S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
1 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
|---|
| Monthly Archives | [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1) the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2) in the public domain, with free use granted for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email.
Original content copyright © 2006 - 2008 by the respective authors. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed.
Site contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com
Eddie, you've not convinced me with that quote, from that guy.
I'd worry about both threat inflation and threat deflation. The risk of the former is wasting resources; the risk of the latter is rather different, eh?
Dave Letterman used to do a bit called "Is This Anything"? (Maybe still does, I don't know.) If you ever saw it you know what I mean.
Anyhow, is this anything?
LOS ANGELES -- Two more members of a California family have been indicted in connection with an investigation into an attempt to send sensitive information about Navy warship technology to China.Just asking, because I sure hadn't heard much about it.Wednesday's indictment by a grand jury in Santa Ana brought to five the members of a Chinese American family charged with being Chinese agents, the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles said.
Chi Mak, 65, an engineer at a Navy defense contractor; his wife; and his brother were indicted in November. Mak's sister-in-law Fuk Heung Li and his nephew Billy Yui Mak, 26, were indicted Wednesday.
None of the five has been charged with espionage because the material was not formally classified.
Has anyone else been following the coverage at Sweetness and Light?
There's nothing there that directly refutes the Time Magazine accounts of what happened, but a lot of Time's background on the central figures in the story has been proven false. They've issued several corrections. (But it looks like the "young journalism student" bit may stay an official urban legend forever.)
Sweetness and Light has been all over it - there are several related posts linked from this one.
Specialist Izzy Flores and Sergeant Daniel Mootoosamy.
After all the heavy Macro issues this week; Haditha, Dead-Z, et al --- how about a break for everyone's favorite decades-long unsolved argument?
Yes, I am going to bring it up. Hey, its Friday and traffic is going to be slow from here on out the next 48 hrs anyway.
a Special Forces raid in Ramadi in response to the bombing of the U.N. Headquarters in Baghdad back in August 2003. According to a soldier who was there, during a fierce exchange of gunfire, one insurgent was hit seven, count 'em, seven times in the torso by the 5.56, only to be brought down by a single shot to the head from a .45 caliber pistol. But before the insurgent died, he killed two U.S. soldiers and wounded seven.Rinse, repeat.
Skipping to the end of the story:
Q General Caldwell, Barbara Starr from CNN.I think they're just trying to make us feel even better about the whole thing.Can you give us the definitive word now -- do you have any information that Zarqawi initially survived the air strike, that he was alive at any point in the hands of either Iraqi or U.S. forces?
GEN. CALDWELL: Barbara, what I can tell you is that, again, from the debriefs this morning, which gave us greater clarity than what we had before, is Zarqawi in fact did survive the airstrike. The report specifically states that nobody else did survive, though, from what they know.
The first people on the scene were the Iraqi police. They had found him and put him into some kind of gurney stretcher kind of thing, and then American -- coalition forces arrived immediately thereafter on site. They immediately went to the person in the stretcher, were able to start to identify him by some distinguishing marks on his body. They had some kind of visual facial recognition.
According to the person on the ground, Zarqawi attempted to sort of turn away off the stretcher. They -- everybody resecured him back onto the stretcher, but he died almost immediately thereafter from the wounds he had received from the airstrike. As far as anybody else, again, the report says nobody else survived.
Q To clarify, then, you can confirm that U.S. troops themselves saw and can confirm to you that Zarqawi was alive. That is confirmed by U.S. troops on the ground. And his attempt to turn away, would you describe that as an attempt, even in the state he was in, to escape at that point? Why did you have -- was he strong enough for anyone to have to resecure him?
GEN. CALDWELL: Again, I'm reading the report. I did not talk specifically to any uniformed person, but according to the report, we did, in fact, see him alive. There was some kind of movement he had on the stretcher, and he died shortly thereafter. But yes, it was confirmed by other than the Iraqi police that he was alive initially.
Apparently the initial "body" count may have overestimated the number killed - not an unexpected error given the 2X500lb tickets to paradise.
