Pundits My *ss

Tactical Movement

2009-05-12T11:26:00.002-04:00

Due to the recent changes in the American political landscape, this blogger will be reporting from enemy territory, somewhere deep inside Obamastan

An Unlikely Hero

2008-08-19T23:01:00.005-04:00

Last night, an Afghan friend of mine named was murdered in front of his home in a quiet village along the Kunduz river, in Kunduz Province Afghanistan. Sgt. Ayoob was the supply NCO for the police in our district. Only twenty years old, he was an Aghan version of our archetypical supply sergeant. Like Zelmo Zale on MASH, he was slightly selfish in his job, but not crooked to the point of felony. He often worried more about protecting his inventory, than about combat readiness.We had recently convinced him, to issue the first aid kits he held dear. It required a wristlock. Ayoob hated to wear his uniform. I had to badger him about it daily until it became a habit.

Courage is odd. It comes in many forms. For some it is a virtue that must be pursued. Ayoob usually seemed to be afraid of his own shadow. He was certainly afraid of his superiors in the Afghan Police. Just two weeks ago I had to walk him into his commanding General's office, for a signature, after an Afghan Major had chased him out. He wanted me to chastise that Major for the perceived insult, but he allowed himself to be bullied into doing his work without protest, when he knew he wasn't doing what he should.

That evening, our team had just spent two long days in the district. At about 1800 our team chief decided he'd had enough of his counterpart's continuing incompetence, so in spite of plans to stay out another night we decided to head back in. Ayoob was the last ANP I talked to before leaving.

We had been conducting NCO and soldier development that afternoon. A typical round of the "The supply guy doesn't give us stuff." vs. "They lose the stuff and lie." argument began. I counseled Ayoob about being an NCO, working WITH his peers, setting an example, etc. I will always remember, he was in uniform, but his shirt was hanging out. He said he had untucked it after the guys had begun making fun of his belly. "The supply guy was getting fat!" Different Army, same jokes. I encouraged him to do his best, and then we left.

Back at our base, in the chow hall Major H., SFC M., and myself were talking about him while we ate. His goofiness, his uniform problems. Less than an hour later the Major stopped by my room.

"Ayoob is dead."

Col. A. H., the hopelessly incompetent Police Chief, had called one of our interpreters, hysterical about the murder. At first we only knew he was killed near his home. It was less than two hours since I had last seen him, and playfully smacked his shoulder.

In the morning our interpreter had more details, and we spent the day in our district getting some of the facts. Col H.K., the investigative officer, responded to the shooting immediately and talked to the family. They were despondent, but they did provide some information. Ayoob was just outside his home, when 3 males approached on motorcycles. One leveled an AK-47, and Ayoob our own "Cowardly Lion" found his courage, he managed to draw his pistol and fire a single round. Unfortunately they emptied the AK magazine into him, continuing fire even after he went down. A message. An act of terror.

Today's terrorist seeks to create a continuing atmosphere of fear. The Afghan insurgency, centered as it is on the remnants of the Taliban uses terror to cow the populace into accepting them in the communities of Afghanistan. Here they reek havoc on Afghan society. Undermining the current government, by inducing terror, is both their tactic and their goal. By destroying the credibility of the police, and sowing fear in its ranks, they seek to create an opportunity for their own pursuit of power.

We did an HA drop the next day, distributing food and clothing in a town on the edge of our district. where at least some of the populace has links to the Taliban. On the way home we passed Ayoob's funeral. A Muslim must be buried within twenty four hours. He was apparently popular. Hell, I would never have told him, but I even liked the goofy little putz.

The NDS, the Afghan FBI, is handling the official investigation. We have as yet been unable to determine whether certain known assassins, who were locked up for murdering a farmer recently using the same MO, were able to bribe their way out of jail, but they are my favorite suspects.

Ayoob was an unlikely hero. He was the supply NCO, precisely because no one saw him as a fighter. That was probably what made him a victim, his enemies saw him in him the easiest target in the district force. And maybe they were right. But Sgt Ayoob of the Afghan National Police went down fighting, braver than even he knew. He drew his Smith and Wesson 9mm and stood his ground, dying with his boots on, literally as well figuratively. Defending his life, his dignity and the inchoate nation of Afghanistan. Let's hope it wasn't a waste.

?????????

2008-06-30T07:09:00.001-04:00

Has General Wesley Clark US Army Ret. lost his mind? Just asking.

Update "Kind of"

2007-07-20T13:09:00.000-04:00

Erika asked me in a comment today: What's going on with the Mario Lozano case. Great Question.

Mario's case was postponed again in Italy on July 10th. The judge postponed until September 27th. Our Italian lawyer, Alberto Biffani requested a dismissal on the grounds that the Italian courts do not have jurisdiction. A combination of UN resolutions from both the general assembly and the security council, CPA orders, and Iraqi lawtogether indicate that US forces in Iraq have jurisdiction over our own soldiers.

The Italian courts are bound to respect UN resolutions. The prosecutors are claiming that US jurisdiction is not "exclusive" but a 1909 Hague tribunal ruling seems to indicate we do.

It seems the Italian judge wants some time to do his own research, although our legal team only took about two days. Best guess is the case is dismissed in September. Meanwhile we're still raising money for Mario @ Mario Lozano's Defense Fund

Now how about that surge huh?

Weekend Notes

2007-05-12T11:10:00.000-04:00

Just a quick update and a comment on comments.

Mario Lozano's trial resumes on Monday 14 May. We have been working nearly feverishly to prepare defense documents. On Monday I'll be posting my thoughts on our opening arguments. I don't want to give it away to the hostile press until we're in court.

Speaking of hostile journalists, it looks like we may have converted a few. Mario spoke to Corriera della Sera, Italy's top selling daily paper, and TV5. Hearing a different version of the incident, has opened many Italian eyes to Sgrena's continued lies.

On Tuesday May 15 we are hosting a fundraiser in New York City. This will be the first of many.

Finally, on comments. I hate to use a heavy hand. I want people who don't agree with me to voice their opinions. In keeping with the nature of this blog I prefer a well thought out argument, but it's not necessary. What is necessary is refraining from profanely insulting the Author of the blog, or his Beloved Country, or any other puerile, obscene, or truly absurd comments. That said I recently deleted to comments from an Italian reader on those grounds, I left one comment by the same person stand , because while it's silly at least it's not obscene.

Milblogging Update! AR 530-1 Fact Sheet

2007-05-03T20:38:00.000-04:00

Wired which broke this story first, ran this update from the Army!

The End of MilBlogging? NOT!

2007-05-03T14:59:00.000-04:00

There is an enormous amount of Sturm und Drang in the blogosphere, particularly among military bloggers aka milbloggers. The Army recently published an updated version of its regulation, AR 530-1 regarding operational security or OPSEC. Operational security refers to the need to deny enemy forces information about the who, what, where and how of our operations. The new regulation specifically mentions blogs. Some among us are portending doom, and calling this the end of milblogging.

The heart of the matter is the line in the regulation mentioning bloggers need to:

Consult with their immediate supervisor and their OPSEC Officer for an OPSEC review prior to publishing or posting information in a public forum.

This includes, but is not limited to letters, resumes, articles for publication, electronic mail (e-mail), Web site postings, web log (blog) postings, discussion in Internet information forums, discussion in Internet message boards or other forms of dissemination or documentation.

The other matter of contention is the application to family members. One blogger claimed soldiers would be court martialed if their family members did not submit their blogs for review.

A little rationality needs to be inserted into the discussion here. For starters the new regulation, as far as I can tell does not really create any new authorities for commanders, or any new responsibilities for soldiers under them. It does clarify OPSEC responsibilities. It makes it clear that no soldier in the future will be allowed to plead he did not know what his commanders OPSEC criteria were.

It holds commanders equally responsible, committing all Army commanders to developing OPSEC policies and procedures. A commander can no longer ignore blogging.
If a soldier blogs an OPSEC violation his commander will be questioned about his policies and safeguards. This is not an entirely bad development.

The mention of blogs brings the policy into line with the modern realities of war. Soldiers Blog. We have taken it as a God given right to spew our opinions and the minutiae of our daily existence in war zones. It is not entirely clear that we have lost anything. At least as far back as WWII, officers were censoring soldiers MAIL for OPSEC violations. This right has always existed, for the commander, he just hasn't exercised it much since the 1960s and Vietnam.

Now for the part that seems so odious today. "Consult with their immediate supervisor and their OPSEC Officer for an OPSEC review." OK it says CONSULT. It doesn't say the consulted MUST read it. It means they may review the material, it means they may want to review their guidelines before OKing the Post. It Also means that commanders will become familiar with those who are regularly posting and develop a sense of who they are and what they write. Those who blog positive, security violation free messages on a regular basis may be given more or less free reign. Those who don't understand OPSEC may be censored every time.

As for the idea that family members must submit to prior restraint, or their soldier will be court martialed, that notion is preposterous. Prior restraint, for civilians is unconstitutional, as is judicial punishment for actions of a third party, even in the Army.

Families are effected. The same way they were under the older less clear policy. If Sergeant Screamer sends Mrs Screamer an email with OPSEC sensitive information (like where he is going to be in Iraq next week.), and she publishes a letter to the editor in the Maybury Magazine, the Army can and may sanction Sgt Screamer for his violation. If Sgt. Screamer emails Mrs. Screamer classified (Isecret, top secret etc.) information (eg. a map of his FOB's defenses) and that ends up in MM then not only is he liable to Army punishment, but she can be prosecuted. Remember dissemination of classified information is a crime. Unless you are the NY Times.

There are some downsides to the new policy. Michelle Malkin has a few words about this.
Essentially the Army has scared its own best propaganda arm into, at least a temporary, silence. We all know that we can find negative stories about the military anywhere in the MSM. There's one a day in the NY Times. But good solid positive stories, about what we are doing in Iraq are best reported by milbloggers. And our audience is mostly pro-military as well. My sense is that the situation will eventually obtain equilibrium.

In an Alternate Universe

2007-04-30T11:16:00.000-04:00

I got this in an e-mail.

I tracked it down to RiteOn Blog, where you can read the entire piece.

It's a very caustic and very accurate take on what President Bush might plausibly say to the country, if he was fed up enough. Here are some highlights.

Normally, I start these things out by saying “My Fellow Americans…” Not doing it this time. I don’t know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you’re really not fellow Americans any longer. I’ll cut right to the chase here: I quit.

The reason I’m quitting is simple. I’m fed up with you people because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. Or of what’s going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out.

You’ve been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media. Polls show that the majority of you think the economy is in the tank. Despite record numbers of homeowners including record numbers of MINORITY homeowners. Minority business ownership is at an all-time high. Unemployment is as low as it ever was during the Clinton Administration. Despite the shock to our economy of 9/11, the stock market has rebounded to record levels. Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there’s increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security.

We face real threats in the world. Don’t give me this "blood for oil” thing. If I was trading blood for oil I would’ve already seized Iraq’s oil fields. Don’t give me this ‘Bush Lied People Died’ crap either. If I was the liar you morons take me for, I could’ve easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be ‘discovered.’ Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty.

Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me, and regime change was US policy before I came into office. Some guy named ‘Clinton’ established that policy. You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two competing political and economic models. We won that war, because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were able to outspend and out-tech them. This time the soldiers of our enemy don’t care if they survive.

They want to die. That'd be fine, if they weren’t also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you. And the bastards are all over the globe.

You should be grateful that they haven’t gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you’re not. Because you’ve no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I’m disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of ‘Survivor’. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.

Worse, you actively support those who help the enemy. Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat’s political campaign, you might just as well Fedex a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It’s easy enough to find the truth. It’s all over the Internet, not just the pages of the New York Times or NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you’d be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol.

I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you’re too stupid to leave a city that’s below sea level and has a hurricane approaching. I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I’ve come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.

So I quit. I’m going back to Crawford. I’ve got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient. Oh, and by the way, Cheney’s quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there’re just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.

So that’s it. God bless what’s left of America.

Gotta say it makes a point.

KUDOS to RiteOn Blog

Today's Military

2007-04-27T15:02:00.000-04:00

Two editorials came to my attention today. Each is a piercing analysis of problems confronting today's military. One deals with our military leadership. The other with John Murtha's recent attempt to "help" restore military readines.

In May's Armed Forces Journal Lt. Col Paul Yingling explores the roots of failure in Vietnam and of our impending failure in Iraq. He pins the rose on our Generals and the broken system for selecting our highest ranking military leaders. He also offers a way out of our dilemma

The intellectual and moral failures common to America's general officer corps in Vietnam and Iraq constitute a crisis in American generalship. Any explanation that fixes culpability on individuals is insufficient. No one leader, civilian or military, caused failure in Vietnam or Iraq. Different military and civilian leaders in the two conflicts produced similar results. In both conflicts, the general officer corps designed to advise policymakers, prepare forces and conduct operations failed to perform its intended functions. To understand how the U.S. could face defeat at the hands of a weaker insurgent enemy for the second time in a generation, we must look at the structural influences that produce our general officer corps.

To improve the creative intelligence of our generals, Congress must change the officer promotion system in ways that reward adaptation and intellectual achievement. Congress should require the armed services to implement 360-degree evaluations for field-grade and flag officers. Junior officers and noncommissioned officers are often the first to adapt because they bear the brunt of failed tactics most directly. They are also less wed to organizational norms and less influenced by organizational taboos. Junior leaders have valuable insights regarding the effectiveness of their leaders, but the current promotion system excludes these judgments. Incorporating subordinate and peer reviews into promotion decisions for senior leaders would produce officers more willing to adapt to changing circumstances, and less likely to conform to outmoded practices.

It seems unlikely that todays congressional leaders demonstrate the kind of moral courage necessary to re-instill it into the military's upper echelon. In today's Wall Street Journal Bruce Berkowitz assails John Murtha for his attempt to usurp executive authority, and his lack of real leadership.

John Murtha (D., Pa.), chairman of the House subcommittee on defense appropriations, is mainly responsible for the clause that prohibits spending funds "to deploy any unit of the Armed Forces to Iraq unless the chief of the military department concerned has certified in writing... that the unit is fully mission capable.

Berkowitz uses an example from the Battle of Midway to demonstrate Murtha's lack of military depth.

U.S. Navy Ensign George Gay would have been bemused.

Gay became famous in World War II as the sole survivor of a squadron flying in the Battle of Midway. If ever there was a unit of the armed forces that wasn't "mission capable," it was Torpedo Eight.

In June 1942, the Navy's new torpedo bomber, the Grumman TBF Avenger, wasn't ready. So Ensign Gay and the other Americans had to fly old Douglas TBD Devastators, an aircraft that was inadequate for the task of taking on Japanese fighters.

A Devastator's top speed was about 200 mph. Japanese Zeros could do around 350 mph. The Japanese pilots had an advantage of about 150 miles per hour.

But Ensign Gay's bigger problem was training. "The Battle of Midway was the first time I ever carried a torpedo on an aircraft, and was the first time I had ever taken a torpedo off of a ship, had never even seen it done. None of the other ensigns in the squadron had either."

Not a single TBD flying that day from the Hornet made it back. Ensign Gay was the only one of the 30 men in his squadron who survived the attack and he had to be fished from the sea a day after the battle. The TBDs from the other two American carriers suffered similar losses. But by drawing the Zeros to themselves, the slow, low-flying Devastators gave the dive bombers a clear shot to strike from above. The dive bombers sank three of the four Japanese carriers, a loss that decided the outcome of a battle that proved to be turning point in the war in the Pacific.
Ensign Gay and the other pilots knew they were ill-equipped and under-trained. But they flew the mission anyway because they also knew that something larger was at stake -- like losing the war if they waited until someone was willing to "certify in writing" that they met official readiness standards.

