that public exactly why a war was won without their knowledge or consent.
Lawmakers were introducing Iraq legislation at a mad pace yesterday, at one point in the afternoon scheduling news conferences in half-hour intervals.
Early risers saw Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) in the Senate television gallery introducing his proposal to limit U.S. troops in Iraq to 130,000 and to hold a vote on whether to reauthorize the war. Those who lingered until lunchtime could catch Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) and other House liberals demanding a withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq within six months.
Booking the Senate TV studio at 2:30 p.m. were Sens. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), with their own Iraq resolution. They had to vacate the room at 3 p.m. for the arrival of Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) and Rep. John McHugh (R-N.Y.); Clinton floated a variation of the Dodd plan. Minutes after that session, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) issued a statement announcing legislation ordering a "phased redeployment" of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Even Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who gave up his Senate seat, tried to get a piece of the action yesterday. His campaign sent out a fundraising appeal, asking: "Please chip in to help stop this escalation today."
<...>
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday called President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq "a losing strategy" and proposed placing new limits on the White House's conduct of the war.
<...>
Starting at 7 a.m. with back-to-back appearances on NBC and CBS, Senator Clinton devoted her day to a choreographed effort to press the Bush administration to change its Iraq policy and to outline a set of views that might bring her more in sync with Democratic primary voters.
Mrs. Clinton, who is expected to announce plans to run for president soon, sought to tap into the intense and bitter emotions that many Democrats feel about the war, as she promised to introduce legislation to cap the number of troops in Iraq and to place restraints on the administration's policy.
<...>
Her new political offensive on Iraq came one day after Senator Barack Obama of Illinois announced that he had formed an exploratory committee for a presidential bid and three days after another likely rival, former Senator John Edwards, took an indirect swipe at Mrs. Clinton and other members of Congress for not doing more to oppose the war in Iraq.
When questioned directly, Petraeus said he would not be able to do his job as commander of MNFI without the additional 21,000 troops President Bush has pledged to Iraq. Deploying these additional forces will make it difficult to increase time between deployments for troops who have already been burdened by the war on terror, he said, but plans are under way to sustain increased force levels.
He offered an honest assessment of a difficult task, predicted a lengthy struggle (something the next day's "dire" headlines would emphasize) but assured those who were listening that success was achievable. "Hard is not hopeless," Petraeus informed the Senate, "and if confirmed, I pledge to do my utmost to lead our wonderful men and women in uniform and those of our coalition partners in Iraq as we endeavor to help the Iraqis make the most of the opportunity our soldiers, sailor, airmen and Marines have given to them."
When given questions, the General answered them - perhaps even daring to say things the Senators would rather not hear.
As a supporter of the Bush plan, Independent Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut mentioned several resolutions offered by members "disapproving" the troop increase. Asked by Lieberman if he believed they would "give the enemy some encouragement," Petraeus said, "That's correct, sir."
With that in mind, Lieberman said, "I want to urge my colleagues to consider your testimony this morning and to put the brakes on" such resolutions. "You, in my opinion, will receive unanimous or near-unanimous support... [for the nomination] from this committee and from the [full] Senate. But I fear that a resolution of disapproval will send you [Petraeus] over there" to Iraq with mixed signals to the Iraqis.
One of those most concerned by the General's willingness to offer a frank assessment to the Senate was Virginia Republican John Warner:
Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), until recently chairman of the Armed Services Committee and a co-sponsor of one of those resolutions, later explained to the general that he needed to be more careful about appearing to wade into a political debate and warned Petraeus to not let himself be trapped into portraying members of Congress as unpatriotic for disagreeing with President Bush:
We're not a division here today of patriots who support the troops and those who are making statements and working on resolutions that could be translated as aiding and abetting the enemy. We're trying to exercise the fundamental responsibilities of our democracy and how this nation has two co-equal branches of the government, each bearing its own responsibilities.
I hope that this colloquy has not entrapped you into some responses that you might later regret. I wonder if you would just give me the assurance that you'll go back and examine the transcript as to what you replied with respect to certain of these questions and review it, because we want you to succeed.
. . . I'm very proud of this committee and I don't want an impression, certainly among the armed forces, that we're not all steadfast behind them.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 26, 2007 - The Senate today confirmed Army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus for promotion to general and assignment as commander of Multinational Force Iraq.
...and was sent to Iraq with the certain knowledge that political parties in the United States would not allow his war to intrude on theirs.
When it comes to the participation in Iraq and Afghansitan, I don't think the Air Force receives the respect that it deserves. With jokes like "the Chair Force", "Air Farce", etc.
"
One team, one mission!" "One over all!"
While we don’t see or hear much about our Air Force activity, let me provide a typical day’s aerial activity.
Our deployed Air Force members fly and support about 400 combat sorites (missions) each day. More than half of these are strike and reconnaissance missions providing close air support to our ground forces.
Our U.S. Air Force has also been engaged in direct combat. Lest we forget, the Air Force that went downtown Baghdad on the evening of 16 January 1991 at the start of Desert Storm. The 'Mother of all Battles'.
And did you know the USAF have their own Special-Ops team? They're called Pararescuemen, or Parajumpers, also known as PJs, and are the only Department of Defense specialty specifically trained and equipped to conduct conventional or unconventional rescue operations.These "air commandos," like their Army and Navy counterparts, use darkness as a cloaking device that helps them achieve maximum advantage against enemies who lack the technology and training to fight at night. They are among the most highly trained emergency trauma specialists in the U.S. military.
Air Force SOF are rarely the trigger-pullers, so much of the attention for wartime tends to go to the combat forces that the air commandos support. Other special operator units, such as the Navy SEALs and the Army's Special Forces, Rangers, and Delta Force, produce more news. The USAF Special Operations Forces stay in the shadows. In a way, Air Force operators are more discreet than special units from other services and so do not receive much recognition. Pararescuemen continue to deploy so "That Others May Live"
They also have other special units called Combat Weathermen that spend dangerous times in remote outposts gathering the real-time, eyes-on, ground truth about conditions that can critically impact the mission.
They’re tough guys who get it done no matter how rough it gets. To give you some idea how inportant these guys are, They are currently listed on the Global Military Force Policy low-density, high-demand asset list.
During the early stages of Operation Iraqi Freedom, it began with heavy aerial attacks on Baghdad and other cities. This was publicized in advance by the Pentagon as an overwhelming barrage meant to instill "shock and awe". However, the Air Force were also on the ground with combat weather troops. Tasked with collecting weather data, the team endured sandstorms that buried them in their sleeping bags. They survived 12 missile attacks, one which destroyed their humvee, and endured almost continuous small-arms attack
Every day A-10s deliver 30 mm; we have a squadron of A-10s up at Al Asad in Western Iraq. F-16s are dropping Joint Direct Attack Munitions and delivering ordnance, 20 mm, every day. Predators are delivering Hellfires tactical missile as well as imagery every day. And, oh yes, for a few years now, C-130s have been replacing truck convoys to eliminate much of the threat from roadside bombs. Essentially, this has taken over 3,500 trucks and 8,600 personnel off the dangerous roads.
Our Air Force has now been heavily engaged in aerial combat in Afghanistan and Iraq since Day One in both areas of operations.
The Air Force also stand prepared for rapid response in conflict around the globe as our nations serve and shield. They fly, fight, and dominate in three warfighting domains: air, space, and cyberspace, Go Air Force!
There is much more I could write about our U.S. Air Force at war. But I'll just add that today we have nearly 125,000 airmen of all ranks engaged around the world. There are 61,000 troops forward deployed in Europe, the Pacific and other locations, with another 27,000 forward deployed from their home stations in the United States. Many of these airmen have been deployed numerous times to Iraq and Afghanistan and have developed into this nation’s most combat-experienced Air Force. These marvelous young men and women are engaged daily in our Global War on Terror. They need our continuing understanding and support. Now show them your support.
DONATE TO TEAM AIR FORCE!
"One team, one mission!" "One over all!"
Disclaimer: "Team Air Force" (along with the other teams) is not endorsed or sponsored by the DoD or any sub-component. But that doesn't mean YOU can't join one of the teams here.
Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai, said Sunday that he would guarantee the safety of the Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar if Mr. Omar agreed to negotiate for a peaceful settlement of the worsening conflict in the country.
BAGHDAD (AP) - Iraq's Cabinet on Sunday approved a security pact with the United States that will allow American forces to stay in Iraq for three years after their U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year, the government said.
But the real debate begins in parliament:
Al-Dabbagh said the agreement will be submitted to parliament later Sunday, but did not say when the 275-member legislature will vote on the document.
Update: Reuters headline: "Iraq, US sign pact on troops withdrawal deadline". (As predicted, that's what they're calling the SOFA now.)
BAGHDAD, Nov 17 (Reuters) - Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari and U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker signed a long-awaited accord on Monday requiring Washington to withdraw its forces within three years.
The signing ceremony put a formal end to months of negotiations over the pact on the future of the U.S. presence, which the Iraqi government approved on Sunday. The pact must still be passed in the Iraqi parliament, but the government is confident it will achieve this by the end of the month.
"Definitely, today is an historic day for Iraqi-American relations, signing the security pact after months of difficult talks and negotiations," Zebari told reporters after exchanging signed copies with Crocker. Both men smiled and enthusiastically shook hands as officials applauded.
Apart from the troops pact, the two men signed a long-term strategic framework, which Crocker said would define relations between the countries for years in "economy, culture, science, technology, health and trade, just to name a few."
"It reminds us all that, at a time when U.S. forces will continue to withdraw from Iraq in recognition of the superlative security gains over the last few years, our relationship will develop in many other important ways."
Rest here. According to Reuters, "Under the deal, U.S. troops will leave the streets of Iraqi towns and villages by the middle of next year and leave Iraq altogether by the end of 2011. The deal also provides for Iraqi courts try U.S. soldiers for serious crimes committed while off duty, but only under very tight conditions."
Hopefully soon we'll actually get to see the agreement, and determine whether reports of all U.S. troops leaving Iraq are accurate, or whether (per President-elect Obama's Iraq plan) many will remain behind.
Another note via the indispensable SWJ: "Dave Kilcullen will be a guest of CNN this Sunday (1 PM ET) on Fareed Zakaria's show GPS - the subject - counterinsurgency in Afghanistan."
Update: Great discussion. Here's video of the first segment:
Hopefully the full video will be available online soon here.
A quick note - and this is something I've been planning to discuss further in the Minority Report series - notably (and rightfully) absent is a discussion of sending U.S. or NATO forces into the mountains (Afghanistan or Pakistan) to seek out and kill Osama bin Laden. While that was fine campaign rhetoric, as a focus of our efforts in Afghanistan ("We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority") it would be a disaster.
Read this too, it's not all about a military solution. As I said above, more details on this later.
