The Marching Camp

Chivalry

2009-12-22T07:50:00.035+03:00

There are two traditional approaches to writing about chivalry. One is to start with a laundry list of virtues, perhaps with a caveat that no two writers agree on which virtues make the cut and which do not, and then to provide definitions for these virtues, varying from the banal to the highly idiosyncratic. The major objection I have to this is that it tends to be unbalanced. Whether consciously or not, these are ranked in importance, and differing emphasis is placed on each virtue. This leads to self-defeating arguments like the SCA's perennial 'how important is prowess?' debate--self-defeating because to take any one virtue and consider it alone is removing the context of these other virtues, and hence to loose sight of "chivalry" in favor of "courtesy" or "prowess" or whatever virtue is under discussion. Context, it seems to me, matters at least as much if not more than any one virtue. To take any virtue, no matter how noble, to an extreme, is mentally unhealthy. To discard or dismiss as "not really important" any virtue is to render the debate no longer about chivalry, but about a code of ethics that has chivalric elements.

The other is a historical overview, beginning, perhaps, with an etymology of the word "chivalry". The starting point of these arguments tends to be Raymond Llull or one of the other 13th or 14th century writers, or perhaps Le Morte d'Arthur, or whatever. Again, I feel this lacks context. To answer "what is chivalry", you have to start more than a bit further back.

So this, I propose, is the outline. The role of the warrior in society, pre-chivalric concepts, roots of chivalry, development after the fall from supremacy of aristocratic shock cavalry, and then and only then, the components thereof and modern objections to chivalry. There is little new here, and if I stop to acknowledge every single source for what I'm about to write, the essay would comprise mostly footnotes. Further, it is necessarily imprecise. There are exceptions to nearly every single statement I make. I generalize in order to make a point.

That any society requires a warrior class is more or less self-evident. Except for a handful of periods of technological development, the expense of military equipment and the requirement to devote a great deal of time to developing the skill necessary to use that equipment tended to argue in favor of professional warriors or at least a class that primarily thought of themselves as warriors first and perhaps farmers or land-owners second.

Another general requirement historically has been a code of conduct for these warriors. Viewed purely pragmatically, unrestrained warriors kill productive taxpayers and this is not good for any society. Viewed psychologically, the requirement for warriors to be effective in combat and then reintegrate back into society without going bugnuts requires a moral framework for their violent actions which places them in the context of the greater society's views. So -- any society which is not utterly isolated or extremely short-lived has warriors and a code of ethics for these warriors.

Many early societies managed their military class with a combination of divine sanction and the will of a semi-divine king. Other relied on personal loyalty to a leader, or coercion by other elements of a divided society. Each of these has weaknesses, but worked well enough.

Essentially, the approach that works best lies in a societal understanding of 'honor'. Defining 'honor' is a complex exercise, but let us say that in general, it is a societal understanding of the trustworthiness of a person based upon the consistency of their actions. The Greeks had an understanding of 'honor' that would be expressed as 'arete', best translated 'excellence'. Reverence for the gods, physical excellence, mastery of public speaking, courage in battle, all these concepts, and more importantly a balance among them, were elements of arete. I will return to this concept later.

What was interesting about the Roman view of honor was the central place held in it by legal institutions and the law. To be a Roman, to express virtus and honoris, was a complex thing, but centered around respect for the paterfamilias, or family head, for the res publica, the "public thing," and the laws created by the Senate and Assembly. This carries over into the behavior of generals and common Soldiers alike.

The scramentum sworn by the Republican legions was simple:

"to follow the consuls to whatever wars they may be called, and neither desert the colours nor do anything else contrary to law."

And to do anything less was punishable. The original legions of the early Republic were filled by an early form of conscription. Every able-bodied land-owning free man of Rome was a potential Soldier, required to maintain arms even if not under arms at a given moment. Fighting in defense of family and property, they stood against every opponent and if not always victorious, at least they didn't quit. Unfortunately, conscript armies are useless and unenthusiastic about distant wars for Empire, so under the seven-times Consul Gaius Marius, landless men and foreigners were permitted to be enrolled, and many of these became long-service professionals.

These new Legions were still free men, but now fighting for land and pay, and in the case of foreigners and men from recently conquered provinces, for the legal privileges that accrued to their families for enrollment as a citizen. Unfortunately, the Senate repeatedly attempted to avoid paying the retirement benefits--primarily expressed as a land distribution. Instead of giving it to otherwise penniless veterans, they preferred to give land to their supporters and followers. They forgot that at the end of the day, legal maneuvering only matters if the men with swords respect it. By the time of G. Julius Caesar, Legions were bound primarily by personal loyalty to their generals because the Senate had repeatedly betrayed the promises made to the Legions.

Chivalry never entered into the conduct of Roman wars any more than it did the wars of the Athenians. Slaughter, frightfulness for the sake of frightfulness, massacre, and enslavement were tactics of choice because they were effective. When fighting their fellow Romans in the civil wars that racked the Republic during the death-throes thereof, the only example of restraint was the prisoners were usually enlisted into the armies of the victor, as their only loyalty at this point was to the payroll. This is as obviously unhealthy and insupportable as possible.

What the Empire brought to the situation was a new source of honor. The Empire, and more specifically the Emperor, were considered to be as sources of both material honors and honor itself. Loyalty to the Emperor replaced loyalty to the "People and Senate". This meshed well with the influx of Germanic tribesmen who crossed the Rhine in small groups in order to take advantage of this source of honors.

And now a word on these German tribesmen whose concepts of honor were shortly to become terribly important to the development of our nascent chivalric concept.

When clever people talk about the opposition between a 'culture of honor' and a 'culture of law' they could be speaking directly to the difference between German and Roman culture. Roman culture refined their concept of honor to include a subordination of personal interest to the process of law--and by law, they meant the legislative acts of the Senate or the Emperor, depending on whether we speak of the Republic or the Empire. German culture had little legislative law, but a series of customs and traditions which served the purpose--and which did not supersede individual honor considerations.

What the Germans DID have was a concept of honor which was quite effective in producing warriors, if not at subordinating their personal honor to a group honor necessary to produce disciplined Soldiers. The basic elements of Germanic honor were courage, ferocity in battle, and loyalty to the chief. The chief was obligated to provide for his warriors in acknowledgment of their honor and worth, but most in material goods. Food, drink, gold, and silver were the payments to a warband. The Viking sagas show this in many ways, not least of which is the kenning 'ring-giver' as a commonplace for a chief or king. Also notable is the explicit statement that the gifts of mead and meat from the chief entitled him to the loyalty of the warband.

What is interesting is that neither Germanic honor culture nor Roman legal culture as applied to the Emperor was completely sufficient for the satisfaction of the Soldier. The first element to fill the spiritual gap was the cult of the Emperor and the cult of the genius of the Legion. The aquilla, the sacred Eagle of the Legion was originally simply a reinforcement of the state cult of Jupiter, as the bird was sacred to him as a Sky-god. Eventually it sort of transmigrated into a cult of its own, where the aquilla was considered the sacred center of the Legion. Alongside the veneration of the Emperor, this provided a spiritual focus for the loyalty of the Legions.

Eastern mystery religions began appearing in the first century AD among the Legions. The first to become widespread was the cult of Mithras. Whatever the nature of the cult among the Indo-Iranian peoples of his homeland, he was somewhat Hellenized and portrayed as a soldier god, slayer of demons and invincible in battle. His cult promised strength and victory, and an afterlife for his followers. The rituals of the cult were secret, but it included numerous officers and some rank and file Soldiers.

Eventually, however, the limited appeal of the cult of Mithras doomed it to failure alongside the various other pagan cults, and by the early 4th century AD the Empire was largely Christian. Christianity always had a complex and somewhat conflicted relationship with the Empire and by extension, the Army. Some writers advocated pacifism, or proclaimed military service incompatible with faith.

This is not the place to lay out completely Christianity's occasionally contradictory stances on warfare. What is important is the synthesis that was reached by the late 4th century, by which time the Empire was solidly Christian and the majority of the Germanic tribes moving in contained large elements that had been converted, many of them not to Chalcedonian Christianity but to the Arian form thereof.

Essentially, Christianity transformed from a despised minority which engaged in passive resistance to state-sponsored pagan cults (occasionally not-so-passive, see St. Theodore the Recruit's statement on the cult of Cybele) to the state religion. Much as with a political party that goes from opposition to ruling party, that presents new issues and challenges which cannot be addressed solely from the standpoint of the desert ascetic or monastic pacifist, and Christianity had to answer the challenge of the Soldier.

Part of the answer came in veneration of military saints, and the elevation of the position of the Emperor to one not divine in and of himself, but anointed by God to shepherd the faithful and care for their temporal cares, almost counterpart of the Church which addressed the spiritual cares.

While Christianity was achieving this position and formulating this synthesis, the whole system was in the process of collapsing. Between the death of the Emperor Constantine Isoapostolis and the return of the Western regalia to Constantinople by the Odoacer, a mix of Germanic and steppe nomads came screaming across the Rhine and thorough the Balkans and tore up the western half of the Roman Empire. This is not the time or place for a complete history of the collapse of the western Empire, the survival of the eastern, nor the establishment of the Germanic kingdoms of the Franks, Visigoths, Saxons, Ostrogoths, Burgundii, et al.

However, the points that must be emphasized are these. First, the invasions were unmitigated disasters in terms of economic development, demographic decline, societal organization, and urbanization patterns. In short, the barbarians killed people, disrupted trade, burned cities, and destroyed a complex system of government. The second is that the Church was the only element of society organized above the local level that survived. Land owners, city leaders, and other elements of the Roman "powerful" did the best they could, but they had little impact beyond their immediate surroundings. The third element to emphasize is the overwhelming superiority of Roman culture, not least in terms of prestige.

Now, there is a lot written about what exactly happened over the next couple centuries, all of it speculative. It happened in different ways in different places, but here's the general overview.

The Germans discovered that once they overthrew the government, they inherited that government's problems. Collection of taxes, enforcement of laws, etc. The problems of defense of a piece of territory are very different from the problems of raiding into a territory. So these raiding tribes led by chiefs and war leaders relying on prestige and proven success in battle became kingdoms led by kings--hereditary kings who needed a source of legitimacy. The solution tied into the previous points about the surviving Roman 'powerful', the Church, and the superiority of Roman culture.

The Germans had to adopt and adapt those elements to create societies stable enough to survive. They had to co-opt the Roman aristocracy and their ways. They used the trappings and ceremonials associated with 'Romanitas', and most importantly, they relied on Church sanction to provide legitimacy.

Along the way, the Franks revived the idea of European unity under an Emperor annointed by God--but that unity was imposed at sword-point and within a few generations collapsed, reverting to a state of anarchy in France and Germany where few organized political units above the local existed. The Carolingians are primarily important to the history of chivalry for the legends produced about them, some of which have as much relation to reality as do the Arthurian legends.

At the same time, there was a military revolution underway, which ran from the early 9th century to the mid-11th. The rise to military supremacy of heavy shock cavalry is the single most important fact that created a need for something like "chivalry" to come into existence.

A heavy shock cavalryman, let us call him a "knight" since that is the label under which he survives in the modern imagination, is a complex weapon system. He must be equipped with heavy armor to survive arrow fire and to survive in close combat with his equals. His horse must be of a breed capable of carrying, with speed and dexterity, the weight of an armored man. Then the horse requires training to respond quickly and efficiently, and not to be frightened by things that horses have thousands of years of instinct to flee. The man also requires years of training to become proficient at handling various weapons while on the back of over half a ton of not terribly bright animal in a chaotic environment where people are trying their best to kill him. An ethos for a man like this must provide an impetus for him to strive to hone that skill, because without it, he's just a very expensive fool who will soon kill himself by falling off a horse.

What you should see when you see a picture of a knight is a weapon system which takes a small fortune to equip and years to hone to the point where it is a a net gain in battle. Economically speaking, you aren't going to ever see many of them, but the central fact of Western European warfare for centuries was that only highly skilled, highly-disciplined infantry could stand in front of them without crumbling. Another requirement for this ethos is some sort of mechanism to control his violent impulses because quite frankly, without it, nothing much but a group of his peers can stop him.

For centuries, there was little written upon such philosophical topics as a warrior's credo. But by the time of composition of the great chansons and the Arthurian tales, we have a nearly full-formed concept of knighthood. So what does that knight believe?

He has the Germanic regard for loyalty to a leader, but this is generally transferred not merely to his immediate warleader, but up the chain to the king, who has assumed the Roman Emperor's role as the font of honors and indeed of honor. From the crude role of one who hands out silver armbands and gold rings to warrior sitting around his mead-hall, the king has assumed the legal legitimacy of the Emperor and hands out offices, titles, lands, and accolades.

He is also a Christian, and believes that God has blessed the warrior who acts in accord with the precepts of this ethos. What is new about Christianity is that the Church now extends over the territory of a number of political entities, and provides an overarching framework in which to understand their relations. Previously, and for centuries more in the East, "Christian" and "Roman" were synonymous, and to be one implied the other. But in the West, this is replaced by the notion of "Christendom," the domain of Christianity wherein, though the various kings and nobles may squabble and war among themselves, there was a view that they were all members of a transnational community. This concept was most pronounced among the clergy and the new warrior class who defined their governing ideology in terms of Christianity.

Another new element in this chivalry regards the role of women. Women played little role in the warrior ethic of societies past, but somehow made it into the ideals of chivalry. In the Illiad, Helen is primarily a prize which provides an excuse for the Trojans and Greeks to display heroic prowess. In Tristan and Isolde, the men essentially almost reduced to foils for the women. Guinevere is as much a driving force of the Arthurian legend cycle as is Arthur.

Now, at this point, I should point out that when dealing with an abstract ideal like "chivalry," no two authors agreed entirely. There were differences of emphasis, and the various archetypes of knighthood presented in Arthurian and Carolingian legend cycles emphasized various aspects in themselves. Gawain, Galahad, and Lancelot were different presentations of this ideal of knighthood, but all recognizably part of that ideal.

The various treatises on chivalry written by authors both knightly and clerical had only a relatively stronger grip on reality than did the poetic cycles. Some knights gave only a passing mention of Christianity. Some clerics wanted to make knights into armed monks. Neither of those groups of authors put as much weight on the romantic side of things as did the troubadors. But the core values of chivalry were essentially unchanged, only the emphasis.

At the end of the period wherein the knight was a dominant element of the military landscape, there is a resurgence in interest in topics of chivalry. As with all social movements staring obsolescence in the face, it was idealized and romanticized, even as warfare came to be dominated by common men wielding pikes and firearms. The old aristocracy became military officers, landowners, and officeholders, and the institution of knighthood became just another prize to be dangled in front of courageous seamen, clever inventors, successful merchants, and faithful bureaucrats. All sorts of fatuous nonsense was written at this time, a practice which continued strong though the Victorian period and to an extent today. What was interesting was that the appeal of these Chivalric ideals continued undimmed even as the daily reality of the aristocratic class and the upcoming middle class diverged further and further from the issues and pressures that originated the concept.

A potential death-knell for the ideas of chivalry came in the Enlightenment in the form of the idea, most famously expressed in the founding document of the United States, that all men were created equal. Chivalry is absolutely aristocratic. The loyalty required was expressed vertically up, horizontally, and vertically down. This requires a hierarchical society. Where you find chivalry surviving in an environment where all men are legally equal, you find a new idea, one that is true to the earliest forms of chivalry. Quite simply, it proclaims that instead of the hereditary aristocracy of birth, there is a natural aristocracy, one that is a meritocracy. This idea proclaims that in order to be a gentleman, all one has to do is to be a gentleman. Now, this has some roots in the origins of chivalry, wherein what one had to do to be a knight was to be a heavily armored shock cavalryman with the appropriate equipage, sufficient mounts and remounts, and a reputation for trustworthiness. In short, honor.

Now ends the historical maundering, and comes discussion of modern chivalry. I hereby change authorial voice and become, not the pedantic narrator of historical happenings, but the impassioned advocate of a modern chivalry--and a quite specific one at that.

Defining chivalry is not terribly easy. At it's core, chivalry is a code of ethics for a warrior. The chivalrous man need not be a professional of violence like your humble author, but must have the capability to engage in violence to protect his rights, the rights of those to whom his owes loyalty, and those who cannot defend their own rights for what ever reason.

There are a wide variety of lists floating around which purport to list "the chivalric virtues," between four and two dozen in number. This is a historical phenomenon. The four cardinal virtues, eight Beatitudes, the seven virtues which oppose the seven deadly sins, the other seven "Heavenly Virtues" from Psychomachia, the "seven plus one" which adds Justice to the list from Psychomachia, Leon Gautier's nine chivalric commandments, the Duke of Burgundy's 12 virtues for the Order of the Golden Fleece, the seventeen point code ascribed to Charlemagne, etc.

Part of the problem with the purely theological lists (Beatitudes, Seven Virtues, Seven Heavenly Virtues) is that they are not chivalric per se. They simply are Christian. Chivalry is rooted in Christianity, but it is specifically a warrior code. If what makes a moral man, a good carpenter or a good farmer, is adherence to the Seven Virtues, then so be it. A good knight should adhere to them as well, because they are the foundation of moral behavior. But where in the seven virtues of faith, hope, love, prudence, temperance, courage, and justice is the command to know which end of the sword to hold? Loyalty to one's leader unto the death? Defense of the weak? For that matter, where is the courtesy owed to a lady, from the courtly love tradition?

I propose to split the concept of chivalry into three mutually supportive categories which provide different lenses through which to look at defining chivalry. The warrior tradition, the pious tradition, and the courtly tradition all play into defining what is "chivalry". Each knight weights the various traditions differently, but all are knights. I'm not going to define in laborious detail the majority of these terms because, well, we all know what courage and the like are.

Viewed through the lens of a knight who is a warrior first, chivalry hearkens back to its roots as a Germanic code. His loyalty is to his liege, to his king, to his fellow warriors, and to those he is sworn to protect. Prowess and courage are the two virtues which make him effective on the battlefield. Honesty for him comes in giving frank advice to his leader, as well as eschewing those ruses of war judged illicit. He is generous with a defeated enemy as well as to his supporters and merciful to those most affected by combat--the civilians impacted by his army's march. Justice comes into play in his role as a leader, for no one can lead effectively who is suspected of favoritism or who fails to walk the tightrope between too harsh and too lenient. Finally, franchise to him means consistently display the noble bearing and other virtues expected of a leader of men.

The pious tradition approaches chivalry as does a monk his ascetic rule. His faith is the defining characteristic of this view of chivalry. He exercises those virtues common all men, but with more expected of him due to his position. The traditional virtues of faith, hope, love, temperance, fortitude, justice, and prudence are valued simply because they are the right thing to do. This view defines loyalty slightly differently from the warrior, extending it not only to his lord, but to all those of his coreligionists--or even all people who are not actively transgressing against the law, temporal or divine. Most especially does this version of chivalry emphasize those unable to defend themselves regardless of whether they are those whom the knight has sworn to defend in particular. The prime chivalric weakness is pride, or vainglory, and this view actively encourages development of humility to guard against it.

The courtly tradition emphasizes the gentility of chivalry and behavior towards women. Courtesy is the largest element of this view. Patience plays into it as well, for relationships develop at their own pace. Prudence, temperance, and dare I say it, chastity are what keeps licit (though furtive) courtly relationships from developing into illicit adultery or sexual assault. Finally, prowess, courage, largesse, and the noble bearing of franchise all are directed towards being the sort of man worthy of the affection of a lady rather than ends in and of themselves.

I argue that no man can call his creed 'chivalry' unless it takes in account these three aspects, these three lenses and makes sense viewed through all three. Of course, each man weights the various virtues differently in his heart. Some may feel that these various virtues may be condensed, or repeat themselves with different terms. Others may have simply have different ways of expressing themselves on this subject. But for the term 'chivalry' to have meaning apart from simple 'morality' or 'courtesy' or other words, all these elements must be present.

The only virtue I will address in detail is franchise, because it is commonly misunderstood and the common dictionary definition helps us but little. A definition of "enfranchisement" as "freedom from political subjugation or servitude" pushes us in the right direction. The OED is quoted in another places as listing "Freedom, immunity, privilege and as an attribute of character or action; Nobility of mind; liberality, generosity, magnanimity or Freedom or license of speech or manners." among its definitions.

Freedom, and nobility of mind. The word is derived from Frankish roots, and could be parsed then as "the frank-rights" or those rights expected to be exercised by a free man of the tribe. The meaning obviously evolved over the years and became associated not merely with freedom, but with nobility. Some writers engage in what I consider to be a cop-out definition, which is to list a series of virtues and then say, "franchise is exercising all of these virtues consistently." No, that's chivalry. You cannot define chivalry as exercising the chivalric virtues, including franchise, and then define franchise as exercising the chivalric virtues. It's circular.

Nobility of heart, to me, includes several aspects. First, almost a prerequisite for the later aspects, is to internalize chivalry. Chivalry should be something you are, not merely something you do. This brings forth what could be called nobility in bearing. Part of this is refusal to be degraded from one's estate. Historically, this was understood in terms of a knight not engaging in manual labor or other things 'beneath his estate'. In American culture, manual labor, especially skilled manual labor, is not seen as particularly degrading but other things are. Part of it is in how you carry yourself. It's difficult to explain, but we all know it when we see it. Confidence and nobility, without overdoing it and crossing into strutting swagger. Forthright frankness without arrogance. It is terribly easy for this attitude to slide right over into vainglory and pride, and I should repeat that this is not the same thing either. Franchise is not something you can assume or learn, but something grown into.

There seem to be a few prevalent modern reactions to the notion of chivalry. One is to proclaim it "undemocratic", a tool historically used by the upper class to repress their economic and social inferiors. This view does not have to take a Marxian bent, and may be held by people sincerely devoted to equality. It is "outdated", "reactionary", and not politically correct. One school of critics berates it for an outmoded view of women, another for its unashamed cult of violence. To all these, I concede the point. Indeed, I go further. Chivalry is, by its nature, firmly rooted in the past. While acknowledging the realities of present, an adherent to chivalry answers that human nature does not change, so new challenges are really old ones in new clothing. Chivalry is still the answer for many of these challenges. Further, as chivalry enshrines the notions of justice and obedience to king and law, it is rooted in the same impulses which inspire seekers of "equality". Chivalry challenges the notion of equality because it implies that some are chosen for a higher purpose--but a chivalry which admits the aristocrat of deeds rather than the aristocrat of birth is egalitarian in its call. It is humanity which is not equal to the challenge.

Worse for chivalry, or any other form of virtue, is the modern form of false egalitarianism wherein the fool is equal to the wise man, the incompetent equal to the master of his craft, the coward to the brave, the unjust to the just, the thief to the honest man, the lazy to the industrious. This is neither chivalrous, nor just, nor is it an attitude conducive to the discouragement of vice nor the promotion of virtuous conduct. A society which acts in this manner will soon find its brightest lights dimmed--and eventually all the lights will go out. Unfortunately, this does seem to be the guiding ideology of large parts of American society, most perniciously the educational system. It is the guiding creed of these institutions that the bully and the bullied pupil who sticks up for himself are on a level, and are both punished for "fighting".

Another response is to embrace "chivalry" but then to redefine the word so that it means something else entirely. One person will say that chivalry consists of doing this one thing, or that another "isn't as important". Another will introduce modern tap-dancing like "each person defines it for themselves".

To water down chivalry, to remove any of the three strains that comprise the chivalric tradition is leave yourself with a code of conduct which may be "based on" or "inspired by" chivalry. It may even be a highly moral code of conduct in keeping with the highest ideals of Christian piety--but if it can be practiced by a pig-farming serf or a monk in his cell, it is not chivalry.

Another crippling error in the modern understanding of chivalry is an extreme reluctance to judge. Chivalry requires justice. Justice, as a virtue, requires judgment, determination of what is just and what is unjust. The modern American desire not to condemn or criticize even that which is blatantly evil is an enemy of chivalry.

Another final modern enemy of chivalry is the credo of the American Whiner, "I'm doing the best I can". Closely allied is the "I'm good enough" meme.

To answer that I return to the very beginning of the essay and answer with the Greek notion of arete--excellence. Both these fallacies presumes that a man knows his own limits and can never exceed some mystical boundary upon his prowess. By striving for arete, a man may exceed what he thought was 'the best he could do'. And it is never satisfied because perfect excellence is an ideal, hence unobtainable in this life, and so provides a guidepost for striving until death. The man who stops striving, growing, learning, and furthering his pursuit of arete is dead and his soul has left him, regardless of whether or not he happens to still be walking around on his feet.

Finally, one could note that many modern Americans are not Christian and so some of the discussion of the religious roots above does not apply. I answer that it matters not. A non-Christian can be chivalrous--but chivalry cannot be divorced from its roots. Christian ideals can be practiced and held as personal ideals without necessarily adopting a Trinitarian theology. In some cases, chivalry almost provides a sufficient replacement for religion--and that's not unlike the actual historical practice either. But the ideals of chivalry don't change with the wind.

Chivalry is a difficult ideal, and no man living or dead has achieved perfection in its path. But nobility and glory are in the path, not the destination. I leave this with one final thought from the author of a 14th century treatise on the subject.

"He who does more is most worthy" -- Sir Geoffroi de Charnay

Killing, Just War, and Chivalry

2009-12-20T16:06:00.023+03:00

I have a lengthy post percolating on the topic of chivalry. Unusual content for this blog, but that's my prerogative.

Unfortunately, the state of society is such that a discussion of chivalry actually requires a previous discussion on violence. I presume my audience is familiar with the metaphor of sheep, sheepdog, and wolf presented by David Grossman. If not, read it first.

You see, the common, ordinary decent American (never mind the even more 'civilized' European or Canadian) has such an overwhelming aversion to violence that he cannot be chivalrous. Further, he cannot appreciate the existence of chivalry in its entirety. The culture of the victim shows in every place. Soldiers, we professionals of bloodshed, are described as heros for our sacrifices and casualties, not for our prowess at arms and victories. Passive resistance is hailed as morally superior to armed revolt regardless of the tyrant. Self defense against criminals is legally prosecuted and socially disapproved as 'vigilantism'.

I understand the ability to coolly shoot down a man or cut him down in the heat of battle is a minority attitude. Only certain people can engage in violence when not personally so enraged that they can be killed out of hand by anyone with a head on their shoulders. This is not laudable in and of itself--nor is the lack of this ability morally superior or inferior to its presence. This ability can be trained, but not easily. Situations can make it easier to find this ability. It simply is, and like any other attribute, its use makes it morally licit or illicit.

"In the various occurrences of life we find differences which exist according to different situations, for example: it is not lawful to murder, but in war [it is] both lawful and worthy of approval to destroy the adversaries. Thus at any rate, those who are bravest in war are also deemed worthy of great honors, and monuments of them are raised proclaiming their successes; that the same thing, on the one hand is not lawful according to some circumstances and at some times, but, on the other hand, according to some other circumstances and opportunely it is permitted and possible." -- St. Athanasios the Great

Now, a person who cannot exercise violence cannot be chivalrous. This is simple logic--chivalry is a code regulating violence, determining where it can be used, against what targets, on what grounds, for what reasons, and when the violence must be halted. A person who cannot bring themselves to strike another human being with lethal intent may be courageous, morally correct, virtuous by any other measure, but he may not be chivalrous. A priest or monk may be a holy man, well qualified to advise a warrior on chivalry, but he cannot live that code himself, Alexander Peresvet aside.

"It behooves you, lord, to have a care for the lives of the flock committed to you by God. Go forth against the heathens; and upheld by the strong arm of God, conquer; and return to your country sound in health, and glorify God with loud praise." -- St. Sergius of Radonezh

But a true enemy of chivalry and virtue in general is the person whose aversion to violence is such that in order to cover his own insecurities, he attacks (in writing, speech, or actions) those who can and will use violence to protect him. This insidious breed of vermin is not only a serf, kept free by the exertions of his betters, but wishes to drag all around him down to his own level. He is devoid of those moral qualities which keep a free peoples free, and cannot even choose the lesser path of security. He must, necessarily, be a sheep and submit meekly to the wolf, moralizing and complaining the whole way, but crippling the flock by disallowing the sheepdog to kill in his defense. Understand, the difference between a wolf and a sheepdog is a code of honor, of professional ethics, of chivalry. Without that system of values, whether encoded in the UCMJ or picked up as a subtext of the epic of Beowulf, there is no distinction in behavior. That code is the only protection for those incapable of violence from the wolves and sheepdogs alike. A wolf who absorbs that code and makes it his own transforms into a sheepdog, albeit one a little rough around the edges. Conversely, there is no worse wolf than a sheepdog who has lost the faith.