It's unfortunate, and often tragic, but that's what happens in war, or at least one that you are serious about. And that's the issue. Are we serious about the war? Can anyone imagine Congress in 1942 passing a provision like the one in the current bill? Would they constrain Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower the way they propose to constrain Gen. David H. Petraeus?

Mr. Murtha has good intentions, but he's got it exactly wrong. If U.S. forces lack the equipment or training they need, it's his job, as the chairman of the one subcommittee specifically responsible for originating defense appropriations, to make sure they get it.If legislators really don't believe we should continue in Iraq, they need to come clean, shut down the war -- and accept the risks, and take responsibility for the consequences. Otherwise, they need to provide U.S. forces the means to carry out their missions.

I concur

Mario Lozano News Brief

2007-04-26T15:40:00.000-04:00

Most important. We are still fundraising. If you haven't yet, please hit DONATE and make a contribution. Mario is still fighting this case, and he needs our help.

A big thanks to Rog Charles over at Soldiers for the Truth. He posted a fundraising appeal for us.

We will be running fundraising events in and around New York City and Tampa in the future so if your interested in attending one of these (or hosting one) email me at jrb1013@aol.com.

Not much that's new to report. Ed Hayes who's the lead counsel here in New York has been gathering evidence and interviewing potential witnesses. He is closely coordinating with Greg Kehoe in Tampa, Alberto Biffani in Italy and new full time lawyers from the Army's JAG corps. Ed is has stressed how professional and sharp everyone involved is, especially the Italian, Biffani who was an unknown quantity.

Mario has absolutely the best possible legal team available. People I talk to constantly ask me: Why doesn't the Army just pay for his lawyers? It is an unfortunate byproduct of bureaucracy, but no branch of the federal government is going to splurge on a team of top ecehelon criminal and international lawyers. It is unprecedented and exceptional that the government is paying for Alberto Biffani in Italy.

But Biffani can't do it alone. Most of the witnesses and Mario are in New York. So the governement has done what it can. Now the people have to help to. Remember We The People are thge fourth branch of government. It is on our shoulders to help defend those who like Mario Lozano who would defend us.

Trial Date for Lozano

2007-04-17T15:13:00.001-04:00

Mario Lozano's Trial was adjourned today until May 14th, Raw Story has a full account. In an interesting development, the postponement occured with agreement of defense and prosecution and the request of a lawyer retained by Sgrena.

Italian law allows for joint criminal and civil proceedings. This is news to me. It seems that lawyers for Giuliana Sgrena and Rosa Calipari have petioned to have a wrongful death/civil liability suit joined to the prosecution. While I expected a civil suit I was unaware that it would be concurrent with the criminal case.

This is certainly a complication. Mario has retained Ed Hayes a well known New York criminal defense attorney. He will be working with Alberto Biffani, the Italian counsel retained for Mario by the Army. Ed is confident of defeating the criminal case, the civil case is a complication, to say the least. The defense team now has four weeks to craft and execute a defense strategy. While Biffani is being paid by the Army, Ed Hayes and other civilian co-counsels are not.

Mario still needs help to defeat this unjust prosecution, and now unfounded lawsuit. It is amazing to this soldier that Sgrena, who decided to visit a war zone of her own accord and expected her government to risk lives and resources to rescue her is now suing someone else for her misfortune.

DONATE TO HELP MARIO

The Sgrena Slander Saga

2007-04-15T23:37:00.000-04:00

In her war of words, generally untrue, Giuliana Sgrena has upped the ante. After two years of smearing Mario Lozano, she has now outright called him a liar. With a complete lack of any intentional irony, she continues to demand that he restrict his discussion of what happened on March 4, 2005, to an appearance at the politically motivated sham trial that may start on Tuesday. On March 14, she published an article, under her own byline, responding to Mario’s recent comment in print and on TV. Sgrena seems to believe that only journalists should be allowed to tell their stories in public. She has certainly milked the publicity the tragedy of Nicola Calipari’s death for her own profit writing articles, publishing a book and touring to hawk it.

She claims that her testimony has been confirmed by experts. But she is really obfuscating and obscuring the truth. She tries to assert her version as factual, but continues to come up short. The US investigation cleared Lozano. It determined that the Italian driver Andrea Carpani was “speeding” at Mario, and refused warning signs to turn around. Mario, the report concluded, followed all the rules and required procedures, but the Italians failed to heed warnings to stop, forcing Lozano to fire his weapon in an attempt to disable the vehicle.

There are some significant differences in the Italian version of the report. But two facts immediately leap out. While differing in some conclusions, the Italian report found no murder. They called it an accident, one for which they blamed the Americans, but an accident even so. The other fact that stands out is that Sgrena has either misunderstood or misrepresented the facts.

For instance one of the key discrepancies is the definition of speeding. Giuliana claims that Italian officials found the speed was only 39 MPH. Lozano asserts the car was going 50 or more MPH, as does his squad leader a civilian police officer trained in speed estimation. The truth may be at either end or in the middle. Sgrena refuses to address the fact that on the scene, Carpani, her driver admitted to being nervous, driving fast, and speeding up at the sound of unrelated gunfire from behind them. The unrelated gunfire may also be affecting Sgrena’s memory. She may have heard shots almost continually. But the ones fired from the front definitely came after the warning light was used.

Apparently Giuliana Sgrena does not consider a car coming straight at you at 40 or more MPH to be speeding. Perhaps she should stand in front of one to get a sense of the effect. Add that to the fact that the driver ignored the light and the warning shots. Add that to the fact that Lozano and his mates had been warned that car bomber were out that night. He was scared and followed the rules. He followed the rules that applied in Iraq.

Sgrena says there was no roadblock, just a mobile patrol on a curve. ????? How does she think checkpoints are conducted? Yes they were on a curve. They were on an approach ramp to Route Irish an Iraqi highway. They’re mission was to close the road for a portion of that evening. It may not have looked to her like a checkpoint. But in Iraq, two American Humvees across the road IS a checkpoint.

There is a further dispute over the number of shots fired, and their placement. The Italians focused on the fact that the ammunition belt was missing 58 rounds. They ignored all the credible testimony of our soldiers, stating that rounds had been fired from that belt on previous occasions. US testimony and the US report concluded that Lozano fired eleven rounds. Several hit the tire, several the engine, several unfortunately entered the vehicle. The idea that Lozano fired 57 rounds at the passengers and one at the engine is preposterous.

By Sgrena’s own testimony she and Calipari were both taking cover by throwing themselves down on the back seat. Actually she says Calipari threw himself over her. Then how did two rounds strike them? They would have been behind the engine no? Mario Lozano stitched his burst of fire from the lower right side of the tire, to the engine block. The last two shots may have struck the windshield, but he was hardly aiming for the passengers. The driver, who didn’t duck, and was in front of Sgrena escaped unscathed.

The Italian report, while erroneously assuming that 58 shots were fired, NEVER asserts that 58 shots impacted the vehicle. That IS a Sgrena fantasy. One that may be generated by her anti-American attitude or it may be a result of her trauma that night. Sgrena, in fact, backs up Lozano’s account of helping her, while at the same time continuing her slander of his and his fellow soldier’s actions that night.

She complains that he has changed his story regarding the aftermath. The US report says Mario was in shock and needed to compose himself. Mario last week described picking her up in his arms and carrying her to his Humvee, to take her to the hospital. Sgrena backs up the latter while scoffing at the former. She complains of lying on the cold ground for fifteen minutes, as if the Lozano’s squad was punishing her. Actually they were working frantically to try to save Calipari, and to stabilize her. Having applied first aid in both combat and to civilian accident victims, I can tell Giuliana that a fifteen minute wait on the ground is not excessive, especially for a stabilized patient.

I wish she would put it all together. In the fifteen minutes after he was forced to shoot at a vehicle which he reasonably considered a car bomb, a shaken Lozano pulled himself together. He then helped her into the vehicle. There is no contradiction there. Giuliana’s assertion that the humvee was only going six miles an hour enroute to the hospital is too ridiculous to generate a response.

Mario Lozano was following the rules. Those were the Rules of Engagement, issued by his command authority. Unlike Giuliana Sgrena who is a persistent liar, I hate to repeat myself. But those rules are the legal authority governing US soldiers in Iraq. They constitute a legal framework under the Geneva Convention, which describes the rules for an occupying power. The Italians signed the Geneva Convention, and as a participating member of the coalition in Iraq, they cannot argue that the US rules are unlawful. The Italian laws that claim worldwide jurisdiction are not part of any treaty or convention. Mario Lozano is being tried under a set of laws that have no authority over him. That’s a fact.

As for Giuliana, the serial liar, maybe she should hire a lawyer. While some of her beliefs about that night may result from twisted memories formed during a horrifying incident, some of her story is obviously fabricated, or at least told with no concern for the truth. As I understand it, Italian law allows for cross examination and has penalties for perjury, just like ours. One day soon Ms. Sgrena will face a blistering cross examination from an attorney with less mercy than the soldier who helped her to the hospital. No this lawyer will be concerned only with the truth. And he will expose and destroy Sgrena’s lies. That too is a fact.

Lozano Trial Watch

2007-04-12T10:39:00.000-04:00

Not much movement over the last two days. Mario should finally be signing a retainer agreement with the lead counsel on his civilian defense team. Once this happens we will issue a press release detailing who we have chosen. Some of you already know.

Meanwhile members of the JAG Corps have continued to drag their collective heals on this. The Italian Lawyer they have chosen has been silent. Deadly silent. Mario has not heard from him in two weeks.

On other blog pages one member of the JAG,Army Lawyer, apparently un-related to this case has called me alarmist for trying to get the word out that Mario needs help. He makes the same incredibly appalling arguments that the JAG lawyers on the case do. That fighting this case on its lack of merit is the wrong approach. He does concede that Mario should have a good civilian lawyer, but doesn't like the fact that his beloved JAG corps is being criticized. Oh well isn't the constitution great?

I'll be off working for a real branch of the Army this weekend, the Infantry. So posts will be delayed. But a Paypal link directly to Mario's DefenseFund will be here soon.

Positive Developments for Lozano

2007-04-11T10:39:00.000-04:00

Great Story from read the whole piece at Human Events

It seems that Congressman Vito Fossella (R-NY) an Italian American from Staten Island has taken some interest in Mario's Case. He took some time to write the Italian Ambassador to the US. While this kind of effort from the adminitration would be appreciated, Congressman Fossella's efforts can only help and are greatly appreciated.

Dear Ambassador Castellaneta:

I write to you today in regards to the case of Army Specialist Mario Lozano, who is currently set to go on trial in abstentia in Italian Courts next week. Spec. Lozano will be tried for the friendly fire incident involving two Italian citizens on March 4th, 2005 in Iraq. While the United States Army has cleared Spc. Lozano of any charges, I would like to take this opportunity, as former co-chair of the Italian-American Inter-Parliamentary Exchange, to discuss the position of the Italian government on the decision by the independent prosecutor to try him in such a manner.

Mr. Ambassador, I ask that you expedite my request to meet with my counterparts in the Italian Parliament and the appropriate Italian government officials as quickly as possible. Our two great countries have shared a long history of friendship, and I have worked hard in my capacity as co-chair of the Inter-Parliamentary Exchange, and as an active member of the Italian-American Congressional Delegation, to foster this friendship. Last year, I facilitated the address to Congress by former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, and I authored and helped pass legislation congratulating the Italian soccer team for winning the World Cup. I look forward to talking to my counterparts in greater detail about the in abstentia trial of Spc. Mario Lozano.

Once again, thank you for considering my request. If you have further concerns, please contact me directly, or have your staff contact XXXX at 202-xxx-xxxx. I look forward to your reply.

Kudos to Jed Babbin at Human Events for this story.

Mario on CBS

2007-04-10T23:08:00.000-04:00

Last night CBS ran their exclusive interview with Mario. He breaks into tears as he explains that as Italian driver Andrea Carpani raced at him, he thought of his two daughters. He thought Carpani was a car bomber. Tragically, Carpani was racing Giuliana Sgrena to the airport. Tragically, fellow agent Nicola Calipari died. But anyone who watches this will understand Mario was just a soldier bravely doing what he trained for, and hoped he would ever have to.

See the CBS Piece here.

Sgrena Insults Mario Lozano

2007-04-10T13:57:00.000-04:00

I thought I was mad at Giuliana Sgrena before. I guess anyone who calls herself a Marxist journalist. Anyone who puts herself in a position to be captured by insurgents then expects her government to ransom her. Anyone who causes a man to risk his life saving hers then blames other people. Anyone who tells lies for so long that she not only believes them but is incredulous when presented with the truth. I guess a person like that is capable of anything.

Yesterday my friend Mario Lozano broke his long silence. He told the NY Post about his life since the fateful night to years ago when tragic circumstances forced him into taking the life of Italian secret service officer Nicola Calipari. Mario has mostly kept to himself since that night. He has avoided talking about it accept to close friends and family.

Meanwhile Giuliana Sgrena has been parading herself in public. She wrote newspaper stories about it for the aptly named il Manifesto the newspaper of Italy's Communist Party. Yes it's cooler than ever in Italy to self identify as some sort of Marxist. Sgrena wrote a BOOK. And she has been shameless about promoting it. She appeared here in New York city last month recycling her lies. She appeared on CBS' 60 minutes. She has done everything she can to influence Italian and American public opinion and to reap profit from tragedy, both personally and politically.
When faced yesterday with Mario's accusations of profiteering she responded with these words.

"There's a trial. He should come and make his statements at the trial," she told Reuters.

Sgrena responded: "Even I can't sleep. Even I have had nightmares and I am still badly off because of the injury.

"I think he's playing the victim a bit," she told Reuters.

He should make his statements at trial? He's playing the victim?

In Italian they say senza vergogna.

To Sgrena I say:

"Giuliana tu sei senza vergogna!"

It means without shame!

NY Post Editorial!

Super special thanks to

Michelle Malkin

Thanks too:

Junkyard Blog

Patterico's Pontifications w/see Dubya

TIA

Mario Lozano Sit Rep.

2007-04-10T08:11:00.001-04:00

Just a couple of quick Notes:

I am including the URLs because I understand some readers can't always access the hyperlinks.

Great Op-Ed piece in todays NY Post on Mario.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04102007/postopinion

Also there is a new information website being built at defendlozano.org
http://blog.defendlozano.org/

And we are still raising money at The Friends of the 69th
http://www.69thfriends.org/index_files/Defense.htm

Additionally, donations can be made payable to Friends of the Fighting 69th, Attn.: SPC Lozano Defense Fund, P.O. Box 7473, New York, NY 10150.

The trial is less than one week away. We are hoping to achieve an adjournment/postponement, but due to circumstances we are counting on the Italian attorney retained by the Army to handle this, and communications have so far been poor. Mario's new attorney will be meeting with the JAG and hopefully following through on this today and tomorrow. Also keep your eyes peeled for Mario's interview with the Beautiful Lara Logan, part of it should be on CBS evening news tonight.

Mario Lozano Update

2007-04-09T14:08:00.001-04:00

Today Mario Lozano spoke publicly to the NY Post about the incident that killed Italian agent Nicola Calipari and wounded journalist Guilinana Sgrena. He had been reluctant to talk openly about his experience. But his trial scheduled to begin in barely a week, and he is ready to fight the absurd charges against him.

