| 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 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
Is it weird that my old non-anonymous civilian blog got linked today by Hugh Hewitt, Captain's Quarters, Michelle Malkin, PoliPundit, AND FreeRepublic, today?
All for a post over 2 years old. Outstandingly weird.
(I'm not pointing to the particular post, gotta try to keep SOME attempt of anonymity)
Dan of TDAXP has the details on a San Diego court decision to force the city of San Diego to destroy a historic Korean War memorial because it is a cross. Its times like this when I understand why some folks take the issue of judicial activists and federal judges so seriously.
Blogger extraordinaire from Gut Rumbles has lost his battle. May peace find Rob now.
His wit and charm will be missed.
Godspeed, Acidman
In the H&I post today, I discussed the upcoming budget crunches and ways they are going to be met. Mostly by mortgaging the future, and the warriors, to meet them.
Here's a little insider email running around the opinion makers of the retired General Officer corps, from former Army Chief of Staff Gordon Sullivan.
Friends---I have been observing very carefully the ongoing saga regarding the approval of the Supplemental for 2006. What my analysis suggests to me is the signals for the future of our Army are not good. Oh, I know there are many in town who will tell you that it is too soon to tell how things will evolve but I see too many signals to conclude otherwise. Needless to say this bothers me because by any measurement the Army as an institution has accomplished every mission it has been assigned. Furthermore, the leadership has looked to the future in a very enlightened and programmatic way which suggests to me a forward look which is both imaginative and practical. Yet the near future funding profile is beginning to look and smell a lot like what we lived through in the early 90's when Army leaders were forced to dramatically reduce the size of the Army, increase mission responsiveness and attempt to move onto the information age while being told we were in a strategic pause and fiscal resources available to the DOD would be used to fund other programs which I feel are nice to have, but not required. Just my opinion.Think about what our Army leaders and Soldiers have set in motion and are accomplishing:
Posted at 1854Z
The past couple weeks I found myself with a computer but no internet access. Besides watching World Cup on AFN, I passed some time with an old favorite - Civilization II. Best computer strategy game ever. X-Com was a close second.
Many of us who have been in since the "Cold War" remember certain things when we hear the term "Threat" used - I, myself, still see a vast, green clad, red star wearing horde climbing into BMPs and T-72s...
Apprently, a new "Threat" faces us all.
From today's Stand-to:
In dealing with Islamic extremists, the West may be giving them the advantage due to cultural ignorance, maintain Dr. Douglas E. Streusand and Army Lt. Col. Harry D. Tunnell IV. The men work at the National Defense University at Fort Lesley J. McNair in Washington, D.C.
Okay. So, whattaya mean, fellas?
A case in point is the term "jihadist." Many leaders use the term jihadist or jihadi as a synonym for Islamic extremist. Jihad has been commonly adapted in English as meaning "holy war." But to Muslims it means much more. In their article, Steusand and Tunnell said in Arabic - the language of the Koran - jihad "literally means striving and generally occurs as part of the expression 'jihad fi sabil illah,' striving in the path of God."This is a good thing for all Muslims. "Calling our enemies jihadis and their movement a global jihad thus indicates that we recognize their doctrines and actions as being in the path of God and, for Muslims, legitimate," they wrote. By countering jihadis, the West and moderate Muslims are enemies of true Islam.
The men asked Muslim scholars what the correct term for Islamic extremists would be and they came up with "hirabah." This word specifically refers to those engaged in sinful warfare, warfare contrary to Islamic law. "We should describe the Islamic totalitarian movement as the global hirabah, not the global jihad," they wrote.
jihadist Hirabah.
Another word constantly misused in the West is mujahdeen. Again, in American dictionaries this word refers to a holy warrior - again a good thing. So calling an al Qaeda terrorist a mujahid legitimizes him.The correct term for these killers is "mufsidun," Streusand and Tunnell say. This refers to an evil or corrupt person. "There is no moral ambiguity and the specific denotation of corruption carries enormous weight in most of the Islamic world," they wrote.
mujahideen mufsidun. Okay.
I'll be implementing this at Castle Argghhh! (to include, over time, editing the archives).
Sonny of FX-Based , an Air Force blogger, has a series of posts up in response to Ralph Peters' criticism of EBO. They can be found here , here and here.
As with all good debates, others stepped in and some counterpoints with regards to EBO were made by Kingdaddy at Arms and Influence.
There's nothing like a good, spirited debate, and Ralph Peters (hate him or love him, or somewhere in between) specializes (gleefully I think) in provoking them in public apperances, lengthy essays and even short NY Post columns.
I don't want to rain on anyones parade but -
DOD Directive 1344.10 Enclosure E-3
E3.3. EXAMPLES OF PROHIBITED POLITICAL ACTIVITIESIn accordance with the statutory restrictions in 10 U.S.C. 973(b) (reference (b)) and references (g) and (h), and the policies established in section 4., above, of this Directive, a member on active duty shall not:
E3.3.6. Allow or cause to be published partisan political articles signed or written by the member that solicits votes for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.
Working well within the boundries reviewed by ArmyLawyer, it is all rather simple. In a Representative Republic, if you like someone you support their campaign.
If you do not, you support their opponent. Did you know Rep. Murtha has one? Her name is Diana Irey.
Cross posted at CDR Salamander.
Well, it's an election year, and as both of my readers are presumably politically (and militarily) inclined, I, as a truly minor service, figured I'd lay out some of the rules regarding political activity that govern the military.
Peters has effective company with Dr. Milan Vego, who takes EBO and tears a giant gaping hole in it (pdf) for the current Joint Forces Quarterly. Vego is pretty clear about when the EBO idea has value as he sees it, and then lobs ordnance for many pages.