And: Don't know if many people noticed Zakaria's attempts to control the terminology (or if you prefer, his perhaps feigned for sake of conversation misunderstanding of the issues) of the discussion ("Afghan nationalism" and "Petraeus paying off Sunni's in Iraq"), but it jumped out at me, as did his guests' refusal to let it slide. They corrected (without belaboring) the fallacies on the spot, and facilitated a discussion of real issues.
Finally (for now) one take-away from the discussion that should be understood - the characterization of the relationship between al Qaeda and the 'Big-T' Taliban, and the existence of 'small-t' talibans, about which read more here.
SMALL WARS JOURNAL: How Should the U.S. Execute a Surge in Afghanistan? Michael Yon emails the link and adds: "Last time I was in Afghanistan, I mentioned an off-the-cuff number that we might need something like 50k more troops. . . . This 25-40k clearly will NOT BE ENOUGH. They pick that figure because that's all they are likely to get in their wildest dreams. Let's seal this in Iraq, and then we've got some troops!" How many troops can we support, logistically, in Afghanistan?
I want to point out, in case it isn't clear, that the how many question is a followup to the how should question - I'm confident both Yon and Reynolds understand that, but the first question hasn't been answered yet. If this is the mission: "And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority" then it could take hundreds of thousands to scour the various caves and combat the outraged Pakistanis as Afghanistan collapses behind them.
Logistically we can support that, and more importantly with complete media backing of a wildly popular President we can accomplish a lot before the American people give up (if they ever do). As I've noted (cautioned, actually) repeatedly, that scenario (while it may not be apparent initially that we're right) could be a big economy-booster too. (Still, I'd prefer a smaller number with a different focus.)
Meanwhile, in news you might not have known: "The DoD has also announced that the 2nd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division, which had been based in northwest Baghdad, will return home six weeks early. The unit that was scheduled to replace them will deploy to Afghanistan instead."
I followed this issue, linked a few times, but didn't get the chance to weigh in (other than pointing out "nothing new") on this earlier. But now I don't have to - as I kept on thinking "yup, that sounds about right" as I read this. (Much as I kept thinking "Is there some point to this? Is there useful information here? as I read Rosen's piece. The answer to that was no - which shouldn't be seen as implying that he didn't risk his life to bring us that report, or that reliable intel on the Taliban would be unimportant.)
I should add also that we have an opportunity to not eff up Afghanistan by turning it into a Republican vs Democrat pissing contest a la Iraq, per the link. And that, I believe, is the key point. So perhaps Rosen did accomplish something after all. Go read.
I don't know who wrote the headline over that AP story in the Washington Times, but it's always interesting to note how the media is instructing the masses to feel about any given topic. Read the actual story and you'll discover that Sistani has reassured his followerss that he will "intervene if he concludes the proposed agreement governing the presence of U.S. forces infringes on national sovereignty". More accurately, you'll learn that
An official close to the ayatollah said Friday that the cleric has vowed to "directly intervene" if the final version of the agreement breaches Iraq's sovereignty. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.
And that's all you'll discover on the topic of the only Shiite leader who matters in Iraq.
The remainder will be dedicated to the pasty, pudgy darling of the American media, the "Iran-based cleric" Mookie Sadr. Iraqi bootprints on this guys ass might outnumber American, but according to the AP, Sadr wants all Americans out of Iraq now:
Shi'ite leader Muqtada al-Sadr renewed threats to unleash his militia fighters to attack U.S. forces unless they leave Iraq immediately...
"I repeat my call on the occupier to get out from the land of our beloved Iraq, without retaining bases or signing agreements," he said. "If they do stay, I urge the honorable resistance fighters ... to direct their weapons exclusively against the occupier."
This will put him at odds with U.S. President-elect Barack Obama, who has pledged to "end the war" and withdraw "combat" troops from Iraq over time but leave thousands of "trainers", "security forces" and "al Qaeda fighters" there.
The Mudville Late Show - tonight's feature presntation is Khartoum, a battle between British General Charles George Gordon and the Mahdi. "This exhilarating military spectacle, highlighted by powerful performaces from Laurence Olivier and Charlton Heston, chronicles Britain's 1883 crisis in the Sudan and the siege ..."
I just watched this for the first time myself, I think you'll find it worthwhile.
You can skip forward about 4 minutes (after the ad) to get through the "overture", or 6 minutes if you want to skip the opening credits.
The MHS is hosting a web town hall meeting where experts will answer questions from service members and their families about the Defense Department’s medical care programs for its wounded, ill and injured troops. I hope you can join us.
And please consider posting an entry to your blog and invite your readers to participate. During the event, medical experts, supporting organizations and service members who have been touched by warrior care will be dialoging about healthcare solutions. I’m working with MHS and your help will be appreciated.
"THE WAR IS OVER AND WE WON:" Michael Yon just phoned from Baghdad, and reports that things are much better than he had expected, and he had expected things to be good.
He adds that Mike will be headed back to Afghanistan next week.
I've been saying "we won" for some time now, so no argument on that point from me. But if there's any war left in Iraq, it's up north. No one has been reporting from Mosul for a while. That's usually a good sign (recall how news from Anbar disappeared during the surge, as that province tipped into the "win" column) but I'd still like to hear from a trusted source on how things are going up there.
UPDATE:Ed has more here from JD Johannes who just came back from embedding in Iraq
And: Folks who are arriving late to the "war is over and we won" bandwagon might want to get caught up. There are several places you could start here, but I suggest my post-election outlook for Iraq. It might be a bitter pill to swallow for Republicans, but therein I'll explain how you fumbled at the goal line.
Here's my look at Afghanistan from the same (ongoing) series for folks interested in not being on the wrong side of history there..
And by ongoing, I mean I write about this stuff all the time, when I'm not busy living it. Here's a post from last summer (the last time Mike Yon said "the war is over and we won) - part of a series called "While America Slept".
Want a job with the Obama administration? Be ready to answer some questions:
"Please list and, if readily available, provide a copy of each book, article, column or publication (including but not limited to any posts or comments on blogs or other websites) you have authored, individually or with others. Please list all aliases or "handles" you have used to communicate on the Internet"
<...>
"If you have ever sent an electronic communication, including but not limited to an email, text message or instant message, that could suggest a conflict of interest or be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family, or the President-Elect if it were made public, please describe.
But don't fret! If you don't meet that qualification and you're still looking to change your career path, there's always hope:
Lost amid all of the jubilation of the Obama victory was the announcement by the Obama transition team that it had set up a separate transition program beyond the one that is paid for by the American taxpayer. Called the "Obama/Biden Transition Project," it is a 501(c)4 tax-exempt organization, with no limits on the contributions it can receive and no requirements to divulge the names of individuals or organizations that give it money.
...the nonprofit may also serve as a haven for Obama supporters and campaign loyalists who for one reason or another can't be employed by the Administration or in the federal government. "There are some people who have been with us from the beginning who are clearly political liabilities or who won't be able to qualify for a job, say, because they can't get a security clearance," says another aide...
Regardless of the purpose, Obama campaign officials say there is no intention of shutting down the 501(c) 4 Project after the transition is over.
Since 2006, Iran's leaders have called for direct, unconditional talks with the United States to resolve international concerns over their nuclear program. But as an American administration open to such negotiations prepares to take power, Iran's political and military leaders are sounding suddenly wary of President-elect Barack Obama.
"People who put on a mask of friendship, but with the objective of betrayal, and who enter from the angle of negotiations without preconditions, are more dangerous," Hossein Taeb, deputy commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, said Wednesday, according to the semiofficial Mehr News Agency.
I've always been disappointed in lists of "best war movies". The folks who chose them generally seem inclined to select the most "anti"-war movies as the "best". But then again, "pro-war" is a poor description for any realistic depiction of war.
Then, in comments here, Val Prieto hit upon exactly the right term for what I believe is frequently (not always) meant by "anti-war" in the context of film: anti-victory.
That said, I also realized what I like about a war movie - and it's not about whether it's "pro" or "anti" anything - it's about whether it captures the warrior ethos - and I believe several recent films have managed to do that. I present an off the top of my head list below for your consideration. If I missed any contenders, please let me know in comments.
(My vague definition of "recent" is the past 10-15 years or so.)
Today, on the Ed Morrissey Show (3 pm ET), we have two great topics for you! Jonathan Bruel, author of Operator’s Manual for the New Administration. Bruel is the Executive Director of the IBM Center for The Business of Government. He was formerly the Senior Advisor in the Office of Management and Budget in the Executive Office of the President, and served for nearly ten years as the U.S. delegate and elected vice chair of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Public Management Committee. We’ll talk about his new book and the efforts involved in the transition to the next administration.
In the second half, we’ll talk about Project Valour-IT with Beth Schietzelt of Soldier’s Angels. We may also be able to get Chuck Ziegenfuss, the founder of the effort. They’ve just kicked off the effort, and they’re already raising plenty of money for computer systems for injured war veterans. Don’t forget to donate to Project Valour-IT!
And you can join the conversation in the chat room. (You can bet I will.)
I'm not sure how many folks caught this line at the end of Mike Yon's latest dispatch: "Today I am in Kuwait, heading back into Iraq for an end-of-year round-up."
My request to embed with the U.S. Army in Baghdad has been approved, and it turns out that I need to leave a bit earlier than I expected. It will take a while before I actually get there – I need to be in Kuwait four days in advance for paperwork and “processing,” and I’m going to stop in New York City for two days on the way to Kuwait. But I’ll be there soon enough and will have a large batch of fresh dispatches for you about what is hopefully the end of the war.
I hope Yon gets up to Mosul, I'd really like to hear the latest from that information black hole.
I've met Michael Totten (in Iraq, coincidentally) and spoken with Mike Yon (probably useless now, but he's on my cell phone contacts) and I trust what these guys report.
The security situation is clearly still subject to sudden outrage at any moment by Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) or to degradation because of provocative behavior by the Maliki government. However, the bottom line is a dramatic and growing momentum for economic and security stability which is unlikely to be reversible. I would not characterize the situation as fragile. It is just beyond the tipping point.
That seems about right to me - if anything, it's an understatement.
Much of what McCaffrey writes is from an "insiders" perspective - which is not to imply that all insiders think alike. There are, however, portions of his report where an amber caution light (reading "agenda") flashes in my mind.
For instance, this quote: "...turned around the situation from a bloody disaster under the leadership of Secretary Rumsfeld..." right or wrong, seems petty in a report of this nature at this time. If your goal is to heap praise on someone, declaring them to be "better than their utterly incompetent predecessor" is hardly the way to go.
As with that warning light, while I read through the report a phrase something like, "golly, he's having a tough time controlling his bitterness" kept going through my mind. Imagine my surprise when I saw this acknowledgement in the summary: "It is hard to not be bitter".
(For some reason, I don't believe McCaffrey's AAR's are actual written for a West Point audience, but maybe that's just me...)