As today’s story pointed out, the US and Italian accountts are vastly different. The Italian Investigators and Sgrena herself have seized on the number of rounds missing from the drum, ignoring the testimony of US soldiers. Sgrena believes that all those rounds were fired at her and hit her car, in spite of evidence to the contrary.

She maintains this accusation in her book Friendly Fire, and in all the public appearances that she has made since the incident. These appearances belie her agenda, which has been anti-American and anti-war from the beginning. Of course she denies she’s hawking her book to make money.

Sgrena has been shameless about telling her story in public, for two years. It takes hard work to stay in the spotlight. Meanwhile she has stated that she may have been targeted for assassination.

These soldier’s carried the wounded Sgrena to their humvee, and raced her to the hospital. They moved their own vehicles, which Italian investigators took as evidence of cover up. So much for gratitude

Now after two years of bashing Lozano in the media, Sgrena asserts that a trial will determine the facts. Was she ever really interested in the facts?

The fact is that the driver of her vehicle told a sergeant on the scene that he had not been tracking his speed. But he admitted he was driving fast, because he heard other weapons shooting, and wanted to get to the airport.

Sgrena and her supporters will continue to insist the car wasn’t speeding. Perhaps not by Italian highway standards, but a vehicle coming straight at you that won’t stop is scary. Especially when car bombs are a regular part of life.

Another fact is that the Italians don’t have any real jurisdiction.

Mario Lozano will not appear in Italian court. Not for this show trial. But he may answer the charges. Several prestigious civilian attorneys are offering their help. Lawyers who experts at demolishing fictions. The Italians, and Sgrena may have bitten off too much. Meanwhile the soldiers and the Friends of NY’s 69^th Infantry are standing by him.

Thanks To: Mudville

The Strange Case of Mario Lozano

2007-04-06T15:26:00.000-04:00

A US soldier needs our help. Specialist Mario Lozano has been unfairly indicted for murder in Italy. For doing his duty, following orders and protecting his fellow soldiers. The circumstances of his case are tragic.

In Baghdad Iraq, on March 4^th 2005, Specialist Lozano and his squad were doing their duty, obeying the lawful orders of their leaders. They were conducting a checkpoint, blocking an on ramp, in order to close Route Irish. Route Irish was the most dangerous road in Iraq. The US ambassador, John Negroponte was traveling that evening, requiring Route Irish to be shut down, to all but military traffic.

Spc Lozano was in the turret of a Humvee, behind his M240B machine gun. After over an hour in position, and having turned back over a dozen vehicles without incident, a vehicle came barreling towards their Humvee at 40 MPH or more. Despite signals and warning shots the vehicle proceeded. US Soldiers estimated it was traveling at about 50 miles per hour. The driver estimated his own speed as between 40 and 50 MPH.

As the vehicle crossed a point 140 meters away, Specialist Lozano shined a high intensity spotlight on it. Another soldier used a green laser on the windshield to warn the vehicle off. Here’s how the official US Army report describes what happened next.

The car crossed the Alert Line still heading towards the Soldiers’ position without slowing down. Specialist Lozano continued to shine the spotlight, and shouted at the vehicle to stop, a fruitless effort, but an instantaneous reaction based on his training.

Without slowing down, the car continued toward the Warning Line with the spotlight and laser still on it. The car continued to approach at a high rate of speed, coming closer to the Soldiers than any other vehicle that evening. When the car got to the Warning Line,(about 100 meters) Specialist Lozano, while still holding the spotlight in his left hand, used his right hand to quickly fire a two to four round burst into a grassy area to the on-coming vehicle’s right (the pre-set aiming point) as a warning shot. The vehicle maintained its speed as it went beyond the Warning Line. Staff Sergeant B., a former New York City Police Officer trained in vehicle speed estimation, estimated the car was traveling at 50. Specialist Lozano dropped the spotlight and immediately traversed his weapon from his left to his right, without having to move the turret, to orient on the front of the car. With both hands on the weapon, he fired another burst, walking the rounds from the ground on the passenger’s side of the vehicle and towards the car’s engine block in an attempt to disable it. The rounds hit the right and front sides of the vehicle, deflated the left front tire, and blew out the side windows.

Specialist Lozano has told me that the vehicle stopped only ten meters or so away from his Humvee. He crouched down behind his weapon expecting an explosion from what he believed was a car bomb. He thought he and his battle buddies were about to die.

The vehicle was not a car bomb. It contained Italian journalist Guiliana Sgrena, just released by her Iraqi captors and Italian Intelligence officers Nicola Calipari and Andrea Carpani. . Calipari who had negotiated Sgrena’s release was struck by one of Lozano’s rounds and died on the scene. Sgrena was wounded and and was taken to the US Army hospital in the nearby Green Zone. Carpani who was driving admitted to an estimated speed of 40-50 MPH. Despite a US Army investigation that concluded Mario Lozano had committed no crime Italian authorities have pursued murder charges. They have indicted him, and a trial date is scheduled for April 17, 2007. Less than two weeks.

The Italians have no legal jurisdiction. Spc Lozano was acting under the Geneva conventions regarding occupying forces, under the Rules of Engagement (ROE) governing use of force by all US troops in Iraq. He was following the direct and lawful orders of his superiors.

Spc Lozano’s actions do not rise to the commonly accepted definition of murder, which requires an intent to kill, and precludes actions taken in self defense. Self defense requires that a reasonable person feels his life is threatened. Finally murder precludes actions taken by soldiers following Lawful Orders of their superiors. The Nuremberg defense failed at Nuremberg because the orders to murder innocent civilians were clearly unlawful. Defending against a potential suicide bomber is clearly a Lawful Order. The evidence clearly supports Lozano, and his fellow soldier's account of the incident.

Today Mario Lozano is under indictment in Italy, an allied nation. The US Army’s response has been to assign Mr. Lozano a team of lawyers from the National Guard JAG Corps who are assigned part time to his case. They have hired a lawyer in Italy whose only plan so far is to seek a postponement. April 17 is less than two weeks away and there is no coherent defense plan. At one point two weeks ago The Army, DOD and Sate Department were encouraging Mr. Lozano to allow the Italians to prosecute him unchallenged. Their official stance is that as long as the trial is in absentia, Mario need not worry about the consequences. The Army and the JAG are continuing to discourage Mario from seeking a dedicated civilian attorney.

Several prestigious civilian attorneys have recently met and conferred with Spc Lozano. The process of building a legal defense team of civilian and military lawyers is underway. A team that can successfully exonerate Spc Lozano in Italian Court, based on evidence, and jurisdiction, is expected to be up and running by next week. But Spc Lozano is a soldier, not a man of means. The civilian defense costs even with pro bono services by some attorneys will be expensive. The Specialist Lozano Defense Fund has begun collecting for his defense. Any help for this American Soldier in trouble would be appreciated.

Thanks To: Mudville

Hypocrisy at Human Rights Watch

2007-02-20T20:37:00.000-05:00

I have a solid measure of respect for people and individuals who consistently stand up for their convictions, even when I wholeheartedly disagree with them. But how can we to take seriously an organization like Human Rights Watch, when its only consistent stance is to criticize the United States?

How else to interpret a HRW spokesman’s recent comments regarding an Italian court’s decision to try twenty six Americans in absentia? The Americans, alleged to have worked for the CIA, are accused of kidnapping Muslim Cleric and reputed terrorist Abu Omar in 2003. The case is an attempt to hold the CIA and the United States accountable for so called renditions, the extraordinary detentions and transport of terror suspects.

When queried about the Italian decision, John Sifton, a senior HRW researcher said: “We assume that, if nothing else, the CIA is being a lot more careful, where once this was considered a controversial practice, now it's rightly seen as a violation of international law. It's a crime. It's not rendition. It's kidnapping."

Not a single word about the in absentia part of the trial. The Latin in absentia means while absent. And HRW has a long standing policy opposed to in absentia procedures as a denial of human rights. From a 1998 HRW document advising on the creation of an International Criminal Court:

Trials should not take place in the absence of the accused, and option 1 of Article 63[56] should therefore be retained.

Trials in absentia should be prohibited on the basis that they jeopardize the rights of defendants and undermine the credibility of the Court. This entails respect for a defendant's established legal right, to be present during the trial, to defend him/herself in person or through counsel of the defendant's choice, to examine witnesses against them and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses in their support.

While there is not an absolute prohibition on trials in absentia under international law, there is a widespread perception that trials in absentia should not be provided for in the statute as they undermine the rights referred to above.

Human Rights Watch, like ACLU and the rest of the left wing activist crowd are strangely silent about protecting the rights of the accused when it comes to Americans acting in an official capacity in the War on Terror. This week’s decision is just par for the course. Another American, Spc Mario Lozano, is also facing an in absentia trial in Italy. Lozano, a NY National Guard Infantryman is under indictment for the 2005 death of Italian Intelligence officer Nicola Calipari during the rescue of journalist and Italian national Guliana Sgrena.

Spc Lozano has been facing the likelihood of a trial in absentia since a judge ruled late last year that he could be indicted and tried without being present. Following his indictment two weeks ago, Human Rights Watch had exactly nothing to say protesting procedures they are on record against.

Contrast this with the mountains of virtual ink HRW spent on the “unfair” proceedings in Iraq that led to the execution of arch-tyrant Saddam Hussein. As early as October of 2005 HRW was criticizing the procedures used to prosecute Saddam. This in spite of the overwhelming evidence that Saddam had murdered thousands of Iraqis.

So what motivates an organization like HRW created and named to promote human rights and justice? Why would they criticize a trial where a developing nation holds its own dictator accountable for mass murder, but stand mute while a western nation, an EU member, and a democracy repeatedly uses in absentia proceedings? Proceedings which in the abstract HRW has consistently criticized!

It is pure and blatant anti-Americanism, and it certainly is bold hypocrisy!

The Defense of Mario Lozano

The Bastard's Dead!!!!!

2006-12-30T11:14:00.000-05:00

As posted in the NY POST:

“Hello my friend!’’
“America good!”
“Bush good good!”
“Saddam donkey!”

These are some of the phrases that would greet me on my nearly daily trips to the city of Dujail in 2004. The sentiments of the Shiite majority were clear in the town’s small but bustling center. America was welcome. Saddam Hussein was evil, and hard as it may be for some Americans to imagine, George Bush was a hero to these people.

The overthrow of Saddam’s regime was the end of a twenty year nightmare that the citizens of Dujail had endured. Saddam’s exit from this earth, at the hands of an Iraqi court appointed executioner, is the final act in their quest for justice.

These people saw the full measure of Saddam’s terror. The brutality was horrible. Families were torn apart. Brothers and sons were killed at whim. The community itself was driven into poverty; all remaining wealth was turned over to the Sunni loyalists. Secret police and informers lurked everywhere. Shiite women were raped, and even dismembered.

Under this pressure Dujailis maintained a remarkable collective courage. When Saddam was overthrown they began to seek justice. In 2003, Haji Mohammed Hassan became the city’s mayor under a new municipal government. With his leadership, the people quietly pursued redemption. They began with a victim’s league for families of survivors. And almost every Shiite family had been victimized.

They moved cautiously. Sunni partisans still loyal to Saddam remained in the city. These men still wielded power and influence. With armed tribes, significant wealth, and an insurgent network at their disposal, these Baathist holdouts kept the Dujaili citizens intimidated, even as American troops patrolled the streets.

In June of 2004, riflemen of New York’s own Army National Guard Infantry, arrested several Baathist leaders, and an allied al-Qaeda preacher. While this did not end the threats to Dujail, local resolve grew exponentially.

Over the course of that summer witnesses began to come forth. They all recounted similar experiences of terror and humiliation that began in the summer of 1982, after a few young men from Dujail attempted to kill Saddam. In the aftermath the entire Shiite population of the city was targeted for destruction. Twenty two summers later these people summoned the will and the courage to recall their pain and risk further retribution, in the hopes of justice.

And risk they did. Even before Saddam’s indictment in 2005, remaining loyalists were busy with a campaign of intimidation. In Autumn 2004, the area around Dujail literally exploded in violence. A series of ambushes, using roadside bombs resulted in a spike of US casualties, including the death of Brooklyn soldier Segun Frederick Akintade.

In their most audacious move, the area’s terrorists targeted Dujail’s new city council building for a car-bombing. Two incredibly brave Dujaili soldiers from the local Iraqi National Guard unit stood their ground and fired on the car bomb as it sped at them. They managed to halt it at a safe distance. The suicide bomber and a few tribal elders were killed, but the building sustained only superficial damage.

Like their soldiers, the families of Saddam’s Dujaili victims stood their ground as well. Even after the bombing, they recounted their story again and again. To our soldiers. To the US, Regime Crimes Liaison Team. To Iraqi Judges. And finally in the courtroom this year, they told the world.

They stood and faced their tormentor. The man who, with his associates, slaughtered families, and ripped a community apart. They looked these murderers in the eye and they told the cold and painful truth of their oppression. All while a violent campaign to intimidate them continued. Multiple murders were associated with the trial.

Today Saddam is dead.

Hanged in the early morning. After a reasonably fair trial.

Saddam had a not merely a lawyer but a substantial legal team. He was allowed to face his accusers. He was able to offer testimony in his defense. The entire affair was held in the open and recorded. This is far more than the victims of Dujail were ever allowed.

Mayor Haji Mohammed Hassan voiced his hope to attend the execution. I hope he attended. After leading his people through their long struggle for justice, it would be fitting if he were able to return to his city as a witness to the final act that brought justice to Dujail.

See the fine folks at Mudville Gazette as well.

The Defense of Mario Lozano

An Even More Tardy Rebuttal

2006-12-14T22:46:00.000-05:00

Like Bill O'Reilly I aim to be fair and balanced. Still I am surprised that after "winning" the election Paul Reikhoff still wanted to post this rebuttal to Vince Heintz's scathing analysis of IAVA's scheme for rating elected representatives. In the interest of fairness I urge you, Dear Reader, to carefiully consider both arguments on the merit of their facts, and the strength of their logic. this and the preceding post from Vince Heintz appeared in the December 4th "ARMY TIMES"

I wanted to offer a brief response to the critics of IAVA’s Congressional Ratings program. First and foremost, it’s good to see such a strong response to the work we’ve done. While all politicians claim to “Support the Troops,” that rhetoric often does not match the reality. IAVA’s Congressional Ratings program has clearly inspired many people to take a closer look at their elected officials’ voting records on the issues that matter to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, our newest generation of veterans, and our military families.

We’ve received many letters and phone calls thanking us for the ratings program, and we have also heard from our critics. Usually they choose to question the grading methods, instead of simply defending a particular legislator’s voting record. Our grading method was exceptionally thorough. More than 150 votes from three Congressional sessions were taken into account, all on issues that had a substantive impact on the lives of our troops, veterans, and their families. (You can see the full list of votes at www.iavaaction.org. Click on “Key Votes” under your legislator’s picture.)

Contrary to claims made by some of our critics, we explicitly excluded votes on partisan or ideological issues, such as the many motions and resolutions “for” or “against” the Iraq War. The votes included were on issues such as body armor, funding for the VA, and TriCare for our National Guard and Reserve troops. Here at IAVA, we have just one motive: to really support the troops and veterans. Founded in 2004, we are an organization made up of thousands of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans who are equal parts Republican, Democrat, and Independent. We don’t care what side of the aisle you’re on, and these vital issues should not be used for partisan purposes.

