 |  |
| [-] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
Prev | List | Random | Next |
Except, it's not real. I Photoshopped it.
Here's some news you may have heard: "U.S. forces withdrew from Iraq's cities today." I can provide you countless links to blogs (mostly) and mainstream news sources (fewer) that have reported this. It is wrong.
This is not wrong: "U.S. combat forces gradually withdrew from Iraq cities over the past several months." The military has said this repeatedly, very few people have heard. Many of those who've been ignoring reality will be outraged that the military has "lied to them" when they learn this.
There are plenty of U.S. forces left in Iraqi cities. They are non-combat forces.
They have guns.
Update: General Odierno's message to the troops.
Col. Schroeder, Inspector General / Assistant Deputy Director Strategy & Plans Division, will discuss his experience advising and assisting Iraqi Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Interior and Joint Headquarters IGs in the development of a modern, professional IG capability; with noted successes and challenges.
The MNSTC-I ("Minsticky") home page is here. The current "front-page story" is a Wall Street Journal piece written by MNSTC-I commander, Lt. Gen. Frank Helmick:
The term "combat forces" in the agreement is important. At the request of the government of Iraq, the requirement for combat forces to be out of Iraq's cities does not apply to U.S. troops serving in other roles. There will still be some U.S. forces located in Iraq's cities who are serving in an advisory or liaison capacity. Additionally, the Iraqi government reserves the right to request assistance from U.S. combat forces if necessary.
Primary responsibility for advising Iraqi security forces is assigned to an organization called Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq. MNSTC-I is presently comprised of more than 5,600 of America's best soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Defense Department civilians, and contractors. Its mission is to help train and equip Iraq's security forces to the point where they are able to protect the Iraqi people and do so within the rule of law, in accordance to international standards, and while respecting human rights.
In yesterday's roundtable, I asked Joseph McMillan, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs if the bulk of forces left in Iraqi cities would be MNSTC-I troops - the answer: no. They will be MNC-I. ("Multi-National Corps - Iraq, part of Multi-National Force - Iraq , is the tactical unit responsible for command and control of operations throughout Iraq.") MNC-I and MNSTC-I are both part of Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I), commanded by General Odierno. If all that confuses you, you are not alone. (But hopefully listening to the audio above will help - that's the reason I chose that as my first question...)
(My thanks to USN Lt Jennifer Cragg, who does the hard work putting these together.)
Who does this guy think he is?
On June 2, Obama administration officials got a firsthand look at the brewing political battle when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton traveled to Honduras for an Organization of American States conference. Mrs. Clinton met with Mr. Zelaya, and he reportedly annoyed her when he summoned her to a private room late in the night after her arrival and had her shake hands with his extended family.
Some of "those people" have HUGE extended families. I'll bet she looked like hell the next day.
Bastard.
At the HuffPo
It has been widely reported that Iraqis are celebrating the withdrawal of US forces from their country. But what the media has failed to emphasize is that 130,000 residual forces will still be operating inside of Iraq...
Damn it! Who are their sources? How do they find this stuff? No matter how hard the Pentagon and the media attempt to cover up what's really going on in Iraq, somehow (you can bet on it) an intrepid blogger for the Huffpo or Daily Kos will find The Truth. (That's just one reason I call them the Sniffington Post here - they never stop sniffing around for that media cover-up.)
Take a look at this Washington Post story, for example:
BAGHDAD, June 30 -- This is no longer America's war.
Six years and three months after the March 2003 invasion, the United States has withdrawn its remaining combat troops from Iraq's cities, the U.S. commander here said, and is turning over security to Iraqi police and soldiers.
While more than 130,000 U.S. troops remain in the country...
Three sentences - they tried to bury the truth in the third sentence of their so-called "news" story. It's no wonder the top reporters from both Posts are going at it over who does a better job asking the tough questions at Presidential press conferences.
Meanwhile, you've got to get almost half way through this 450 word Pentagon News bulletin currently headlined on Multi-National Force - Iraq's front page to find the Truth:
U.S. troops in Iraq, who up until this weekend were securing Iraq's cities and towns, are now forming layers of defense outside the country's major cities and focusing on Iraq's external borders, Morrell said. This is not to say, however, that the 131,000 ground forces will never set foot in an Iraqi city in a combat capacity, he added.
O.M.G. I shudder to think what might happen if (or when) a SniffPo investigative reporter discovers what "combat troops" means.
I'm almost afraid to read sites like the SniffPo or Daily Kos. After all, who knows what else the "mainstream media" sources have been denying about Iraq?
Update: My buddy Jules: "Talk about denial. Euphrates ain't a river in Baghdad at all. Tigris is." Drat - he's discovered my part in the coverup! (I'm serious when I say "my buddy" though.)
More: Here's the (fake) picture you've been looking for.
Crowded House:
Packed 'em in there, they did. Sez the Prez:
(Cell phone "quacks.")
Whose duck is back there? (Laughter.)
MRS. OBAMA: It's a duck.
THE PRESIDENT: There's a duck quacking in there somewhere. (Laughter.) Where do you guys get these ring tones, by the way? (Laughter.) I'm just curious. (Laughter.)<...>
And finally, I want to say a word about "don't ask, don't tell." As I said before -- I'll say it again -- I believe "don't ask, don't tell" doesn't contribute to our national security. (Applause.) In fact, I believe preventing patriotic Americans from serving their country weakens our national security. (Applause.)
Now, my administration is already working with the Pentagon and members of the House and the Senate on how we'll go about ending this policy, which will require an act of Congress.
Someday, I'm confident, we'll look back at this transition and ask why it generated such angst, but as commander in chief, in a time of war, I do have a responsibility to see that this change is administered in a practical way and a way that takes over the long term. That's why I've asked the secretary of Defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop a plan for how to thoroughly implement a repeal.
I know that every day that passes without a resolution is a deep disappointment to those men and women who continue to be discharged under this policy -- patriots who often possess critical language skills and years of training and who've served this country well. But what I hope is that these cases underscore the urgency of reversing this policy not just because it's the right thing to do, but because it is essential for our national security.
Now even as we take these steps, we must recognize that real progress depends not only on the laws we change but, as I said before, on the hearts we open. For if we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that there are good and decent people in this country who don't yet fully embrace their gay brothers and sisters -- not yet.
That's why I've spoken about these issues not just in front of you, but in front of unlikely audiences -- in front of African American church members, in front of other audiences that have traditionally resisted these changes. And that's what I'll continue to do so. That's how we'll shift attitudes.
Hey - wait a minute! That was an awful manly looking group in that photo...
Elsewhere in the Administration:I was just going through the invite list to the White House gay party last night. I counted around 63 women out of around 176 invitees. (Some names were hard to determine the gender, and it's always possible my back-of-the-envelope count is off by one or two, but that won't change the overall percentage enough to make a difference.)
113 men (64%)
63 women (36%)
That would be a bit more than one-third women invited to a major civil rights event hosted by a Democratic president. Let me explain something. For good or for bad, and I happen to think it's good, when a big liberal group or politician holds a public event, they try to get a representative mix of people showing up. That means you pay attention to how many women you have, or haven't, invited, how many African-Americans, etc. Even in the 1990s, inviting nearly twice as many men as women would raise more than a few eyebrows. But in 2009?
Labor Secretary Hilda Solis issued a warning letter to departmental employees late last week, after posters celebrating Gay Pride Month hanging in 35 department elevators since June 22 have been either defaced or removed altogether.
In an e-mail message sent to the entire department, Ms. Solis, who helped found the House of Representative's Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Caucus when she was in Congress, said she was outraged by the behavior.
Legislature: We can't loan money to Governments that support terrorism.
President: Yes we can.
Oh, by the way...
Charlie Savage at the New York Times blog The Caucus:On Wednesday, June 24, President Obama signed the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009, and issued a short, laudatory signing statement. It was purely "rhetorical," to use the language of academics who study this subject, and voiced no constitutional objections...
Two days later, apparently at about 4:15 pm on the evening of Friday, June 26, the President issued an additional statement that contained the fifth constitutional signing statement of his presidency. After four paragraphs lauding the funding the Act provides, the President stated:
However, provisions of this bill within sections 1110 to 1112 of title XI, and sections 1403 and 1404 of title XIV, would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments, or by requiring consultation with the Congress prior to such negotiations or discussions. I will not treat these provisions as limiting my ability to engage in foreign diplomacy or negotiations.
Mr. Bush's frequent use of the device to claim a right to bypass laws prompted criticism by the American Bar Association in 2006. Its House of Delegates called signing statements "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers," and called on presidents to stop using the device and instead to veto legislation if it has sections that the president believes to be unconstitutional.
Shortly after taking office, Mr. Obama issued a directive to executive agencies telling them not to rely on any of Mr. Bush's signing statements to bypass a law without prior approval from the attorney general. He also promised to use the device sparingly, and only to invoke mainstream theories of the Constitution.
Since then, he has issued several signing statements of his own.
John Elwood (author of the Volokh Conspiracy link/quote at the beginning of this piece) says of Savage's commentary, "one might say it lacks the "urgency" of some of his earlier Pulitzer-Prize-winning reporting on the subject" and provides links to same that upon review indicate that's a fair observation. But perhaps he's just getting warmed up...
The original signing statement is here, the latest (as of this writing - I assume no responsibility for subsequent releases) is here.
Given recent news of Congress passing Bills that no one has read (or in some cases are only "almost" written), one's immediate concern might be whether whoever does read the multitude of voluminous documents they churn out prior to Presidential approval (a very large team, I assume) might be having a tough go at keeping up. And while a two day delay on an addendum to a signing statement might be reasonable under the workload, is there a definition on what might be excessive? (Or is that a "no, but we'll know it when we see it" sort of thing?*)
At this point I'd like to congratulate those still reading for having an attention span greater than most elected officials. You'll find I've appended the fairly long text of the disputed portions of the Bill Law at the end of this entry, though I certainly don't expect anyone to read them. The shortest with which the President balks is section 1404, in which Congress asserts that the U.S.will oppose (by vote) any loans by International Institutions to any nation whose government "has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.'
Other challenged sections deal with "promotion of policy goals at the world bank group", "climate change mitigation and greenhouse gas accounting", ("The Secretary of the Treasury shall seek to ensure that multilateral development banks... adopt and implement greenhouse gas accounting in analyzing the benefits and costs of individual projects (excluding those with de minimus greenhouse gas emissions) for which funding is sought from the bank.") and "multilateral development bank reform".
You may be asking, "what does any of that have to do with paying for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? The answer: every bit as much as Cash for Clunkers does - it too was a part of the "Defense Supplemental". (It's law now, suckers - at least, except for the parts President Obama has or will in the future red line.)
(And one final caveat - I pulled the text that follows from the Government Printing Office web site, where it is claimed to be the version that passed both the House and Senate. There is no way that statement can ever be verified as truth, nor should anyone assume that there is such a version, or if so that that version is also the one the President signed - examples of such failures can be found here.)
*Footnote/added thought: If Congress passed a Bill limiting the time between signing and a "statement", would the President veto it?
"Joseph McMillan, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs spoke with online journalists and bloggers during a DoDLive Bloggers Roundtable, June 29, to discuss the 30 June official turn over in Iraq."
Audio here (there will be about 15 seconds of silence initially...). Crowded line for this one, with about ten folks asking questions - from ten perspectives. I was probably a bit too far into the weeds for my first question (MNSTC-I vice MNF-I, but it was answered), I think my second was more generic (the "pre surge posture" description) but still worthwhile.
I'm following a breaking story over a one-day news cycle, to see how it breaks, and how good/bad a job is done doing so. I won't edit incorrect info as news comes in, as that is sort of the point: to see how incorrect the info is.
Helluva story, too.
And here's Joshua Foust at Registan with more.
Bottom line (for now) is it's never a good sign when U.S. Forces in Afghanistan must release statements saying
There was no involvement of coalition or ISAF [International Security Assistance Forces] forces in the attack at a Kandahar police station today.
The incident was an Afghan-on-Afghan incident, and did not involve U.S. or international personnel or equipment.
Don't take my word as condemning the statement or questioning either its necessity or veracity - I'm merely observing that the need for it in the first place is both real and not good.
Meanwhile, back at the front:
"Yes, rest assured that whenever there is political upheaval anywhere in the world, Gen Y will be there to take pictures of themselves in front of it."
- Starbuck, from Iraq talking Honduras.