A CENTCOM brain trust soon will begin work on a strategy for the entire area from Egypt through Pakistan. A strategy team will attempt to apply the principles of the counterinsurgency manual to this region as a whole.
The task force will not develop a traditional military strategy, with its focus on offensive and defensive operations. Rather, its mission is to determine the causes of insecurity in the region and provide solutions that integrate the military, diplomatic, and development missions.
Its working groups are organized primarily around the concerns of counterinsurgency: helping nations in the region govern effectively, build their economies, provide security to their people and communicate America's intentions clearly in order to address terrorism and proliferation issues.
Led by Brigadier Gen. (Select) H.R. McMaster, a Petraeus protege well-schooled in counterinsurgency operations, the task force will produce a whole government approach to the CENTCOM region and shape the way the United States addresses challenges there, from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to Iran's nuclear program and the Arab-Israeli dispute.
While it is clear that Gen. Petraeus is not the secretary of state, this strategic review will set the course of American engagement with this critical region for years to come.
US Forces have been directed to take the signs off of the backs of our vehicles. No longer do we say, "DANGER, STAY BACK 100M".
He adds, "This is a big deal and demonstrates the real confidence senior army leaders (a real risk averse bunch of guys if ever there were any) have in the current security situation here in Iraq."
And it is a big deal. It's one of those little things that indicate something bigger. As far as that "risk averse" bit - it probably could have been done a while back. I supect that (as when I was there) people got so used to seeing them all the time that they no longer saw them. And one day someone finally asked, "hey, why the hell are these still here?"
Last year (October '07) Badger 6 and I were conversing via MilBlogs (we were in different parts of Iraq at the time.) He had linked a report quoting Colonel Richard Simcock, Commander of USMC Regimental Combat Team 6, who had said of al Qaeda in Anbar "I would characterize them as a defeated force from my perspective."
B6 was rightfully proud: "Team Badger supported RCT 6 from their arrival in theater in January 2007 till when we rotated out in September." (He himself had taken another assignment elsewhere in Iraq.)
My response: "Badger 6, one of the key points that made me realize we'd won this thing was your New Glass post."
I'd link that actual "New Glass" post here, but it's no longer available. Like the brief mention of "US Forces have been directed to take the signs off of the backs of our vehicles" it's a little thing. The sort of thing a "real" reporter, eager to get some quotes from disgruntled troops or heroic resistance fighters wouldn't notice. And if they did they certainly wouldn't tell you. At least, they certainly wouldn't have in August, 2007 - with something as critical as the Petraeus report to congress mere weeks away.
There at the first corner, I see it. New glass. Someone has put new glass in a shop. Someone only installs new glass when they think it won't get broken. New glass is confidence.
As we roll though Ramadi I see more stores and small shops open. And more new glass.
Several days later we return to Ar Ramadi. We take the western highway this time which takes us north and around the city of Falluja. The north and east sides of Falluja are the most devastated. That is the direction from which US Forces attacked during Phantom Fury in November 2004.
As we round the northeast corner, I see one house that looks different from the others. People are living there. Coming and going. It has something the other places don't.
Abdul Qadir told the colonel: "I have a brother who has a clothing factory. If you give me the money, then I can have 300 of these uniforms made in one week. It is hard-wearing and the design will be good for the Sahwa people all across Baghdad."
The American soldiers laughed. "Why the rush?" asked one. The Sahwa commander replied that he wanted to be ready to stage a parade on the day that Baghdad's famous al-Aima bridge - the bridge of the imams - just a few hundred metres from his office, was officially reopened. "That is something that everyone here in Adhamiya hopes will happen very soon," he said. "It will mean something real for reconciliation and be the beginning of the end to this bad experiment in isolation."
The US officers shifted uncomfortably in their seats. "Everyone is working towards that goal," assured Capt Frank O'Connor, "but the bridge will open only when the time is right. Opening it too soon could cause problems for you. The [Shia] militias may take advantage."
<...>
It may seem odd that the 300-metre bridge bears the hopes of a war-weary population. But for the communities either side of the bridge, a reopening would speak volumes for the confidence that the security improvements of the past few months are sustainable.
Al-Aima bridge used to link Sunni Adhamiya on the mainly Shia east bank and the Shia district of Khadimiya on the mainly Sunni western side of the capital. But it has been closed since September 2005, after about 1,000 Shia pilgrims on their way to a shrine in Khadimiya died in the Tigris river after jumping from the imams' bridge as fears of a suicide bomber in their midst caused mass panic.
Its four lanes remain blocked by concrete barriers, barbed wire and Iraqi army checkpoints. "The only living things that cross this bridge are pigeons and rats," said Omar Qadir, a stall holder in the Abu Hanifa market in Adhamiya.
Sunnis and Shi'ites made an emotional reach across the sectarian divide on Tuesday, reopening a Baghdad bridge between the two communities closed since a 2005 stampede, the deadliest incident of the war.
The Bridge of the Imams connects the Adhamiya and Kadhimiya neighborhoods of Baghdad, named for mediaeval Sunni and Shi'ite holy men whose landmark shrines on opposite sides of the Tigris are surrounded by homes of members of the separate communities.
It had been closed since 2005 when rumors of a suicide bombing panicked thousands of Shi'ites crossing the bridge for a pilgrimage to the Kadhimiya shrine. About one thousand people died in that stampede, clogging the river below with corpses.
But on Tuesday Sunni children from Adhamiya raced to see their Shi'ite friends in Kadhimiya. Women from the two communities met up on the bridge, kissing and hugging each other with joy.
"When the faces met, the lips smiled, hands shook, bodies hugged, the tears flowed out of joy. This is the Iraqi citizen," said Sheikh Ahmed al-Samaraie, head of Iraq's Sunni Endowment, which runs Sunni religious offices and mosques in Iraq.
A banner across the bridge read: "The bridge of love and reconciliation between the people of Adhamiya and Kadhimiya."
However, the Guardian hasn't yet reported the news.
I'm not going to offer quite the rosy picture the Guardian does, however. Outbreaks of violence will certainly occur. (Though in their defense, few could argue that there's a "war" in Iraq at this point in time.)
American forces have completed construction of a concrete wall around the Baghdad district of Adhamiya despite protests from the Iraqi prime minister and local residents who claim that they are now at the mercy of militants.
The wall was intended to help control the activities of militants in the predominantly Sunni Muslim district. But it remains a bastion of extremist al-Qa'eda linked groups. Parts of the district are so thick with armed militants that they are no-go zones to coalition forces.
Capt Mohammad Jasim, an Iraqi soldier manning a checkpoint on the Adhamiya bridge, said: "The Americans did not listen to us. We think this wall has made the area inside the wall more dangerous for people.
Although they were generally ignored in contemporary "news" coverage, others expected a different result.
Disclaimer: "Team Air Force" (along with the other teams) is not endorsed or sponsored by the DoD or any sub-component. But that doesn't mean YOU can't join one of the teams here.
If you just want to add one (or all) of the donate buttons to your site, you'll find them here.
Every cent raised for Project Valour-IT goes directly to the purchase and shipment of laptops and other technology for severely wounded service members. As of November 2008, Valour-IT has distributed over 2700 laptops to severely wounded Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines across the country, and is now expanding its mission to include other technology that supports physical and psychological recovery.
Valour-IT accepts donations in any amount to support our mission, but also offers a sponsorship option for laptops. An individual or organization may sponsor a wounded soldier by completely funding the cost of a laptop and continuing to provide that soldier with personal support and encouragement throughout recovery. This has proved to be an excellent project for churches, groups of coworkers or friends, and members of community organizations such Boy Scouts.
Originally Valour-IT provided the voice-controlled software that accompanies the laptops, but now works closely with the Department of Defense Computer/electronic Accommodations Program (CAP): CAP supplies the adaptive software and Valour-IT provides the laptop. In addition, DoD caseworkers serve as Valour-IT’s “eyes and ears” at several medical centers, identifying patients in need of laptops and other technological support for their recovery. Wounded military personnel can also directly request a laptop through the sign-up form or through the Valour-IT/Soldiers' Angels representatives at the following medical centers:
* Balboa Naval Hospital
* Brooke Army Medical Center
* Madigan Regional Medical Center
* National Naval Medical Center (Bethesda Naval Hospital)
* Naval Hospital, Camp Pendleton
* Robert E. Bush Naval Hospital (29 Palms)
* Walter Reed Army Medical Center
Thanks to the efforts of the Military Order of the Purple Heart, Valour-IT is also able to reach patients in VA hospitals who would benefit from a Valour-IT laptop or other technology to support their recovery and independence.
Soldiers' Angels is a non-profit (point out tax deduction, matching funds), and Valour-IT has ZERO overhead. IRS proof: http://soldiersangels.org/index.php?page=irs-non-profit-status
Regardless on team chosen, it all goes in the same "pot,".
Though things are looking up in Iraq, the need amongst the wounded is still great (about 30 laptops a month)
Folks, our Veterans Day special on BlogTalkRadio is going to be an historic event. For the first time EVER, an internet talk show will be syndicated on a national radio show! We are working in close conjunction with the great people from KFBK radio and Patriotwatch in Sacramento, California. The You Served podcast has the potential of reaching literally millions of new listeners in one night across more than 10 states on the West Coast. Troy and I will be co-hosting with Bruce Maiman of KFBK.
<...>
This week's show is on a completely different date and time. In order to honor Veterans Day, we will air the show on Tuesday and begin at 2100 EST in order to sync up with the West Coast (we go live nationwide at 2200 EST with KFBK). This gives everyone plenty of time to get home from their parades and listen in on this historic show! This may be the only time all these great Americans are in the same place.
Check out the list of guests at the link.
All done!
The motivation for this blog is to discuss how we could tap into the power of blogs to help get the Army's story out - how blogs may be used to help round out traditional media. I'm an Army Major and currently a student at the Air Command and Staff College. As a graduation requirement, we each must complete a research project and I've chosen to examine the potential benefits (and inherent challenges) of not just allowing Soldiers to blog, but actually encouraging blogging among our troops.
There are significant portions of this panel discussion missing from the video, and unfortunately the clock ran out just as we began to approach the actual point of the topic. If you watch closely, you'll see both Phil Carter and I pull our microphones closer and prepare to really start talking, just as Ward announces that's all, folks. Such is life.
The conference had opened with a video from Lt Gen Caldwell, and we had just begun approaching some of the key subjects he had raised...
It's Veterans Day - what better way to say "thanks"?
Disclaimer: "Team Air Force" (along with the other teams) is not endorsed or sponsored by the DoD or any sub-component. But that doesn't mean YOU can't join one of the teams here.
If you just want to add one (or all) of the donate buttons to your site, you'll find them here.