The IAVA ratings are a way to cut through the political grandstanding and call for accountability on the issues that matter. For the past three years, IAVA has been the leading advocate for this newest generation of troops and veterans. We have helped increase funding for traumatic brain injury research, increased awareness of post-traumatic stress disorder, and created new programs to address the alarming rate of homelessness among Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. To learn more you can visit www.iava.org.

Sincerely,

Paul Rieckhoff
Iraq War Veteran
Founder and Executive Director, IAVA

A Little Late

2006-11-14T15:48:00.000-05:00

I should have posted this before the election. It wouldn't have made any difference, but I wish it had been out there. My friend Paul Reikhoff will continue to assert that his IAVA is a non-partisan Veterans issues non-profit organization. This assessment, informal, but accurate reveals a different story. So here's a guest entry from Vincent Heintz:

To whom it may concern:

There is an old saying about how numbers and statistics can be manipulated: “Figures can lie and liars can figure.” Nowhere is the enduring truth of this adage more evident than in the Congressional ratings recently released by Paul Rieckhoff’s Iraq Afghanistan Veterans of American (IAVA), as described in the Army Times on November 6, 2006.

IAVA recently “rated” every member of Congress on their support for soldiers and veterans, giving each a schoolhouse letter grade generated by assigning value to various votes on “veterans issues.” IAVA used numbers and letter grades to create a patina of objectivity in assessing whom among our Congressional leaders are supporting us. Conveniently, the IAVA report card came out just a few weeks before the most hotly contested Election Day in many years.

When I first learned of the rating scheme a couple of weeks ago, I decided to see how IAVA had scored Republican Congresswoman Sue Kelly of New York. My Army National Guard infantry company deployed to Iraq in 2004. Congresswoman Kelly came to our deployment and redeployment ceremonies, provided our families with an open invitation and the means to contact her personally for any assistance they might need while we were away, closely reviewed the details of my unit’s experience in Iraq to insure that we had been equipped properly, and has consistently voted in favor of bills that support troops, vets and their families. I expected at least a B+.

I was shocked to see that IAVA had rated Kelly as a mediocre C+. And IAVA leaves no doubt about the meaning of a lousy grade. A recent IAVA e-mail to its members condemns leaders with negative grades as “being against body or Humvee armor, against health care for National Guardsmen and Reservists, and against funding for Vet Hospitals.”

As a result of the rating on Congresswoman Kelly, I did some research on IAVA’s methodology. Here is what I found out.

First, many of the votes evaluated in the IAVA survey were on “motions to recommit.” A motion to recommit seeks to return a bill from the floor to committee. Members of the minority party (i.e. Democrats) receive priority of recognition for offering motions to recommit. The votes on the motions that the IAVA singled out were offered by Democrats to grandstand wildly-inflated budget proposals that went far beyond those that even the Democrat members had agreed upon in committee. These motions yoked together outlandish, unachievable expenditures with “pro-veteran” initiatives such as expenditures for body armor in a way that required members to cast a single, up-or-down vote. Thus a vote against sending a measure back to committee to debate the quadrupling of money spent on some pork barrel issue (that no one expects to pass) can be read – or, more accurately, deliberately misread – as meaning that a member is against body armor.

These legislative stunts – which are perpetrated on both sides of the aisle -- are orchestrated to generate voting records to "prove" how the other side’s members have a bad voting history on a particular issue. The practice is beyond misleading. It is a scam.

Next, IAVA’s survey included votes not just on traditional veterans issues like funding for VA hospitals but also on foreign policy and national security matters. For example, the IAVA rated votes on the use of force against the Saddam regime, the President’s military tribunals plan, the Congressional resolution for victory in Iraq, and counter-terrorist electronic surveillance. IAVA was able to weight these votes through its unilateral determination, purportedly made on behalf of its tens of thousands of members, that any vote in favor of the Bush Administration’s foreign policy agenda is per se “anti-veteran.”

By exploiting bogus voting data and merging voting records on veterans issues with those on foreign policy (with a decided slant against the Administration), IAVA “mathematically” calculated that Democrats Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry deserve high marks (Bs and As) for supporting the men and women of the Armed Forces. This is patently absurd. Each one of these leaders at some point in the recent past has categorically branded U.S. Soldiers and Marines as being either “the problem” in Iraq (Kennedy), guilty of terrorizing Iraqi women and children (Kerry, Pelosi), guilty of murdering innocent civilians (Murtha), or uneducated rubes (Kerry).

Republican leaders like Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist scored an F and a D, respectively, even though their voting records on serious, bona fide legislation concerning support for troops in the field and veterans benefits are as good as or better than those whom IAVA puts at the head of the class. Why did Hastert and Frist flunk the IAVA’s exam? Because they voted in favor of the President’s plan to try Al Qaeda operatives in military tribunals. Categorizing that stance as “anti-veteran” strays far beyond the pale of logic (unless IAVA is now counting captured Al Qaeda operatives as “veterans”).

IAVA has been very judicious in lacing its Congressional visits and web-site utterances with “bipartisan” and “non-partisan” gestures and rhetoric. Given the slant of its Congressional rating and the timing of its release, however, its political agenda is clear.

Either Paul Rieckhoff and his group should invest their energies in the laudable work of advocating on true veterans issues, or they should be honest and admit what they are -- a partisan political front.

Vincent G. Heintz

Note:

1. The views expressed herein are those of the author alone and do not reflect the policies or positions of the Department of Defense, the U.S. Army, or the New York Army National Guard.

2. Vincent G. Heintz is an Army infantry officer. He currently serves as the S-3/Operations and Training Officer in the 1st Battalion, 69th Infantry, 27th BCT, New York Army National Guard. In civilian life, Heintz is a lawyer. He lives in New York City with his wife, Kathryn, his daughter, Sarah, 11, and son, Daniel, 8.

The Defense of Mario Lozano

Mickey Mouse at the UN!

2006-09-14T18:45:00.000-04:00

Kofi (or Goofy, as I prefer) Annan recently returned from an eleven day tour of Middle East. He of course took advantage of one of his last opportunities (he retires in December) to criticize US policy in the region. Of course as Goofy’s tenure as UN Secretary General comes to a close, we should remember that in spite of the mismanagement, corruption and constant criticism of American foreign policy, he was favored as an improvement over Boutros Boutros Ghali, who engaged in mismanagement, corruption, and outright obstruction of US action globally. So I generally take most of Annan’s anti –American barbs with a grain of salt.

“Honestly, most of the leaders I spoke to felt that the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath has been a real disaster for them,” Annan said, referring to regional leaders. “They believe it has destabilized the region.”

Message to Goofy:

The Defense of Mario Lozano

“Well Duh!”

That Mr. Annan was the point. We (in the US) didn’t expect that Ahmadinejad in Iran or Assad in Syria would ever approve of our ouster of Hussein. In fact it has always been a stated goal of the Bush administration strategy in Iraq to help undermine the autocratic regimes in the region by setting a democratic example in Iraq. So not only are Iran and Syria targets but even our allies in Egypt and Saudi Arabia are intended recipients of the message that democracy is coming to the region.

Goofy, went on to say that the leaders he spoke to were divided on American withdrawal pointing out that:

“Then you have another school of thought, particularly in Iran, that believes that the presence of the U.S. is a problem and that the U.S. should leave.” He added that the Iranians had offered to help the Americans leave, but, asked to elaborate, he said, “I didn’t get into details as to how they intend to help.”

Well Mr. Annan I’m pretty sure they intend to “Help,” by funding violent Shiite militias like Mahdi’s Arm, by developing nuclear technologies, and by fomenting a war in Lebanon to undermine the democratic government there while stirring anti-American settlement. Of course that’s just a guess.

Kofi Annan, by virtue of his office is a slave to the institutional outlooks of the UN. Meaning that he is forced to accept the following tenets as given:

1. All nations and regimes are of equal legitimacy, even those headed by genocidal tyrants.
2. Stability, meaning continuing the status quo, no matter how vile, is preferable to any change in regimes.
3. In any conflict involving a western power (ie the US or Israel), no matter what the initial provocation, the other nation is the victim.

These beliefs are mainly a result of the overwhelming relativist outlook of the UN. By nature of its charter every member state is equal in the eyes of the UN. Hence the UN Human Rights Council (until recently the Commission on Human Rights) regularly seats Cuba, Saudia Arabia, China and worse. In 2004 during the height of the Darfur crisis Sudan was a seated Human Rights Council member. The anti-US bias comes from straightforward balance of power politics (the US, as the world’s only superpower needs restraint, in the eyes of many) combined with the perception that the US along with Israel has inherited the guilt of western colonialism.

This outlook combines with the UN’s inability to see its own fecklessness. Without the active approval of “the great powers,” the UN is unable to achieve any substantial actions. In the immediately foreseeable future “great powers” effectively means the US first, Europe and rising powers second. Hence for all the UN hand wringing over Israel’s response to Hezbollah in July, it took US diplomacy and European troop commitments to make a UN ceasefire workable. But inside the UN there is a willing suspension of disbelief about the organizations shortcomings. UN bureaucrats tend to actually believe that they can shape the world from the East River. It’s a Disney-like, fantasy view of the world. Like I said: Goofy Annan.

Of course the titular head of the UN, the secretary general can spend the entire ten years of his two possible term, resenting his relative impotence compared to the US. This an lead him to believe that the disapproval of Ahmadinejad, Assad, of Abdallah al Saud, or of Hosni Mubarak is actually something worth mentioning. In the US we have a long standing idea that an unjust status quo should not go unchallenged. So I believe like many Americans that if a policy makes avowed enemies of democracy and the Fantocracy at UN unite in disapproval there must be something right with it.

Fallen!

2006-09-10T19:58:00.000-04:00

The gray ash cloud rises sadly,
In place of the silver spires,
A drab, ephemeral monument
To fallen saints,
Irish sinners most of them,
Saints today, and evermore.

The steel groans with Satan’s voice
Echoing howls of rage
As the ovens and fires of a deep, dark hell
Offer up burnt remains to the sky gods,
Father and punisher alike
Myrmidons scurry and crawl,
Scavenging amid the carrion for
The hope of resurrection
And its obverse.

The angry hermit
Abides,
Hides,
Thinking:
Vengance,
Planning,
Awaiting,
Dying.

Children of the giant,
Heroes all,
Forge their iron.

Written September 17, 2001, at Ground Zero.

A Hero's Quiet Exit

2006-09-08T18:48:00.000-04:00

My oldest friend buried his father this week. One more quiet hero of that greatest of generations, a veteran of WWII, slipped from this world. Frank was a fixture in our LI community. Like many fathers, his public face was a little different from his private. Frank, always soft spoken in public could be awfully grouchy around the house. But all in all he was a gentleman. Frank was a believer in a non-violent approach whenever possible. He never used or advocated violence in the three plus decades I knew him. Born in 1916, he was a living monument to the Victorian era and its values.

Frank grew up in Forest Hills in Queens. He graduated from one of New York City’s high schools, at a time when they were still considered among the nation’s best. But he never made it to college. Instead he continued to read, voraciously all his life. He became a highly literate autodidact, hence his life long involvement with our community’s library. Of course the defining moment early in his life was the great struggle against fascism in WWII.

When war finally came to America on December 7, 1942, Frank’s entire cohort was called upon to serve. Across the nation, young American men went before their draft boards to be evaluated for service. Frank never an athlete, had very poor vision, correctible only with thick glasses. The draft board rated Frank 4F, not fit for service. Frank was heartbroken. In spite of his innate resistance to violence as a solution, Frank realized the huge import of the war.

All his friends, his associates, peers, relatives of the same age, virtually his entire generation, were going off to fight for the preservation of democracy. Some fifteen million men of military age were called to arms in the US armed forces during the war. Frank, gentle, bookish, with poor eyesight refused to be left out of the struggle. He begged the draft board to take him. He couldn’t bear to see friends head of to war while he remained behind. He insisted he was going too.

Due to his persistence Frank was eventually allowed to enlist as a clerk typist in the US Army’s Medical Corps. And in the topsy-turvy ways of war, this 4F soon found himself driving ambulances at the front. Frank served in combat, pulling the wounded and the dying off the line of battle all over North Africa and Italy. He saw enough action and enough suffering for a dozen lifetimes. He was awarded the prestigious Combat Infantrymen’s Badge, only to have it taken back because he wasn’t in the infantry. Still it speaks of the intensity of his war that this man almost passed over by his draft board was even considered for the CIB.

At the war’s end, he came home and began building his future, and the nation’s. He married, went to work for the postal service, and settled down on Long Island. He bought a house in Mineola, and there he raised two children. He became a quiet leader in that middle class suburb. A lifelong Catholic he voted Democrat, celebrating, then mourning President Kennedy. He sat on the parish council. He was an officer of the parish school’s parents association. He was a friend of, and a board member for our community library. He held a series of offices in the Knights of Columbus council.

He watched with some sadness as the upheavals of the sixties ate away at some of the values he held dear. Frank was no reactionary. A Roosevelt Democrat who became a JFK Democrat, he was happy to see civil rights and anti-poverty programs address long standing injustice. But he never understood the revolutionary anger of the upper and middle class baby boomers. Their contempt for authority and disregard for tradition horrified his morality, rooted as it was, in the 19th century. But Frank remained a quiet example of those values and tradition never seeking confrontation.

He lived to see a second surprise attack on his nation. And the immediate aftermath of 9-11 must have seemed familiar, with flags flying everywhere and people from across the nation pitching in, and donating time and goods. Young men and women, many already set in their own careers, took time to enlist. Some for active duty. Some in the various reserve components. But now, five years on, fear of Sacrifice has returned.

Like many younger Americans I’ve had mixed feelings about Tom Brokaw’s appellation: The Greatest Generation. While I remain in awe at their sacrifices and accomplishments, I have long hoped that my peers and I were equally worthy, that we could equal their sacrifices, and commitments. But I fear it is not to be. Something has changed in America. Some of us are still wiling to serve. To sacrifice, to risk. But the after effects of the 1960’s and 70’s remain like a bad hangover. Now sacrifice is mainly something that is made to accomplish one’s own goals. Sacrifice today is no civic virtue, only a means to a personal reward.

Frank and his cohort understood sacrifice as a noble act.

They were truly were great men.
Fifteen million great Americans.
Slowly slipping out of our lives,
and out of our consciousness.

As seen at Mudville Gazette.

Moral Clarity on Iraq.

2006-08-30T21:34:00.000-04:00

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s speech to the American Legion on Tuesday has stirred commentary and criticism over remarks comparing today’s war critics to history’s appeasers and isolationists. Important democrats like Ted Kennedy seem particularly offended by Rumsfeld quoting any history, other than the history of the Vietnam War. Vietnam is the only historical event that many left wing critics want referenced in the ongoing national debate about security, terrorism, and Iraq. Rumsfeld critics should have been paying attention last Saturday to his dialogue with a protester

“Get us out of Iraq now!” A voice yelled from the crowd.

“I know the feeling!” Rumsfeld replied.

Obviously Rumsfeld, Bush, the entire administration, and the US military would all like the War in Iraq to be over. It has hurt them politically, both internationally and domestically. The issue hovers over the coming midterm elections like giant black cloud for republican candidates. And it certainly threatens to stain a historical perspective of this Bush administration if there is no positive resolution. I certainly would like to see us end our massive involvement in Iraq. But like the administration, and most Americans I know that simply pulling out immediately is not the answer.