He's talking Iraq and June 30 deadlines here, though:
American troops will be reversing the maneuver which kicked off the surge--namely, moving combat troops out of small outposts inside the cities.
I'm surprised how few (if any) others have described it in those terms.
Mongo (who in a separate post endorses Starbuck on June 30 shenanigans we can expect) says:
I'm not going to post squat on the 30 JUN withdrawal of US combat forces from urban areas in Iraq. Too easy to get crosswise with OPSEC, PAO, etc. Instead, I'll link to this article, which does a good laydown of the situation.
But he offers one caveat, so click through to his place to read that and discover what article he's talking about.
Back in October '08 milblogger Dreadcow completed his second tour in Iraq with this post at Fun with Hand Grenades.
During a redeployment briefing about two weeks ago we were informed it would be a good idea to develop a "thirty second answer" for the purpose of dealing with questions coming from civilians such as "what's it like over there?" and "what's going on in Iraq?" I wish it was that easy... the situation in Iraq is complicated and everyone has their opinion; I certainly don't think thirty seconds is long enough to address the problems we face and the solution to those problems, but it definitely got me thinking.
And what followed was hands down the best analysis of the big picture Iraq situation I've seen. (He quit blogging shortly thereafter, but there are signs he has returned...) As prelude to whatever events are about to transpire in Iraq this week it can't be beat.
A chaplain from Walter Reed. A doctor from Walter Reed. The owner of a new hair salon. An architect. On a Metro train, in one terrifying instant and its aftermath, their lives became forever intertwined. This is their story.
Silly people...
...It would be impossible to read all those big, icky, boring bills...Texas Republican Reps. Joe Barton and Louie Gohmert have just asked the chair whether there exists a complete, updated copy of the Waxman-Markey carbon-cap bill.
"If a bill for which there is no copy were to actually pass this body," Barton asked, "could the bill without a copy be sent to the Senate for its consideration?"
May 22, 2008
House Republicans introduced a privileged resolution Thursday calling for an investigation into how a part of the Farm Bill was dropped from the bill that was sent to the president for his signature or veto.
The Republican resolution called for an immediate investigation into "the abuses of power surrounding the inaccuracies in the process and enrollment" of the bill and "admonished" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other members of Democratic leadership for their roles in the matter.
The resolution was quickly tabled with a party line vote.
Title III of the 15 title bill -- which pertains to trade -- was inadvertently left off the physical bill that was sent to the president's desk. Bush vetoed the bill, and the House voted to override his veto Wednesday evening.
House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said he's troubled by the fact that Democratic leaders were aware that the title was missing but went ahead with the override vote anyway.
"This is a very serious issue," said Boehner. "We don't know what happened or what kind of mistakes were made."
Why, if they read all these things they'd never have time to vote on them.
Shokka!!!! - Obama contemplates Executive Order for detention without charges.
Let's get one thing straight (as possible, at least...) - Congress left the Obama admin out to dry (or maybe covered for them, who really knows?) by not funding the Gitmo closing in the defense budget or the supplemental. It's about the only funding they didn't like - "Cash for Clunkers" somehow made the grade for the defense budget, this did not. As usual, plenty of other non-defense related items (many - but not all - of which are pure pork) passed muster, too. On top of that, more F22s than the DoD asked for and various other increases critical to continued home-district support found their way into the bill.
As for things considered that didn't fit, a Lieberman/Graham amendment to ban release of any additional detainee abuse photos received overwhelming support as a stand-alone measure (putting the Senate in line with the Supreme Court and the White House on that issue.)
And, oh by the way - the bulk of the cash goes to continuing the various wars (or "supporting the troops" if you prefer). Who would complain over a few tens of billions on top of many more tens of billions for that? This is the third year in a row all this has gone on under a Democratic controlled congress, although only the first prepared for the signature of a Democrat in the White House.
At some point, it will occur to the the useful idiots subset of those who voted for change (in 2006 or 2008) that they are no longer useful. When that reality strikes it will be interesting to see what they do about it. (Prediction: cry.) But that day is not today.
Up armor the trailers!!!!! (FWIW: I get emails from troops in Afghanistan saying their Under Armour gives them a rash.)
On the other hand - no, we don't need more F22s in this year's budget - regardless of what the Democratic-controlled Congress might say to the contrary. There are plenty of good reasons for that, but unfortunately MSNBC went with John ("The Rangers killed Tillman for Bush!!!!) Soltz over just about anyone familiar with the issue. (On the third hand, loud group chants of Republicanz R teh Suxorz!!! led by the VoteVets crew might be just the thing to keep the useful idiots useful and distracted while we buy more shiny new F22s to fly overwatch at Gitmo. Or, maybe "cutting" the ridiculously small - 7 or 12 - number of extra F22s the DoD doesn't want from the budget will be a bone to throw at the useful idiots to make them still feel useful...)
And for those not in on the inside joke at This Ain't Hell, I am Sam Elliot.
Looking forward, non-shark jumping news follows:
Here's a comparison/contrast of the operational environments (and other factors) confronting ISF and SoI troops, from Boss Mongo - who is currently mentoring ISF forces in Iraq. (Always a critical task, but one that will be very much so next week...)
Hmmmmm... speaking of next week:
Of particular concern is a new rule that bars U.S. troops from using mine-resistant armored vehicles in urban areas during the day, officials said....I believe someone is misinterpreting the guidance here. Obviously "combat troops out of cities" means we won't be doing routine solo (meaning sans ISF) security patrols in town, and I've heard that routine travel (to and from) various urban locales (say, resupply to the security stations and other locations where our many "non-combat" adviser and support troops are stationed) will be at night when the roads are less crowded, but this description paints a different (and, I suspect, erroneous) picture.
And speaking further of next week - for those not wanting to be surprised by the news I highly recommend the Iraq section of yesterday's Dawn Patrol for read-aheads. (And just because I'm biased towards the efforts of the awesome lady who compiles that information doesn't mean I'd steer you wrong.)
Michael Yon is back in Afghanistan:
Faces change but the danger is constant. There is no way around it. Doing the job safely is impossible. Some say that the best way to avoid danger is to stay with the troops. This is completely false. I spent more time with U.S. troops in Iraq than any correspondent from any organization, and the same might also be true of British forces. The time with the troops has been far more dangerous than time spent unembedded. I've never been in a shootout in Iraq or Afghanistan other than those times with U.S. or British forces, in which case it would be impossible to remember all the firefights, bombs, sniper attacks, or all the dead bodies. The most dangerous work that one can do is to embed with our combat troops. Nothing else comes close.That may be true, but with or without platoons of armed soldiers, Mike Yon has never shied away from going where others fear to tread:
Having worked for Mr. Jackson at his Neverland Ranch, I had the feeling that he was a hostage to his success.Mike Yon's reporting - you can't Beat It.
Yesterday: "Twitter appears to be crashing under the strain, which indicates it's not that useful for really big news.".
It wasn't just Twitter - and I wasn't the only one who noticed:
"Between approximately 2:40 p.m. PDT and 3:15 p.m. PDT today, some Google News users experienced difficulty accessing search results for queries related to Michael Jackson," a Google spokesman told CNET, which also reported that Google News users complained that the service was inaccessible for a time. At its peak, Google Trends rated the Jackson story as "volcanic."
As sites fell, users raced to other sites: TechCrunch reported that TMZ, which broke the story, had several outages; users then switched to Perez Hilton's blog, which also struggled to deal with the requests it received.
CNN reported a fivefold rise in traffic and visitors in just over an hour, receiving 20 million page views in the hour the story broke.
Twitter crashed as users saw multiple "fail whales" -- the illustrations the site uses as error messages -- user FoieGrasie posting, "Irony: The protesters in Iran using Twitter as com are unable to get online because of all the posts of 'Michael Jackson RIP.' Well done." The site's status blog said that Twitter had had to temporarily disable its search results, saved searches and trend topics.
I was able to get a message out: "Goodnight Iran".
Update - the upside:
"We've taken more orders for Jackson CDs and mp3 products in the last 24 hours than we did in the previous 11 years of the Amazon music store. The response is just unprecedented," says Bill Carr, vice president of music and video. " It's not a surprise, though. He's a legend and the king of pop. But the kind of sales volume we are seeing is simply unbelievable."Maybe it will end this recession.
...to my earlier question, from the guy who knows best.
Meanwhile, the Small Wars crew (chagrined, they are!) says "for you lurkers - worth signing up and chiming in." Sounds like an invite to me.
Okay, actually I'm not at all surprised:
The White House and the Pentagon leadership couldn't be clearer: they don't want any more of the controversial F-22 stealth fighters. But Congress now seems ready to pour billions into extra jets, anyway. The Senate Armed Services Committee just "voted to fully fund seven F-22 Raptors for $1.75 billion," Air Force Times is reporting.
Last Week, the House Armed Services Committee voted to add 12 of the planes to the upcoming Pentagon budget.
I wish I could bet on stuff like this, but who on Earth would offer odds against it?
Update: On a related note, the President signed the supplemental '09 budget for Iraq and Afghanistan (not to be confused with the FY10 military budget discussed above) this week:
"I want to thank the Members of Congress who put politics aside and stood up to support a bill that will provide for the safety of our troops and the American people. This legislation will make available the funding necessary to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end, defeat terrorist networks in Afghanistan, and further prepare our nation in the event of a continued outbreak of the H1N1 pandemic flu."Not to mention Cash for Clunkers, and a few billion in pure pork added on. (Ironically, those who voted against that will "pay for it".)
Returning to the original story:
McChrystal will issue orders within days saying troops may attack insurgents hiding in Afghan houses if U.S. or NATO forces are in imminent danger, said U.S. military spokesman Rear Adm. Greg Smith.For additional clarification Smith explained: "But if there is a compound they're taking fire from and they can remove themselves from the area safely, without any undue danger to the forces, then that's the option they should take."
Note the phrase, "imminent danger" - then watch this.
That's from the recent Discovery Channel Somali Pirates story (check your local listings for a repeat if you missed it the first time) - but the emphasis on "imminent danger" is mine. It should be noted that the Captain is a hostage didn't meet the definition - but any debate was effectively ended by a Vice Admiral's clear statement - initially made in the immediate aftermath of the event. (And that's all that any Operator could want.)
Recall, too, that days before an attempt to rescue a French hostage had ended with the death of the hostage - a reminder of the risk confronting decision makers in this event.
But all's well that ends well in this case - in spite of efforts by some to depict Somali Pirates as Greenpeace-like protectors of the purity of the waters there are very few tears being shed over the loss of three, and no strident calls for convention of either the Court of Public Opinion or any more physical investigative authority.
That will likely not be the case in a future event in Afghanistan, where were it not for concern over the public relations ramifications this discussion would not be being held. The question is: responding to an event there, will a hypothetical three-star general be able to state honestly and unequivocally in the immediate aftermath of an event that 'this was the case' - and will that statement suffice for that AO?
I fear the answer to the second part is "no". And I also fear that the answer to the first part is "no" too - mostly because of the word "immediately", a requirement that the Army in Afghanistan (and Iraq) has had a much more difficult time with (see here and here) than does the Navy off the shores of Somalia.
Yep: "There are four days remaining until US combat troops will be withdrawn from Iraqi cities" - that will be next week's "surprise story" (this week's was "ROE change in Afghanistan").
The key word in "combat troops" is "combat" - there will also be much feigned shock next week when some folks (mostly outside of Iraq) discover it does not mean what they thought it meant. (Or just notice that word in the first place.)
Speaking of meaning - "surprise story" doesn't necessarily mean "big story", either. Michael Jackson is both, few other things rise to that level. But since a milblogger in Iraq has noted that "most milblogs and pundits have been relatively quiet on any sort of predictions of exactly what will happen when US troops have moved combat forces out of the cities" - I offer my prediction: Barring abnormal levels of death and destruction, events of Jun 30 will merit a brief story touting the impact of the Cairo speech and little more. Too many bombs and the "Bush's murderous folly" storyline will reappear.
Unless Michael Jackson's funeral is held that day.
(That observation absolutely does not apply to readers here, who should now go read those links.)
A great discussion on changing the rules in Afghanistan at Small Wars Journal. ("Great" insofar as those contributing know what they're talking about.)
My contribution is a question. To understand it you'd have to understand this:
From the original post:
In November, 2006, what would come to be known as the "Awakening Movement" was still growing and still tentative, as two groups (US and local Iraqis) were just discovering whether they could actually work together. In the States, Democrats had just won the congressional elections in part on promises of a "new direction" in Iraq. Nothing whatsoever was certain about the future of that nation or the US presence there.