See kiddies? This is why it's important to finish high school:
Ahmad al-Khalailah’s childhood was characterised by fighting constantly with other boys and he left school at about 16 without obtaining a certificate of secondary education. There followed a series of short-term menial jobs and petty crimes that allowed him to drink heavily and aspire to a life in the West. According to official records in Jordan, he spent some time in prison “for sexual offences”.
...or you too, can grow up like Zarqawi.
Of course - perhaps Representative Murtha is right, CPT B, and it was a ground explosion. All part of an elaborate scheme laid out here.
Update: It appears that the Zark-man ain't getting his ashes hauled quite as he expected in Paradise. He briefs his AAR at Iowahawk.
A good case study is the 2002 West Coast Port Strike. I recall standing on the shore at Coronado and seeing Ro/Ros lined up, waiting for clearance to enter the harbor. But it wasn't as devastating as many economists had warned -- some alarmists were predicting it would cost the economy $1-2 billion per day.
The impact of a terrorist attack would depend on the damage to the port. A nuclear detonation, certainly, would close a port for years. But anything less would probably only impact a small area of a port, for a much shorter period of time. A "dirty bomb" would probably only shut down a handful of piers for an extended period. Chemical, biological, or conventional attacks would have an impact measured in days or hours. And even after a nuclear explosion, ships can be diverted to other ports in the region.
The most effective attack would attempt to take out several facilities at once, most likely targeting a single genre of cargo (i.e. Roll On/Roll Off, bulk cargo, liquid cargo, container facilities). But ports are vast complexes, so acheiving such a widespread effect would require careful planning and coordination, not to mention the difficulty of acquiring and transporting the weapons themselves.
Bill Lind offers sage advice that will likely be tragically ignored,
but first a dose of reality the pork-laden defense complex would like everyone to ignore:
In fact, China’s conventional forces are a long way from being able to take the United States on, especially at sea or in the air. The issue is less equipment—not that China has much of it—but personnel. Chinese ships spend little time at sea, its fighter pilots get few flight hours, and one can hardly speak of a Chinese “navy”: it’s really just a collection of ships. In a naval and air war with the United States, China would have little choice but to go nuclear from the outset, which is what I suspect it would do.
And the advice politicians who are obsessed with appearing "strong" on national security will ignore, as well as the uniformed types who want to justify big purchases for equipment that won't do much for the "long war" or its eternal sequel, the "struggle to address instability":
In a 21st century where the most important division will be between centers of order and centers or sources of disorder, it is vital to American interests that China remain a center of order. America needs to handle a rising China the way Britain handled a rising America, not a rising Germany.
Interesting report from a U.S. Naval Institute-sponsored conference in New York here. Not worried about ports? Here's some cheery analysis:
Stephen M. Carmel, Senior Vice President of Maersk Line, Limited (the world’s leading container-ship line), described in chilling detail the domino effect from ports being closed. Because the global trade transportation system is so complexly networked and so tightly scheduled, the forced closure of even a few major ports as a response to terrorism would cause the entire international network to choke. Billions of dollars would be lost. Within days, whole regions would be deprived of oil and natural gas. Jobs would be lost. Store shelves would be emptied. The veneer of civilization would begin to crack along with the infrastructure.You know:
Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.Except, unlike Ghostbusters, it could happen...
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath-of-God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling.
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria.
Did we overlook any major stories?
Ahhh...I'd say the results of the 17 simultaneous raids that occurred Wednesday Night and the 39 Raids that Occurred Thursday night will be big stories.
Maj Gen Caldwell Briefing Transcript
GEN. CALDWELL: Yeah, the 17 raids -- there was obviously more operations that occurred in and around Iraq yesterday than just -- or the day before -- than the 17. Those were 17 focused ones that were directly related to the intense intelligence effort that had been going on in tracking Zarqawi. There are certain personnel that we have been watching, that we have been monitoring, that the coalition forces had made the decision not to take down at that time because they were giving us key indicators at different points in time as to where Zarqawi might be. So they were just monitored, watched and tracked. But once Zarqawi went down, then that enabled us to go in and conduct those operations, the 17 focused operations directly related to targeting Zarqawi. I mean, if that helps them in painting that picture there -- Q Al-Masri -- what more can you tell us about him? And is he one of the 25 you detained? GEN. CALDWELL: No. Unfortunately, he's not one of the ones we picked up.