It is to those critics who want an immediate withdrawal that Rumsfeld aimed Tuesday’s remarks. They who display a moral and intellectual confusion. Indeed why do the media report every incidence of alleged military misconduct, but almost none of the hundreds of incidents of valor? Why are some Americans willing to equate such incidents of misconduct with the systematic brutality of men like Saddam Hussein, bin Laden and Zarqawi? What is the solution to the ambitions of such men to dominate the Islamic world and to make unfettered war upon those of us who live in western democracies?

A question worth exploring is who, besides the American and European left wants us out Iraq immediately? Well we can count on the opposition forces in Iraq. Zarqawi’s heirs in al-Qaeda in Iraq, Saddam’s heirs in what remains of the Sunni-Baathist Movement, and many of the devotees of Moqtada Sadr in the Shiite Mahdi’s Army backed by Iran.

Which brings us to outsiders who want us out of Iraq. First and foremost, is the current Iranian regime under President Ahmadinejad, who is forthright about his desire to re-enact the holocaust. Iran certainly stands to gain much from a US withdrawal. Possibly regional hegemony, if they managed to help ensure a radical Shiite state in all or part of Iraq. Then there’s Bin Laden and the rest of the al-Qaeda gang who are rooting against us. A retreat from Iraq would certainly brighten their day, hence the efforts they go to in order to import a continuing stream of money and terrorists to fight our soldiers and intimidate democracy minded Iraqis.
Who else? Well there’s the rest of the anti American mid-east, Syria and clients Hamas and Hezbollah. They're having a banner year in terms of propaganda. Why wouldn’t we want to throw them a bone? Then there are the remaining anti-American states, like North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela. The ability to proclaim American fecklessness would surely embolden all these actors to strategies not in the national interest here in the states.

So who, aside from myself, Bush and Rumsfeld stands against withdrawal? Well for starters there are the Iraqi people, who turned out in huge numbers to vote in three elections in the past two years. Now someone is going to say: “Such and such poll says that Iraqis want the Americans to leave.” Sure it just doesn’t say they want us to leave now. The same holds true here in the US. Despite dissatisfaction with the war, most Americans are against a Murtha-esque evacuation of Iraq.

In fact most Democrats, including most Democrats in congress recognize the importance of a continued US presence in Iraq. But there remains a loud chorus of Ned Lamonts, John Kerrys, John Murthas and Ted Kennedys in the Democratic party echoing the cries of the far left, and finding a ready amplifier in the press. This begs the question: why do these Americans find common cause with our enemy?

This is not to assert that the conduct of the war is above criticism. There have certainly been mistakes made at every level from President Bush to Private Snuffy. An honest review of “what went wrong” can and will assist us defeating the forces arrayed against us. Overly negative diagnosis of the current dilemma and a hasty ill advised remedy will only help our foes. But to many on the left, in the media, and in a vocal faction of the Democratic party, there is only a mantra calling for immediate withdrawal. This is the sound of moral and intellectual confusion which continues to give no small comfort to our enemies.

Back Door Draft? My *ss!!!!

2006-08-27T20:11:00.000-04:00

Once again, voices on the left are protesting military personnel management policies as part of their criticism of the war. With last week’s announcement by the Marines that they would call up 2500 members of the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) to make up for a temporary shortage of manpower in Iraq, reporters everywhere have been parroting the liberal line that this amounts to a “back door draft.” These critics count on the ignorance many Americans have about the military. In fact this recall of reservists is in no way like a draft.

In 1973 the US military ended the draft, that is, involuntary conscription. The Army then transformed itself into a professional force of volunteers. The military also adopted its new “total force concept.” This meant that the active military force would need to be supported by the various reserve components, for major deployments. Today, there are three different types of reserves. The first is the active Reserve force of each service, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and the Coast Guard. The second reserve component is the National Guard, organized by states, and available to both state and federal governments. Only the Army and the Air Force have Guard units. The third type is the IRR.

The Individual Ready Reserve is just what its name implies, a reserve of individual service members, not attached to any unit. It generally consists of soldiers who have completed the active duty portion of their initial enlistment, but still have a reserve obligation.

Since 1973 all initial enlistment contracts, in all of the services are for eight years. It doesn’t matter whether a service member enlists on active duty, in the Reserves, or in the National Guard, that first contract obligates him to eight years of service. However, very few initial enlistments are for eight years of active service, or even active reserve service. Typically a recruit signs a contract for four years on active duty or in a particular Reserve or National Guard unit, and another four years in the IRR.

This policy is made clear to service members at least twice. Once at their intitial entry right before they sign and swear in, and again at the end of their active service period. When I enlisted in the Marines in 1991, I signed an eight year contract. When I left in 1995 I was reminded of this fact, and that I was subject to recall. Furthermore, if I showed up for recall out of shape, overweight, or with controlled substances floating around in my bloodstream I would be subject to military discipline. In other words, for the next four years, I was a civilian until the military decided otherwise.

Since 2001 the Marines and the Army have each exercised this option, calling up about 10000 personnel altogether, out of a current combined US military force of 2.5 million on and off active duty. A 2004 Army call up resulted in a few protests and no shows. And the the media and the left created the phrase “back door draft.” Meanwhile the vast majority of soldiers and Marines recalled have accepted it without public commentary. Most of the recent articles have been missing any commentary by recalled reservists claiming unfair treatment.

That’s because the vast majority of reservists remember that they agreed to serve up to eight years. To say that holding service members accountable to their initial contract equates to crypto-conscription is sheer left wing sophistry. An IRR member called back to service is no more of a draftee than his active duty counterpart. And while a handful of reservists can be found to publicly comment on their frustration with recall, this doesn’t make it a draft.

Nor does it mean that a draft is imminent. Nor does it mean that one is necessary. If the military needs a temporary stop of five or ten thousand troops to accomplish short term goals then the use of IRR troops is perfectly reasonable. That’s why we have them. Such a shortfall is no reason to overturn a thirty year old policy of all volunteer service that created the finest military ever.

The Defense of Mario Lozano

Democratic Crimes.

2006-08-15T16:52:00.000-04:00

I thought about calling this piece F--- the DSCC! That’s how angry the people at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee have made me. Instead I’ll paint a picture of the absurd hypocrisy that this arm of the Democratic party is engaged in. Now anyone who’s known me for more than twenty minutes, or who can read, can tell I’m hardly likely to support a Democratic candidate for the Senate, well except for maybe Joe Lieberman. I’m certainly not interested in the propaganda and spin that these folks have been emailing me for months. I’m far too busy reading and writing Republican propaganda and spin
Somehow, probably due to correspondence with some Democratic functionary (I admit to having sent an angry email or two to Hillary Clinton), I ended up on this mailing list for emails. Now the DSSC as its name implies, is dedicated to electing or reelecting Democrats to the Senate. It’s a sub committee of the Democratic National Committee or DNC which is headed by moonbat commissar Howard Dean. The DSCC is chaired by Senator Chuck Schumer, who’s not a moonbat, but is annoying nonetheless. Schumer’s involvement is the key to the irony here.
After receiving a bunch of emails from the DSCC I realized that the value of “knowing the mind of my adversary” wasn’t worth the hassle of having their spam in my inbox. After all, if I wanted to know what Chuck Schumer and the DSCC think on any particular issue, I could just grab any copy of the NY Times. So after a particularly annoying newsletter, I hit the unsubscribe button on the latest email from left wing central. And I got a message saying that my IP address was temporarily restricted from transactions, try again tomorrow.
I let that slide. Two weeks later another DSCC email appeared in my inbox. Again I hit unsubscribe. Again no joy! For a while I just deleted them without opening them. Then I tried hitting reply and typing “Unsubscribe me!” Casey missed again. Eventually about a month ago, I made a phone call and asked to be removed from their email list. The intern who answered the phone wanted me to call back, when the “email guy” was back in the office. Eventually the intern’s boss, took my info. But alas the Spam continued.
Now here’s a fun fact! The Anti-Spam legislation that President Bush signed into law in December of 2003, requiring all unsolicited mail to have an unsubscribe feature was sponsored in the Senate by the senior senator from New York State, the Hon. Charles Schumer. That’s right the man who ramrodded federal anti-Spam legislation through the US Senate (and a job well done) is the chair of a Democratic Campaign Committee that is violating the very same law. Delicious!
Sen. Schumer is of course no stranger to hypocrisy, but this blatant violation seems remarkable. So again today I got DSCC Spam. I called and spoke to an intern at DSCC this afternoon, and I called attention to the irony of this situation. He had no answer as to why such a situation existed and he hung up on me when I mentioned that DSCC was in violation of a federal Statute. Eventually I got a hold of the DSCC staffer who handles internet communication. He apologized and “immediately” removed my name from the list. But he had no explanation as to why previous email and phone requests to be unsubscribed went unfulfilled. And all he could do was mumble “I can see your point” when I mentioned the violation of the law sponsored into being by their own chairman. Oh well I guess I should expect all of this from Democrats.

NYC Mayor AWOL for Heroes!

2006-06-19T15:51:00.000-04:00

You would think that the City of New York would do right by its heroes. That this city, which suffered the brunt of the attacks of Sept. 11 2001, would want to reward those police officers, firefighters and other employees who as reservists and National Guardsmen, answered the call to duty in the months and years since that day. You would think that the city would want to honor the spirit of a policy designed to help such men and women, rather than to use the policy’s details to hurt them. You would think that Mike Bloomberg, the Mayor of this great city would step in to ensure that our heroes were treated correctly. You would be wrong!

In October of 2001, as operations in Afghanistan began, then Mayor Guiliani issued an executive order, to protect any city employee called to federal military duty. Employees would continue to receive their city salaries and all benefits while on duty, in addition to their military pay. At the conclusion of their activation, employees would be responsible for repaying the city the lesser of the two salaries, whichever that was. This would allow families to continue to use their own health plan, and to ensure that a delay in military pay would not cause undue hardship.

It seemed simple, but things soon got sticky. NY State law defines military pay as the taxable salary only. But deploying employee/soldiers were induced to sign contracts, stipulating that for repayment purposes, military pay would include untaxed allowances, such as those for housing and food. These allowances make pitiful military salaries into a livable wage, in cases of New York reservists, allowances can more than double the pay. The city intended to recoup all of that money.

Months and years went by. Operations expanded beyond Afghanistan. Iraq required the mobilization of hundreds of NY employees to federal service. To date over 1300 NYPD, FDNY and assorted other civil servants have donned military uniforms for extended duty overseas. For more than four years no effort was made to collect any money paid to federalized employees. Then this spring the city, with no warning or notice, began a campaign to collect. Bills suddenly appeared in mailboxes. Collection notices from the NYPD payroll office demanded payment within thirty days. For the full amount of military pay, including those allowances that many soldiers hadn’t noticed they were signing over.

Worse than slipping the allowances, normally protected under state law, into a private contract, the city ignored the issue of taxes. While all income in the combat zone is tax free, many service members spend extensive months training in the US before deploying. Their military salaries are taxed while stateside. But the city is demanding repayment of the entire gross dollar amount before taxes. So city employees who volunteered to serve in the military and deployed overseas in the Global War on Terror are now being billed for money they paid out in taxes . One of my battle buddies, who I deployed to Iraq with, is also an NYPD officer. He banked every single military paycheck, in a separate savings account. Even after interest accrued, the city is demanding $19,000 more than he has in the account. Dollars already paid in taxes. That’s shameful!

In fact the entire affair is shameful. Mayor Bloomberg has been AWOL on this entire issue. He has allowed minion accountants, to dictate policy from behind the scenes. He has declined to take a stand on this issue. Declined to stand up for the brave men and women who have stood up for both New York City, and the United States of America. While the city is entitled to recoup the money offered in good faith to ensure its warriors could feed and clothe their families and get them nearby medical treatment, these warriors, these heroes are entitled to a good faith agreement about how much they owe and a fair and public plan to pay it back. All New Yorkers are entitled to a Mayor who leads, and who speaks up for those who serve us. Where is he?

If You live in NYC, you can share your thoughts with Mayor Mike Bloomberg by clicking on the this link.

The Defense of Mario Lozano

Help The Vets.

2006-05-02T15:02:00.000-04:00

If You live in NYC, you can cut and paste the following letter and send it to Mayor Mike Bloomberg by clicking on the this link.

Dear Mr. Mayor

I am writing to you as a veteran or a family member, a concerned citizen and/or a voter. As you are likely aware on Friday April 28, Council Hiram Monserrate held a hearing in his role as Chair of the Veteran’s committee of the City Council. The matter before the committee was Int 298, a proposal to amend section 14 of the New York City Charter, adding a subsection E that would essentially fund and create five veterans resource centers in New York City, one for each borough.

You were represented at the hearing by Ms Clarice Joynes, the Director of the Mayors Office of Veteran’s Affairs (MOVA). She left the impression that as occurred last year you would not be likely to support this initiative. This is a shame. With a staff of three and a budget of $182,000 or so, MOVA can do little to positively affect the lives of New York City’s veterans.

Veteran’s who need more help than the combined resources of the Federal, State and City governments can now achieve. In addition to the Veterans of Vietnam and previous eras some of whose problems still haunt this city in terms of untreated mental illness and homelessness, we are experiencing a new wave of veterans who are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. These veterans are and will experience some of the same issues. There are hundreds of homeless veterans in NYC who served in the most recent conflicts.

Many of NYCs veterans today are guardsmen and reservists. We stood at ground zero when we were called. We secured NY’s airports for months to reassure a terrified flying public, assuring NY’s economic wellbeing. We continue to guard subways and commuter rails, stations and trainyards, as needed. Many more are young men and women who inspired by 9-11 enlisted in the Armed Forces to avenge that bloody day. Together we have fought several countries. We have helped overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan, where Bin Laden hatched his horrific plot and Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
In light of this service to City, State and Nation, I believe that we the city can do more to help our city’s veteran population, and I can’t think of one compelling reason not to. With that in mind I am asking you to support the proposal with the full weight of your office. Thank you.

Sincerely

Yellow Ribbons in NYC

2006-04-29T22:31:00.000-04:00

It is now almost 5 years since that horrendous day, September 11th , 2001. I still have vivid memories of that time, rushing from Hunter College down to the armory, I can still picture my first sight of ground zero late that night, fires still burning. Standing in the pouring rain on the night of the September twelfth, shivering as we kept the unauthorized from wandering onto the recovery sight I turned to Willy and Jason and said “We’re gonna be busy for the next few years!”

Two weeks later we were sleep deprived zombies after staring into that burning chasm for 13 straight nights. Released from our mission we were encouraged to talk to an Army psychologist. I don’t remember his name. I do recall staring across the Hudson towards New Jersey, while he asked me in a sad and timid voice: “What do we do now?”

“I guess we get used to it.” I said. It seemed that as our war with terror
went on we would adjust. In many ways we have. People have. We shrug off, for the most part new airport procedures, the threat of subway bombings, and bag searches, here in NY.and We the troops, many of us Guard and Reserve went to war. We all go about our business. Millions of caring civilians Hang Flags, we buy yellow ribbon-magnets or red, white and blue ones proclaiming our aim to “Support the Troops!” and stick millions of these decals on bumpers and trunks. Even Americans opposed to the war mainly display their goodwill towards America’s warriors. Unfortunately our political will does not yet match our displayed intentions.

