Questions have been raised...

[Greyhawk]

...he said, in passive voice.

Via comments on Smash's post:

Check out the post at Red State. He did some homework on the positions of the players...seems the RHIB was at least 4 miles from home plate (YIKES!) (oh, still in 50' with a 28' draft...)

Posted by xformed at 2214Z

A comment there seems worthwhile, too:

...even if they couldn't fire unless fired upon, a warship is d***ed intimidating and a dash towards the site would have seemed in order. I'm sure there might be some recommended rule about minimum depth, but that Captain had a boarding party in danger. If the thing draws 25 feet, you take it to 26, maybe less.

I plead ignorance - I'm not Navy and I wasn't there.

In Other Training News

[Soldier's Dad]

via Defenselink

Q Thank you, General. The debate back home is about the funding, and there seems to be some discrepancy between when exactly the Congress's failure to fund the war is going to start affecting the troops on the ground.....

GEN. CALDWELL:But I can tell you from over here, it's going to have an immediate impact in the sense that the MNSTC-I element that we have is charged with building, equipping, helping to develop the Iraqi security forces, and that is going to have an impact on them. Now to what degree? You know, we can get into a lot more specifics, but they are already starting to feel the effects of not having this funding.

Someone in Washington needs to get a clue.

Re: Home are the Sailors...

[SMASH]

Now that they're safely home, I have to ask:

The Royal Navy and Marines are not subject to the same Code of Conduct which governs U.S. military personnel who are captured by the enemy. But had they been, how many of the articles would they have violated?

Also, to my knowledge, most U.S. Navy VBSS (Visit, Boarding, Search & Seizure) teams aren't currently required to go through SERE training. In light of recent events, should we revisit this?

U.S. Military Code of Conduct copied in extended entry, for reference.

Training

[Greyhawk]

February

At least 143 soldiers joined Fort Stewart's 1st Brigade too late to participate in a final combat exercise before their units deployed to Iraq.

Last week, one of those soldiers - Pvt. Matthew T. Zeimer, 18 - was the first from the brigade to be killed when he was hit by enemy fire in Ramadi, the stronghold of Iraq's Sunni insurgency.

Zeimer arrived at Fort Stewart on Dec. 18 after basic training and deployed to Iraq just a few weeks later. He missed the brigade's intensive four-week mission rehearsal in October when more than 1,300 trainers and Iraqi role-players came to the post as part of the most realistic training program the Army offers for Iraq operations.

I could explain the difference between missing an exercise and not being trained, but I doubt anyone here needs that. If so, here's James Joyner, who does so quite well.

He concludes with:

Very little public information is available on Private Zeimer’s death, so we have no way of knowing whether additional training would have helped.

He didn't provide the information from this account, which would indicate the answer is probably not:

News from Sadr City

[Greyhawk]

In spite of the location, I suspect the usual suspects in this one:

In a sign of opposition to the sweep, a U.S.-Iraqi security center in Sadr City, a Shiite Muslim stronghold in Baghdad, came under attack by mortars and a suicide car bomb. Two security officers and two civilians were hurt.

The car bomber was halted by blast barriers at the front gate and detonated his payload about 350 yards from the center's main building. A mortar round struck inside the compound about the same time.

The security center, like others around Baghdad, was set up as part of the U.S.-Iraqi crackdown launched Feb. 13 to stem sectarian violence in the capital.

Al Qaeda, most likely. "Sadr's" gang doesn't much go the suicide route. From the AQI perspective, hitting us in Sadr City is a fundamentally sound move with potential to exacerbate mistrust there - especially if amplified with media support. In execution the result was a tactical failure, but media salvage might mean that doesn't matter.

Other Sadr news:

BAGHDAD — Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr on Wednesday fired two senior members of his movement after they met with the top U.S. military officer in Iraq, a lawmaker close to the anti-American cleric said.

Salam al-Maliki and Qusay Abdul-Wahab, members of parliament in al-Sadr's bloc, were having dinner at the home of former Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari on Monday when Gen. David Petraeus, arrived, the legislator said on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

Some schisms are better than others.

More incarcerated sailor news

[Greyhawk]

Hassan "the father of jihaad" says: "Not Guilty":

A former Navy sailor pleaded not guilty yesterday to charges that he supported terrorism by disclosing secret information about the location of Navy ships and the best ways to attack them. The sailor, Hassan Abujihaad, 31, of Phoenix, was arraigned in United States District Court in New Haven. He has been held in bail since his arrest last month in Phoenix. His lawyer, Dan LaBelle, filed a motion on Tuesday asking that Mr. Abujihaad be released based on conditions determined at a hearing. Mr. LaBelle has said his client has a job and two small children. A hearing on the request is scheduled for April 11. Mr. Abujihaad, who was employed at a U.P.S. warehouse in Phoenix, is accused in a case that began in Connecticut and followed a suspected terrorist network across the country and into Europe and the Middle East.