Every cent raised for Project Valour-IT goes directly to the purchase and shipment of laptops and other technology for severely wounded service members. As of November 2008, Valour-IT has distributed over 2700 laptops to severely wounded Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines across the country, and is now expanding its mission to include other technology that supports physical and psychological recovery.
Valour-IT accepts donations in any amount to support our mission, but also offers a sponsorship option for laptops. An individual or organization may sponsor a wounded soldier by completely funding the cost of a laptop and continuing to provide that soldier with personal support and encouragement throughout recovery. This has proved to be an excellent project for churches, groups of coworkers or friends, and members of community organizations such Boy Scouts.
Originally Valour-IT provided the voice-controlled software that accompanies the laptops, but now works closely with the Department of Defense Computer/electronic Accommodations Program (CAP): CAP supplies the adaptive software and Valour-IT provides the laptop. In addition, DoD caseworkers serve as Valour-IT’s “eyes and ears” at several medical centers, identifying patients in need of laptops and other technological support for their recovery. Wounded military personnel can also directly request a laptop through the sign-up form or through the Valour-IT/Soldiers' Angels representatives at the following medical centers:
* Balboa Naval Hospital
* Brooke Army Medical Center
* Madigan Regional Medical Center
* National Naval Medical Center (Bethesda Naval Hospital)
* Naval Hospital, Camp Pendleton
* Robert E. Bush Naval Hospital (29 Palms)
* Walter Reed Army Medical Center
Thanks to the efforts of the Military Order of the Purple Heart, Valour-IT is also able to reach patients in VA hospitals who would benefit from a Valour-IT laptop or other technology to support their recovery and independence.
Soldiers' Angels is a non-profit (point out tax deduction, matching funds), and Valour-IT has ZERO overhead. IRS proof: http://soldiersangels.org/index.php?page=irs-non-profit-status
Regardless on team chosen, it all goes in the same "pot,".
Though things are looking up in Iraq, the need amongst the wounded is still great (about 30 laptops a month)
Be first with the truth.● Communicate accurate information—good or bad—to the chain of command, to Iraqi leaders, and to the public as soon as possible. Preempt rumors and beat the insurgents, extremists, and criminals to the headlines. Hold the press (and ourselves) accountable for accuracy and context. Challenge enemy disinformation. Turn our enemies’ extremist ideologies, oppressive practices, and indiscriminate violence against them.
This addresses a point I was making here, and it will be good to see it in execution. I'm not sure how that guidance will be put into action, but some sort of MNF-I level "rapid response force" (that expects swift input from below) might be effective.
Commanders usually want control of information flow - that's a valid concern. But those who can't use that weapon (and it is a weapon) swiftly will find themselves in control of useless information.
In roughly 10 days' time, the first of four 101st Airborne Division brigades will be completely redeployed from combat — about a month ahead of schedule.
About 550 soldiers with Fort Campbell's 3rd Brigade Combat Team returned from a 15-month deployment to Iraq on Friday, and in a few days the brigade will finish its redeployment.
But leaving wasn't as easy as you might think:
One of his fellow 3rd BCT soldiers, Staff Sgt. Christian Martinez, said when he found out he was coming home early it was a weight off his and his family's shoulders. "It was a relief because you can start seeing the beginning of the end," Martinez said.
He said it was difficult, though, to leave their Iraqi counterparts, who now control the area almost entirely themselves.
"The Iraqi army started crying and shaking our hands," he said.
"I think a lot of us were caught off guard by it," he added.
The DoD has also announced that the 2nd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division, which had been based in northwest Baghdad, will return home six weeks early. The unit that was scheduled to replace them will deploy to Afghanistan instead.
Joe Kenney, the Republican gubernatorial candidate for New Hampshire and a current state senator*, told me the McCain team refused to allow him to appear on stage at the rally. The official explanation was that he hadn't had a Secret Service background check, and it would not be possible to arrange one in time. Needless to say, this was not persuasive.
(*and a USMC Active Reserves officer who's done two tours in Iraq. Didn't have problems getting clearance for killing his country's enemies, but the McCain camp evidently has tougher entry qualifications.)
While security in Iraq continues to improve, Afghanistan is drowning in a frothing quicksand. While most of the 2008 fighting season is over, we can be assured that the Afghan national sport -- guerrilla warfare -- will become the 2009 Taliban Olympics by April. They know this is a marathon.
Mike likens Afghanistan to "solving a human Rubik's Cube during a firefight while the media screams every time you make a wrong move". I'm not certain the media will be screaming. (At least not American media.) No doubt there will be failures and successes, but busy reporters (as we've also learned over the past seven years) rarely have time to report both.
Mike's a war reporter; more specifically a combat reporter - a guy who wants to be with the troops and where the action is. And while many Americans are eagerly awaiting President-elect Obama's explanations of what he really meant in many of his campaign promises, there's at least one he made in concrete terms: when it comes to Afghanistan, there will be blood.
They are plotting to kill Americans right now. As Secretary Gates, the defense secretary, said, the war against terrorism began in that region and that's where it will end. So part of the reason I think it's so important for us to end the war in Iraq is to be able to get more troops into Afghanistan, put more pressure on the Afghan government to do what it needs to do, eliminate some of the drug trafficking that's funding terrorism. <...> And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.
As I noted at MilBlogs, Other than who exactly "we" are there's very little room for analysis there.
Still, it might just be bluster designed to comfort (or even excite) McCain "national security voters" who would never hear Obama speak outside of a joint appearance with their man. I confess I don't know if this was ever part of an Obama stump speech or not.
OSAMA bin Laden is planning an attack against the United States that will "outdo by far" September 11, an Arab newspaper in London has reported.
And according to a former senior Yemeni al-Qaeda operative, the terrorist organisation has entered a "positive phase", reinforcing specific training camps around the world that will lead the next "wave of action" against the West.
One wonders if the next president supports a doctrine of pre-emptive attack. Joe Biden seems to think he's more of a "responder" - and he has already called on supporters to "gird their loins" for an event he fears could cost the administration their support:
"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."
But Nick Gillespie (in Reason) seems to believe those concerns of lost support are unfounded, and predicts a shift in the demographics of "hawks":
America's political and pundit class will go through a clinical bout of ideological amnesia that will be dizzying and appalling for those of us with memories of life before January 2009...
On the flip side, expect Democrats to start rattling sabers like the did under the Mad-Bomber-in-Chief Bill Clinton, who was quite happy to dispatch planes and bombs wherever and whenever he felt necessary or threatened by a domestic situation. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is the template here of what reason's Matt Welch identified as "temporary doves," that is, folks whose taste for war is highly dependent on party affiliation.
Obama, who is certainly something of a "stealth candidate" (to use an election-night phrase from Fox News' and NPR's Juan Williams), has never been shy about asserting his bellicosity. He's against "stupid" wars, don't you know, which gives him plenty of latitude to prosecute what he considers smart ones (and conflicts necessary to prove that he's no George McGovern).
For my part, I've been expressing concern for the attraction of war as economic remedy for some time:
And while Afghanistan and Iraq are "back burner" issues to the economy right now (or even seen as a drain on that very economy) anyone with any knowledge of history should be concerned with (or at least aware of) the potential for a "good war" - if it's big enough - to reverse a downward economic spiral.
I don't know if that aspect of the situation confronting the world today is covered in the program - but as Nagl points out in the video below, Afghanistan is already "the good war".
Of course, you're certainly not going to hear "for the economy!" as a battle cry when there are others in place.
And while we don't have a big enough Army to fight an economy-boosting goodwar now, the Democrat Party's VoteVets group is encouraging service:
This email was forwarded to me by an Iraq veteran and former Army captain who received it on Wednesday:
The relevant text says:
24 Month Mobilization Deferment. A President Elect who says he'll get us out of Iraq. What are you waiting for? Stop taking your chance's [sic] in the IRR and be safe from deployment for 2 years. By that time our new President will have gotten us out of these other countries.
I'll be honest: I'd be lying if I said the prospect of an Obama administration hadn't made me consider the possibility of rejoining.
Which is good, because the President-elect doesn't "agree with the draft", ladies:
"There was a time when African-Americans weren't allowed to serve in combat," Mr. Obama said. "And yet, when they did, not only did they perform brilliantly, but what also happened is they helped to change America, and they helped to underscore that we're equal.
"And I think that if women are registered for service -- not necessarily in combat roles, and I don't agree with the draft -- I think it will help to send a message to my two daughters that they've got obligations to this great country as well as boys do."
Which, while not as clear a statement as "we will kill bin Laden"certainly must mean something.
Meanwhile, the DoD has also announced that the 2nd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division, which had been based in northwest Baghdad, will return home six weeks early. The unit that was scheduled to replace them will deploy to Afghanistan instead.
All this might put those who've cried "chickenhawk" in an awkward position - they're going to have a tough time explaining why they've shouted that epithet that at civilian Iraq war supporters for years, but why it doesn't apply to them with regards to Afghanistan.
I have sent out a request that Barack Obama, or Michelle Obama, get in touch with me. While waiting for a response (and imagining how busy they must be), I decided to write down my thoughts. After watching the debates between Mr Obama and John McCain, something has leapt out at me. It has now leapt out twice, and I would like to avoid having it appear a third time. It is Mr Obama's statement that, when he is President, he (the US) will pursue al-Qaeda in the hills of Pakistan, find Osama bin Laden and "kill" him. Though I understand that Mr Obama wishes to show himself as "strong", even "tough", this is problematic on ethical, moral, and practical levels.
I am not saying the same thing Mr McCain said, about walking and speaking softly and carrying a big stick. We know that during Mr McCain's service to the country there have been countless people assassinated, bombed, disappeared and in other ways destroyed, if not by him directly, then by the system of government that he serves. No, this is about something else: the language we use in leading, and why.
Each time Mr Obama has said "we will kill" Osama bin Laden I have felt a testing of my confidence in his moral leadership. And I support him, and demonstrated that support, to the very limits of my finances and my strength. Could it be that, like millions of children around the globe, who are taught "Thou shalt not kill", I am reacting with disappointment and shock to someone blatantly declaring their intention to kill a specific person?
This could be it. In a Christian nation, this is what most of us learn. And even if we cease to call ourselves Christians, the notion of non-killing is hard-wired in us. We are not likely to accept the "killer" (even if the killing is done in our defence) with the same open-heartedness and lack of fear that we might have for someone who has not declared for murder. This is why Mr McCain coyly smiled each time Mr Obama made that statement.
We live in a country with a not too distant custom of lynching, particularly in the South. For those of us who are forever aware of this reality, something rises in us whenever there is a manhunt (in my case, even an animal hunt) to demand decent treatment of whoever is captured, and a fair trial. To the surprise of both Mr McCain and Mr Obama, apparently, millions of people in the world don't believe that Osama bin Laden bombed the twin towers and the Pentagon.
But even setting such disbelief aside, we have to think of what we are teaching the youth of the planet.