AQIZ (al Qaeda in Iraq) was not yet defeated in Ramadi (much less all of Anbar) and were determined to impose their will on the citizens there. A promise of "amnesty" for the sheiks who had turned against them had expired at the end of Ramadan, and they were about to make an example of one tribe on the outskirts of Ramadi.
As Major Niel Smith (writing in tandem with his commander, Col Sean MacFarland) explains briefly, at the time of the discovery of the attack an American unit (Lieutenant Colonel Charles Ferry's 1st Battalion, 9th Infantry) was about to deploy on another mission. They turned on a dime and headed for Sufia (this is no easy task - one could spend longer explaining the difficulties to those unfamiliar with the process than it took the Army to overcome them) even as air assets were called in for support.
And that's what caught my eye back in November, 2006 when I said "this is big." That was based just on the MNF-I press release, the media wouldn't have recognized this for what it was, and they were quite busy ignoring the greater awakening movement anyway. Those who've spent any time in a TOC in Iraq (yeah, that's a great number, I know...) will grasp this for what it was: Risk with a big cap "R" and HIGHLY "successful COIN" in all regards. The payoff was commensurate with that risk; the awakening survived and thrived, the surge helped it spread beyond the confines of Ramadi, and there are thousands of Americans and Iraqis alive today because of the decisions made then and there.
Here's the Military Review article - text from that is the script I used in the video above. Read that for a discussion of how Sufia fits in to the larger "Awakening" story.
No one disputes the impact of the awakening movement on subsequent events in Iraq -at least I hope I no longer need to explain that. But few understand (in fact, many deny or are unaware of) the significant U.S. contribution to the success of that movement. Given that, I maintain that the significance of the Sufia battle is under-appreciated in terms of impact on subsequent events in Iraq. (Or in terms of applied counter-insurgency.) This has everything to do with both the actions taken and the decision to take action - which was very much an "outside the box" (and difficult and risky - both tactically and 'career-wise') decision.
Acknowledging that no one has yet seen the new instructions (some form of "break contact" when civilians are in danger), I think my question is a fair response: How would application impact an event like the battle of Sufia, in terms of conduct of the battle and the decision process to engage in the first place?
Update: and here's Niel Smith's answer - thank you, sir!
(But the full discussion is more than worth the reader's time.)
Just returned war vets in "pitched gun battle" with local officials... jail under siege, sheriff threatened... government description: "crisis".
Yes - in America. That DHS report is looking ever more prescient every day.
I wanted to write this post yesterday, but thought it would be wrongly perceived:
Dear IranI should have gone with my instinct - though it turns out it was Michael Jackson and I was optimistic on the timing.
Don't be fooled - you have about 48 hours until Brittney Spears does something to make us forget you.
Sincerely,
America
Update: Twitter appears to be crashing under the strain, which indicates it's not that useful for really big news.
Continuing our airlift into Afghanistan with the first SOF team in...
This is part two of a selection from Doug Stanton's Horse Soldiers: The Extraordinary Story of a Band of US Soldiers Who Rode to Victory in Afghanistan
Once again, the words are Stanton's, the voice and formatting are mine - the pictures were found all over the web (and in most cases serve only as a reasonable facsimile, and not images of the actual individuals involved). I hope you enjoy the end result as much as I enjoyed putting it together.
Jut push play...
Hey, we can do previews of coming attractions here, too - so here's what we're working on:
How this -
But first, part two of this:
All coming soon...
McChrystal will issue orders within days saying troops may attack insurgents hiding in Afghan houses if U.S. or NATO forces are in imminent danger, said U.S. military spokesman Rear Adm. Greg Smith.
For additional clarification Smith explained: "But if there is a compound they're taking fire from and they can remove themselves from the area safely, without any undue danger to the forces, then that's the option they should take."
A round-up of milblogger reactions from Herschel Smith - who, it should be noted, knew this was coming. (Many others appear to be a bit more surprised - more on that later.)
I'd add this post from Jason van Steenwyk and this one from Marcus to the "read" list.
Oh, so that's what the kids are calling it these days....
After years of pushing stories about how awful Army and VA hospitals are, are they really now to be offered up as shining examples of how wonderful government healthcare can be?
And does anyone believe that if those facilities were treating anyone other than injured veterans of America's wars anyone would give a damn about paint peeling in condemned buildings?
ABC's Matt Gutman reports from Afghanistan:
It became apparent in the very first briefing I received from the brass at Camp Leatherneck, that more troops will be needed. 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade (2nd MEB) commander Brig Gen Lawrence Nicholson says "we can't be everywhere at once. This area is just too large." The 10,000 Marines of the MEB, are taking over an area a little smaller than New Jersey. It's four times the number of troops there this time four months ago, and sounds like a lot of troops. But fighting is one thing, creating a sense of semi-permanent security locals, and holding territory are different. There are two Afghan army and police units to hold areas taken from the Taliban.
For instance, in the unruly crags of Gulestan, which hugs the Farah border with Helmand, a single platoon of Marines, about 50 men plus assorted supplementary troops, is charged with holding a 450 sq km area. It has one semi-passable road that runs diagonally through it. Gulestan has thirty cops. One of them said: "I will fight as long as the Marines are here, when they leave, I will leave before them."
(Via The Dawn Patrol, where you'll find the rest of today's news from Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, too.)
It won't be out until next year, but here's the trailer to The Pacific, the upcoming HBO series produced by Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg:
News from Monday:
KABUL - The U.S. commander in Afghanistan will soon order U.S. and NATO forces to break away from fights with militants hiding among villagers, an official said Monday, announcing one of the strongest measures yet to protect Afghan civilians.
<...>
The most contentious civilian casualty cases in recent years occurred during battles in Afghan villages when U.S. airstrikes aimed at militants also killed civilians...
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who took command of international forces in Afghanistan this month, has said his measure of effectiveness will be the "number of Afghans shielded from violence" -- not the number of militants killed.
McChrystal will issue orders within days saying troops may attack insurgents hiding in Afghan houses if U.S. or NATO forces are in imminent danger, said U.S. military spokesman Rear Adm. Greg Smith.
For additional clarification Smith explained: "But if there is a compound they're taking fire from and they can remove themselves from the area safely, without any undue danger to the forces, then that's the option they should take."
Deadliest Strike Yet in Pakistan Drone War
CNN, quoting unnamed Pakistani intelligence officials, says the strikes killed at least 55 people, including three top Taliban commanders. Al Jazeera puts the death toll somewhat higher, saying around 60 people were killed as they dispersed after funeral prayers in the Makeen district of South Waziristan; Reuters, quoting Pakistani intelligence sources, puts the toll at 70.
If after paying for your home and utilities, your food, and your family's medical care, you were left with $17,000 for the year, could you eke out an existence on that? (Think about your own earnings after those expenses...)
That's the worst-case scenario for a brand-new military member, an E1 - assuming they received no bonus for enlisting in the first place. Then again, promotion to E2 comes before that first year is up, so after a few months they'll actually be making close to 19k a year. By the time they're an E4 with a couple years in, base pay is up to 23-24k. Achieve NCO status and you're close to 30k - in addition to your housing, food, medical care, and any special allowances or bonuses. Not bad for a high school graduate with no additional training or experience, says I. (Official military base pay table here.)
Still, you'll often see horror stories citing that 17 thousand/year base pay as if that was all she wrote. But military pay is most likely different than yours, as about.com attempts to explain here:
It's really impossible to produce an actual annual salary chart. This is because there are many variables to military pay.
Some jobs are entitled to flight pay, continuation bonuses and special pay, and some jobs are not. Some people live in free on-base government quarters (barracks or base housing) and others live off-base and receive a housing allowance. The amount of the housing allowance depends on the person's location, and whether or not they have dependents.
The below chart shows average annual military salary for enlisted members, to include base pay, average housing allowance, monetary food allowance, and the "tax advantage" of untaxed allowances. The charts do not include items such as overseas housing allowance, overseas COLA (cost of living allowance), enlistment or reenlistment bonuses, or other bonuses and allowances that many servicemembers are entitled to.
They show E1 earnings at 35k, and E5 at 50+. And regardless of any other bonuses, they all get free health care for themselves and their families.
Now given the job they do - risking life to keep America safe - I also say they aren't getting paid enough (even with an extra 8k or so for a year's duty in a combat zone). And if you or anyone else wants to pick up the tab for a GI the next time you see one at lunch somewhere that's a great way to say thanks. Likewise, if you're the sort that sends care packages to the troops overseas I can assure you from personal experience they are appreciated. I never received one that didn't contain things I couldn't have bought for myself - but that's not the effing point. The knowledge that folks back home who didn't even know me actually gave a damn was priceless.
That said, this annoys me (to put it kindly) - and if you can't see the difference then I'm wasting my breath:
WASHINGTON, DC - On Thursday, June 25th, the President and First Lady will join hundreds of Congressional family members and five national nonprofit organizations to prepare 15,000 backpacks with books, healthy snacks, Frisbees and other items for the children of servicemen and women. The service event is part of United We Serve, President Obama's call to all Americans to engage in service projects and create meaningful impact in their towns and communities. The United We Serve summer service initiative began June 22nd and runs through the National Day of Service and Remembrance on September 11th. The initiative is being led by the Corporation for National and Community Service, the federal agency dedicated to fostering service in communities across the country.
And frankly, the fact that a military installation is being used as a backdrop for the charade adds fuel to the fire.
I think there are plenty of ways to say thanks for your service. I've taken advantage of free days at amusement parks for military members and families, I'm aware of summer camps set up for kids of deployed parents - awesome idea.
But healthy snacks? Frisbees? Really? I think charity is a great idea - if there are malnourished kids somewhere whose parents can't afford to give them healthy snacks then I salute the efforts of any charity to right that wrong. I'm not even opposed to Government aid to that end. But if those kids are the children of military members, it's for individual reasons beyond mom and dad don't get paid enough to buy them food.
The children of military members sacrifice for their country too, and they don't get a vote on that in more ways than one. So if you want to thank those kids for their sacrifice I think it's a great thing. They deserve it - in fact, you can't thank them enough. (But that shouldn't stop anyone from giving them a gift certificate for an ice cream cone or a free movie. Like me in Iraq they'll appreciate that.)
But I'm more than a little annoyed when I see military members treated as poverty stricken charity cases, which I think is the not-too-subtle message being sent here. And it seems to be part of a larger military member as helpless victim signal that increasingly seems to emanate from the home of the Commander in Chief. I suppose there's a fine line between thanking someone and insulting someone, and it's individually defined. But in this case I believe it's been crossed.
So I hope none of the folks involved aren't offended if I don't thank them.
(But thank you for reading.)
...to Colonel McMahon, USMC.
Back in the day, shortly after the Tonight Show broadcast, the local T.V. station would play the Star Spangled banner and then shut down for the night.
They don't do that any more.
Added thought: For some reason, I imagine this in the voice of Rich Little impersonating Johnny Carson: "...Yeah, so anyway, flags at the liquor store will be at half staff this week. (Audience groans) Uhhh... I understand there will only be two words on his tombstone - just two words... (pause, three, two, one) ... "Dead McMahon"... (rim shot)
Of course, you can't do comedy like that any more either.
And, since you can find anything on YouTube, even though this one is the wrong network and branch of service, this is for you, Ed.
Looks like the polling results on Iran must be coming in now.
And...
Reader Michael Tubergen writes: "I can't help but wonder why the President couldn't just read from the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence. That pretty much says everything that needs to be said about the Iranian situation."
I've read it. Those are just words.
Know what I mean? (Hint: "words" is not a verb.)
Sure, it's the hot new federal program attracting a lot of attention this week - but why the hell would a milblogger write about it? Read on...
There's probably plenty of blame to be shared for this program, starting with the name: "CARS" stands for Car Allowance Rebate System, something that's currently a pen stroke away from reality. (And you can forget about stopping that pen stroke.)
Here's how it will work: If you're ready to swap your under 25-year old vehicle that gets less than a combined highway/city 18 mpg (as determined by the federal government based on model) for a shiny new higher-mileage model, instead of you getting a trade-in value for that vehicle the government will kick in a few bucks to the dealer.
If you think you can get rid of some parts car you've had on blocks for a few years (or head to the junkyard and get one), you're wrong. To qualify your current vehicle must be in drivable condition and must have been continuously insured and registered to the same owner for the full year preceding the trade-in.
