 |  |
| [-] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
Prev | List | Random | Next |
From the troops in Iraq, to you:
United States Forces - Iraq Completes Month without Combat Action Death
January 1, 2010
BAGHDAD - December passed without any servicemembers being killed in action. This was the first month in the history of Operation Iraqi Freedom without any U.S. military being killed in combat.
Three USF-I troops did die from non-combat related incidents.
"We enter the new year with mixed emotions. While we are thankful that no troops were killed in action in December, we are equally mindful of those who have lost their lives while serving our nation. Our thoughts and prayers go out to their families, and all that have lost a loved one in Iraq," said Gen. Ray Odierno, Commanding General of USF-I.
The leadership of USF-I reiterated its commitment to supporting the Government of Iraq and its security forces in maintaining a security environment where security incidents have been sharply reduced.
"There is still work to be done. We will continue to advise and support our Iraqi partners to pressure terrorist networks and reduce their capability to conduct high-profile attacks," said Gen. Odierno. "We will continue to support the government and people of Iraq as they progress towards credible and legitimate elections in March followed by a peaceful transition of power."
...some incredible photos from the current "home" of the 1-17th Infantry Battalion, 5th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. (The unit at the center of this storm.)
Click it, don't miss it.
Seventy-one percent (71%) of all voters think the attempt by the Nigerian Muslim to blow up the airliner as it landed in Detroit should be investigated by military authorities as a terrorist act. Only 22% say it should be handled by civilian authorities as a criminal act, as is currently the case.
I'm sorry - but just what the #&%! are 71% of voters thinking here? Who exactly in "the military" would conduct this "investigation"? And why is this question even asked?
Is this a result of too much NCIS on TV?
Update: A smaller majority (58%) "say waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques should be used to gain information from the terrorist who attempted to bomb an airliner on Christmas Day." Do Americans think that's a technique their military uses?
And more: It's notable that every recent terrorist incident has been used by the Obama admin to push for extension of Patriot Act provisions. Those extensions were quietly granted as part of the defense bill the president signed into law a few days ago - but based on those poll results (Americans clearly support sanctions far beyond what the Patriot Act grants - but perhaps that's only applicable to swarthy, foreign-looking terrorists) he now has ammunition to push harder for a more permanent authority.
Never have so many demanded their rights be placed in the hands of so few, and the folks who seem to be cheering loudest for just that seem to be the president's political opponents.
A very interesting New Year ahead, indeed.
In The New York Times today: "Afghan Insurgents Seize 2 French Journalists."
We hope they're released soon - and unharmed.
It's hard to read that account in the Times without recalling another story found only in milblogs this year, ironically involving Times reporters Stephen Farrell and Sultan Munadi (characterized as an "interpreter" in most accounts), who were kidnapped in Afghanistan last summer.
- where it isn't New Years Eve.
The Washington Post:
A suicide bomber infiltrated a CIA base in eastern Afghanistan on Wednesday, killing at least eight Americans in what is believed to be the deadliest single attack on U.S. intelligence personnel in the eight-year-long war and one of the deadliest in the agency's history, U.S. officials said.The LA Times:
An undisclosed number of civilians were wounded, the officials said. No military personnel with the U.S. or North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces were killed or injured, they said.Confirmation:
Seven Central Intelligence Agency officers were killed and six more wounded in a suicide bomb attack in Afghanistan, the CIA Director Leon Panetta said Thursday, the largest single-day loss for the spy agency since the Beirut embassy bombing in 1983.
The attack Wednesday killed at least eight American civilians at Forward Operating Base Chapman, a U.S. compound in the Afghan province of Khost near the Pakistani border that has been a base of operations for the CIA.
CIA agents were "first in" to Afghanistan, and CIA agent Mike Spann was the first American killed in the line of duty there post-9/11. He fell in combat with the Taliban (including "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh) in November, 2001.
The Obama administration's relationship with the CIA has been characterized by highly-publicized efforts to prosecute agents for allegedly torturing al Qaeda members. (Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi also had accused the organization of deceiving Congress on the issue.) More recently attempts to discredit Afghan President Hamid Karzai by claiming his brother was secretly on the CIA's payroll made news. The agency also came under fire in the Afghan theater of operations earlier this year when Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) revealed the location of a then-secret "drone base" used for counter-terror missions in Pakistan. Reports of civilian casualties in association with drone attacks there have strained relationships with the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Elsewhere in Afghanistan today:
A footnote to the previous story: They may not have had enough time to learn the language or prepare properly for Afghanistan, but when confronted with "an absence of good intelligence on what they would be facing in the Arghandab" valley, NCOs in the unit found a way to improvise, adapt and overcome, by "printing out information on the Arghandab region from The Long War Journal, a respected non-Defense Department Web site, and posting it on bulletin boards." So milblogs are doing more than just informing the public about America's war.
There's also discussion in the Army Times' story regarding counter insurgency operations - another topic on which milblogs have attempted to educate the public...
...soldiers said that a major factor behind the battalion's difficulties in the Arghandab was the failure of their battalion and brigade commanders to adhere to McChrystal's published counterinsurgency guidance.
<...>
"The perceived disconnect between Tunnell's approach and McChrystal's guidance has led to intense frustration in Charlie Company. One young soldier said all the squad leaders in his platoon "have done COIN fights before, and they're pissed that we're not doing COIN properly."
Americans probably aren't all that interested in specifics of strategy and tactics used to wage wars in far off lands - but if the story is accurate, commanders should be forgiven for possibly believing Vice President of the United States Joe Biden, who recently appeared on television to assure Americans that we aren't using a counterinsurgency strategy ("this is not a COIN strategy") to counter the insurgency in Afghanistan. (See also "Civilian, military planners have different views on new approach to Afghanistan," Rajiv Chandrasekaran, The Washington Post.)
Is there hope for the new year? Yes. But that hope doesn't come from think tanks, Universities, the White House, or even the Pentagon.
"You get pulled out and it's like, 'thanks for playing, fellas - you're fired.' What's the point...?"
That's hard to hear - especially from a guy who obviously knows what needs done. But while it may not seem that way now, they aren't retreating; Charlie Company will soon have a new and important mission in Afghanistan. If victory can be achieved there it will be because of young Americans like this - who can sometimes get things done in spite of the best efforts of the morons who over-populate Washington D.C.
Afghanistan is not Iraq, but that key to success hasn't changed.
A look back at one of the big milblog stories of 2009, with a followup that (unfortunately) isn't much of a surprise...
February, 2009: the newly-sworn in President of the United States - who had run on a pledge to "immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq" by removing "one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months" - got a much needed headline: "Barack Obama diverts 17,000 soldiers from Iraq to Afghanistan". It was big news at the time, and - perhaps in part because it made good on campaign rhetoric regarding Afghanistan, too - was wildly popular with Americans. (Sixty-three percent approved.) But it was also a fraud, one of the first of many successful frauds the new administration was able to perpetrate on the American public.
"Former CIA agent Henry Crumpton helped defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan at one point. Today, Crumpton has harsh criticism of Richard Holbrooke, President Obama's point man on Afghanistan and Pakistan."
That's a video (mouseover to play if controls don't appear) "web extra" from Out Of The Shadows - a 60 Minutes segment featuring former CIA operative Henry Crumpton discussing the 2001 efforts to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan. It's unfortunate that "extra" didn't make the final cut for the broadcast, as there's a hint of something bigger there that a good investigative journalist could really make use of.
Since "something bigger" could be perceived as criticism of the Obama administration it won't be on CBS anytime soon - I'd be less surprised to see Osama bin Laden critique the Koran. You do get a hint of the Clinton-era failures to wrap up Osama bin Laden before 9/11 in the longer, televised segment, but the phrase "Clinton-era" is not spoken aloud.
Full 60 Minutes segment below. Worth watching.
Good reads: Lindy Kyzer's advice to milbloggers and Sgt Danger's Things I Can't Write About.
When last this topic surfaced...
I long ago boiled my thoughts on this issue down to two bumper stickers.
One for would-be deployed bloggers: Write like Osama and your mama are readers.
And one for their supervisors: When milblogs are outlawed, only outlaws will have milblogs.
"Both are solid," Dave replied, "and while they may be "bumper stickers" there is truth to those words and much behind him that many just do not understand."
Which leads me to believe I can do more to help increase understanding.
"U.N. Officials Say American Offered Plan to Replace Karzai"-- James Glanz and Richard Oppel Jr, The New York Times, December 16, 2009
"Your article about my supposed plan to remove President Hamid Karzai simply recycled allegations that United Nations officials made in October."-- Peter Galbraith, letter to the New York Times, published December 27, 2009
"They do not understand that nobody cares a straw for the internal administration of Native States so long as oppression and crime are kept within decent limits, and the ruler is not drugged, drunk, or diseased from one end of the year to the other."-- Rudyard Kipling The Man Who Would be King, published 1888
...from Soldiers' Angels Germany.
"It's like I'm a famous person or something. I can't believe all of it. But really, I don't understand why people treat me this way. I'm not special. I was just over there doing my job."
Don't miss it.
Wow:
More:A Dutch airline passenger told The Post how he leapt into action when an alleged Muslim terrorist tried to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner packed with 300 people just moments before landing...
"Suddenly, we hear a bang. It sounded like a firecracker went off," said Jasper Schuringa, a film director who was traveling to the US to visit friends...
"I saw smoke rising from a seat ... I didn't hesitate. I just jumped," he said.
Schuringa dove over four passengers to reach Abdul Mutallab's seat. The suspect had a blanket on his lap. "It was smoking and there were flames coming from beneath his legs."
Schuringa said he saw that Abdulmutallab had his pants open and he was holding a burning object between his legs.
"I pulled the object from him and tried to extinguish the fire with my hands and threw it away," Schuringa said.
He said he managed to pull an object tucked between Abdulmutallab's legs.
"Water! Water," Schuringa screamed. He heard fire extinguishers as he pulled Abdulmutallab out of his seat and dragged him to the front of the plane.
Schuringa said Abdulmutallab seemed dazed. "He was staring into nothing."
Schuringa said he stripped off Abdulmutallab's clothes to make sure he did not have other explosives on his body. A crew member helped handcuff him.
He said other passengers applauded as he walked back to his own seat.
"My hands are pretty burned. I am fine," he said. "I am shaken up. I am happy to be here."
Following the logic of the shoe bomber response, everyone's going to have to take their pants off now to get through airline security. Beat the rush - buy new undies
Update: Never mind - you probably won't be allowed to wear underwear on airplanes after this:
The plot to blow up an American passenger jet over Detroit was organized and launched by al Qaeda leaders in Yemen who apparently sewed bomb materials into the suspect's underwear before sending him on his mission, federal authorities tell ABC News.
Maybe nothing bigger than a thong?
(You've almost reached the surprise ending to the story begun here...)
So in December, 2007 I flew out of Iraq having missed out on the Robin Williams USO show again. But we started this story with a picture...
...so you're already looking forward to the happy ending. Here's what happened.
I arrived at the waypoint location - another base somewhere in Southwest Asia where you sit around waiting a few days for the next plane home. And what should greet me there but posters for the same USO show - to be put on the next day. Robin Williams & Co (in 2007 it was Lewis Black, Lance Armstrong, Kid Rock, and Miss USA Rachel Smith - whose father is retired Army) were stopping there on the way into the combat zones. So long story short, I saw the show after all - it was great.
But a few hours later I was near the DFAC, and though I wasn't hungry the sleep tent was far enough away that I didn't want to walk all the way back later to get food when I was. So I went in, grabbed a tray, sat down and started eating. Half way through the meal a guy gets up in the front of the room and announces that the special guests were all done eating and had a few minutes to spare if anyone wanted to spend some time with them. Scattered throughout the room I was in just by chance were the stars of the USO show.
And in my pocket was the only thing I had that I could get autographed - a copy of my orders home.
My only regret, I didn't have a camera with me and couldn't get pictures. But a copy of your orders home signed by Robin Williams, Lance Armstrong, Lewis Black, Kid Rock, and Rachel Smith makes a fine memento.
The next day I got on the plane for home, they got on a plane for Iraq (then Afghanistan). But a couple weeks later I was back at work, and into my inbox popped an email from a friend. He'd been tdy to that particular Southwest Asian location. I didn't see him while I was there, but he saw me after I left. He was looking through the hundreds of official photos taken and uploaded to the servers there during the USO visit, by pure chance spotted that one of me and Robin Williams, and emailed it to me. Getting that email was a complete surprise, and an unexpected Christmas present. I hadn't even noticed the picture being taken.
So there's me handing a copy of my orders to Robin Williams, who also thought autographing someone's orders home for Christmas was a pretty cool thing to do. (And as noted at the beginning, the reason I have such a photo is a story involving a series of unlikely events, remarkable coincidences, and... well heck, regular Christmas miracles.)
Meanwhile, back at Victory Base Complex, where I'd have gone to see the show if I was still in Iraq...
So that was the 2007 USO Christmas show for a lot of the folks who'd spent most of the previous year in Iraq as part of "the surge". I'm glad I wasn't the weather forecaster on Camp Victory that day. (Hey, I never promised there would be a happy ending.)
The moral of the story? There's no place like home for the holidays, of course. No matter how hectic or seemingly stressful, if you're fortunate enough to spend yours at home this year, be thankful for that. But if you prefer Christmas stories with happy endings and you have a few moments to spare, you don't have to spend hours in a loud C130 to send a bit of holiday cheer to some of the folks who aren't with their families this year.
And that would make a happy ending after all.
(Bumped - important)
USO shows are fantastic and packages from home can't be beat, but in the age of the internet it's never too late for everyone to send holiday cheer to the troops in the war zone - and today's Dawn Patrol continues our annual tradition of providing links to every downrange milblogger possible so you can do just that. For those with a few moments to spare in this busy time of year, please visit a few of those folks and leave a thank you and Merry Christmas. (Step one: Click here.)
And we'll be adding to the list, but if you know of any we've missed please tell us in the comments here. (Hey, even Santa can't work his magic without help!)
And Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to Mudville readers everywhere - wishing all a Perfect '10!