Should I have one or something? I'm feeling the peer pressure here..... Greyhawk, Blackfive, SMASH, CDR Salamander, Chap, Lex, etc etc etc.
Maybe I should pull a John Donovan and do a John of Op For, har.
I made a half-assed attempt at anonymity when we switched from Officers' Club to Op For, posting under "John." But after we exported all the Officers' Club archives, blogger wouldn't allow me to go back and change my blog profile from "John Noonan" to "John."
I think, after posting at Newsbusters, Defense Tech, and here as "John Noonan," I give up. I never really write anything that would get me in trouble with the grand wizards at the Pentagon anyway.
Are there any other active duty milbloggers who do the deed openly?
Patti Bader sent out the alarm yesterday:WE ARE BEHIND 11 LAPTOPS. NEED MONEY. PLEASE, PLEASE HELP. I cannot fail heroes. I just cannot.So, let’s make sure Soldiers’ Angels and Valour-IT don’t fail them. Eleven recipients waiting means we need at least $7,000. We raised an average of $10,000 a day last November, so this should be a cinch. How about a blog swarm on Monday? Email me for details. I have samples of some of the people waiting for laptops. We’ve just finished updating the official website and the project blog (check them out!), so this is a perfect time to stir things up again.
Pony up, guys and gals - I think a blogburst would be appropriate.
Update - Yahoo-befarkled links are fixed.
Looks like someone knocked some sense into certain Senators' heads:
House and Senate negotiators reached agreement last night on a $94.5 billion package to pay for Iraq war and hurricane recovery costs, after shaving numerous extraneous provisions that the Senate had wanted to stuff into the bill.Some additional details here, and a look at a few examples of "what's in it for us" in the extended section.
...it's time for the Three Envelopes joke for Commanders.
Greyhawk:
It's one of those weeks where I have to ask: did I overlook any major stories from the war on terror?
Yes:
You missed the return of Operation THANK YOU to MCAS Miramar!
OK, maybe it's only a "major story" if you happen to live in San Diego...
Los Angeles Times headline over AP story: Bin Laden Far More Difficult To Find Than Zarqawi, Officials Say
Glad they could clear that up.
First division-level handover of territory to Iraqi troops in Anbar, Zarqawi meets his maker, Ministers of Defense and Interior named, An Islamic terror group busted up in Canada, and an Islamic terror group busted up in Britain.
It's one of those weeks where I have to ask: did I overlook any major stories from the war on terror?
Jonathan Gurwitz ponders the terrible rationale that makes people give mass murderers the benefit of the doubt, but not the US military:
Yes, truth is generally more complicated than idealized fiction. But here's a simple truth: if Americans are responsible for war crimes in Haditha, the U.S. military will prosecute and punish them long before any semblance of justice is meted out from the tribunals for Rwanda, the Balkans, Sudan and Iraq, which have already plodded along for years. What must America's enemies think when members of the American political and intellectual classes find ways to mitigate the responsibility of the butchers of Darfur while condemning the men of Kilo Company for murder in Haditha? Americans have a special obligation to know about and condemn the moral failures of their countrymen -- we are our own moral arbiters first. The practice of self-criticism above self-interest, the search for truth over fanaticism and the pursuit of justice over partiality distinguish a tolerant, democratic society. But surely there is also an obligation to put that self criticism in context, to grant members of the American military the same presumption of innocence afforded petty thieves, to recognize the complexities of a conflict with a relentless and remorseless enemy, and to provide some perspective to the very broad scale of human savagery in Iraq and around the globe.
Jules Crittenden in the Boston Herald:
Sometimes, you just have to stop and smell the roses. We’re in the middle of a very long war. Savor the moment: In this case, it’s that warm, fuzzy feeling you get when you learn that a cold-hearted, murderous thug has been blown to hell.
Mrs G has gathered a comprehensive collection of responses to Zarqawi's exit, stage left, in today's Dawn Patrol. Iraqi bloggers, MilBloggers in Iraq , other blogs, and of course, the media coverage too.