And the program doesn't apply to used vehicle purchase - you've got to be the guy who's been meaning to swap that 96 Lambo or 2006 Rolls-Royce Phantom for a brand new Prius to qualify.
At least, if you're really stupid and really rich:
In addition to the credit, will I get the full value of my trade-in vehicle?
No. The law requires your trade-in vehicle to be destroyed.
So, maybe there's a guy out there who's been tooling around in an '87 Ford Bronco he hasn't been able to trade in on that brand new "Green Car" he's been wanting because he's just 4k shy of the sticker price - but this will put him over the top.
If not that (or something like that) an awful lot of new government employees hired to administer this program are going to have an awful lot of spare time on their hands.
None of which answers the question, "why is this a topic for a milblog"? But that's too easy - because the bill that creates this program is the supplemental funding bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
About which, more here later.
...sometimes they really are worth a thousand words.
Tonight, take a magic carpet ride, and fly along with the first group of Special Forces Troops to enter Afghanistan in 2001.
This selection from Doug Stanton's Horse Soldiers: The Extraordinary Story of a Band of US Soldiers Who Rode to Victory in Afghanistan
The words are his, the voice and formatting are mine - the pictures and music were found all over the web (and in most cases serve only as a reasonable facsimile, and not images of the actual individuals involved). I hope you enjoy the end result as much as I enjoyed putting it together.
Jut push play - your limo awaits...
Part two - with a special guest appearance by Joe Dirt - is here. See you there...
Today is Chuck's Alive Day. It's an ordinary day and that's the beauty of it.
Imagine a world without Chuck, A little less humor, a little less hell raising, less one very important project and not to mention a wife who shows us the true meaning of strength.
Thank You Chuck for your service and for touching so many lives.
Because sometimes comment threads just ought to be posts...
The American Military does not make the decision to start or end a war. War is a decision made by political leaders - the President who makes the call to go with Congressional approval and funding. The role of the American Military is to follow the lawful order(s) of the Commander-in-Chief, the President. It is the foundation of our continued democratic experiment that our Military obeys its political leadership, even when such leadership is wrong in its decision making.
For those who say Iraq is a mistake, I always ask if they truly believe that, then we as a country should do what is the proper thing that should be done when a mistake is made - as best we can, put it back like it was before the mistake was made. I then ask how many people would want Saddam Hussein, or someone like him, to be restored to the same power and military potential as existed before America went into Iraq? I have yet to find one person who says they want that to happen, and in the end, everyone, regardless of their political leanings, or feelings about war, says essentially the same thing "he was an evil tyrant and we are glad he is gone..."
I have also said this in response to claims that Iraq is another Viet Nam - "when we left Viet Nam we did not have to worry about them following us home and trying to kill us on our own land. The forces we fight in Iraq, and now around the world, leave us no choice but to take the fight to them on their turf and tie up their resources somewhere else so they do not have the same level of lethality they would otherwise have to effect an attack on our own shores."
We fight a foe that will take lives of our brave American Military Personnel for generations to come, maybe forever. Radical fanaticism can only be stamped out one way - with the evil tyrannical controls of its people and society such as Saddam Hussein and his sons effected. Such is not the way America will fight or govern, nor should it.
In my opinion, we are not fighting a war of attrition, or a war that can be won in the traditional sense in Iraq or Afghanistan or the next country that it will spread to. We fight a war that very likely will never end, at least so long as radical fanaticism is a cult whose following is underpinned by religious teachings that has not been properly denounced or deprived by the very religious authorities who are themselves hijacked in the process. And until those very hijacked religious leaders stand as clearly and strongly as those on Flight 93 did and say we are not going to be victims and we are going to take on the hijackers, then the radical fundamentalism and extremism that is Al Qaeda and its knock-offs will continue to be a force America must fight.
Robert Stokely
proud dad SGT Mike Stokely
KIA 16 AUG 05 near Yusufiyah Iraq
USA E 108 CAV 48th BCT GAARNG
Mudville's own-near daily variety show - tonight's special guests include a few folks we've got our eyes on...
...but first, a musical number to start things off (or you can use it as a soundtrack as you read):
See how you are?
A good observation from Matt: "BG Walsh was showing Barbara Boxer respect by calling her "Ma'am" instead of "Senator." Believe me, the title "Senator" does not really hold a whole lot of credibility in the US military."
Are our Senators and Congressmen congressional representatives really blind to recent polls showing approval ratings among Americans as low as 17%? Or, as Robert Stokely points out, that "respect is what you get by what you give to others"?
And a good point from Exum: "I suspect that one of the reasons Krauthammer, Kagan & Co. are criticizing Obama's tactics vis a vis Iran is because the majority of Americans would find their strategic goals they hint at but never reveal to be bat-guano crazy."
- At least, insofar as noting that what we see governments doing on the world stage are the tactics (and we may or may not see all of those) being employed to achieve strategic goals. I think the two are often confused for each other in much of the commentary. (There's also an operational level between those two - but we rarely glimpse that.)
"The world is watching* Iran" - saying so is a tactic employed by many world leaders. Since tactics don't replace strategy we'll assume there is a strategy, which would also generate the tactical answer to the as yet unanswered question "and..."?
(*More specifically: watching Iranians protest over the fairness of an election to determine who gets to be the attention-getting but effectively powerless mouthpiece and political front man for the Ayatollahs who run the country.)
But speaking of watching - I confess I'm confused by the concept of a "watch list". Are these separate (other than name) from a "wanted" list? How so? Or if not, why call it a "watch list"? If action is needed, or limitations to be placed on included individuals, that implies something beyond "watching" is required.
I'm all for investigating suspects to help determine guilt or innocence, and even see nothing wrong with law enforcement agencies knowing (or making lists of) who those suspected people are. But I get the suspicion that some folks are a bit too comfortable with suspicion-based (or even typo-based) "possible enemies lists" (vice wanted lists) with automatic penalties for inclusion. (Or maybe they just never met a 'gun control' proposition they didn't like?) Orwellian? Indeed.
(Beyond that, banning legal sales of firearms to known terrorists and violent criminals is a fine idea - and also one I favor - but it won't keep guns out of their hands any more than declaring a place a "gun free zone" would stop them from using them there.)
Envisioning the proper relationship between Special Ops and Conventional Forces (SOF/CF) - from a Transition Team leader/milblogger in Iraq. (If that doesn't interest you just click through to see a wicked looking blog masthead.)
Shokka!! - just look at what we found!:
On another day, the 43rd Iraqi Army Brigade, which also controls part of eastern Baghdad, led a raid for illegal drugs in a market area just outside their headquarters at Forward Operating Base Shield. The plan involved many players: Iraqi police were to stop traffic; the Ministry of Health was to give free local exams to make up for inconveniencing shoppers; and the Iraqi army was to look for heroin, cocaine and porn...
...In the end, the raid produced no illegal drugs, Liebal said, "but they got a scathing amount of porn."
But read the whole thing. (From another milblogger in Iraq, btw, who's examining a bigger picture than just that.)
This concludes today's search for the answers. We'll close with this reminder: Tomorrow is Fathers Day. If you forgot that, it's still not too late to get your dad a new watch (or a tie, or a book, or something).
Rapidfire starts with one link and no plan, is added to throughout the day, then somehow comes together with a coherent theme - usually. Repeat visitors can watch that happen as it happens.
...'cause here in Mudville, we know it's always midnight somewhere.
Here's a re-mix of a recording I made a while back - with some overdubs and effects added to what was once a pretty simple effort. Hope you enjoy...
Brief technical explanation follows...
...to anyone preparing to deploy to a combat zone - or their family members (part 9,000):
"My husband has actually had someone say to him that at least his upcoming deployment is to Afghanistan, which serves a purpose and has meaning, unlike Iraq."
That from our friend Sarah, who is struggling with this one...
I am having a harder time working up the emotional investment this milspouse needs to send her husband off to fight.
I am not ready for my husband to join a new front in a war that won't end for centuries.
She's seeking motivation. Read the whole thing, perhaps you can help.
I mentioned this yesterday: Somali Pirate Takedown: The Real Story Sunday, June, 21 at 10 p.m. E/P on the Discovery Channel.
Hear the untold story of the dramatic hostage situation aboard the Maersk Alabama and through exclusive Navy footage, witness the extraordinary measures taken to keep Captain Phillips alive. Step in side the world of an elite Navy SEAL to see how they pulled off three impossible shots to put a sudden end to a modern day pirate standoff.
...but now I've actually screened the program. The quick review: you'll want to see it, too. (But stay tuned - more to follow here....)
Just when I'm set to write a post recommending Horse Soldiers as a Father's Day gift, into my email pops something better - an entry by author Doug Stanton himself. Enjoy...
This Father's Day Consider the Power of Legacy
By Doug Stanton (Author of Horse Soldiers: The Extraordinary Story of a Band of US Soldiers Who Rode to Victory in Afghanistan
Horse Soldiers is the untold story of a victory won by U.S. Special Forces and other Americans, alongside Afghan counterparts, at a critical time in our recent history. Part sociologist, diplomat, part foreign policy expert, the men in the book enacted a nuanced campaign that is a template for the way future conflicts can be approached, and a window to where we are in Afghanistan today. And, according to those who know, their ethos is simpatico with emerging national policy concerning Afghanistan. In other words, these guys got it right. One of the reasons I wrote Horse Soldiers was to understand the world my children would inherit after the events of 2001.
When I was writing my first book In Harm's Way, I witnessed the sense of sacrifice that those WWII veterans possessed. I was surprised that sometimes their grandchildren hadn't talked to them about the historic events of that night in July 1945, when the USS Indianapolis went down. With some modest means, I started a scholarship program for the grandkids of the survivors, one of the requirements of which was that they write an essay about their grandfather. This project was meant to foster a legacy in these young people of the sacrifices made by those who had come before them.
Recently, then, I was startled and more than saddened, after hanging up the phone with Betty McCoy, of Palm Coast, Florida, the wife of Giles McCoy, of the USS Indianapolis, who told me that Gil had just passed away after a battle with cancer. My son and I had visited Gil and Betty, making a last trip to say goodbye, although I didn't want to admit that at the time.
Gil, a WWII Marine, having survived Peleliu, Iwo Jima, and the sinking of his ship, devoted himself to a life of helping others. He was about as resilient and strong a character as you could meet, and yet alongside his own steely self-awareness he possessed real powers of empathy. He never used phrases like "everyone agrees with me so I must be right."
This idea of legacy, of being bound together around the campfire or kitchen table of shared experience, is important, because it's in those moments that we move to the heart of solving problems, global and local, big and small. And of all people, I have learned that the people I write about in Horse Soldiers, the modern soldiers of the U.S. Army Special Forces, are trained to walk a selfless mile in another's shoes during often dangerous journeys meant to create change. And as with McCoy, when I call their actions heroic, I'm using a word they are too humble to use in describing what they accomplished.
©2009 Doug Stanton, author of Horse Soldiers: The Extraordinary Story of a Band of U.S. Soldiers Who Rode to Victory in Afghanistan. Originally published in the Traverse City Record-Eagle, May 5, 2009
You can read an excerpt from the book here.
CJ Grisham has been going where the media fears to tread - and he's got a hell of a good story for his efforts. To bring you up to speed quickly, other than an AP claim to the contrary there's actually no evidence available that the White House (or President Obama himself) has issued a statement regarding the murder of Private William Long in Little Rock earlier this month. (See C.J.'s post here, previous Mudville entry here.) The White House maintains a comprehensive collection of presidential statements, speeches, and press releases and there's no mention of Private William Long to be found there.
I can't say whether or not the AP appreciates being the sole source of presidential decrees, but while some might be content to accept an independent news outlet's role as Presidential Press Office C.J. has been combing that White House archive (where my follow up search for "Private Long" yielded only documents related to private long-term health insurance) for an actual statement from the President - and found no such document. In hopes that that omission was merely an oversight by an over-worked staffer he's been talking and emailing with them, too - more on that shortly.
First, in his latest update (read the whole thing) he points to this transcript of a White House press conference:
Q This is really just out of curiosity more than anything -- how do you guys decide which acts of violence prompt a White House response and which ones won't? There was a statement that went out about Dr. Tiller. How was the decision made that that would get a presidential statement whereas the military recruiter in Arkansas shooting would not?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I believe a statement did go to many stations in Arkansas regarding that.
Q Oh, okay, it did? Okay.