(Previous)

RE: Grandma Makes Peace

[Dadmanly]

Several commenters have objected to the “silly” reference I made previously to “Grandma” Pelosi.

Obviously, the reference to Speaker Pelosi as Grandma was sarcasm. But it’s sarcasm with intent, to make a point that should be just as obvious.

Speaker Pelosi and her party genuinely believe that much of the "problems" we experience are directly attributable to the President and his administration, not Global terror networks and their state sponsors.

Speaker Pelosi, who stressed her credentials as a "Grandmother" throughout the 2006 Congressional Campaign, embraced the symbolism in her matronly role by saying that the Government would be given back to our children, and even had dozens of little scamps all over the House the day the new Representatives were sworn in.

Pelosi and her cohorts are convinced that the Bush Administration displays a combative, belligerent, and "cowboy" style in US Foreign Affairs. They have continually made reference to the "cowboy" style of the current Commander in Chief. They are convinced that the "Global War on Terror" is a construction of propaganda. Each major act of war or terror that Iran, Syria, "insurgents" in Iraq perpetrate is excused and justified by an "aggressive" and "offensive" US Foreign Policy, run by Bush and Cheney.

In contrast, Pelosi believes that a gentler Diplomacy is possible with tyrants, dictators, authors of oppression, genocide, ethnic cleansing, and other forms of brutality and crimes against humanity. Speaker Pelosi quite intentionally plays off her grandparent status, presenting herself as the wise (but quite stylish) elder, who can introduce a more sophisticated foreign policy, as imagined by the Democrats.

You don't think Speaker Pelosi wasn't intentionally calling her Grandmother persona to public mind? I can't think of a better depiction of Speaker Pelosi than coifed in her headscarf. How reminiscent of a Babushka or head covering of Slavic grandmothers.

She and her party view terror and national security as amenable to kindness, gentility, politeness and elder wisdom. Those of us who fight the war against terrorists [not to be called a Global War on Terror] know such thinking is not only foolish and juvenile, but dangerous as well.

Sometimes, evil is evil and wrong is wrong. The British Marines, patrolling in Iraqi waters, did not need to apologize for doing their jobs. They did not offend nor did they break any laws or violate any code on conduct in fulfilling a mission, one that started with the removal of a brutal tyrant and sponsor of terror, and continues in securing an Iraqi Democracy. Iran, on the other hand, violated both the letter and the spirit of the Geneva Conventions to which they are a signatory.

Democrats, led by their Grandmother Speaker, think the Bush Administration has worsened national security, exacerbated tensions with tyrants, fueled anti-American sentiment the world over, and created a Global War on Terror that is imagined, with no real enemies, but rather just big misunderstandings, in effect caused by our own aggression. We need to make nice with Iran and Syria, we need to understand them, talk to them, and not let these misunderstandings be misconstrued as acts of war against the Paper Lions. Such, Britain has already become, under Democratic “leadership” we shall soon be too.

So Grandma Pelosi it is. When and if she and her party are willing to join us in this fight against terrorists and their state sponsors [not to be called a Global War on Terror], we can treat her differently, but with no less respect. For what can be more worthy of respect than a Grandparent? If she doesn’t retain absolute moral authority, she must have just about the next best thing.

But still not home...

[Greyhawk]

...and mommy misses him so:

WASHINGTON — The parents of "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh, who is serving a 20-year sentence in the country's toughest federal prison, stepped up their request for his release Wednesday by noting that the first U.S. war crimes tribunal in Guantanamo Bay recently resulted in a sentence of nine months for an Australian detainee held in U.S. custody since late 2001.

"John has been in prison for more than five years," said his mother, Marilyn Walker. "It's time for him to come home."

Lindh's lead lawyer, James J. Brosnahan of San Francisco, called the effort "a simple cry for justice."

Boo effing hoo.

Update: Wasn't sure whether to add this item to this story or the one below, so I flipped a coin:

A gag order imposed by a U.S. military commission preventing confessed Taliban militiaman David Hicks from talking to the media likely can't be enforced once he returns to Australia, the attorney general said.

Hicks, who last week admitted to aiding al-Qaida, will be sent to a prison in his hometown of Adelaide before the end of May to serve a nine-month sentence, under a plea deal agreed at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

One condition of the deal is that he must not speak to the media for a year _ including during the three months after his scheduled release from prison on Dec. 31.

Told by an Australian Broadcasting Corp. television interviewer late Tuesday that the gag order meant nothing and that Hicks would be able to talk to the media, Australia's Attorney General Philip Ruddock replied: "I suspect you're probably right."

I guess we'll be hearing more from him soon, too.

Home are the Sailors...

[Greyhawk]

... home from the sea
according to this tale
from the AP

LONDON — A British navy crew returned home Thursday from Iranian captivity to the relief of a nation, after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced their surprise release and ended the two-week crisis. The 15 sailors and marines broke open champagne and changed into fresh uniforms on the flight home. After landing, they smiled and stood at attention before being whisked by helicopter to the Royal Marines base at Chivenor, southwest of London.