2009-12-23 12:35:45
ABC:
In other news:In an interview published on Al Jazeera's Web site, radical Muslim cleric Anwar al Awlaki says that Maj. Nidal Hasan, charged with killing 13 in last month's Fort Hood massacre, asked for guidance about killing American military personnel in his very first e-mail.
Awlaki claims that Hasan initiated the e-mail correspondence with a message on Dec. 17, 2008. "He was asking about killing U.S. soldiers and officers," says Awlaki. "His question was is it legitimate [under Islamic law]."
The Al Jazeera questioner asks for confirmation that Hasan forwarded this query nearly a year before the shooting.
"Yes," responds Awlaki. "I am astonished. Where was American intelligence that claimed once that it can read any car plate number anywhere in the world?"
A Yemeni air raid may have killed the top two leaders of al Qaeda's regional branch on Thursday, and an American Muslim preacher linked to the man who shot dead 13 people at a U.S. army base may also have died, a Yemeni security official said.
Nasser al-Wahayshi, the Yemeni leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), and his Saudi deputy, Saeed al-Shehri, were believed to be among 30 militants killed in the dawn operation in the eastern province of Shabwa, said the official, who asked not to be identified.
U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki may also have died in the air strike which targeted a meeting of militants planning attacks on Yemeni and foreign oil and economic targets, he said.
"Pentagon officials were not immediately available to comment on any U.S. involvement in the raid," says Reuters.
I'm sure that last line is true - because it's Christmas.
Betty James has a right to be proud of her son Tim:
He made almost $2.5 million playing for the Heat, Hornets and 76ers... And James earned plenty playing professionally in Japan, Turkey and Israel, too. But as he traveled all over the globe playing his beloved game, seeing a world he never thought he'd see growing up poor in Miami, he didn't learn to merely value or appreciate America's freedoms....
"He decided he wanted to fight to protect them, too," the story continues.
James had to get military clearance to talk for this story. That's how his commanding officer finally found out SPC Tim James used to be an NBA millionaire. Byron is not easily impressed, but he finds the fact that James didn't tell anyone he was an NBA player even more amazing than the fact that he was an NBA player.
<...>
"I wanted this experience to be raw,'' James says now. "Start a new life. I wanted to understand new minds and new ways of thinking. I've been in basketball since I was 8. I didn't want to have a basketball conversation every day.''
<...>
The toughest part? It hasn't been the engulfing sand storms that come in as high as buildings and last for days. It hasn't been running in formation for five to 10 miles in the desert heat while wearing 75 pounds of equipment -- full battle rattle, as they say, rifle and body armor and Kevlar five times stronger than steel. The push-ups and sit-ups until the body gives up? Nope. The part of training when he spent 10 days in a freezing tent, doing all his hygiene in the woods and heating meals the food critic in him jokes tasted "good enough to keep you alive"? That wasn't the toughest part, either.
<...>
No, the toughest part has been how much he misses his family, his son especially. The phone calls are particularly heartbreaking. Are you on the airplane, Daddy? When you coming back, Daddy? I love you, Daddy.
"A man's greatest fear is of extinction,'' Heat President Pat Riley said to James. ``It should be fear of extinction with insignificance. What you are doing matters.''
More here.
Ran it last year, but Christmas is all about re-runs...
2008-12-21 17:13:06
(The Mudville '09 Christmas Spectacular, continued from here.)
In 2004 the USO tour rolled in to Baghdad a couple weeks before Christmas, and the weather was fine.
But I'd already decided I wasn't going. I was going to work, so that one of my guys could go instead of working. The plan was for a bunch to pile into one of our vehicles and drive over to the far side of Victory, see the show, and trek back.
But that morning, outside of the tent where we work I crossed paths with one of the neighbours. I spell it that way because he was a Brit - part of a helo unit that had moved in just a few weeks before, and set up office in a tent we'd occupied until moving into our new tent next door. We'd left them some furnishings, a few folding chairs and tables - nothing fancy, and found them some more. They appreciated that, and we were all one big, happy family downrange.
"Are you going to the USO show?" He asked me.
"I'm working, but my guys are going over," I replied.
"Would they fancy a ride?"
"Oh, they've got the use of the truck, but thanks for asking. Any of you all need a ride over?"
"No, but we've got space to take them," he said, and gestured to one of the helos.
"Ahh..." said I, "a ride. Say no more. Let me check." At this point, of course, I'm grinning ear to ear. So into the tent I go, to tell the guys (all E4s and 5s) the bad news/good news story - they weren't taking the truck after all.
I missed out, but they came back that night with great stories about the show, and even better ones about the ride over and back (for some their first helo trip, short as it was), and the strange looks they got from all the VIPs coming and going from the VIP landing pad that day. So I missed out - in the same way parents "miss out" on Christmas for their kids.
But I remembered all that three years later when I saw the poster for the 2007 USO show that was scheduled for just a couple days after I was scheduled to leave. I would miss it again, but being home for Christmas meant I wouldn't miss it that much.
(The story continues here...)
(Continued from here)
BAGHDAD, mid-December, 2007. I knew I'd be going home soon, and was looking forward to it. There's nothing better than being home for Christmas.
But I still thought damn! when I saw the poster for the USO show scheduled a couple of days after I left. I had missed out on that during my last tour, too.
Which reminded me of Christmas in Baghdad in 2004...
For starters, the worst weather of the year. A cold rain, flooded ground, mud everywhere, missions canceled, you name it. But as miserable as I was I saw something that reminded me that someone always has it worse. I'd just donned my armor and started for the DFAC. As I splashed past the porta potties I noticed the smell. The team of civilian third country nationals was busy cleaning them, even on Christmas day in the rain. Off to the side stood the escort for the workers. His sole purpose in life was to ensure the guys cleaning the porta potties didn't get up to any "funny business" and plant bombs or steal anything during performance of their duties.
As I walked past the escort, I considered saying one of the following things to him:
"Merry Christmas"
"Hey, this is a Christmas you'll tell your grandchildren about - the year you helped free Iraq!"
or
"Son, if you move over to this side (pointing) you'll notice the wind won't blow in your face off the porta potties any more"
In the end I said nothing, just moved on. Sometimes there's nothing you can say.
The weather was so bad in Baghdad over Christmas, 2004 that congressional delegations attempting to fly in had to divert to other locations - but it was for reasons other than weather that I'd missed the USO Show that year.
But hardships are relative.
And the Mudville 09 Christmas Spectacular continues here.
Oh noes: U.S. personnel in Iraq could face court-martial for getting pregnant. Stars and Stripes ran the story first. MSNBC and the AP followed.
Which means those whose understanding of the military comes from reading newspapers and watching television (dramas and news) are expressing their feelings that it just isn't fair because women in the military are constantly being raped and can't get free abortions.
And they're grappling with reality, as only the reality-based community is intelligent enough to do: "...the reality is that only women show the physical evidence of what's being criminalized. So, if I'm a woman who's become pregnant via consensual sex, the only way the Army is going to know which man to punish is if I tell them."
Realistically, that means the only way this ban is gender equitable is if women--female soldiers, who live and die by the same codes of honor and loyalty as male soldiers--snitch on their partners, knowing they'll ruin their careers.
Something tells me there ain't gonna be a lot of trouble for the male soldiers.
Which - while there are a number of potential problems with this rule - is exactly what I didn't think when I first heard the story.
But in the meantime, Stars and Stripes has actually followed up on the original story:
"Seven U.S. soldiers, including three men, have already been punished under six-week-old rules making pregnancy a violation of military law in northern Iraq.
<...>
One of the female soldiers declined to say who impregnated her and the unit "let it drop"...
And what sort of draconian punishments are being imposed? Stripes quotes Major General Cucolo as stating they were given letters of reprimand that will not remain a part of the permanent military file.
Which means that as far as degree, it's a somewhat less serious infraction than blogging about the uniform policy at your kids' school.
With one exception (so far):
The third male soldier, a noncommissioned officer who is married and impregnated a subordinate who is not his wife, was also charged with fraternization and given a permanent letter of reprimand, Cucolo said.
Which is also getting off easy, sez I, in that impersonating a President of the United States is a crime, too.
Elsewhere: Lex shares a bit of wisdom from experience, Phib ponders the wisdom of the policy.
As for me, certainly I can't be the only hopeless romantic, wondering "but what of those cases of true love, the unconquered drive of the human heart, the eternal flame that once lit glows so brightly - even in extreme conditions and time of war?" If only I had a dollar for each case I'd seen of that through my many years of service...
And certainly, especially at this time of year, one must consider the possibility of immaculate conception, too.
Enough reading. Let's watch movies!
Via email, from Spirit of America's Jim Hake:
Happy Holidays!
The photo above shows LtCol Billy McCullough, Battalion Commander of the 1/5 Marines in Nawa, Afghanistan. The Marines in Nawa have made great progress in the last 6 months. LtCol McCullough is presenting the Marines ceremonial sword - the Mameluke - to local Afghan leaders who have been working cooperatively with the Marines. This is one of the ways relationships are reinforced on the front lines. Because of your support, Spirit of America was able to provide the swords when they were needed.
A few days ago I received an email from a Marine Captain asking if we could provide 20 treadle-powered sewing machines. They'll be used to help women in Nawa, Afghanistan and build upon the gains of the 1/5 Marines.
You may recall that years ago we provided swords and sewing machines to help the Marines in Anbar Province, Iraq. That was before and during the "Anbar Awakening" and the surge - when the situation in Iraq was difficult and challenging, as Afghanistan is today.
"RUN TO THE FIRE"
Speaking of the Marines in Anbar Province ... In 2004, the 1st Marine Division invited me to visit them in Iraq to explore how Spirit of America could increase our support. Before going I was required to participate in a one-day training session at Camp Pendleton. That's me, below, before gas mask training.
At the end of the day, I was briefed by a young Lieutenant. He asked if I knew what to do if anyone started shooting at us. Figuring that the Marines would know where to take cover, I said, "I'll do what the Marines do." The Lieutenant gave me a strange look and said, "No. The Marines are going to run TO the fire. YOU are going to run away."
I've never forgotten what the Lieutenant said.
The Marines run to the fire - meaning they don't shrink from the tough or unwanted situation. They do what needs to be done no matter how hard it is. They "run to the fire." I've come to understand this is an ethos that applies broadly - not only to Marines in combat.
Afghanistan is a tough situation, even for those not serving. Here at home there is ample pessimism and disagreement. Many prefer to avoid the subject entirely. And, there is no easy solution.
The situation is difficult but we are not powerless. We can help our troops succeed and come home sooner and safer. This is our time to "run to the fire" and do what needs to be done.
Please consider a year-end donation to help our men and women in Afghanistan. You can give here, call 800-819-7875 or mail to 12021 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 507, Los Angeles, CA 90025. Thank you.
Our best wishes for joyful holidays and a very happy New Year for you and your loved ones.
Jim Hake and the Spirit of America team
Jim Hake is the founder of Spirit of America, and the author of Help the Cause in Afghanistan: 101 Ways to help the Afghan people and support our troops
Let's turn away from war for a moment, and talk football.
For those who didn't know, the Indianapolis Colts this year became the third team in NFL history to start a season 14-0. A great accomplishment they now share with the 1972 Dolphins and 2007 Patriots. (Side note: back in 1972 all three teams were AFC East; the Colts have since moved, but no team that never played in the AFC East has ever gone 14-0.)
So two more weeks of regular season games to go, then the playoffs begin. The Colts have wrapped up home field advantage throughout. It doesn't matter what happens in the next two games, they've clinched everything there is to clinch. However, there's something to be said for playing on for an undefeated season (as did the Pats and Dolphins) and going on to win the Superbowl (as did the Dolphins). And frankly, losing sucks.
So here's the tricky part for first-year head coach Jim Caldwell: does he play his star players and risk injury or rest them for the playoffs and risk defeat? There's much to consider and much to debate; does a player improve or get rusty with rest? Does momentum matter?
And certainly the fans aren't paying to see the second string - especially not those who will fill the seats for the final regular season home game this weekend. And for that matter, those in Buffalo for the final week of the season would like to see their guys take on Peyton Manning & Company, too. At least for some part of the games, right?
As for a full game, well - the subs need some playing time, too. You don't want your backup guy's first ever NFL snap to be in a key moment in a playoff game with everything on the line, after all.
So probably the starters start - but at some point they get pulled and the subs come in. I say "probably" because it makes sense. Big lead, game wrapped up, in they come. You don't want a key player breaking a leg on a meaningless fourth-quarter play with a 35-0 lead. But what if it's close? What if...
Well, hell - there are a thousand what-if's. Bottom line, it's the coach's decision.
But in spite of everyone who'd love to know - from the back-up quarterback's (Curtis Painter, btw) parents to Vegas oddsmakers - one thing Coach Caldwell isn't going to do is detail his plan ahead of time. Besides the too many variables/uncertainty aspect of the decision, there's the certainty that publicly advertising your game plan is insane. No doubt the Jets (this weekend's opponent) would love to hear Caldwell say "oh, yeah, we're going to begin drawing down midway through the second quarter, that's etched in stone" - but even though he's a rookie head coach he isn't going to say that.
Sure, he isn't going to play them forever - that goes without saying. But he doesn't have to give the opposition any more insight to his mindset or his game plan than he absolutely must. Caldwell's a rookie coach, but he's actually been with the organization for a while, learned from one of the best, and has already surpassed his predecessor in the role. But even the newest, greenest, least experienced untested head coach in the peewee leagues wouldn't be foolish enough to announce his planned player withdrawal schedule ahead of time. And these are the pros. The best trained, prepared, and equipped athletes in the world. They don't accept defeat - and as a leader you can't do anything that could increase the chance of that outcome even the slightest. Sure, it's only a game, but backups or not, you gameplan for victory, and play to win.
So for all you folks out there wondering when that announcement of a drawdown plan is going to be made, forget it, it ain't gonna happen. The Colts didn't get to 14-0 by being monumentally stupid.
Anyhow, thought you all would enjoy a break from talking about military issues and war. Here's to 16 great football games this weekend - may the best teams win.