End of discussion.
The White House press room is a designated "blog-free zone" - so there was no one there to ask a follow up to that. C.J. suggests "A REAL reporter would follow up with, 'Oh okay, it did? Can you provide that please?' Or, 'why wasn't it provided nationally like all the other statements?' Or, 'Why wasn't the Dr. Tiller statement only released in Kansas like the Arkansas shooting statement?'"
I would have asked if that Arkansas release was in addition to the AP's - but like C.J. I wasn't there (at least, not then). But I do have access to "many stations in Arkansas" via the world wide web - and I can tell you if they received any statements from the President or the White House they didn't post them with the rest of their coverage of the story. In fact they didn't even mention receiving them.
Here's a collection of links to newspaper and television station web sites in Arkansas. Among them I found the most extensive coverage from Little Rock television station KATV. Even they only reference the AP claim - and those claims are only found in their published AP stories here and here.
Their coverage does include details mostly overlooked in the national reporting. For instance, at the request of the defense (after videotaped confessions were revealed) the presiding judge issued a gag order prohibiting the prosecution or law enforcement from publicly discussing the case. Fair enough - but the next day the accused killer phoned the AP from his cell and told them his lawyer was making claims that weren't true (a regular "dream" client, this guy), and that his primary reason for shooting the soldiers (he won't call it murder because he considers it justified) was because "he wanted revenge for claims that American military personnel had desecrated copies of the Quran" (thanks, Newsweek) and raped and killed Muslims. (Edited to simply "anger over what soldiers had done to Muslims" in most national coverage.)
Rival station KLRT reported that Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe was among the mourners at Pvt Long's funeral, but made no mention of their receiving any statement from the President of the United States. (They do have comments from wounded soldier Quinton Ezeagwula's former football coach.)
Little Rock CBS affiliate KTHV offers a statement from Captain Mathew Feehan ("The army is a family. We consider it a personal loss. I think overall we're just shocked. This isn't something we expect to happen in downtown Little Rock.") in their coverage, but nothing from the Commander in Chief.
Turning to the Department of Defense for any possible confirmation there, the only reference I could find to Pvt Long was a June 9th public affairs release titled "Wounded Recruiting Office Shooting Victim Praises Army for Support". That story on Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula includes a brief claim that "President Barack Obama released a statement shortly after the incident." I'm certain he did - but I'm not certain he issued one about the incident.
Which brings us back to C.J. When he contacted the White House for clarification he got a third answer. Not "Sorry, we made an exclusive statement to the AP, check with them" or "we only released that to Arkansas media" - instead, he was told "the President is attempting to call the family of Army Pvt Long".
We've got three different answers now from the White House on the central question "did the President make a statement"? I suspect the correct answer would be a fourth one: "no".
There are obvious comparisons to be made between this story and coverage (and administration responses) to other high profile murders in the United States this month. The unnamed reporter questioning Robert Gibbs on the topic seems to acknowledge that point. However, I find myself more disturbed by two other issues raised - what this story reveals about how we know what the President really said (if anything) about any topic and how the Commander in Chief views his troops - two issues of no small significance to the nation. I see no positive indicators from these events on either at this point.
Some might question C.J.'s motives in keeping this story alive. All I can offer in response to that is that he's an Iraq war veteran (Bronze Star with V) and founder of the web site They Have Names - you can read about his motivation for that project here - but I can also offer personal testimony.
CJ and I were at the White House together, and given the chance to address the national security and veterans affairs staff he took the opportunity to express both his support and concerns for their efforts with regard to active and veteran troops - in a manner that impressed me as respectful, candid, honest, and authentic. At the time, the veterans should pay for their own healthcare story was resolved but still recent, and the President's decision (later reversed) to release additional Abu Ghraib photos was making headlines. He advised them in no uncertain terms that he saw those as early stumbles, that it wasn't a great start, but that he hoped for better things to come.
I'm certain this was not what he had in mind.
Must-reads on this story:
Update to President Statement on Arkansas Recruiter Shootings
Media Continues to Fumble Inquiries Into Recruiter Shooting Statement
History - Crittenden on Waterloo: "Today marks the day, 194 years ago, the stage was set for our world."
More recent history: Somali Pirate Takedown: The Real Story Sunday, June, 21 at 10 p.m. E/P on Discovery Channel.
Hear the untold story of the dramatic hostage situation aboard the Maersk Alabama and through exclusive Navy footage, witness the extraordinary measures taken to keep Captain Phillips alive. Step in side the world of an elite Navy SEAL to see how they pulled off three impossible shots to put a sudden end to a modern day pirate standoff.
Tonight's YouServed podcast: Hosts CJ and Troy welcome guest General Peter W. Chiarelli, Deputy Chief of Staff of the Army, who will discuss Army mental health and suicide prevention efforts. (7PM Eastern).
By the way, C.J. has an update on his attempts to get an answer on the possibly fake Presidential statement regarding the murder of Private Long.
But, when I asked for a statement, I'm directed to a fake excerpt of a statement provided in a link by the AP instead of the actual statement. To add insult to injury, after 11 days the President is still "attempting" to contact the family. The leader of the most powerful nation on earth (well, it used to be) can't get in a phone call in nearly two weeks? Come on. Really?!I recall the faux outrage over autopen signatures during a previous administration, and the pretend outrage over Cindy Sheehan's inability to get a second (or was it a third?) meeting with President Bush. Maybe disregard for the troops isn't newsworthy anymore?
If you missed it live, here's the audio and video from the CNAS annual conference earlier this month.
On a related note, check out the CNAS Natural Security blog (read that title carefully).
Senate passes war funding supplemental.
And:
"Without fanfare."WASHINGTON -- Sen. Lindsey Graham urged the House on Thursday to follow the Senate in passing his bill prohibiting the release of classified photos showing abuse and humiliation of terror suspects held by the United States.
The Senate unanimously approved the Graham measure, co-sponsored by Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, late Wednesday after a weeklong impasse that compelled President Barack Obama's personal intervention.
With the President tied up on hold...
The U.S. military is tracking a ship from North Korea that may be carrying illicit weapons, the first vessel monitored under tougher new United Nations rules meant to rein in and punish the communist government following a nuclear test, officials said Thursday.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he has ordered additional protections for Hawaii just in case North Korea launches a long-range missile over the Pacific Ocean.
- making good on a promise, by the way. Good thing we have money in the budget, don't you think?
Fini flight redefined.
...for so long it's not true...
Ahhh, the Led Zep connection - wish I'd thought of that.
And I can't take credit for this either, because our friend FbL pointed it out in an email:
Note the charge against the recently-removed IG:WASHINGTON -- Responding to criticism from a Senate Democratic ally, President Obama explained why he fired the Inspector General of the AmeriCorps without the 30-day notification required by law, calling Gerald Walpin so "confused" and "disoriented" that there was reason to question "his capacity to serve."And that reminded me of this bit of scuttlebutt about General Jones.Newsmax can be unreliable, but the fact that Gates came out the next day in an unsolicited interview with the WaPo makes me think it's probably solid.President Barack Obama's national security adviser, Gen. Jim Jones, is facing forced resignation because of his "poor performance," according to Fox News.
Several White House and National Security Council sources told Fox that the retired Marine general is so forgetful and inefficient that several officials seriously wonder if he's suffering from Alzheimer's disease.
Here's the Fox story on that, and here's Ignatius.
Something in the water in the White House, maybe? Damn - I hope not, I drank some of that the day I was there (and met Jones, btw, who seemed pretty sharp in my book...).
But since Zep stole the song in the first place, I considered stealing Althouse's video (and calling it a "tribute") - but instead I'll just steal the concept...
I'm not up on the latest styles... is this one of those asshats I've been hearing so much about?
Can anybody wear one?
Given the small number of military members (as percentage of total U.S. population) today, it seems obvious that we live in an era wherein it can truly be said that never have so many owed so much to so few. But from that it should also be obvious (but apparently isn't) that never has it been so easy for so many to be hoaxed by so few.
Confused? Perhaps I can help...
Here's an update on the story of the anti-immigrant "activists" arrested on suspicion of murdering two people (including a 9-year old girl) in southern Arizona; Jason Eugene Bush (aka "Gunny") has now been charged with another murder: the 1997 stabbing of a homeless Mexican man.He adds "The "Minutemen for American Defense" website contained this short bio of Bush, although I don't know if any of it has been confirmed":
We are honored to have Gunny aboard. He served 6 tours over seas, where he has several medals. He received a Purple heart, Silver and Bronze star, Combat Infantry Badge and a Presidential citation for his actions in the Special Forces.
His point being "That DHS report on right wing extremism keeps getting more relevant."
But if you're a veteran (or just familiar at all with the military), you (like several LGF commenters) probably caught that "Gunny" is a nickname for a Marine Corps rank, and this particular inbred slack-jawed thug claims Special Forces status (Army) along with a CIB (Army again).
And if you read the news story Charles linked (wherein there's no mention of alleged military service) you'd learn he
...had a lengthy criminal record in Washington, including convictions for possession of stolen property, unlawful possession of a firearm and taking a motor vehicle without permission.
After his release from prison, Bush moved to Hayden Lake, Idaho, where he lived until 2007, according to court papers.
Which means he was an awfully busy guy to fit service to his country in that resume, too.
Going after a pathetic claim like that is fish in a barrel to Jonn Lilyea, who (once again) did the legwork required to blow that particular ectothermic coelacanth right out of the dihydrogen monoxide.
Prompting this response from Charles:
The truth is that I have nothing but respect for the military services of the US. I've made that clear repeatedly at LGF; this site has been a huge supporter of the US military over the years.
My post about Jason Eugene Bush also made it very clear that none of his claims of service had been confirmed.
But even if Bush's claims were true, it wouldn't be a cut against veterans to point out that fact. Veterans can be (and have been) criminals, just as with any group in society -- in a tiny minority, as in other groups. I really can't agree that noting Bush's claim to be a veteran is a smear against all vets, especially when all due skepticism was expressed -- and I certainly did not intend it as a smear.
Let me first endorse those first two paragraphs as accurate, then declare the third an argument against an exaggeration of Lilyea's point as I read it.
And before getting to my point (which isn't about the report) let me repeat that the retracted, withdrawn, released without authorization or review (all that according to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, who apologetically added that "the wheels came off the wagon because the vetting process was not followed") Rightwing Extremism report was absolutely every bit as accurate and prescient as it was vague and useless. Combat arms-trained veterans are indeed desirable recruits for any organization wanting to cultivate a reputation as capable of violence (or just credibility on veterans issues) - from police forces to legitimate security firms to street gangs to organized crime families to political (in some cases extremist) groups, left, right, and otherwise.
Which is one reason why so many of the less than legitimate groups, seeking to establish a perception of credibility or capability, are eager to accept anyone who claims veteran status without bothering to vet their claims. Even when such groups have actual veterans as members (I'm thinking IVAW here) few of them want to expose a pretender (actually, IVAW accepts pretenders) - perhaps under the assumption that numbers enhance that perception.
Given that - along with other benefits and general societal appreciation that legitimate veterans accrue - it should surprise no one that the number of frauds claiming veteran status far exceeds the number of legitimate veterans who conceivably would join extremist groups - by several orders of magnitude. While this doesn't mean that no veteran would join such a group, it does mean that anyone who values their own credibility should not accept as fact (or repeat in any form other than a question) any claim by anyone seeking any potential advantage (even a date or a free drink) commensurate with veterans status without doing a minimum of checking of that claim. (And don't expect reporters covering these stories to do that for you.)
President G.W. Bush speaks for the first time after his presidency, on US soil:
Former President George W. Bush fired a salvo at President Obama on Wednesday, asserting his administration's interrogation policies were within the law, declaring the private sector, not government, will fix the economy and rejecting the nationalization of health care, the Washington Times reported."I know it's going to be the private sector that leads this country out of the current economic times we're in," the former president said to applause in Erie, Pennsylvania. "You can spend your money better than the government can spend your money."
Repeatedly in his hourlong speech and question-and-answer session, Bush said he would not directly criticize the new president, who has moved to take over financial institutions and several large corporations, the paper reported. Several times, however, he took direct aim at Obama policies as he defended his own during eight years in office.
"When I look in the mirror, I say, 'He did not sell his soul for short-term politics.'"
Via email...
