Friendly Fire.

Sheesh - the Navy is so busy feeding on itself that I can't get a good Army fight going at my place. I hadda import a Canadian and a Marine to get anything started..

Sgt. Dan is HOME from Iraq!!!

Welcome Home, Sgt. Dan! I'll bet you're glad to leave that tank behind!

Stop on by Military Mom's site and leave a welcome home greeting for Sgt. Dan!!!

Honey, someone from the FBI is here to see to you...

Combine the power of the internet, war, and less slack for phonies - and at last the Federal Government (really good men in the Gov'munt) are going after the Poseur Wannabees.

Retired Marine Corps master sergeant Fred Montney III and others turned to admire Gerard Smigel, 52, in his dress blue uniform and wearing the rank of lieutenant Colonel. "He was in his element. He enjoyed it," says Montney, who sat at Smigel's table.

As the night wore on, Montney noticed little flaws. Smigel would excuse himself to go to the "latrine." Marines call it the "head." Smigel wore one award, a Combat Action Ribbon, upside down. "When I asked him questions, he would get somewhat fuzzy" about details, Montney recalls. He snapped a photo of Smigel, smiling next to his wife, and later called the FBI.

Smigel pleaded guilty this month in federal court to illegally wearing the uniform and medals. He was sentenced to three years of probation and fined $3,000.
...
The FBI has investigated 58 cases of people allegedly wearing fraudulent military decorations since 2001. Assisted by military researchers and the Internet — where hoaxes can be quickly tracked and exposed — the FBI could end up investigating more cases of medal fraud this year than in any other previous year, Cottone says. He says he gets one tip a week.

"I call them gutless creeps," Montney says of frauds

Neither Sympathy Nor Quarter

Two must reads at NRO:

Hue Again (and Again), by James S. Robbins. Excerpt:

By rights these incidents should demonstrate that we are better than our enemies. We are civilized, they are barbarians. What we are fighting for is objectively superior to what they are fighting for. Our struggle is legitimate, theirs is not. There is no room for moral relativism in this war. Certainly those who view torture and beheading as acts of piety have no problem seeing it as a black and white conflict. And when faced with extremism of this sort, we should take it at face value.

Those who say that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter should be asked how they define freedom. Those who compare terrorist or guerrilla leaders to George Washington or other Founding Fathers should explain when it was exactly that they ordered the killing of innocents as a method, or even as a matter of expediency. And especially when they ever sought to invoke God’s approval for inflicting agonizing deaths on helpless captives.

So exactly how are Islamic terrorists faring on Geneva’s “Do unto others” scorecard?

Well, the treaty’s provisions call for protecting civilians and civilian infrastructure. Al Qaeda targets civilians for mass murder and intentionally destroys civilian infrastructure.

The provisions call for membership in a regular military force which carries its arms openly. Al Qaeda’s idea of a weapon in open view is a hijacked jumbo jet in the seconds before it crashes into a building. Otherwise, it favors roadside bombs or high explosives concealed in vans burrowed in underground garages beneath bustling civilian skyscrapers.

The provisions call for wearing uniforms in order to distinguish members as authentic soldiers. Al Qaeda’s jihadists dress and conduct themselves ostensibly as civilians — the better to hide from real armies and lull actual civilians to their deaths.

The provisions call for treating captured enemy soldiers with the dignity and respect accorded to honorable prisoners of war: accounting for them, keeping them safe, allowing the International Committee of the Red Cross access to ensure their proper treatment.

Al Qaeda tortures and slaughters them.

Moral equivalency is as oxymoronic a term as I can identify. It would be bad enough if critics who think this way actually tried to perform two way comparisons, suggesting “AQ did this because the US did this, the US did this because AQ did that.”

But they don’t even try to do so, because they are all about the US being bad and wrong, and our enemies being poor unfortunates who can’t help themselves in reacting the way they do. Rather than evil men who are lower than scum, who deserve neither sympathy nor quarter.

(Cross-posted at Dadmanly)

Lex Joins In

Sir--

Weren't you earlier sighing heavily at the intraservice rivalries?