"Duty, Honor, Country. Those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be, what you will be. They are your rallying points: to build courage when courage seems to fail; to regain faith when there seems to be little cause for faith; to create hope when hope becomes forlorn. Unhappily, I possess neither that eloquence of diction, that poetry of imagination, nor that brilliance of metaphor to tell you all that they mean.

"The unbelievers will say they are but words, but a slogan, but a flamboyant phrase. Every pedant, every demagogue, every cynic, every hypocrite, every troublemaker, and, I am sorry to say, some others of an entirely different character, will try to downgrade them even to the extent of mockery and ridicule." -- General Douglas MacArthur

So where is a man to stand on this question of violence? The shortest and most to-the-point answer comes from the Catholic Catechism, I think. "The use of force to obtain justice is morally licit in itself."

So we have established that violence is 'morally licit' in certain circumstances. What are those circumstances. Setting aside obvious cases of self-defense, and also setting aside the individual criminal corralled by the police or concerned citizens, we head directly down the path to considering warfare--the proper province of warriors. When, then is warfare justified? When is it moral to destroy the works of man and the lives of your fellow human beings in cold blood, deliberately, and where ever they are found?

This discourse actually began in my mind when reading President Obama's speech in Oslo to the Nobel Prize committee. What a shock to his more foolish supporters and to his European slavering faithful!

"But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason."

Now, I give that speech about a B-, because he loses points for the flaw within it. I noticed it, but did not give the issue a great deal of thought until I read this article which points out the error in the first assumption, the presupposition of war as something which is the last resort. I was immediately reminded of a quote from a Science Fiction author.

"Only the incompetent wait until the last extremity to use force, and by then, it is usually too late to use anything, even prayer." -- H. Beam Piper

Let us back up and begin from the beginning in regards to Just War. Only by showing what Just War is can we address the error introduced by misstatements such as, "war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence."

Note on sources and methods: Though an Orthodox Christian, I find the West has done more and more precise delineation upon the subject, so I borrow freely from Catholic tradition on the subject.

"Glorious and Just Lord, Great and Powerful God, God Eternal, who created heaven and earth, and who determined the boundaries of the peoples; Thou commandest people to live without oppressing other countries. O Lord, judge those who offended me. Smite those who set themselves against me and come to my aid with arms and shields." -- attributed to St. Alexander Nevsky

First, let us demonstrate the necessity for a theory of just warfare. As warfare is a necessary fact of human existence (a cursory reading of history will demonstrate the point, exercise is left to the student), it follows that a means to determine the moral way to fight it is necessary. Without moral guidelines, there is no curb on the means or methods--and the natural tendency is to descend to depths of murder, terror, and indiscriminate destruction in order to overawe the enemy with ferocity. This is a seductive temptation even for the most moral and chivalrous of men who are faced with the damage inflicted by enemies. Yet this is not justice, but bloody rage and immoderate passion--enemies of virtue and fountains of vice. Without guidelines for moral conduct of war and differentiation between moral and immoral war, men who fight these wars become monsters, threats to others and threats to their own souls. To argue that war is evil on the face of it is to suggest that as any combat is evil, one may as well descend immediately to the depths of hell. To argue that as victory is a good thing any act taken towards victory is justified by the ends is to introduce the fallacy that the ends justify the means. Because of the horrific nature of the means available to the warrior, because of the passions aroused by combat, and because of the mental damage inflicted by combat, this is both tempting and as dangerous a notion as could be introduced. Violence scars the soul. Illicit, immoral violence scars the soul to a greater degree. Enough damage and the warrior becomes wolf, freed of the constraints of the code that holds him tighter than any leash and which he must accept in order to protect those around him who cannot defend themselves any other way.

Just War theory frequently is divided into jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Justice in starting a war and justice in conducting a war. A Soldier is most concerned with how to fight, a statesman with when to fight. President Obama spoke largely to jus ad bellum, speaking of the traditional tests to determine whether or not to resort to force of arms.

The Catholics lay it out thus:

"1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

3. there must be serious prospects of success;

4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition"

A fifth criteria is frequently included in this discussion, which is that war must be fought on behalf of an a legitimate authority. That becomes complicated when speaking of a rebellion--I will address it below.

These conditions are excellent criteria. The first criteria speaks for itself. Someone who is merely annoying is not a legitimate target for war. Hugo Chavez is a pompous twit, but he lacks the ability to inflict lasting grave harm upon the community of nations.

The third is illustrated by the example of St. Alexander Nevsky. He was faced with a Mongol horde capable of wiping out the Russian people, and having demonstrated both ability and willingness to engage in genocide in previous campaigns in central Asia. He determined to his satisfaction that that the Russian states could not withstand this invasion, but that the Mongol would be satisfied with payment of tribute and would leave the Orthodox Church in Russia in peace. At this time the Mongols were heathens who worshipped the Blue Mighty Heaven and had a reputation for toleration of religion. He applied this test, and the mighty warrior who had humbled the Germans and Swedes--coming with fire and sword to destroy the Russian people and Church--went to the Mongols, declared his submission, and delivered tribute.

Later resistance to the Mongol was catalyzed by the conversion of the Golden Horde to Islam and the subsequent persecution of the Church and demands of conversion, as well as the increased strength and unity of the Russian people. But I digress.

Now, this test is not, in my opinion, absolute. Some things are insufferable and must be resisted even if resistance is utterly hopeless. The prime example is the resistance of the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto against the entire armed might of the German regime. They planned as best they could. They stockpiled what weapons they could. They took every step the could have been reasonably taken to maximize their chances of success. But every one in the Ghetto knew that there was only one hopeless foregone conclusion barring a breakthrough of the Red Army to the Ghetto. But the situation had become hopeless, so to go down fighting was the determination of those inside.

These two criteria are easily understood and rarely confused. The second and fourth are easily confused.

The requirement that other means have been shown to be impractical or ineffective does not mean that violence is indeed a 'last resort'. This is determined by the ground truth of any given situation. Negotiations need not be dragged out once your opponent has shown bad faith. Other measures do not need to be tried and exhausted, if careful consideration of the relevant facts leads the leadership of a nation to the conclusion that they would not work, and especially if extended periods of preparation would allow to aggressor to work further evil or solidify his preparations for war or otherwise impair the chances of an acceptable final resolution. Too often do the 'lovers of peace' cry for more time, more negotiations, more sanctions and embargoes and committees and conferences and discussions. They ignore the reality that the sooner an evil is ended, the less chance it has to work mischief. Sometimes a firm stance and willingness to use violence can prevent more harm than it causes. Indeed, the presumption of just war is that use of force is preferable to permitting injustice to continue.

The fourth precept, commonly known as proportionality, is also frequently misunderstood. In the common imagination, it is rather a 'tit for tat' sort of thing. If Nation A conducts a raid, Nation B conducts a reprisal raid. This is ludicrous. In this popular idea, the response to a terrorist attack is not to topple two nations and spend a decade fighting, but to shoot a few missiles at terrorist training camps in distant lands. If one "escalates" the fighting, then the other "escalates" in response.

That's nonsense.

Remember the precept that there must be serious prospect of success? Using the force necessary to achieve success (victory, or a state of peace) is a necessary precondition to adhering to this Just War concept. So that's not what it means. What is means is that the mess made by invading a nation, the deaths and destruction, must be less problematic than permitting the situation to continue. For instance, Cuba was a pesthole during the Cold War and had a heinous little despotic government that exported chaos for decades, supporting terrorist movements world-wide. Yet invading Cuba would have lead to thousands of deaths, a perennial pestilent guerrilla movement, and the risk of nuclear war with the USSR. So the United States decided not to invade Cuba with its own forces, though it could have been done had we been willing to do so. Some idiots decided to attempt a proxy invasion, but that didn't go too well because you can't half-ass this sort of thing. So it failed. Another example was the use of nuclear weapons on Japan. Harry Truman determined that the disorder of blowing two cities out of existence was considerably less than the disorder of invading Japan or blockading it in perpetuity. So he made that decision. This concept becomes complicated because some people place an artificially high regard on the lives of evil-doers, saying that to take a life or many lives is too high a price to pay. Obviously, I disagree and disagree most strongly. It is, however, highly subjective when it comes to determining how much new disorder one is willing to accept in order to reestablish a just order.

"That all war is physically frightful is obvious; but if that were a moral verdict, there would be no difference between a torturer and a surgeon." -- GK Chesterton

Now, this bears upon Mr. Obama's error in thinking. The classic Just War theorist starts with the principle that the state (king or republic, it matters not) is obligated to provide security, peace, order, and justice to its citizens. Indeed, without these benefits there is no reason to accept the limits on personal liberty embodied by the state. The question then becomes 'when and how may the state permissably use force in order to bring these benefits'? War is not an evil in and of itself, but a means which can be used for ill or good. It brings with it a host of evils, and creates an environment wherein the temptation to indulge in evil can be very strong. But war, the use of force directed against an enemy in order to force him to do our will, is a means to an end. It is not a lesser evil, but a positive good when entered into correctly and fought correctly.

The question of how much evil one will tolerate before engaging in violence to overthrow that evil is subjective, but if approached from that direction, is more likely to lead one towards a just peace than approaching the question from the other direction.

The final point which is to hand in comprehending Just War theory is the concept of Right Authority. What is that right authority?

A legitimate ruler is one definition historically. A sovereign prince had the legal right to make war, provided he was ruling justly and had a valid casus belli.

Another is the will of a sovereign people as expressed through legitimately elected representatives and authorities. While this exercise may have baffled or horrified Augustine or St. Ambrose of Milan, since the Enlightenment it has been accepted as an article of faith that free citizens of a Republic have collectively as much sovereignty and hence as much right to make war as any king.

But, asks the clever man, did not the United States begin in armed rebellion, as lawful subjects of the English crown? How then can they have had legitimate authority to do so? Certainly they did not achieve sovereignty until they had won it upon the battlefield. Does this retroactively excuse treason and revolt?

This is a digression from the original topic, but I believe a fruitful one. As an American, I have to have an answer which justifies support for the rebellion of the United States against England, and justifies suppression of the rebellion of the Southern states.

Anyone has the right to rebel against tyranny. Define tyranny? Each man must do so in the privacy of his own soul. Is it tyranny to draft a man and send him to war? To tax his tea or stamp his paper? Is it tyranny to impose tarrifs that favor one segment of the nation over another? Is it tyranny to tell him that a black man is his equal and not his slave?

Ultimately, when we enshrine the sovereignty of the Common Man as a whole, we must enshrine the sovereignty of each member of the body politic and recognize his right to hoist the flag of rebellion and defy his former fellows to the bloody end.

Does this mean rebellion should not be resisted? Absolutely not. For while each man has the right to rebel, he does not have the right to victory. Each State has the right to self-defense. He must wager his life, fortune, and sacred honor that he is right, and that he shall be able to convince enough of his fellows that he is right that together on the field of battle, they can defeat those of the opposite party.

"Here is an ultra-democratic doctrine: it holds that any man may overthrow the state, and be right to do it. But it does not believe that any man is good enough to do it." -- Grim

Now, I personally dislike civil war and believe that it weakens a state badly enough that it should only be entered into in the most extreme cases. But defining tyranny is not an easy exercise, nor one that lends itself to generalization easily.

Having disposed of jus ad bellum, let us turn to jus in bello.

The right conduct of war is a simple set of prescriptions which serve to protect the non-combatant and combatant alike.

Distinction - military operations should, where possible, be conducted so as to minimize non-combatant death. Obviously the death of civilians is an unavoidable consequence of combat, and has been since time immemorial. Wars are generally fought over population centers and hence often inside population centers. Modern warfare is more dangerous because modern Soldiers are often fighting against a fleeting enemy and using high explosives which run the risk of injuring or killing people who are not involved. The idea is that all measures practical, without needlessly endangering the troops or impairing operations, must be taken to avoid killing non-combatants. Brutalizing civilians is immoral, and that is really all there is to it. Soldiers signed up to wager their lives on the field of battle. Civilians did not. It is a particularly disturbing feature of modern warfare that frequently one side poses as civilians, operates among civilians, and deliberately exposes them to danger in a variety of ways, for propaganda purposes. This is the fault of that side, not the Soldier who pulls the trigger in the honest belief that he is killing a terrorist. Dishonest tactics and illegitimate ruses of war fall upon the dishonorable combatant, not upon the honorable combatant who makes a legitimate mistake. Likewise, cowardly forces which use human shields or place military weapons among civilian buildings assume the moral burden of any deaths inflicted in the destruction of these targets.

An attack must be intended to further a military objective. This should be obvious, but it needs to be stated. Inflicting damage upon a nation for the purpose of inflicting damage on a nation is foolish. Attacks on civilians do not further a military objective, nor does mindless destruction of a nation's infrastructure. Ideally, the unavoidable damage done should not outweigh the military advantage gained. One could argue that the bombing of much of Germany and Japan was in pursuit of no rational military objective and did not further the war one iota. This would be, I think, overstating the case. But certainly area bombing of cities was a strategy calculated to inflict frightful casualties on the civilian population of those two belligerents. One could argue that German and Japan both engaged in such atrocities, to include terror bombing, that these strikes could be justified as reprisals. Such a diversion would be interesting, but it is a rabbit hole that would unnecessarily lengthen what is already a terrifically long essay.

One interesting customary and legal requirement is the affixing of distinguishing devices and the carrying of arms openly. In order to be considered a legitimate combatant, a combatant must not hide his status. He can hide his person, through camouflage, evasion, retreat, or hiding. But there should never be a question in his opponent's mind whether or not he faces a fellow warrior who may be legally and morally slain. It is a relatively new legal requirement, but has long been a customary requirement. Combatants who hide their status endanger all civilians around them, because they make their opponents justifiably suspicious of people whom they should be trying their best to protect. There is a reason that for centuries, a man found in civilian clothes was liable to hung as a spy, saboteur, or bandit. A uniformed scout using stealth to do the same job who was caught was far more likely to be taken as a prisoner of war.

Other prohibitions apply to prisoners and the wounded. A man whose ability to resist is gone is not a threat, and hence cannot morally be slain. He becomes a non-combatant. He is subject to the same protections as any other.

And now we begin to touch on Chivalry. . .

Eclectic Political Posting

2009-12-20T04:26:00.003+03:00

And the beat goes on in regard to Climategate -- now the Russians are saying that their data--that is to say, the data from the largest land area on the Earth--was selectively edited to pick and choose only those weather stations that showed a warming effect.

The Environmental Movement is acting more and more like a shake-down artist, and the true costs of high-flown pledges is becoming more and more evident...

Some fundamental questions have not been asked. If we are trying to 'adjust' the world's climate deliberately, by cutting carbon emissions (that I doubt have a statistically noticeable impact), then we must have a goal in mind. What carbon levels and global temperatures are we believing to be ideal? Little Ice Age temperatures? 1850 temps? Medieval Warming Period temperatures? I've yet to get an coherent answer.

An amusing spin on "eco-ninnies" provides half an answer about the roots of this environmental nonsense, almost tongue in cheek though the paper is real enough..

More immediately interesting is this article discussing Mike Yon's story on Kandahar Province. Next month this becoming personally relevant. I cannot add much to Mike's analysis, but here's another commentary piece at Small Wars Journal. Meanwhile, it seems the Special Forces are getting busy on the Taliban's leadership. Another SWJ piece discusses a more radical solution to the apparent lesson of history that Afghanistan is neither a functional state nor a nation.

Why China can't give up Tibet. It's a year old, but the facts of geography don't change much, and demographics don't really change quickly either.

Not much more crossing my horizon of interest that really need written about. Got a post brewing on chivalry and such, will have to write that eventually.

Lifted Whole Cloth from Blackfive - cut and paste

2009-12-16T15:33:00.002+03:00

FOR TODAY, Wednesday 16 December 2009, many if not most, fellow milblogs -- including This Ain't Hell, From My Position, Miss Ladybug, Boston Maggie, Grim's Hall, and those participating in the Wednesday Hero program -- are going silent for the day. Some are choosing to go silent for a longer period of time.

The reason for this is two-fold. First, milblogs are facing an increasingly hostile environment from within the military. While senior leadership has embraced blogging and social media, many field grade officers and senior NCOs do not embrace the concept. From general apathy in not wanting to deal with the issue to outright hostility to it, many commands are not only failing to support such activities, but are aggressively acting against active duty milbloggers, milspouses, and others. The number of such incidents appears to be growing, with milbloggers receiving reprimands, verbal and written, not only for their activities but those of spouses and supporters.

The catalyst has been the treatment of milblogger C.J. Grisham of A Soldier's Perspective (http://www.soldiersperspective.us/). C.J. has earned accolades and respect, from the White House on down for his honest, and sometimes blunt, discussion of issues -- particularly PTSD. In the last few months, C.J. has seen an issue with a local school taken to his command who failed to back him, and has even seen his effort to deal with PTSD, and lead his men in same by example, used against him as a part of this. Ultimately, C.J. has had to sell his blog to help raise funds for his defense in this matter.

An excellent story on the situation with C.J. can be found at Military Times:
http://www.armytimes.com/offduty/technology/offduty_blogger_120809/
While there have been new developments, the core problem remains, and C.J. is having to raise funds to cover legal expenses to protect both his good name and his career.

One need only look at the number of blogs by active duty military in combat zones and compare it to just a few years ago to see the chilling effect that is taking place.

Milblogs have been a vital link in getting accurate news and information about the military, and military operations, to the public. They have provided vital context and analysis on issues critical to operations and to the informed electorate critical to the Republic.

On Wednesday 16 December, readers will have the chance to imagine a world without milblogs, and to do something about it. Those participating are urging their readers to contact their elected representatives in Congress, and to let their opinions be known to them and to other leaders in Washington.

Some milblogs will remain silent for several days; some just for the day. All have agreed to keep the post about the silence and C.J. at the top of their blogs until Friday 18 December.

The issues go beyond C.J., and deserve careful consideration and discussion. We hope that you will cover this event, and explore the issues that lie at the heart of the matter. Contact the milbloggers in your area or that you know, and hear the story that lies within.

A Partial List of Participating Blogs:

This Ain't Hell http://thisainthell.us/blog/

Boston Maggie http://bostonmaggie.blogspot.com/

Blackfive http://www.blackfive.net/main/

Miss Ladybug http://miss-ladybug.blogspot.com

Drunken Wisdom http://beerbrains.com/

Grim's Hall http://grimbeorn.blogspot.com/

Frommyposition http://frommyposition.com/

CDR Salamander - http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com
LL - http://chromedcurses.com

If you wish to donate to CJ's defense fund, please use the following address, or click the link below. He's in a serious battle against a serious foe. Read the article to find out all about it.

Grisham Legal Fund
c/o Redstone Federal Credit Union
220 Wynn Drive
Huntsville, AL 35893

Please write "Grisham Legal Fund" in the memo line if you use this option.

Milblogs have been a vital link in getting accurate news and information about the military, and military operations, to you. Today, many milblogs are gone and others are under attack from within and without. Today, you have the chance to imagine a world without milblogs, and to do something about it. Make your voice heard by writing your congressional representatives and others, and by making donations as you see fit.

The battle for freedom of speech and the marketplace of ideas is fought on many fronts and in many ways. Without your help, the battle may well be lost.

*****

Now back to my opinion -- I doubt that milblogging will ever have the permissive environment that senior leadership believes it should. Most O5s and O6s tend to view their commands as their personal fiefs in which everything must be controlled by them, personally. It's the biggest problem with the United States Army today. Part of it is the 'no-fail' mentality of the OER process, part of it is that up to LTC, pretty much all promotions are automatic. Making major is absolutely guaranteed if you are not convicted at court-martial. COL and BG are the hardest promotions to get. So faced with actually having to compete for the next rank, these officers don't know how to deal with it and sort out what is or isn't important.

I've been accused of "OPSEC violations" for publishing less information than you can find in the picture captions of your average media story, including Army Times and Stars and Stripes picture captions. Slavish devotion to the unit or chain of command would be approved, but admitting anything less than perfect approval thereof is going to be punished as best those LTCs can manage. It might make them "look bad".

No, I got burnt pretty badly and will not make that mistake again.

Global Warming, Man-made

2009-12-12T22:43:00.003+03:00

Fourth post in a single day, although this one may not get finished today.

Global Climate Change is a reality. Yes indeedy, folks. The definition of the word "climate" is "the general or average weather conditions of a certain region, including temperature, rainfall, and wind." at least according to American Heritage® Science Dictionary. Being an average value, it is subject to change. We can prove that climate changes by the historical record. Grapes growing in places where they don't grow today, for instance, are a clue to warmer temperatures. In Greenland, the Vikings operated dairy farms. Dairy farms. The Inuit herded reindeer and even cattle in Greenland. There were grapevines growing in Newfoundland, a condition which does not occur today.

In general, growing seasons were longer throughout Europe and Asia, based on the evidence we have of these things. Why? Who knows. Have not yet heard a reasonable theory that could explain it in rational terms, though I personally think the big ball of gas at the center of the solar system has something to do with it. So does this guy, who has all the technical terms and fun cool tree ring data to explain it to people who like that sort of thing.

This is called by folks who care about these things, the Medieval Warm Period. Sometime in the 1300s, it got colder, wetter, and generally not as good for growing things. Ice floes disrupted the Vikings SLOC, leading to isolation of Iceland and abandonment of Greenland. This continued for some centuries, with the most famous illustrations being the winters in the Colonial period in America where trees literally froze solid and exploded, and General Washington's intrepid artillerymen routinely dragged artillery across frozen rivers that have not frozen in a long, long time, such as the Hudson.

So climate changes. It's cyclic, it's caused by the sun, and it's very difficult to predict. The weatherman can't tell me with a reasonable degree of accuracy whether it is going to snow tomorrow or not at Fort Leonard Wood, he can throw out a best guess.

But the Global Warming crowd is trying to sell three interrelated propositions.

A: The average temperature of the Earth is rising
B: It is caused by human beings - specifically, our "carbon"
C: If the trend is not reversed, it will be catastrophic in its consequence

And they are using those three propositions to push for a very wide variety of governmental and international regulation of everything that "produces carbon" (translation: everything that runs on internal combustion or electricity).

Only A is provable scientifically speaking. You could theoretically take enough temperature readings, analyze them, derive averages, and demonstrate a warming trend. This is possible. Of course, AWG advocates will tell you this has been done, most famously algore's hockey stick (now thoroughly debunked). More on that later.

B cannot be proven scientifically. Scientific proof requires repeatable experimentation. No matter how many times you run the same computer model, if the algorithm is buggered or the data is bad, it's not valid. And computer models are not experiments. For experiments, you would need a dozen planets, some with people and some without. You can guess about what is causing a warming trend, but you cannot EXPERIMENT. Without experiments, you aren't using the scientific method, you're guessing. Correlation does not imply causation.

C is predicting the future. That's not science, that's prophecy. And I don't buy it because these folks don't understand what causes changes in solar output, and if you don't understand that, you can't accurately predict climate. The sun is the largest influence on our planet's climate, not human beings.

So back to Proposition A, that the Earth's climate is warming. Lots and lots of data is collected and analyzed by people with quite lucrative contracts to do so. You would think that there would be an answer to this question. There isn't--and now it seems that the folks who are being paid to figure it out are "adjusting" their data. New Zealand's data is entirely faked and when you look at the raw data, it is nothing like the "adjusted" data.

Scientists don't "adjust" data. Data is data. You don't get to fiddle it until you like it.

Then things get truly entertaining.

"Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from."

With the hacking and release of internal email files at a major climate research organization, a whole of other dead fish floated to the top. It seems that there was a lot going on the climate change circles. Seems the Global Warming crowd was running around plotting to blackmail folks, subvert the peer-review process, and otherwise engage in hijinks designed to ensure that opposing viewpoints are discredited.

There's an excellent summary of the major points available here, where someone who actually sounds like he knows what he's talking about goes on at length about understanding the issues involved.

Questions are "why?"

First, there's a huge pile of money involved. Hundreds of millions of dollars -- which would dry up and go away if they said, "we aren't sure what's happening, we don't know what causes it or how to predict it, and we aren't even sure if there is anything happening in the first place."

I'm not the only one to be reminded of Eisenhower's speech regarding science and the Federal government. He was referring to military research, but the same applies.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

Politicians give money to the scientists who use that money to ensure that they get results which require the politicians to continue giving them money. And the politicians win because they are after more power, and the 'climate crisis' gives them more power. It's a self-supporting cycle, and because of the amount of money involved, tends to run over people who aren't actually conspirators--even people who "want" to do real science end up forced to give answers that agree with the prevailing wisdom.

Presidential Speechifying, Part Deux

2009-12-12T18:30:00.003+03:00

In which I discuss a speech His Presidentialness gave nearly two weeks ago.

Two weeks ago I was frantically busy and totally focused on the school I'm attending, so I more or less ignored the West Point speech on the grounds that:

a) I already know my Afghanistan deployment date, and

b) The information I was learning in class would allow me to accomplish my mission more effectively and save my life and the lives of my Soldiers, and

c) The class I'm in has a 20% failure rate, so I actually was studying.

Having passed the hard tests and having nothing on my plate for the weekend, I can throw my two cents into the fire. It's not the best write up ever, but I've got entirely too much vested in the issue at this point, roughly 30 days out from deployment, to do a truly good job.

Now, in the spirit of common sense and fairness, I would like you all to reread the speech, because honestly, who sat through the whole thing at the time?

Money quotes, not in the order that he made them and with commentary interspersed.

"And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan. "

Deja vu. Sounds a lot like George's plan to end Iraq.

"We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future."

Counter-Insurgency defined. Yup. Three goals that were achievable in Iraq, were achieved in Iraq, and more or less define victory from out perspective. Keep in mind that victory for the US is different than victory for Afghanistan. Victory for the US is to turn it over to the ANA and ANP to finish this war. Victory for them is peace and security in a functional country. But it has to be their win, not ours.

"Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort."

Your Presidentialness -- You, and the folks who created you, packaged you, supported you, and elected you are the ones who did this. Just sayin' This is why you are worried about the national will of your own country.

"I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region."

He's not talking to West Point cadets like this. They know who the enemy is and why. Here he's talking directly to those morons on the Left who thought ChangeyHope was going to translate out into '30 days into my Presidency, every deployment will be concluded and all troops will be home and we'll start disbanding our military.'

"But taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We'll continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government -- and, more importantly, to the Afghan people -- that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country. "

In other words, he's giving the folks on the ground what they want to do their job. I'm glad that he is listening. But he is also providing a stick to beat the Karzai government over the head with. One of the cornerstones of counterinsurgency is good governance. If the United States makes an open-ended commitment to prop up the Karzai government no matter what, they have no motive to fix their problems. If we tell them that if they don't get their act in gear, they are going to left to be shot by the Taliban, then maybe they'll get the message. (h/t Blog Them Out of the Stone Age)

Now, a couple further points.

Venue, selection of. Soon-to-be-LT hits it on the head. Excellent place for a major policy speech that effectively sets new operational guidance for a war. A place where, unlike practically anywhere else in America that isn't a military installation, everyone sitting in the audience will be directly affected by what he had to say. The Army and Marine Corps are at war, America is at the mall.

Support of mission vs. support of troops. Under Bush, I argued over and over that support of the troops necessarily entails supporting the mission. Guess what? Under Obama, support of troops necessarily entails supporting the mission. Conservatives, by and large, supported the Bush administration, the mission, and the troops. Liberals did not. But that support does not entitle Conservatives to begin acting as did the average liberal during the Bush years because they don't like the sitting President. Turn about is fair play. If failing to support Bush's warfighting because you dislike his ideology was seditious, near-treason, and liable to piss me off, failing to support me because you dislike my current boss's ideology is no different. You do NOT get a free pass because I happen to agree with your fiscal policy or your general foreign policy stances. Especially if you are attacking the mission and the troops with an eye to midterm elections or the 2012 Presidential race. (h/t Foreign and Domestic, who said it again here.)

VDH is a smart, smart man. Occasionally, I want to tase him. He bitched at the Prez with some legit criticisms, but he also said that it was a "cerebral but flat speech". Victor is a very smart man with massive creds in the military history category, but you don't talk to professional officers the way that Herodotus records commanders talking to hoplites. Different psychology. You don't need folks hyped up to fight a counterinsurgency, you need calm and cool professionals.

While some people have criticized his discussion of the economic costs of this war, it has a place. It is hypocritical coming from a President who has pushed numerous massive spending bills and is fighting to spend billions more on health care, but it is a real. Endless money forms the sinews of war, as Cicero put it.

Finally, deadlines, discussion of. Some commentators, afflicted by Obama Derangement Syndrome (the mirror image of Bush Derangement Syndrome, which causes the sufferer to believe that a man who flew fighter jets is actually stupid and to criticize him for mutually contradictory reasons simultaneously), seem to believe that there is a magic switch which will shut down our commitment to Afghanistan in 18 months and that we will all pack up and go home in a 30 days window. Not happening, and not what the Prez was talking about. He was talking about beginning the transition in 18 months to an Afghan-led security situation. That process can and will take years, just like it did in Iraq. Just ask Gates.

