Day is done [Greyhawk - November 20, 2009 8:21 PM]
Lest we forget:
Comments (if any):
They still walk among us (and always will) [Greyhawk - November 20, 2009 2:33 PM]
Lieberman: General Keane... Do you think that political correctness may have played some role in the fact that these dots were not connected?
The first two words of the general's response were "Yes, absolutely". But there were more, including these:
But in fairness to many of the people who are associating with him, based on what preliminary research I have done and I think what the committee is doing, I think we're going to find very clearly that we do not have specific guidelines on dealing with Jihadist extremism in terms of the obligations of the members of the military to identify a reported and what actions to take and what constitutes Jihadist extremists itself.
Last summer (on the heels of news of the retracted Department of Homeland Security report warning of the threat posed by "right wing veterans") Morris Dees, the founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center, made news when he issued a press release regarding a letter he'd sent to four members of congress announcing his discovery of 40 "whites only" chat room participants who claimed to be military. That story faded fast, without an ensuing "witch hunt" - but as noted in the ensuing discussion, "racist" can be grounds for discharge - even though it's a fairly simple "condition" to fake.
It shouldn't be too difficult to extend that same consideration to those whose sympathies are aligned with the enemy in time of war - especially when that enemy is an extremist group (and no, this doesn't mean "all Muslims") with members - "card-carrying" or not - demonstrably more inclined (and motivated - we are officially at war with them, after all) to act in extremis than Nazi's (or communists, if you prefer) have been over the past few decades.
And that was a long statement, but "shouldn't be" was the key phrase.
Comments (if any):
"we do not have specific guidelines on dealing with Jihadist extremism"
Isn't that what we have NCO's for?
Yup.
Whenever I called someone "by the book" I always meant they couldn't function without written instructions in hand. Where the book ends is where the good NCO's job begins.
MilBlogger Down - Thoughts and Prayers Please [Mrs Greyhawk - November 20, 2009 12:23 PM]
Military blogger "Concrete Bob" could use your thoughts and prayers, however he'd rather they go to others than to him.
Short and sweet, I had a serious heart attack on Wednesday night. I`m in the hospital, hooked up to a bunch of tubes. I have had a catheterization done and a stint put in, but there is still some blockage. So next Wednesday the doctors are going to do a little carving and install some new parts. No big deal.
Pray for the doctor and my family.
"No big deal" - now isn't that just like him.
\
Comments (if any):
The war on corruption [Greyhawk - November 20, 2009 11:08 AM]
The best answer to the question "can we win in Afghanistan in spite of corruption in the government?" might be another question: which government?
Defense news: Improvements in Afghan Governance Will Take Time, Gates Says.
Video here.
"Do you think there's any merit, or is there any discussion about asking President Karzai to take steps to clean up corruption," Gates was asked, "and then holding up troops until he does that, as they flow in?"
While noting "my personal view is that you do have to exercise what leverage you have," his response did not include a direct answer to the troop flow question. "My view on all of this is that improvements in governance in Afghanistan will be evolutionary, the secretary replied. "We are not going to go from a situation where we have a fair amount of dissatisfaction now to believing that these problems have been solved in two weeks or a month, or on the basis of a single speech."
And again, my personal view is that you do have to exercise what leverage you have, but the question is whether that's applied on a province-by-province level, district-by-district, ministry-by-ministry. And this, I expect, will be a continuing dialogue between ourselves and the Afghans.
We're there to help them. But corruption and a lack of good governance are real impediments to the success of both the Afghan government and our own efforts. And so they clearly are an important element, as you've been reading from Secretary Clinton's comments and the president's and others.
"We're there to help them" - and one form of that help could be evident in this Spiegel Online report: "the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is now set to support the fight against corruption."
According to information obtained by SPIEGEL ONLINE, ISAF Commander Stanley McChrystal has issued an order to all NATO troops to forward evidence of corruption among politicians and officials to Afghan authorities. Even information gathered by intelligence services is to be checked and, in cases where it is deemed appropriate, passed on to the Afghan attorney general.