Heh, I say.

re: Perfect Vision Helps & Hurts The Navy

I dunno: Finish four years at the pressure cooker on the Severn, only to head down to another year and a half’s skull-packing at Nuc Power School, only to join a group that not only gleefully feasts on their young but requires the almost monastic devotion - strike that, monks aren’t quite so devoted - of a two-year CHENG tour as a prerequisite to wearing the command pin that more and more seems to be attached with explosive bolts, or…

Or dance “the skies on laughter-silvered wings.”

Which of these things?

Robust Endorsements

The Associated Press today notes the “robust endorsement from European leaders for his tough approach to nuclear standoffs with Iran and North Korea.” Tough talk and intimations of touch action to follow from the US towards Iran and North Korea, and the Europeans are on board. That’s of interest.

Look, the Europeans -- even the French – have been comparatively rock steady when it comes to Iran seeking to enter nuclear puberty, if they have been somewhat less the worried adult when it comes to North Korea. Still, like the Democrats here in the US, European Leaders continue to watch polls for guidance on how their foreign policy stands will play with their publics. I don’t have any empirical evidence, but merely suggest by way of hypothesis that these “robust endorsements” of our European partners seems a bit 11th hour posturing. And I wouldn’t think there’s much evidence to suggest that they do so to curry favor with the US.

The political situation in the US is symptomatic of somewhat different forces, where a predilection towards avoiding difficult decisions, and knee-jerk turns toward appeasement generate diverse political responses. What goes around, though, comes around, and it will be fascinating to watch the Democrats as we spin around to the beginning of our National Security dance, this time with Iran and North Korea.

(Funny that we are seeing a heating up of rhetoric and urgency –on both sides of the political divide – over the latter two legs of the supposedly mythic Axis of Evil. You’d think President Bush might have been prognostic of something when he coined the phrase for our most worrisome threats in his 2002 State of the Union Address to the Nation.)

As we walk down this road all over again, and the politics, foreign and domestic, runs its course, I can’t help but wonder.

Will the President’s political opponents say he lied about the threat? Will they say he exaggerated the threat? Will they say he acted unilaterally, without world consensus or support of a meaningful or real coalition?

Will they say they were misled into voting to approve tough action?

More commentary back at home.

Murtha@Home in the District.

Here's some troops who may not be voting for Diana Irey.

And a few who will.

Perfect Vision Helps & Hurts The Navy

I'm not a submariner nor a pilot... certainly not an Academy graduate... but this piece about the unforseen "manning" effects of Academy grads getting PRK vision improvement surgery was rather interesting.

Expanding the pool of potential pilots and members in the Navy Seals was the original goal of making the surgery available, Commander Pasternak said, but it has become increasingly popular with marines, who say it eliminates concerns that their glasses will be damaged or clouded in dust storms during combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"We get at least five times as many requests every year as we can keep up with," said Commander Pasternak, a 1984 Naval Academy graduate who said he nearly left the academy after learning his eyes were not good enough to allow him into flight training.

The growing number of aspiring pilots has also made it harder to find candidates to become "back-seaters," officers who serve as navigators and weapons officers on planes, Navy officials say.

The failure to produce enough submarine officers, though, is the source of greatest worry to academy officials and the Navy as a whole. This year the academy's quota was 120, but only 88 midshipmen chose to go into submarines, according to academy records.

Operation Together Forward

via Defenselink

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's security crackdown is having its effect. Attacks within Baghdad have fallen to levels not seen since February, Caldwell said.

The Art. 32 is over beginning. (That's a military Grand Jury)

And the "Camp Pendleton 8" will get their day in court.

Hopefully the Trial by Courts Martial will go better than the Trial by Media has.

Update: D-oh! Commenter Craig is correct. The Art. 32 has begun - so there is still room for a Pantano result.

As for my sloppy reading skillz, no excuse, sir.

Re: The Lady And The Dalai Lama

Thanks for pointing that out Grim.
The intimidation and disinformation campaign waged against the Dalai Lama by the Chinese government is embarassing but tragically effective.
Not that its that difficult to browbeat the South Korean leadership into silencing the voices of oppressed in Asia.... not only do they have an abysmal record on both the Dalai Lama and Burma, President Roh of South Korea is North Korea's best ally in pushing the plight of millions of starving, oppressed North Koreans further into the shadows.