Other commentary, some of which addresses similar issues, and some of which disagrees.
John Chappell quoting MG (ret) Sachnow

Speechification, Presidential

2009-12-12T16:05:00.002+03:00

His Presidentialness gave a hell of a speech out at Oslo--and not the kind you normally hear from Nobel Peace Prize laureates.

He acknowledged the absurdity of a president accepting a peace prize for which he was chosen 10 days after inauguration.

"In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who've received this prize -- Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela -- my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women -- some known, some obscure to all but those they help -- to be far more deserving of this honor than I."

He then spent the rest of the speech talking about war. Not the speech I would have given, but as a theoretical exercise in Just War theory, it's not half bad. I quibble with some elements of it, but there were some good points.

"But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 42 other countries -- including Norway -- in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

"Still, we are at war, and I'm responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict -- filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other."

Well, not bad at all. I get a nod in a Nobel Peace Prize speech. Along with the rest of the US Armed Forces, but still. . .

"I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naïve -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

"But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

"I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.

"But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions -- not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity."

Go His Presidentialness! What ever you think of the man's politics, he has some outstanding speechwriters and can deliver a phrase like few on the world stage today.

I find it interesting that he spends much of the rest of the speech talking about conditions for just war, and the ends he believes military force should be used for, to a bunch of Euro-weenies who have none. But it's the kind of speech that should be made more often. I really don't think this speech was aimed at a room full of a Norwegians or whatever, and it wasn't aimed at folks like me. I know Just War theory. On the political right, there is an understanding that bad folks are out there, and shooting them is not only necessary but morally right. It's his nominal supporters, the idealistic idiots of the American Left, who are the targets of his speech. For years we've been telling them that an aversion to military force does nothing to promote peace, and in fact emboldens people who threaten peace. Perhaps they will listen when one of their own says the same thing. I disagree with some of the speech, and it has many of the hallmarks of Speech, Obama, Annoying (34 uses of I or me, for instance), but it wasn't bad one and it was a necessary one. I disagree, of course, with his characterization of Iraq, but as that one is being put to bed, it's irrelevant what he thinks of it. It's still a chalk mark in the W column.

Shooting at Fort Hood

2009-11-11T16:19:00.014+03:00

Bottom Line Up Front:

My Battalion took 4 KIA, 11 WIA. My company lost no Soldiers, but has two in the hospital.

There's no way I can write about this on any of the blogs that are connected to my real name because I disagree intensely with the Official Party Line.

Read the disclaimer at the bottom of this page. Not Kidding.

Next disclaimer:

The vast majority of Muslims in the United States Army (and our sister services) are perfectly good Soldiers who do their duty, much as I did mine in Kosovo, though I intensely disagreed with that mission, primarily on religious grounds.

A few, though, seem to hold opinions like this:

There was a grenade thrown amongs a group of American soldiers. One of the soldiers, feeling that it was to late for everyone to flee jumped on the grave with the intention of saving his comrades. Indeed he saved them. He inentionally took his life (suicide) for a noble cause i.e. saving the lives of his soldier. To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause. Scholars have paralled this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory. Their intention is not to die because of some despair. The same can be said for the Kamikazees in Japan. They died (via crashing their planes into ships) to kill the enemies for the homeland. You can call them crazy i you want but their act was not one of suicide that is despised by Islam. So the scholars main point is that "IT SEEMS AS THOUGH YOUR INTENTION IS THE MAIN ISSUE" and Allah (SWT) knows best.

This should have raised red flags. It didn't.

He prayed at a radical mosque that was attended by 9/11 hijackers.

He presented creepy "briefings" described thus (and obtained by the WaPo):

"Hasan apparently gave a long lecture on the Koran and talked about how if you don't believe, you are condemned to hell. Your head is cut off. You're set on fire. Burning oil is burned down your throat.

"And I said to the psychiatrist, but this cold be a very interesting informational session, right? Where he's educating everybody about the Koran. He said but what disturbed everybody was that Hasan seemed to believe these things. And actually, a Muslim in the audience, a psychiatrist, raised his hand and said, excuse me. But I'm a Muslim and I do not believe these things in the Koran, and then I don't believe what you say the Koran says. And then Hasan didn't say, well, I'm just giving you one point of view. He basically just stared the guy down."

That should have raised red flags. It didn't--at least not officially. No formal complaints were made, for fear of appearing "disciminatory"

He had a spotty work record, and at least one coworker avoided sending referrals his way.

At some point, he attempted to contact al-Qaeda. The FBI knew, but there are questions about what they did with that information. Finger pointing and bureaucratic ass-covering has already begun.

He walked into the medical clinic attached to the Soldier Readiness Center (formerly the Sportsdome, a sports bar). The clinic is actually a separate building some 100 meters or so from the Sportsdome building. He opened fire with a pistol lauded by a media disinformation campaign as being more lethal than it really is, and shot 54 Soldiers after shouting Allah Akbar, or 'Allah is Great', a typical battlecry for Islamic militants. An eyewitness that I have met and know somewhat gives his take. Eventually he was taken down by MPs and DA civilian police officers.

Evidence mounts that this action was deliberately planned, complete with stereotypical 'suicide' preparations.

The lawyers are already playing delaying games and attempting to do their job of keeping this failed suicide from being railroaded--as if there is any doubt about the eventual outcome of a trial. The only question in my mind is whether he will do as his lawyers will undoubtedly insist and claim an insanity defense, or whether he will stand on his convictions.

Many in the media rushing to a defense of PTSD, or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. I'll link to a Wall Street Journal counter-argument rather than gracing 'Dr. Phil' with a link. Let me just say that anyone with the faintest acquaintance with real PTSD (brought on by trauma, you know) would disagree vehemently. I will provide one summarized clinical study and leave the rest as an exercise for the reader.

Mayor Daley thinks it's because America has too many guns. Seriously?

I would ask that before reading further, you take a moment to read the various links. This essay is incomplete without the information contained in these links. Once you're done, we can move onto my opinion.

Whether the United States admits the reality or not, our opposition to the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and similar groups places us in the position of being at war with Islam, from the point of view of certain schools of Islamic thought. In overthrowing Muslim governments, in attacking "the Faithful", and in attempting to set up functional "Westernized" states, we have placed ourselves in opposition to the schools of thought characterized variously as Deobandi, Wahabbi, or Salafist. We are also in direct opposition to Iran's state-sponsored imams who push for a Sharia-ruled Shi'a state which includes southern Iraq, and for whom Muqtada al-Sadr has frequently as a sock puppet.

These schools of thought are characterized by an adherence not merely to the Koran, but to the Hadiths and Sharia law. Highly scholastic and legalistic, they emphasis Islamic unity and guarding the 'ulemma' against impurity in word, deed, and thought, whether the impurity is competing schools of Islam or generalized "Western influences."

Further, these schools of thought tend to label even Muslims who disagree as 'apostates', subject to being killed when and where convenient just as we 'unbelievers' are. They emphasise pan-Islamic unity based around a largely Arabic cultural milleu at the expense of local culture and traditions, and deny the validity of any allegiance to a state other than one that meets their criteria of being 'truly' Islamic.

This form of Islam is incompatible with military service, and indeed with citizenship in the United States. It directly contradicts the oaths sworn by military members to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same." When the United States was struggling against Communism during the Cold War, we did not allow Communists to enlist in the United States Army. Why do we permit our enemies to enlist in the Army today?

Commentators of various ideological stripes have asked how this was possible on a military installation. The answers are very simple. Fort Hood has tens of thousands of people entering the gate daily. It would be simply impossible to search each vehicle. We rely on Soldiers registering their cars on post, and presenting identification when they enter the post. A serving officer stationed at Fort Hood would be required to register his vehicle and get a post sticker shortly after arriving. And of course he is required to make sure his ID card is up to date. No security measure exists on the books to stop a Soldier stationed at Fort Hood from coming on post. Once he gets on post, very few Soldiers, other than MPs on law enforcement duty, carry their weapons around the installation. Of course there are Soldiers going to rifle ranges and similiar training, but live ammunition is tightly controlled to maintain accountability. Under Federal Law, no personally owned firearms may be carried on post. Once Major Hassan got on post, the only question was when and where was he going to carry out his attack.

The choice of target is part of what convinces me this was political/religious. Recall that for an adherent of many types of Islam there is no difference between politics and religion -- sharia is derived from the Koran and the Hadiths, and these are both legal and religious pronouncements, with proper forms of prayer right next to decrees on inheritance.

The Soldier Readiness Center prepared Soldiers administratively and medically for deployment. I updated the power of attorney for my wife, and could have updated my will had I desired to do so. I verified emergency contact data and how I want my life insurance distributed. I got an HIV test and a flumist and made sure my other immunizations were up to date. Other Soldiers got smallpox and anthrax and so forth. The SRC is a bottleneck in deployment preparations. No other target could easily concentrate deploying Soldiers, impact deploying units, and potentially delay deployments without an attack requiring explosives. Among other indicators, it was the perfection of this choice that makes me doubt the theory that Major Hassan just 'snapped' or was otherwise mentally ill. A "crazy" person would not be capable of precision targeting. A man who had decided that he could no longer bear the contradictions of his Islamic beliefs and the reality of the world is capable of that targeting. A man who decided that he was tired of pretending to be something he was not, who finally decided to stand up for his beliefs--as incomprehensible as they are to a normal Westerner--is capable of that.

My belief is that Major Hassan was exposed to radicalized forms of Islamic belief and at some point, possibly very early, he adopted these beliefs. He could not stand the contradictions inherent in his role as an officer in the United States Army. He decided to attack his enemy in a manner calculated to inflict maximum damage while almost ensuring his status as a Shaheed.

He was not 'crazy' or 'insane' in the clinical sense of being so mentally ill that he could not tell right from wrong, unless you wish to use the definition that Islam is in and of itself a form of mental illness, an argument which has some validity from a Western point of view.

He was merely our enemy.

Now, lessons learned from this, and how to prevent.

Lesson one: Political correctness needs to die a horrible death. While many Islamic Soldiers serve the United States faithfully and loyally, Muslim Soldiers (or indeed, any Soldier) who repeatedly attacks the foreign policy of the United States, our government, or make statements supporting our enemies, must be scrutinized. Their coworkers must be free to point out dangerous indicators without fear of having a career-ending Equal Opportunity complaint lodged against them . The standards of proof must be lowered so that it takes something less than 54 casualties to take action.

Lesson two: The advice of Muslim Soldiers should be solicited in putting together some information for Commanders and for Muslim Soldiers. This should lay out, in Islamic terms, the arguments for loyalty to a nation that permits freedom of worship and the arguments for combat against our enemies. A Christian Soldier struggling with a religious qualm regarding the morality of killing has plenty of resources to turn to, there are Christian chaplains all over the place. Where does a Muslim Soldier go?

Lesson three: When a Muslim Soldier does give these warning signs that he cannot reconcile service in the US Army with his version of his faith, he needs to be given the boot. Unceremoniously and without veteran's benefits, a GI Bill, or the other benefits of military service. Thanks for playing, don't let the door hit you on the way out, and oh, by the way, you really don't need to be permitted to purchase firearms in this country. Ever.

Will this discourage some Muslim Soldiers from enlisting or reenlisting? Probably. Not the good ones. Will it be foolproof? Probably not. Is it a complete program in all the endless bureaucratic glory that a complete program would entail? Nope. Does it come close to infringing on freedom of religion? Not in the least--although it denies freedom of religion to an interpretation of Islam that is fundamentally incompatible with the United States Constitution. But that type of religion DOES need to be infringed upon because it is a threat to the body politic.

The Constitution is not a mutual suicide pact. When someone finds a loophole and exploits it to kill us, then the loophole should be closed.

Israel and Hamas

2008-12-30T17:13:00.004+03:00

"If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I would do everything to stop that, and would expect Israel to do the same thing."

Glad to know that someone else sees things in Israel more or less the way I do. If someone shoots rockets at civilians, then the answer is to attack those people until you force them do your will-namely, stop shooting rockets at a bare minimum.

Israel's Defense Minister calls this a "war to the bitter end" although you can take that a few different ways. Certainly Israel will be at war with Islamic nitwits until the end of time unless they nuke all their neighbors, but one wonders if this sort of thing is grandstanding for the press, or if Israel seriously intends to go in and clean out the rat's nest that is the Gaza Strip.

Among other things, Hamas's ability to take control of the Gaza Strip and use it as a base for strikes against Israel bodes poorly for a real forward movement in terms of the creation of the eventual state of Palestine. As the Wall Street Journal observes, Israel cannot afford to allow the West Bank to be used in this manner, and cannot trust the Palestinians to NOT permit loons like Hamas to use an truly sovereign Palestine as a base for terrorist operations against Israel. Hence it is truly in the interests of the Palestinian people to repudiate Hamas and to allow Israel to crush it and permit a more representative and rational organization to assume control.

After all, what is Hamas's purpose? To "raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine, for under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security and safety where their lives, possessions and rights are concerned."

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day?

"This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement."

"Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that. For the sake of hoisting the banner of Allah over their homeland they fight. "Allah will be prominent, but most people do not know."

"Now and then the call goes out for the convening of an international conference to look for ways of solving the (Palestinian) question. Some accept, others reject the idea, for this or other reason, with one stipulation or more for consent to convening the conference and participating in it. Knowing the parties constituting the conference, their past and present attitudes towards Moslem problems, the Islamic Resistance Movement does not consider these conferences capable of realising the demands, restoring the rights or doing justice to the oppressed."

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

Who would want a neighbor like that? Is it any surprise that Israel is done playing games? There's a summarized timeline of the current spate of fighting here, and another here. What's amusing is the number of stories that have figures for Palestinian casualties, freely provided by Hamas (without independant verification) but you have to scrounge to find numbers of rockets fired into Israel or number of casualties inflicted. This story gives some numbers, but I can't find the answer to some of the basic questions of this conflict. After all, if some idiots in the press and world leaders are criticizing Israel for "disproportionate" response, then what are the numbers? Or are we supposed to just take their word that it's "disproprtionate"? At least some outlets are recognizing that Hamas is shooting at Israel, but carefully limit reports of Israeli casualties to "since December 24th" or "since the truce expired". How many rockets and mortars were fired during the "truce" and to what effect? How many before the "truce"? After some Goggle-fu, I found a partial answer in a Canadian news story, all the way down at the bottom where there is an acknowledgement that "according to Israel's Foreign Ministry, 17 people have been killed in attacks from Gaza in 2008, including nine civilians and eight soldiers. Six of the dead were killed by rockets." Yet another instance of media bias, which is so unsuprising it hardly bears remarking on.

The Israelis are of the opinion that this hubbub is sponsored by Iran for Iran's purposes. While everyone operating in reality is keenly away that Hizbollah is Iamnutjob's sock puppet, the case is less clear-cut with Hamas. Hamas is a Sunni organization intending to set up a Sunni Muslim Brotherhood-inspired shari-governed state to replace Israel after they kill all the Israelis. (Don't believe me, I linked to their founding and governing document above). Iran wants to see Shia Islamic revolution engulf the Middle East. But don't be fooled by a simplistic analysis of sectarian loyalties in this game. Enemy of my enemy is a time-honored principle in the Middle East (for precisely as long as is convenient). It would be hard to pin down proof short of the Israelis capturing intact rockets with shipping documents pointing to Iran, as has been done by US forces in Iraq. However, it's plausible and in line with Iran's usual methods.

Oh, and the quote at the top of this entry?

Barrack Hussein Obama, Prez-Elect. It's a funny world, isn't it, when we are agreeing on something.

Hiatus, Again

2008-12-26T21:30:00.002+03:00

Well, sorry about the Lack Of Content recently. Been busy at work, and then there was a little tiff about my LJ. Seems my Chain of Command dislikes being blogged about.

Anyway, there is no indication that anyone knows about this blog, given that one of my Fearless Leader's main talking points was about how terrible it is that I have political opinions. I'm sure I'd be up on charges if this could be linked to me. I've scrubbed the profile of significant identifying information, and gone back a couple dozen posts and cleaned those up. I'll ensure that any political stuff comes back here. I took a while off from maintaining this blog Just In Case, and because I was so pissed off I couldn't see straight. Once I wrote that attempting to clamp down on bloggers will discourage those who want to play by the rules and support the Army, while providing no deterrent effect what so ever to those who want to buck the system. I'd like to have been wrong.

I'm going to have to be extremely careful regarding my identity, especially given the relative openness that I used to wear as a badge of pride and a counter-argument to those who argued that only anonymous bloggers could post without sacrificing their careers. I guess I was wrong about that. Oh, well.

Complexity

2008-11-17T13:54:00.001+03:00

Complexity of the "Increase troops in Afghanistan" meme.

Complexity of the "Shut down Gitmo" meme.

Further commentary on Iraq in the same vein as my previous post.

I'm moving this week, or I'd put a little more value-added to these.

Obama and Iraq

2008-11-14T01:49:00.003+03:00

I know that it is conventional, received wisdom that BHO's victory has nothing to do with Iraq. It's amusing how the pundits can have conventional wisdom in such a short time, but this is the era of the insta-poll, where we can call a state with 3% of the vote counted and where opinion polls, regardless of methodology or bias, are revered as former generations revered Holy Writ.

I am inclined to disagree in that BHO wouldn't have been viable candidate without the anti-victory crowd.[1] He consistently hammered the theme that he wouldn't have invaded Iraq in the first place, although to his credit his voting record supports that notion, unlike the vast majority of the legislators that make that claim today. And while at the end the credit crisis and so forth took over Iraq in public conciousness (most notably through the media's refusal to run positive stories which means Iraq virtually disappeared from the evening news), those folks are most passionate about getting out of Iraq NOW are in the forefront of the Changey-Hopey-Dopey crowd.

BHO promised specifically to withdraw US combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of office, "establish regularity in deployments"[2], and end stop-loss. He also want to push more forces into Afghanistan, although how he would manage this in the near future is unclear. After we pull everyone out of Iraq and "establish regularity" it might be possible to do so with the dwell times he seems to support.

Never mind that the generals and diplomats are putting together an agreement to stay there until 2011, with faster withdrawl always an option. Give us a little wiggle room, you might say. There's still a lot of hemming and hawing, and the process was fraught with the usual histronics and drama attendant on any Middle Eastern negotion, but it seems to be on track to pass the Iraqi Parliment.

Meanwhile, in Baghdad, they have started removing the "Stay Back 100m or you will get shot" signs from the back of US vehicles. Believe it or not, posting those signs was originally a 'hearts and minds' initiative compared to the TTP in 2003, which basically worked out to 'shoot tailgaters, use warning shorts if they aren't too close or if you see kids in the car'. If you need an explanation as to why this is significant, you haven't thought about it hard enough. It means that the suicide car bombings against moving convoys are no longer a serious threat, which acccords with the information I was seeing during my brief stay there a few months ago.

Once upon a time, when I was in ar-Ramadi with COL McFadden's 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division (side note: my old BC just got picked up for full bird, go him), the strategy was to push units out of the big FOBs and into neighborhoods, setting up COPs (Combat Outposts) and JSS (Joint Security Stations). The idea was to get agressively involved in the neighborhoods and create a real sense of security among the inhabitants rather than just aimlessly patrolling at random intervals. Being Engineers, my unit built a Metric Boatload of these pocket fortresses. This was a precursor to the strategy that the Surge intended to use, neatly summarized by Grim. The idea is/was to push in, establish a security climate, train Iraqis to do that job, and then get the hell out of the neighborhoods because that shit is both dangerous and manpower-intensive. Eventually the Iraqis are going to have to do the job.

Think about it--suppose you were an Iraqi. Wouldn't you rather have men of your own town in an Iraqi police organization patrolling the streets doing law-and-order work than Americans out looking for a shootout? So while you might be (and probably would be) pretty grateful to get rid of the terrorists (who finance their terrorism through extortion, do remember) it's a step forward to get IPs doing the job.

Of course, when the AP writes about it, it's "abandoning — deliberately and with little public notice — a centerpiece of the widely acclaimed strategy it adopted nearly two years ago to turn the tide against the insurgency." There is a grudging acknowledgement down five paragraphs that this was always the plan, but the rest of the article is a lot of hedging and speculation.

Another interesting indicator is the number of insurgents coming in and deciding they don't want to play on the wrong side anymore. JD has an interesting article on a JAM-SGC leader. National Reconcilliation it ain't (yet) but it is moving in the right direction.

The question is not whether or not we will stay in Iraq for 100 Years. Some Americans will stay in Iraq for 100 years (providing neither we nor the Iraqis suffer total collapse) in the same way that there are US Soldiers working with many militaries around the world as trainers and in joint operations and training operations. The question is whether the main combat units will withdraw on a three year schedule that can be sped up as circumstances permit, or on a 16 month schedule that becomes a millstone around Obama's neck if the Iraqi security forces are not ready to take over all of Baghdad and Mosul and other less secure areas.

This also affects how BHO will be able to fulfill some of his other promises, promises to rebuild an Army whose equipment is in dire need of refit and replacement, and whose force levels were clearly cut too low during the heady Clinton years and not built up under Bush as soon as they were needed. An Army nursing a stab-in-the-back syndrome and suffering from a perception of failure is not nearly as quick to rebuild as an Army that achieves a hard-won success at great cost.

As a side note, I question BHO's ability to rebuild the Army from an equipment standpoint, given that a precipitous withdrawl would likely result in transfer of a good bit of equipment to the IA, necessitating replacement of that equipment stateside. BHO has also come out against the next generation of combat vehicles, currently being developed as the Future Combat System. Given his social programs and the inclinations of supporters in Congress, I doubt we'll see serious refit and reset of existing equipment sets either.

Well, we'll see.

[1] Anyone not clinically insane is anti-war. The so-called "anti-war" crowd prefers immediate "peace" to victory. The rest of us want peace through victory because we believe it to be more lasting and favorable. Hence they are 'anti-victory' whether though a hatred of America, lack of belief in the concept of victory, or because they are irrationally convinced that victory is simply impossible.
[2] Deployments not driven by ongoing commitments are driven by contingencies. The only way to "establish regularity" is to consistently and regularly back down from challenges and refuse to use military power that had been forecasted specifically well in advance. It is, simply put, an impossibility.

Barak and the 2nd Amendment

2008-10-08T01:41:00.003+03:00

I have a fairly rigid position on the Second Amendment. It has nothing to do with anything but this:

The Constitution of the United States of America says:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Shall Not Be Infringed.

This is a codification of the pre-existing right that all free men had and have to defend themselves, their families, their property, their community, and their society at large. It also serves as a check on governmental ambition, the natural inclination of political 'elites' to adopt a paternalist attitude and enact schemes they see fit, regardless of the will of the body politic.

This explains why many Democrats disapprove of the Second Amendment.

Barak Hussein Obama would like you, the conservative or moderate individual who owns a firearm (or three) to believe that he supports your right to own and bear your firearm. Or at least, that's what his current story is.

Check out his campaign website's "Sportsmen for Obama."

“He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting.”

Ummm. . . Wow. I don't give a flying fuck about hunting or target shooting, and that has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. Nice twist.

Let's hop in the way-back machine, and let's talk about the Joyce Foundation.

The junior senator from Illinois does NOT want you to know how far his current statements and his historical actions diverge.

Obama spent eight years on the board of the Joyce Foundation, which paid him more than $70,000. During that time he and the rest of the board met quarterly to award grants. $2.7 million dollars went to groups dedicated to opposing the Second Amendment, including Ban Handguns Now and the Violence Policy Center.

"As the most aggressive group in the gun control movement, the VPC has a record of policy successes on the federal, state, and local levels—including first revealing the threat posed by gun shows, drastically reducing the number of gun dealers, banning the possession of guns by domestic violence offenders, and exposing gun industry marketing to women and even children."

Push the Fast Forward to 1996. Barack Obama is running for State Senator. His campaign is given a survey by a liberal political action group. Here are his answers. They are all enlightening about what Mr. Obama believes when under minimal media scrutiny and running for an office where his constituents will be largely rich liberal just like him. But the relevant questions are:

Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

There is some discussion on this survey -- Mr. Obama has since claimed that it was filled out by a staffer. There is also some evidence he is prevaricating.

“I always believed those to be his views,” she said, adding some members of the board argued that Obama’s 1996 answers were “what he really believes in, and he’s tailoring it now to make himself more palatable as a nationwide candidate.” -- Aviva Patt, IVI-IPO treasurer.

Once he was elected:

He voted to permit retired police officers to concealed carry:
"I didn't find that [vote] surprising. I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he has previously done--and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms."

2004 Debate:
"Let's be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban."

SB 2165:
He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation.

Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
-- 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998

Audacity of Hope:
"I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer's lobby."

In the US Senate:
Voted Against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-219 on Jul 29, 2005

He voted to ban nearly all rifle ammunition:
A bill that on the surface seems harmless, but only if you don't understand firearms.
``(iii) a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines, under section 926(d), to be capable of penetrating body armor; or

A projectile that MAY be used in a handgun. There's no inherent objection to chambering pistols for what is normally rifle ammunition--provided that the handgun is big enough or the rifle round is small enough. There's a significant market for 5.56mm handguns, and that round will definitely penetrate Level I body armor. It's a back door to be used to bludgeon ammunition makers into shutting up shop. Thank God it didn't pass.

In His Own Words:

Nice Tapdance

For more, check out:
gunowners.org
ontheissues.org
snubnoseinfo
Buckeye Firearms Association
The NRA

Not Quite Theoretical

2008-10-07T20:05:00.003+03:00

You know, there's some foofraw going back and forth about a fellow named Bill Ayers and his relationship with Barak Obama.

To understand why this makes some people a mite twitchy, there's a fairly illuminating piece written by a fellow whom Bill Ayers tried to kill for the crime of being born the son of a judge

The same Bill Ayers, who gave an interview some seven years ago headlined, "No Regrets"

Let's poke around his website:

"There is no one better positioned than the late Edward Said to offer advice on the conduct of intellectual life."

There's enough gems in the politics tab that I really don't have to show my work when I dismiss Ayers as another communist who hasn't figured out that shit just doesn't work in the Real World.

Or how about a quote from an old (well, back in January) essay,

The dominant narrative in contemporary school reform is once again focused on exclusion and disadvantage, race and class, black and white. ‘Across the US,’ the National Governor’s Association declared in 2005, ‘a gap in academic achievement persists between minority and disadvantaged students and their white counterparts.’ This is the commonly referenced and popularly understood ‘racial achievement gap,’ and it drives education policy at every level. Interestingly, whether heartfelt or self-satisfied, the narrative never mentions the monster in the room: white supremacy….Gloria Ladson-Billings upends all of this with an elegant reversal: there is no achievement gap, she argues, but actually a glancing reflection of something deeper and more profound—America has a profound education debt. The educational inequities that began with the annihilation of native peoples and the enslavement of Africans, the conquest of the continent and the importation of both free labor and serfs, transformed into apartheid education, something anemic, inferior, inadequate, and oppressive. Over decades and centuries the debt has accumulated and is passed from generation to generation, and it continues to grow and pile up.”

. . .

The mind boggles.

Barak Obama started his political career as a handpicked successor to State Senator Alice Palmer, who was moving on to a run at Congress. He was first introduced by her at the home of Bill Ayers. This is 1995. Mr. Ayers contributed a fairly insignificant $200 to the campaign.

Meanwhile, Mr. Ayers was busily harassing inner-city schools with a "Chicago Annenberg Challenge" organization.

At least one teacher characterized it as, "At best, they are irrelevant wanderers. At worst, they are teacher bashers and ideologues pushing a political line while collecting political patronage."

For a quick post-mortem on the effectiveness of this organization,

"The CAC also funded the creation the Consortium of Chicago School Research (CCSR),
in parallel with the two operational arms, the Board and the Collaborative. This arm was
to conduct research on the impact of the CAC’s funding on student outcomes. In 2003 the
final technical report of the CCSR on the CAC was published.

"The “bottom line” according to the report was that the CAC did not achieve its goal of
improvement in student academic achievement and nonacademic outcomes. While
student test scores improved in the so-called Annenberg Schools that received some of
the $160 million disbursed in the six years from 1995 to 2001,

“This was similar to improvement across the system…. There were no statistically
significant differences in student achievement between Annenberg schools and
demographically similar non-Annenberg schools. This indicates that there was no
Annenberg effect on achievement.”

"The study cited four factors that helped explain the failure. These included:
1. Shortcomings in the design and implementation of the Challenge;
2. Lack of capacity among the External Partners to promote school development;
3. Lack of ability and commitment among schools to engage in the work of the
Challenge; and
4. Lack of external support and “countervailing system forces” that detracted from
or conflicted with schools’ efforts to develop through the Challenge.