...other times even better:
Adm. Mike Mullen, the personification of American military power, is walking the streets of this dusty village in Paktika province when the deferential deputy governor, Qadir Gul Zadran, tells him: "We hope you stay here forever."
Sorry, responds the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but that's not going to happen.
All that and more in the Dawn Patrol, now back from blog silence for good.
Hanging out with celebrities:
Yep - that's Robin Williams, in a very exclusive dining establishment (featuring special red Christmas tablecloths) somewhere in southwest Asia in 2007. So if you ever hear him brag that he's met me, he ain't lying.
And it's not the greatest paparazzi photo of all time (hey, Robin is less than 24 hours off the plane from the States, jet lagged and likely had no more than a couple hours of uninterrupted sleep - you can't expect him to look as glamorous or pretty as me) but there's a good story behind why I have it at all. And it's a story involving a series of unlikely events, remarkable coincidences, and... well heck, regular Christmas miracles.
"All well and good," you say. "But what about fabulous babes, rock stars and world class athletes?"
Yep, the story has those, too.
"And what's that folded, wrinkled, well-traveled looking piece of paper you guys are holding?" You might ask. "We'll get to it," I reply.
But first we need a theme song, and for that I turn to my old pal James Hooker, and his self-proclaimed "half assed, on the cheap, USO Christmas Show"...
(Hmmm... pro'lly not completely SFW, either, being half-assed and all.)
The story continues here.
Beginning a series looking back at Christmases past, as brought to you by milbloggers.
Fûz (aka the Fusilier Pundit) was one of the first milbloggers. He's been blogging at WeckUpToThees since June, 2002. (Bonus points to those who know the blog title reference.)
In December, 2003 he told the story of his 2001 return from somewhere in support of the earliest days of the war in Afghanistan - hopefully in time to be with his family for Christmas that year...
(And here's part two,
and the conclusion of the story.)
Wag the Dog
And from the department of bitter irony:
The film is based on the novel American Hero by Larry Beinhart. The book differs greatly from the picture. In the book, the president is specifically George H. W. Bush (in the movie he is unnamed), the fake war operation is explicitly Desert Storm, and the war actually occurs, instead of being entirely falsified.
The book has since been retitled Wag the Dog
POLL: Iraq War A Success. I'm glad to see people getting comfortable with that idea.
And I guess I'm comfortable with the idea that some things take longer to notice than others.
How did we win this war? There are complex answers to that question, but there is also a simple one that is true and is the basis for all the complexities that spring from it: We won the war because United States Soldiers and Sailors and Airmen and Marines do not quit.
<...>
Simply put, we won because we are the best. The finest Soldiers and Sailors and Airmen and Marines in the world, and the best hope for people seeking hope for a future. And we are tired and hot is turning cold and we are far from home and soldiering on but you can't take that from us, and we won't let anyone take it from them.
As that implies, there's much more to it, but yes - it all comes back to that. (Of course, my perspective in 2007 was a bit swayed by actually being there, and having nothing personal to gain or lose from reporting what I knew.)
The "more to it" is the same stuff people tend to debate regarding Afghanistan today, but the likelihood of people there seeing us as the best hope for people seeking hope for a future seems a bit more remote, given our repeated guarantees to the contrary. (On the paradoxical side, while it's not quite 1998 all over again, now that Barack Hussein Obama and Joeseph Robinette Biden have moved up from being just two of many voices shouting failure in the Senate there's a bit less stridency to the anti-war jingoism emanating from that august body of legislators.)
If things seem grim in Afghanistan now, I can assure you that they did in Iraq in the summer of 2007, too - and I remind myself that we still have the finest Soldiers and Sailors and Airmen and Marines in the world working on it, and I wouldn't bet against them.
Email from a friend: "If I were Santa, I'd give everyone in this group one of these for Christmas."
Anyone who's spent a bit of time downrange has seen (or dodged) these multi-purpose vehicles zipping around the FOBS. They're great to have for moving lots of spare parts or tools from where they are to where they're needed, or for bringing to-go dinner for 12 back from the DFAC a mile away. But this is the first I've seen configured for outside the wire use. (An "A" model, I guess...)
But they've been in the fight from early on. From Doug Stanton's Horse Soldiers
About 100 yards from the landing zone, Nelson and his communications officer Vern Michaels crouched behind some rocks, waited for the bird to land. They feared being mistaken for unfriendly forces lurking around the landing zone, and Nelson knew that the guys in the helicopters had a habit of shooting at anything that moved. So they stayed hidden as the aircraft lifted away. He could hear the rumble of a small, motorcycle-like engine starting. Nelson wondered what it was.
Through his night vision goggles, Nelson watched as the guys on Mitchell's team loaded two six-wheeled motorized "buggies" with rucksacks and assorted bags of gear. The vehicles measured about the length of a midsize car. Upon inspection, they looked like big golf carts on steroids.
The green-and-yellow-painted buggies were called Gators, manufactured by the John Deere farm implement company; with their knobby six wheels and rugged frame, they could navigate trails that a truck couldn't travel along. Max Bowers had thought to bring along the vehicles after reading the reports that Nelson and his men had trouble finding enough horses.
"Trouble finding enough horses..." - good story. So (surprise!) the now-ubiquitous Gator has been at war since the very first "higher headquarters" unit was boots-on-ground.
Now you know. :)
Update: I figured there had to be videos out there...
...Darpa's got a new target for geo-hacking science, and if they can make it work, we might see modern firearms making way for weapons of the mythological variety. The out-there research agency is soliciting proposals that would harness control over "the natural mechanism of lightning initiation" by coming up with a way to launch manmade lightning bolts, and prevent or redirect natural lightning strikes -- and their accompanying destruction.
Great comment: "Right now they have several teams working on an acronym that will read Z-E-U-S"
Great response: Z apping E nemies U sing S cience
Some day I might write a series of posts called confession of a weather forecaster. Less exciting than the DARPA stuff, as the real world generally is, but maybe not completely dull. (I mean, lightning guns aside, most weather forecasters don't have any weapons qualification as a job requirement...)
I have ventured into that area before (sometimes not so obviously).
Ignore the show description at the link (if it hasn't been updated): Tonight's YouServed podcast features Troy, CJ, and Marcus with special guest Mrs G (and I might chime, too) discussing yesterday's milblog silence movement. (Among other things.)
Listen live at the link, 7PM ET tonight. Call in, or join in the chat room (pre-registration required). "See" you there!
More: looks like Chuck Z and Boston Maggie are also on - and probably more milbloggers. This one should be fun.
Update: here's the archived show. Thanks to Marcus, CJ and Troy for the invite. And it's always great to hear from James Hooker in words and music. His new song leads off the show, and more than a few vets in the chat room were moved by this one.
James' web site, now topped with the video for his song The Pledge, is here.
And something that strikes me in listening to the replay - it's actually a rare occasion when milbloggers band together in any large number on any given topic - we're more independent minded than most people would expect. It happens, but I see more political bloggers hammering on the same topics (or specific stories) in unison than I ever do military bloggers. For them it's something of a five times a day event, for milbloggers this past week has actually been unprecedented.
Is Joe Biden following in the footsteps of Sarah Palin and "going rogue"? Watch before reading:
A quick generic observation on this: it's a great reminder that experience doesn't automatically mean competence; the stuttering performance and confusion between Afghanistan and Pakistan is perhaps excusable for the average Joe but not for the Vice President of the United States - especially one the media is desperately trying to promote as Team Obama's foreign policy expert and go-to guy. ("No one knows more about [Afghanistan] than you do," Mike Barnicle told the veep during the interview.) Unfortunately for the Obama administration it's true - he is the experienced hand.
But is Joe Biden "going rogue" here? Some think it may be so. But let's take a deeper look.
First some quick background. Shortly after "Obama's new strategy" for Afghanistan was announced earlier this month, the New York Times published a lengthy White House press release disguised as a "leak"-based news account* detailing the painstaking process of developing that strategy. As decision time approached...
The president went around the room asking for opinions. Mr. Biden again expressed skepticism, even at this late hour when the tide had turned against him in terms of the troop number. But he had succeeded in narrowing the scope of the mission to protect population centers and setting the date to begin withdrawal. Others around the table concurred with the plan. Mr. Obama spoke last, but still somewhat elliptically. Some advisers said they walked out into the night after 10 p.m., uncertain whether the president had actually endorsed the Max Leverage option or was just testing for reaction.
But then, "on the following Sunday, Nov. 29, he summoned his national security team to the Oval Office" - and the drama knob was turned to 11. He had made his decision...
"I'm not asking you to change what you believe," the president told his advisers. "But if you do not agree with me, say so now." There was a pause and no one said anything.
"Tell me now," he repeated.
Mr. Biden asked only if this constituted a presidential order. Mr. Gates and others signaled agreement.
"Fully support, sir," Admiral Mullen said.
"Ditto," General Petraeus said.
So - everyone's on board with the plan. (The Washington Post's version of the story explains what the president would have done if someone had disagreed: "If they didn't support the decision, he was going to issue another decision" until there was unanimity, a senior administration official said.) "Unfortunately, part of the decision was to publicly announce a plan to begin a troop drawdown in the summer of 2011. As far as pressuring the Government of Afghanistan goes, warnings aren't a bad idea. But the purpose of a public declaration of that intent isn't designed to pressure the Afghan (or Pakistan) governments - it's to shore up support among a majority of American Democrats, whose once loudly proclaimed support for "Obama's war" in Afghanistan plunged even faster than their support for "Bush's war" in Iraq.
The deadline question rapidly became a hot topic, the DoD effort to undo some of the damage was immediate, though efforts to both use and hide the key word "begin" continued, and rose rapidly to levels of absurdity. But the effort failed; Democrats weren't buying it, and those of any political stripe with any knowledge of military strategy were deeply concerned (at the least) with the wisdom of the proclamation. Almost immediately additional White House press releases (disguised as "leak"-based news accounts*) followed, announcing the deadline was actually the military's idea.
Meanwhile, General McChrystal returned to the United States and testified to the Senate on the topic.
How do we convince the locals we are committed long-term given ambiguous withdrawal/drawdown in the plan? McChrystal: "They will judge us by our actions. The question to us [when we return to a village] is always 'are you going to stay this time?' What they [Afghans] are really judging is not our rhetoric. What we need to stress is not the increase in forces but the long term partnership. We should contest enemy propaganda about timelines and stress that we will help them in long term partnership.
The DoD attempted to undo some of the damage caused by that "enemy propaganda" with their coverage of President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize trip, headlined "Obama Promises Conditions-based Afghanistan Transition". But Obama's resolute tough guy/American leader first Nobel Prize speech - perhaps even more so than his West Point speech - flopped heavily among Democrats. (Sarah Palin liked it; enough said.)
Which brings us to the real purpose of Joe Biden's TeeVee appearance - desperately shove the pendulum back the other way. A bit of firm resolve might have done the trick - what we got was a man with Jello in his spine. Pressed by Scarborough to explain why it seemed we were escalating what many see as a hopeless mission, Biden combined blame-shifting and agreement into his response.
"Let me tell you what I'm happy with... You're going to see [troop numbers] coming down as rapidly over the next two years. The President made it absolutely clear - I sat with him when he looked at each of the generals, and he said "Gentlemen, here's the deal. I'm going to allow you to surge, and I want you to do it quicker than you'd planned, these additional 30,000 troops, but here's the deal. December of next year we're going to assess whether this proof-of-concept has worked. We are not going to be discussing whether we add a single more troop, the only issue will be how rapidly we begin to draw down these troops in July of 2011."
And with that, General McChrystal's testimony to the Senate was flushed down the toilet. Biden's mission here is clearly to shore up support among Democrats. On one hand, he quickly used the key weasel word: "the only issue will be how rapidly we begin...". On the other, he also promised you're going to see them come down as rapidly as they went up - and that's the message he wants Democrats to hear.
Two, note the part where Biden makes clear that the whole thing was the military's idea; he depicts the president as reluctantly telling the generals that he's going to let them have their surge, but it's their last chance to get it right. This comes close to refuting the earlier White House "leak" that the drawdown was actually the military's idea, too; but again, Obama's number two man is directing a message to people he perceives as nervous Democrats - no matter what you thought you heard in Oslo, the president is a reluctant "warrior" at best.
Not content to stop there, the vice president moves into the realm of undermining the actual strategy. I don't think you need to understand counterinsurgency in order to understand that Biden's assurance that we aren't using a counterinsurgency strategy to counter the insurgency in Afghanistan is not a confidence-booster. General McChrystal has repeatedly emphasized the counter-insurgency aspect of the mission there - and most emphatically when briefing ISAF troops on the mission after the president's West Point speech. Counterinsurgency strategy here means McChrystal's population first approach - the very strategy we are obviously (in spite of the veep's claims to the contrary) employing in Afghanistan. In simple terms, if you convince the people we're on their side and committed to the effort they'll side with us over the Taliban. That's a tall order, extremely difficult, and Biden's flippant closing line - "lots of luck in your senior year; we are not going to be staying there" - sends a clear message, and flushes McChrystal's message to his troops and the Afghan people down the same previously-mentioned vice-presidential toilet.
Most Democrats aren't going to buy into any of this - they aren't quite as stupid or gullible as the White House believes, and they want the troops home (and free health care) now. Elsewhere the jury is still out, in Afghanistan and Pakistan al Qaeda and the Taliban are using all this to great effect - and now they've got a fresh batch of Joe Biden quotes to generate "enemy propaganda".
Here's how all that plays out on the ground with "the locals" - in the words of a young Marine sergeant in Afghanistan: "They don't want to trust us because they don't think we're going to be here for the long haul."
Good luck kid - you'll need it.
But all that brings us to the original question: is Biden "going rogue"? Of course not. He's merely re-emphasizing what's actually been Obama's public Afghanistan strategy since its first public unveiling in March. "The United States must overcome the 'trust deficit' it faces in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where many believe that we are not a reliable long-term partner" read the plan for the administration's "new strategy" at the time; but "the United States must look for a way out of the war in Afghanistan... there's got to be an exit strategy," said the president on its release.