For the record,
There's a diverse group of authors here - and a disclaimer in the right side bar. I speak only for myself, and absence of endorsement or condemnation of anything I say by others here should not be construed as endorsement or condemnation of what I say by those who so decline to comment. Ditto my thoughts in relation to anything any other author contributes.
Some contributors here are active duty military (who actually have more self-imposed restrictions on giving their personal opinion than government-imposed) others are veterans, spouses, and other family members with nearly unlimited ability to speak out as they see fit.
That said, since we all have our own web sites elsewhere, those locations are probably the best spot for any campaigning on behalf of specific candidates. Please consider that a courtesy to the active duty folks who are perhaps forced into silence by certain posts that could appear here otherwise. This is a "gray area" - use your best judgment.
Issues, for instance, are impossible to avoid. State your opinion on anything and somebody somewhere is going to accuse you of mindless support of whatever political party most closely shares that same opinion. In most cases I believe that reflects their obsession with party uber allles rather than yours. Call 'em like you see 'em.
I won't hesitate to publicly state my personal opinion as a private citizen on topics that matter to me. If congressman "X" from State "Y" says she's going to sponsor a Bill requiring euthanization of all ugly puppies in America and 75 pounds more body armor for each troop in Iraq I'll probably state my personal opposition to it, and may even question the wisdom and/or motivation of those who support it - for either clause. I may or may not put my opinion in writing right here.
But as far as voting in local elections, nunamy bidness. Besides, no matter how low the public opinion of "Congress", and regardless of the wisdom of pundits everywhere, the actual local representative will be re-elected or not based on the pocketbooks of the voters, along with a sprinkling of issues with which I'm to varying degrees unfamiliar and unconcerned. In strong economic times it's virtually impossible to unseat a non-criminal incumbent, and often impossible to unseat the criminal ones. "Gerrymandering" by whichever Party controls the borders is designed to make some of the other Party's candidates unbeatable too. Those are usually the ones most vocal in upholding the anti-otherguys position anyway.
In light of all that, I'll close with the graphic I added to virtually every post I made in October and November 2004:
Wynton, you've just proved that some people cannot be parodied...
Murtha went on CNN and didn't even repeat the paltry plaudits in his 72 word press release.
Watch it for yourself.
Unreal, this guy.
Steve, you're putting me in a bind here.
No matter how good, or how bad, I'm not participating in an election effort. I need to be clear: I'm not endorsing anybody, or anybody's opponent. I don't desire to, while on active duty, actively support any candidate in any way that can be linked to my service. The other active milbloggers likely will feel the same way.
Salamander mentioned something about this earlier this week. We need to walk the talk.
Say, did anyone happen to catch John Murtha on Hardball with Chris Matthews tonight cheering on the brave and brilliant elimination of al-Zarqawi?
No? Me either.
The least he could have done was pretend to be proud of our Armed Forces and the stellar execution of the mission. I know the guy no longer cares about winning elections (or wars), but talk about bad politics!
No, instead, our feckless leader filed the obligatory DC "press release." Yet even that was a joke. Seventy-two words--that's it. In fact, this blog posting is already longer than the statement Murtha issued on this pivotal day.
Quoth Murtha:
Congressman John Murtha of Pennsylvania today issued the following statement regarding the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi:
“My compliments to General Casey and the troops involved in eliminating Al-Zarqawi. This obviously will have a significant impact in reducing the amount of violence in Iraq."The significance of this event is also in bringing in Iraqi intelligence to coordinate the effort with U.S. forces.
“With the appointment of Defense and Interior Ministers, we should be able to substantially reduce our presence in Iraq and redeploy our military outside of Iraq.”
Well, friends, there you have it. A chance to smear our Armed Forces sends Murtha racing to the nearest camera to breathlessly castigate the troops and feed the Al-Jazeera propaganda mill. But achieve an undeniable victory in the GWOT: 72 begrudging words.
Shameful. Truly shameful.
Site design and management: Mrs Greyhawk
Original content copyright © 2006 - 2008 by the respective authors