With federal debt once again spiraling upward the Bush administration has started to limit increases to the Veteran’s Administration’s budget. A budget that has for years been designed to deal with a stable population of veterans. A Veterans budget that doesn’t account for hundreds of thousands of new combat vets. A Veterans budget faced with nearly twenty thousand new cases of physically wounded soldiers. No one has counted, nor can they yet count how many psychically wounded we face.. Here in New York, there is still a real threat of closure at the Manhattan VA hospital, which would force city veterans to find their way to the less accessible hospitals in other boroughs. And the VA Hospitals are far from friendly places. Once a vet manages to pass through a security checkpoint of police with metal detectors, he or she faces a bewildering bureaucracy, and a pass the buck cancel the appointment approach to care.

Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are just beginning to seek help Home from Iraq for a little over a year now, friends who I deployed to Iraq with are just starting to admit to readjustment issues. As are my buddies from the 1-69 who were six months behind in there rotation. These men and women are starting to admit to trouble adjusting, to nightmares, to depression to drinking too much. Already Social Service agencies are reporting homeless veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. If Vietnam is any lesson at all, this is the tip of the iceberg. Things are going to get worse, without our help.

In the aftermath of the Vietnam War, a wave of returning veterans was met by a society unprepared to assist them. America ended up with a population of veterans with higher than average incidents of psychological disorders, unemployment and homelessness. Popular opposition to war was often taken out on veterans, political will was lacking, and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), the most prevalent psychological effect of the war, was still not properly understood. Can we afford to repeat those problems? In Iraq and Afghanistan as in Vietnam the enemies preferred weapon is surprise. The Jungle Ambush has been replaced by the IED, the Improvised Explosive Devise, the Roadside Bomb, which like the Ambush comes out of nowhere. One minute you are riding up Highway One, maybe in the back of an un-armored truck, The next minute the world is spinning in five dimensions of horrendous sound and blinding fury. Then you are frantically trying to apply a pressure dressing to a comrade bleeding all over you. These are the things that nightmares are made of. And PTSD too.

Many of NYCs veterans today are guardsmen and reservists. Many more are young men and women who inspired by 9-11 enlisted in the Armed Forces to avenge that bloody day. We have fought several countries. We have helped overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan, where Bin Laden hatched his horrific plot. We participated in the destruction of another evil regime. Guardsmen from this very city helped compile the very evidence being used to try Saddam Hussein right now. Additionally we stood at ground zero when we were called. We secured NY’s airports for months to reassure a terrified flying public, assuring NY’s economic wellbeing. We continue to guard subways and commuter rails, stations and trainyards, as needed.

We usually ask for little more than thanks. And the New York city sadly offers little more these days. I am given to understand, perhaps incorrectly, that state regulation and funding call for one veterans counseler per county, or borough in our case, and that this funding in NYC goes to the Mayors Office of Veterans Affairs, with a staff of only three. This office has, as I have seen in the last year little to no interest in outreach, or counseling. Surely with only three people it has little ability in any case. But if we wish to avoid the veterans problems of the 1970s, homelessness and serious mental illness, neglected by all we need to do something. New York’s veterans are now asking for help. Veterans deserve this, we’ve earned it. And most of all we need it. It’s time we put our money where those magnets are.

The Defense of Mario Lozano

A Modest Proposal from The UK

2006-04-05T14:31:00.000-04:00

It’s one of those statements that leaves you wondering: “Why didn’t I think of that? Wait … did I think of that?” On April 3rd, British Secretary of Defence, (their spelling Vince), John Reid publicly called for revising the Geneva Convention. I’m sure the idea has crossed the minds of many of us in the last four years, as the issue of detainees, taken in the war on terror, has been used as a baton in the hands of the left to bludgeon the Bush (and Blair) administration’s handling of the War on Terror.

Predictably the left has already assailed Reid’s suggestion as heinously unnecessary. Human Rights Watch based in New York defended the existing Geneva conventions first drafted in 1864 and last revised in 1949. “Nothing obsolete” about the convention, claimed an HRW spokesperson. Then he used the opportunity for dialogue to again swing away at Bush and Blair.

"The efforts by the Bush and British administration to bend the laws risks leading to a situation where the rule of law itself is at risk," a spokesman at the group's New York headquarters said. "The basic principles of not torturing people or keeping them in detention indefinitely should not be changed."

Of course, nowhere in his speech did Reid advocate allowing torture. He merely pointed out that the current conditions are different form those anticipated in 1864 or 1949. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the rise of stateless terrorism are factors that were not foreseen then.

The particular difficulty of “the Terrorist” was not anticipated. The Geneva Convention was specifically created to deal with conflicts between states, conflicts that would be fought by uniformed members of national armed forces. The convention has never quite been able to get its arms around the non-state, non-uniformed actors. These threats as we have seen are the new paradigm of warfare.

Under the current Convention terrorists must either be treated as “soldiers,” accorded full Geneva Convention rights, or as common criminals, with the rights we in he west accord accused criminals. Neither of these is entirely satisfactory when one is dealing with acts of mass murder, rising to the level of warfare, committed by shadowy organizations. Essentially we have a brand new animal here, neither fish nor fowl. While some liberal thinkers are fine with the current idea that terrorists should be treated either like soldiers or common criminals, common sense and recent history demonstrate the problems with this approach. We are going to need some new legal conventions to deal with this, though I will admit it would be nice to see Osama Bin Laden and company eventually tried for 3000 counts of homicide in a Manhattan District Court.

The fact that the Geneva Convention was redrafted in 1949 after the first two horrific wars of the 20th century is proof that the concepts embodied by it are adjustable to times and circumstances. In fact while the last revision was in 1949, minor adjustments have been added over the years to address changes in society. In a nod to the diversity of cultures throughout the world, the Red Crystal was added to the Red Cross and the Red Crescent as an emblem symbolizing protected non-combatant status. Liberals apparently had no problem with that adjustment.

In fact Mr. Reid has not said the entire Geneva Convention was obsolete, merely that it again be adjusted to the reality of the current times. Far from merely enabling the Bush administration to write the rules as it sees fit, a new convention would require the participation of the world’s body politic. The current convention was signed by 192 signatory states.

For a new convention to work most, if not all of these states would have to sign on. This means seeking a consensus on the issue of the treatment of terrorists. It seems unlikely that the US and the UK would argue for torturing people, or indefinite detentions. They would in effect be creating, with other states, a standard on how to deal with the newest banes on human existence.

Eulogy for a Hero!

2006-03-09T12:01:00.000-05:00

SSG Kevin Jessen, saved my life. Not just once, but day in and day out, for the better part of six months. When I met SSG Jessen in Iraq in 2004, his Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) team was assigned to Task Force Hunter, based on the 2-108th Infantry battalion, an Army National Guard unit from New York State. EOD was the “bomb squad” on our little base. If I said that SSG Jessen impressed every one of us, it would be an understatement. He excelled!

Maybe the tall easygoing kid from Arkansas had a special rapport with New Yorkers, he did marry a women from Syracuse. More likely he was just a friendly, forthright southerner, with a ready smile. Everyone in the Task Force knew him, and every one of us not only liked him, but we immediately respected his incredible professionalism.

My company, A Co., regularly had one of our platoons assigned as the Task Force’s Quick Reaction Force or QRF. This meant we regularly escorted the EOD teams to the sight of roadside bombs (IEDs) whether they were discovered or exploded. We spent a lot of time with SSG Jessen. We learned a lot from him. Many of us got to be pretty good friends with a great guy.

Jessen, he immediately became known by his last name. He was an expert on explosives and IEDs. The bane of our existence in Iraq. The one thing we were all at least a little scared of. Jessen could tame them. He defused dozens of them, after detection. And he inspected the remains of dozens more that had exploded. He was not only a subject matter expert, he became an intelligence source.

He could identify the handiwork of particular bombers operating in our area. He was certain that there were two main bomb makers with two different styles and several emplacement teams putting them in. Armed with SSG Jessen’s information about IEDs our soldiers were able to detect and defeat them more often.

An IED exploding is a terrible thing. One minute you are rolling down the road, all is quiet. Drivers are focused on scanning the road. Backseaters may joke a little to relieve the nervous tension. Every trip on the roads of Iraq is a journey of anticipation of an IED. Suddenly one day the world explodes. Sound and fury smash together in a deafening roar. Panic strains against training. Fear bubbles up from the gut, and you execute your battle drills.

Soldiers punch out immediate security patrols to eliminate the triggerman if possible. The roadside bombers in Iraq rarely plant a single bomb. They hope to disable a patrol. Then if possible attack again. The second attack can be aimed at exposed soldiers, responding Medical vehicles, or responding EOD teams as they try to assess the bomb crater.

On Sunday March 5, 2006 SSG Jessen on his second tour in Iraq responded, as always to the call for EOD to come out. Rawah Iraq near Mosul at the head of the Euphrates River, is patrolled by elements of the 172 Stryker Brigade combat team. Discovery of an unexploded IED meant both danger and opportunity. Reports indicate that SSG Jessen was suited up in his bomb suit and defusing the IED when a second undiscovered IED was exploded, killing him.

There is no doubt that the enemy had directly targeted SSG Jessen. He was assassinated. I’m sure the IED teams in Rawah hated him as much as the ones in Dujail did two years ago. Kevin Jessen was not just a hero, but a hero of mine. He was a friend of mine as well. One of the saddest parts of soldiering is how many friends become heroes. I think I can safely speak for every soldier that served with Task Force Hunter, when I say we salute you Kevin. You were the best kind of soldier. We’ll miss you.

Thanks as always to Mr. and Mrs. Greyhawk.

The Next Axis of Evil US and India!!

2006-03-07T21:17:00.000-05:00

It’s hard to see a problem with closer ties between the world’s most powerful democracy, the US, and India, the world’s most populous democracy. But some people, it would seem are just will always see the glass as half empty. Gwynne Dwyer an independent journalist from Britain, writing an editorial in Monday's San Diego Union-Tribune, took the Bush administration and the pentagon to task for developing closer military ties with India.

He has two problems with this move. One that it has been conducted in secret, two that it will “alarm” the Chinese. He goes as far as to call military cooperation between the world’s two largest democracies irresponsible. Irresponsible to end decades of antipathy. Irresponsible for us to balance the growth of Chinese power in Asia. Apparently Gwynne Dwyer is an unrepentant Maoist. His use of the word irresponsible is followed by the assertion that there is no evidence of Chinese designs in South Asia. Therefore we, and the Indians are paranoid.

Of course the Chinese are on a decades long campaign to modernize their militaries effectiveness. They have military ties with N. Korea, which threatens US and S. Korean security. They have historic ties with Pakistan, and may have assisted Pakistan with their nuclear program. But balancing rising Chinese power is irresponsible.
For most of history the reaction of nation states to rising powers has been to balance the new power with alliances. When balance of power succeeds you have the Concert of Europe, the hundred years of mostly peaceful relations in 19th century Europe. When it fails you have WWI.

Today the world is uni-polar. The US is the world’s only superpower exercising hegemonic power. Even today friends and foes alike seek to balance America’s strengths, militarily, politically and economically as they find it necessary and appropriate. This explains Europe’s resistance to many current American policies.

But US hegemony atop this pyramid will not last forever. The future can take many paths. Multi-polar, bi-polar, or uni-polar outcomes are possible. Whichever one of these occurs, the Chinese will be a pole. A uni-polar world with a Chinese hegemon is not likely to be one that’s likely to be pleasant .

But Mr. Gwynne seems to think that US hegemony, evil as he finds it, will last forever. And hey a Chinese dominated world wouldn’t be that bad would it? No and it’s irresponsible to even think about preparing for Chinese ascendancy in Asia. Shame on Bush. Shame on the Indians. Leave those nice Chinese Authoritarians and their sky-rocketing military budgets alone.

Thanks To Mudville as always

The Defense of Mario Lozano

25 People who are NOT screwing up America

2006-03-02T16:38:00.000-05:00

I just Read Bernard Goldberg's 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America:and Al Franken is 37 . Both on target and hysterically funny it lists Goldberg's chosen worst American's. Esentially it's an anti-leftist work, although Golberg skewers a few ultra conservative nitwits too. He also invites us to share our own lists. While I agree that all his candidates are boneheads, as a NYer I would have included Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer over let's say Courtney Love and Michael Jackson. Of course it wouldn't have been as funny that way.

But we can turn from negativity. It's hardly exhaustive, but here's my off the cuff list of 25 American's who are giving it all to keep America from being screwed up. I don't necessarily agree with everyone of these people. But they all have three things going for them: Service, Integrity, and Common sense. Even when I disagree with them it's not because they are slaves to hysterical ideology. Anyway here are 25 of my favorite Americans, in no particular order.

1. General Peter Pace
2. Sen. John McCain
3. Chief Justice John Roberts
4. Bill O’Reilly
5. George Will
6. Tony Blankly
7. Christopher Hitchens
8. Matt Drudge
9. Col. H R McMaster
10. Joseph Lieberman
11. NYPD Commisioner Ray Kelly
12. Mayor Michael Bloomberg of NY
13. Lt Gen. David Petraeus
14. Vincent Heintz (Manhattan ADA and Army National Guard Officer)
15. Brig. Gen. Daniel Bolger
16. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenneger
17. John Hawkins
18. Thomas Friedman
19. William Kristol
20. Condoleeza Rice
21. Robert Kaplan
22. Bernard Goldberg
23. Ralph Peters
24. Zalmay Khalilzad
25. Greg Kehoe

As seen on The Mudville Gazette

The Defense of Mario Lozano

Iraq's Army at Work

2006-03-01T18:47:00.000-05:00

Since last week’s destruction of the Askariya shrine in Samarra the doomsayers of the American media have stepped up their predictions of imminent Iraqi civil war. They immediately focused their attention on the spike in sectarian violence that followed the act. Violence and reporting that played into the hands of the terrorists who planted the bomb.

Going back at least to this past summer, America’s liberal punditry, and their media allies have thrown the words “Iraqi civil war” with an almost gleeful sense of hope. Yet in spite of serious stresses on the emerging Iraqi government, and the sectarian strife, even after this bombing, civil war has yet to occur.

There are several factors that have contributed to managing the crisis. The desire of most Iraqi’s to avoid a civil war, the leadership of both Sunni and Shiite clerics who prefer a peaceful settlement, the ongoing attempts by both parties to form a fair and representative government have all helped avert a worst case scenario so far.

But one reason, for that, one that much of the press would prefer to avoid reporting, is the increasing effectiveness of Iraq’s armed forces. While US forces still patrol many cities in Iraq the burden has been shifting to the Iraqis. And they have been in the lead over the last week.

A fair amount of attention has been focused on the number of battalions and where they fall on the 4 level scale of effectiveness. With most battalions in the level 2 and 3 categories, they were still in the forefront on this mission. That’s because while these troops still need some US support in terms of planning and logistics, they can conduct security missions fairly effectively.

In Dujail, the city at the center of Saddam’s trial, the Soldiers of Delta Company of the 203rd Battalion an Iraqi National Guard unit see safeguarding the citizens of their city as their top priority. I recently received an email forwarded by a friend still in touch with the officers of Delta Company. Written last weekend in broken English, Lt. Abbas, describes how his commander went about safeguarding this Shiite enclave in the Sunni heartland.

“it is big problem in our country the fighting between sunni and shia, we dont know what is gonna happen the next few days about dujail, the iraqi army, dalta co .and Captain mohameed hussein make good plan to safe our city we close all the road in city we dont let any people from out side going in to the city we keep talking with people in city about the situation in iraq we try to making it quiet ....”.