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — The leader of a jihadi group in Iraq argued Friday that the election of Barack Obama as president represented a victory for radical Islamic groups that had battled American forces since the invasion of Iraq.
The statement, which experts said was part of the psychological duel with the United States, was included in a 25-minute audiotaped speech by Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, leader of the Islamic State of Iraq, an umbrella organization that claims ties to Al Qaeda. Mr. Baghdadi’s statement was posted on a password-protected Web site called Al Hesbah, used to disseminate information to Islamic radicals.
In his address, Mr. Baghdadi also said that the election of Mr. Obama — and the rejection of the Republican candidate, Senator John McCain — was a victory for his movement, a claim that has already begun to resonate among the radical faithful. In so doing Mr. Baghdadi highlighted the challenge the new president would face as he weighed how to remove troops from Iraq without also giving movements like Al Qaeda a powerful propaganda tool to use for recruiting.
BAGHDAD, Nov. 7, 2008 – A senior al-Qaida in Iraq leader was killed yesterday during a combined cache-clearing operation by Iraqi security forces and a “Sons of Iraq” citizen security group, supported by coalition forces, military officials reported.
Abu Ghazwan, a key link in the network operations for al-Qaida in Iraq, was killed during the cache-site raid in the Tarmiyah area, north of Baghdad, officials said.
Coalition officials said Ghazwan commanded numerous terrorist cells in the Taji and Tarmiyah areas, and advised and financed other terrorist cells throughout northern Iraq and was responsible for building and facilitating vehicle bombs in the Baghdad area.
Additionally, officials said, he was responsible for other terrorist groups that recruit and train children and females to conduct suicide attacks against Iraqi and coalition forces.
I did a post here highlighting reactions to the election from troops abroad. Some were in Afghanistan, some were in Iraq.
Scott Kesterson - a journalist embedded with troops in Afghanistan - writes at the Huffington Post about a few soldiers and officers reactions to President-Elect Obama's win on Election Day - "The Other Side of Paradise." Their responses did not go over too well with Sean Gilfillan (an Iraq Vet). So he responded (also at the Huffington Post), stating that although President-Elect Obama is not the Commander in Chief of the military yet, speaking out against the President is in direct violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 88 which states that:
"any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, the secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the governor or legislature of any state, territory, commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."
Then he goes off on a pointless tirade, as if Obama IS President, branding these soldiers as breaking the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Well Scott's post has received a large amount of comments and the troop bashing continues.
From cardineau: Its amazing how all of these right wing military types think that because they are in a foreign war, their judgement is somehow superior to the millions of veterans who have "been there and done that". Blindly supporting McCain because he is ex-military, is equivalent to support for another ex-military leader … Hitler in world war two.
From silentknight65: I remember from history that Hitler's troops were fed propoganda and believed it enough to slaughter 6 million Jews, not to mention marching blindly into the Russian winter to their deaths. So goes the Bush war propoganda machine.....making our troops feel abandoned before the new President even has a chance to support them.
From MJinCanada: ... For centuries, successful military organizations indoctrinated their soldiers by alienating them from normal society, instilling a sense of superiority, and dehumanizing the enemy. How else can you make decent ordinary guys kill other decent ordinary guys they personally wouldn't have a quarrel with?
From DKLabRat :Yeah, but given how often they voted in Bush and now, it seems, would have preferred McCain, who wanted to continue the war - you have to wonder do they actually want to be with their families? It seems from their voting patterns and who they support that they are keen to remain at war. Perhaps they enjoy the excitement and male bonding. Beats having to deal with whining kids and trudging around the supermarket with the wife, I guess.
From rbarthjr: F–k these politically ignorant racist pieces of s–t. Democracy requires a well-informed citizenry — of which the military is a part — and the election of Obama reflects that at least 52% of the US is a hell of a lot more informed than this tiny sample of presumably white officers.
From Kiabell04: Wow, those guys are really disrespectful
Clare Lockhart, on what went wrong in Afghanistan: "The untold story is that Afghanistan was well on its way to stability in 2004. It is essential that President Obama understands why the nation slipped into chaos. The challenge now is to win the peace."
What went wrong? This is not the time for a detailed account, but some elementary mistakes are worth highlighting.
She offers four answers to the question, none of which are "President Bush invaded Iraq!" That alone means this is actually a serious read.
This is not a story of military failure. That John Nagl calls it "an excellent example of learning from the past about the part of counterinsurgency most of us understand least well: the economic and governance lines of operation" is more than enough reason for me to wonder why you haven't clicked through yet.
Milblogger "Bubblehead", one of our authors to the milblogs site, has posted that he has stomach cancer. It was discovered approximately 2 weeks ago. Good news is it was discovered early. Bad news is he has a very difficult road ahead of him.
I suspect he'll get to offer a private yea or nay to that question before anything more is heard. And I doubt that if the answer is "yes" that it's a four year yes.
At Abu M: Count the COINdinistas? That argument might be a bit too "inside baseball" for many, and Barack Obama may be among them. (That's not a slur, it's an important issue but it's also a bit "in the weeds").
The White House will hold an economic summit on Nov. 15 that 20 world leaders will attend; Obama, who called for such a meeting in September, has been invited to participate. His advisers are also debating whether to ask Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to stay on, to allow planning for a withdrawal from Iraq to begin as soon as possible. A U.N. conference on global warming will be held in Poland in December, an ideal stage for Obama, or a high-profile surrogate such as former vice president Al Gore, to declare that the era of Bush energy policies are over.
"Planning for a withdrawal from Iraq" has been ongoing, of course - so it's too late for it "to begin as soon as possible". But that sort of phrasing might placate Obama voters who bought in to a pledge to "end the war."
Nick Gillespie is probably right: "And here's a Canadian dollar that says that Obama's withdrawal plan from Iraq is precisely the one recommended by Gen. Petraeus."
The correct phrasing, however, is that General Petraeus will oversee the withdrawal from Iraq as ordered by President Obama.
Speaking of phrasing: "Many Iraqi officials are now calling the status-of-forces accord, or SOFA, "the withdrawal agreement," possibly as a way of marketing it to a wary public." That's as good as any description - because "The accord, which calls for complete withdrawal of U.S. forces by the end of 2011, has been the subject of tense negotiations for the past seven months." Although throughout that period American media have worked very hard to keep Americans ignorant of the proceedings. But once president-elect Obama gives a green light to the effort, they can start calling it the withdrawal agreement too. (And that's why keeping Gates is critical. Switching managers at this point could delay implementation. Ooops - I mean delay "planning for a withdrawal from Iraq to begin as soon as possible".)
The SOFA could still fail to pass. That wouldn't be a complete disaster for President-elect Obama, but it would delay Iraq withdrawal and deny him an opportunity to deflect criticism. (That second point might not matter, President Bush can be blamed for the failure of the SOFA or its passage.) For instance, if this is true "The accord, ...calls for complete withdrawal of U.S. forces by the end of 2011" President Obama will be forced to veer away from his pledge to leave troops in Iraq - a promise many of his supporters are likely unaware of.
(Side note - this: "Obama and Biden also believe that any security accord must be subject to Congressional approval. It is unacceptable that the Iraqi government will present the agreement to the Iraqi parliament for approval--yet the Bush administration will not do the same with the U.S. Congress." might not be so important any more, though a pro forma submission might be "doable". Regardless, SOFA developments will be "the story" from Iraq in the coming weeks. Stay tuned...)
...as individuals shift their positions on Iraq (centrist Dems, Repubs, and Independents seek common ground while extremists and "party uber alles" types on both sides move to the fringes) I predict the media will pander to the minority - those extremists, who will make great headlines.
You'll be able to identify the extremes - one side will call for "troops home now" while on the other side "don't listen to Democrats - they want the troops home now!" will rally the faithful.
The rest of us will work to "fix" Iraq.
In hindsight, I believe the minority might actually have been those of us who were working to fix Iraq while the majority stuck to their guns on those battle cries. But that impression might be due to the media pandering to the loudest of the loud - so I acknowledge the possibility of a "silent majority".
Whatever the case, Republicans flat out missed the shift - the moment they became wrong. Fast forward to summer, 2008:
But the basis for those withdrawal demands - the war is lost, the surge has failed, etc. - have been consistently wrong.
In fact, one might argue that those who made them have been like a stopped clock. But here's the odd thing about stopped clocks - they're on the whole useless but right twice a day. And when that time comes the argument that they are still wrong is foolish. But Republicans are in danger of making that argument by allowing themselves to be backed into a position that a drawdown in Iraq must be opposed if for no other reason than because the Democrats favor it.
In fairness, there was no "moment" they became wrong - it was a process.
Early in my 2007 Iraq tour Politico published an interview with me on politics and war:
...those at one end of a spectrum want to ignore it, and those at the opposite want it to be something it isn't. Both groups wish it would go away. As a guy just interested in presenting facts, I believe my efforts are less and less appealing to the average American every day." <...> Based on comments and links from other blogs, I suspect my commitment to victory in the war on terror (to the point that I'm actually participating in it when I could have retired to a safer life) and annoyance with those who oppose that goal have a lot of die-hard Democrats assuming I'm a Republican, and perhaps an increasing number of Republicans avoiding my site in their desperate search for other things to talk about. Those who stick around for the next months are in for facts from the ground."
A few months later - somewhat to my own surprise - I explained how we'd won the war, and for months after that one milblogger after another assured America it was over. (There's a compilation here.) By September of this year commenters were demanding I delete posts from this blog that dared to point out how woefully uninformed Republicans were on Iraq. It was an odd sort of "wrong", to be sure (I'm not impressed when I hear people insist we're winning the war we won last year) but the stopped clock was right and Republicans were in denial that their own steadfast commitment to victory had helped lead to exactly that.
Democratic vice-presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden, speaking at a rally in Colorado Springs, Colorado, on Wednesday, October 22, said, "finally after six years, George Bush is now backing the plan that Barack Obama suggested, which is to set a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq and turn over responsibility to the Iraqis. That's the agreement we're negotiating now."
Heh.
*****
So what next for Iraq? The answer to that question will be much more political than military (and that's good news for all), and the Iraqis have more of a say in that than what supporters of any American politician would like to believe. History is in motion, current trends are positive, and there's really no reason to dam the flow. Regardless of what you may hear to the contrary, President Obama has inherited a golden opportunity to take credit for all that is right in Iraq for the next several years, and deflect all blame for what's not. 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".
Which brings us (and certainly brings those troops leaving Iraq) to Afghanistan. Part three is here.
Another thing we learned during the Syria raid? Our information operations still suck. The self-serving Syrian narrative -- that those killed were civilians, including women and children -- has persisted unchallenged in the press here in Beirut and abroad despite an AP photographer seeing the bodies of seven men at the funeral. The PAO response after one of these raids must be swift and overwhelming. Within the Arabic-language media and much of the non-American English-language media, the Syrian narrative dominated. And if you can't beat a slow-moving autocracy like Syria in an IO campaign, how do you expect to beat the Taliban?