GreyhawkSummer fun is here. The kids aren't bored yet, but why wait till they start complaining? USAA wants to spice things up with a Garage Band contest for any military kids who fancy themselves musicians. See details below if you think this is something worth sharing through your blog. Who knows, you might be helping discover the next breakthrough band. Military kids are well-versed in hitting the road and those who do have a band or are interested in forming one could be big winners. Feel free to contact me if you need more information.
P.S. Did you know that members of the folk rock band "America" were military brats? Sons of American fathers and British mothers, the were stationed at RAF West Ruislip, London during the mid-1960s where they met while playing in two different bands.
I did know that - because I'm just that old...
But years ago, NotYetGreyhawk was in a band himself:
My friend and fellow citizen C.J. has been looking for answers from the White House. So far he's only gotten responses.
Some may recall that the President caught a bit of rightful flak earlier this month when he failed to make a public statement on the murder of U.S. Army Private William Long by a militant American convert to Islam. That event occurred within hours of the shooting of abortion doctor George Tiller (official statement here) - news coverage of which certainly eclipsed that of the similarly motivated shooting of one of the many members of the Army the President commands. (There are a lot of Soldiers, after all, and getting shot is what they do - so perhaps another one wasn't seen as news by those who determine what is - that's their call.)
But a few days later the AP announced that "President Barack Obama has issued a statement saying he's "deeply saddened" by a shooting that left one Army private dead and another wounded at a Little Rock recruiting center." As with many stories the "no response" news was developing in the blogosphere and was probably on the verge of breaking into the mainstream. In fact it's possible that an AP reporter researching it made a phone call to the White House for a statement and got that as a reply - end of story.
Except that if so, the White House forgot to follow through and actually release a statement. Here's one issued within hours of the murder at the Holocaust Museum, but other than an AP claim there's no indication that the White House is aware that William Long existed. Now I trust C.J.'s report, and to a lesser extent I trust the AP too (though they've been wrong a few too many times to deserve full faith) - so to verify I looked at the titles of every statement issued this month. There's nothing there. Not content with that effort (and lacking the time to read the full text of every one of them for an "and oh by the way, this too" add-on ), I Googled any reference to "William Long" on the entire White House web site. The result? "Your search - "william long" site:http://www.whitehouse.gov - did not match any documents."
Finally, I tried "Private Long" - and this time I got results: four Bush-era documents referencing Private Long-term Care Insurance.
Here's the White House compilation of press releases and official statements - it certainly seems comprehensive. Direct communication is a great thing; we no longer need rely on a time/space-limited media to filter and determine what we need to know, then pass it on to us in paraphrased, edited, and interpreted format. And obviously President Obama has much more to offer the country than statements released regarding hate crimes with national implications - this past week alone he's issued public decrees on multiple topics great and small. Among them: the President "to Announce Comprehensive Plan for Regulatory Reform", "Unveils 'United We Serve,' Calls on All Americans to Commit to Meaningful Volunteer Service in Their Daily Lives", and "Announces New White House Office of Olympic, Paralympic and Youth Sport". You'll also find the text of a message from the President to the Senate regarding New Zealand Tax Protocol, and announcements of signing disaster declarations for Arkansas and North Dakota - but you won't find Private William Long.
I'm disappointed in that, but I wouldn't pretend it's up to me to decide what's worthy of the President's time and attention, or what he says or thinks or feels, or what is or isn't included there. Apparently that's the job of the AP.
The President is undeniably a busy man, and the White House Press Office should be commended for keeping up. C.J., as noted at the start, has been asking the right questions of the right people (at least, I think the White House, and not the AP, are the right people) and getting responses - so I also commend them for taking the time for that. While I'm sure they take longer to get, I'm looking forward to the answers, too.
If you haven't been following my friend Michael Totten's coverage of events in Iran, you should be.
In late March 1991, shortly after the Gulf War, Iraqis were in open revolt. Fighting erupted in all but three of Iraq's provinces, and Saddam's army was left with two days' worth of ammunition. A desperate Saddam sent one of his highest-ranking officers as a "defector" with information that Iraq's senior military leaders were on the verge of a coup but hesitated as long as they faced the threat of a revolution...
It's generally conceded that failing to aid the Shi'ite revolt in 1991 cost us dearly in 2003 and the years following. (Of course, arguably there wouldn't have been a second invasion of Iraq had we acted then, but "what if" is infinite, and something other than history.)
Strange to think that people who are, say... 30 years old today were 12 when all this happened.
And more recordings - sticking with a musical theme, here's something veterans of the Milblogs Conference will appreciate:
So, I fired the entire video post-production staff here at Mudville and re-did the latest effort, fixing the bad audio portions and adding a musical soundtrack. Here's the finished product.
Challenge: can anyone name all the songs used? I'll give you one for starters: The Internationale, the "the anthem of international socialism" and the former "de facto national anthem of the Soviet Union". For fun, see if any of your friends or co-workers leap to their feet when it begins playing. (It also blends rather well with another song in the video...)
And here's more from Blackfive.
And finally, a bit of advice: laugh all you want at anyone who stands for The Internationale - but don't even smirk in the presence of any man who says this is among the greatest songs of all time:
James von Brunn's military records, via me bros at This Ain't Hell, where they aren't happy with VoteVets founder Jon Soltz.
There is no cost.
Via email:
Funagain Games is proud to announce the most recent winner of its monthly game grant of $100 to a person serving in the U.S. military.
To apply for a game grant read below the fold
Funny story from here in Mudville last week: On Monday I glanced outside and remarked to the wife, "look's like it's gonna rain". On Thursday it did, but she still steadfastly refuses to acknowledge my prescience...
"This website is banned in Iran by goverment since 3 hours ago."
(Via our good friend Steve Shippert - a must read.)
As we celebrate the Army's 234th Birthday and America's Flag Day, here's a story that should inspire you all.
I have no words to add, except that I am humbled by each and every one of our injured troops.
A convicted terrorist can sue a former Bush administration lawyer for drafting the legal theories that led to his alleged torture, ruled a federal judge who said he was trying to balance a clash between war and the defense of personal freedoms.
In the past, terrorists would hijack a plane and demand release of their imprisoned comrades. One possible lesson learned for such groups from the Padilla story might be that such actions are counter-productive - an imprisoned terrorist can do much more damage to a target than those outside the walls.
Padilla, who prefers to be called Abdullah al-Muhajir, alleges he was tortured by U.S. military members.
Flag Day commemorates the official adoption of the flag of the United States, which happened in 1777 by resolution of the Second Continental Congress.
So today, June 14th, fly "Old Glory" high! And when you see Old Glory grandly flying above, remember it symbolizes the freedoms we have been granted by our U.S. military, so briefly pause to remember the many sacrifices of those who have served and are currently serving our country. Take the time to honor them by letting them know we have not forgotten.
Here's a Flag Day Greetings from Iraq
The Army is the nation's oldest uniformed service. It was officially created on June 14th, 1775 during the Revolutionary War more than a year before the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
In this Year of the NCO, the Army celebrates the long tradition of strength and leadership from the NCO
Here's a message from Sergeant Major of the Army Kenneth Preston, the Army's Top NCO:
Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn III helped to commemorate the Army's 234th birthday at a Pentagon ceremony.
"This occasion marks the 234th year that ordinary men and women have become extraordinary citizens by answering the call of duty and placing the country in front of themselves," Lynn said to an audience of soldiers and other servicemembers in the Pentagon courtyard. "I'm humbled by this long tradition of service, reaching back even to the founding of our nation."
The Army tradition is expressed in a number of ways, he said, including in the actions and service of individual families.
*****
"Our soldiers, of course, do not bear the burdens of combat alone," he continued. "When they sign up, they're also volunteering their families. Army families are a constant source of support and inspiration, and in many ways, they're the reasons our soldiers continue to serve."
Here's a challenge, involving a bit of role-playing. Place yourself in charge of one of the organizations specified below, then explain how you would use the information provided in the report that follows to "effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States" per the stated purpose of the report. Rules of this exercise: you are not allowed to declare the information useless, in fact you must work under the assumption it is valid, well conceived, and thoughtfully presented. (And you certainly wouldn't sneer at the goal, would you?) Vague responses (e.g. - "we would increase vigilance") are pointless - you are at the implementation level, you are "where the rubber meets the road".
(U//FOUO) This product is one of a series of intelligence assessments published by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch to facilitate a greater understanding of the phenomenon of violent radicalization in the United States. The information is provided to federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States. Federal efforts to influence domestic public opinion must be conducted in an overt and transparent manner, clearly identifying United States Government sponsorship.The report follows. Note, if you're like me and can't read in this small format, there's a full screen button in the upper right corner.
Late comments on an old post that I think are worthy of a space of their own.
Longwalker | June 13, 2009 6:12 AM
Special Officer Stephen Tyrone Johns died in the line of duty and my heart goes out to his family. However, please don't do a "Tillman" on him.
The facts are that, noticing an old man approaching the door, Special Officer Johns acted in a very appropriate and professional manner - he opened the door so that the old man could enter.
The old man, von Braumm, shot him in the head as he entered the building. Johns probabily did not even register the fact that he was about to be shot. Being a security guard at a building enterance means, if you are well trained, that you know that you are subject to being shot, without warning, by any well-trained attacker.
One of my "old sargeants" used to tell those of us stationed at such "fixed" posts to make our deaths "real noisy" to allert the other guards as, in most attacks, we would be dead before we could comprehend the fact that we were being attacked.
Greyhawk replied to comment from Longwalker | June 13, 2009 12:24 PM |
Longwalker, since you brought it up, I don't think those who die in the line of duty while performing dangerous tasks shouldn't be recognized for sacrifice simply because they knew they were doing dangerous work.
As for precise cause of death or what immediate action they took that may have led directly to their demise, I see taking on the task in the first place as the point worthy of praise - exactly the point you are making in your third paragraph.
On a related tangent, I don't see death as requirement for recognition. As example, while many military members do heroic things and survive, all recently awarded Medals of Honor have been posthumous.
One could argue that had Pat Tillman survived he would not have received a Silver Star, this despite the fact that the citation makes clear he received it for actions that - as it turned out - led to his death. (That it came from "friendly fire" does not diminish the justification and absolutely doesn't mandate denying the award - a point Lt Gen McChrystal has made previously.) But it's frequently more clear (this does not mean "obvious") that one's actions are courageous when that ultimate proof is available.
But many Silver Stars and a handful of Service Crosses have gone to living recipients recently. Not to imply the Silver Star lacks significance, but it's really about in the middle of the spectrum of awards for valor. The problem I see is not that we excessively honor the dead, it's that we've forgotten that death is not the unavoidable end result of courage.
(Rapidfire consists of quick links updated throughout the day. As a demonstration of solidarity with new readers discovering Mudville through this post, in today's Rapidfire I will deliberately misinterpret the news.)
Ahmadinejad in a landslide. At first disturbing, but on second thought I'd like to actually see that. (But elections are another topic altogether.)
IN ONLINE games like World of Warcraft, the violence is normally restricted to fantasy realms populated by orcs and wizards. But when a dispute broke out between rival gaming services recently, it brought down large chunks of China's internet.
Problems started when hackers linked to an unnamed gaming company launched an attack on a server that provides access to a competitor site. The Xinhua News Agency says the attackers disabled the server by flooding it with incoming signals. Other, connected servers were slowed too, in a chain reaction that caused internet problems for 300 million people.
Two suspects were arrested on 29 May. Chinese authorities rate the disruption to the country's internet as the worst since an earthquake ruptured undersea cables near Taiwan in 2006.
Hackers in communist China. Are you thinking what I'm thinking? Suddenly this seems very prescient... so it's a good thing we're going to be keeping a close eye on those Lefties:
A plan to create a new Pentagon cybercommand is raising significant privacy and diplomatic concerns, as the Obama administration moves ahead on efforts to protect the nation from cyberattack and to prepare for possible offensive operations against adversaries' computer networks.
Dr Jill Biden stands out - but keeps it casual, preferring people not make a fuss over her presence. "Even when people ask her about her relationship to Joe Biden, her answer is 'We're related.'" That's certainly understandable.
"It's inevitable that they're going to leave a trace on us after they depart," said Yahya Hussein, a soccer coach, former player and denizen of Baghdad's Karrada neighborhood.
<...>
"All this," he said, pointing at a kiosk, "came after the occupation."
Rickety stands along the street overflowed with goods. Toy guns emblazoned with the moniker "Super Police" sat next to imitation handcuffs and walkie-talkies. A doll dressed in fatigues, with dog tags around its neck, carried an M-16 rifle, familiar to Iraqis as a weapon of the U.S. military. With a squeeze of the doll's hand, Freddie Mercury belted out Queen's "We Will Rock You" to a street speaking Arabic.