Both Biden and McChrystal seem to agree that the Obama approach to Afghanistan has been clarified after months of useful White House debate. For those still confused, the White House strategy can now be summed up in broad terms as simply as this: convince Americans that what we say matters. The military strategy is to convince Afghans that what we say doesn't matter. And for any young American troops on the ground, the more specific mission is to convince Afghans with their actions that the words of the Vice President of the United States (who "knows more about Afghanistan than anyone") don't mean jack shit.
Hooah?
*Footnote: Most White House press release disguised as "leak"-based news accounts ("based on dozens of interviews with participants as well as a review of notes some of them took during Mr. Obama's 10 meetings with his national security team. Most of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations") now include disclaimers similar to this one from the Times: "Mr. Obama, who campaigned as an apostle of transparency and had been announcing each Situation Room meeting publicly and even releasing pictures, was livid that details of the discussions were leaking out. "'What I'm not going to tolerate is you talking to the press outside of this room,' he scolded his advisers. 'It's a disservice to the process, to the country and to the men and women of the military.'" (The story is topped with an extra-large photo of the president wandering thoughtfully among the tombstones at Arlington for good measure.)
Back to serious blogging in a few moments, but first, an action-packed minute courtesy of French premium TV channel Canal+. Enjoy.
Free speech from those who help make it possible - since 2003, the motto of the MilBlogs Ring.
(Click here if above audio player does not appear in your browser.)
Comments are disabled here, too. You aren't allowed to speak today.
Previously:
Update: Silence ends here; others will carry on. In all over 100 blogs and websites participated in or reported on this project. Many thanks to the following (and this list is probably incomplete...)
With a nod to an old axiom of uncertain origin, my title invokes what appears to be al Qaeda's philosophy on their fellow travelers in Islam: kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out.
Can convincing enough people of that help win what we used to call the war on terror? Perhaps - but perhaps not in Afghanistan. There's a more important battle to be fought there...
Bill Roggio: "The Combating Terrorism Center won a rare victory in the information war".
Perhaps they did. Bill's point is that al Qaeda has been forced to respond to a damning study released by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point: Deadly Vanguards: A Study of al‐Qa'ida's Violence Against Muslims. The report concludes that "the vast majority of al‐Qa'ida's victims are Muslims: the analysis here shows that only 15% of the fatalities resulting from al‐Qa'ida attacks between 2004 and 2008 were Westerners."
A notable figure, and one with potential impact, hence al Qaeda's response. (Gadahn's video is titled "The Mujahideen Don't Target Muslims".) As for victory, Bill's own Long War Journal acknowledges the difficulty in getting the word out:
The story has already received some limited coverage by a few Arabic news outlets, including Al Quds, the largest Palestinian daily, as well as the Kuwaiti newspaper Al Jarida, which printed the story complete with the CTC's headline, "Vanguard of Death." It's a good start, but for this story to have the impact it deserves, it will need to be picked up by many more (and bigger) Arabic-language news outlets, including Al Jazeera.But standing firm between truth and an audience isn't a characteristic unique to Islamic media. CNN offered this headline over their coverage of al Qaeda's response: "Al Qaeda offers 'condolences' for innocent victims". Ann Althouse promptly demonstrated that it doesn't take a milblogger to see through that bit of messaging.
Clearly, he does not regard the peace-loving citizens as innocent. He is explicitly saying they are guilty. They have betrayed the faith and the blood of countless Muslims is on their hands.
"At least the quotes are there to let readers see how embarrassingly stupid it is," she adds.
And here's one of the quotes: "We express our condolences to the families of the Muslim men, women and children killed in these criminal acts," he said in the video. "And we ask Allah to have mercy on those killed and accept them as shohadaa (martyrs)."
CNN offers no quotes from the CTC report that prompted the response - not even a mention of its existence or a hint of its findings. That's an unfortunate omission, as this one (emphasis added) seems essential to the discussion:
Al‐Qa'ida represents itself as the vanguard of the Muslim community, committed to upholding Islamic values and defending Muslim people against Western forces, but its behavior represents a callous attitude toward the lives of those the group claims to protect. Al‐Qa'ida absolves responsibility for the deaths of Muslims by claiming that they are either martyrs or apostates. The definition of apostate, however, varies considerably. Al‐Qa'ida considers any Muslim that impedes their struggle by working with the West or an unfriendly regime as an apostate, and therefore a legitimate target. This includes Muslims serving in the armed forces, serving as police officers, and even those occupying civilian jobs. Al‐Qa'ida makes convenient use of this designation to justify its indiscriminate use of violence.The CTC report opens with a 2007 quote from Ayman al‐Zawahiri: "We haven't killed the innocents; not in Baghdad, nor in Morocco, nor in Algeria, nor anywhere else. And if there is any innocent who was killed in the Mujahideen's operations, then it was either an unintentional error, or out of necessity as in cases of al‐Tatarrus." (CTC: "To justify the killing of innocent Muslims, or martyrs, al‐Qa'ida references a shari'a rule called al‐tatarrus. Al‐tatarrus refers to the use of human shields... Al‐Qa'ida resurrected the term to justify the killing of innocents, arguing that these people were essentially human shields, and if innocent, they died martyrs.") Gadahn's apology continues that theme - and adds a warning for "apostates"...
"Those who have made the foolish decision to stand with America and its allies in their losing war against Islam ... you have not only betrayed Islam and Muslims and left the fold of faith, but you have also caused the destabilization of nations and the displacement ... of thousands of weak and oppressed people," Gadahn said.
"The blood of countless Muslims is on your hands," he continued. The meaning is clear - al Qaeda plans on doing a lot of Muslim killing in the future; their response is not a refutation of the CTC study, it is a reinforcement of its findings.
Footnote from the Department of Deja-vu: If much of the above sounds somehow familiar, think back to the late summer of 2006. Al Qaeda's long-running campaign of ultra-violence in Iraq (from The Management of Savagery: Brutal killings must be explained in a manner that justifies the atrocity; Public opinion must be turned against the enemy soldiers; Al Qaeda should be seen as the solution to the chaos/savagery - even as they foment more such atrocities) was beginning to pay off. In Iraq, violence was causing retaliatory violence; in the United States, the media had designated this a "civil war". In the midst of an election year in which they hoped to gain control of Congress Democrats were calling for American withdrawal based (in part) on the it's not our civil war hypothesis.
But in Anbar Province a movement had begun. Later it would be known as the "Awakening" - but at the time it was just getting underway (in the wake of the death of al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi). Anbar tribal leaders were beginning to push back against the wanton brutality practiced by the "mujahideen" in their midst; American forces were beginning to facilitate that "pushback".
A tipping point had been reached - and the new leader of al Qaeda in Iraq knew it and feared it. He released a message to the sheiks of Anbar - return to the fold or die.
"I say to those traitors in this blessed month, the month of pardon and forgiveness," al-Muhajir wrote, "that we are declaring a general pardon for all of them, forgiving them for our blood that was spilled by your hands and your treachery. We welcome you once again. Return to your religion and homeland before we defeat you, and you will have peace and security. We will not touch you but with kindness. You must first declare your sincere repentance in front of your tribes and families and inform us by whatever means, lest we make a mistake [and kill you]. You should put your hands in the hands of your brothers and sons, the mujahideen, for peace and security to return to our homes and expel the invader from our midst in this blessed month."
The message was clear: "don't bet your future on the Americans" - and in an election year with surging Democrats pledging withdrawal it most definitely had some level of appeal.
The rest, of course, is history - a history that the al Qaeda leadership understands far better than the average CNN viewer. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan don't need CNN to tell them who is more likely to kill them - they know. On the other hand many Americans have bought in to the al Qaeda version of the story; convincing a few of them at this point in time that it's actually a falsehood could be something of a victory.
But a hollow one, indeed - the battle now is to convince the Afghan people that we are not going to leave them to their fates at the hands of those they already know very well - and it's a battle we're losing. "They don't want to trust us because they don't think we're going to be here for the long haul," a young American Marine in southern Afghanistan said recently.
If he can figure out a way to unfuck that, we win.
Rusty Shackleford's A Terrorist in the Heart of America examines the case of David Headley, the Chicago resident indicted on 12 charges related to the Mumbai terror attacks (and other "plans he and accomplices had in the works")
David Headley was born Daood Gilani in Washington, D.C., to a Pakistani father and an American mother. When the young Daood's parents divorced he moved to Pakistan with his father and attended an elite military academy. His mother eventually gained legal custody and he moved to Philadelphia where he bounced around in a number of low-level jobs. Apparently not satisfied with a life of poverty, he became involved in a scheme to smuggle heroin from Pakistan. This landed him in jail for 15 months after a 1998 conviction. Published reports claim that the short sentence was due to his cooperation with the Drug Enforcement Administration (he is said to have become an informant).
"Headley has plead not guilty to the charges but his lawyers claim he is cooperating with the FBI." Read the rest.
"Now that I'm safely out of Huntsville and reunited with my kids, I wanted to take a moment to address the people of Huntsville."
That's the start of "An open letter to Huntsville" from a guy who left under less than optimum terms.
The story received a bit of notice last September:
The Colorado man who prosecutors say received explosives training in Pakistan last year and drove to New York 12 days ago with bomb-making instructions on his laptop appeared in a Denver federal court on Monday and was ordered held without bail.
The man, Najibullah Zazi, who was born in Afghanistan, raised in Pakistan and New York and moved to Denver early this year, looked wide-eyed and younger than his 24 years when he walked into Federal District Court, his hands cuffed in front of him.
His father was at his side. Mohammed Wali Zazi, 53, had also been arrested and charged.
Meanwhile, in New York, a hearing was underway for a third suspect involved in the case. "Ahmad Wais Afzali had for years been a popular imam in Queens," the New York Times reported.
In an interview on Sunday, Mr. Afzali's wife, Fatimah, said he was born in Kabul, Afghanistan. He left with his parents at age 6 or 7, arriving in Queens, where he went to school.
She described her husband as an accommodating man, a father of two children from a previous marriage and an imam who leads prayers in mosques around the city. A businessman, he also runs an Islamic burial and shipping service, where he brings comfort to the bereaved, Ms. Afzali said.
Mr. Afzali's father was also successful in business, according to Ahmad Weish, the president of Masjid-al-Saaliheen, a mosque in Queens where Mr. Afzali had, in the past, delivered the Friday sermon. Mr. Weish said that Mr. Afzali's father used to own pizzerias in Queens.
In a 2003 interview with The New York Times, Mr. Afzali gave voice to the optimism his fellow Afghans were expressing at the time about the prospects for finding stability and business prospects in their native country after years in New York.
"It's been a great opportunity for us financially," Mr. Afzali said at the time.
Though it was unclear if Mr. Afzali had rediscovered Afghanistan of late, his neighbors described his passion for cars.
"He always had fresh, expensive cars," said Messia Ben Yosef, 23, a pharmacy student who said Mr. Afzali lived on his street for at least 15 years. He said Mr. Afzali drove a white Jaguar XJ8.
Mr. Afzali's wife said her husband was a Muslim "from the inside out."
Authorities who had been tracking Zazi's cross-country excursion had contacted the Queens, New York imam - and he, according to charges based on recorded phone conversations, warned Zazi of the investigation.
But just prior to his arrest, Afzali had contacted an attorney: "Only a few weeks ago, left-leaning criminal defense lawyer Ron Kuby knew little about a popular 37-year-old Queens imam," the story begins.
Greyhawk discusses domestic Islamic terrorism, and cites a piece from Small Wars Journal...In the process, some consideration should be given to openly informing and educating the American public about the broadening radical Islamic threat spectrum.I expect the consideration will focus more on the reasons not to do that, which include: 1) the government's belief that the American people are perpetually just that close to becoming an anti-Muslim lynch mob, and 2) the danger of increasing a perception in the Muslim world that America sees itself as at war with Islam.
Read the rest at Grim's Hall.
This past weekend marked the sixth anniversary of the capture of Saddam Hussein.
"Six years ago this weekend," writes Dr Mark Green, "I spent the first night of his captivity with the most infamous patient I've ever attended -- Saddam Hussein." Dr. Green was the first doctor on scene when Saddam was captured.
The commander of the task force responsible for the capture took no chances, and as an Army physician, I was assigned the duty of sitting with the prisoner his first night.
<...>
I'd seen statues and paintings of Hussein on almost every street corner in Baghdad. Yet here he was, alone in a cell, awaiting the inevitable justice of a world that for years had witnessed his crimes.
<...>
As the hours passed and we spoke of so many things, I asked him about Iraq's war with Iran. Why had he waged such a brutal war on his neighbor?"Khomeini broke our deal," he replied.
More from Dr Green:
...and sometimes seemingly both at once - Domestic Radical Islamic Insurgency by Ones and Twos and the Politics of Self-Delusion, Dr. Robert J. Bunker and Mr. Hakim Hazim:
The great concern from a strategic perspective is that governmental officials will start to drink their own 'spiked punch' and delude themselves into believing that the many terrorist incidents listed in this essay are in actuality the actions of mentally unstable and delusional individuals and nothing more. This would mean that our domestic intelligence and interdiction capabilities are performing flawlessly with the ensuing pats on the back, 'atta-boys', and political kudos being exchanged...
What is now needed is a governmental and federal law enforcement debate focusing on the broader spectrum of the domestic radical Islamic threat. This new debate on 'Ones and Twos' should revisit conventional views on terrorist groups and their organization. Specifically, while non-state warfare can be waged by larger radical Islamic cells, i.e. those which have been successfully interdicted such as the 2002 Lackawanna, New York (Muktar al-Bakri et al); 2005 Lodi, California (Hayat family et al); 2007 Fort Dix, New Jersey (Duka family et al); and 2009 New York (Najibullah Zazi et al) groups, it must also ask whether cells composed of ones and twos are not now also part of this threat spectrum. If ignored and simply labeled as 'other than war (or terrorist)' incidents, we may find ourselves with a homeland security capability superbly suited to combat large (and more conventional) cells belonging to the radical Islamic network but not the smaller and to date more effective ones. Such roles and missions would thus be deemed outside of current counter-terrorism operations even though they too may become not necessarily the mission US governmental agencies and personnel desire but the one that they end up with.