Contra McCain ("I'd rather lose an election than a war"), the motto of the US military might be "we'd rather lose a war then release a statement before we've had several months to investigate the issue and clear it with our attorneys."
It's frustrating, but there are good reasons for slow response. First among them is a real desire to get the facts and a knowledge of "the fog of war". While this may seem quaint and charming to a reporter whose job is to sell papers or attract viewers (and who may or may not be motivated by a desire to shape opinion), and is certainly an exploitable weakness by an enemy who wants to recruit suicide bombers, it's still a worthy goal. There are reasons for that beyond whatever value one places on "truth". Among them, "the Army" (as opposed to the enemy or a reporter) while portrayed as "the accused" in any such story is actually the agency that must investigate and possibly prosecute any incident. This task is taken seriously, and public statements can infringe on rights of the actual (or potential) accused. Factor in that anything "wrong" in an initial response will make headlines for days ("coverup" "incompetence" etc. etc.) and the case for accuracy over speed becomes unbeatable.
But this doesn't eliminate a need for speed, and thus far "the Army" ain't gettin' it done. Even the most cautious and brief official (or even unofficial, off the record) statement on that Syrian incident could have included a reference to the AP report ("An Associated Press journalist at the funerals in the village's cemetery saw the bodies of seven men -- none of them children. The discrepancy could not immediately be explained") - but didn't.
Another story from last week is less well known - likely because there were no claims of civilian casualties. Instead, the reporter merely portrayed American soldiers as panicked, trigger-happy goons responding to an IED attack by sending "thousands of rounds" into the darkness of the night, in a location where "there could be Afghan homes". That response might be expected, might even be excusable to some degree - but amazingly, it didn't happen.
How can I state that emphatically? Because the reporter was there, and the video he shot of the incident demonstrates his claims are false. One can't infer from this example that "troops never fire indiscriminately" in the wake of an attack, but one can perceive motive in the reporter's statements in the face of facts, and expand that motive to editors who saw fit to publish his story. (At least, based purely on available evidence a more solid case can be made for that claim then for any made by the reporter in question.) Pointing out that sort of personal/institutional bias certainly isn't the business (and arguably isn't in the interest) of the U.S. military, but pointing - even in a brief statement - to the "discrepancy" between what a reporter says on a video and what that video shows seems worthwhile and "fair".
But while the military didn't, milbloggers (some tipped by contacts within the unit) did - to a degree that the reporter in question felt compelled to defend himself from their "smears" - using the lack of response ("The US military has not challenged my reporting") by the military as the cornerstone of his defense. (For the record: I confirmed with the unit in question that while they have responded to bloggers' inquiries there has been no official response or complaint made to the journalist or his paper.)
But all that is old news. Here's the new news - and it's a twofer:
Foreign forces have killed seven civilians in an air strike in northwest Afghanistan, officials said on Thursday, a day after the Afghan president said warplanes had killed 40 civilians in the south.
But the military is all over it:
"We do not know the facts at this time but we will investigate this situation to get to the truth. We take our responsibility to protect the people of Afghanistan very seriously and take extensive measures to avoid circumstances where non-combatant civilians are placed at risk," he said.
It was not possible to verify the claims of civilian deaths independently due to the area's remoteness and poor security.
Although knocked from headlines by the subsequent attack report, additional details on the earlier attack are being reported. Al Jazeera:
The US military says that Taliban fighters prevented civilians from fleeing clashes in southern Afghanistan, leading to the death of about 40 people who were believed to have been attending a wedding ceremony.
<...>
The military's statement said that fighters attacked a US-led patrol that was moving through the Shah Wali Kot region of Kandahar.
"Civilians reportedly attempted to leave the area, but the insurgents forced them to remain," the US military said, but did not specify where the report was from.
That story includes quotes from the father of the bride, but no indications whether he said anything to confirm or deny the "hostage" story.
Meanwhile, according to the BBC "Mr Karzai called on Barack Obama to prevent civilian casualties when he takes over as US president." That would go a step beyond the President-elect's statement (pledge?) implying that he favors doing more than just air raiding villages and killing civilians (the U.S. has "gotta get the job done" in Afghanistan which "requires us to have enough troops that we're not just air raiding villages and killing civilians which is causing enormous problems there). However, some have interpreted that as a pledge to stop air raiding villages and killing civilians, so it's possible that once he's in office we'll no longer see these types of reports.
November 2006: In the wake of Republican defeat in the mid-term congressional elections, I explained to America that rather than the pace of withdrawal, the actual debate on Iraq - among people who mattered - was how we would use the additional troops we were going to send there.
The first two exchanges I've highlighted above may well shape the serious "Iraq debate" in the coming months. Don't believe what you read in the papers - watch for yourself. <...> McCain is advocating for more combat troops in Iraq - those who will go toe-to-toe with the insurgents. This position probably won't endear him to "the Left" - or even the center.
General Abizaid is calling for more troops too - but he wants more troops assigned to Iraqi units to act as advisors - not more combat batallions.
Bear in mind that this was weeks before the Iraq Study Group report was released, and months before the President announced a "surge". Post-election coventional wisdom and news leaks on the study group report (and no other studies were public at the time) indicated that a drawdown was inevitable and it's beginning was immediate - the only question was how fast it could be concluded. But I concluded by noting:
...as individuals shift their positions on Iraq (centrist Dems, Repubs, and Independents seek common ground while extremists and "party uber alles" types on both sides move to the fringes) I predict the media will pander to the minority - those extremists, who will make great headlines.
You'll be able to identify the extremes - one side will call for "troops home now" while on the other side "don't listen to Democrats - they want the troops home now!" will rally the faithful.
The rest of us will work to "fix" Iraq.
That was 2006. Few have moved on from that year - but like it or not, it's 2008 (almost 2009, in fact) and yet another election is in our rear view mirror.
Stars and Stripes reporters overseas will be collecting reaction from troops (including those in Iraq) on the election and putting them up ASAP on their site.
[Bounammer - Scott Kesterson: - in Afghansitan ]: “The guys have their opinions. It’s definitely interesting.” He smiled and then chuckled.
“And what about you? How are you feeling about the election?”
“The media seems to be focusing on the fact that he is a black President. It has never been about race for me.”
He continued, “I looked at each candidate for what I thought would be best for the country. I felt Obama had a better approach for the country and what we are facing. Black candidates of the past have had black agendas. I felt Obama was speaking to all of America.”
The Staff Sergeant’s focus then shifted, “People get wrapped around the person who is President. But he can only do so much. We need to be focusing on the legislation that comes from the Democrats and Republicans we elect to Congress. They affect America more. Obama can come in and push an agenda, but if the Congress doesn’t buy off on it, nothing will happen.”
As we talked I asked the Staff Sergeant about some of the discussions that had been happening throughout the day.
[Fobbits need ice cream too - in Iraq]: Welp, new president-elect. First African-American president and all that shit, I suppose. I don't buy into that whatever-American shit though. You're an American or you're not. My grandparents immigrated from Norway after WW I, but I don't call myself a Norwegian-American. Black people over here have to wear body armor and get shot at just as much as us white guys; ethnicity really means nothing in the Army.
[S4 at War - in Iraq ]: Things have picked up here a bit so I haven’t had much time to create my typical brilliance. But I have been asked quite a bit what the military’s reaction to the election is. Now, I wouldn’t presume to ask any of my non-military friends what the civilian world’s reaction to the election is but I’ll do my part nonetheless. Here are a few overheards from today:
“He’ll close Guantanamo. That will be his big military move. For the rest of us motherfuckers up in here it’ll be the same old shit.”
“People are captivated when he talks.” “They cry and shit like he’s Michael Jackson.”
“He’s got Oprah, you don’t need shit else.”
“I’ll tell you this, if he gets me out of here I’ll vote for him again.”
I was watching the news with some of the civilians who work here and was surprised at how much more intense they were on their views.
[Bad Dogs and Such - in Iraq]: So...about that election - Well. That was a little more...definite than I had thought it would be.
I spent most of the morning in a room full of Sons of Iraq leadership, watching Al Arabia's coverage of said election. Explaining the electoral college through an interpreter is, in case you've never done it, kind of an adventure.
[CDR Salamander]: We are us and they are them. Also, we should all bask in the glory that to much of the Muslim world that knows their Sharia - we just elected and apostate to Islam as our President. That should twist the knickers of a few folks out there. In summary; the Republic will survive, do not despair - for the wheel will turn.
...Now, clear the cheese cloth from our eyes and lets take a sober look at what decision the American voters have made. We now have waiting for us in the new year the most Leftist government this nation has seen arguably in 70 years or 40 years depending on what formula you want to use. You can also argue that the potential exists for this to be the most Left - only time will tell
[Maj Z ]: I realized something today, as I watched our next batch of leaders take a PT test:
We're going to be okay. More than that, we are going to be a stronger nation.
We are a resilient country.
...Barack Obama is the new President. Support him until 2012. He is OUR President. He deserves OUR respect to do otherwise makes US the moonbats. Now is the time for us to show the world that we are not a nation divided. Our strength is in our unity.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you have to love or even like Barack Obama, but respect the office. I've had several bosses in the Army that I hated, both personally and professionally. They were still the boss, and they still got my respect, because they were in charge.
[This Ain't Hell]: I dispute this whole “historical” thing - I have these thoughts zooming around in my head and find it hard to work without writing them down.
I think it’s absolutely unAmerican to think of this as an historical moment in our nation’s long journey. It’s unConservative - and that’s been our whole problem with minorities, but it comes with the ideological territory.
In our Declaration of Independence, it’s written that “…all Men are created equal….” It doesn’t make a racial distinction.
[No Angst zone]: I must respectfully disagree. President-elect Obama shares absolutely none of the heritage of racial repression that has darkened this country's history. A man who has formative ties to Kansas, Hawaii, Kenya, and Indonesia does not know what it is like to have a father who can remember being fire-hosed and attacked with dogs while marching for civil rights. A man who attended Harvard does not know what it is like to work a job while attending night classes to become the first college graduate in his family.
The day we elect a person who grew up in a small town in Mississippi (or Alabama, or Louisiana, or Georgia), who attended a small state college, and who can trace their lineage back to a sharecropper and, before that, a slave, THAT will be a historic day for America.
[The War on Big Tobacco - in Iraq ]: There Were No Tanks in the Street - Mainly because all the tanks are over here in Iraq. But seriously, folks…
I’m smoking a Hecho a Mano Primo in celebration because when you think about it, it’s a victory no matter who won.
To 44 peaceful transfers of power...
G-d bless America.