"The report identified the political conflict between the Local School Council promotion
efforts of the CAC – such as the $2 million Leadership Development Initiative - as a
possible factor hindering a positive impact on student achievement."

As everyone and their second cousin knows by now, Barak Obama sat on the board of the CAC with Bill Ayers. Details are sketchy about some things -due in no small part to stonewalling of unsympathetic individuals attempting to access records, A number of bloggers have attempted to detail it in more detail, but there are a lot of questions simply unanswerable at this time. What is for sure is that Barak Obama is outright lying when he characterizes Bill Ayers as "a guy who lives in my neighborhood" and nothing more.

al-Anbar Transfer of Responsibility

2008-09-03T01:21:00.004+03:00

"The chief of intelligence for the Marine Corps in Iraq recently filed an unusual secret report concluding that the prospects for securing that country's western Anbar province are dim and that there is almost nothing the U.S. military can do to improve the political and social situation there . . ."
-- Washington Post, September 11, 2006
Front Page story

Yesterday, al-Anbar Province was turned over to the Iraqis, who will assume the primary responsibility for security in the area.

According to the Wall Street Journal,
The Anbar handover is above all a tribute to the hundreds of Americans who have fought and died in places like Fallujah, Ramadi and Hit over these last five years.

Posting, Interruptus

2008-08-13T03:54:00.005+03:00

I began this post about a week ago. However, with a sporadic network connection and a lack of the touch of the Lady Muse, I haven't had time to bother finishing it up. So, let me say:
REDACTED

I was going to write about Georgia. What is there to say that hasn't been said already by smarter people than I? Not bloody much.

Here's how my post of a week ago began:

***

First, let me give you a link which explains the topographical implications of South Ossetia. Logistics drives all military operations--and logistics are driven largely by terrain. So the long and the short of it is that South Ossetia is in large part the key to the continued sovreignty of Georgia.

Which answers the first questions of "who cares" about South Ossetia. Russia is frequently portrayed as relentlessly, irrationally imperialistic. Looks at the road net reveals the logic behind the madness.

Let's also consider the historical background. There's an article in the New York Times. I've read worse summaries, although it also tends to play the Big Bad Russian Empire Card a bit more than is truly necessary. Robert Kagan has a similiar view as well.

***

More links followed. The first one, to Aargh, is excellent and still quite relevant for understanding the basic military logic of the actions. Here's another retrospective of the run-up to the conflict.

There is some discussion about how Ethnic Diversity, much beloved of Liberals, is largely to blame for the state of the Caucasus.

Now that the shooting has stopped (the interesting part for me) there is some discussion of lessons learned.

Rurik, my favorite commentator on Things Slavic has his early take and his later take.

From the latter comes the best definition of "soft power" I have ever seen as it applies to conflict between Great Powers (not to be confused with Counter-Insurgency, which is all about 'soft power')

"We have just seen an example of the effectiveness of soft power. Georgia with its charismatic president, interesting cuisine, fine wines, and gorgeous scenery had lots of it. Soft power is when the class bully takes your lunch money every day, and you take pride in how much attention you are receiving. All of us occasionally have moments of cowardice, or at least discretion, and arguably the tactical situation might mean this is such an occasion for the USA. But only Liberals brag about it."

Read the final lines of his later post. It makes me wonder whether or not I need to start pulling out the old Cold War doctrinal manuals. . .

AQ and the SecDef and Acronyms

2008-07-20T16:02:00.009+03:00

Ralph Peters makes the argument that, having largely lost Iraq, al-Qaeda is returning to a strategy of open confrontation in Afghanistan because that is the only place in the world where al-Qaeda can still gather enough force to fight without getting stepped on hard, because al-Qaeda is discredited in the rest of the Arab world. I certainly haven't had a chance to survey the mythical "Arab in the Street" in the rest of the Arab world. On the other hand, I am bored off my ass in al-Anbar, once the centerpiece of the Media's attempts to "prove" we were "losing" in Iraq, due in no small part to the support which AQI used to have here. So as far as I can see, he has a point.

Argghhh! makes the argument that this was an intended consequence of our invasion of Iraq. By forcing AQI to fight for Iraq, we managed to kill lots of them and discredit them pretty completely. Of course, we'll never really know until historians of my grandchildren's generation start digging through piles of unclassified records and most of us who were involved are on our last legs. Good history is rarely written before the participants are dead. But I digress. Whether it was intended or not, it worked.

My prediction: We keep seeing attempts to regain credibility, flashy violent attacks in Afghanistan. A certain amount of troops get shifted to Afghanistan, but not the numbers that Barak Obama wants you to believe he'll send. The problem, exceedingly ticklish in my opinion, has to do with Pakistan. Afghanistan we can fix with patience--although it will NEVER be like, say, Pennsylvania. Pakistan is a nuclear-armed state which has some common interests with the United States. On the other hand, Pakistan cares about things that the US doesn't, like avoiding having open armed rebellion in the Tribal Areas. Solution is not to invade Pakistan as Barak Hussein Obama keeps promising he'll do. That's about as dumb a concept as could be imagined, and while I do not think that Barak Hussein Obama is the recruiting director for al-Qaeda, he'd make a fine one if he actually were so stupid as to invade Pakistan and also withdraw from Iraq at the same time.

Solution is to make Afghanistan more stable and secure, to secure the border areas as best as we can, and to support and gently nudge the Pakistanis into doing the right thing. No one will make the tribal areas into neat suburban communities with white picket fences and sidewalks. The best thing to do is to ensure that they don't make trouble elsewhere and support internal elements that will be more cooperative. Which leads to my next point.

The Honorable Mr. Robert M. Gates, SecDef, has been quoted extensively as saying that the State Department needs to pull its head out of its ass and start realizing that the State Department has a bigger job than attending high tea in nations with flush toilets, and issuing visas. Actually, he's been making these noises for months. He wants State to get into Counterinsurgency. I'm in favor of that, shockingly. I don't like most government employees, because many of them are lazy bastards. But State has the ability to do stuff that we don't, aren't trained to do, and have questionable legal authority to do. A completely military counterinsurgency approach has the potential to be fairly one-sided, focusing on catching bad guys and the security situation. We're doing a LOT better than we were, say, four years ago. Part of this is the idea that counterinsurgency is just a form of "war" in the WWII sense, and that civilians need to 'get out of the way' and let the military handle it.

In the sense that politicians need to NOT Monday-Morning Quarterback tactical decision making processes and micromanage the war from the air-conditioned comfort of their videoteleconference room in Washington DC, they do need to butt the hell out. But in the sense of pushing people out to theater and getting involved in interagency action to approach the entire bundle of problems that support an insurgency, the civilians need to get more involved.

What do I know, I'm just a staff, right? Anyway, the problems I've seen in the historical instances have to do with unity of command. The State folks belong to the Ambassador who may or may not have a good working relationship with the military folks. Who outranks whom in this circumstance? If State gets more heavily into the fight, a framework to coordinate the military and civil chains of command sounds like a necessity to me.

All I know is that I'm NOT a diplomat, and my approach to problem-solving is pretty BFI. But I'm just bright enough to know that once the initial security situation starts to get under control, you need to start doing a little more than shooting people in the face. Besides, any history of Iraq (and much of the rest of the Third World) more complex than the Wikipedia article makes it abundantly clear that one of the main reasons for dictatorial government has been the high degree of politicization of Iraq's military. How can we tell them that civil control of the Armed Forces is a good thing, indeed a prerequisite for effective democracy, if the only leadership they see comes from green-suiters?

The Small Wars Journal has an interesting article on the subject, do go download and read!

Regarding acronyms: I do run on the assumption that this blog is read by a fairly small readership (what, four or five folks) most of whom are at least passingly familiar with many if not most acronyms.

MRAP: Mine Resistant, Ambush Protected. This is a fun new buzzword which refers to several families of vehicles, the Buffalo, the 'jerv' (I think that one's JEERV), the Cougar, Husky, Meerket, the RG-31, the RG-33, etc. All of them are of South African origin and are trucks with a v-shaped hull that ride fairly high on large tires. Their armor is effective against small arms fire, IEDs, and RPGs to a certain extent. They do have a high center of gravity, however.

IRAM: Improvised Rocket-Assisted Mortar. Not sure the origins of this term, but it was applied to IEDs made from propane tanks with rocket motors attached. The rocket motors were intended to launch 3 lb warheads thousands of meters, and hence can only chuck an 80 pound warhead on a high trajectory that has a few hundred meters of range.

BFI: Brute Force and Ignorance. Shooting people in the face, for instance.

Non-stories

2008-07-19T16:22:00.005+03:00

I'm sitting here on REDACTED in the midst of a nonstory. At least, checking on the major news organs, there is little to say about REDACTED Province. There's been some sketchy and inaccurate reportage of an incident in Karmah where some Marines died for complacency. The continued efforts of Marines and Soldiers which have made this province dull and boring (as compared to the 'excitement' of my last tour) are not newsworthy.

Few things in Iraq are newsworthy, or so it seems.

CNN decided to creatively arrange facts in order to create a story that fits the narrative of failure they are increasingly desperate to portray. The news story claimed there was a problem maintaining MRAPs and many of them in-country are broken down -- "one in five" according to their story. The story has been refuted--MRAPs consistently maintain 90% or better OR rates. Now, if you look at the wording of their story, it's interesting "one in five has been out of commission." Now that makes it sound like if a unit has 10 MRAPs, only 8 of them work. What is means (if the statistic is not merely invented from a CNN editor's fertile imagination) is that 2 of them have been listed on a deadline report at some time. Not that they have been broken down at the same time, nor is there any implication about how long they stayed on the deadline report. Now, an MRAP is supposed to go out of commission from time to time--the way they work is to sacrifice tires and suspension parts but preserve the crew compartment and the Soldiers inside. They are designed to be fairly easy to fix, so that after losing pieces to an IED it can be back on the road in short order--I've seen them roll out in 24 to 48 hours after being hauled back to base on a flatbed truck.

Or witness the flurry of hysteria regarding IRAMs, said to be a "deadly" threat, never mind that they had killed all of 2 people. Now, I got a chance to look at some pictures and reports on IRAMs, and I'm not impressed. Clever little toys, but there are a half-dozen weaknesses that are easily exploitable. And further, the pattern of attacks clearly indicated they were the work of a relatively small group. Sure enough, after a failed attack yielded an intact launcher for full study, they announced the capture of the cell committing the attacks. And I haven't heard anything on the subject since.

One wonders why they don't run stories on good stuff--like the trend for home-brewed explosives to show up in IEDs rather than military ordnance, or the increase in our found-and-cleared rate, or trends showing both attacks and effective attacks dropping consistently. One wonders.

4th of July

2008-07-04T18:27:00.001+03:00

Delaware	• George Read	• Caesar Rodney
	• Thomas McKean

Pennsylvania	• George Clymer	• Benjamin Franklin
	• Robert Morris	• John Morton
	• Benjamin Rush	• George Ross
	• James Smith	• James Wilson
	• George Taylor

Massachusetts	• John Adams	• Samuel Adams
	• John Hancock	• Robert Treat Paine
	• Elbridge Gerry

New Hampshire	• Josiah Bartlett	• William Whipple
	• Matthew Thornton

Rhode Island	• Stephen Hopkins	• William Ellery

New York	• Lewis Morris	• Philip Livingston
	• Francis Lewis	• William Floyd

Georgia	• Button Gwinnett	• Lyman Hall
	• George Walton

Virginia	• Richard Henry Lee	• Francis Lightfoot Lee
	• Carter Braxton	• Benjamin Harrison
	• Thomas Jefferson	• George Wythe
	• Thomas Nelson, Jr.

North Carolina	• William Hooper	• John Penn
	• Joseph Hewes

South Carolina	• Edward Rutledge	• Arthur Middleton
	• Thomas Lynch, Jr.	• Thomas Heyward, Jr.

New Jersey	• Abraham Clark	• John Hart
	• Francis Hopkinson	• Richard Stockton
	• John Witherspoon

Connecticut	• Samuel Huntington	• Roger Sherman
	• William Williams	• Oliver Wolcott

Maryland	• Charles Carroll	• Samuel Chase
	• Thomas Stone	• William Paca

From here.

Re: Harden the fuck up

2008-07-03T19:19:00.001+03:00

I should point out that this video was first shown to us by our Royal Australian Navy NCOIC as an "introduction to Australian culture."

It's now a running joke in our team.

One 'good on ya' and One 'harden the fuck up'

2008-07-03T18:26:00.002+03:00

Good on ya - Columbian armed forces, who managed to rescue a hostage taken six years ago by infiltrating the group holding her captive, telling the boss they were taking her to visit the leader of the FARC, and putting her on a helicopter piloted by military pilots wearing Che Guevera t-shirts.

They also bagged four foreign hostages (including three Americans) and 11 other Columbian prisoners.

"We're the national army," said one of the crewmen. "You're free."

The helicopter crew were soldiers in disguise. Cesar and the other guerrilla aboard had been persuaded to hand over their pistols, then overpowered.

That's frickin' cool.

Harden the Fuck Up, Anthony Weiner.

Weiner (I'm sure it's not pronounced "whiner") is whining about the price "All New Yorkers" have paid in the War on Terror.

See, New York continues to pay differential for its employees who are Reserve Component Soldiers who get called up for active duty. This is a voluntary thing, some employers do it, some don't. The reasons employers do it vary, from patriotism to an incentive to hang on to high-quality employees. But regardless of why, New York does it.

The way this works is that if Reservist A makes, say, $45,000 a year and he gets activated as a Staff Sergeant, he gets nothing over and above his military pay. But if Reservist B makes, say, $75,000 a year, he'd get paid by the NYC government the difference between his military pay and his civilian pay. Even though he isn't doing a damn thing for the NYC government, and is doing the exact same job as Reservist A.

Weiner (not 'whiner') wants the Federal Government to take this over. Personally, I think that's asinine. For one thing, 75% of Reserve Component Soldiers make more in a combat zone than they do at their day job. Face it, when you factor in the taxes, being a beat cop just doesn't pay as well as being a line doggie. Before combat bonuses, I take home about $3,900 a month. Now add almost $700, and make it all tax free once the combat pay kicks in. It takes a New York cop nearly six years to catch up to me, and he's paying taxes (Federal AND State income) on the whole thing (even in the US, about $1400 of mine is tax free). And my benefits are better.

For another thing, if the Federal Government were to officially say, "Some Reservists are worth more than others, and all of them are potentially worth more than Active Duty Soldiers" then that's a huge pile of shit dumped on the idea of the Total Army, where we treat the Reserve Components (once activated) equally with the Regulars. I wouldn't re-enlist. If a Reservist has a deal with his boss to pay him while he's deployed so that he can make the Mercedes payments, that's his personal business. I don't know or care. But once the Federal Government takes over, it's everyone's business.

Reservists enlist knowing that they are going to be called up these days. Their employers know this too--or they wouldn't be offering pay differential as an enticement! If they couldn't afford to serve on Active Duty status from time to time (the WHOLE POINT of having Reserve Components) then they shouldn't have accepted the enlistment bonuses, or the college loan repayments, or the tuition assistance, or what ever else the Army gave them for signing on the dotted line.

Weiner (perhaps weeee-ner?) also whines about the hardship of having First Responders activated.

Well, no shit, Sherlock!

The sort of people who are going to be heading to the sound of the guns are often the sort of people who aren't going to be satisfied with a day job shuffling paper from one side of a desk to another. That's not surprising--most cops I've met have been former military.

That's life in a country at war. Hire new ones--it's not like the NYPD can't use the help. Kick some desk-sitters out back onto the streets, there's a novel concept.

One wonders what Weener would think if New York had to cough up the kind of commitment it did in WWII--its entire National Guard and Army Reserve for six years. Plus most of the military-aged healthy males not required for farm labor or defense industry.

Here's the meat of the argument, though. This isn't about Soldiers, or New York not having cops, it's about Weenie making a statement about the war.

"Rep. Weiner said, 'Dozens of New York families have lost loved ones in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But all New Yorkers have paid in economic price for this foreign policy folly.'"

Harden the Fuck up, Weiner!

I have things to write about!

2008-06-22T17:53:00.002+03:00

Sadly, most of them have necessary background that I can't write about.

grumblegrumble.

So, does anyone have a pool yet on how likely Iran is to remain unbombed by cranky Israelis? Maybe then they'll be too busy to send EFPs over the border.

Australians are some odd ducks. I'm going to like working for them, I think.

MNC-I

2008-06-20T11:04:00.001+03:00

Yeah, so I'm in Iraq, finally. I'm disgusted six ways to Sunday already, but this is a Corps headquarters. I don't know what else I could expect. Echelons above Reality. . .

This is joke, mistah?

2008-06-18T14:33:00.003+03:00

Mr Danzig told the Centre for New American Security: “Winnie the Pooh seems to me to be a fundamental text on national security.”

He spelt out how American troops, spies and anti-terrorist officials could learn key lessons by understanding the desire of terrorists to emulate superheroes like Luke Skywalker, and the lust for violence of violent football fans.

Seriously, where the fuck does this shit come from?

The wanna-be National Security Adviser to the wanna-be President of the United States is offering me a children's book as the blueprint by which he'll decide where I go, when I go, and who I'm going to put in a grave when I get there. If Barak Hussein Obama gets elected, I want mandatory piss-tests for him and all his damned appointed officials, because this shit was not dreamed up by a man without recreational chemicals in his bloodstream.

A brief comment on Colonels and Scumbags

2008-06-18T09:51:00.003+03:00

On Colonels, we have the dismissal of charges against Lt. Col. Jeffery Chessani, USMC. Colonel Chessani, for those playing the Home Game, was the commanding officer of the battalion involved in the (so-called) Haditha shootings. After seven other Marines were charged with various murder charges, he was charged with failing to investigate the incident vigorously enough. However, now that the Government has dropped charges against five of the Marines for lack of evidence, tried to bring one to trial but was acquitted on charges, and has downgraded the charges for the remaining Marine to manslaughter, they realized this was not going to fly either. So his charges have been dropped.

Neener, neener, neener.

Bet that unless you read it on a blog, you haven't heard of this happening. Compare with the number of Old Media stories on the (fictional) incident when it allegedly happened.

Scumbags: IVAW shows its true colors again, as a member of that illustrious terrorist support network decided to not only deliberately miss movement, but do so in a publicly obnoxious manner designed to attract attention and boost the morale of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

SGT (and does THAT fact disgust me or what) Matthis Chiroux somehow managed to duck deployment while on active duty, serving a grand total of six days in Afghanistan (??? How did he do that?). However, he cheerfully collected a government paycheck while pogueing it out on bases in the United States, Germany, Japan, and the Philippines--how he did all that in a mere five years, I'd love to know. But as is common knowledge these days, all enlistments are for 8 years, which means he owed the remaining three years as IRR time, and the Army decided they needed someone with his particular skills in Theater. Boo-frickin-hoo. I weep. Seriously. Lots.

Six days in five years? I'm still baffled as to how he managed that, although I guess if he were Public Affairs support (Stars and Stripes describes him as a journalist) to an Important Person visiting theater, I could see how it happens.

Now, I'm on my third damn deployment, my wife's had one herself. I signed up for this job. I volunteered, as did dumb-ass Buck Sergeant Chiroux. I continued to volunteer, Buck decided he didn't want to play Army any more. I can respect that. But the IRR commitment is in the contract, and it occasionally bites folks in the butt. He could have stayed on Active Duty past the eight year mark to ensure it didn't--but that most likely would have meant a deployment. He chose to gamble, and he crapped out. It sucks--but this sort of whiny, self-serving aggrandizement to make a political point and directly support our enemies is bullshit.

He certainly isn't any use to the Army as a journalist. The informational side of this war is too important to have an outright terrorist sympathizer doing that job. He's already made it perfectly clear that he will not be professional in any sense of the word, but will grandstand and cause trouble and the Public Affairs shop is too damn sensitive a location to have a jackass who is a deliberate troublemaker.

But having said that, I sincerely hope that he gets dragged in front of a military judge who sentences him to a 455 day stay at Ft Leavenworth with a large cellmate on a life sentence.

Buck Sergeant Chiroux is NOT making the position of IVAW Spokesperson "ArmySergeant" any more plausible. She tried to argue in this blog that IVAW does NOT support al-Qaeda in Iraq, does NOT support mutiny, does NOT support desertion or missing movement, etc, etc, etc. Just honest, professional Soldiers who happen to disagree with the Government's policy. Setting aside the fundamental question of whether Soldiers who disagree with the Government's policy need to demonstrating in the streets and generally acting the fool in what I always was taught was an unprofessional manner, this sort of cowardly and unbefitting behavior is precisely what I keep bringing up in this little quasi-debate. I breathlessly await the explanation. Or not--I need to keep breathing to fulfill my professional duties as a noncommissioned officer--something armysergeant needs to start considering.

Discussion Question:

Article 94 of the UCMJ defines mutiny as:
"Any person subject to this chapter who-- with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuse, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny."

The elements of this charge are:

(2) Mutiny by refusing to obey orders or perform duty.

(a) That the accused refused to obey orders or otherwise do the accused's duty;

(b) That the accused in refusing to obey orders or perform duty acted in concert with another person or persons; and

(c) That the accused did so with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority.

The explanation is:

(b) Mutiny by refusing to obey orders or perform duties. Mutiny by refusing to obey orders or perform duties requires collective insubordination and necessarily includes some combination of two or more persons in resisting lawful military authority. This concert of insubordination need not be preconceived, nor is it necessary that the insubordination be active or violent. It may consist simply of a persistent and concerted refusal or omission to obey orders, or to do duty, with an insubordinate intent, that is, with an intent to usurp or override lawful military authority. The intent may be declared in words or inferred from acts, omissions, or surrounding circumstances.

IVAW encourages its members to refuse duty in Iraq. Should then an IVAW member who refuses duty in Iraq be considered to have done so "in concert" with other IVAW members, some of whom are on active duty and hence subject to the UCMJ?

Not sure what to write

2008-06-17T17:57:00.002+03:00

The usual subject matter of this blog is a bit more serious than the Livejournal, and I find myself at a loss for things to write.

I am in Kuwait, waiting to go North, dependent on the vagaries of June weather in Kuwait, which runs to howling sandstorms.

I've been to some interesting briefings and classes, but the extent of what I'm willing to write about is a handful of bald facts upon which I have difficulty elaborating without running into the borders of what I consider acceptable subject matter. I have not, nor will I in the future, discuss information which deals with what we call TTPs, or Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures.

For instance, I'm comfortable saying that the United States Army is continuing to refine both tactical and technical counter-IED measures beyond even where we were 18 months ago. Obviously lots of smart people are spending a lot of time on this, and we're winning the fight, defined as reduced casualties, higher percentages of IEDs found and cleared without damage or injury, and other metrics. Beyond that, I just don't feel comfortable discussing. I mean, the insurgents are pretty good about observing what it is we do. But why give them any help. Not that I think it's probable that some smelly goat-herder is surfing my Blogger site, but you never know. Better to be paranoid than to contribute to some guy getting whacked because I discussed a system in too much detail.

We did a tactical site exploitation class that was really fun. They've got this spiffy house built of some 3,000 square feet, and stuff hidden every where. Booby-traps, hidden caches, weapons, documents, cell phones, all sorts of stuff. The idea is not to turn Soldiers into CSI, there's a 40 hour course that does that, more or less, this is only four hours. But the focus is on finding well-hidden stuff and documenting it well enough that it is acceptable evidence in the Criminal Courts of Iraq. I really was amazed by the emphasis they are putting on this stuff, since it's been primarily the province of specialists in the field previously. But it ties into the increasing focus on law enforcement-style operations and intelligence gathering at all levels. This is a huge change from the way we did business in 2003-04, and a continuation of trends seen in my last rotation. Based on a lot of the reading I've been doing on the subject of counter-insurgency and the experiences I've had, this is a key element to finding the bad guys--we're getting outstanding conviction rates these days, and it's apparently amazing how much stuff a guy looking at the hangman's noose will give up, or so I'm told.

Anyway, I'll be posting erratically on this journal once we get North--not sure how much I will be able to write.

Attention to Orders

2008-06-03T13:55:00.001+03:00

The President of the United States of America, authorized by act of Congress, March 3rd, 1863, has awarded in the name of Congress the Medal of Honor to Private First Class Ross A. McGinnis, United States Army, for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. Private First Class Ross A. McGinnis distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty while serving as an M2 .50-caliber Machine Gunner, 1st Platoon, C Company, 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, in connection with combat operations against an armed enemy in Adhamiyah, Northeast Baghdad, Iraq, on 4 December 2006.

That afternoon his platoon was conducting combat control operations in an effort to reduce and control sectarian violence in the area. While Private McGinnis was manning the M2 .50-caliber Machine Gun, a fragmentation grenade thrown by an insurgent fell through the gunner's hatch into the vehicle. Reacting quickly, he yelled "grenade," allowing all four members of his crew to prepare for the grenade's blast. Then, rather than leaping from the gunner's hatch to safety, Private McGinnis made the courageous decision to protect his crew. In a selfless act of bravery, in which he was mortally wounded, Private McGinnis covered the live grenade, pinning it between his body and the vehicle and absorbing most of the explosion.

Private McGinnis' gallant action directly saved four men from certain serious injury or death. Private First Class McGinnis' extraordinary heroism and selflessness at the cost of his own life, above and beyond the call of duty, are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/06/20080602-1.html
http://www.army.mil/medalofhonor/mcginnis/citation/index.html
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/06/ross-mcginnis-.html
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/ramcginnis.htm

Iraq and Iran

2008-05-30T16:34:00.010+03:00

You know, I've always hated that stupid song where the singers tells me he doesn't know the difference. If that's the case, he should not be permitted to vote. The franchise should be a responsibility. But in Modern America, we can't say "responsibility" much less take any. But I digress.

First, Iran. As far as I'm concerned, we are fighting a proxy war in Southern Iraq against Iran. A friend of mine recently returned from theater and told that in his unit's sector in Baghdad, of the EFPs, 60% were imported from Iran and the rest were home-made. The imported ones were much better, as they had copper disks vice the steel ones of the home-made charges. A steel disk doesn't have as much velocity and doesn't have enough residual thermal energy to set a vehicle on fire after impact.

The Asia Times makes the case that the imams are unpopular, that the economy sucks rocks, and that they are printing money like it is going out of style. I'm no economist, but I know that uncontrolled expansion of the money supply leads to out of control inflation which is Bad All Around. There's the demographic time bomb expressed in 50% youth unemployment rates and no jobs for the cohorts coming of age in the next few years either. Spengler makes the case that the end result is foreign adventures in Lebanon and Iraq. I can see that, it's a time-honored method. He also points out that the people running Iran are True Believers in the Islamic revolution of Khomeni. Given that one cannot know for sure without telepathy, I believe this to be a reasonable reading of the statements and actions of the Iranian leadership.

But what to do about it? Invading Iran is, for a variety of reasons, right out. That would put the imams in the position of leading defense against the foreigner, which would solidify their position. It would also put us in the situation of having to occupy a nation with over three times the population of Iraq, with more rugged mountainous terrain.

Nancy Pelosi and Barak Obama seem to believe that appeasement is the right track. If we engage with Iran, then peace and love will blossom forth, at the small price of selling Iraq and Lebanon to crazy people who want to make nuclear weapons and shoot them at Israel and the United States.

The Belmont Club argues that if the estimates of the situation in Iran are really that bad, we would be selling our interests in the Middle East to a power who would be incapable of imposing order, and may be incapable of maintaining its own house in order within months or years. Pajamas Media is claiming that $35 billion dollars (that's billion with a 'b') in Iranian oil money is missing.

If this is true, then Iran's economic situation is even worse, and they may HAVE to go on foreign adventures to pacify the populace. So, what to do, what to do?

First, we must support the Lebanese people who decisively rejected foreign control over their nation, again. Second, we must support the Iraqi government against the Iranian-controlled JAM Special Groups and their Qods Force advisers.

Third, we need to keep international pressure up on Iran to be forthright on the subject of their nuclear program. Contrary to the recent NIE, there is more evidence of Iranian nuclear intentions emerging.

Basically, I'm talking containment. Back the Iranians into a corner, let them know in no uncertain terms that they have no alternatives, and then support opposition groups inside Iran. There's no shortage of them, I'm sure.

What then? Well, I see three possible positive outcomes. First, and most positive, we get regime change through internal dissent. Best of all possible worlds. Crazies go, and doesn't cost any American blood.

Second, less positive, the Iranians detonate a nuclear bomb and 30 minutes later, the Israelis make them go away. This has the disadvantage of throwing nuclear fallout around the region, but otherwise I won't miss Iran much.