In the process, some consideration should be given to openly informing and educating the American public about the broadening radical Islamic threat spectrum.
Along with that, an interesting (if not new) article from the Chicago Tribune is probably essential introductory reading for those desiring information or education per the reference above. "Home schooling" is probably all you're going to get on this particular topic.
Mike Yon: "The Battle for Kandahar is on. Fresh troops in the United States have been given orders to get over here."
Here's his primer on what will likely be the main battleground for those additional troops.
From Bill Roggio's story on the air strike reportedly targeting Al Qaeda external operations chief Saleh al Somali:
"At least two Americans have carried out suicide attacks in Somalia this year. Both attacks were high-profile: one killed three Somali ministers, and another killed the deputy commander of the African Union forces serving in the country.
"'This is why we have been freaking out,' the official said. 'The number of Americans being recruited here in the US is deeply disturbing. That they are leaving the US to train in Somalia and fight for Shabaab is worrisome. Some of us have feared al Somali would take advantage of these recruits to hit the US mainland.'"
Government officials aren't the only ones reportedly "freaking out" over young Americans going abroad for Jihad, and Somalia isn't their only destination - as demonstrated in the aftermath of this week's news of the arrest of five Americans in Pakistan:
"Those are our children," Essam Tellawi, the imam, said in an emotional sermon to about 30 worshipers after noontime prayers at the ICNA Center -- which is affiliated with the Islamic Circle of North America. "I could never describe the difficulties and hardships that our five families have been afflicted with."
<...>
In Pakistan, the Americans -- ages 18 to 25, the sons of immigrant families from Pakistan, Egypt and East Africa -- spent another day behind bars.
More on The Islamic Circle of North America here. The New York Times reports the five "may end up being at least the fourth case prosecuted this year in which Muslim Americans traveled to Pakistan" to join extremist groups there.
Emotional pleas from their imam aside, at least one of the families isn't experiencing hardships and difficulties at long distance. From the Times report: "The police [in Pakistan] said Khalid Farooq, the father of Umer, one of the young men, had been arrested and was also being questioned Friday on the grounds that he knew the young men were wanted by the F.B.I. but had not reported their whereabouts. Mr. Farooq and his wife, who run a computer business in northern Virginia, were in Sargodha when the young men turned up there after landing in Karachi on Nov. 20, police said."
In fact, they were all together at an uncle's house at the time of the arrests:
"It's a tough task, made more difficult because the locals question the Marines commitment to stay and fight."
"They don't want to trust us because they don't think we're going to be here for the long haul."
And below, an update on the Marines in Now Zad.
Lieutenant General Deptula responds:
Greyhawk, the comments attributed to me on "Danger Room, 10 Dec 09, 3:04" and identified in your posting "Number Three" were not my comments, but rather those from folks in Georgetown's Security Studies Program.
Noah left out some important points I did make...in particular...
"The international community must hold the Taliban accountable for their criminal actions regarding the intentional use of placing civilians in harm's way. The tactics that the Taliban are employing in this regard are in violation of the international Laws of Armed Conflict--the tactics that the Allied air forces are using to apply force from the air are not. Your article yields great insight into the care that is taken by the Air Force and Allied ground forces to ensure the minimal loss of life--on both sides--as the ISAF seeks to achieve peace in the region."
I think if the remarks incorrectly cited to me were correctly attributed to the researcher's in Georgetown's Security Studies Program and my actual remarks were printed as I wrote them then your conclusion would be different.
Reducing civilian casualties is critical to the strategy and my position is not "contrary to McChrystal's" in any way. My position is to ensure the world knows that the Taliban are the number one cause of civilian casualties in Afghanistan.
Noah just printed a correction on Danger Room and can be found at: General: Blame Taliban, Media for Furor Over Afghan Civilian Deaths (Corrected)
David A. Deptula
And my conclusion is different, and I'm relieved (to say the least) to learn the USAF isn't working (or thinking) at cross-purposes to COMISAF. No upside to that. To say the original misquote had me baffled is an understatement.
"Your article yields great insight into the care that is taken by the Air Force and Allied ground forces to ensure the minimal loss of life--on both sides--as the ISAF seeks to achieve peace in the region" references Noah's original story on the topic - and it should be read in full, too.
(And as a long-time IO QRF advocate, I'm duly impressed with Lt Gen Deptula's rapid response.)
"It is not the meaning nor within the compass of this Address, to detail the hardships peculiarly incident to our Service, or to discribe the distresses which in several instances have resulted from the extremes of hunger and nakedness, combined with the rigors of an inclement season. Nor is it necessary to dwell on the dark side of our past affairs. Every American Officer and Soldier must now console himself for any unpleasant circumstances which may have occurred, by a recollection of the uncommon scenes in which he has been called to act, no inglorious part; and the astonishing Events of which he has been a witness."
General George Washington's farewell address to his Army, 2 November 1783
"CJ at A Soldier's Perspective had made a comment regarding the troops but I just could not write fast enough and have a poor memory," wrote Mrs Greyhawk of their September, 2007 visit with the President of the United States. "Seems CJ could not remember his question either, but for good reason."
"I'm Nothing Special," writes CJ. "I just happen to be a blogger."
I started They Have Names because of a specific person, CPT James "Alex" Funkhouser, but he was just the catalyst that brought together the various reactants of losing friends and feeling like no one else cared about it. The hardest one to accept has been the loss of SSG Stevon Booker, a friend and fellow Tusker who was killed during the first Thunder Run into Baghdad on 5 April 2003. He was a combat proven veteran of Operation Desert Storm in the early nineties and knew his stuff. He cared deeply for his Soldiers and died trying to protect them. But, you won't find Booker's story on THN yet. I still can't write it, but one day I will. Earlier this year a building at Aberdeen Test Center was renamed after his memory. I write so that people don't forget people like Booker.
And when you read a quote like this one, you know it's from someone who knows what he's talking about, and means what he says: "I know [CJ] loves what he's doing," said Lt. Col. Kevin Arata, the Army's point man for social media issues, who has known Grisham's name for years. And "any time we lose someone of that caliber, there's a certain amount of loss for the Army." A different sort of loss - CJ is alive, if not fine - lose in that statement just means the bastards have ground him down - at least enough. For now.
"Blogging is no longer worth the trouble," Grisham recently wrote on his blog, A Soldier's Perspective, under the headline "ASP Closed for Business."
Wired magazine's Danger Room: "Not surprisingly, Grisham has finally decided to stop posting on his site. But be sure to read this story of how this soldier went from highly-praised veteran to pariah, because he spoke up on his blog."
WorldNet Daily: "Grisham's photo is overlaid with the headline: 'The Rise and Fall of a Military Blogger - Army Master Sgt. C.J. Grisham didn't mince words. His readers loved it. His command hated it.' Grisham is in a new kind of fight after taking down a squad of Iraqis when his counterintelligence detachment was pinned down in an ambush and earning a Bronze Star with 'V' after rushing through the gunfire by himself with just a 9mm pistol and a hand grenade."
"Even as the type of dominant news stories changed in 2008, 'durability,' a measure of the staying power for particular news stories, did not... For the military, this phenomenon is a challenge and an opportunity. Although coverage of ongoing conflicts may not persist, bad news stories seem to display less than traditional staying power... at least for the present, it seems less likely that a particular event of a less than positive nature will trigger a lasting scandal or backlash against the military, particularly in the fast-changing new media world."Lieutenant General William B. Caldwell IV, U.S. Army, Lieutenant Colonel Shawn Stroud, U.S. Army, and Mr. Anton Menning: Fostering a Culture of Engagement, Military Review, September - October 2009
"During the invasion of Iraq, Grisham took down a squad of Iraqis when his counterintelligence detachment got pinned down in an ambush. He earned the Bronze Star with "V" after rushing through the gunfire by himself with just a 9mm pistol and a hand grenade."
Here's another story from the man who did that - and who saw his good friend SSG Stevon Booker die in front of him in Iraq:
And the Lord spake
"Pakistan officially denied that any such attack took place," they add, but "A senior U.S. counterterrorism official confirmed that the al-Qaida operative was high-ranking but did not identify him." As I was reading that, I seemed to recall frequent announcements that we had killed "al Qaeda's number three man" on multiple occasions - maybe it's been a while. But then I got to this bit...A high-ranking al-Qaida figure was killed Thursday in an attack by a drone aircraft in northwest Pakistan, U.S. officials told NBC News.
The officials did not identify who was killed, except to say that it was not al-Qaida's supreme leader, Osama bin Laden. If the report is confirmed, it would be the first time coalition forces had killed a top al-Qaida figure in almost a year.
The U.S. has long targeted men who held al-Qaida's No. 3 role as director of international operations. Five of them, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is facing trial in New York, have been killed or captured since 9/11. Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are symbolic importance as al-Qaida's top two leaders, but the No. 3 man is viewed as the group's operational leader.More from Bill Roggio:
Four al Qaeda operatives and two Taliban fighters were killed in the attack, according to reports from the region. "Eyewitnesses said the toll could be mount," Geo News reported. It is not known if senior al Qaeda or Taliban commanders were killed in the attack.
The Pakistani military denied that the US carried out an airstrike in Pakistan today, but US officials contacted by The Long War Journal confirmed the strike. The Pakistani military also denied that two other strikes carried out in October took place; these strikes were later confirmed, however.
Elsewhere: Rachel Maddow has discovered that a) Presdent Obama isn't the first sitting US President to get a Nobel Peace Prize and b) there's a super-secret drone war in Pakistan that he doesn't talk much about:
However, having Noah Shachtman as her guest made it worth watching. His recent efforts have gotten him on Lieutenant General David Deptula's (Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) email list.
Air power is not threatening to pull the rug out from under OEF-A [Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan]. Instead, when Afghan people were polled about the reasons for their growing disillusionment with Kabul, insecurity and corruption overwhelmingly dominated their complaints; "too many innocent people being killed" barely registered. Intuitively, that makes sense in a country of a thousand villages separated by thousand of mountains and valleys, where tribal institutions are the paramount determinant of communication -- not the International Herald Tribune or the New York Times, or CNN or Twitter...
I can believe that the average Afghan could give a damn if a tribe five valleys away takes a drone strike (but would change his mind rather quickly if one hit closer to home) but besides being a bit callous, the general's (see update below) comment appears contrary to McChrystal's position on killing civilians and Gates' on corruption.
Very "Joe Biden-esque", sez I.
Sources tell CBS News the al Qaeda operative believed killed in a drone strike in Pakistan this week is Saleh al-Somali, who was in charge of external operations for the group. He was considered one of a half dozen top Qaeda operatives.
<...>
Earlier, Pakistan media had incorrectly reported that the strike killed al Qaeda's number 3 in command, Abu Yahya al-Libi.
"Saleh al Somali is al Qaeda's latest external operations chief," A senior US intelligence official told The Long War Journal. "He was part of the original al Qaeda cadre. He goes all the way back to Mogadishu."
And (update two) Lt General Deptula responds:
Greyhawk, the comments attributed to me on "Danger Room, 10 Dec 09, 3:04" and identified in your posting "Number Three" were not my comments, but rather those from folks in Georgetown's Security Studies Program.
Noah left out some important points I did make...in particular...
"The international community must hold the Taliban accountable for their criminal actions regarding the intentional use of placing civilians in harm's way. The tactics that the Taliban are employing in this regard are in violation of the international Laws of Armed Conflict--the tactics that the Allied air forces are using to apply force from the air are not. Your article yields great insight into the care that is taken by the Air Force and Allied ground forces to ensure the minimal loss of life--on both sides--as the ISAF seeks to achieve peace in the region."
I think if the remarks incorrectly cited to me were correctly attributed to the researcher's in Georgetown's Security Studies Program and my actual remarks were printed as I wrote them then your conclusion would be different.
Reducing civilian casualties is critical to the strategy and my position is not "contrary to McChrystal's" in any way. My position is to ensure the world knows that the Taliban are the number one cause of civilian casualties in Afghanistan.
Noah just printed a correction on Danger Room and can be found at: General: Blame Taliban, Media for Furor Over Afghan Civilian Deaths (Corrected)
And my conclusion is different, and I'm relieved (to say the least) to learn the USAF isn't working (or thinking) at cross-purposes to COMISAF. No upside to that. To say the original misquote had me baffled is an understatement.
"Your article yields great insight into the care that is taken by the Air Force and Allied ground forces to ensure the minimal loss of life--on both sides--as the ISAF seeks to achieve peace in the region" references Noah's original story on the topic - and it should be read in full, too.
...and other adventures of a group of US Marines attempting to return home following their tour of duty in Iraq.
We had a hint of this story a few weeks ago - but in true now it can be told fashion from a milblogger who was there...
Marines openly flirted with stewardess as our flight path took us into Indian air space. Theories vary about what actually took place at this point but what I think happened is our brilliant pilot used the wrong call sign talking to the Mumbai tower then tried to use a new one. They caught him in the act. Somehow they found out there were 200 U.S. Marines on board and all hell broke loose. The mental image of a tower full of Indian air traffic controllers losing their minds as 200 storm troopers enter their airspace is comical. Sovereign nations being what they are (petulant children), instead of letting us go home we had to land in Mumbai because now big bad ugly America was violating their air space. Sad part is they were right. It was their air space and they get to do with it as they please. I blame our pilot for the mix up but the joy of the Mumbai experience I lay firmly at the feet of our "allies" in India.
Our Captain let us in on the bad news beginning with how we were too heavy with fuel to land so we were in a holding pattern around Mumbai before we could touch down safely. For the next two hours we cut grid squares in the sky...
Having left Iraq the night before around 8PM we finally landed in Mumbai around 0730 the next morning. We taxied to the far corner of the runway reserved for lepers and other pariah.
<...>
At some point representatives from the American Consulate arrived and let us know a good Indian wouldn't be caught dead without a day liberally spiced with healthy doses of bureaucracy. I believe the term they used was IFI: It's Freakin' India. Our pilot must have resubmitted his flight plans a bazillion times to the Ministry of Flight Plans. Fuel had to be appropriated through the Ministry of Bulk Fuels. Heat was free. More and more Indians showed up which resulted in less and less actually being accomplished.Some 14 or so hours later the brilliant plan to get us to a hotel for the night was finally executed. The Ministry of Buses was contacted and the Ministry of Hotels and Lodging was more than happy to accommodate us. The Ministry of Punching People In Their Face was unable to be reached.