One wonders what stories they might tell...

Update: in earlier news:

BAGHDAD, April 4 — American officials are reviewing an informal request from the Iranian government for an envoy to visit five Iranians who were imprisoned after an American raid in northern Iraq in January, an American military spokesman said Wednesday.

The spokesman, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, said at a news conference that the request was “being assessed at this time.” He added that the Americans had conducted the raid to go after people suspected of carrying out illegal operations in Iraq. The general did not say when the Americans might approve or reject the request.

Dressed for Success

[Greyhawk]

Responses to these two images probably define the fundamental split in America today.

The Experts Have Failed

[Greyhawk]

Looks like the Democrats haven't found any Generals worth listening to lately:

Democratic policymakers searching for a winning argument for why it's time to get out of Iraq have ditched expert advisers - and appealed to the public for help.

Rank-and-file supporters have been asked to explain to the party why the troops should be brought home. And the best grass-roots tacticians could replace politicians as the public face of the Democrats.

"We want people like you to explain why it's time to end the war and bring our people home," party spokeswoman Karen Finney said in a circular sent to members.

Daily Kos readers are no doubt thrilled.

One significant problem the Dems have with experts is their near unanimous view of the hell hole Iraq will become if the US were to withdraw on their timetable, and the implications of that for the region and the rest of the world.

Here's what happened the last time the Democrats tried to consult experts. Fortunately, reporters were able to keep most of this information under wraps, and the "listen to the Generals" lie is still alive and well.

Here's another expert they won't want to hear:

Q: "What would you like to say to those who want American troops to leave Iraq tomorrow?" A: "I can only imagine the tragic consequences that would follow...and the blood... and the price we'd have to pay....a disaster..."

That's via Marc "Armed Liberal" Danziger's Victory PAC. He's looking for military family members and former GIs who'd like to appear in future videos, too. Contact info here.

The Long Shadow of Abu Ghraib

[Greyhawk]

Bing and Owen West write of progress in Anbar (and the Anbar Salvation Council) in the WSJ's online Opinion Journal. Among many positive notes, this caution:

There remain problems that require military solutions, however. Neither the coalition nor the Iraqi government is prepared to imprison the sharp increase in killers like Abu Muslim who are being netted in the surge in Baghdad and the tribal awakening in Anbar. No one wants to take the heat from the mainstream press that would accompany the construction of prisons and the indefinite incarceration of several tens of thousands of insurgents.

In response to the 2003 abuses at Abu Ghraib, the U.S. military and the Iraqi government instituted a catch-and-release system that Sweden would find too liberal. Unlike uniformed prisoners who in past wars were held until the war was over, in Iraq most detainees are released within a few months. To some, this represents a scrupulous adherence to the rule of law, with every insurgent provided the right of habeas corpus.

To the sheiks, it is both naïve and deadly. The Iraqi judicial system in Anbar is nonexistent. Locals are quick to relate stories of killers who returned to murder those who snitched. So it's no surprise that while most insurgents are arrested, some simply disappear.

That's a side note in a larger narrative well worth the reading.

A previous look at the initial impact of the Abu Ghraib story on the larger war and the obvious implications for today's operations here. (With quotes from many, including Bing West.)

Israel Objects

[Soldier's Dad]

via Reuters

WASHINGTON, April 4 (Reuters) - Objections by Israel are delaying Bush administration plans for a major arms sale to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf allies aimed at deterring Iran, The New York Times reported on Wednesday.

Quoting unnamed senior U.S. officials, the Times said on its Web site that Israel was concerned the advanced weapons would erode its military advantage over regional rivals.

Israeli officials came to Washington in recent months to argue against parts of the planned sales, according to the newspaper.

Re: Medals

[Greyhawk]

Specific OIF and OEF medals already exist, and rumor has it they were a source of consternation among some who preferred the more generic GWOT "E" and "S" series . The options are now more than a bit confusing to some, for the record I prefer the specific campaign medals.

For what it's worth: the Afghan medal takes precedence over the Iraq, and both are immediately above the GWOT E, which is just above the GWOT S.

But we've created two issues here - one is the medals, which matter to varying degrees to us but to others not at all.

The second is semantic on the surface, but has depths which some would rather not plumb. Some might like to pretend the issue is whether the name is a good one, but lets accept facts up front - the existence of such a battle as the Global War on Terror by any name is the fundamental point of debate, and the issue is far from semantic. (And far from sane in a post-9/11 world.)

But if "War on Terror" is a bit controversial, then how much longer 'til "Operation IRAQI FREEDOM" gets the congressional axe? Put differently, if the Dems are willing to go the route of declaring GWOT a mere "colloquialism" does that mean in not acting they accept the appellation OIF, and all it implies?