The order represents a shift in NATO policy, which has long seen corruption as an internal matter for Afghanistan. "The new guidance directs forces to share that information through normal reporting channels to the government of Afghanistan and proper law enforcement agencies that can take action," NATO said in a statement e-mailed to SPIEGEL ONLINE. Corruption, NATO wrote in the statement, feeds "negative security trends" and "has a direct bearing on the insurgency" in Afghanistan. "During the course of normal framework operations, ISAF forces often uncover evidence or information regarding corrupt officials or malign actors," NATO wrote.
Gates has long favored a more pragmatic approach to tackling the separate (but somewhat related) issues of Afghan corruption and security. In recent months the secretary has offered counterpoint to claims the Afghan people overwhelmingly view their government as illegitimate, accurately (if understatedly) described the security situation there as on a "worrisome trajectory," and signaled his opposition to delaying U.S. troop reinforcements until after good governance issues are resolved.
As yesterday's briefing concluded, Gates and Mullen were also asked about a recent USA Today story regarding "at least 158 retired admirals and generals the Pentagon has hired to offer advice under an unusual arrangement."
Most of the retired officers, one to four stars in rank, have been paid hundreds of dollars an hour by the military even as they worked for companies seeking Defense Department contracts, a USA TODAY investigation found. That's in addition to pensions of $100,000 to $200,000 a year for officers with 30 or more years of service.That may have caused a bit of discomfort in the Pentagon. Here's the first response:
Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, do you have to file financial disclosure forms? Senator McCain says such disclosure should be required for retired generals who advise the military. Do you agree with that?
Admiral Mullen:: This refers, obviously, to the story that came out a couple days ago, and I've read the story and subsequent reports with respect to that. And I think, the services are actually taking a look at this, and I think that's the proper purview for this, services and combatant commanders who actually do this.
Secondly, I think this is a group of individuals who provides incredibly valuable, seasoned, wise advice in many ways. But at the same time, I think we have to be terrific stewards of the taxpayers' money, and we have to be aware of any conflicts of interest or a perception of conflicts of interest. So I think in that as the services look at this we'll come to an understanding of where we are and what we should do in the future. And I really wouldn't want to say anything else at this point on top of that.
"Okay, thank you all," Secretary Gates added, and with that the press conference concluded.
Comments (if any):
Have you guys seen this?
"How do you see Afghanistan?
I hope the United States and the global community will stay involved in Afghanistan. A victory for the Taliban in Afghanistan would have catastrophic consequences for the world, particularly for South Asia, for Central Asia and for the Middle East. Religious fundamentalism in the 1980s was used to defeat the Soviet Union. If this same group of people that defeated the Soviet Union now defeats the other major power, this would embolden them in a manner which could have catastrophic consequences for the world.
We [in India] of course have more immediate concerns. We are victims of terrorism and the extremist ideologies of the type that the Taliban represent. If this is not checked, this could destabilize our country." Prime Minister Singh in the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/19/AR2009111903666.html
(got to the WP link via NRO)
I hadn't seen that, thanks.
I've also been pondering this "US goofs the Afghan election" story I recently stumbled across. Always good to get a fresh perspective.
Muslim Leader Calls Fort Hood Review Critical to National Security [Greyhawk - November 20, 2009 10:50 AM]
"Qaseem Ali Uqdah, executive director of the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council, and a retired Marine gunnery sergeant, credits military leaders with establishing a climate that's prevented any backlash against Muslims servicemembers since the Nov. 5 shooting."
The fact that Hasan is Muslim, he said, doesn't matter. A review would have been necessary whatever the perpetrator's religion, as a "preventative measure" to prevent a similar incident from ever happening again, he said.
And to be truly effective, he said, the review should go beyond Muslims, to help identify and weed out zealots of any kind who could become potential threats. "It would be most prudent to go across the military and leave no stone unturned," Uqdah said.
The world situation demands it, he said. "We have to recognize this for what it is: a war on several fronts, with no boundaries, and here on our own shores," he said. "So we have to be vigilant. If that requires all of us being examined, then so be it," as long as it doesn't overstep civil liberty boundaries.
"So long as it is not prejudicious, a review right now is necessary," Uqdah said.
While providing an important "litmus test," the Pentagon review will also help highlight the contributions Muslim servicemembers make to the U.S. military, and the sacrifices they have made, he said.