Some days it's easier to get home (from Iraq) for the holidays than others.
There's much more to this story (think Steve Martin's Planes, Trains, and Automobiles) - it begins here ("Some months ago I recounted the tale of The Longest Day in which we couldn't possibly conceive of a flight to a combat zone being more arduous or lengthy. At the time we didn't consider the fantastic possibilities of our epic return flight from said combat zone...") and continues here.
And welcome home, Marines.
Snubbed Norwegians replace absent Obama at event with ... cardboard cutout. To be fair, there could have been some security issues with certain events - not all residents of Norway are attractive blond females like those in the photos. (But certainly lunch with the king should have been safe enough. Maybe it was the menu?)
Meanwhile, reviews are in:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Obama's Nobel Speech | ||||
| ||||
This might help explain both reviews:Sarah Palin and President Obama don't agree on much, but last year's Republican vice presidential nominee just gave the president's defense of "just wars" a thumbs up in an interview with USA TODAY. In fact, she said that the president's address in Oslo, where he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize today, reminded her of what she wrote on the same subject in her hugely successful memoir, Going Rogue.
"I liked what he said," Palin told us in a phone interview. "I talked too in my book about the fallen nature of man and why war is necessary at times." For Palin, that view strikes close to home: Her eldest son, 20-year-old Track, is an Army infantry member who recently returned from a tour of duty in Iraq.
Mr. Obama is the third sitting American president to be awarded the peace prize. A student of history, he read the lecture of Theodore Roosevelt, who won the award in 1906 for his role in bringing an end to the war between Russia and Japan.
Which is probably why Obama's speech cited Mandela, Gandhi, and King but sounded like Roosevelt. (At three times the length.)
Speaking of the Money Shower - Roosevelt ultimately re-directed his prize money to troop-related charities in WWI (his initial desire was to labor-related efforts, but the money sat for ten years attracting dust). Obama hasn't specified where his will go; modern New York Times readers offer their advice here.
And speaking of Teddy Roosevelt, Flags of our Fathers author James Bradley's new book The Imperial Cruise: A Secret History of Empire and War
Excerpt:
So (thanks!) here it is:
From the info on the YouTube page:
A video created in the wake of September 11, 2001 by video producer and BÖC fan, Daryl Maxwell. Originally written in 1980 as a reaction to the Iran Hostage Crisis, Blue Oyster Cult's "Divine Wind" once again provides a relevant backdrop to current affairs. Assembled from news footage, it is a compelling and emotional reflection on America's new Day of Infamy.George Soros & Media Matters should pay close attention. dm
I confess I'd forgotten that song long (like 25 years) ago - but the "if he really thinks we're the devil then let's send him to hell" line brought it back. Good stuff. I think Bruce Dickinson would be proud.
Fox headline: U.S. Air Force Confirms 'Beast of Kandahar' Secret Stealth Drone Plane.
Here's the photo accompanying the report:
In other words, the USAF has a super secret plane that looks nothing like this.
Which brings us to the latest from Noah Shachtman at Danger Room: U.S. Military Joins CIA's Drone War in Pakistan. It seems the US and Pakistan are acting in concert on this one.
Tired of news of war? We understand. Sit back and enjoy a selection of tunes from Blue Oyster Cult.
(Don't Fear) The Reaper
Take Me Away
ETI
This ain't the Summer of Love
Burnin' for You
And for the encore: Cities on Flame
Golden oldies, I suppose. But songs that inspired a generation, now grown and doing various grownup things... (But if you still need more cowbell, click here.)
"Peace is generally good in itself, but it is never the highest good unless it comes as the handmaid of righteousness; and it becomes a very evil thing if it serves merely as a mask for cowardice and sloth, or as an instrument to further the ends of despotism or anarchy."
-- From the president's Nobel Prize speech
President Theodore Roosevelt, that is. The first American to win a Nobel Prize, Roosevelt was recognized in 1906 for his work in the negotiations that led to the Treaty of Portsmouth ending the Russo-Japanese War in 1905.
But Roosevelt did not actually attend the December 10, 1906 ceremony in Norway. "He did not feel right accepting the prize while he was in office." In his absence, Ambassador Herbert Peirce appeared on his behalf, delivering a speech that included this excerpt from a telegram from President Roosevelt:
(And other tales.)
"Why," asks Chap, "is Cracked magazine, of all places, so good at stuff like "5 Battlefield Screw Ups That Were Hilarious (Until People Died)"?
Well, it's not like Armed Forces Journal is soliciting that sort of scholarly effort... but I do know if you read it you'll never see a Lacrosse game (or a chariot race) without recalling it. (Hopefully that won't be true of using a flush toilet.)
And not to be too much of a spoilsport, but as far as this goes:
The history books are full of great military minds who turned the tides of war with their creative genius. This article is not about them.
No, we're here to talk about the embarrassing f**k-ups, the confused incompetence that ensured these men would never have a high school named after them.
...well, there is a Lew Wallace High School. (It does not have a Lacrosse team....)
But go before I spoil all the fun. Chuckles await.
There's been more noise than signal thus far in the discussion of "Rules of Engagement" in Afghanistan - but Noah Shachtman delivers the first comprehensive, 360° (x 3 dimensions + time) view of the topic I've seen in this month's Wired Magazine: How the Afghanistan Air War Got Stuck in the Sky.
A pair of F-15 jets circle overhead. Cameras on the bellies of the aircraft capture the standoff: the opposing compounds, the tree line to one side, the fields between. The images are relayed to Echo's headquarters, a burned-out schoolhouse just over half a mile away surrounded by sandbags and mortar tubes. Inside the school, Eric Meador, the company commander, leans over a small table and looks at the footage on a laptop. Meador is on the small side -- 5′9″, 140 pounds -- and is a bit quirky for a Marine officer. A former Mississippi cop from a family of musicians, he has a weakness for chewing tobacco and reality TV -- he keeps a picture of Kate Gosselin on one wall of the schoolhouse. But he radiates authority, and in the command post everyone focuses on him. Meador asks air controller Josh Faucett to review the standoff. "This is where the friendlies are," Faucett says, pointing to the screen. "This is where we think the sniper is." It's a building in the northern compound, next to the main east-west road.
The next step seems obvious: Call those F-15s and have them reduce the Taliban's positions to rubble. That's how the Marines took out insurgents in Fallujah in 2004. Hell, it's how they went after the Taliban in August 2008. But it's August 2009, and today Meador is not sure.
"The only bombs that get dropped these days are those used to protect 'troops in contact' -- soldiers currently engaged in a firefight," Noah writes, and that's not always assured. There are reasons for that beyond valuing civilian lives - but via email he adds "this air campaign is more complicated than any one article could outline."
Hence this piece at Danger Room that explains more of the problem:
The rules of the new Afghanistan air war appear to be pretty straight-ahead. If a commander on the ground declares that his troops are "in contact" -- coming under fire -- then drones and fighter jets and attack helicopters will immediately streak to his location. Otherwise, the commander's chances of getting air support are fairly slim.
So it's no surprise that "troops in contact," or "TIC," has become the most abused phrase in the Afghanistan campaign. What started as a cry for help has now come to mean ... well, almost anything. And that's putting at risk troops who are really in harm's way. "The most abused thing in this war is declaring a TIC," says a senior Air Force officer.
Noah calls it "The Phrase That's Screwing Up the Afghan Air War".
Those two articles make for a bit of reading - but it's time well spent for those who value light with their heat, and know signal from noise. (And Noah promises he's just begun.)
...is better than the usual yawn on TV.
For the past five years Winter Haven native and former Green Beret Michael Yon has been covering the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as an independent journalist.
<...>
And until last week's announcement from President Barack Obama, he was concerned the president was ready to give up on the Afghan war.Yon says morale among British and U.S. troops had stayed pretty high, and now the troops there are really ready to take the fight to the enemy.
"Just in the past couple of days since I have gotten back, I have talked with quite a few," he said. "It's clear they see this troop commitment is very important. And it's clear it's bolstered their morale."
...and no, it's not the fingerprint sort:
The court-martial of three Navy SEALs, for purportedly punching terrorist suspect Ahmed Hashim Abed once in the gut, and the upcoming trials of Sept. 11, 2001, mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees in New York City illustrate a decisive shift from fighting a war on terrorism to conducting a police action.
The transition to a law enforcement mentality in our efforts to combat terrorism will create many challenges. Special operatives tracking down the world's most menacing killers will have to make sure they have their Miranda cards handy.
That's Jim "Uncle Jimbo" Hanson in the Washington Times. More "ink" at the link.
"Nobody would have read about it or no one would have cared about it if one person didn't make a mistake," he said. "And that mistake had impact. Good lesson learned. Good lessons learned for a future sailor or Marine."
In the mail: Help the Cause in Afghanistan: 101 Ways to help the Afghan people and support our troops
I've met Jim, he's a fantastic person and I've admired the work of Spirit of America for many years (among other things, they were doing "microgrants" long before microgrants were cool). A lot of great ideas for those interested in doing more than talking are in this book. In this case, reading is a great start. Click and get one - maybe one for your Congressman (or other friends) for Christmas, too.
"During the invasion of Iraq, Grisham took down a squad of Iraqis when his counterintelligence detachment got pinned down in an ambush. He earned the Bronze Star with "V" after rushing through the gunfire by himself with just a 9mm pistol and a hand grenade."
So my friend CJ isn't afraid of a fight. And now he's got one. I introduced as much of the story as I could here recently, but as you can see from the above picture there's now more in the Army (and Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps) Times - via the "Off Duty" insert that appears in each.
Excerpt:
Last summer Grisham got into hot water when someone complained to officials that he encouraged readers to vote against gun control measures, called for a wholesale changing of the guard in Congress and questioned Obama's truthfulness.
In a blog section titled "Obama is wrong for America," he wrote: "The reality is that the American people can NOT take the President at his word."
At least that's what he assumes was the problem based on the questions investigators with the Army Intelligence and Security Command's inspector general asked him.
The IG closed the case without further action. Grisham filed a request for a copy of the report but still hasn't seen it. "Four months later I have yet to actually see any of the IG complaints against me or where I might have done anything wrong," he said.
The IG's office did not return phone calls requesting comment.
Not long after, Grisham was fired from his job as an intelligence company first sergeant at Redstone and punted to a garrison position.
"At least that's what he assumes was the problem based on the questions investigators with the Army Intelligence and Security Command's inspector general asked him." But there's another story not in the Military Times account.
Last June CJ was talking to White House officials, determined to get an explanation for why President Obama had not made any official statement regarding the murder of Army Private William Long in Little Rock by a Muslim extremist. The president had responded immediately to the murder of an abortion doctor that same weekend, but on the killing of one of his Soldiers, "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 Army Private William Long earlier this month." In fact, "my follow up search [of the White House web page] for "Private Long" yielded only documents related to private long-term health insurance."
Those last quotes are from my coverage of CJ's story from June, as is this:
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.
But the guy who wasn't afraid to fight his way out of an ambush in Iraq wasn't going to balk at politely asking the White House about what appeared to be (at best) a demonstration of very little concern for the murder of a US soldier by an Islamic extremist on US soil. Clearly the White House noticed CJ's efforts, and it should surprise no one that they didn't appreciate them. Then "last summer Grisham got into hot water when someone complained to officials".
You can read CJ's stories on his discussions with the White House here and here, and his post on gun control (from last March) here. CJ's "mistake" was writing about the White House's apparent lack of concern over a soldier gunned down by an Islamic extremist at the time of the release of a Department of Homeland Security report instructing law enforcement officials nationwide to focus on the threat posed by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who might join right wing extremist groups. The White House needed both stories to go away, but while CJ Grisham isn't an extremist or an Enemy of the State he isn't the go away type, either.
So "last summer Grisham got into hot water when someone complained to officials" and "not long after, Grisham was fired from his job as an intelligence company first sergeant at Redstone and punted to a garrison position." I can only imagine what might have happened had someone done that to Nidal Hasan before he murdered 12 soldiers, one civilian and an unborn child at Ft Hood. (Tragic irony: "...barely had he got to Texas when he started making idle chit-chat praising the jihadist murderer of two soldiers outside a recruitment centre in Little Rock. 'This is what Muslims should do, stand up to the aggressors," Major Hasan told his superior officer, Colonel Terry Lee. 'People should strap bombs on themselves and go into Times Square.'") But I know what CJ did - he took his lumps and moved on.
But he had also been identified as a troublemaker, and more trouble was on the way. Part two here
More:
How to help: see Milblogger and dear friend needs your help at Bouhammer's.
And Mrs G has a great roundup of posts on this topic in the Milblogs section of today's Dawn Patrol.)
Recent/related stories:
"A date that will live in infamy..."
Actually, not one bit. But as seen above, they did honor Popeye the Sailor creator E.C. Segar on his birthday today.
They ignored Pearl Harbor yesterday. They yam what they yam, I suppose, but this seems more like an intentional slap to people who were annoyed by that.
And Eikenberry, too. "On Sunday, General McChrystal and Ambassador Eikenberry spent three hours in intense debate preparation at the Pentagon, taking questions from a mock panel of lawmakers," the New York Times reports. Here's the result.
(Broadcast ended, video stream removed)
Main message: "We are sending American boys and women to be successful on the winning team."
Do you agree it's important that we have to win it? McChrystal: "I believe we have to be successful"
Eikenberry on progress: "There are now 6.5 million children going to school - 35% of them are women." The most amazing thing about this testimony is the use of "approved" (or politically correct) speech. "Girls," "win," and "victory" don't make the cut.
What is it we have the right strategy and resources to do? Is it to win? McChrystal: "I believe it's to let the Afghan people win" Are we sending our sons and daughters to win? "We are sending them to be on the winning team." I don't understand why we are parsing these words. Secretary Gates reportedly said "we are in this thing to win" I hope that's right, I hope we're getting that message to the troops. Is there some guidance to you all that says we can't use the words "win" or "victory"?