Jeebus, it's NOT A DOLL - it's an action figure, morons!!!!!
Boy hit by meteorite! Told ya so! I told ya so! (gleefully dancing a vindication dance here) I knew this would be trouble! This makes my warning seem prescient now, doesn't it?
At least Fox News is all over it: "'The fireball data from military or surveillance assets have been of critical importance for assessing the impact hazard,' said David Morrison, a Near Earth Object (NEO) scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center." Where would we be without 'em?
Right-winger Glenn Reynolds is obviously aware of all this - but thus far he hasn't connected the dots and acknowledged the flaming spaceball threat. Why?
From our great friend Greta:
A very important radio show for you to tune into this Saturday. I'm hosting a PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) roundtable with 3 experts from the Southeast Louisiana VA Health Care System.Click here for more details. Hooah?Date: Saturday June 13th
Time: 9:00-10:00 AM central time
Where: Am 690 New Orleans or WIST radio live on your computer
Call in number: (504)260-0690 or 888-880-WIST
Questions or comments: in the comment section, gretaperry at gmail.com, @kissmygumbo or on Facebook
Hooah.
Hey - I'm a conservative this week!
See the linked word "agree"? That's me! And I'm "pathetic", too! Er, actually I'm "a milblogger that called Smith and Herridge "pathetic" for reconsidering the report."But later on Fox, New York Post columnist Ralph Peters attacked Smith and Herridge for claiming that the shooting “validated” the DHS report.
Though some conservatives have concluded that the recent string of right-wing violence has “vindicated” the DHS report, many others agree with Peters. Michelle Malkin, who led the charge against the DHS report, approvingly linked to a milblogger that called Smith and Herridge “pathetic” for reconsidering the report. Malkin’s Hot Air colleague, Ed Morrissey, defends the criticism of the report by claiming that it didn’t “mention anti-semitism at all.”
...and incoming bolides:
A recent U.S. military policy decision now explicitly states that observations by hush-hush government spacecraft of incoming bolides and fireballs are classified secret and are not to be released, SPACE.com has learned.It's the new transparency!
The satellites' main objectives include detecting nuclear bomb tests, and their characterizations of asteroids and lesser meteoroids as they crash through the atmosphere has been a byproduct data bonanza for scientists.
The upshot: Space rocks that explode in the atmosphere are now classified.
"It's baffling to us why this would suddenly change," said one scientist familiar with the work.
Update: Boy hit by meteorite! Told ya so! I told ya so! (gleefully dancing a vindication dance here) I knew this would be trouble! This makes my warning seem prescient now, doesn't it?
At least Fox News is all over it: "'The fireball data from military or surveillance assets have been of critical importance for assessing the impact hazard,' said David Morrison, a Near Earth Object (NEO) scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center." Where would we be without 'em?
Right-winger Glenn Reynolds is obviously aware of all this - but thus far he hasn't connected the dots and acknowledged the flaming spaceball threat. Why?
Don't miss these important related posts vital to full understanding.
If you're like me you thought Dan Rather had faded into the sunset once he was booted from CBS after featuring forged documents in a story questioning President Bush's Air National Guard service.
But it turns out Dan got himself a cable Tee Vee gig - and he just scored a scoop: an interview with recently freed Guantanamo inmate Lakhdar Boumediene. In this clip from Dan's show you'll hear Boumediene describe the torture he experienced as a U.S. captive in Cuba:
Shameful - but as we know, all that came to an end when Barack Obama took the oath of office, right? Well, not according to Boumediene - it got worse:
"Nothing changed in Guatanamo"... "They torture me in the Obama time more than Bush" - disgraceful. But ol' Dan Rather wasn't born yesterday - he checked in with someone he identifies as "Boumediene's lawyer":
So whatever Boumediene says (ahem) "should be taken in full context with perspective." When his client says "they torture me in Obama time more than Bush" that means he isn't talking about torture using techniques that were used under the Bush administration... okay, I won't pretend otherwise - obviously these guys haven't coordinated their stories yet.
So Dan got a third opinion - this time from the Admiral commanding the Guantanamo facility, the man whose troops were just accused of crimes:
So he says no torture, Boumediene says more torture under Obama than Bush, and his lawyer says the torture used when Obama was president was different than when Bush was president because Obama had outlawed those techniques. Rather than sort that all out for his viewers, Dan presented all sides of the story fair and square. (And since I'm fair and square too you can see the whole thing here.)
Then after his broadcast he went on the Rachel Maddow Tee Vee program to tell her viewers what they missed out on by not knowing he was even on television anymore. (Please don't bother trying to figure out the picture of Dick Cheney in a Darth Vader costume in the background - that set decoration isn't important to this story):
Wow - I do believe either Dan's memory ain't what it use'ta was or else he's just gone and tied all the details of the story into a whole nuther pretzel altogether. Then he up and sprinkled it with all sorts of sheeit that just don't matter.
But hold on a minute, pa'dnuh, did I hear this right? "Some of those people who are working there now, looking, saying 'Guantanamo's going to close' - sort of take their last shots"?
Well I'll be durned - guess I did. And we never saw or heard Boumediene or his invisible lawyer say that. So heh - foxy Dan sure showed that cocky Admiral a thing or two, didn't he?
Shucks, back when ol' Dan was working that Abu Ghraib story after he got them nudie pitchers from one of them fellers that stacked up that there nekkid pyramid I thought he was doin' his dangdest to get abusive U.S. GI's off the hook, blame it all on the President. I don't know what's changed but I guess he ain't goin' to help any of them out any more.
But now take a look-see at this feller from ABC over here - looks like he got himself a piece o' the story 'ol Dan either forgot about or just plumb missed out on:
Well, I sure hope that Mr Boomerdeen feller and his lawyer can git together before that trial and come up with some sort of story they can both agree on as to what exactly went on there in Guantanamo.
Okay, at this point you folks might be every bit as confused as I was. You got Boomerdeen saying one thing, his lawyer saying another, and Dan Rather claiming somethin' else altogether. The only thing they all agree on is that under orders or in violation of orders, U.S. military folks sure like to torture them some prisoners. Anyhow, I took all the confusin' parts and put them all together in one last video to see if I could figger it all out. You see, I do agree with that wily ol' codger on this here: "It's one of those cases where you take a listen to both sides and make up your own mind".
So there you go. Now I ain't the sharpest tool in the shed, so all I kin say fer now is all of 'em might be lyin', but there damn sure ain't more than one of 'em tellin' the truth.
Courage.
"FNC Has More Viewers Than CNN/MSNBC Combined During Museum Shooting".
From 1-5pmET, FNC averaged 1,322,000 Total Viewers and 326,000 in the demo, followed by CNN (824,000 and 126,000) and MSNBC (311,000 and 93,000).And all those Fox viewers learned to beware the psycho vet threat.
A few quick notes on this panel - not to imply these are comprehensive, accurate, or the most important points:
Okay - my headline is intended to make a point: no one (other than fellow Nazis - and some of them will probably deny him) deserves to be associated with this sumbitch. In his 90 years on this earth (which he probably wanted to end guns blazing) this dirt bag probably did many things (including - like Hitler - "art") most of which neither define him or reflect on others who did - or do - those things.
A few quick notes on this panel - not to imply these are comprehensive, accurate, or the most important points:
At CNAS Conference, a Fox News reporter asked Gen Petraeus about military members reading Miranda rights to captured enemy.
General Petraeus responded (firmly) that this is not a concern, "this is the FBI doing what the FBI does". But our forces DO NOT READ MIRANDA RIGHTS to detainees.
(I'm watching via webcast)
A review (or challenge) of "Triage: The next twelve months in Afghanistan & Pakistan" (Exum et al.) at Blackfive.
Here's the live webcast of the CNAS Conference.
Here's the schedule.
Here are the associated publications.
Video: Anderson Cooper interviews phony Marine and IVAW member Richard Strandlof (a.k.a Richard Duncan):
Okay, here's the complete quote that appears only in part here. To clarify what I'm about to relate: although I was in Iraq in 2007, when I use "we" in the following, I mean United States forces.
I may be wrong - but there seems to be some fundamental misunderstanding of COIN in general and "protecting the population" at play here.
The idea that those are somehow efforts that don't involve killing bad guys and blowing things up is wrong. I know this is obvious to 90% of the people who comment here, but there's also a growing number of people seeking understanding of this newfangled "COIN" business who may be under the impression that it's some sort of bloodless warfare - and some may scan these comments for illumination. If you aren't among that number skip this rest of this.
Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge just announced that the shooting at the Holocaust Museum - allegedly by an 89-year old WWII veteran - confirms a recent DHS report regarding the threat posed by extremist veterans.
Shepard Smith adds "They [DHS] saw the signs, now it has begun". Smith keeps hammering on that angle...
Early reports also indicate the shooter claimed to hold a journalism degree.
Is this news story a response to this? Prolly, sez I.
Or it's just a coincidence.
An entry-level discussion of what COIN isn't. I'd caution that the point I was making is not a rebuttal of Triage. Many "anti-COIN" voices argue that we should be killing bad guys instead, and that population-centric efforts prevent that. Not so, and my point is to refute that false assertion. This is the truth: sometimes to protect the sheep the shepherd must kill the wolf.
That point applies to anyone who would make a "pro-COIN" argument along the same (call it "all food no bullets") lines, but I don't read Exum as doing that.
Next "lesson" here.
Video below via DVIDS (via the Dawn Patrol): "B-roll of unmanned aerial footage of an insurgent grenade attack in Asadabad, the provincial capital of Kunar in eastern Afghanistan. Scenes include U.S. Soldiers with the crowd, the explosion and the crowd dissipating after the explosion. According to U.S. military sources, three coalition troops and five innocent Afghan citizens are confirmed as wounded in the blast."
Kudos to them for the rapid release - this AP report is why it matters: "many wounded Afghans angrily accused the Americans" of throwing the grenade:
After successfully completing the London Marathon, disabled British soldier Major Phil Packer is taking part in the El Capitan Climbing Challenge in Yosemite National Park. The climb is the latest in a series of challenges is in a bid to raise money for the charity Help for Heroes.
Major Phil Packer, who lost the use of his legs in Iraq, is on his final push towards the summit of 3000 foot El Capitain in California.He's halfway in climbing challenge
Small Wars: "The Center for New American Security has released several new reports and working papers that will be presented at its third annual conference, "Striking a Balance: A New American Security" on Thursday, June 11." The collection is here.
Registration for the conference is closed. However, there will be a live webcast starting at 8:30 AM ET. If you don't recognize most of the last names (Petraeus, Nagl, Bacevich, Keane, et al.) without the first you should probably do a bit of homework before viewing. As for the issues, they'll be shaping our National Security debate (hence policy) for the foreseeable future. For those needing a bit of fast catch-up, we'll be running a short course on the basics of various issues here throughout the day today.
What's at stake? Read the topics for the panel discussions - Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Korea... this is Defense with the capital (or capitol may be appropriate, too) D. While that's sufficient for some, it should be acknowledged that there are those who see defense as the short form of defense budget, and they will be eyes-on too.
Previously noted in the context of just one of their recent papers, and even more applicable to this event:
CNAS has been widely touted as "The" think tank for a new era (or administration, if you prefer) - this effort can be seen as their first to be released into the resulting increased limelight. In that regards, it can also be considered the response to "okay - show us what you got".Obviously, they've got a lot. And the show is about to begin.
by Doug Stanton. Copyright © 2009 by Reed City Productions, LLC. Reprinted by permission of Scribner, a Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc, NY.The NY Times condemns (really) this book as "for those who like their military history told through the eyes of heroic grunts, sergeants and captains. Think of Stephen E. Ambrose's "Band of Brothers" or Stanton's own best seller, "In Harm's Way," the story of the survivors of the cruiser Indianapolis, which sank in shark-infested waters during World War II."
I think the Times reviewer actually prefers books that do his "thinking" for him, but that's a topic for another day. I'll offer a full review once I've finished (almost there!) for now my advice is enjoy this excerpt, then get this book.
After the Fire: Shaping the Future U.S. Relationship with Iraq
(Because you've already finished this, right?)
Nine yards of news follows:
"For Vietnam-era awards and later, [the presentation of the Medal of Honor has] pretty much been a Presidential moment. Except for one...."