Third, the Iranians try a full-scale military adventure and we get to kick their asses so hard their grandchildren will feel it. Hooray for for-real shooting wars with conventional infantry divisions and whatnot. It doesn't bother me, but it is a terribly expensive option.

On to Iraq. What to say about Iraq?

First, on Soldiers in Iraq. Badger Six is signing off on his blog.

A former Marine is being prosecuted for his role in house-to-house fighting in Falluja (after two previous investigations said there was no evidence) and was imprisoned for invoking his Fifth Amendment rights in the investigation. Funny how Leftists are all about the "Constitutional rights" of foreign nationals detained in the act of committing war crimes, but silent on a combat veteran being abused.

Second, on Media coverage in Iraq. Greyhawk has a review of press coverage of al-Anbar up. Why? It's hard to find current reporting on Iraq. The country has basically lost interest, and the media refuses to cover the good news, so there isn't much to cover. The American Journalism Review discusses that in more depth.

More ranting to follow.

Apology and Population Control

2008-05-30T05:17:00.007+03:00

OK, I really have not been inspired to do any deep thinking lately. Seriously, this course sucks the motivation and intellectual capacity out your damned ears and ends up smearing them on the ground. I've coped by hurling myself into SCA-related projects, and have today finished everything except a pair of cosmetic modifications to the cuirass I've been working on. But if you wanted that drivel, you'd be reading the LJ. I apologize to those handful of folks who have faithfully checked up on this website in the off-chance that I might post something of value.

I have no idea how this is going to end up time-stamped. I'm starting it at 292118MAY08, (9:18 PM, 29 May 2008 for those who don't read DTGs). I'll finish it when I finish it. This addresses but one of the flaming rants I have bottled up inside, but this weekend, my priority is really on doing stuff with my hands rather than the intellectual effort of writing.

The original inspiration which made me decide to shake off this malaise of incoherency was a series of links I saw on, of all things, gun control.

As many people are probably already aware, a Philadelphia cop was shot and killed. Tragic, I'm sure, but a part of the game. Well, then things go off the rails. The Liberal Left (as personified by Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter) have issued the usual post-mortem, which is that ready availability of guns is the culprit in this case. They have called for a reissue of the un-Constitutional and logically indefensible "assault weapons ban" (you can't ban something you can't define, and I defy anyone to define 'assault weapon' meaningfully)
.
But wait, there's More To The Story, as there often is. It seems that these three individuals who have been charged have a history.

Levon Warner was sentenced in 1997 to up to 15 years for robbery, one to five for possessing an instrument of crime and five to 10 for criminal conspiracy. Howard Cain was convicted in 1996 on four counts of robbery and sentenced to five to 10 years on each count. Eric Floyd was sentenced to five to 10 years in 1995 for robbery, rearrested in 1999 for parole violation and later convicted in 2001 for two robberies. (Source: Republican-American, who cites an editorial in the Philadelphia Daily News).

None of these men could have LEGALLY purchased a firearm anywhere in the United States. The firearms used were either stolen, or black market. Or both.

Further, while I don't have a fancy legal degree, I'm pretty sure that four times five is twenty years, and that Mr. Cain should NOT have been on the street a mere 12 years later, much less possessing a firearm.

The motivation of the Pennsylvania government is made perfectly clear by some other facts we have available.

Mr Cain, the alleged trigger man had a record of illegally possessing a firearm.

"Over Cain’s criminal career he had thirteen arrests for unlawfully carrying a firearm, that were listed “Nolle Prossed,” meaning the prosecutor chose not to bring charges. In a further eleven arrests for violations of Pennsylvania’s firearms laws, the charges were either withdrawn or dismissed. In only three cases was he prosecuted and either plead guilty or was found guilty. On weapons charges alone, he could have done 12 years in prison, in which case he would not have been on the streets to kill a police officer." (Source Includes a downloadable pdf of Mr. Cain's 15 page criminal record)

Obviously, further restriction of gun ownership is not necessary to prevent people like Mr. Cain from shooting policemen. What would have been necessary would be for the District Attorney to have previously prosecuted Mr. Cain and locked his punk ass up in prison so that he would be prevented from shooting policemen or anyone else. Also would have slowed down his theft, criminal conspiracy, unlawful use of an automobile, kidnapping threats, interference with child custody, unlawful possession of a weapon, etc, etc, etc.

Also at issue is the policy of releasing career criminals on parole regardless of the fact that they have committed parole violations in the past and shown no inclination to NOT commit further crimes. Mr. Walters in his article (cited above) suggests that when a parole board releases a criminal who subsequently commits a crime during the time when he would have been locked up otherwise, the parole board should be charged as accessories and sentenced.

As far as I am concerned, the District Attorney should be prosecuted as an accessory to murder for failing to prosecute these men in a serious way before they killed someone, as should the parole boards who released these animals back onto the street.

What is the further restriction of gun ownership aimed at? Law-abiding citizens. Liberals of the breed represented by Nutter and Rendell have no objection to criminality per se, as it represents job security for them and does not threaten their grip on power. An armed citizenry which is not beholden to governments for basic protection from the average violent criminal is less easily controlled as completely as Nutter and Rendell would desire. And that is their true objection, to free men. Not gun control in and of itself, but population control of which gun control is a single element.

Of course, this tack may be objected to as flaming paranoia. And it is entirely possible that I am being paranoid. No parallels should be drawn between American Democratic Party leadership and examples overseas. Most especially one should not draw attention to their English counterparts who, having successfully disarmed the population by banning firearms and traditional edged weapons, are now going after cooking knives. Part of this is driven, I am sure, by the desire to ensure that at no time may the subjects object to anything that is done to them by their lords and masters. The rest is driven by the condescending pseudo-parental urge that liberals have to "take care" of people--as if human beings were not capable of such a difficult feat on their own. For example, a city council in England wants to cut down an old tree on the grounds that it has sharp needles.

As an aside, it is highly amusing to juxtapose these two articles with this one, with the introductory line:

Despite the fact there are more than 200 million guns in circulation, there is a certain tranquility and civility about American life.

Having been fed the propaganda that guns (and other implements) cause violence in and of themselves, it seems some Brits are surprised that we aren't blowing each other away in the streets on a daily basis.

"Folks will have guns in all of these places and if you break into their homes they will probably kill you."

"They will occasionally kill each other in anger or by mistake, but you never feel as unsafe as you can feel in south London."

Seriously, back to the sharp needles. If a kid had killed himself on the needles it would have been in the story, I'm sure. But preemptively, because some self-appointed busybodies (and if you get into politics, you're self-selecting yourself as a busybody) decided it wouldn't be safe for this tree to continue to exist. I'm all in favor of risk assessment, but I believe if people don't engage in at least some level of risky behavior, then they are no longer humans, but cattle. What did we develop intellect for if only to shuffle through a padded guaranteed "safe" existence engaging only in those behaviors deemed acceptable by some "elite" to whom we concede all sovereignty?

And that's if such an existence were possible. However, it simply isn't possible. Real Life intrudes on the fuzzy pink fantasy with disturbing regularity. If you trust your masters to provide for your needs and protect you from reality, then by all means feel free to divest yourself of the means of protecting yourself. If you wish to be a sheep and raise future generations of high-tech serfs, then by all means avoid all risk and teach your children to do so as well.

I'm reminded of a Robert Heinlein novel about a future in which low-level genetic engineering was an accepted part of society, not extreme modifications, but if a couple were planning to conceive they went in to check and ensure that the child would not be hampered by genetic disease or the like. Over generations of this, they had managed to weed out even things like bad teeth and bad eyesight. But at one point, two characters are talking about the history of the world which led to this state of affairs. One of them mentions that one of the first behavioral modifications attempted by genetic means was the successful attempt to locate genetic markers for violent behavior and to eliminate them, producing people who simply could not engage in violence. It's a predominant mind-set among humans at any time--the fighter has always been in the minority. This experiment failed when a small group of people refuse to partake in it. The other person asked what became of them. The answer: "Every human being alive today is descended from them."

Real Liberals--for the sake of convenience defined as "people who believe what liberals believed before the American Liberal Establishment fell in love with Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Stalin" even catch this. Check out this love-song to the Second Amendment published on Daily Kos.

That's right folks, I'm linking to the Daily Kos with a hearty thumbs-up. I don't agree with all of the reasoning in there, but I love this post. Liberals in the old, classic sense (folks like John Locke and Thomas Jefferson) were all about militias, posses, and military-style firearms in every household precisely because that was (and is) the best way to prevent tyranny. I look at it as self-defense. Most likely self-defense from criminals, but in extreme cases from a tyrannical government. Of course, my standards for when a revolution is acceptable are somewhat different from a fellow who posts at the Daily Kos, I'm sure. But I have them, and that terrifies Progressives (folks who think of themselves as liberal but who are really Marxists stripped of the Marxist-Leninist verbage when in public).

For my green-suited readers

2008-05-01T03:08:00.001+03:00

Actually, dependents and civilian employees need to read this one too.

The United States Armed Services Blood Program needs you to get off your ass and donate blood. If you have an ID card, you can do this.

Presuming you are in generally good health, have not had a tattoo in the past 7 DAYS[1], have been back from CENTCOM AOR more than 12 months, have not spent more than five years total in Europe, and haven't had a smallpox shot in the past eight weeks, or other vaccinations in the past 4 weeks,

GO DONATE SOME DAMN BLOOD.

Seriously, folks. Blood donated anywhere you see the star-spangled blood drop goes into a different pool than blood donated at the American Red Cross or other civilian blood centers.

It goes into the pool that goes downrange to Iraq and Afghanistan. The record, as I understand it, for blood usage is 207 units used to save the life of a Military Policeman in Iraq.

That's 207 doners giving one bag each.

Your average trauma patient (ie combat casualty) uses between 4 and 8.

All the blood goes to a central shipment point, where it becomes "purple" blood and goes to theater to be centrally managed. It will go to a Serviceman of some kind. Blood in excess of in-theater requirements goes to stateside military hospitals where it goes to servicemen and dependents.

GO DONATE SOME DAMN BLOOD

Blood has a shelf-life of 42 days. How long does it take to get to the aid stations and forward support hospitals?

If you are a leader, encourage your Soldiers (Marines, Airman, Sailors, Coasties) to donate some damn blood. By encourage, I mean "do everything but hold a gun to their heads, because that isn't technically legal." Support this shit, because some fucked up kid in a hospital in Iraq is depending on you.

You can donate one unit every 56 days.

Civilian blood must be PURCHASED in order to go into the military pool. It costs the taxpayers between $250 and $500 a unit. There is a limited supply. It cannot enter the blood supply as quickly as blood donated in a an ASBP donation center.

This is the website.

These are blood donation centers.

On Monday, I attempted to donate blood. The medic managed to fail to find a vein twice. Yesterday I went back, having hydrated a hell of a lot better, and the medic managed it on the first stick.

It blows my mind how many people who can lead men into combat will use as the excuse not to donate blood, "I'm afraid of needles."

Why haven't you given lately?

[1] 20 states are on a list where tattoos are only a 7 day waiting period, to include Texas and California. For the rest, it is a 12 month deferment.

So much for THAT concern. . .

2008-04-20T02:12:00.004+03:00

So, this is NOT your father's BNCOC. This is what a friend of mine refers to as a "gentleman's course" because he isn't enough of an alcoholic to call it Beer-NCOC. We have weekends off, and a DSL cable.

So, you get blogging. I'm snarking the course itself over REDACTED.

I could snark Barak Obama, but other people are doing it better. You know what has people pissed about his comments that the Democratic Party is incapable of comprehending in this day and age? Not that he said times were hard or folks were bitter. It was dismissal of border security/illegal immigration, the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution, and belief in God as the concerns of stupid, bitter, ignorant people who don't know any better. This highlights quite well where Barak Hussein Obama stands on these ideas.

The Wall Street Journal is snarking his tax plans. Maybe when Barak Hussein Obama thinks "Capital Gains Tax" he thinks multi-millionaire major-league investors like his friends, campaign contributors, and folks who own mansions in San Francisco and hold $10,000 a plate fundraiser diners. I think my in-laws and my grandparents on my mother's side, both of whom have stock portfolios as a supplement to their pensions and other retirement plans. I assure Barak Hussein Obama they make less than a quarter-mil a year.

But moving beyond the trivial, let us address some stories that deserve more thought.

The AP published a piece on one of the last living fighters of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. For those who are unaware, this magnificent action by the Żydowski Związek Wojskowy and the Żydowska Organizacja Bojowa began on the 18th of January 1943 in response to the beginning of a second wave of deportations to the extermination camp Treblinka. The ZOB took the lead, under the command of 23-year old Mordecai Anielewicz, but the ZZW was better armed and better prepared. Within a few days, the Ghetto was essentially under their control. However, "The Ghetto" was not a poetic term, but literally an area of Warsaw physically sealed off with a wall holding the Jews in and keeping the Poles out. The SS maintained control of the access points, notwithstanding a handful of attempts by the Polish Home Army to attempt to break into the Ghetto. The Jews prepared for the inevitable assault by the SS by building fighting positions, executing collaborators, and smuggling a handful of weapons in through weak points in the wall, including two tunnels dug in 1942 by the ZZW. On Passover, 19 APR 43, the
SS assaulted with a force of 5 battalions of Waffen-SS troops, 1 battalion of SS cavalry, about 360 Polish police used only to secure the perimeter, several battalions of SS Police, SS SD security troops, the Warsaw Gestapo, two Whermacht railway engineer battalions, an anti-aircraft battery, a battalion of Ukrainian concentration camp guards, and some Latvian auxiliary policemen.

The initial assault stalled as the Jews used improvised 'petrol bombs' to knock out several armored vehicles. The Germans responded by relieving the incompetent Ferdinand von Sammern-Frankenegg, courtmartialling him, and sending him to Croatia where he was later killed by partisans in an ambush. Jürgen Stroop, then Brigadeführer (Brigadier General), fresh from operations against partisans in the Ukraine, took command and organized a proper attack with artillery support and in keeping with military doctrine--Ferdinand treated it as a police operation.

The ZZW's defense centered around their headquarters in Muranowski Square, where two small boys had put up a pair of flags--the flag of the ZZW and the flag of the Republic of Poland. Fighting centered around this display of heroic, doomed pride. Stroop was infuriated, and recalls later Himmler screaming into a phone at him, "Stroop, you must at all costs bring down those two flags." He issued a scornful demand to surrender, which was ignored by the ZZW. His new offensive centered on burning down the buildings the ZZW was using for cover. On April 29th, having lost all of their leadership and most of their fighters, the remnants of the ZZW escaped the ghetto through the Muranowski tunnel. Their role has been minimized in many sources due to the death of all their senior leadership, and the fact that as a rightist organization affiliated with the Home Army, it was not in the Communist's interests to glorify them. They preferred to point to the Socialist ZOB, which had the advantage of having living defenders.

On the 8th of May, the Germans discovered the ZOB's fortified command post. Some of the ZOB's leaders committed suicide with cyanide, others were shot while fighting. Michael Edelman was one of the few senior leaders who fled the ghetto and linked up with the Home Army to continue to fight for Poland. The remaining Jews in the Ghetto were flushed out with dogs and gas, while the burning of the buildings culminated in the demolition of the Great Synagogue of Warsaw on 16 MAY 43.

Speaking of historic battles, this one is less well-known, but. . .

It's nearly half an hour of footage, but. . . Note the date. 1971.

Anyway, there's another good article on the mess that is the issue of anthropocentric climate change, or indeed any climate change at all. Speaking of a mess, can we officially declare Jimmy Carter senile? Or for a third unrelated mess, how about the Episcopalians?

Some good news is out there. Commander Ismail, the non de guerra of one Mullah Ahmad Shah of the Bara bin Malek Front, has moved onto to the afterlife. The Pakistani apparently don't like folks running their roadblocks any more than we do. Some stinky arhabi met with a Bad Time in Iraq, and the DoD is releasing, with helpful labels and translations, the letters they found on his corpse. I link to Blackfive, who links to DefenseLink.

Villainous Company, the blog of a Marine Corps officer's wife, posted a flaming rant. Now, this is hardly new, a rant on the internet, but this rant bears reading. The subject is contempt. Five years ago, I said that those who attack the mission cannot help but attack the men carrying out the mission. Five years ago, I was sneered at by the American Left who called me brainlessly brainwashed by the Bush Regime. Five years ago, I predicted this. The contempt for the President, for the war, and for this country inevitably spills over into contempt for those of us who live and die by a single paragraph including the line, "obey the lawful orders of the President of the United States". Again, I anticipate that I will be sneered at and lectured on how this behavior is not indicative of way people really think. But I am hardly the only one who sees this. . .

Anyway, I leave you with these thoughts. It is enough for one night. Perhaps more later.

Marine Corps Public Affairs??

2008-04-18T05:01:00.000+03:00

Ummm,

Community Relations.

Yur doing it wrong.

BNCOC

2008-04-16T14:05:00.003+03:00

In roughly 90 minutes I'll be closing up shop for two days (approx) as I'm going to BNCOC at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. I have been told there is internet access in the billets, but I don't have my hands on a class schedule and will not at this time make any guess as to whether or not I will have time to blog.

But some food for thought,

Blackfive has released the story on yet another story of how we are committing war crimes galore. Horrible, horrible. There should be a 24/7 media circus until the perpetrators are brought to justice.

/sarcasm

Mike Yon writes on the surge, and Blackfive writes on Mike Yon's opinion. The Blemont Club's article is on the Blackfive article, and thus the Blogosphere Turns.

Badger 6 takes aim at the media and the unqualified idiots they permit to dribble on their editorial page.

Finally, at least on Iraq, the AP reports Iraq is negotiating a Status of Forces Agreement and other arrangments to normalize our relationship with the Iraqi Government as a sovereign state, rather than as an army of occupation of a defeated enemy. This is putting the diplomatic window-dressing on the reality of the situation, which is that Iraq is our greatest ally in the fight against AQI, JAM, and the other groups which seek to overthrow the Iraqi Government. So it's time we started treating them formally as allies.

In politics, Obama stepped on his training aid. This is a Howard Dean "Aaargh" moment. He showed his true colors here--Harvard-educated elitist bastard who thinks all white middle-class folks who have religious faith or carry firearms are some sort of. . .

Well, let me use his words.

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Yeah. Nice one, Barak Hussein Obama. Way to make voters like you. You remember those, right? Voters? The folks who pull levers in booths to pick you to be President or not? But like many politicos nowdays, Barak Hussein Obama has forgotten that we exist, preferring to pander to his big-money donors and party bigwigs (wait a minute, wasn't he the post-political-party change-hope-future-believe candidate?) and he believes what they believe, not what normal middle class voters believe.

The Wall Street Journal says this is normative among Ivy League liberals who believe that by virtue of their wealth, alleged education, and "enlightened" liberal views, they are superior to those huddled masses who cling to 'God and guns" as an opiate provided by Karl Rove.

Just One Minute has a healthy collection of links to the fallout from this story and the scrambling in the Barak Hussein Obama camp to attempt to redefine it.

Was Barak Hussein Obama quoted out of context? I don't know, let's ask him to elaborate on the theme.

Doesn't look out of context to me. Looks like he's hitting that theme over and over. h/t hot air. This is NOT going to be a winner, if you ask me. "America sucks, and I'm bitter and I know you're bitter! Bitterness all around!"

Rachel Lucas has more commentary.

General Petreus, PO2 Michael Monsoor, SSG Bellavia, and LT G. And the Punic Wars

2008-04-10T18:56:00.004+03:00

Mostly in their own words.

General Petreus, as the entire world knows (I'm rarely the last to know, but often the last to blog about it), testified in front of Congress. In the ideal world, every American citizen would read transcripts of the testimony. Because in the ideal world, while the war would be fought be professionals like the gentlemen listed in the heading on this article (and your humble correspondent), the entire country would consider itself at war and would consider the war relatively important, and hence something that an informed voter should educate himself or herself on.

Of course, I didn't read the whole transcript linked about. Most of the opening remarks appears to asinine grandstanding by fatuous assholes elected to office not for their foreign policy expertise, knowledge of world affairs, or competence to remark upon the military situation in Iraq, but for their ability to bring home the pork and placate those of their constituents who are in the demographics that the pollsters and pundits indicate can be swayed to the politico's side.

Excerpts from the General's remarks:

"Less recognized is that Iraq has also conducted a surge, adding well over 100,000 additional soldiers and police to the ranks of its security forces in 2007 and slowly increasing its capability to deploy and employ these forces.

"A second factor has been the employment of coalition and Iraqi forces in the conduct of counterinsurgency operations across the country, deployed together to safeguard the Iraqi people, to pursue Al Qaida-Iraq, and to combat criminal elements and militia extremists, to foster local reconciliation, and to enable political and economic progress.

"Another important factor has been the attitudinal shift among certain elements of the Iraqi population. "

"Though a Sadr stand-down resolved the situation to a degree, the flare-up also highlighted the destructive role Iran has played in funding, training, arming and directing the so-called special groups, and generated renewed concern about Iran in the minds of many Iraqi leaders."

"It clearly is in our national interests to help Iraq prevent the resurgence of Al Qaida in the heart of the Arab world, to help Iraq resist Iranian encroachment on its sovereignty, to avoid renewed ethno-sectarian violence that could spill over Iraq's borders and make the existing refugee crisis even worse, and to enable Iraq to expand its role in the regional and global economies."

That's the good, the bad is in there too. Ambassador Crocker talks the politics and economics of reconstructing Iraq and helping them establish good government, and there's a lot of obstacles yet to overcome. Still, as I keep pointing out, the speed record for counterinsurgency is a decade, and we aren't there yet.

I'll give Ambassador Crocker the last words I'll quote directly, and then you can check out some other links for more opinions.

"I remain convinced that a major departure from our current engagement would bring failure, and we have to be clear with ourselves about what failure would mean.

"Al Qaida is in retreat in Iraq, but it is not yet defeated. Al Qaida's leaders are looking for every opportunity they can to hang on. Osama bin Laden has called Iraq the perfect base and it reminds us that a fundamental aim of Al Qaida is to establish itself in the Arab world. It almost succeeded in Iraq. We cannot allow it a second chance.

"And it is not only Al Qaida that would benefit. Iran has said publicly it will fill any vacuum in Iraq and extremist Shia militias would reassert themselves. We saw them try in Basra and Baghdad two weeks ago.

"And in all of this, the Iraqi people would suffer on a scale far beyond what we have already seen. Spiraling conflict could draw in neighbors with devastating consequences for the region and the world.

"Mr. Chairman, as monumental as the events of the last five years have been in Iraq, Iraqis, Americans and the world ultimately will judge us far more on the basis of what will happen than what has happened. In the end, how we leave and what we leave behind will be more important than how we came.

"Our current course is hard, but it is working. Progress is real, although still fragile. We need to stay with it."

PO2 Michael Monsoor
h/t Blackfive

The President of the United States, in the name of the Congress, takes pride in presenting the Medal of Honor, posthumously, to Master At Arms Second Class, Sea, Air and Land, Michael A. Monsoor, United States Navy. For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving as Automatic Weapons Gunner for Naval Special Warfare Task Group Arabian Peninsula, in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM on 29 September 2006.

As a member of a combined SEAL and Iraqi Army sniper overwatch element, tasked with providing early warning and stand-off protection from a rooftop in an insurgent-held sector of Ar Ramadi, Iraq, Petty Officer Monsoor distinguished himself by his exceptional bravery in the face of grave danger. In the early morning, insurgents prepared to execute a coordinated attack by reconnoitering the area around the element's position. Element snipers thwarted the enemy's initial attempt by eliminating two insurgents. The enemy continued to assault the element, engaging them with a rocket-propelled grenade and small arms fire. As enemy activity increased, Petty Officer Monsoor took position with his machine gun between two teammates on an outcropping of the roof. While the SEALs vigilantly watched for enemy activity, an insurgent threw a hand grenade from an unseen location, which bounced off Petty Officer Monsoor's chest and landed in front of him. Although only he could have escaped the blast, Petty Officer Monsoor chose instead to protect his teammates. Instantly and without regard for his own safety, he threw himself onto the grenade to absorb the force of the explosion with his body, saving the lives of his two teammates. By his undaunted courage, fighting spirit, and unwavering devotion to duty in the face of certain death, Petty Officer Monsoor gallantly gave his life for his country, thereby reflecting great credit upon himself and upholding the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.

Now, let me think. 2006, September. . . Yeah, I had a couple friends out at Corregidor, and I heard about PO2 Monsoor's death, although I don't think that I heard the detail of him hurling himself on a grenade. Either way, this recognition is deserved.

Former SSG Bellavia, you might recall from the video I embedded in Tuesday's post. He makes the specific point that society treats athletes better than combat veterans and heros, and holds them up as role models rather than those who you know, actually contribute something to society. I didn't realize it at the time, but under the Keith Olbermann's definition, this makes him a racist. Bellavia is running for Congress, and at an event he introduces John McCain as a better role model than Tiger Woods. Olbermann is shocked. It's part of the ongoing liberal meme about how all Republicans are racist, when in fact the Democratic Party is far more race-obsessed than any gathering of actual conservatives is. That's why the results for Hillary and Obama are split along racial lines. News Flash for Olbermann: unlike you, your guests, and your fellow-thinkers on the Left, when Mr. Bellavia looks at John McCain and Tiger Woods, he doesn't see a white man and an "African-American multi-racial person" he sees a former naval officer, combat veteran, former POW, and US senator on one side, and a professional golfer on the other. That is the difference, not merely their skin color.

LT G's blog goes on the blogroll, and if you can't figure out why in his first five entries, you are doing it wrong..

Finally, the Punic Wars in three minutes.

Bloggable Folder

2008-04-07T23:13:00.003+03:00

When I write a blogger post, I tend to sit down and take my time with it, frequently an hour or more. I'm reading articles, deciding how they fit into what I'm going to write, etc. Unfortunately, I frequently lack either the time or the motivation to do this every day, or even every weekend. But here I am, at the house, with my lovely wife in Maryland covering some damn conference where some unit is getting some award.

So. . . Here goes nothing.

Al-Sadr surrendered to the Iraqi Government before I got a chance to blog about the little shooting match in Southern Iraq. Oh, excuse me. He didn't surrender. That would make him loose face and upset his Iranian handlers. He simply ordered his militia to get the hell off the streets of Basra before the Iraqi Army shot them all. His attempt use this as a media opportunity by increasing activity in Baghdad didn't fly too well either, at least according to this obviously-written-by-an-infantryman account. I am occasionally amused by folks in baby blue who must take off their boots to count past 10 (I can count to 144, but it takes a little thought), but it has the virtue of being first person and unfiltered by mass media censor/editors, or reporters who never leave the hotel, or stringers who turn out to be FRE. Now, he's being told he has to choose between keeping his fighters and participating in the elections. Raise your hand if you read this story in your morning paper in the past week. Yeah, me either.

Because if the media got ahold of it, you've have babble. I mean, the media fabricates "war crime" stories because it accords with the narrative they desperately WANT to sell the American People. But rarely do we get to compare, side by side, the media's account and the first-person account of the people involved.

Speaking of First Hand Accounts, let's talk Winter Soldier. . . I've been meaning to write about this, but I haven't really felt inspired.

Other folks have done the history of Winter Soldier better than I can, and for a shorter version check out this link. I blew off IVAW from the beginning, because if you want credibility with me, don't sell this as the updated version of a pack of liars who have been proven to be liars. Of course, IVAW is updated version of VVAW, which is a pack of liars proven to be liars. But I digress.

I admit that I could not sit through the live feed. Neither the time nor the inclination.

Others managed to go and sit through it all:
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
AAR

Another summary.
His view of the first few panels.

Now, there's a lot of stuff there, but you know what I didn't hear?

Clear allegations of actual war crimes. Lots of fuzzy allegations and vague generalities, but no actual war crimes. There were allegations of racism, but it is a long way from the casual use of the term "hajji" for a Middle Eastern person to tossing said Middle Eastern persons into mass graves.

Whatever. I don't know what the media made of it, and I don't care.

I'm far more interested in other demonstrations and rallies.

I leave you with a YouTube video that should make you think a little bit.

I'll give you one military spouse's perspective on this video.

Eternal Memory

2008-03-31T17:07:00.003+03:00

SSG Keith "Matt" Maupin, USAR was confirmed Killed in Action based on DNA testing of a set of remains recovered last week.

POW Network
Associated Press
Yahoo News
Michelle Malkin
NB: Michelle Malkin actually gets SSG Maupin's rank right, unlike the AP. Isn't that telling?
Blackfive - post from 2005 on the Maupin family's donation of computers to a computer center in Iraq.
Columbus Dispatch
Patriot Guard - It does not surprise me that Mr. Maupin is also an active Patriot Guard Rider.