McChrystal: "Not that I have seen."
However, when asked "will you be successful in your mission?", General McChrystal responded "yes we will."
More highlights:
McChrystal responding to a question whether the July 2011 date was his idea: "I did not recommend that date - I did indicate that I thought we could make substantial improvement by then."
How do we convince the locals we are committed long-term given ambiguous withdrawal/drawdown in the plan? McChrystal: "They will judge us by our actions. The question to us [when we return to a village] is always 'are you going to stay this time?' What they [Afghans] are really judging is not our rhetoric. What we need to stress is not the increase in forces but the long term partnership. We should contest enemy propaganda about timelines and stress that we will help them in long term partnership. We have to prove that with our actions, not just our words."
Are you convinced force levels are adequate? McChrystal: "I am convinced." Should we send more than 30K? "In my best military advice, this is the right number of American troops." Will you be successful in your mission? "Yes we will." Do you agree this is a war of necessity? "Yes." Do you agree it's important that we have to win it? "I believe we have to be successful"
Do you anticipate additional troops will embolden the insurgency? "When they [insurgents] mass now they are defeated. I think, however, they will use increased numbers of suicide bombers, coercion of the population..."
McChrystal explaining the endstate of the debate over the definition of "defeat" of the Taliban: "It can be like politics, where you defeat the other party but you don't wipe them out."
Define defeat the Taliban. McChrystal: "prevent them from being an existential threat to the Afghan government. Over time that will cause them to go away." But we do intend to defeat the Taliban? "Sir, the military term, without parsing it too tightly, we intend to prevent them from doing what they want to do."
Notes as taken while in-progress:
The need for speed:
Four days later, at a meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Oct. 30, [Obama] emphasized the need for speed. "Why can't I get the troops in faster?" he asked. If they were going to do this, he concluded, it only made sense to do this quickly, to have impact and keep the war from dragging on forever.
<...>
The plan, called Option 2A, was presented to the president on Nov. 11. Mr. Obama complained that the bell curve would take 18 months to get all the troops in place.He turned to General Petraeus and asked him how long it took to get the so-called surge troops he commanded in Iraq in 2007. That was six months.
"What I'm looking for is a surge," Mr. Obama said. "This has to be a surge."
That's from the New York Times version of the White House press release. The Washington Post's version doesn't need quoting beyond the headline: Obama pressed for faster surge.
Well, very nice. And a very nice counter to accusations of "dithering." It may even be true. But what follows is what didn't make the press release.
Every politician's nightmare:
Gordon Brown was snubbed by badly injured Afghan veterans when they closed curtains round their beds during a hospital visit and refused to speak to him.
"Half the lads didn't want to speak to him and those that did pretty much blamed him for everything. Many of the lads just closed their curtains and hid themselves away." That quote from Matthew Weston (who lost both legs and his right arm to a bomb explosion in Afghanistan) is one of many in this Times Online story. "I didn't want to speak to him, I didn't want to waste my time talking to someone who was just trying to make themselves look good. I spent the day with my family instead," Weston explained.
In other news from England: British soldier becomes the 100th to die in Afghanistan this year
Update: via Madhu (thanks!), a comment well worth reading. (And in reading it I'm again reminded of the wisdom of Orwell.
Admiral Mullen addresses the troops at Camp LeJeune, NC, on the Afghanistan mission, 7 Dec, 1:15 ET.
(Broadcast ended. Story here. Key quote: "Mullen stressed in both places [he also spoke at Ft Campbell] that the mission in Afghanistan is to go after al-Qaida in its home." Um, isn't that Pakistan?)
Pointless aside: If you're racking your brain trying to figure it out, Mullen's voice sounds exactly like former SNL comedian Al Franken.
Busy, busy:
McChrystal and Eikenberry are testifying publicly before the House and Senate armed services committees on Tuesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday, and the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Thursday. McChrystal also will be giving a classified, closed-door briefing to House defense appropriators toward the end of next week.
"McChrystal's Afghanistan plan stays mainly intact" reports Rajiv Chandrasekaran and Greg Jaffe in the Washington Post.
...the new approach does not order McChrystal to wage the war in a fundamentally different way from what he outlined in an assessment he sent the White House in late August.
"Stan's mission really hasn't narrowed," said a senior Pentagon official involved with Afghanistan policy. "There won't be a radical change in the way he executes."
General McChrystal's assessment is here. Videos of the mission briefings the general gave to ISAF troops and Afghan government ministers immediately following President Obama's announcement are here. And for more on the genesis of the US strategy for Afghanistan, start here.
If you're more interested in what's really going on behind-the-scenes, this might be a good place to start. Much of what seemingly makes no sense actually makes sense when you understand why the president's new plan for Afghanistan is called "Max Leverage." But "makes sense" and "good idea" are not always the same - in this case, "let's ditch Karzai" as an obsessive step one of an Afghan campaign was a bad idea poorly executed. Now it's been modified with an "exit ramp" replacing the additional troops that could no longer be held out as a carrot.
But the military is a large part of a bigger plan, and always has been. Certainly that hasn't changed.
The fifth annual Milblog Conference has been scheduled.
Milblogging.com will be the official website of the Milblog Conference, so I'll be communicating all the details here. Bookmark this URL for the latest news and updates on the 2010 Milblog Conference.
When? Friday, April 9, 2010 and Saturday April 10, 2010
Where? The Westin Arlington Gateway, 801 North Glebe Road, Arlington, VA 22203
Want to Attend? You'll be able to register online starting early January. I'll post the web address for registration as soon as it's available.
What's Going On?
Registration will include:
Friday Night, 8:00PM - 11:00PM, Cocktail Reception (light fare)
Saturday, Conference 9:00AM - 5:30PM (breakfast)
Saturday Night, Dinner and Party, 8:00PM - Midnight (full dinner plus drink tickets, keynote address, MILbloggie awards).
Hope to see ya there.
Past milblog conference coverage:
The First - 2006 and MilBlog Reactions
2007 and BBC, Weekly Standard, and NPR does a write up.
2009 and more live blogging here
Navy SEALs across the country are standing behind three of their own. One is accused of beating a suspected terrorist, the others are accused of lying about it.
<...>
The protest will take place at Naval Station Norfolk on Monday right after the SEALs make their first court appearance.
Great calendar work: the Navy scheduled the first court appearance on the anniversary of Pearl Harbor. From the beginning the Navy (and now the DoD) has handled this ill-timed situation poorly. The result: a distinct impression that something that should have been handled by Petty Officers has been mismanaged by petty officers instead.
And here's a Facebook group with 52,641 members (so far): "Support The Navy Seals who Captured Ahmed Hashim Abed"
Update one hour later: 52,848 members.
I always get confused by the words to that song. Was it ten secret meetings... two calling birds...?
No, it's two very long stories, based on leaks from administration sources.
If that's confusing, here's one distinction: the Post's story is based on "interviews by more than a dozen senior administration and military officials who took part in the strategy review" - but didn't want their names in the paper. (The first citation: "a senior adviser who read from notes he took at the meeting.") And while the Post story is based on interviews with dozens, the Times' is based on "dozens of interviews":
This account of how the president reached his decision is based on dozens of interviews with participants as well as a review of notes some of them took during Mr. Obama's 10 meetings with his national security team. Most of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, but their accounts have been matched against those of other participants wherever possible.
So given the comparisons of stories from dozens of interviews with leakers, it might be safe to believe the Times account of one event: "The president erupted at the leaks with an anger advisers had rarely seen". That must be the Obama nobody sees on TV. But for one final comparison, the Post's version compiled from dozens of senior administration leakers is less emotional: "Obama expressed frustration with the leaks."
But all that's in the past. Given the number of leakers leaking information into these new accounts it could take quite some time to sort through all the information they don't want their names associated with. But here's something that stood out to me.
The Post: "After his return from Asia, Obama convened a Nov. 23 session on how to gain leverage over the Karzai government." The Times: "The president gathered his team in the Situation Room at 8:15 p.m. on Nov. 23 ... Mr. Obama presented a revised version of Option 2A, this one titled "Max Leverage," pushing 30,000 troops into Afghanistan by mid-2010 and beginning to pull them out by July 2011." And one more from the Post: "Obama explained his goal: "We send a message to Karzai of a short-leash..."
So if anything about the plan confuses you - the reasoning behind it, its purpose or goals - just refer back to its title. And if all that confuses you, start here, this might help.
"I was able to get my weekly shower today, if I needed it or not," writes Marine milblogger Maj Pain from Afghanistan.
Your warriors are hooking and jabbing with bad guys that believe they can scare off your fighting Marines. ....well, they have another thing coming! Patrols are relentless, the weather is getting colder and morale is high.
And based on this report from the Independent, rising:
The Marines, who have been at the cutting edge of the fighting since their arrival in southern Afghanistan, are about to embark on a number of operations that were put on hold as the president mulled over his decision.
But any waiting ended with the week, as the Marines - along with British and Afghan allies - launched Operation Khareh Cobra (Cobra's Anger) in Helmand Province.
More than 1,000 International Security Assistance Force troops are partnering with Afghan forces to begin a large-scale operation in northern Helmand province.
About 900 U.S. Marines and sailors and British forces began partnering today with 150 Afghan soldiers and police to start Operation Khareh Cobra, or Cobra's Anger, to clear insurgent forces in the Now Zad valley.
Marines from 3rd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, Regimental Combat Team 7 and 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion are partnered with Afghan army and police. The forces began helicopter and ground operations in the Now Zad valley early this morning.
Now Zad was once Helmand's second largest city, but is now empty due to years of fighting. Insurgents have heavily mined the area, and a key purpose of the operation is to provide enough security for the Afghan government and non-governmental organizations to begin clearing the mines and improvised explosive devices in order to enable the eventual repopulation of the city.
A company of Marines is stationed in Now Zad along with 150 Afghan soldiers and police.
"The operation is continuing today in an area that had an enemy presence, said Major Bill Pelletier, spokesman for the Marine Expeditionary Brigade in Helmand. "We are going to disrupt that presence."
The advancing Marines killed several militants and seized bombs and weapons in the first day of the operation, which begin with an airborne assault on Friday.
"British troops who were once stationed there left graffiti dubbing the town 'Apocalypse Now-Zad,' says the AP.
"A U.S. military official in Washington said it was the first use of Ospreys, aircraft that combine features of helicopters and fixed wing aircraft, in an offensive involving units larger than platoons," they add. (A "controversial" aircraft, says McClatchy. Marines like it - Congress, not so much.)
And "tribal militias are also playing a role," a US military intelligence official told The Long War Journal.
"Marines work their butts off daily and then go out for more," says Major Pain. "Thousands of miles away from home, equipped with the best gear possible on the planet, they march directly into the bad guys and make them have a very bad day."
For more of the latest from the front - the often imitated, never duplicated Dawn Patrol is the place to go.
Or a black eye for the DoD?
"What kind of a message are we sending to our troops in the field when they do their duty, risk their lives, capture a terrorist... one of the top ten terrorists - and we're going to court martial them?"
Rep Dan Burton (R-In) asks Admiral Mullen a somewhat off-topic question during the House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing on Afghanistan Strategy last Wednesday:
And that's not the end of it. The AP reports "Lawmakers are seeking a reprieve for three Navy SEALs facing court-martial because one allegedly punched a suspect after arresting him for an ambush killing of U.S. contractors in Iraq."
The full text of the letter from Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif) to Secretary Gates is here. It concludes:
It appears from all accounts that these SEALs are exceptional sailors, demonstrated by the fact that each had recently been advanced in rank. They captured a terrorist who had planned an attack that not only killed Americans but also maimed and mutilated their bodies. We believe that prosecution of these sailors for such an apparently limited action will have a negative impact on others in the military who risk their lives in dangerous, often ambiguous situation. Again, we strongly believe that these court-martial proceedings are not warranted and would urge that you review this matter.
The admiral might have been caught off guard by Burton's question, and he has to be extremely careful how he phrases an answer - undue command influence is an issue here. (This kept senior leadership mostly quiet beyond vague statements while the Abu Ghraib court martial process was ongoing, too.) But I think "there's more to the story than has been reported so far" would have been a fair response (assuming there is) and I only heard a hint of that here. I agree completely with the admiral on the point of faith in subordinates to do the right thing, but there's a difference between micro-managing and awareness, and that response sounds like one from somebody on the wrong side of that line.
I agree with what little the admiral said, I just wish he'd said a little more, because I agree with this quote from Rep Burton, too:
I think if the Germans in World War Two had killed and mutilated American troops and hung them from a bridge, and somebody busted them in the mouth when they captured them they wouldn't have been court-martialed.
Elsewhere:
Surber: Dan Burton stands up for the SEALs
Gateway: Powerful Ad - "Support The Persecuted Navy Seals" (Video)
Riehl: House Republicans Seek Reprieve For Navy SEALs
Warning: math story problem follows - but it's multiple choice, simple addition, and should be easy if you take mental notes as you read.
Ouch - CNN Poll: Obama approval under 50 percent. Looks like maybe the bump wasn't big enough.
Support for President Barack Obama's Afghanistan policy is fairly high, but that hasn't stopped his approval rating from dropping below 50 percent for the first time in a CNN poll.But the president succeeded in at least one effort this week - reminding the public that it's Bush's fault:
The Nielsen ratings company reported that 40.8 million Americans watched Obama's speech, his highest TV ratings since addressing Congress in February.
In a series of briefings following President Obama's West Point speech, General Stan McChrystal presented details of the Afghanistan strategy to International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) troops, ministers of the Government of Afghanistan, and the media. Those briefings are provided here courtesy of NATO TV.
The general's 2 December, 2009 briefing to ISAF troops and the media continues:
And concludes. This segment includes questions and answers from the audience.
In a series of briefings following President Obama's West Point speech, General Stan McChrystal presented details of the Afghanistan strategy to International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) troops, ministers of the Government of Afghanistan, and the media. Those briefings are provided here courtesy of NATO TV.