"A billboard in Baghdad produced by the Future Iraq Assembly, whose Web site lists no members, declares: 'Iraq's future is for those who believe in it.'" - Apparently this is somehow sinister.
Last week: "This document will dominate the discussion on Afghanistan/Pakistan in the near future - and that will in turn shape the long-term."
Here's the WaPo coverage. Do they always cover the release of would-be policy papers?
They shoot horses, don't they?
At least four terrorists and a number of their horses were killed in the ensuing exchange of fire with the IDF. No soldiers were wounded.
"A very big terrorist attack was thwarted," the security source told the Post.
<...>
Lt.-Col. Avinoam Stolevitch, commander of the 13th Battalion, told Army Radio that future assaults of this sort would put Hamas at risk of a second Operation Cast Lead.
HuffPo headline: "Obama Could Be Handed First Legislative Defeat Due To Anti-War Liberals" - except that a read of the story shows that particular group deserves as much credit (blame, if you prefer) as Mothers against Drunk Drivers - which is to say, none. In fact, "anti-war advocates in Congress" are warning that "many in their ranks are not willing to deal Obama a major legislative defeat."
Elsewhere - Lieberman: "Senator Graham and I will not go quietly in the night because the safety of our troops and our nation is on the line". Graham: said U.S. troops have enough to do without "Congress adding to their burdens. So nothing's going forward until we get this right."
And "The liberal blogosphere is also waking up to the issue and weighing in against the Lieberman-Graham amendment." Hey, just because the administration no longer finds them useful doesn't mean they have to stop being idiots.
If you're interested in what non-idiots Dave Petraeus and Ray Odierno have to say on the matter, read this, too.
Meanwhile: "The Obama administration objected yesterday to the release of certain Bush-era documents that detail the videotaped interrogations of CIA detainees at secret prisons, arguing to a federal judge that doing so would endanger national security and benefit al-Qaeda's recruitment efforts."
Barack Obama invokes Jesus more than George W. Bush - I dunno, I don't keep score, but it seems to me he invokes Bush a lot...
Guantanamo Detainee Transferred To New York For Trial
He didn't have this option: "The Obama administration is considering a change in the law for the military commissions at the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, that would clear the way for detainees facing the death penalty to plead guilty without a full trial."
Classic post-Iraq war headline: "US plans death camp"- May, 2003.
Classic post-WWII headlines: Germans Find Mass Graves at an Ex-Soviet Camp and Ex-Death Camp Tells Story Of Nazi and Soviet Horrors. The first was from 47 years after WWII, the second from nine years after the first. It's unfortunate that real death camps don't make the papers in real time.
Here's a story you must-read. And here's an Alfred Hitchcock film you must see - and probably haven't. But it's the most frightening movie he ever made.
Gallup: Conservatives Shift in Favor of Openly Gay Service Members (lot's of other interesting results in that poll, too).
Reason Online: "The question is whether President Barack Obama will lead the way to its repeal--as he promised he would during his campaign--or back-pedal to political safety, as he seems to be doing." "Lead" is correct - he can and should urge Congress to act. But confronted with the old lead, follow, or get out of the way options he has chosen "c" (modified).
Or has he?:
The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a challenge to the Pentagon policy forbidding gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, granting a request by the Obama administration.
<...>
In court papers, the administration said the appeals court ruled correctly in this case when it found that "don't ask, don't tell" is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion."
Mourning Pvt. Long - featuring a video appearance by a hijab-wearing 9/11 troofer.
Rush Limbaugh and GM boycotts. Future models probably won't have AM radio anyhow... then again, how many of the Obama administration actions listed above would Limbaugh argue against?
Smile - you are always on Candid Camera.
fini
The Word ...Victory!
Great show.
Greyhawk here: Great show - kudos to Colbert and crew.
Lot's of shoulder rigs in evidence, at least in the front rows. No surprise for al Faw, and no surprise if the M9 crowd beat the M4 crowd to the best seats. (I did see at least one USAF E6 in the front row.)
Great line from the prez: "No, my ears are just that big".
But the biggest applause line of the night: "We have won the war in Iraq". I think the applause was authentic and heartfelt. I didn't hear Odierno refute that - I heard him say there was still work to do.
Very cool related video - a commencement address from Baghdad by Goodrich High School (Michigan) Principal David St. Aubin
Kudos to the NYT for citing VoteVets as one of the groups who failed at due diligence on the Rick Duncan/Rick Strandlof story: "Antiwar groups like VoteVets.org embraced him as a valued spokesman." They've subsequently purged any evidence of his existence from their web page, so that's not as obvious as it was at the time.
But for the record, VoteVets is a de facto organization of the Democratic Party, and they haven't been anti-war much lately. Their focus now is on supporting the Party platform on national security issues like green energy and card check.
But as for the Duncan story, here's a more detailed account from the Denver Post. As stated previously, much of the credit for exposing this fraud goes to a real veteran in "Duncan's" Colorado Veterans Alliance - a group that worked on homeless veteran's issues, and the only veteran's group to dissolve in the wake of this fiasco.
And more FraudVets - geesh this is an amazing crew.
And if you want to engage them, you can expect this in return:
"Funny that this is a story now" - indeed.
Milblogs were far ahead of the media on that Rick Duncan story... (surprise, right?) Basically that's because we're tired of seeing these frauds' stories promoted by the media, usually to vigorous response from members of Congress. There's big money (your money, dear taxpayer) moving from point A to point B via military personnel/Veterans Affairs issues, and these are the guys who are driving the freaking train that delivers that cash.
From the 'new' (they did a brief report a few weeks ago, but it lacked the details) NYT Rick Duncan story:
Days after news of his forged identity broke, veterans advocates, Congressional aides and elected officials who thought they knew him well remained shocked. One veteran was so angry that he created a Facebook page urging the Justice Department to indict Mr. Strandlof.Let me fix that for them:
From Robert Stokely:
Freedom is not Free, and its highest cost is a Lifetime of Love. With the news of three Georgia Families bearing the highest cost of Freedom, they have joined the ranks of those who bear a Special Privilege of Sacrifice, one none of us wanted, but if not borne by us, then who should bear it in our place..... It is a chiling reminder that there are those of courage who are willing to stand in harm's way so the rest of us do not have to.
These past few weeks have been sombering for me - a call from Afghanistan from Alden Williams, my son's very dear high school friend who took the last known picture of Mike just days before Mike was KIA nearly four years ago; a call from Chuck Crowder, as he was about to go wheels up to Afghanistan, a dear friend of Mike and Alden - they were a trio in high school, college and the National Guard. They split up into different units to up their odds one would make it back. Chuck Crowder risked life in limb just a few weeks before Mike was killed to rush through a field strewn with mines to render aid to fellow 48th BCT GAARNG soldiers seriously wounded and killed in an IED in south Baghdad. He then went back into the mine field to render aid to a fellow British soldier who had also tried to help but went down when a mine exploded. Then there is Matt Kellerman whose unit heads to Afghanistan next week as part of the 48th BCT GAARNG deployment - his courage is hard to describe, for he was seriously wounded in the same attack that killed my son, yet he didn't quit when he had the chance - he re-upped. I spoke with his dad the other day and my words were "How do you do it - you know what happened to us and how close your son came to dying that same night, yet you do this again - you, your family and your son are the bravest people I know..."
Now, a somber reminder of just what our military personnel risk when they swear that solemn oath.
I met Maj. Jeanerette and some of his fellow 108th CAV Squadron soldiers last August. That unit is not the same unit as Mike's (his was decommissioned and merged into Bravo 2/121 INF 48th BCT GAARNG). But, none the less, I was proud to know that there was a 108th Squadron operating and carrying on the proud CAV SCOUT tradition that was so dear to my son. And, I was even prouder when they presented me with a unit coin, which I proudly display on a table in the foyer of our home, next to Mike's post deployment unit coin, a coin sent to me by President George Bush, and the sabre presented me by Mike's unit at his Memorial Service.
When I am asked what can be done to make it better for us I respond that there is nothing that can make it better, but there is one thing that can make it matter - REMEMBER WITH HONOR, THE LIFETIME OF LOVE freely given to America.
DUTY HONOR COUNTRY
Robert Stokely
proud dad SGT Mike Stokely
KIA 16 AUG 05 near Yusufiyah Iraq
USA E 108 CAV 48th BCT GAARNG
I staggered back to the Underground
And the breeze blew back my hair
I remembered throwin' punches around
And preachin' from my chair
<...>
Well, who are you / Who are you... who who, who, who...
Oh, who are you / Who are you... who who, who, who...
Come on, tell me, who are you / Who are you...
Oh, who the f%^& are you / Who are you...
- The Who, "Who are You?"
Wanna be linked by everyone in the blogosphere? Try exposing an pseudonymous blogger. It works, and as a double bonus your subject's identity will be known far beyond the readership of your site.
Bad form, says I - though so is hiding behind a pseudonym in order to be an obnoxious twit (note I'm not accusing anyone of that motive here). I maintained a pseudonymous blog here for many years and many reasons - at the outset primarily because as a milblogger I practiced more strict OPSEC than what's officially required; for example, someone who knew who I was could determine where I was, from that many other bad things could potentially follow. Bear in mind that was the calculation of a guy who was one of the first milbloggers, entering into an unknown world (and an unknown future at war) - and the handful that preceded me were all pseudonymous, a tradition that continues with the vast majority starting out today.
I'm fine with that - I'd encourage it, even. But beyond potential OPSEC considerations, I tried to write everything I posted as though I were using my real name (as if Osama and your mama were reading is advice I follow and give freely). Part of the reason for that was anticipating I wouldn't be pseudonymous forever - that either by my choice or otherwise (as in the example above) I would one day be known. As things turned out, my choice was the answer in my case, but see Buzzell, Colby, or Beauchamp, Scott Thomas for examples of otherwise. (One of those gentlemen is also an example of a major flub of at least the mama part of the Osama and your mama rule, by the way. The other one got a nice book deal.)
Now you can see and hear "the real me" all over this blog, and find things written under my own name (and citing this site) elsewhere - but "Greyhawk" lives on. He is me, of course, but also better known than I. I can live with that, because I am he and he is me and we are all together. But I suppose that the possibility of living in your own shadow (assuming you draw an audience) is something to consider for anyone - milblogger or otherwise - opting for pseudonymity for the all the right reasons. (Confession: it's also fun to observe the change in facial expressions and response I get introducing myself to people at conferences when after a brief pause I add "Greyhawk from Mudville" to my actual name.)
More here (and thanks again, Glenn, if that's your real name...)
More: Having read some explanations from pseudonymous (non-mil)bloggers for pseudonymous blogging of the "fears for repercussions in my personal/professional life" variety, I must ask the obviously begged question: are you saying people wouldn't like you if they knew the real you - revealed only in your blogging? This implies you've fooled them in the first place...
Or are you saying the blogger you is a fraud? (If that's too harsh a characterization, perhaps that the blogger you is the person you would like to be if only you weren't afraid concerned...)
I'm reminded too of the accounts I've heard where someone meets a blogger (known for their confrontational on-line behavior) in person and is surprised to discover they're actually rather polite, mild mannered, and soft-spoken. I'm never surprised by that, the behavior of many in the blogosphere is the sort that tends to get you fed your teeth when practiced in the real world.
I understand that "loss of income" is persuasive and that the anonymity of the web can be cathartic for someone whose daily existence is a lie. Hell, I even understand that in a world full of compromise a Walter Mitty-esque existence online - where you're an uncompromising bastion of rock-solid beliefs and personal integrity - is damned attractive. But here's the lesson that should be learned: the internet security blanket does not exist. Outside of World of Warcraft and related sites the internet is not your personal and inviolable Magic Kingdom - it is a virtual extension of the real world, complete with actions and consequences. In many ways it's even more risky to sound off here - where people who couldn't (by lack of capacity or inclination) feed you your teeth in the physical universe won't hesitate to do so in a virtual sense - whether that impacts your "other life" or not.
I prefer things kept civil myself, but then the real world I've lived in for the past several years has included folks who actually wanted to kill me (nothing personal, however) so I tend to be more lover less fighter here - and more interested in avoiding wars than fighting them wherever I may be, and winning them only when I fail.
Maybe that makes me a wimp. If you think so, please let me know - if ever we meet in person.
Complain endlessly about the fact that you don't have free speech. If no one shoots you or locks you in jail, you have free speech. If people call you an idiot, they have free speech too.