[A Soldier's Perspective]: The fact of the matter is that whether we like it or not, Barack Hussein Obama will be this nation's 44th President of the United States. Like Bush before him, he deserves the respect that the office commands. The fact that Obama has won an office that only 43 people before him have ever held is an achievement that we must recognize.
[The Armorer]: But, now that there's going to be a Democrat in the White House, patriotism will be in again - so maybe the movies will be a little less dreadful, though they'll be no less preachy.
Does the election of a black man to the Presidency of the United States mean we can finally give Europe the finger? Seeing as how those hosers have never elected anything but a pasty-white European to high elective office?
[Illini6. - formerly known as Miserable Donuts]: ...I'm afraid that this president is an unknown factor as far as defense and he will be pushed, just to see what he will do. I think this is similar to Kennedy and Khrushchev with the Cuban Missile Crisis. This is why I say, "Calm down." Let's see what the man does when his back is against it.
This election may have made some of our friends friendlier, but remember, regardless of the outcome of this election, America still has people who hate us and I think the world has just gotten a little less safe.
[Neptunus Lex]: There’s always change. ...We can also say farewell to the legions of homeless, at least for a while. That’s been solved. And all of those loons on stilt puppets. Farewell to all that.
Sometimes you’ve got to find the pony in the pile of shit.
Which is not to say that we give our new political class a pass. We should watch them like hawks, compare their policies to our preferences, hold them accountable, safeguard the Constitution.
[The Sniper]: I don’t like you because I don’t trust you. I think you’re a socialist, I think you’re a media whore, I think you’re a flash in the pan… but you won. So congratulations… you now own the most powerful office in the world. Everyone in the world is looking at you as an example of America and more importantly, an example of an African-American. Little black kids across America are lloking up to you. Try not to eff it up.
[Matt - BlackFive]: I do worry about nationalized healthcare from the standpoint of innovation, quality and access. First, what large system has the federal government ever taken over and made better? Second, if the government could get military healthcare to work well, maybe, just maybe, I'd buy into the idea.
I am concerned about defense spending - military innovations and technology, pay, equipment, etc.
[Deebow - BlackFive]: Now is not the time to shirk our duties as men and women who are used to fighting. Now is the time to gird our loins, sharpen our axes, gather our allies and make our stand based upon our beliefs and fight tooth and nail for all that we have; never yielding or giving an inch on our beliefs.
We will DEMAND that President Obama not cut and run from Iraq or Afghanistan.
We will DEMAND ...
[Grim - BlackFive]: I see that John McCain has called Senator Obama -- now President-elect Obama -- to concede defeat. Our country has made a horrible mistake; that much is clear. We will raise taxes in a recession, and cut military spending during a war.
[Bouhammer]: Audio Blog: Post Election comments - This Audio blog is my personal opinion and political rant of this Presidential Election and what it means to this country….in my humble opinion.
[CounterColumn]: Ok, now, as a uniformed service member (part time), I need to start to figure out how to run a blog when I am not likely to be very supportive of the liberal-in-chief's policies - if not outright contemptuous. Now, I hope I am pleasantly surprised by the future Obama administration, but it seems pretty clear to me that the man is part and parcel of the worst that Chicago machine politics has to offer.
Think about that for a second. Of all the machines Obama could have come from, he had to come from the single most corrupt machine in the country (with the possible exception of Hawaii's Democratic machine). And then ...
Republican John McCain's presidential campaign sued the Virginia election board Monday, claiming absentee ballots weren't mailed on time to military members serving overseas.
No one knows why some 70 percent of overseas military ballots weren't recorded in 2006. No one keeps centralized records on military ballots or voter turnout. But anecdotal evidence collected from local voting districts, which number more than 7,000, points to ballots that arrived late, ballots not properly filled out and ballots mailed to the wrong location — most of which get discarded. Then there are the ballots of troops who, for whatever reason, never mailed them back at all.
The Murtha campaign is hitting the carpetbagger theme pretty hard, though it's not quite fair. Russell moved to the district after he retired from the army, and during his 28 year career in the military his family had no real permanent home. He'd pretty much be a carpet bagger no matter where he went. Nonetheless, the Russell campaign thinks that if anything has hurt them it's this. In fact, when Murtha angrily denounced Russell as a "G-d damn carpetbagger" he may have looked like a crazy old man from the outside, it actually may have actually may have resonated somewhat as righteous indignation in the district.
<...>
Finally, he says that Russell is running ahead of McCain in the state. Murtha's district is the home of the country's largest coal reserves and the Russell campaign has been pushing the heck out of Obama's coal comments. If McCain somehow wins Pennsylvania by a narrow margin, Russell's impact in Western Pennsylvania might end up being a very significant contributing factor.
I know the "capetbagger" comment didn't resonate with Chuck, and he's a milblogger in Pennsylvania.
AND A REMINDER TO ALL: THERE ARE MANY MORE MOTHERS AND SPOUSES RECIEVING NOTIFICATIONS, BUT NOT ALL HAVE BLOGS, SO TO MAKE SURE THOSE FAMILIES THAT MAY NOT RECIEVE ATTENTION THROUGH THE BLOGOSPHERE, LET'S MAKE SURE THEY RECIEVE YOUR SUPPORT THROUGH SOLDIERS ANGELS OR THE WOUNDED WARRIOR PROJECT OR SOME OTHER MILITARY SUPPORT PROGRAM OF YOUR CHOICE.
The Dems just dropped nearly a half million for ad buys to save the ex-Marine:
Jack Murtha, whose once-certain re-election has now been put in serious danger after he called his constituents racists and rednecks, has brought out two new weapons in his campaign: Bill and Hillary Clinton, who remain popular after they campaigned throughout the region for the Dem primary, and have recorded robocalls for the embattled incumbent.
Funny that calling American soldiers cold blooded killers didn't hurt him with the folks back home one bit - he was re-elected rather handily two years ago.
But is this really helpful?
"Jack Murtha knows Western Pennsylvania; Jack's a true leader," Hillary says. "He fights everyday for you, for our troops, and our veterans, just as he fought for me."
Because last I checked Hillary came in second and Jack Murtha calls the troops cold blooded murderers. (Did I mention that already?)
Ironic that the Dems have to spend 450k to keep the House's Pork King on his throne. I blame Jimbo, Chuck, and the Vets for Freedom.
So what exactly is the argument here? There are many, but I think this exchange captures a point worthy of discussion that will likely (in the immediate dustup over Nir Rosen) be overlooked.
West:
Woodward did open doors for Murphy that led to reviews the mainstream press denies warrior-journalists like Michael Yon and David Bellavia, who understand the war at the gut level.
Exum:
...while we're asking questions, who appointed him the sole arbiter of those who understand "the nature of war" or understand war "at the gut level?"
That quote from Exum follows his condemnation of West's comparison of the relative scales of various wars. While I believe West draws the distinction between individual, family, and national "sacrifice" fairly clearly:
One is left with the image of savage combat against untrustworthy Iraqis in a frustrating war that exacted sacrifices equivalent in scale and loss to the Greatest Generation of World War II. Yet this war is less intense by orders of magnitude than Vietnam, and Vietnam was far less intense than World War II. Although this does not mitigate the sorrow or sacrifice of each family that lost a loved one, it is helpful to the reader when a nonfiction writer lays out his frame of reference.
...Exum reads it differently:
...he [West] went after Bill Murphy's book in Forbes, sniping -- among other things -- that the contemporary American officer corps had not sacrificed on a level equivalent to those who fought in World War II and Vietnam -- wars "more intense" than the ones currently being fought. That's not true at all. I left active duty in 2004, and I certainly didn't have to sacrifice along the lines of what my grandfather offered to the country between 1942 and 1946. But if you're an officer who has served on active duty from 2001 until the present, the odds are your service to the country to this point has indeed been on par with anything asked of officers in Vietnam or World War II. But why are we even talking about this? What an ugly thing to say in the first place. What is West hoping to achieve? "
I think he mis-read West's point, which I interpret as individual sacrifices are comparable, but numbers of individuals are not. My interpretation might be wrong insofar as I have no insight into what West was thinking, but is inarguably true whether it's what West meant or not. But because it's an obvious truth, as far as that point goes I agree with Exum here: "why are we even talking about this?" (Although the answer as I see it, Andrew, is "because you want to" - why that is so is a topic for another post.)
But that brings us to what I believe is West's real point, quoted above: "the mainstream press denies warrior-journalists like Michael Yon and David Bellavia, who understand the war at the gut level" - to which Exum responds (perhaps in anger over other issues) "who appointed him the sole arbiter of those who understand "the nature of war" or understand war "at the gut level?"" But he's aiming at the wrong target. A book review - which is what West was writing, after all - is by nature an opinion piece, and represents the opinion of its author. West isn't claiming "sole arbiter" status, nor is he even limiting his approval to two authors by citing them as examples of what he means (note West's key word "like").
He's simply pointing out that books like In a Time of War get reviewed in mainstream media publications, and books like Moment of Truth in Iraq and House to House do not. Likewise, Yon and Bellavia (and West and Exum, for that matter) are warriors, and Murphy is not [correction appended - see below]. This says nothing about their ability to write, or capture an experience in writing, or to make that experience accessible to a reader - outsiders are often better at that. Few among the mass of humanity master both pen and sword - or any other tool, for that matter - hence ghostwriters earn their pay.
But West isn't really criticizing anyone's writing skills here - he's claiming that "warriors" don't have a chance of seeing their efforts reviewed - favorably or otherwise - in the mainstream press. And by extension, they are denied exposure to readers "outside the circle" who use that source as a "buyers guide."
Update: An update from Exum includes a link to a response from Murphy. There Murphy states: "I was first introduced to West's work when I was on active duty in the Army Reserve," a biographical detail I'd previously missed - so my "warrior" comment (though not meant in a negative manner in the first place) stands corrected.
If you aren't a Socialist, that seems to me to be a good first response to anyone who claims that you are. And you can substitute any other adjective and use the same phrase in response to any unfair accusation. (Or any fair accusation - if you aren't concerned with accuracy.)
This has nothing to do with the relative merits of socialists or socialism (all successful nations practice a degree of social welfare, like it or not) or whether socialism has a fair or unfair bad reputation. Just a reminder using a specific example to those who feel they've been unfairly accused of being anything that "I am not" is usually a clear first response. Supporting details can then follow.
(Part of my advice for campaign teams series - previous entry here.)
Hey kids - here's a pre-historic music video, perfect for this week:
Since once again I've presented a tune from an old-school rocker who will likely vote for McCain (The Arizona native recently said "I vote for the person, not the party. [As for U.S. Vice President hopeful Sarah Palin], I think she's totally a breath of fresh air. When they say she has no experience, maybe that's what Washington needs. I still don't know who I'm going to vote for. But in a shooting war, I want a pit bull, not a poodle. I'm gonna go for the hawk.") the Fairness Doctrine dictates I give equal time to the opposition.