I helped train Cpt Hussein and Lt. Abbas in 2004, where as simple jundi or privates, they so stood out during a leadership development course, they were selected to replace the ineffective officers over them. So far they’ve been successful in Dujail. All over Iraq, the Iraqi security forces have been in the lead on this mission. This crisis has been an opportunity for these forces to demonstrate their growing competence.

This isn’t to say that the threat to Iraq is not grave. Or that the Iraqi armed forces are ready to stand on their own. There are still deep ethnic and sectarian divisions in Iraq, that can be exploited. The terrorists behind the Mosque bombing sought to use the divisions to further their own evil ends. Some soldiers and police in Iraq have abandoned their national duty to sectarian loyalty.

But the big story here isn’t that Iraq is once again on the precipice of civil war. The big story here is how in spite of the desperate attempts of a violent minority, it hasn’t happened. Iraq however narrowly is holding together. The government is still negotiating its future. Most clerics are appealing for calm, not for vengeance. And the soldiers of Iraq’s fledgling armed forces have worked hard and in many cities successfully to avert further bloodshed.

Thanks To The Mudville Gazette

The Defense of Mario Lozano

Listen up Mr. President, I'm on your side!

2006-02-28T16:15:00.000-05:00

President Bush has a serious problem. He seems to have lost his way. This is of course a typical second term affliction for US presidents. I hope it’s temporary. In Bush’s case his natural inclinations have served to aggravate the situation. He needs to do something and he needs to do it fast.

Now I’ve been a staunch supporter of Bush since he defeated McCain in the 2000 primaries. I certainly have no beef with the president over being at war with Iraq, over his general strategy for the war on terror, or over wiretapping American phone calls to Karachi. These are issues for his ideological enemies, and obviously that’s not my problem.

Nor am I going to take the president to task from the right for immigration issues, overspending on social programs, etc., although these are serious issues. They are a problem for his “conservative base” to deal with. No I am more worried about a problem Bush is having with his real base. The American people as a whole; who are looking to him for leadership.

Leadership is complicated function of human interaction. Different leaders have different styles. Some styles are more persuasive, some are more imperative. Different styles work better in different circumstances. Great leaders are able to adjust as the situation requires, good ones make the effort.

Bush as a leader seems to tend toward the imperative. Notice I said imperative not imperial. Bush tends to lean on his closest advisers, and then make decisions and charge ahead, without much in the way of broader consultations. This can be a very effective strategy for wartime leadership, and in some ways it as served Bush fairly well.

Among the leadership qualities that support Bush’s style of leadership are loyalty, decisiveness, moral courage and certitude. Bush has these in spades. But there are leadership skills more associated with persuasive leadership that even imperative leaders need: communication skills, the ability to listen, to persuade, empathy and compassion. I’m not saying that the President lacks empathy or compassion, but he and his administration are struggling with the need to be more persuasive in their leadership style.

The evidence is everywhere. The Dubai port deal, shows his deaf ear. Once Bush understood the arguments for allowing an Arab owned company to run port facility functions, he saw no need to prep the Congress or the American public, he announced it as virtual fait accompli, allowing Democratic opposition in congress to make public hay by pandering to fear and prejudice. And he allowed them to enlist Republicans in Congress to help. I understand Bush’s arguments for the deal, and I buy them. What I can’t understand is why he didn’t coordinate a better press campaign before announcing it.

With the country at war for the last four and a half years and with the military and it’s National Guard units operating under enormous strain, Bush allowed the Pentagon to promote a budget plan that would cut seventeen thousand troops from the Guard. This without consulting the nations fifty governors who share supervisory authority over the Guard, and rely on them to respond to natural disasters, terrorism and other home state emergency. I am not protesting Bush’s use of the Guard in the war, nor the long lasting deployment of Guard assets overseas. But I’m distressed that Bush, and his Defense Department have failed to see the importance of sharing decision making with leaders who share responsibility. Again a deaf ear.

The total number of wounded in Iraq so far has been nearly 17,000. More have been wounded in Afghanistan. More will be wounded before withdrawal. Many of these veterans will need long term medical care. Other vets will develop health care issues due to participating in the long war. Some will develop as yet undiagnosed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), depleted uranium and other toxic materials in the Iraqi environment will affect the health of others. These numbers will stream into the hundred thousand range eventually. Yet Bush has issued budget projections indicating a decrease in Veteran’s benefit spending by fiscal 2008. A deaf ear for the warriors fighting this war.

Soldiers: active, reserve, and guard; veterans, and the families of all the above. We have been the Bush administration’s base. We have borne the brunt of this war. We have stood with him for the most part. We have done our duty. We have trusted him, followed his lead. But now, somehow, the president and his team have lost touch with us. In the aftermath of 9/11, the president had the confidence of the American people. The president is the kind of leader to charge ahead, but every once and a while when you lead from the front, you have to look over your shoulder and make sure that you are actually leading. That your followers are following.

The challenges that we are facing: terrorism and the need to reorganize our security apparatus, Iran, budget challenges in this new environment. These all require a national consensus. This requires consultation and explanation. It requires communication. The American people want to be led, but they need to know where, how and even why. Bush needs to shake up his team now,immediately, and he needs to start with his political strategy and communication teams. Because I Am his base. And right now I no longer no where or why he’s heading.

Thanks again to the folks in Mudville

Good Night to Fairness at CBS and Good Luck to all.

2006-02-14T16:26:00.000-05:00

Watching CBS news’ 60 minutes on Sunday, I was struck by how far away from fairness the organization has moved, since its heyday. Curiously, the history of seriously slanted reporting by CBS, can be traced to what many consider their finest hour, the pursuit of Joe McCarthy as portrayed in George Clooney’s movie: Goodnight and Good Luck. The story that caught my eye was the expose on wasted dollars in Iraq. What we in the military typically call “fraud, waste, and abuse.” The story was on point in many respects. Billions of dollars have been poured down a dead end funnel in Iraq. Much of it to US based corporations and American profiteers. Still more has gone into the enormous underground economy that exists in Iraq, where direct experience tells me some of it finds its way into the hands of the insurgents.

CBS deserves credit for keeping attention on the issue. One of the major failings of the current administration in this war has been allowing all these taxpayer’s dollars to go to waste. This is a familiar story to anyone following the war. But while it deserves continued attention, the facts should be reported fairly. CBS not only provided a political slant, on at least one point, either their facts were either wrong, or they lied.

For starters CBS talked to Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan about his efforts to have the issue of Halliburton in particular, looked at by a full congressional investigation. Halliburton through its subsidiary KBR, is the largest recipient of contracts and dollars in Iraq. CBS reports that Dorgan’s efforts have been repeatedly blocked by Republicans in congress, in straight party line votes. Not a single Republican politician appeared to respond, nor did 60 minutes state that any had been contacted but declined.

Far worse is the misrepresentation of fact by CBS at the end of the segment. The narration ends with the sentence:
“To date, the U.S. government has taken no action to recover any of the missing money.”

Even if CBS could find no evidence of any recovery effort, that statement would be presumptuous given the size and complexity of the bureaucracies involved. But the statement is in fact entirely false! Entirely false, and I for one, suspect that the 60 Minutes investigative team is aware of this. That makes them liars. Is it possible that they were all unaware, that the Army has withheld payments to Halliburton for over-billing. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5003751/) This story was widely reported. While these attempts have not been entirely successful, to say no effort has been made is disingenuous.

Back in the 1950s at the height of McCarthyism, CBS television news, in the persons of William Paley, Fred Friendly, and Edward R Murrow confronted Joe McCarthy. The events involved are dramatized in last year’s Good Night and Good Luck. David Straihairn’s Murrow and George Clooney’s Friendly are deified in the movie for their heroic decision to stand up to McCarthy. But during the many discussions about “fairness” in public life, the journalists decide that when confronting a monstrous abuser of the truth, such as they deem McCarthy, the normal standard of fairness of reply need not apply.

McCarthy may well have deserved whatever he got. But the decision by CBS to suspend their normal ethical standards has done them as much long term harm as it did short term good. Polling data today shows that Americans no longer hold journalists in high opinion. CBS in particular has had problems, Dan Rather’s 2004 story on President Bush’s National Guard Service demonstrates how CBS news has shed ethics and fairness in order to achieve its own political ends. A kind of Machievellian journalism has become prevalent.

Interestingly, Clooney’s film is widely seen to be intended as a parable for today. It is interpreted as a call for activist journalism. A call for critical evaluation and investigation of the messages coming out of Washington. Murrow and Friendly began their counter offensive against McCarthy by presenting a factual rebuttal to the rumor ridden persecution of a loyal US Air Force officer. But Clooney’s caveat cuts both ways. At the end of the movie, the CBS news organization suspends its own ethics, to get McCarthy. Rather than allow him a standard rebuttal, they cut and paste his worst moments together. In the end the journalists could have achieved the same effect while still allowing him a fair chance to respond. Instead they created a new atmosphere of journalism at CBS, and elsewhere. Now, like then, good stories, stories that deserve exploration, are undermined by the lack of fair journalism practices.

Cross Posted at Mudville Gazette

Columbia U. Hates Soldiers!

2006-01-26T10:26:00.000-05:00

Need more evidence that “America’s Elite” Universities actually hate everything this country stands for? Look no further than New York City’s Ivy League school Columbia University. Columbia, home to the America hating and military bashing adjunct Professor Nick de Genova has once again demonstrated it’s lack of integrity by failing to enforce its own standards of conduct. Why? Because the victim of verbal harassment was a military reservist. This from the University’s own daily paper:

On Club Day(In September of 2005) , Zach Zill, CC ’06, Monique Dols, GS ’06, and Jonah Birch, CC ’05, approached the table for the Columbia Military Society—a Student Governing Board-recognized group for Columbia students in Fordham’s ROTC program—because they heard it was being used for ROTC recruitment, which is not allowed on campus.

“We went there to voice our disagreement with the fact that they were there and pick up some of their fliers,” Dols said.
Sanchez stopped by the table soon after and entered the debate. In the course of the argument, Zill asserted that the military “uses minorities as cannon fodder,” Sanchez said.

“My last name is Sanchez. I’m Puerto Rican. I’m a minority. Zach Zill is blonde and blue-eyed. I said, ‘Look, I’m a minority. I know I enlisted; I don’t feel like I’m being used at all,’” Sanchez said. “[Zill] said, ‘Well, you’re too stupid to know that you’re being used.’”

After the incident, Sanchez met with Marsha Wagner, a University Ombuds officer who mediates disputes. She presented him with several options, including filing a discrimination complaint with the Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action, which he did.

Dols and Zill were brought in for hearings in November and were later told that the administration did not hold them responsible. At the end of the fall semester, Sanchez received a letter from McGee expressing sympathy for his “interaction with other members of our community.”

“We expect our students to uphold the standards of conduct of the University, which include tolerance, respect, integrity, and civility,” she wrote. “I can assure you that appropriate action was taken, and, more importantly, lessons were learned.”

Apparently Columbia only enforces its hate speech code when it likes the victims politics. And why the heck is ROTC recruiting banned from Columbia’s campus? Don’t they get federal money? Currently the U.S. MILITARY VETERANS OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY are seeking further remedy.

U.S. MILITARY VETERANS OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY asks that Columbia University amend its Discrimination and Harassment Policy to grant all veterans and military-related persons protected status. Likewise, we hold the university responsible for promoting a military-sensitive environment on campus and preventing further discrimination of veterans and military-related persons at the university.

An effective discrimination policy protects the diverse members of any evolving academic community, sets out transparent standards of acceptable conduct, and reinforces the distinct line between free speech and discrimination. This allows for the safe environment that is essential for everyone to participate fully in the academic domain.

The current discrimination policy of Columbia University, which limits codified protection to “Vietnam era and disabled” veterans, is outdated and inadequate for the present-day veteran and military-related population. Last semester, a student at a university event was verbally attacked for being a U.S. Marine. This combined with a recent poll among Columbia’s veterans and military-related persons further confirms the need for reform of the Discrimination and Harassment Policy.

As Columbia President Lee Bollinger stated in response to the recent hate crime incident in the Ruggles dormitory, "The entire Columbia community is injured when any of its members are made, unjustly, to feel vulnerable. Such deplorable acts of hate have no place at Columbia and will not be tolerated." We hope Columbia University will make the necessary changes to show that discrimination against veterans and military-related persons also will not be tolerated.

I have a solution. Let’s stop funding Columbia. Let’s make sure no federal tax dollars go there. No federal financial aid packages get used there. If you’re a patriot and you endow this school in any way please stop. At least until they realize that American soldiers don’t deserve the kind of harassment that this school encourages.

Rebutted

2005-12-25T11:29:00.000-05:00

Paul Reikhoff has taken me to task for "innacuracies" as well as being presumptuous. In the interests of fairness and friendship I am at his request printing his reply.

John,

Just came across your blog entry referring to our recent organizational name change.

Sorry to read that you were so disturbed by the change. But honestly John, I expected better. Especially since we know each other, and you refer to me in your blog as a “friend.” Seeing you trashing me professionally and personally on your blog is pretty disappointing. It is a low level of discourse that I hope you can stay above in the future.

Now, to address of few of your blog’s inaccuracies:

-We are not an “anti-war” group. We do not even support an immediate pull-out of US forces. I urge you to review our founding principles here: http://www.iava.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=270&Itemid=135. If you want to attack an anti-war group, check out the folks over at Code Pink or IVAW.

-We are not a “left-wing” or “anti-Bush” group. We are a non-partisan organization that has criticized both parties. When we are in opposition with the President on issues, it is because he is the President, not because he is a Republican. Our membership of veterans in all 50 states is almost perfectly evenly split by republicans and democrats. Our group was the first recognized non-profit Iraq vets group to organize a trip to Washington. During that trip we met with both Republicans and Democrats—from Clinton to Hagel. Photos and details here: http://www.iava.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=38&Itemid=113. During that trip, we also met with Republicans like Cong. Steven Buyer, the head of the House VA committee. The work we have done in DC with members on both sides of the aisle has been significant, and our reputation on the hill is very solid—and includes our recent support for Republican Senator John McCain’s anti-torture amendment.

Next time you are writing a blog that refers to me or our group, why don’t you just request an interview? Since we’re friends, I’d be more than happy to oblige asap. Or in the very least do some better research.

I also would appreciate it if you would print this response on your blog. Of course I realize that is entirely your prerogative.

Thanks very much.

See you at drill next month.

Merry Christmas.

Paul.

In my personal reply to this Email I mentioned to Paul that politics was about perception. He agreed, and stated that I knew less about the political world then him. Paul allow me to correct you there. You haven't been at the political game longer than I have. I worked on my first congressional campaign back in the 1980's while I was in high school. But he misssed my point. He is percieved by many, to be a left leaning, anti-war, anti- bush thinker. And that perception clouds at least my view of his attempt to create a mainstream veteran's issue group. In fairness I think he really believes in these veteran's issues and wants to focus on them. But to my thinking his personality and percieved politics are too closely identified with the organization. If that's changing that's fine. But some of his past statements make him seem like he's all those things I said. He gave the Democratic response to one of Bush's Saturday Radio speeches in 2004 during the campaign that strikes me as anti-Bush, and anti-war.

To quote a friend of mine. "I'm sorry sir, that's just not the way I see it."