It is something that few outside the Armed Forces understand, and almost no foreigner comprehends, but the United States does not leave our fallen behind. Even when we know they are dead (and if you don't show up after a week or two, the odds are pretty good), we never stop looking. There are teams still poking through the jungles of South East Asia, and recently the DoD sent a team to a remote area of the Himalayas in India looking for some transport aircraft that went down "flying the Hump" during WWII. It is a commitment intended to sustain all United States fighting men when cut off, surrounded, lost, or captured.

We have fulfilled out commitment to SSG Maupin and his family.

I will never accept defeat
I will never quit

I will never leave a fallen comrade

And now, for something completely different.

2008-03-26T03:42:00.002+03:00

Tilapia, sauteed in olive oil, and accompanied by a glass of wine.

And some mighty fine chanting. This hymn is a favorite of mine, being rather consonant with my frame of mind of late. Unfortunately, my parish held liturgy this morning, when I was occupied with teaching folks driver's education, Army Style. Yes, I'm a Master Driver. That should frighten anyone familiar with my driving record.

Anyway, this Feast is one that I have come to love. The veneration of the Theotokos was probably the greatest stumbling block to my conversion to Orthodoxy. I mean, I could understand most of the Saints pretty easily, but the Theotokos is everywhere in Orthodox liturgics.

And now, I say with St. Proklos,

O desired and wondrous gathering! O nature, celebrate that whereby honor is rendered to Woman; rejoice, O human race, that in which the Virgin is glorified. "But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound" (Rom 5:20). The Holy Mother of God and Virgin Mary has gathered us here. She is the pure treasure of virginity, the intended paradise of Second Adam, the place where the union of natures (divine and human) was accomplished, and the Counsel of salvific reconciliation was affirmed.

Who has ever seen, who has ever heard, that the Limitless God would dwell within a womb? He Whom the Heavens cannot circumscribe is not limited by the womb of a Virgin!

He Who is born of woman is not just God and He is not just Man. He Who is born has made woman, the ancient gateway of sin, the gateway of salvation. Where evil poured forth its poison, bringing on disobedience, there the Word made a living temple for Himself, bringing obedience there.

. . .

What an incomprehensible mystery! I see the miracles, and I confess that He is God. I see the sufferings, and I cannot deny that He is Man. Emmanuel opened the doors of nature as man, and as God He preserved the seal of virginity intact. He emerged from the womb at birth the same way He entered through the Annunciation. Wondrously was He both conceived and born: He entered without passion, and He emerged without impairment.

The Next 455 Days

2008-03-20T15:06:00.003+03:00

The next 3 months are going to be a bit chaotic.

31 MAR - Sign out on leave.
Approx 1 APR - Come in to work while on leave in order to get promoted. Provided, of course, that my name actually shows up on the April promotion list. The list is supposed to come out today. I'm checking the website obsessively to find out when the list shows up.
11 APR - Sign in off of leave. Some time before then, I need to get my security clearance periodic review squared away and all blocks checked and forms filled out. I will likely do this while on leave also.
17 APR - Report to BNCOC at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.
5 JUN - Graduate BNCOC.
Some time in JUN - Deploy back to Iraq. Embrace the Suck.

Right now, the deployment is scheduled for 12 months only. I won't be out kickin' ass and looking for IEDs on the side of the road. Instead, my assignment will be to a training team that is going to go teach other Engineers to go looking for IEDs. Translation: I'll be moving around a lot, and probably have a fair bit of time for blogging. But everything I DO will classified up to the gills (enemy and friendly Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures, which are the ultimate no-go territory for milbloggers) and I won't be able to actually blog about it. No fun outside the wire missions, no shakey photography of controlled detonations, nothing cool in any way.

To say that I am less than thrilled is a bit of an understatement. I love leading Soldiers, for all that Momma's Precious Darlings and Special Snowflakes give me a pounding headache on occasion. Leading Soldiers in combat is an honor and a privilege and one of the few things that I can honestly say that I love fiercely.

However, this is something the Army wants to form teams to do. So I shall go forth and do. It's a decision way above my paygrade. I'm an NCO. I don't write policy, I just execute it. Whatever.

Anyway, there is also something else in the way of format modification in the works for this blog. We'll see how that pans out.

Staff Duty, AGAIN

2008-03-20T04:18:00.007+03:00

For those of you who have never experienced the joys of the DA 6 duty roster, let me explain one of the quirks.

As many (if not all) of you know, my last name starts with the letter. I'm the only NCO in my company with the initial letter.

The rosters run separately for weekday duties and for weekend duties. So when a new First Sergeant comes in and decides to set up a new, correct DA6 roster, he starts over.

Alphabetically.

For both rosters. Which means that SGT(P) ME is first for weekend duty and first for work week duty. Weekend:Work Week ratio is about 2:5 so by the time it gets to the letter C or D, it's been uncoupled enough that no one works twice in the same week. I, on the other hand, can hardly avoid working twice in the same week.

If I couldn't take a joke, I wouldn't have re-enlisted.

I've got three things going on in my mind here, at least blogging essay-wise. Heller vs. DC, Barack Obama's speech, and IVAW's Winter Soldier Bullshit conference.

But first, something better. My lovely wife is the sexy one quoted briefly.

Heller vs. DC.

The oral arguments are on-line. Other places as well, it's all over the place. Other, more qualified folks have put out plenty of commentary. Other, less qualified people have put out plenty of commentary. On the internet it's hard to tell. This story appears to be typical of the media.

From where I sit, it looks positive for the side of those of us who prefer the Constitution as written. You know, where "shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed". I have a loaded pistol on my night table, which is one of many reasons I can't vote Democrat. I admit, I have a hard time compromising on this issue.

Barack Obama's little speech.

Let me be frank. Rev. Wright is a heretic, and an exceedingly offensive one at that. He preaches an ethnocentric heresy in which Jesus Christ is cast as a black man sent to minister to black people and whose opposition is not Satan, but white men.

"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love."

That is Black Liberation Theology. That is school from which Rev. Wright draws his heresy. That is the Prof. Cone whose theological authority Rev. Wright was appealing to on the Sean Hannity Show.

That is heresy, and worse than that, it is heresy which espouses revolution, violence, and hate. Anathema on him and all who think like him.

That is Rev. Wright. Enough on him.

Barack Obama has been a member of his church for twenty years. Barack Obama has referred to him as a "mentor" and a "spiritual adviser" in the past. He has spun it a number of ways in the past week or so. This has failed, because there is no way you can put "God Damn America" into a context that it was allegedly taken out of and claim that it is a good thing. There is no way to argue that Rev. Wright has only made these statements on rare occasions. So Barack decided to attempt a new tack.

Here's the speech itself. The Belmont Club gives the speech also, but with some words about the context of the speech. Victor Davis Hanson asks a couple questions Barack left unanswered.

I'm disgusted. Barack says,

"I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy."

When? Where? I haven't heard it. I've heard a lot of quibbling.

"Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed."

Nope. I have never stood in an Orthodox liturgy while some madman espoused heresy and disloyalty to my nation. If I did, I would take steps to bring the madman to heel, or to remove myself from that heretical nonsense.

Anyway, whatever. I still ain't going to vote for him.

I was considering blogging about WSII, but I am going to do a bit more research and hit it up later. Initial impressions are underwhelming.

Staff Duty Sucks, but I write a lot.

2008-03-17T04:09:00.003+03:00

Staff Duty.

Again.

And I have it again on Wednesday, which at least turns my rather cheesy 3-day for Western Easter into a 4-day. I already wrote about the commemoration of the day on my Other Blog. Fortunately, I don't have to deal with any serious insanity.

Grim's Hall has a thought-provoking little philosophical piece on the place of folks like me in Christianity. I'm always inclined to think highly of an argument that involves quoting GK Chesterton twice.

Speaking of good ol' GK, let me share the following quotes on the modern spirit:

"A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt -- the Divine Reason."

"At any street corner we may meet a man who utters the frantic and blasphemous statement that he may be wrong. Every day one comes across somebody who says that of course his view may not be the right one. Of course his view must be the right one, or it is not his view. We are on the road to producing a race of men too mentally modest to believe in the multiplication table."

"To sum up our contention so far, we may say that the most characteristic current philosophies have not only a touch of mania, but a touch of suicidal mania. "

GK on courage:
"But Christianity has done more: it has marked the limits of it in the awful graves of the suicide and the hero, showing the distance between him who dies for the sake of living and him who dies for the sake of dying. And it has held up ever since above the European lances the banner of the mystery of chivalry: the Christian courage, which is a disdain of death; not the Chinese courage, which is a disdain of life."

However, not all my thought on this day is of such a high and lofty mode. There is also the muck of partisan politics and world affairs to consider.

Rurik on Kosovo, which is a well-reasoned and cogent argument. It is, sadly, uninspiring to me but probably not far off on the solution, which is for the rest of the world to simply butt the hell out and let the Serbs settle it on their own terms. Sucks to be Albanian, but there it is. There is nothing noble about the Albanian cause, and it has the deep disadvantage of being an Islamic cause, and that's a Bad Thing in terms of the Long War.

The EU, having more or less toppled the United Kingdom, is having problems with, of all places, the Baltic Republics. Plucky is the main word I've always had come to mind when dealing with Lithuania and Latvia and Estonia. It used to be the word I associated with Finland, but now "Fascist" is.

I've been griping about the lack of Global Warming lately, most notably when we got snowed out of a range (freezing rain, sleet, and lightning which finally shut it down) during the week before last. But apparently this is not merely a local trend. Global Warming is bunk. Throw another log on the fire, and get those greenhouse gases flowing!

Barak Obama is almost becoming too easy a target these days. I mean, check it out. Now, Barak is not stupid enough to mouth these phrases, but if you choose to call a man your "spiritual advisor" you get tarred with the same brush. His minister isn't the only one of his Chicago associates that I have huge questions about. It appears that he has ties to PLO agents, which makes sense given that his pastor is anti-Israel and anti-Semetic (in addition to being anti-white). And anti-United States, which is probably most relevant given that his loyal parishioner is running for president of said nation.

In other Partisan Political News, we have two outbreaks of intellectual honesty among liberals.

David Mamet has decided he can no longer be a liberal.

"And I realized that the time had come for me to avow my participation in that America in which I chose to live, and that that country was not a schoolroom teaching values, but a marketplace."

Kenneth Theisen has come out of the closet in Berkeley. He's come under a LOT of fire from Conservative bloggers but I'm going to stick up for him, as much as I can. Mr. Theisen is a vile, slimy piece of work who should be deported, but AT LEAST HE'S HONEST!

"If you 'support the troops' in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the other more than 100 countries in which they are located, you also objectively support U.S. hegemony in the world. I believe that the vast majority of people who say they support the troops do not wish to support U.S. imperialism, but that is what they are really doing by putting forth the slogan of 'support the troops'.”

"They are unjust, illegal, and immoral wars. Can you support the troops in these wars? Why is this any different from a German in World War II saying, 'I oppose the wars launched by Hitler, but I support the troops of the German army which are making these wars possible'.”

Thank you, Mr. Theisen. Thank you for a moment of unbridled honesty and clarity and common moral sense. It's only obvious. If you believe that the war in Iraq is "unjust, illegal, and immoral" you CANNOT support it, and by extension you cannot support me as I re-enlist to continue to fight it. If you believe it was not the best possible course of action for the United States, you can support me. But you cannot support me without supporting my actions.

Thank you for being honest. Thank you for being clear and to the point. Thank you, Mr. Theisen, for not hiding behind a cloak of hypocrisy. At least I know where I stand. You may be a damned fool, and a coward, and a parlor pink who will never amount to shit except among your fellow socialist schoolboys, but at least you are honest!

Now of course, some Bleeding Heart Type will say, "You said he should be deported. Shame on you for opposing his free speech!" Others will recall that I have stated that this sort of stuff is tantamount to treason and support of the enemy, namely al-Qaeda. Turns out that I'm right after all--Harvard has gone and done a study statistically correlating certain types of statements in Western media with attacks on US troops. Which I could have told you about--and did, years ago--based on my studies of the Philippine Insurgency. But I don't have a degree in Economics.

Along the same lines, I've found this little piece. Kinda makes my little rant the other day seem not quite as irrational as you might think, no? Trends, folks. Trends.

Meanwhile Colonels are arguing with each other, and getting busted by my old Brigade Commander, the Marine Corps is using big game hunters as trainers, an Archbishop turns up deceased, and the IVAW's little festival is falling through.

I've give the Final Word to Greyhawk.

Busted, Decisively

2008-03-13T15:16:00.002+03:00

I mentioned that my wife and I were planning to do some experiments to verify one odd claim made by a certain IVAW member, one Jennifer Sprager, that she poisoned detainees by putting MRE heater material into cigarettes.

First reported here in the local press, this was repeated over at Obiter Dictum.

Parts of her story have already been debunked by Chickenhawk Express.

But I was curious about the MRE heater question. For those playing the Home Game, MREs come with a heater package consisting of a light green plastic bag with a package of some sort of stiff fabric containing a gray powder. You rip open the bag, shove a sealed package of food inside, and add water. The powder reacts to the water and heats up, giving of foul-smelling vapors in the process which you aren't supposed to sniff as they displace oxygen, although they are harmless enough in and of themselves.

Step one was to ask (for safety purposes) what happens when you attempt to burn some of the gray powder. So I slit one of the heaters, took a couple pinches of powder, and applied a BBQ lighter (Weber brand, in case it matters to someone), and got. . . Nothing. It doesn't burn. I held flame on it for two minutes, and got no burning at all.

Then I attempted to roll it into a cigarette. This powder has the consistency of sand, so you have to use a good bit of tobacco to hold it in. If you do not hold the cigarette level, you get bits of gray powder falling out of it. The cigarette lights, but taking a drag on it results in a mouthful of gray powder. It is variously described as "nasty," "disgusting," and "tastes like licking a salty engine block".

So. . .

If you roll MRE heater crud into cigarettes, it tends to fall out. If you attempt to smoke the cigarette, it tastes obviously revolting and tampered with. No one can stomach the taste long enough to actually poison themselves with it.

As Mythbusters would say, this one is "BUSTED"

Watch This Space

2008-03-10T05:30:00.002+03:00

The first question when assessing a story that one hears is, "Is it physically possible?"

You know what I mean--if a guy claims there were six guys inside an M-1 tank on patrol, you gotta figure the rest of his story is pretty sketchy.

So, in the interests of Science, I am going to fact-check the physical possibility of "Jen" and her MRE-heater cigarettes.

I am ashamed, as a Combat Engineer, to admit that I have never set an MRE heater or the crud inside them on fire. Never really had a good opportunity while I had the subject on my mind. Pyromania plays only a small part in my burning curiosity as to precisely how this works.

Tomorrow, I'll be at a range and MREs are on the menu for lunch. I should be able to snag a heater unused. I will stop by the "Smoke Shack" just outside East Gate and pick up rolling papers and low-grade tobacco. I figure that this will give me (a non-smoker) a far better chance to roll something that looks decent that my original plan, which was to buy a pack of cigarettes and slit them open with a razor blade.

Tomorrow, I'll do a test run or two and post preliminary results. However, Saturday my lovely Lady Wife will be present with a camera and stopwatch to run multiple iterations and post pictures and time-lines.

Questions:
Does it burn?
Does it burn without spectacular pyrotechnics that could not be mistaken for normal cigarette burning?
Does it give off a smell that is noticeable?

I suspect (I remember you're supposed to have a hypothesis from all those stupid middle school science projects) that the answer is, respectively, yes, no, and yes. If that is so, we'll have to call this one "Busted". For it to be credible, it has to be yes, yes, and no.

Obama-mania, and Badasses

2008-03-10T03:02:00.005+03:00

I've done a couple posts with themes, so it's about time to do one with collections of links.

Obama-mania seems to have settled down. SNL made fun of him, NAFTAgate has blown up in his face, one of his advisors lost her damn mind, and his latest endorsement came from narco-terrorist communists in South America. There's questions about finance.

His biblical exegesis is raising eyebrows. One of his good buddies and fundraisers is on trial.

He's even been caught waffling on whether or not he'll withdraw troops from Iraq, which amuses me greatly.

I'm giggling with glee. Yes, that's right folks. I am enjoying this presidential campaign a great deal. Here's how I see it. If McCain isn't caught in bed with a 12 year old boy between now and November, the Democrats are going to spend the next 5 months savaging each other. If we are lucky, Hillary will file suit to attempt to force the party to seat her delegates from Michigan and Florida. Frantic political deal-making inside the convention will play against scenes of street violence from anti-war groups who don't feel that the Democrats are moving fast enough to scuttle the Iraq War. After four days of this (or if we get REALLY lucky, 8 or 9 or 10 days if there are enough deadlocked votes) the American Peepul (bless their stinky feet) are going to be so sick of all things Democratic that their ears will bleed upon mention of either Hillary or Barak.

And between 1 SEP and Election Day, all McCain will have to do is ask the country if that's what they want for the next four years. He'll play all the sound bites that the Democrats have obligingly compiled for him.

In Other News:

Badasses!

We have British Badasses. I wish to draw your attention to the sentence:

“My stomach was cut open, so I tucked my shirt in to keep it together and kept firing until more lads from the platoon arrived.”

That's badass.

We have an American Female Airborne Medic Badass.

"After the explosion, which wounded five soldiers in her unit, Brown ran through insurgent gunfire and used her body to shield wounded comrades as mortars fell less than 100 yards away, the military said."

Not quite as badass as tucking your intestines in your shirt and fighting on, but commendable non the less.

We have former Presidential Badasses.

Roosevelt received letters from army cavalrymen complaining about having to ride 25 miles a day for training and, in response, Teddy rode horseback for 100 miles, from sunrise to sunset, at 51 years old, effectively rescinding anyone's right to complain about anything, ever again.

While campaigning for a third term, Roosevelt was shot by a madman and, instead of treating the wound, delivered his campaign speech with the bleeding, undressed bullet hole in his chest.

I doubt Barak Obama, should he become elected President of the United States, would make even the top twenty in this list.

We have Danish Cartoonist Badasses. Not quite in the same category as fighting with your guts tucking into your shirt, but I still like anyone who will, in the face of death threats and crazed babbling from the Muslim world, publish anything that closes with,

"We reserve the right to not let ourselves be intimidated by people who meet verbal arguments with violence."

Not nearly as badass, but nearly as stressful as fighting with your innards in your tunic is being a general and commanding thousands of bad-asses. (Soon to be) GEN Odierno is moving on to ACoS. I remember when he was a 'lowly' division commander. Awww. . .

Journalism is not a profession one normally associates with badassery, but JD Johannes is the exception to the rule. Check out his film trailer. I'm planning to fix the link to his blog on the right, it seems to have gotten broken.

What's the opposite of a Badass?

A sniveling punk.

Let me share a couple with you.

A judge who would deny a 17 year old permission to enlist in the US Marine Corps is a sniveling punk.

This article highlights two sets of sniveling punks.

First, "Victims had drill holes in their bodies and deep gouges caused by blow torches." Anyone who would do that to a tied up helpless victim is a punk. Second, anyone who believes that this is somehow justified by America's actions or policy is also a punk.

Finally, Rurik makes the cogent argument that anyone who filed for Conscientious Objector status after enlisting in the Armed Forces is a sniveling punk. I'd modify that to argue that you should have the opportunity to do so free of consequence after you return from a deployment provided you fought honorably during your deployment. Other than that, you just defrauded the United States government and people out of monies for a service you are too cowardly to render.

From Whence Comes the Money?

2008-03-09T19:06:00.006+03:00

Unanswered questions that I've had for a while regarding IVAW. . .

Whence comes the money? IVAW offers to cover funding for veterans to fly to Colorado for the new "Winter Soldier" hearings. Not chump change, really. There's money floating around here somewhere.

Let's play Connect The Dots. I like that game.

IVAW is VFP. From their website,

"Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) was founded by Iraq war veterans in July 2004 at the annual convention of Veterans for Peace (VFP) in Boston." They have their tax-exempt status through VFP, so to me, it's a daughter organization.

IVAW is also The Action Mill, since The Action Mill seems to provide a majority of the staff at the national level for IVAW. I can't find much more about The Action Mill, except some amusing shots of their founder being arrested for protesting some planned casinos and a reference to his former job at Resource Generation. Resource Generation is a socialist organization that uses the rhetoric of class warfare to guilt young rich kids into donating money to progressive causes. I think there is more to it than that They seem to have a penchant for the theatrical, as does IVAW.

Back to Veterans for Peace.

What does VFP believe? A list of causes they have supported answers this question.

"closing of the Army's infamous School of the Americas,"

"Today we continue to work for an end to that conflict through our Korea Peace Campaign."

"VFP sent fact-finding delegations to this violence-torn land and educated U.S. citizens to the US military involvement, the murder of union leaders by para-militaries and other human rights abuses,"

"we opposed US sponsored wars and continue to support people struggling for their rights and dignity. We regularly send election observers to Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador in support of justice and peace."

Translation for the Progressive-Speak Impaired:
"We support the DPRK, FARC, the FSLN and FMLN."

Sexy.

Look, good old-fashioned communists. . .

How 1969.

VVAW is currently a smokescreen, since VVAW's National Coordinator is ALSO the President of Veterans for Peace. Same leadership means same ideology. But VVAW is also heavily involved in Communist organizations, and was at one point more or less controlled by Maoists.

You find IVAW, VVAW, and VFP hanging out with Front Organizations such as United For Peace and Justice, which is a Front Organization founded because folks with access to the internet were starting to connect the dots and realize that anti-war organizations are largely run by Communist retreads from the 1960s. They kind of screwed themselves by installing Leslie Cagan as the co-chair, since she was a no-kidding member of the CPUSA. WTF? Couldn't they find someone else to serve as a figurehead? Doesn't slow them down much.

Well, I haven't quite gotten the answers I was looking for. I can speculate about where some of these organizations get their money, and other folks have done so in more detail than I can. But the question continues to bother me.

Either way, I actually wish the IVAW luck in their Winter Soldier hearings. If they vet those giving testimony carefully, and if they put enough detail into making credible allegations, maybe some of those guilty could be prosecuted. I'm sure that after being burned again and again by liars and fakers, IVAW's vetting procedures have been tightened up considerably. Hopefully there will be something better than the silliness quoted in lgf about some MP allegedly putting MRE heater stuff in cigarettes to kill detainees. Because seriously, even the stupidest Iraqi is going to notice the smell and appearance, and either way, the amount of stuff you can stuff into a cigarette isn't going to kill anyone.

Inspiration

2008-03-07T03:22:00.008+03:00

Writing is, for me, something that comes and goes. I feel inspired, or I don't. And then if I am inspired, and I have time, I write. I have not had these two coincide for some time now.

But did I get a wakeup call today or what?

The "Anti-war" (anti-)American Left, in a wonderful display of "supporting the troops", decided to engage in an act of armed insurrection in New York City.

In the name of "peace," someone has decided to step up from moonbat protesting and petty harassment to the Real Deal. Some people have compared being a Leftist to having a mental disorder. I say the real issue with the American Left is that they are dumb. American Soldiers get bombed all the time in Iraq by people with a lot more expertise and balls (not that this is saying much) and we don't surrender nor quit. Do you seriously think this shit is going to put us off our feed?

If you, the transnational socialists of the United States, wish to play by these rules, bring it. You will not prevail. Do you seriously think that by attacking us, you will intimidate us? No, you will harden us against you. How many of us do you believe empathize with your city-dwelling rich white politically correct yuppie asses? You have removed yourself from our Armed Forces. You have attacked and demonstrated contempt for both the Armed Forces and the communities most Soldiers are raised in. If you wish to separate yourself fully and THEN engage in violence, you may expect to be answered in kind. Decisively. Who will defend you? You cannot defend yourselves. Your sympathizers are largely disarmed and passive, for you have told them that 'The Government' is the omnipotent answer to all problems, and that they are helpless except when acting through you.

If you set the preconditions for civil war and ignite that civil war, the Republic may or may not survive. It will not survive in its current form. The form it takes will not be to the liking of those who are gleefully precipitating the civil war.

"If we sunder ourselves internally, if we accept the false divisions, then we bring with those false divisions all their ills, all their blood of centuries. Where then, can we find trust? If we cannot see the difference between the evil that stands here before us with blood-soaked hands and what we are told is the evil we do in bringing peace and plenty to foreign shores, where then is the trust? If we cannot remember who we are, if we cannot comprehend what it means to be this shining light on the hill, this country of wonder and riches, this . . . America, then we shall surely slip into the long dark night that the enemies of our freedoms so richly desire.

"We are told, always, that there is no black and white. That there are only shades of gray. This is a picture that is held up to us. But it is only a picture and it is false. Each day, each of us makes countless choices, and each of these choices is black and white. If we choose, over and over again, as we have for so long, to choose the black choices because they are easier, to choose 'me' over 'us,' to choose division and strife over assimilation and trust, then we slowly slip into that black night.

"I do not so choose."
--John Ringo, The Last Centurion

Normally, I endorse Uncle Jimbo's rules for dealing with moonbats.

But when you start throwing bombs, the rules change.

If we can kick al-Qaeda in the teeth so badly that we are about to hand what used to be the most dangerous city in the world over to the Iraqis, along the way teaching Iraqis to shoot and setting up a democratic government capable of making hard decisions, what do you think we can't accomplish? Of course, you don't know about these things. Why not? I wonder.

Speaking of which, Palestinians are At It Again. If there is a people less ready for self-determination, I cannot imagine what people it is.

On the other hand, every time I'm ready to completely write the British off, they prove me wrong.

Lately, Cornet Wales of the Blues and Royals was the case in point, managing to deploy to Afghanistan and stay there 77 days before the media frenzy wigged out his superiors to the point that they returned him to the UK. This decision makes me wonder precisely what the British Army high command is using in lieu of testicles, which were once well know and were even used as a substitute for brains among Englishmen of officer rank. Badgers Forward explores the question of the cornet's hair, most notably seen here as being outrageously long to this American NCO's eye. But different cultures produce different styles. At one time regulations required Soldiers to grow facial hair.

There are good folks in every culture, though. Even the softest liberal society gone to rot can produce heroes, even if they must join another nation's Army to be allowed to live up to their ideals.

"And what are you doing so that we can have peace? How much longer do you think you'd be sitting around drinking coffee in fancy Berlin cafés if people like me didn't exist? If there was nobody to make sure you could live in peace? If there was nobody to fight terrorism?"
--SPC Jeffrey Jamaleldine

Lest anyone should think I'm engaging in narcisstic "I love Soldiers" crap, there's always a Special Snowflake or two in any crowd, and this post amused me to no end. I love Barracks Lawyers who think that they can twist regs in any way they like for their own purposes. Simple fact of life: Professional Soldiers don't engage in politics in uniform. I write on politics--but not in a professional capacity. My experiences inform my politics, and I don't mind explaining why they do, but damn! You don't see me engaging in political protest in uniform.

3.1.2. During or in connection with furthering political activities, private employment or commercial interests, when an inference of official sponsorship for the activity or interest may be drawn.

I love their argument. You can always wear a uniform at a protest, because gosh darn it, you're protesting! No one will confuse that with an authorized activity! Neener, neener. . .

Whatever. The credibility of the IVAW has always been shaky to me. I've met precisely two members. One of them was a dirtbag and a coward who cracked under fire downrange. The other was an honest, sincere individual who I would cheerfully characterize as misguided, and a poor fit for the Army in any case. This is not a representative sample by any means. If that's the sort of logic they use to act in an unprofessional manner (a stricter standard than mere regulations, but I wouldn't expect That Guy to understand the distinction--and every organization always has That Guy) then they pretty much pigeonhole themselves. That Guy is often a very bright person who is simply convinced that rules don't apply to him. Usually they have overlooked something obvious like, for instance, AR 670-1 para 1-10j(1) and 1-10j(2) . There are folks who dissect IVAW in more detail than I am inclined to do. But of course, IVAW will represent itself as the spokesman for all servicemen and the lie will be accepted by those who wish it to be true.

What a Week

2008-02-22T18:47:00.002+03:00

Well, I turn 30 today.

I slipped in a three-day pass for the occasion and was planning to go down to Benavides and get beaten with sticks. However, instead I will be driving to Louisiana tomorrow for a funeral. Jen's Grandmother fell asleep.

But that's not all for this week.

Kosovo declared independence, and GWB apparently recognized them. That's infuriating. There's an excellent article on GetReligion.org on the subject. I've been to Kosovo, and I've seen some of this sort of thing. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that if NATO withdraws and Kosovo is not reintegrated into Serbia--complete with Serbian police and army protection for the Serbs living there, that there will be a humanitarian disaster, genocide, refugees, and the final destruction of hundreds more churches, monasteries, and holy sites. I cannot help but be moved by the appeal of the Serbian hierarchy to common sense and common decency, but I am afraid that the West, manipulated by a media with transnational and postnational ideologies and sold on the stereotypical depiction of Serbs as slavering madmen and Albanians as innocent victims, will not act in the right way. The genocide will go unnoticed and unremarked, for it is never in the interest of the media to stir up sympathy for Christians.