The general's 2 December, 2009 briefing to ISAF troops and the media:
(Audio levels increase during this video)
Continued:
In a series of briefings following President Obama's West Point speech, General Stan McChrystal presented details of the Afghanistan strategy to International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) troops, ministers of the Government of Afghanistan, and the media. Those briefings are provided here courtesy of NATO TV.
In this 3 December video the general briefs Afghan government ministers in Kabul, explaining more about the announcement to increase NATO troops in the country. Of note: an explanation of the plan to turn areas over to Afghan security forces' control and drawdown US forces beginning in July 2011.
A short excerpt of General McChrystal's 2 December morning briefing to his ISAF staff has been previously released. This is the full version of the general's remarks.
This 21 November video introduces NATO Training Mission Afghanistan (NTM-A). Training of Afghan National Security Forces will now be overseen by the NTM-A. The new body brings together all training under one umbrella organization, commanded by US Army Lt. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV.
...on President Obama's new strategy:
The latest strategy will be a "fiasco" that will lead only to more dead Americans, the Taliban insurgency said Thursday.
"Throughout the history of Afghanistan, the Afghans have not been subjugated through deceit, ploys, material power, troop reinforcement and military might of the foreigners," Taliban leaders said in a statement released Thursday. "Therefore, the reinforcement of the American troops and other tactics will not have impact on the status quo. But the reinforcement will provide better opportunity for the mujahedeen to launch offensives."
More at Long War Journal.
The title isn't about planes - it's about the hard working folks behind the scenes. Like the White House aides you never see who struggle to make sure everything is just right.
When President Obama spoke to troops at Alaska's Elmendorf Air Force Base last month, the unit there parked a shiny new F-22 fighter plane in the hanger. But according to multiple sources, White House aides demanded the plane be changed to an older F-15 fighter because they didn't want Obama speaking in front of the F-22, a controversial program he fought hard to end.
<...>
The airmen there took offense to the Obama aides' demand, sources told The Cable, seeing it as a slight to the folks who are operating the F-22 proudly every day. They also expressed bewilderment that the White House staff would even care so much as to make an issue out of the fact that the F-22 was placed in the hanger with the president.
Another lesson learned.
And here's another do/don't example for those seeking a career as news reporters or White House PR team members:
Obama's fondness for audiences in uniform is not yet in the same category as his predecessor's. Beyond the infamous "Top Gun" landing aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, and the Thanksgiving turkey he served to troops in Iraq, Bush routinely used military-themed backdrops for his speeches: fighter jets, camouflage nets, American flags, military bands and, best of all, thousands of troops applauding or shouting "Hoo-ah" at the right moments.
I'd like to see a cash-for-clunkers backdrop at the next military photo-op. The program, part of last summer's defense supplemental funding bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, gave auto dealers 4,000 dollars for every American who traded in their qualifying old cars for new models.
But kudos to the Air Force - by the time he spoke at Osan Air Base just a few days after Elmendorf they knew how to make a proper backdrop.
Or who knows - maybe the unsung heroes on the White House advance team had it made themselves. You could probably hide at least a dozen F22s behind a thing like that.
CBS (or maybe Obama or Gibbs): "Troops WILL start coming home in July 2011. Period. It's etched in stone."
Better: "Troops will START coming home in July 2011. Period. It's etched in stone." So there. FIFY*.
But if you want to focus on THEIR capitalized word, suit yourself. But had they done it MY way CBS wouldn't have had to add THIS: "Keep in mind that the PACE of the withdrawal will still depend on conditions on the ground..."
...just to make it fit what the president said: "...these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground."
At least he's consistent on Afghanistan. And you can't say this promise wasn't filled: "Afghan Strategy Will Contain Messages to Several Audiences," but "as Mr. Obama's own aides concede, the messages directed at some may undercut the messages sent to others."
Which makes it possible for CBS to write doubleplussgood stories about Gates saying something different from Obama, when in reality "July 2011 is the beginning, not the end, of the process of U.S. forces coming home, Gates said, noting that any transition will be based on conditions on the ground." (Or "Setting July 2011 for the beginning of a U.S. drawdown in Afghanistan was intended for two primary audiences: the Afghan government in Kabul and war-weary Americans, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said here today.")
Gosh I hate to sound like a broken record**, but why must Americans be forced to choose sides, as those who've decided to support President Obama will soon be forced to confront those who are equally determined to support President Obama instead?
Wait - why must Americans be forced to choose sides, as those who've decided to oppose President Obama will soon be forced to confront those who are equally determined to oppose President Obama instead?
There, FIFM.
Footnotes:
*FIFY: Ask your children.
**Broken record: Ask your parents.
Trivia:
Speaking of Iraq (and what the president SAID): "Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months." But as it turned out, conditions on the ground changed - which is why you must be careful what you choose to etch in stone.
And speaking of "etched in stone" - it's been far too long since we've had a poetry reading here in Mudville.
OZYMANDIAS
Percy Bysshe Shelley
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away
Som'at enigmatic, that.
"West Point cadets read while waiting for President Obama to give a speech at the United States Military Academy at West Point in New York on Tuesday" reads the photo caption from the New York Times. The guy on the right is almost finished with War and Peace.
Just kidding - he's only starting his career in war and peace, but that book he's reading is Steven Pressfield's Gates of Fire
He might have started the book while he was sitting there. The cadets were in place and waiting four hours before showtime - so says Fox News anchor Jon Scott.
Scott is a parent of a West Point cadet. But as you can perhaps tell by their version of the video, the folks at TPM are a bit miffed at co-anchor Jane Skinner's quip about "hot air" in the room. Slow news day for TPM, I suppose.
Elsewhere, even though he presented it as a contest scorecard on presidential troop photo ops (Bush did 13 in 2005 alone!!! - Obama has only done five in the last month and seven altogether, although "the vice president and the first lady, in turn, have made the rounds at half a dozen other facilities") Dana Milbank expressed his deep concern in his Washington Post column that "Obama is antagonizing many in his party with an expected announcement that he is sending more troops to Afghanistan, and, to rub it in, he's making the announcement at one of Bush's favorite military locations: the U.S. Military Academy at West Point". (Next week: Dana learns that Obama is also living in a house Bush used to live in!!!)
And of course, Chris Matthews one-upped him (or maybe proved his "prescience"), calling West Point the "enemy camp".
Here's another cadet quote from a West Point dad: "All he said is that it is going to be a long night Tuesday." That in response to my own pre-speech comment re: West Point: "We're in favor of whatever it takes to win the war, but ...if the Commander in Chief wants to make his in-person audience happy he'll authorize late reporting for cadet classes on Wednesday."
I haven't heard whether he took that advice.
:
"The initial forces going in will include an additional Marine regimental combat team going to southern Afghanistan to be a part of the Marine Expeditionary Brigade Afghanistan, and they will assist in securing the population in central Helmand," Nicholson said. Other U.S. forces will be sent to Kandahar and an additional brigade combat team involved in counterinsurgency will be deployed in the east, while trainers will assist Afghan security forces in close partnering, he added.
General, how much will be counter-terror and how much counterinsurgency?
PETRAEUS: Well, there's no question that counterterrorist operations are a component of counterinsurgency, and, in fact, those will not only continue. They will be augmented as well. You have to kill or capture the key leaders, the irreconcilables in such an endeavor.
Story, transcript, video below:
Steve Schippert, in the Washington Times: "Counterinsurgency Incoherence"
Sending additional troops, whether decided upon from intellectual deliberation or from political calculation, is the right call. The details of their usage, the never-ending questions of "exit strategy" and the general unwillingness to commit to victory is wholly unacceptable.
The president's speech has been panned from the left and the right, but this, I believe, is beyond debate: tough times ahead for US troops.
Last night following the speech (and after the DoD roundtable) I joined Steve, Bruce McQuain (Q & O, Blackfive), and Marvin Hutchens (Threatswatch) to record an episode of the Steve Schippert Show.
Much good "first take" discussion; Steve, Bruce, and Marvin raise concerns I certainly don't have easy answers for - I suspect those concerns are widely shared.
But I'll hit this point again: a product and its marketing are two different things. The pictures at the top and bottom of this post illustrate that better than words can.
Arg. Presidential Palace, Kabul - The Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan welcomes the new U.S. strategy, announced by U.S. President Barack Obama on December 2, 2009, in view of the following:
General McChrystal addressing the ISAF staff this morning:
Last night I took part in a DoD Roundtable with David Sedney, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia, and Brig. Gen. John Nicholson, Jr. Director, Pakistan-Afghanistan Coordination Cell, Joint Staff. A crowded house for this one. I'll have more later, but there is much good information added in this discussion.
A brief excerpt from the transcript on one point:
KABUL, Afghanistan (Dec. 2) - The statement of General Stanley McChrystal, Commander NATO International Security Assistance Force and U.S. Forces Afghanistan regarding the address by The President of the United States:
Click here at 8PM Eastern to watch the speech live, without commercial interruption or talking head nonsense. A video player will open in a popup window.
We'll be live-blogging throughout. And since the speech will be in a separate window you can refresh this page (by hitting Ctrl F5 or your browser refresh button) for updates without losing your connection - or even travel elsewhere 'round the web to see what others are saying.
And of course, you can add your own thoughts, too.
Some reference documents:
A collection of Obama's statements on Afghanistan as a candidate.
The "White Paper" from late March, outlining the president's plan for Afghanistan.
General McChrystal's assessment - the document "leaked" to the Washington Post, who thoughtfully allowed a White House/Pentagon scrub to create an "unclassified" version before publishing.
What to listen for? Anything that isn't already in one of those documents. And straight talk, instead of what we've been promised: "Afghan Strategy Will Contain Messages to Several Audiences, says the New York Times, and "as Mr. Obama's own aides concede, the messages directed at some may undercut the messages sent to others."
Video:
Summary: it was a speech, short on details. If you were inspired, then mission accomplished. I'm looking forward seeing the clear plan promised to the troops.
DoD news headlines:
More Troops Likely for Afghanistan's East, South
Mullen Says Military Leaders Fully Support President's Afghan Strategy
Afghanistan to See U.S. Troop Surge
World Focuses on Obama's Afghanistan Speech
I'm on a DoD blogger roundtable now... a few more questions answered, will post transcript when available. One item: General McChrystal will have an announcement within the hour.
And first press release from ISAF (General McChrystal) here. More to follow soon.
And see if you can spot the key words in this quote from the speech:
"Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's Security Forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government - and, more importantly, to the Afghan people - that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country."
To the left: a little reminder that Barack Obama didn't invent the photo op with troops. He does, however, appear to be determined to perfect the art.
And tonight from West Point you should see an example of the state of the art. If all goes well it will look easy - but behind the scenes it's anything but. Making it look easy is the business of the pros, and requires tight coordination between the White House, news reporters, technicians, and a cast of thousands. For those interested in a possible career in that service, or even those interested in a bit of how it's done, here's a look at just that, and a few lessons learned along the way.
President Obama to the troops: "You guys make a pretty good photo op!"
An obvious truth, and a great laugh line - and the troops chuckled on cue. That visit to Osan Air Base in Korea came at the end of President Obama's Asian tour, so certainly the president was due for a bit of lighthearted cheer.
TEN KEY INDICATORS OF POTENTIAL TERRORIST ASSOCIATED INSIDER THREATS TO THE ARMY.
All caps in the original. And no, it's not from Dave Letterman. It's from the Army. But everyone - military and civilian - should be aware of these subtle indicators that someone might be a terrorist.
And it's hard to pick a favorite, but I like "PURCHASING BOMB MAKING MATERIALS OR OBTAINING INFORMATION ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTION OF EXPLOSIVES." That seems like a very good indicator for people to be aware of. I'd never have thought twice about it if one of my people had done it, but now that you mention it, it does seem a bit suspicious.
TEN KEY INDICATORS OF POTENTIAL TERRORIST ASSOCIATED INSIDER THREATS TO THE ARMY.
1.(U) ADVOCATING VIOLENCE, THE THREAT OF VIOLENCE, OR THE USE OF FORCE TO ACHIEVE GOALS THAT ARE POLITICAL, RELIGIOUS, OR IDEOLOGICAL IN NATURE
2.(U) ADVOCATING SUPPORT FOR INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS OR OBJECTIVES.
3.(U) PROVIDING FINANCIAL OR OTHER MATERIAL SUPPORT TO A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION OR TO SOMEONE SUSPECTED OF BEING A TERRORIST.
4.(U) ASSOCIATION WITH OR CONNECTIONS TO KNOWN OR SUSPECTED TERRORISTS.
5.(U) REPEATED EXPRESSIONS OF HATRED AND INTOLERANCE OF AMERICAN SOCIETY, CULTURE, GOVERNMENT, OR THE PRINCIPLES OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
6.(U) REPEATED BROWSING OR VISITING INTERNET WEBSITES THAT PROMOTE OR ADVOCATE VIOLENCE DIRECTED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OR U.S. FORCES, OR THAT PROMOTE INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM OR TERRORIST THEMES WITHOUT OFFICIAL SANCTION IN THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTY.
7.(U) EXPRESSING AN OBLIGATION TO ENGAGE IN VIOLENCE IN SUPPORT OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM OR INCITING OTHERS TO DO THE SAME.
8.(U) PURCHASING BOMB MAKING MATERIALS OR OBTAINING INFORMATION ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTION OF EXPLOSIVES.
9.(U) ACTIVE ATTEMPTS TO ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO VIOLATE LAWS, DISOBEY LAWFUL ORDERS OR REGULATIONS, OR DISRUPT MILITARY ACTIVITIES.
10.(U) FAMILIAL TIES TO KNOWN OR SUSPECTED INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS OR TERRORIST SUPPORTERS.
Breaking: White House Says 'Era of Blank Check' Is Over for Afghan President Karzai
"Breaking" seems to have new meaning these days. Karzai has been the Obama administrations "public enemy number one" from day one, and getting rid of him has been priority one. (For which enough troops and the right strategy can wait.) But if you've been away from the Afghanistan story lately - or relying on newspapers and television for your "news" - this might be a good point to start getting caught up.
, dedicated to all the hard working folks in the leaky Obama White House.