So here's one Obama voters would probably gleefully sing to their man on election night or any other:
Looks like Peter Frampton's neighbors don't feel like he does.
The '70s rock star is complaining that his Barack Obama yard signs keep getting swiped from his home in the upscale and predominantly Republican Cincinnati suburb of Indian Hill.
Frampton, 58, is so angry that he called The Cincinnati Enquirer asking to be interviewed.
The British-born singer of "Do You Feel Like We Do" and other hits told the newspaper that one reason he became a U.S. citizen was so he could vote. Now, he says his American rights to free speech and political speech are being violated and it "bugs" him.
Good thing the British-born rocker turned insurance company pitch man had the courage to demand that interview, otherwise we might never have known.
I started the day noting that the John McCain campaign team (not the candidate) might be by far the most incompetent in history.
I end the day by noting that they are actually much worse than that. In fact, there are no words in the English language sufficient to describe how pathetic these people are. Perhaps the French have a term...
I note that Governor Palin does quite well in this - having been handed a phone by someone in the campaign team and told who is on the other end she had no reason to believe she was being had. Again, it's the campaign team - who doubtless had ample advance notice/coordination on this call - that blew it. Big time. Losing an election Big Time. Barack Obama couldn't have picked a better team himself Big Time.
The commander of the smallest unit in the US military wouldn't allow himself/herself to be surrounded by people this incompetent. Maybe that's why I find it so remarkably disgusting and inexcusable.
The Obama campaign team can be accused of significant failures too. One of the most obvious was the handling of the Reverend Wright video. Rather than have their candidate simply claim he never heard Wright utter comments like the ones on that brief collection they could have countered with another video compilation of excerpts of Wright preaching the message of the Gospels. The Sermon on the Mount would have been a great start:
"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."
Perfect, says I. From the same chapter, later verse: "But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven." Simple yet powerful messages, as is this "'Love your neighbor as yourself."
But instead of a video of Wright preaching the gospels, the candidate was left to go it alone :
Most importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life. In other words, he has never been my political advisor; he's been my pastor. And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn.
The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.
How much more powerful would that statement had been if it had only been backed by a brief video of Reverend Wright actually preaching some of those very gospels? Even if the church was unwilling to release such a video a public request by the Obama campaign for them to do so could have been nearly as effective.
Which brings us to the campaign team's second failure: Ironically, not demanding that the LA Times release a video. Not the non-existent video of Reverend Wright preaching the gospel of Christ, but a very much existing (according to the LA Times) video of Obama at a dinner party for a friend:
Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Barack Obama
CHICAGO -- It was a celebration of Palestinian culture -- a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics. Local Arab Americans were bidding farewell to Rashid Khalidi, an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights, who was leaving town for a job in New York.
A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.
His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."
<...>
The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.
That story is from April, 2008 - before Obama had even secured the Democratic nomination. Arguably, the hints that he's a "friend of Palestine" may have garnered him some votes in that pursuit. That wouldn't draw my vote, but I learned long ago to ignore headlines and read even the most "detailed" stories with much scepticism. However, any verification that Senator Obama (or his opponent) believes in the importance of conversation and the search for common ground in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a positive reaffirmation of a concept with which I agree.
But many folks have demanded that the LA Times release the video so that American voters can make up their own minds on that issue. The Times has announced that they promised the source of the video that they would never do so. And that's prompted responses like this one from the right:
Even if you accept for argument’s sake the bunk about honoring the “source’s” supposed wishes, the newspaper wouldn’t need to release the tape in order to give us a more comprehensive account of what happened that evening. So it’s not that the Times is simply withholding the tape. The Times is trying to suppress the story. Not the story as Wallsten spun it back in April. The full story.
The full story couldn’t be more relevant. Barack Obama says he is a staunch supporter of Israel. The importance of the Khalidi festivities isn’t simply that Obama lavished praise on a man who was an Arafat apologist — although that is troubling in itself. What also matters is that many speakers (no doubt including Obama’s good friend Khalidi himself) said extremely provocative things about Israel and American policy.
While that went on, Obama apparently sat there in tacit acceptance, if not approval. He didn’t get up to leave. He wasn’t roused to a defense of his country. He didn’t deliver a spirited condemnation of Islamic terror. He just sat there. And when it came his turn to speak, he spoke … glowingly … about Khalidi. He was clearly comfortable around the agitators and, equally crucial, they were clearly comfortable spewing their bile in front of him — confident that they were certainly not giving offense.
The initial Times story from April acknowledges that during the party
...a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace."
One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology."
...so while they also assure us that
Obama adopted a different tone in his comments and called for finding common ground. But his presence at such events, as he worked to build a political base in Chicago, has led some Palestinian leaders to believe that he might deal differently with the Middle East than either of his opponents for the White House.
...those doubts expressed in response aren't unreasonable.
And they're not unpredictable, either. Which is why the Obama campaign missed a golden opportunity when they failed to echo - or better yet, precede the call by the McCain campaign to release the video with their own demand for just that.
"I'm not in the business about talking about media bias," [McCain] told a Florida radio station. "But what if there was a tape of John McCain in a neo-Nazi outfit being held by some media outlet? I think the treatment of the issue would be slightly different."
Imagine if instead of their actual response ("This is just another recycled, manufactured controversy from the McCain campaign to distract voters' attention.") team Obama had instead announced that they, too, would like to have the tape released. It would have been a "can't lose" situation - if the LA Times had refused at least no one could accuse the campaign of hiding something they were afraid of. And if the tape had been released, proof of Obama's balanced position on the Israeli-Palestinian issue would be available for all the world to see.
Now certainly, that sort of blunder (or at least missed opportunity) on the part of the Obama campaign doesn't rise to the level of failing to ensure Joe the Plumber is actually in the crowd before telling your candidate to point him out, or not handing a phone to his running mate without somehow ensuring that the guy with French accent actually is the President of France. And certainly if John McCain says "if there was a tape of John McCain in a neo-Nazi outfit being held by some media outlet I think the treatment of the issue would be slightly different" then team Obama can rely on the Washington Post to say "Mr. McCain and his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, have likened Mr. Khalidi, the director of a Middle East institute at Columbia University, to neo-Nazis" - so team Obama doesn't have to worry about blunders to the degree that team McCain does.
But for some reason, with a six hundred million dollar war chest and unquestioning media support on their side, the Obama campaign can't open a reliable and significant lead in pre-election polls. In my mind, release of those two simple videos - both of which have been so well described to us we can almost see them anyway - would seal the deal, and I can't for the life of me imagine why they've failed to do just that.
As the scale of the economic crisis becomes clear and comparisons to the Great Depression of the 1930s are tossed around, there is a very real danger that America could succumb to the feeling that we no longer have the luxury of worrying about distant lands, now that we are confronted with a "real" problem that actually affects the lives of all Americans. As we consider whether various bailout plans help Main Street as well as Wall Street, the subtext is that both are much more important to Americans than Haifa Street.
One problem with this emotion is that it ignores the sequel to the Great Depression -- the rise of militaristic Japan marked by the 1931 invasion of Manchuria, and Hitler's rise to power in Germany in 1933, both of which resulted in part from economic dislocations spreading outward from the U.S. The inward-focus of the U.S. and the leading Western powers (Great Britain and France) throughout the 1930s allowed these problems to metastasize, ultimately leading to World War II.
Is it possible that American inattention to the world in the coming years could lead to a similarly devastating result? You betcha.
The current economic crisis is extremely grave. It is hurting many Americans today and will hurt many more as it unwinds. It will end, however, as economic crises always do. The question is how long the recovery will take and how bad things will get before it takes hold.
"It will end, however, as economic crises always do" - I'm not so sure that all economic crises end alike. The Great Depression, for instance, really didn't end until WWII got America's machinery turning again. ("The seeds of that global conflict, unimaginable in 1933 given the relative weakness of Germany and Japan, were planted in the first years of the Roosevelt administration as FDR focused on the American economy.")
And while other "ends" might be preferred, our next president has a ready-and-waiting "goodwar" to turn to if all else fails, and a former president to blame for all the evils of the world. (And if our next president is Barack Obama, a compliant congress and unprecedented level of unquestioning media support. And hey, wars are good for newspaper sales, too...)
Secretary of the Navy, Donald C. Winter announced last night at a Navy SEAL Warrior Fund Benefit Gala at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City, the name of the newest Zumwalt-class Destroyer will be USS Michael Monsoor.
And much more about the role of the SEALs in Ramadi in Dick Couch's book Sheriff of Ramadi (Discussed here.)
Update: Here's a story on the USS Michael Monsoor from the Orange County Register that includes an interview with Couch:
Navy names warship in honor of local hero
Dick Couch, a former Navy SEAL and author of The Sheriff of Ramadi, a newly released book about the SEALS' contribution to the U.S. Army's and Marine Corps' victory in the Al-Anbar province, said Monsoor is "very special among a few special people."
"I always believed that what Monsoor did was very special because he had a way out and he chose not to escape," said Couch, a Vietnam War veteran who was embedded with the SEALs during the Battle of Ramadi. "He made a conscious decision to die and save his comrades."
Couch said he wrote specifically about the Battle of Ramadi because it was the first time the SEALs worked so closely with the U.S. Army and Marine Corps and helped win the town back from insurgents and Al Qaeda.
"Ramadi was special because we not only won the town, we won the people," he said.
From World War II to today, men and women have undertaken roles that involve overwhelming peril, seemingly unbeatable odds, and almost certain death all for the greater good of countries or communities. THE DANGEROUS MISSIONS COLLECTION introduces these heroes and the harrowing missions they take on, often as volunteers.
Perhaps one day soon all Americans will be inspired to do these sorts of things for the greater good of their country or community.
I checked the back story and I think reporting that is worthwhile - one thing we've learned in these parts is not to trust everyone who says they're an Iraq veteran.
So I suppose you could say I "vetted" him. But I suspect a lot of people will be looking into Joe Cook now. (And not content to stop with Google.) Since this video - an actual "grass roots" effort, by the way - is now making news for being the number one video, I wonder if he's in for the full Joe the Plumber treatment from team Obama?
On the other hand, the John McCain campaign team (not the candidate) might be by far the most incompetent in history ("Joe? are you out there Joe? Where's Joe... You're all Joe!") so I'm also wondering how they'll go about screwing this one up.
And what is it with these guys named Joe? Is Biden the only one backing Obama?
and 
do not. Likewise, Yon and Bellavia (and West and Exum, for that matter) are warriors, and Murphy is not [correction appended - see below]. This says nothing about their ability to write, or capture an experience in writing, or to make that experience accessible to a reader - outsiders are often better at that. Few among the mass of humanity master both pen and sword - or any other tool, for that matter - hence ghostwriters earn their pay. 