Musharraf, in Pakistan, lost an election. Or that is to say, his party got hammered. Of course everyone is celebrating since the Meme of the Week is that Musharraf is a brutal military dictator who doesn't respect "human rights". Of course, the fact that one of the main sources of discontent with his government is that he has been an American ally and supporter of the fight against al-Qaeda, is sometimes somewhat overlooked. I choose to reserve judgment until I know what the result is really going to look like. I mean, I'm in favor of civilian rule and democracy, but not at the cost of imposition of Sharia law and Pakistan turning into a haven for drug smugglers and terrorists. Not that it's the model ally, but it could get a hell of a lot worse.

In US News, Barak Obama is acting like a politician. To wit, he's whoring himself out and making contradictory promises to different people in order to garner endorsements. This is not a surprise to most people, since he is (wait for it). . .

A career politician!

Some of his supporters seem to think he's the Messiah or something. Nope, he's just another politician. If you really want to vote for "change," move to Canada or something. You've got three politicians running for Prez. Unsurprising, since the US political system pretty much requires you to be a career politician before becoming Prez. It sucks, but it beats systems that require you to be a general or head of the secret police before becoming Prez.

In other news, Obama is pretty much making shit up as he goes along during debates. A captain in charge of a rifle platoon? Platoons deploying piecemeal to different theaters? What the fuck is he smoking? That rings false, and it is false. Gateway Pundit speaks to the weirdness as well. You catch that drivel about using Taliban weapons? Seems Mr. Obama can't tell the difference between American troops and British troops. Kat of Castle Aaarrgh deconstructs that particular piece of fiction pretty well. Barak Obama is a liar. He's a liar either deliberately, or because he wants to sound informed without actually being informed. I hate with a passion people who lie to me and do so knowingly. Politicians spin constantly--they take facts and put an interpretation on them that is favorable to themselves or their causes. This is normal. This is human nature--sinful, fallen, reprehensible, and generally not ideal. But it is pretty much unavoidable. But to simply manufacture falsehood and slanders? Piffle.

I'm stuck with which ever idiot the American Peeple (bless their stinky feet and pointy heads) elect as CinC. But the more I hear Obama opening his mouth, the more I find myself hating him with a visceral passion.

Let's Talk Iraq and GWOT for a little while. I haven't done that much lately.

Mookie decided he wasn't going to declare war on the US and Iraqi government again. Isn't that nice of him? I'm thrilled. No, really. I'm thrilled this says one of two things. Either

a) Mookie has decided that going to war with the US and Iraq was a bad choice, career-wise that might end up with his corpse shown on the evening news, OR

b) Mookie has decided that he stands to win more by playing ball with Iraq and the US than he does by opposing us.

Either of these is good. Granted, he was going to flex and posture for a little while before making this official. Especially with the cute little rumor about the assassination attempt. But the prevailing opinion in Iraq seems to be that the Iraqis are tired of pointless conflict. This could be only temporary--there are other options open to him. But then again, Bill Roggio wonders how many folks would continue to follow him into a losing war.

PBS had a special on Haditha, the events and the subsequent witch hunt, egged on by that rarest of birds, an ex-Marine named John Murtha. Marines will understand why I can confidently refer to him as an ex-Marine. I don't watch TV, but according to all I've read, it was a balanced and reasonable presentation of the facts. If you wish to have an opinion on the subject, it behooves you to read this detailed analysis of the agreed-upon facts of the incident, and at least one lawyer's take on it.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi government is quietly working towards national reconciliation, which was a hot topic in the press when it wasn't happening, but is getting ignored now that it is.

Meanwhile in Afghanistan, yet another media guy gets caught up for dealing with the Taliban. Look, it's my surprised face.

In Syria, bin Laden's Good Buddy and Father of Modern Terrorism died. It's so tragic. The Israelis are walking around whistling and almost seriously declaring their innocence, and the US isn't exactly sending Dick Cheney for a ceremonial appearance at the funeral. Couldn't have happened to a nicer mass murderer.

I have not yet addressed the John McCain Non-Story, but that's a post of its own. Preview: The story isn't so much the allegations themselves, but the way the NYT decided to handle and time the assasination attempt--and make no mistake, that is precisely what this is.

It's Staff Duty Night!

2008-02-17T12:09:00.004+03:00

Yes, folks. It's time for the glorious United States Army tradition of staying awake for 24 hours Just In Case some jackass attempts to steal the building, or a drunken private falls down the stairs, or the pizza guy gets raped on the third floor and the Chain of Command needs someone to blame.

So you get the Long Post.

In Local News, I have decided to endorse Robert Francis. My primary reason is that if the Republic of Texas decides to pay your fuzzy butt a salary, your ass should be in the courtroom and the office 5 days a week like the rest of your fellow government employees. Not out earning some ridiculous sum as a law school prof while also collecting a judge's salary. Perhaps I'm a cranky bastich. So be it.

National News:
There's a lot of whining on the ideologically pure Conservative front about John McCain. Yeah, he isn't the ideal candidate, and he's not my first or even second or tenth choice for Prez, for that matter. In fact, I can think of lots of people who I'd rather see in office. But you know who I absolutely DON'T want running the country?

Barak "Clueless Fuck" Obama, or Hillary "Sociopathic Wanna-be Totalitarian" Clinton

And staying home is effectively the same as voting Democratic. Sadly, the world is an imperfect place, given the strong two-party system in place in the US, you pick from the menu in front of you. I can't buy Big Macs at Long John Silver. So if I'm at Long John Silver, I don't stamp my feet and refuse to order because there are no Big Macs for sale. I pick from the menu. You can argue all day long about whether or not this is the best way to pick a chief executive for a nuclear-armed superpower with an economy big enough and complex enough that no two economists agree on how to make it work. I personally think there has GOT to be a better way, but then again I wouldn't be adverse to putting a knife in the middle of an arena and letting Hillary and Barak Obama fight it out. I think Hillary wins because frankly she's manlier than Obama. But I digress.

So given the choice between McCain and which ever knucklehead gets the nod from the Democratic Party, I come down with McCain. Grow up, stop whining, and accept reality. McCain got the nod, he's the dog we have.

Why do I care quite so much? Why do I not buy into the arguments that the Republicans should take four years 'off' to 'rediscover themselves' in the opposition?

I don't know. Might have something to do with the War. You know, that thing in the Middle East that's been going on so long that most of America has pretty much forgotten about it and moved on to worrying about American Idol and the verdammt Westminster Dog Show.

What's funniest to me about this uproar is the deep concern that some of these ideologues have that John Frickin' McCain is going to appoint (say it softly) activist judges.

No, really? What in the name of Klono's Curving Carballoy Claws do you think Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to appoint? Strict constructionists? At this point continuing to fight among ourselves is self-defeating and self-indulgent.

Meanwhile, Berkeley is being Berkeley. Is it something in the water? What would possess any person to permit their underage offspring to make an ass of themselves like this?

Staying classy, American Leftist style. You want a bigger collection of pathetic losers, check out Zombietime. As usual, the Left pretty much goes for "shock value" and sad attention-seeking. My favorite is the exceedingly plain chick with 'fuck bush' scribbled on her boobs. They are the kind of boobs no one would look at if they didn't have silliness scribbled on them.

The pro-United States counter-demonstrators pretty much have the lock on coherent message, sanity, humor, and class. Some individuals only have it by a little bit, but this Berkeley after all. If anyone was completely normal they wouldn't be living there.

Speaking of stuff that makes my physically nauseous, there's Kosovo's anticipated declaration of independence. Hooray. Just what the world needs-another Muslim state run by drug lords and genocides and supported by al-Qaeda.

But on the plus side, there's a new Indiana Jones movie coming out soon. It appears to be full of win. Either that, or the trailer is all the best shots.

Why Barak Obama shouldn't be Prez, part 1,000

2008-02-10T18:11:00.001+03:00

OK, we've already talked about how he promised to invade Pakistan, and doesn't know dick about Iraq and so on and so forth.

Let's talk about how he doesn't know dick about Lebanon.

This guy may be charismatic, but what in hell does he think he's doing running for President without knowing the first thing about foreign policy?

Domestic policy is all well and good, but it has a lot of room for error. Even if you flush the economy down the toilet, Americans can rebuild anything. That's why I'm voting for McCain even though he's too government-interventionist for me.

Screw up with foreign policy and you get lots of people killed. Potentially including me.

Primary, Republican

2008-02-08T20:15:00.000+03:00

OK, now I'm really tired of politics.

Most of my votes in the primary for offices other than the US Prez are going to be meaningless, because the incumbents are running unopposed. The exception is the US Senate race, between

John Cornyn,

and

Larry Kilgore.

Presuming that Mr. Kilgore's alleged website is not a spoof, I will vote for Sen. Cornyn on the grounds that I'm fairly sure he could pass a psychological evaluation, whereas Mr. Kilgore probably couldn't.

My dog for the day

2008-02-08T16:11:00.001+03:00

Day by Day says it all, for those of us who are actual Conservatives.

Mitt Romney, the "moderate" governor of one of the most liberal states in the Union, was sadly the last, best hope for a candidate that I didn't absolutely hate. He quit yesterday.

It's frickin' sad and sorry when the so-called conservative party in the United States is presenting me with a choice between:

A) A literal madman.
B) A theocrat.
C) A tax-and-spend, gun-grabbing, anti-free-speech, pro-illegal-immigrant socialist.

Every choice I have is poisoned.

OK, enough venting.

What will I do?

I will not vote for Mike Huckabee in the Texas primary. He's a theocrat who wishes to amend the Constitution to support a particularly fundamentalist Protestant set of ideas, and I have no desire to live in the country he would create. Besides which, he's not terribly electable.

Ron Paul, I will vote against. Isolationism didn't work in 1936, and it won't work now.

John McCain is the alternative to the Wilderness. He may, or at least I hope, appoint judges who will be more interested in interpreting the law (vice judicially legislating, Democrat-style) than Hillary or Obama. And on the issues, I find little glimmers of hope that make me think that he is at least better than Hillary Clinton. The dog bites--but it bites less than do either of the Democratic dogs. And if I must have a dog. . .

Ultimately, I have two choices.

a) vote for John McCain
b) vote for Hillary Clinton/Barak Obama (to me they are nearly interchangable)

I can't "just stay home" in good conscience. That's abdicating my responsibilities as a United States citizen and free man. And while it might be worth it to vote for the greater evil as a means of letting America get precisely what we deserve for being so addicted to the government teat, there is a minor problem.

We are a nation at war. Or at least, I'm at war. The majority of the people in this country are at the mall. But I am at war and will be for the foreseeable future. John McCain will fight this war. Clinama (my neologism to indicate that I don't actually CARE who gets the Democrat nomination) will not. Clinama will surrender Iraq and by extension the entire Middle East to al-Qaeda and others of that ilk. After that, it is anyone's guess what the consequences will be, but they will be bad, because even our allies are halfway to surrender. That's the real deal breaker, and any so-called American who isn't thinking in those terms needs to do a serious self-assessment.

See also:
Foreign and Domestic, who jokingly endorses Clinton on the grounds that the last three candidates he endorsed dropped out.
Dr. Jerry Pournelle, who is so conservative he makes me look positively fluffy, endorses McCain--tentatively.
Lawdog reminds us that whoever gets elected as Prez, we need to remember that he can only sign laws created by Congress--and there are some conservatives running for Congress still.

Death Penalty

2008-01-07T06:50:00.000+03:00

I don't generally speak to the issue of death penalty. Part of that is that I think our justice system is badly broken and in need of some serious overhaul. Part of that is that I don't have the legal education to make sense of the justice system as it stands.

Part of it is that I really do fundamentally believe that my job, my role is to deal with folks outside the society who threaten our society. Cops and lawyers and judges exist to deal with folks inside society. If they stay out of my business, I'll stay out of theirs.

But I do like this on Big Lizards.

Oh, and I have now decided what I'll do if some weirdo gets the Republican nomination and Obama gets the Democratic one. I'm voting AGAINST Barak Obama. Watch this video.

Either Barak Obama is a liar and believes that he will not get called on his lies for some reason, OR
Barak Obama is too ignorant of what the fuck goes on in Iraq to be permitted to speak on the topic in adult company, much less be my commander in chief and give me orders to execute in Iraq.

Thanks for making my decision simple, dude.

Assorted "Must Reads"

2008-01-06T17:46:00.000+03:00

Everyone else, it seems, on "Teh Internetz" updates in a frenzy of 'it happened 30 minutes ago' and I don't. Really. It's vacation. I don't read all the blogs I 'should' in order to update this one.

I don't find anything new. There are too many people out there looking too hard to find stuff that I almost never run across anything actually new.

First, a 2007 retrospective. Entitled The State of Jihad, 2007, by Bill Roggio. It's interesting. Some parts are a little unnerving if you aren't aware of the developments already. My biggest worry is Pakistan. Right now, the US seems damned if you do, and and damned if you don't. If we don't support Pakistan's government, then it could fall and be replaced by folks who are right in line with al-Qaeda and the Taliban. If we do support the current government, we are essentially supporting a cheap military dictator who rules like a petty tyrant, and doesn't pursue the war on his wanna-be Taliban types with the vigor we'd like to see. In fact, he's basically handed off one of the most dangerous parts of the world to the Taliban to rule as a fief. There is no force for democracy and change. Bhutto, for all her photogenic qualities, was just as corrupt and wiling to violate civil liberties as any other leader of a third-world nation. Her political party showed its true nature by annointing her 19 year old son as her heir apparent, leaving the apparatus of the party firmly in the hands of her husband, who was allegedly the driving force behind millions of dollars worth of money laundering and embezzlement. Democracy? My ass. Democracies don't put 19 year old college students in charge of political parties because they happen to have sprung from the loins of the former leader.

Here we have a discussion that addresses both the question of "what to do with Pakistan" and relates it to the biggest issues facing the West in the sense of "what to do with Islam". Frankly, it's pretty depressing, but highly informative.

I do have one hell of a post that I'd like you to read, if you haven't already. Major Andrew Olmstead's "In case of" letter. MAJ Olmstead was assigned to a MiTT, a Military Transition Team. What that means is that he and a handful of other officers and NCOs were assigned as advisors to an Iraqi Army unit, living and working with them and teaching them to be real Soldiers. It's folks like that who are tasked with creating a climate so that the rest of us can knock off this war and go back to drinking beer and telling OIF I stories to fresh-faced privates.
Anyway, Major Olmstead not only fought the war in the field, leading Iraqis and teaching their own leaders how to do their jobs, he fought it in the critical arena, the only arena we can possibly loose this war in. He wrote a column for his local paper. You can read his last post here, and dig through the archives for more. It ain't politics, it's just 'this is the war'. His unit was ambushed in Diyala Province and he and a captain were killed. Castle Arghhh! collected a large number of tributes, I cannot do more than link to that post.

On the topic of New Year's Resolutions, I found this post at Naturally Nerds. Now, anyone who knows me knows that I don't buy into that climate change nonsense, or believe in a great deal of environment regulations and governmental coercion. But I do think that it makes only common sense to want to reduce one's waste. It makes economic sense, and like charity, it's a good thing to do. I just resent assholes in government offices TELLING me to do this stuff. Anyway, due to not living on our land (yet) we can't get into serious gardening and so forth like the Nerds, but it's a thought.

Does your New Year's Resolution involve weight? An economist gives his idea on how to provide a real incentive to change your thinking about what you eat. I volunteer to hold anyone's marker for their weight loss goals. I'll cheerfully call it in if you don't do it.

Another Year in Review that's more small-picture and personal than Bill's. It's informative in its own way.

There was some good news in 2007 for a number of Marines, fellow vets of al-Anbar Province. Many of them were convincingly exonerated and every single one of the remaining Haditha Marines has had the charges against them downgraded greatly. Of course, for some members of the Media this is an occasion for lamenting, because there are not so many Pulitzers when your story gets discovered as total fiction. But it's good news for people that count.

The more I read about Fred Thompson, the more I agree with Foreign and Domestic on the subject of Presidential Candidates. It is Received Wisdom among the Media that he isn't "campaigning hard enough" and he "doesn't really want it". That's good. I don't want a Pres that "really wants it". The Media's received wisdom doesn't count for a pile of dog doo these days, given that their Annointed, Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton, can't pull better than third place in Iowa and her campaign is pretty much self-destructing because, well, no one likes her psycho ass.

Jerking back from politics for a moment, I thought this post really catches the essence of the suck that is being the spouse at home while your other half is deployed. Been on both sides of this, and I'd rather be deployed.

We have a winner in the "what to do with illegal immigrants" column. Apparently, Arizona decided that the way to step on illegals is to step on their employers. It seems to be working. And of course, the media is against it. Which is a huge argument for it, in my book.

Another Defensive Handgun Usage. Score one for the good guys. Do NOT break into a house in Coperas Cove, you idiots! It's nothing but senior NCOs and officers, and retired old farts. They ALL own guns, except for my buddy Dave who will probably kill you with a boar spear or a sword.

Finally, a Must Read on Military History. Perspective is something Americans lack. Liberals lack it to a greater degree than Conservatives (necessary, since to "conserve" something you must at least have an idea of what you are conserving) but most Americans are as ignorant of history as they are of particle physics. I find this unforgivable, given that as humans, we all have at least a minimum of insight into human nature, and that's all history is.

Money Quotes:

"Yet until the defeat in Vietnam, there was a sort of tragic acceptance of military error as inherent in war. Ours was once a largely rural population, inured to natural disaster and resigned to human shortcoming. Though Presidents Lincoln and Truman were both reviled, Americans still felt that ultimately the American system of transparency and self-criticism would correct wartime mistakes. Fault-finding and partisan grandstanding there were aplenty, but the common desire for victory usually overcame perpetual finger-pointing and serial despair. Pearl Harbor and its attendant conspiracy theories may have set the Greatest Generation back, but such losses, humiliation, and suspicion were hardly considered tantamount to American defeat."

"So we plowed on, accepting that in war choices are typically between the bad and worse. It was foolhardy not to escort convoys in early World War II; but Admiral King—always suspicious of British motives—erred because he believed that such a commitment would divert precious assets from the Pacific War, where the U.S., largely alone, had to face the Japanese fleet—far larger and more formidable than Hitler's. The Sherman tank trapped and incinerated thousands of Americans when torched by Panthers and Tigers. But Patton himself saw that its dependability, speed, and sheer numbers offered countervailing advantages in racing toward the Rhine."

"By the same token, for every purported blunder in Iraq, there is at least an understandable reason why errors occurred in the context of human imperfection, emotion, and fear. Such considerations do not mitigate the enormity of military mistakes, but they should foster understanding of how and why they occur. Such recognition might lend humility to critics and wisdom to the perpetrators—and prepare us to accept and deal with similar human fallibility in the future. So shoot looters—and CNN immediately would have libeled the occupation forces as recycled Saddamites. Level Fallujah—and Iraqis would have compared us to the Soviets in Afghanistan. Had we kept together the Republican Guard—if that were even possible—charges of perpetuating the agents of Saddam's genocidal regime would have followed, with unfavorable contrasts to our successful de-Nazification program after World War II. Granted, there were not enough American troops to close borders, monitor ammunition depots, and maintain order. But as a result, there were enough deployed elsewhere to discourage trouble in the Korean peninsula, reassure Europe and Japan of our material commitment to their security, fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, help keep order in the Balkans, and man dozens of bases worldwide."

"In past wars there was recognition of factors beyond human control—the weather; the fickleness of human nature; the role of chance, the irrational, and the inexplicable—that lent a humility to our efforts and tolerance for unintended consequences. "Wars begin when you will," Machiavelli reminds us, "but they do not end when you please." The star-crossed and disastrous Dieppe raid of August 1942 did not mean that D-Day two years later had to fail. When in March 1945 maverick General Curtis LeMay sent high-altitude precision B-29 bombers carrying napalm in low over Tokyo, with little if any armament, the expected American bloodbath did not follow—thanks to a ferocious jet stream and dark nights that meant the huge planes came in much faster and with better cover. "To a good general," wrote the Roman historian Livy, "luck is important." By contrast the American media went into near hysterics during the so-called "pause" in the three-week victory over Saddam, when an unforeseen sandstorm temporarily stalled our advance. Only later was it revealed that air operations with precision weapons had continued all along to decimate Saddam's static forces."

This will, of course, be read by Certain People of Certain Ideological Persuasions as a partisan piece, intended to rebut accusations of everything from barratry and mopery and dopery that have been leveled against the current administration. But this is a piece about War. It isn't party politics, it is a timeless and unchanging constant derived from the basics of human nature that was forgotten in this country some decades ago in a rush to overturn ALL the old Constants. War is what it is, and all of our best intentions cannot perfect it, improve it, or render it safe and family friendly. It is confusing. Go google what Clausewitz said about friction some time, if you want an education.

All we can do is achieve victory and restore a more perfect peace--or lose, and surrender our control over our own destinies.

Without comment

2008-01-02T19:06:00.000+03:00

http://www.brothersatwarmovie.com/trailer.html

Two h/t to Blackfive

2008-01-02T07:03:00.000+03:00

Linkey love on the right and right here.

As if the Great Granddaddy of Milblogs needs any traffic from me.

Anyway,

Scumbag of the Week

2008-01-02T00:48:00.000+03:00

Jay R. Grodner
Law Offices of Jay R. Grodner
Principal Office-Deerfield
625 Deerfield Road –Suite 406
Deerfield, IL 60015
Phone: (847) 444-1500
Fax: (847) 444-0663
Downtown Chicago
30 N. LaSalle St. - Suite 1210
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 236-1142
Fax: (312) 236-6036
Email: jayrg8@aol.com
Web: http://www.jaygrodner.com

Mr. Grodner is being prosecuted for keying the car of a US Marine, causing $2,400 in damages. He is attempting to beat the charges because the Marine in question is deploying to Iraq and he believes that his status as a lawyer and the Marine's imminent deployment makes him immune to prosecution.

Like any good criminal, it turns out he's got a record. Voter fraud.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1946463/posts
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/12/anti-military-l.html
http://urbangrounds.com/2007/12/30/jay-r-grodner/
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/250664.php
http://hennessysview.com/2007/12/31/jay-grodner-chicago-lawyer-and-anti-american/
http://thisgoesto11.blogspot.com/2007/12/chicago-lawyer-jay-r-grodner-is-giant.html
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Jay_R_Grodner_Anti_Military_Chicago_Lawyer_Vandalizes_a_Marine_s_Car
http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2007/12/jay_r_grodner_is_an_idiot.html
http://caonl.skorzystaj.info/vanle/Jay-R-Grodner-amp-Assoc-Chicago-IL-Localattorneydircom.html
http://hennessysview.com/2007/12/31/jay-grodners-voter-fraud-discipline/
http://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=317036748
http://www.clr.org/Grodner-Jay.html
http://www.clr.org/fraud.html
http://www.lindasog.com/archives/2008/01/face_to_face_with_jay_robert_g.html
http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/8053/jaygrodneradev6.jpg
http://www.sondrak.com/index.php/weblog/todays_web_search_o_the_day/
http://www.genelex.com/paternitytesting/paternityfamlawdir.html#IL

I bet he whines, just like the rest of his breed, "But I support the troops" on cue whenever asked.

Humor, Politics, War, and Religion

2007-12-31T20:28:00.000+03:00

Yeah, that pretty much is the spectrum of the topics I cover. My Other Blog has the relationship advice (I'll fix your relationship by pissing you both off with perfect, blunt honesty, so that you're united in hatred for me. It's a better basis for a relationship than a lot have these days)
and my personal life. See?

So, let's cover humor.

Doctrine for Dummies. As written by a "friend" of Jon Donovan. If that's a little wordy, try Uncle Jimbo's video presentation.

If it wasn't funny, you haven't been in the military long enough. While not funny, this post on U-2 Carrier Operations isn't terribly political nor religious. So I'll put the link here.

OK, there's humor. On to serious stuff.

Politics, Domestic. The more I read Fred, the more I like Fred. Fred doesn't like the MSM. I hate the MSM. Fred busts the MSM lying about him and misquoting him. I link to folks who bust the media lying.

Politics, Foreign. The French have told Syria to take a flying leap. As Tigerhawk observes, a major mantra of the Left on foreign policy has been that the United States should follow the lead of Europe. Another major mantra of the Left is that we should always solves problems with other nations by attempting to talk them to death, unless you can portray the regime as 'fascist'
in which case it's all about the embargoes. Anyway, you can't do both anymore, because the French have decided they are done screwing with the Syrians. I wait with bated breath to see what the Transnational crowd says now.

Politics, Foreign Part II. The latest set of statistical revisions shows China is sucking harder than anyone thought. More exactly, their economy is something like 60% of the size that people thought it was. Now, a lot of doom-n-gloom forecasts predicated the Chinese economy taking over the world (well, they were mostly more nuanced than that, but this is the not-for-economists-version) and crushing the United States under the weight of the ginormous modernized military that this amazing wonder-economy was supposed to be buying. For those of you who remember the 1980s, this is the same form of economic doom prophecies that predicted the Japanese would take over the world in the 1990s, before we found out that a lot of Japanese fortunes were paper-only and created by dishonest accounting practices and inflated property values. Funny how that keeps happening. Capitalism is ugly, but it beats the modified forms these Asian countries keep trying.

Politics, Foreign, and Religion. Because Islam is a political ideology which masquerades as a religion. Algerians MPs are trying to shut down proselytizing in Algeria. Gates of Vienna has an interesting post on it. Even more interesting is the commenter who points out that reciprocity--treating Islam in the West as Christianity is treated in most of the Islamic world--would basically work out to treating Islam as a subversive political party. I've been saying that for years, you know.

Politics, Foreign, and War. It is telling that the British media will do what the US media won't.

War. A Soldier's Christmas. Christmas means the most to those of us who don't have what a civilian takes for granted. To wit, the luxury to take the day off work, take some vacation, and spend the holiday with the family. In recognition of that, I assembled a couple posts who say it better than I can. I can't really do justice.

Foreign and Domestic, Iraq last year and home this year.
Katana, whose husband is deployed, has two.
General Petraeus.
Frontline Fobbit, deployed.
Badger 6, deployed for his second year straight.

On an upnote, I do know what I want for my birthday. I already have a nice tomahawk from a breaching kit that wasn't on the Property Book. . .

"But I'm not seeing any progress"

2007-12-18T03:27:00.000+03:00

The most common thing that gets tossed in my face when I try to discuss Iraq with people is "I'm not seeing any progress."

This is fundamentally amusing coming from folks who have never been over to Iraq, but that's almost trivial.

What they mean is that the media isn't talking the good news. And if there isn't any bad news, they just invent their own fictional stories. In fact, over the past six weeks,

Time/CNN was busted spouting story about 20 decapitations in Diyala Province. Didn't happen. BBC, which also picked up the story, published a retraction.

Reporters Without Borders reported that the family of a journalist had been massacred by a death squad. Funny, they look awfully lively for a dead family.

Some alleged dead construction workers in Afghanistan turn out to be al-Qaeda after all.

12 people were killed and their homes burnt to the group, but a couple days later AP slips in an almost-retraction. Read down that article and you notice that they couldn't find evidence of this alleged massacre/burning. So Gateway Pundit checks with MNF-I and gets a flat denial.

Anyway, Gateway Pundit is tracking this stuff better than I have the time and inclination to do. Short version? Don't believe much of what you see in the media if it is doom and gloom. Most of it is unverifiable, and the rest is simply invented in the fevered imagination of a stringer (who probably is a terrorist) or some journalist who is giving a source too much credibility and not doublechecking.

I hate to say it, but telling the truth is not part of Arab culture. Telling you what the Arab thinks you want to hear, is. If you tell an Arab you want stories of massacre, he will spin you a story that happened to "my cousin" in another town or some other unverifiable nonsense. Western reporters ask leading questions. An Arab, faced with that, is going to know precisely what the journalist wants and give it to him.

You want information on Iraq, get it from the only people in theater who actually get fired if they get caught telling lies.

Couple Thoughts

2007-12-15T20:41:00.000+03:00

The Brits aren't buying the NIE. News, this is not. I don't think anyone is buying the NIE. I'm convinced it was released for some other political reason.

You want to watch an Australian feminist squirm? Ask her why she doesn't ever speak against the way women are treated in Islamic countries. Actually this is good for any Western feminist who seems more interested in pushing gender-based class warfare ideology than actually doing anything positive. Which isn't all of them, but is enough of them.