Here's a great way to embarass him into action:
Got A Camera, A Piece Of Paper & 30 Seconds?

What a single comment can do.

After reading this comment yesterday, I had to take a several hour break from the blogs. "Rusty" was chiding a commenter upthread that was engaging in a bit of moral gymnastics.

The last part of the comment really hit home:

You have no idea who those boys were. You have no idea what their motivation was for joining the military. Every man and woman over there knows what the dangers are. They know what they risk everyday. Their deaths don’t belong to you. By claiming moral outrage at their sacrifice you trivialize the lives they lived, the honor that they bought themselves. You sacrifice nothing.

Their service to their country is over. They belong to their families now.

A Solitary Birthday For The "Lady"

Real heroes are far and few in the realm of politics, especially in the modern era.

Aung San Suu Kyi is without a doubt the most prominent of them. She is under house arrest, suffering quietly the indignity of being a democratically elected leader whose supporters were massacred before her own eyes by the ruthless and paranoid military junta that continues to ruin Burma to this day.

She turned 61 yesterday, and I just wanted to point out that America has admirably done a great deal diplomatically to bring relief to the oppressed in Burma. We can do more, primarily in getting Asian powers like India & China to be more active about the issue, but this is more about our State Dept. adjusting to a multipolar world than anything else.

Burma deserves its moment in the sun though, and I want to offer one tidbit from months of deep thought and study of the situation there: Burma could well be the best opportunity for the US to improve Asian security by fostering a cooperative peacekeeping/peacemaking effort led by the US & China, with a serious infusion of talent and manpower from India, Japan, South Korea, Thailand and other nations in the region. The situation in Burma could become so chaotic and desperate in the near future that such an intervention could become more than just mere fantasy but an ad hoc reality. We shouldn't shy away from that challenge but instead should embrace the opportunity it offers.

Re: The "Lady"

Happy birthday to Aung San Suu Kyi, who does indeed deserve recognition and a return to liberty.

She is not forgotten, however -- unlike another Nobel Peace laureate, whom his fellows are doing their very best to forget.

These Nobel Prize winners have always got one thing or another to say against the US, but if you want to intimidate a whole conclave of Nobel Peace Prize winners into silence, ask them to say anything at all about the Dalai Lama.

China is not as forgiving as we are.

A military spouse responds to Lieutenant Watada

1LT Watada,

I read your letter in the Honolulu Advertiser and, as a military spouse whose husband is set to deploy in the next few weeks to do the job you so conveniently have chosen not to do, I feel it is my duty to point out a few discrepancies in your arguments. I would not want you to go to trial with such a lacking defense. You might find yourself with a one way ticket to uptown Fort Leavenworth and that would be unfortunate.

Your assertion that your responsibility is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States is correct. However, you cannot pick and choose what articles or amendments you wish to protect and defend. You must protect and defend all of them. And that includes Article I, Section 8 which states that Congress has the power “To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;” At this point in time, United States forces are currently in Iraq according to the mandate set by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1637 which was passed unanimously and considered at the request of the Iraqi government. Our troops are in Iraq in full compliance with both international and domestic law.

As an officer in the United States military, you do not have the authority to decide what is legal and what is illegal. And your DUTY, with regard to unlawful or illegal actions or orders is to report up your chain of command or to JAG. Have you done either, sir? Last I checked the media is not in your chain of command. Last I checked the media is not the entity that will decide what is lawful and what is not. Your DUTY was to take your concerns to your chain of command or the JAG. To do otherwise is to shirk your responsibility as an officer of the United States military.