Full text below:
Muslim Leader Calls Fort Hood Review Critical to National Security
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press ServiceWASHINGTON, Nov. 19, 2009 - The director of a Muslim veterans organization said he welcomes Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates' announcement today of a Pentagon probe into the attacks at Fort Hood, Texas, calling it a matter of national security.
Qaseem Ali Uqdah, executive director of the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council, and a retired Marine gunnery sergeant, credits military leaders with establishing a climate that's prevented any backlash against Muslims servicemembers since the Nov. 5 shooting.
Gates announced a sweeping review today that will look into events leading up to the rampage that left 13 people dead, and whether military officials should have been more aggressive in raising a red flag about the accused shooter, Army Maj. Nidal M. Hasan.
"This is not about Muslim," Uqdah said of the probe. "This is about national security. This is about an incident in which an individual committed a criminal act."
The fact that Hasan is Muslim, he said, doesn't matter. A review would have been necessary whatever the perpetrator's religion, as a "preventative measure" to prevent a similar incident from ever happening again, he said.
And to be truly effective, he said, the review should go beyond Muslims, to help identify and weed out zealots of any kind who could become potential threats. "It would be most prudent to go across the military and leave no stone unturned," Uqdah said.
The world situation demands it, he said. "We have to recognize this for what it is: a war on several fronts, with no boundaries, and here on our own shores," he said. "So we have to be vigilant. If that requires all of us being examined, then so be it," as long as it doesn't overstep civil liberty boundaries.
"So long as it is not prejudicious, a review right now is necessary," Uqdah said.
While providing an important "litmus test," the Pentagon review will also help highlight the contributions Muslim servicemembers make to the U.S. military, and the sacrifices they have made, he said.
More than 3,500 active-duty troops identify themselves as Muslim, with about half of them serving in the Army, Defense Department officials said.
"I think the takeaway [of the review] will be that there are a lot of servicemembers, men and women, across the board, serving very honorably," Uqdah said.
The Fort Hood incident was an isolated incident that casts an unfortunate shadow on the entire Muslim community, he said.
Uqdah's organization wasted no time in condemning the attack, extending condolences to the victims and their families, as well as the local community, in a statement posted on its Web site within hours of the incident.
"Islam holds the human soul in high esteem, and considers the attack against innocent human beings a grave sin," the statement said. "This is a criminal act that is now best dealt with by the law enforcement community."
Uqdah serves as an ecclesiastical endorser, vetting Muslim chaplains in the Defense Department to ensure they meet religious standards. In that capacity, he communicates regularly with seven Muslim chaplains serving on active duty, in the Air Force Reserve or in seminary preparing to go into the military.
With his finger on the pulse of the Muslim military community, Uqdah reported he has yet to hear of a single incident of backlash against Muslim servicemembers that some had predicted after the Fort Hood incident.
"I attribute that to strong leadership positions, starting from the commander in chief on down, with establishing a 'zero tolerance' climate," he said.
Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey Jr. set the tone quickly after the incident. "Speculation could potentially heighten backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers," he said. "What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy is our diversity becomes a casualty here."
"By saying that," Uqdah said, "he made certain to his commanders and everyone else that he wasn't going to tolerate [a backlash]. I think it's been a key factor in preventing it."
Uqdah said he's always experienced a climate of relative tolerance within the military. He recalled back to the mid-1990s, when he was assigned to Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va., and overheard an allied officer attending classes there ask a U.S. field grade officer if he suspected the loyalty of Muslims serving in the military.
The officer responded that Muslims are no different than any other troops, and serve just as courageously and with the same dedication, he recalled. "Then he asked him, "'Is there any reason we should suspect them?'"
The events of 9/11 increased scrutiny of Muslims across the board, including in the military, he conceded.
But Uqdah said Hasan's alleged proselytizing while in uniform - if proven true - should never have been tolerated. Other questionable behavior should have been identified and reported, he said.
"This was a failure in terms of us as a whole,' he said, clarifying that all servicemembers, not just Muslims, share the blame. "We saw something suspicious and really didn't report it. It really wasn't taken seriously. As a whole, we have to get better at being vigilant in terms of our security."
Comments (if any):
Nice Article.You are correct,we have to get better at being vigilant in terms of our security.