More gun-related sound thinking. I've heard it, I've said it. Simple fact is that some people (for which read, "most liberals") are so incapable of recognizing real evil (you know, evil that doesn't fit into a neat little "-ism" category) in humans that they are forced to attribute it to inanimate objects. Because, you know, judging people is intolerant and doesn't recognize their glorious diversity and inherent right make their own decisions and blahblahblah. So you can't say that some nutjob who failed at life decided to blaze away at a crowd of folks going about their ordinary lawful business because he was evil. No, he's misunderstood. It's that evil, nasty SKS that made him do it! Yeah! Same for that other Life Failure in Colorado.

Unless we are some sort of gun-owning lunatic, in which case we get to be demonized in any manner that particular liberal cares to use.

As an extreme example of this thinking (h/t Lawdog) is Britain's latest stupidity, banning swords. That's sad and sorry. Of course, what can one expect from a nation that just signed away its real sovereignty to the European Union. By this I mean that they no longer control their own borders and cannot make decisions on immigration. I like the UK, but they cannot exist much longer in a half-state. They will either have to choose serfdom as part of the mass socialistic European state, or liberty. Right now it ain't looking good for the liberty crowd.

Remember

2007-12-07T16:29:00.000+03:00

Still footage is authentic, but I believe most of the video footage is from Tora, Tora, Tora.

For the historian, the USN page on Pearl Harbor.

Twenty-one ships of the U.S. Pacific Fleet were sunk or damaged: the battleships USS Arizona (BB-39), USS California (BB-44), USS Maryland (BB-46), USS Nevada (BB-36), USS Oklahoma (BB-37), USS Pennsylvania (BB-38), USS Tennessee (BB-43) and USS West Virginia (BB-48); cruisers USS Helena (CL-50), USS Honolulu (CL-48) and USS Raleigh (CL-7); the destroyers USS Cassin (DD-372), USS Downes (DD-375), USS Helm (DD-388) and USS Shaw (DD-373); seaplane tender USS Curtiss (AV-4); target ship (ex-battleship) USS Utah (AG-16); repair ship USS Vestal (AR-4); minelayer USS Oglala (CM-4); tug USS Sotoyomo (YT-9); and Floating Drydock Number 2. Aircraft losses were 188 destroyed and 159 damaged, the majority hit before the had a chance to take off. American dead numbered 2,403. That figure included 68 civilians, most of them killed by improperly fused anti-aircraft shells landing in Honolulu. There were 1,178 military and civilian wounded.

Three Unrelated Notes

2007-12-06T16:00:00.000+03:00

1) The SKS is a semi-automatic carbine, not an assault rifle. It has a ten round magazine integral to the weapon, and is fed from a stripper clip. It does not have the capacity for selective fire (ie, burst or automatic fire modes).

According to one website,

"Because of their historic and novel nature, SKS rifles are classified by the BATF as "Curio & Relic" items under US law, allowing them to be sold with features that might otherwise be restricted."

For those interested, this website has some nice pictures and the manual for the weapon.

2) Julie Cochrane has one of the best refutations of libertarianism I've ever read up on her LJ. It's even funnier coming from a Baen author, given Baen's tendency to publish Libertarian Wetdream Utopian Fiction. I've often said that the only way for Libertarian utopias to function would be if, freed from a 'government compulsion' to be altruistic, everyone suddenly becomes altruistic of their own free will. You see this a lot in SF of this nature, including least favorite milSF book, which I gave to the used book store after running across the Biowarfare Hookers.

I've seen the sort of thing she references regarding de facto 'governments' (which more resemble what we would call organized crime), in parts of the world where the central government has become defunct, both in the Balkans and the Middle East. This required me (and a couple thousand of my closest friends) to make a professional visit.

3) Regading the 6th of December, the Feast of St. Nicholas, I offer a couple links.

On the Face of Santa, the History of Santa, and the hymns and readings of the day.

Iran and Nuclear Weapons

2007-12-05T20:58:00.000+03:00

There's a new NIE out.

Read it before you read my comments on it.

Seriously, stop reading this post now and click on the link and read it from beginning to end. Anyone who does not, please do not waste my time replying. I am rather tired of embedding links and having passionate arguments in the comment section wherein someone (typically the liberal) reveals an incapacity or disinclination to read the cited article.

It's only nine pages of which four are introductory material.

OK, the Main-Stream Media is spinning the holy hell out of this, as claiming Iran has shut down its nuclear program entirely, questioning Bush's Iran policy as a result, and echoing Harry Reid's dubious drivel about how this report was “directly challenging some of this administration’s alarming rhetoric about the threat posed by Iran.”

To summarize the report, based on the latest information, it is possible to say with a "high degree of confidence" that Iran suspended activity on its program in the fall of 2003. Let's ponder this assessment for a moment. For those of you whose memories for details are a little fuzzy, in the months prior to that point in time, George Bush had publicly called for regime change in Iraq and Iran both, linked them in an 'Axis of Evil', invaded Iraq, destroyed its army, arrested its leadership, and found its ex-President hiding in a hole in the ground near Tikrit. Everyone else remember this time?

I don't suppose it occurs to ANYONE in the media or in the Democratic Party that perhaps, just perhaps, this scared the Iranian regime so badly that they decided not to push George. Keep in mind that they fought the Iraqi Army for 10 years and all they got was a stalemate of epic proportions. It is fair to say that the Iranian Army of 1990 and the Iraqi Army of 1990 were as precisely evenly matched as two armies can be in terms of capability. We blew it away then, and finished it off in 2003. If there is doubt in anyone's mind that we couldn't do that to the Iranian Army, they are smoking some seriously good stuff. Whether we could hold a country with 80 million inhabitants afterwards, that's another proposition.

Now, go back to your copy of the NIE. Scroll down to the middle of page 6.

"We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

Now, scroll back up to page 5. Read the definition of moderate confidence.

Think on it. Sip your coffee, and try to put yourself in the position of the President of the United States, with 300 million citizens depending on you to keep Iranian nutjobs from nuking them. Then go back to page 6, and read the paragraph below the one I quoted.

"Our assessment that the program was probably halted primarily in response to international pressure suggests that Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on this issue than we judged previously."

Meanwhile, you've got reports sitting on your desk about increased production of improved missiles capable of delivering said hypothetical future nuclear weapons that the NIE says the Iranians could have between 2009 and 2015 if they restart their program.

We all know what course of action President Bush chose--to keep the pressure up on Iran to force them to shut down their program permanently and put in place safeguards to prevent it from being restarted.

Put this report, assessing that Iran is vulnerable to international pressure, next to a story coming out of China about their willingness to put some pressure of their own on Iran, and you get an interesting picture.

I'm with Israel. Just because it is someone's best guess (with "moderate confidence") that Iran's nuclear program is temporarily frozen, does not mean that we get to ignore them. Nor does it mean that we should abandon the stick and offer them merely carrots. Diplomacy is good, but effective diplomacy requires at least a credible threat of negative consequences for failing to negotiate in good faith or failing to reach an acceptable compromise.

I am a negative consequence.

h/t rjlippincott

After Reflection

2007-12-04T14:13:00.001+03:00

Had some time to think on the CNN/Youtube "debate" and one of the primary conclusions I've reached is about CNN rather than any of the candidates. The LA Times said it better than I could. But then again I've referred to CNN as the "Communist News Network" for years. I find it utterly odious that out of 5,000 submissions the "best" 33 questions included a religious fanatic asking about the inerrancy of the King James Version of the Bible. What does that matter? Who cares? They are running for President of the United States, not President of the Southern Baptist Convention. Hell, even most of the SBC permits alternate translations of the Bible (although how one believes in the literal inerrancy of the KJV, the NKJV, the NIV, and the NAS all at the same time baffles me, but this is political post, not theological).

The two main issues that voters are concerned about are Iraq and the Economy, right? At least according to the polls, although that may or may not be accurate. Standard disclaimers apply.

On Iraq, other than Ron Paul (who is a loon, as I will not fail to repeat every time I am forced to mention his odious name) all the candidates are pretty much on the same sheet of music. There were only a few questions on the topic, none of which were nuanced enough to bring out what differences may exist. That is my primary issue, but all that means is that Joe Lieberman is the only Democrat I could ever vote for. Jack Murtha came over to the side of reason for about an hour last week, but Nancy beat him back into Party Line. Haha.

On the economy, few questions were asked. There was a farm subsidy question, a couple related to lowering taxes, and that was is. Nothing much and nothing that differentiated at all between the candidates. They all channeled Ronald Reagan re: taxes, which is a Good Thing in my book. They all talked about getting rid of pork projects to save money, and that;s a standard politician promise which is impossible to stick to because pork is too engrained in the system. Oh, and they all favor farm subsidies.

Not a single question was asked regarding energy policy. Not one. Nada. Zero. Zilch. I have no idea what the energy policies of any candidates are, and have not troubled myself to do that level of research on 8 people. Talk to me after the Holidays. Of course, my energy policy is to build nuclear reactors and lots of them, and drilling for oil regardless of how many caribou are having sex in the vicinity. I figure the marketplace will push alternative technologies as the price of oil rises. But then again, I'm an eternal optimist.

Global Warming is a fraud, and I'm glad they didn't ask about it. Nothing to be said about it anyway. Stay the hell out of Kyoto. The best way to reduce humanity's "carbon footprint" would be to nuke the People's Republic of China, which would also solve our trade imbalance, growing Chinese antagonism on the world stage, overpopulation, the Republic of China question, and would keep unsafe dog-food and lead-painted toys off our shelves as well. It would also amuse me to no end.

/sarcasm.

Health Care is also something that I don't care about, and it's fine with me that they didn't ask about it. The whole point of the Republican Party is to NOT hand over such a large percentage of our economy to socialism and state control. Anyone who thinks differently will likely be cordially invited to go work for Hillary rather than trying to get MY vote. This will be an issue in the election, not the primary season.

The questions that were asked did show some differences between the candidates, and while immigration and gun control are not my top tier issues (Iraq is, and the larger war on terror) they are basic beliefs and a Pres who ignores border control and who appoints judges who will infringe on the 2nd Amendment can do a lot of damage.

As for the sense of it all, this election, should the Democratic Party nominate HRC, will be ours to lose. She has too much history, too much of a past, and too many negatives to actually be elected. She couldn't get a vote in the South if her hair was on fire (well, she might get a couple from guys who thought it was funny), and I believe she will self-destruct brilliantly between the convention and the election.

Debate

2007-12-01T22:46:00.000+03:00

Finally got around to watching the debate.

This is a series of first impressions based largely on what I saw and a minimum of research. I am not at this time ready to endorse a candidate, although I will identify some whom I will not support in any way.

Huckabee - SBC Minister, Social conservative. Illegal-alien friendly, too much so for my taste. I will not support a presidential candidate who deliberately failed to enforce US laws as governor and who promises not to enforce them as president. No new tax pledge, which I support. He does have a good stage presence. He also he the best answer to a 'gotcha' question re: death penalty: "Jesus was too smart to run for public office." He also had an excellent answer on the Bible question. Supports flat tax, wishes to trash the IRS.

McCain - Immigration amnesty--which takes him out of the running for my support as well. He talks a good game on financial conservatism talk is good. Supports line item veto, shutting down pork, and pushing money back down to the states to address infrastructure agreement. Does his record in Congress verify this stance? Don't care enough to research it because I have too many problems with him on immigration, the McCain-Feingold Act, and other issues.
He does want to win war in Iraq and specifically states that we should not set a withdrawal date. He's anti-waterboarding, duh. I'm surprisingly OK with that, and I didn't think Mitt Romney should have sat there and argued with him on it.
It was thoroughly entertaining to watch him pimpslap Ron Paul on the subject of Vietnam. He also correctly states that Islamic terror will follow us home if they win in Iraq.

Guiliani - He ran a "Sanctuary City" and otherwise did not support efforts to kick illegals out of this country. He correctly states that he was limited in his ability to deal with immigration issues because the Federals were falling down on the job. If this were my only problem with him, I'd be willing to possibly give him the benefit of the doubt. He has suddenly converted to being a True Believer on the subject of the 2nd Amendment, but I know too much about his history to believe it is sincere. No new tax pledge, but he is pro-farm subsidy.
When asked a question regarding gun control, he talked about crime control. Unrelated issue, IMHO. That worries me, because folks who confuse the two tend to end up with the simplistic solution that banning guns will reduce crime. He feels Abortion should be a state issue.
He wants to take offense against Islamic terror, but friendly to rest of Islam. Whatever.
He supports school choice.
He also gave a good answer to the question regarding infrastructure rebuilding and has a record to back it up. Believes the line item veto is 'unconstitutional'.

Thompson - Like his stance on Illegal Immigration, which is nice and tough. He will not pledge not to raise taxes, which makes me raise an eyebrow. His position on gun rights is good.
He favors overturning Roe v. Wade and returning the issue to the states. Believes Iraq is part of a bigger war on Islamic Terror. Committed to winning in Iraq. Admits Social Security is broke and wants to fix it.

Mitt Romney - He supports the Fair Tax which I approve of. No new tax pledge, but pro-farm subsidy and pro-ethanol subsidy. Ethanol is a scam that bothers me. Lots of yick-yack about family values but what is he going to do with it? Many of the candidates have solid programs they wish to support or implement or whatever, he's just giving me rhetoric. He doesn't like abortions, but doesn't think consensus in US is there to end them. He gave us more generalizations/ rhetoric on etitlements, but no hard answers. Good Stars and Bars answer--it just ain't that important.

Tancredo - Doesn't like legal immigration. No new tax pledge. Says "Radical Islam" which few candidates did. Identifies Radical Islam as threat to US. Seems to be pretty much a one-trick pony, because it was all immigration all the time. He's also hostile to legal immigration, which turns me off immensely. It's hypocritical. "Tancredo" is not a Native American family name. I have huge issues with a man whose grandparents were immigrants attacking all immigration as bad for the United States. I guess those of us whose ancestors were here in the 19th century ought to kick his ass back to Italy.

Duncan Hunter - I like his immigration policy. He's an Airborne Ranger and son is marine.
A+ NRA Rating and believes in 2nd Amendment--and his answers were sincere and passionate on the subject. He supports victory in Iraq, and say he will "Never apologize for the United States of America" in response to a question about shoring up US image abroad. Supports don't ask don't tell.

Ron Paul - He's a full-fledged lunatic. Goes on about the "Council of Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission." Immediate withdrawal from Iraq and all overseas military commitments. He is confused on facts in regard to Iraq. He cannot correctly identify factions or sects in Iraq, which is highly disturbing for a man running for President of a nation at war. Outright statements of falsehood on Vietnam. Isolationist in extreme. Wants the government "out of our wallets" and to rebuild infrastructure which is an impossibility.

CNN - likes 'gotcha' questions, and ringers (declared democrats, political activists, etc) Many of the questions were hypothetical in the extreme, or simply so silly that the only purpose could have been to portray Republican or Republican candidates negatively. But a lot of them were good questions. It's a mix.

A Liberal Meme floating around claimed that Col. (ret) Keith Kerr was 'booed' by the 'evil'
Republican Audience. Not true. Applauded twice.

Basically, Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter are the two that look least objectionable at this stage in the game. We'll see.

Victory, definitions of

2007-12-01T21:32:00.000+03:00

Hollywood vs. Pro-military journalism, a comparison. Without comment, he says it all just fine.

Now, one silly comment that liberals make regarding Iraq is that what we are doing in Iraq isn't going to result in "victory", and that the definition of victory keeps changing. The problem with that is that the liberals in question rarely will give their definition of victory and what should be done to achieve it. When they do get pinned down, they offer stupidity like this,

"MATTHEWS: Because if we can‘t ever come home, we can‘t ever say we won."

That's Chris Matthews of Hardball.

This is the typical level of understanding in the MSM of foreign policy.

I prefer a definition of victory roughly equivalent to 'forcing the enemy to do our will.' Or something along those lines.

I'm watching the CNN/Youtube Republican debate in pieces. I'll offer commentary when I'm done with the whole thing.

Thought for the morning

2007-11-29T16:19:00.000+03:00

So last night, my wife is in a craptastic mood after dinking around her LJ Friend's list, and I was curious as to why. Digging through it, I found two examples of deliberate falsehoods. By weird coincidence, both were in relation to homosexuality.

First, we have the so-called Matthew Sheppard Act, which is a thought-crime legislation declaring heterosexuals less worthy of legal protection than homosexuals.

The funny thing about the so-called "Act" is that it is not actually a bill in Congress, it is an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill. The Defense Appropriations bill is hung up in committee, and the riders are in jeopardy. I personally believe that attaching amendments to unrelated legislation because they have not got the support to pass on their own is a travesty, but one which is sadly a feature of the American legislative process.

But what's funny is that this person, who cares enough to link to a petition, doesn't care enough to read the petition which identifies it as an amendment to the DoD appropriations bill. Deliberate deception, or intellectual laziness? Your call. . .

Next is the issue of Col. (Ret) Kerr, USAR. The story is spun (not likely be the source I link too, but there are no source links) as a "retired general" with 41 years of service who came out of the closet after retirement, being booed by the horrible audience to the Republican presidential debate.

Again, key facts are misrepresented.

First, COL Kerr is not a United States Army general with 43 years of service, he was a colonel with 26 years of reserve service and 7 of active, presuming no break in service--his bio is unclear. His general's rank is in the California State Military Reserve, a 'state guard' organization. Second, he was openly living with his homosexual partner, an Episcopal minister, for the last ten years he was in the Army Reserves. These facts are from his biography at the SLDN. Third, he is a member of Hilary Clinton's presidential campaign. Note that he is correctly identified by rank in the listing of committee members.

Funny. . .

Linky Love

2007-11-27T16:48:00.000+03:00

Powerpoint Ranger, written by a New York NG NCO is just getting started, but is amusing and has a great deal of potential. South-Park-like animation style, but I think he found an ACU pattern fill somewhere.

Anyway, I'm not sure all the jokes translate to civvie-speak, but I find them amusing.

Going in the blogroll.

Relevance

2007-11-22T01:41:00.001+03:00

Let me say once and for all:

It does not make any sense to me why on earth I turn on the radio and hear some idiot pontificating against Barack Obama because he admitted being a 'goof off' in high school who drank and used drugs.

I think Obama would be a lousy president. But that is 100% due to the fact that I have overwhelming contempt for his foreign policy, not what he did years ago when a stupid, confused kid.

Some people's priorities are screwed up. There is too much of real importance happening in the world for this crap to be noticed.

I bet most folks missed this story. Undoubtedly it will eventually be spun as the United State's negative impact on the Iraqi Emergency Services sector, just like the gravedigger story.

Meanwhile, Congress can't pass an appropriations bill for us. 'Us' being the Defense Department, of course. This is going to Suck. No so much for me--they Have to pay me. But I really don't think yanking funding out from under the DoD is the brightest thing the Congresscritters have done lately. We'll see how it gets worked out. I'm betting on an eleventh-hour compromise done without any fanfare which quietly gives George Bush his way .

Again.

How about another non-story? There are people out there who vocally insist that the rest of the world views us as evil war-mongers and that electing George Bush was bad for our economy, primarily our tourism sector. Another myth debunked by the good folks out at the Democracy Project. I love the internet. It's the only way outright lies spread by those who sympathize with the enemy can be stopped.

One story which actually is a story revolves around Pasadena Texas, where a proper Texan used a shotgun to explain the concept of property rights to two scumbags who have a record of ignoring niceties like legal ownership. They did not survive the discussion. Hoo-friggin-ya, Mr. Horn. If I were your neighbor, I'd be covering as much of your legal fees as I could afford. This is what made America great, and the main reason I'm glad I don't live in some Blue State with gun laws which would prohibit Mr. Horn owning a shotgun or using it to defend life and property.

And Some Perspective

2007-11-20T07:58:00.000+03:00

So the Associated Press is telling you that desertion is reaching epidemic proportions in the US Army this year.

Here's what they aren't telling you.

1) Desertion rates are not up measurably. Desertion rates, like every other major criminal statistic in a fairly small population, fluctuate from year to year. The only way to spin the story the way the Associated Press does is to take a low year as the baseline and measure a high year compared to that low baseline.

2) If you take desertion rates back to 1994, the year with the highest rate is 2000, at 9.50 per 1,000. 1999 and 2001 are not much different.

3) In 2003, the desertion rate was approximately the same as it was this year, 7.6.

4) During World War II, which even the leftists hold up as the "good war" fought with "popular support" by the "greatest generation" (because even the lowest, most doctrinaire Communist cannot object to a war which fought actual fascists alongside the Soviet Union and did so by nationalizing the entire economy) the desertion rate averaged 63 per 1,000. That's about 9 times as high as the desertion rate this year.

5) I do not begin to address the confusion evident on the part of the incompetent correspondent as to the difference between fiscal and calendar years, or between AWOL status and Desertion.

Reporters.

I don't know any stronger curses.

I wish folks like this had to live in Iraq after we leave, should we do so prematurely. Might give them some damn perspective. I believe the Romans were fond of using proscription as a punishment for conspiracies against the Republic for this reason.

Citizen Soldiers, by 3 Doors Down

2007-11-20T07:56:00.000+03:00

And the Beat Goes On

2007-11-14T14:32:00.000+03:00

According to Investor's Business Daily (WTF?) Iraq news coverage has dropped almost as fast as the casualty rate.

For the first time in months — in fact, since the U.S. troop surge was put in place in June — coverage of U.S. policy in Iraq does not rank among the top 10 news stories as tracked by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

The percentage of news stories devoted to events in Iraq, moreover, has shrunk to 3%, the lowest since September and barely half the 2007 average. In only three other weeks this year has Iraq coverage been so scanty.

I hate the American media. You can't tell me this is driven by advertising revenue or what will sell papers.

Because politics are getting entirely too depressing,

2007-11-14T04:37:00.000+03:00

I give you an Anime girl with a Japanese leek, set to Finnish scat.

Presidential Candidates

2007-11-13T19:57:00.000+03:00

I have been asked for an endorsement of a presidential candidate.

I refuse to endorse any candidate at this time. I will make an endorsement no more than 30 days prior to the Texas Presidential Primary, which is the 4th of March. As the primary season manages to disenfranchise me as far as selecting which particular loon my party gets to run against whichever loon the other party picks, it is more or less of little interest and I just can't get excited about any particular candidate. Especially 4 months out.

I will continue to pick on Guiliani because I'm sure I don't want him. Too much damn gun control.

I will not endorse any candidate who does not support 2nd amendment liberties, control of the borders of the United States, and victory in the War.

I wish I could vote for Nick Sarkozy, but he's unfortunately the President of France. He's still a better American than most Democrats, but that's neither here nor there.

Veteran's Day

2007-11-12T16:12:00.000+03:00

This Veteran's Day, my Beloved and I went to Dry Prong, LA, in order to visit her grandmother, quite possibly for the last time. We returned late yesterday, and I did not get a chance to put up more than a brief post, linking to my post of not-quite-a-year-ago, about three friends of mine, killed in action on the 11th of November 2006.

It is unsurprising given my blogroll that I have a lot of Veteran's Day posts which vary from the prosaic to the poetic. You can scroll through the links, and I encourage everyone to do so. After all, yesterday should have been the tributes, today is just a bone the Federal Government is throwing to the retail market.

Memorial Day is a day for the dead. Veteran's Day is for the living. To our Canadian and British brethren, it is "Remembrance Day", which is more like our Memorial Day.

Of course, a tribute to veterans means more (or it should) during an ongoing war. After all, there are new veterans being created daily, as young Soldiers are heading off to Iraq on a constant basis, and the veterans return to the US. It is one thing to recognize their sacrifices, and that is good. It might also be a good idea to recognize their successes, and to be honest about their results. Some folks can't stomach that idea, or even the idea of a Veteran's Day at all. I look at Iraq, and I don't recognize it much even from a year ago.

Of course, if you ask Hollywood, it just doesn't work that way, which is why they can't sell movies about Iraq worth a damn...

Pardon me, I'm cranky.

1 Year Memorial

2007-11-12T07:25:00.000+03:00

http://castrorum.blogspot.com/2006/11/eternal-memory.html

Short and To the Point

2007-11-06T04:08:00.001+03:00

I added two links to the ol' blogroll. One is Ambulance Driver, whom everyone links to and has funny ER stories. The other is a fella who calls himself the Frontline Fobbit, and I have a thing for Iraq blogs. No surprise, eh?

There's an article I wish I had access to when I posted my last rant on Israel. Good luck, bub. As usual, Westerners (including Jews) are judged by a different standard. It's OK to make refugees out of Jews because Jews can actually incorporate refugees into a functioning civil society. Arabs are utterly incapable of doing so. Which is why so many of the refugees are fleeing again to places that do incorporate them. Like the US.

And Israel. Funny that.

I have three articles on what's been going on in Iraq lately. These trends aren't a surprise to some people. Note the date on the last link.

Supporting the Troops, Liberal (and Libertarian) Style, and More.

2007-11-04T20:01:00.000+03:00

There's an interesting photo essay up at zombietime. Yes, I know it is San Francisco. Yes, I know SF has far more burnt-out hippies than the average conglomeration of leftists can boast. But really?

Between the lunatics, the Ron Paul supporters, conspiracy theorists, and the communists, I didn't see any photos of the sort of person that allegedly makes up the mass of the anti-war movement. This mythical beast "supports the troops" (in some vague ill-defined way) and loves our country and doesn't support al-Qaeda (or Hamas) and dislikes Bush but doesn't have the temerity to compare him to Hitler. Yeah, whatever. I guess all those folks have jobs and don't have time to go to demonstrations.

My vote for Most Unclear on the Concept goes to the "Queers for Palestine". Nothing says 'clueless' like a bunch of gays agitating in support of folks who think queers should be stoned to death and otherwise persecuted. How about we cut out the middleman and just stone them to death in San Francisco? That would be terribly progressive.

Meanwhile in Real News, Karbala Province was transferred to Iraqi control. Bet you didn't know that? The only network that mentioned it at all was Fox News. Good think I get my news from bloggers who get it from the real source. For those keeping score at home, that's 8 out of 18. Not quite halfway there.

Tony Snow addressed the issues with the media and what it chooses to cover and how it is covered during an acceptance speech for an award. How much coverage did his speech get in the MSM, I wonder?

Well, granted, they had the junior Senator from New York to cover (and her mocking by Guiliani), and to their credit her utter inability to answer a question with a 'yes' or a 'no' was featured at least in some venues. I'd like to see some real questions lobbed at her soon, and I hope it will happen before she gets her party's nomination. Yanno, if this is the best the Democrats can do, and this country is stupid enough to elect her, I'm buying the reloading equipment and a huge stack of 5.56mm brass and primers.

Especially if Guiliani is her opponent.

Israel Is.

2007-11-03T00:25:00.000+03:00

Israel is.

This is not a shock to anyone who hasn't been in a coma for at least 60 years, but I find myself having to repeat it over and over again to Sterling Examples of the American Left.

Israel is.

It has a population of approximately 7,150,000. Of those, practically all able-bodied citizens are armed.

Approximately 168,000 of those are serving on active duty at any given time. They have 4,000 tanks and 1,600 artillery pieces. They have over 400 combat aircraft. They are believed to have between 200 and 400 nuclear weapons, which is enough to destroy every major population center in the Arab world and have a few left over.

They aren't going anywhere.

They aren't going to die off, mysteriously disappear, or conveniently decide en masse to move to New York City to vote Democratic.

They damn sure aren't going to roll over and let the Syrians slaughter them down to babes in arms like the Palestinians wet-dream about.

Get the fuck over it.

Every time I see someone agitating against Israel, I ask myself what they think they could theoretically accomplish.

The Israelis are a fact of life, and like all inconvenient facts the Muslim world and their supports in the American Left are going to have to get used to them.

Or not. It is entirely possible that someone will put themselves into a position to make Israel not be. If that happens, expect a Jewish finger on a button to turn Syria and Iran and lots of other crappy places inhabited by crappy people with crappy ambitions into radioactive wasteland. Being Jewish, they'll feel guilty later. They might write poetry about it. No Arab or Persian will be left to read it.

So when I see someone going on about the poor dispossessed Palestinians and the evil Jews and how terrible it is that they were "forced" off "their" land (actually the Jews bought the land, and the Palestinians didn't have to leave, they chose to leave) I am forced to one of two conclusions.

They are ignorant of basic facts about the Middle East. In which case they should not bother participating in adult conversation about the Middle East.

Or they are informed of these facts, but refuse to believe them. There is a word for people who cannot accept the reality of provable facts, but people whine every time I suggest that the American Left contains a large number of people whose worldviews are indistinguishable from mental disorders.

Israel is. It will not cease to be. You cannot change that it is without killing 7.1 million people. Those 7.1 million people would be very, very difficult to kill without nuclear weapons, and no one crazy enough to want to kill those 7.1 million people has a working nuclear bomb. If that changes, look back up four paragraphs for my opinion of the most likely course of action.

This post brought to you by AntiSemeticStupidsRUs.