You argue that the war in Iraq is “unlawful and immoral” and that there was “never any just cause”. I beg to differ Lieutenant. If you will refer to the Coalition Provisional Authority’s webpage which discusses UNSC Resolution 1546 (http://www.cpa-iraq.org/transcripts/20040609_UNSCR_Text.html) you will read “Following is the text of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546, adopted unanimously June 8, which endorses the new interim government of Iraq, allows the multinational force to provide security in partnership with the new government, sets out a leading role for the U.N. in helping the political process over the next year, and calls upon the international community to aid Iraq in its transition:

Recognizing the request conveyed in the letter of 5 June 2004 from the Prime Minister of the Interim Government of Iraq to the President of the Council, which is annexed to this resolution, to retain the presence of the multinational force,

Recognizing also the importance of the consent of the sovereign Government of Iraq for the presence of the multinational force and of close coordination between the multinational force and that government,

Welcoming the willingness of the multinational force to continue efforts to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq in support of the political transition, especially for upcoming elections, and to provide security for the United Nations presence in Iraq, as described in the letter of 5 June 2004 from the United States Secretary of State to the President of the Council, which is annexed to this resolution,

In addition, our current presence in Iraq is legal in international terms based solely on Saddam Hussein’s failure to comply with the armistice agreements made following Desert Storm back in 1991 and his repeated and continued violation of FOURTEEN separate UN resolutions over a twelve year period. Never any “just cause”? I don’t think so.

Whatever your argument against our mission in Iraq and its legality, those statements should smooth your moral fiber and allow you to return to work immediately. Otherwise, what you are doing is illegal and my hope is that, while my husband does the duty he was sworn to uphold and that you are refusing to do, you will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Sincerely,
HomefrontSix

Word.

Re: Snerk

Just to be the know-it-all jerk here: that looks like an Aries target missile fired from the Pacific Missile Range Facility.

The give away isn't the missile, it's the terrain. Only other place that launches sorties resembling that bird is Vandenberg AFB in California.

Vberg launches the Minuteman III, Hawaii launches the Aries.

But Vandenberg has a rockier coastline than what the Reuters photo is showing.

I can tell you all about it, seeing that I damn near cracked my head surfing there recently. Air power!

Will Iraq Soon Ask Americans to Leave?

Richard Armitage thinks so.

THE level of violence in some areas of Iraq is worsening dramatically and US forces may soon be asked to leave by the Iraqi Government.

In an exclusive interview with The Australian, former US deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage has given a gloomy assessment of the situation.

"The British used to make a big deal of walking around in their berets in the south," he said. "Now they won't even go to the latrines without their helmets. The south has got much rougher, it's mainly Shia on Shia violence."

Mr Armitage said much of the violence came from differences over how the Islamic religion should be interpreted.

And he said he believed the Iraqis would soon ask the US to leave their country.

DoD Announces Units for Next Operation Iraqi Freedom Rotation

The Department of Defense announced today additional major units scheduled to deploy as part of the next Operation Iraqi Freedom rotation. This announcement involves several combat brigades and headquarters elements consisting of approximately 21,000 service members. This is a follow-on announcement to the Nov. 7, 2005, press release identifying eight other headquarters, combat and combat support units for deployment. The scheduled rotation for the forces identified in this announcement will begin in late-2006.

Force levels in Iraq continue to be conditions-based and will be determined in consultation with the Iraqi government. Deployment decisions are made by the secretary of defense at the recommendation of military commanders in Iraq. Based on ongoing assessments of the conditions on the ground, changes may be made that could affect units now being identified and advised to prepare to deploy.

This rotation continues the U.S. commitment to Operation Iraqi Freedom, yet is flexible and adaptable in order to meet the evolving requirements for the mission in Iraq.

For Operation Iraqi Freedom, the major units announced today include:

III Corps Headquarters, Fort Hood, Texas
II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C.
1st Cavalry Division Headquarters, Fort Hood, Texas
2nd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas
3rd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas
4th Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, Fort Richardson, Alaska
2nd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colo.

The individual services will announce the smaller, supporting units for this rotation.

In consultation with the Iraqi Government, commanders continue to assess the situation to ensure sufficient forces levels to best support the Iraqi government. The U.S. force rotations may be tailored based upon changes in the security situation. Iraqi security forces continue to develop capability and assume responsibility for security in Iraq.

DoD will continue to announce major unit deployments as they are identified and those units are alerted.