Domestic Enemy #1

2005-12-21T17:46:00.000-05:00

Roger Toussaint has backed himself into the same kind of corner that Yasser Arafat did in the waning days of the Clinton Administration. Back in 2000 President Clinton negotiated a deal that is as good as any deal the Palestinians are ever likely to get. But Yasser Arafat, after a lifelong, and uncompromising commitment to his ideals, decided that he would stand on his principles, instead of cutting a deal. He had predicated his four decades leading the PLO on repeated statements calling for the destruction of Israel. In 2000, walking away from the deal he claimed that the Palestinian people could not accept a deal that did not include all of Jerusalem and the right of return for all Palestinians, to their former holdings. He missed an opportunity to truly lead, forgetting that leadership means compromise, and convincing one’s constituents to accept it. Instead the peace process waited another four years for Arafat’s passing, before it could move forward again.

Let’s hope it doesn’t take the TWU that long to come to its senses and realize that Roger Toussaint has led them to a dead end. Like Arafat, Toussaint made his name as a radical leader. As a mere transit worker, his continual clashes with MTA management led to his eventual dismissal. But Toussaint had found his place in the union organization. He made his mark leading the New Directions, a radical wing of the TWU that managed to express the dissatisfaction of much of the union’s membership with the 1999 MTA contract. The rank and file thanked by electing him as TWU President the next year. Toussaint has been spoiling for a strike since back in 1999. As President, he blinked in 2002 swerving from a strike with a last minute deal. Apparently he has regretted it ever since.

Like Arafat, Toussaint has already seen as good a deal, as he is likely to. There’s just not that much more to give on the MTA’s side. Whether Toussaint can see that or not is hard to tell. Obviously the TWU national organization has; they refused to sanction this strike. Toussaint may be crippling New York City because he really believes he can do better. But his demagoguery has blinded him to reality. In addition to his union’s national leaders, every politician in New York, and apparently every editorial page in the city, has criticized him. A state judge realizing the severity of the economic threat has fined Toussaint’s local, a million dollars a day, for every day on strike. Without the national organization Local 100 will be bankrupt by Saturday morning. The only public figures who haven’t criticized Toussaint are fellow municipal union leaders like Pat Lynch of the PBA and Randi Weingarten of the UFT, both with recent contracts in hand have refrained from offering any criticism, or any real support either.

Toussaint like Arafat is using extortion. Where Arafat threatened a continuing war of terror, Toussaint offers inconvenience and economic devastation to New York. Like the Palestinians, when the TWU returns to the bargaining table, they are likely to find the same deal waiting as when they left. In both cases, the deal on the table was as good as it ever could be, in Toussaint’s case he has a far better than average municipal contract waiting for him already. But both leaders turned away from pragmatism, allowing their bankrupt ideology to blind them to reality. And suffering was the result. Fortunately we live in a nation of laws and democratic will. Toussaint doesn’t have a lifelong grip on his union.

The pressure of public opinion is eroding his support by the hour. In fact some one thousand or so TWU members have followed the national rather than local mandate and continued to report for work, breaking their own picket lines. So far New Yorkers have remained patient, but how patient they’ll remain while Toussaint the ideologue subjects them to extortion for a few more scraps of their tax dollars, he will soon see.

Tap My Phone! Please!

2005-12-20T17:06:00.000-05:00

Imagine, for a minute, it’s a few years in the future. The Black Friday Commission has just completed its report on the intelligence failings that led to the post Thanksgiving bombings in dozens of American Malls. A terrorist attack that has left hundreds of Americans dead, and crippled the American economy by suppressing holiday retail trade. The commission has found that American intelligence was technologically capable of intercepting communications made between disposable cell phones in the US to pre-paids and pay phones overseas in Riyahd, Islamabad, Mexico City and Montreal. But because the NSA was forced to seek a warrant from FISA courts for every intercept, they were unable to keep up, and thus identify the terrorists, who switched phones regularly.

Sound farfetched? It’s not. It’s a scenario that many in congress, most in the media and every single member of the ACLU is more comfortable with than routine surveillance of calls between the US and suspect locations overseas. This is a willful ignorance in the face of our enemy’s obvious tactical flexibility.

Readers of Lewis Carroll are familiar with a character known as “The Red Queen,” a character used to symbolize the effects of long term conflict. The Red Queen runs and runs, but never gets anywhere. Actors caught in a long term adversarial conflict often feel like The Red Queen. As one develops a new tactic or technique, the competitor develops a countermeasure. Our adversaries in the War on Terror have demonstrated this type of cunning over and over again. Not surprising since they have little in the way of assets short of brains and determination.

Oh yes, they also have the complicity of those in this country who would make there jobs easier by ceding them tactical advantages where ever it’s possible. Not that we should never be concerned about the balance of civil rights, but we should be rational and realistic about. Instead the self appointed guardians of our rights waged a hysterical campaign against government efficiency in the name of liberty, but which is really about their anti-Bush agenda. The NY Times release of the NSA story, an old story they sat on for months, amid the Senate debate on renewing the Patriot act reveals their agenda.

Saturday night, at a social occasion, a close friend expressed her oft spoken concerns about President Bush yet again. When I pressed her about what her exact objections were, to our Commander in Chief, civil liberties. Under the influences of her main news sources: the NY Times, CNN, and her uber-liberal boyfriend, she had come to believe that we are in a crisis of civil liberties. She is hardly alone as a victim of this campaign of disinformation. But I asked her if she had placed it in history? Did she know about the Sedition Act of 1798? Or the Espionage Act of 1917? About Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War?

She did not. Due to the efforts of the left, such episodes, and the subsequent restoration of status quo ante rights at the end of America’s wars are ignored and brushed under. Historical study is discouraged by the left, because it usually leaves a positive impression of America in the minds of students. Today, even under the Patriot Act, and with NSA activity American’s enjoy unprecedented freedom. Freedoms unheard of in 1797, 1916, or 1859.

I asked my friend: “What freedom have you lost? How in any tangible way has any of this affected you?” She demurred. There was no answer. Today we have internet and cable pornography available legally to anyone over 18, and readily to most of those under. We have a mainstream media dedicated to undermining the president, and our war against terror. We have protesters at the White House, in Crawford Texas, and in every major city and college campus. We have legal political parties subscribing to communism and socialism. We have an ACLU that searches bags at its NY HQ, while suing the NYPD to stop bag searches in subways. It’s hard for me to see where I’ve lost my liberties.

Meanwhile in the European states slavishly worshipped by the NY Times as paragons of Human Rights, warrants are mostly unnecessary for electronic eavesdropping. That’s right a phone call from Paris to Algiers, or Brussels to Islamabad will be monitored by European signals agencies, with no worries. Does anyone really think that he US government shouldn’t track phone calls from Lackawanna to Lahore or from Detroit to Damascus? Please Mr. President, tell General Hayden it’s OK to tap my phone.

Crossposted @:

Betsy's Page

Stop the ACLU

Operation BS!

2005-12-19T19:09:00.000-05:00

Knowing that I’ve been letting other projects slow my posting pace down, I’ve been mentally preparing commentary on the electronic eavesdropping story and the president's recent speeches. But once again I find myself furious at the amazing arrogance of my friend Paul Rieckhoff. Paul has just changed the name of his left wing oriented veteran’s organization. What was Operation Truth is now Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. Now it may seem to be a step down in arrogance to claim to be speaking for veterans rather than for the very concept of truth. But as one of the veterans of this war, I find myself deeply disturbed by this change.

When it was Operation Truth the inherent arrogance in the name was laughable. After all since the days of Socrates, men have claimed to speak to The Truth. It may be slightly arrogant, but since truth is such a tenuous and at times subjective concept, particularly in politics, we can concede that the overreach of such a claim is essentially harmless. But to claim to speak in the name of my fellow veterans is a much more tangible hyperbole.

Of course if you talk to Paul Rieckhoff, he will tell you that his organization isn’t left wing or particularly political at all. In inviting me to join his organization, he made it a point tell me that there were both Democrats and Republicans in the membership. His pose is that he has created an organization that advocates for veterans and service issues. That its membership is open veterans of all political stripes. This is a patently deceptive dodge. The communist party has open membership too! But only people who believe in the communist agenda join. Paul and Op-Truth have been actively pursuing an anti-war, anti-Bush agenda since day one.

Even in the Vietnam era, John Kerry and his fellow Veterans for Peace had the decency to identify their agenda up front. Obviously Lt Rieckhoff has the right to name his organization anything he wants. But by re-naming it in such bland generalist terms, he is perpetrating a deception. An interesting position for someone previously publicly associated with The Truth. The innocuous sounding Iraq and Afghanistan Veteran’s of America attempts to associate his organization with more typical veteran’s fraternal groups like American Legion etc.

Paul, you don’t speak for me! You don’t speak for hundreds of thousands of OIF and OEF vets who understand that building democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan is a worthwhile endeavor that requires sacrifices. You don’t speak for those of us know that the War on Terror requires leaders to make tough decisions that result in bloodshed. So as arrogant your claim to be speaking The Truth was, your claim to speak in my name is far more insulting.

Continuing Thanks to the folks at Mudville Gazette

Oblogotory Anecdotes

NIF

Nuts!

2005-12-15T15:35:00.000-05:00

December 16, marks the anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge fought sixty one years ago. This was the last great European battle of the Second World War. The battle which raged for six weeks, cost some 19,000 American soldiers their lives, and left another 60,000, wounded or captured. In spite of the surprise and ferocity of the offensive, in spite of the huge number of casualties American (and British) soldiers persevered. The cause was clear. Europe was the central battleground against the Fascist ideology of the Axis. Surrounded in the town of Bastogne by a German force some six times the size of his own101st Airborne division, General McAuliffe was called on by the German commander to surrender. His one word reply has become legendary:

“Nuts!”

Today the soldiers of the 101st Airborne patrol the eastern half of the Sunni Triangle. While not outnumbered, they are surrounded, by a variety of enemies. Insurgents and terrorists who can blend into the local populace, strike with sudden fury, and disappear again. The loudest calls for surrender come not from an enemy force confident of winning. The shrill sound of surrender comes from those here at home who have never understood that war requires sacrifice.

Both WWII and our current conflict began with a terrifying attack on US territory. Both conflicts came to pass because the United States stood in the way of men with hateful ideologies. American power then and now was the key obstacle to the realization of totalitarian visions. And now as then the conflict takes on a global scope. The campaign in Iraq is meant to deny key terrain to the forces of Islamo-facsim. Al-Quaeda as an ideology seeks to transform the Middle East, and the rest of the Islamic world into a Caliphate a single theocratic empire, similar to today’s Iran, but Sunni rather than Shiite. Like the Fascists of the 20th century, these religious totalitarians exploit the dissatisfaction of their constituents.

Iraq has held a central position in the Arab-Islamic world since the first millennium. Under Saddam Iraq exported terror, instability and fear. His existence required a continued American presence in the region, and prolonged the conditions of misery that feed new members to al-Quaeda. The destruction of Saddam’s regime was a single operation in the greater campaign to secure the Middle East. His removal was necessary to defeat al-Quaeda

Today it sometimes appears that our enemies are winning. But this is mainly a result of the way the war has been presented in the media, and been criticized in congress. In December 1944, no one would have dreamed of declaring the war un-winnable. Then the media focused on the accomplishments and the victories of the American fighting man, not the casualty count. The congress stood behind the president, and the nation stood as one, knowing what was at stake. Today whenever the president makes an active effort to explain what is at stake in Iraq, his numbers go up. But then opposition in the media and in congress step up their own campaign to convince Americans that we should quit. Quitting would mean surrendering Iraq to terrorists, Saddamists, and the influence of neighbors like Syria and Iran.

General John Abizaid the four star commander of US forces in the mid-east recently addressed an audience of military officers at The US Naval War College. He reminded the officers there that our principle enemy is al-Quaeda. This worldwide coalition of terror, devoted to the Islamo-facist goal of a renewed caliphate seeks our defeat not on the battlefield where they are overmatched, but here at home in the minds and will of the American people.

The General urged the military’s brightest military mid-career officers to be mindful of this information campaign. He called to mind all the positives that go under-reported if reported at all. Power stations rebuilt, schools remodeled, local governments up and running their own affairs, are all ignored by the media. Elections are reported, but only grudgingly, with plenty of emphasis on violence and other problems. Abizaid called on the officer corps to combat this disinformation campaign. A virtual alliance between the liberal media, liberal politicians and our enemies. Abizaid, the US General leading the war, essentially urged his juniors to join him in telling our enemies and their supporters here at home:

Nuts!

X-Listed at Mudville Gazette

Saddam's Legal Team

2005-12-06T18:13:00.000-05:00

You have to wonder what they're after, the liberals defending Saddam Hussein. It's not just former Attorney General Ramsey Clark with his outrageous anti-American agenda. Since the beginning of Saddam's continually postponed trial we have heard the protests from leftist lawyers, NGOs and assorted liberal media types. They all proclaim their interest in justice and fairness, but all these meddlers seem more intent on using this trial to showcase their own agenda. Placing their interests above justice, and the welfare of the Iraqi people.

Clark seeks to use the trial as another soapbox to criticize American foreign policy. He intends to defend Saddam on the grounds that the US led war was illegal. Even were that fiction true, would it retroactivally absolve Hussein of genocide? Does the former Attorney General really think that absolving Saddam of responsibility will make the world better?

Other groups, like Human Rights Watch, claim that poor Saddam can't get a fair trial. One time critics of Saddam the dictator, HRW has become the defender of Saddam, "the victim's" rights. Assailing the trial on several grounds, they question the legitimacy of the Iraqui tribunal. They overstate the role International Law in the case. They appear horrified by the prospect of the death penalty, almost guaranteed by the legal culture in Iraq if(when) Saddam is found guilty of mass murder.

Wrong on all counts. This tribunal is as legitimate as any newborn court can be possibly be. Certainly it has a better foundation of legitimacy than Nuremburg did in 1945. The court created under US supervision, is based on existsing Iraqi law and "international law" guiding occupying powers. Since the Transfer of Sovereignty in 2004, Iraq's government has continued to recognize tribunal authority. The democratically elected legislature has passed supporting legislation. The people approved a constitution in October giving the court further populist approval.

While Hussein is guilty of multiple crimes under International Law, this case is about the murder of 148 Shiite males in the city of Dujayl in 1982. As a sovereign state Iraq has the right to try this as a domestic murder case. Whatever conflicts with international proceedings occur, they get the first crack at Saddam. The American legal team behind the current strategy was smart. By starting small, local and domestic, the US team left open the possibility of international tribunals if the Iraqis fail.

In their quest to ensure a trial that Iraqi's will see as fair, leftist's confuse their values with the Iraqi people's. HRW et al. view capital punishment as immoral, and illegal. In a profound way this contradicts their arrogant self-appointed role as guardians of the Iraqi people's justice. Continued objections to the death penalty, demonstrate their distance from the typical Iraqi conception of justice. Iraq, an Arab, Muslim nation retains the death penalty. It is part of that culture’s idea of justice. While liberals are entitled to their objections to the death penalty, in the Arab world, it is considered essential for justice. In Iraq it is now a democratically approved sanction.

Under Iraqi law the appropriate penalty for murder is death. Sure Amnesty International, liberal lawyers and the UN organization are against the death penalty. However, 75 states including not only Muslim nations, like newly democratic Afghanistan, but Japan, the US and other democracies, retain the death penalty option. Iraq is entitled to its own sanctions. Liberal distaste for this punishment does not make this trial unfair.

These interests claim to be ensuring fairness. But they cannot possibly speak for what Iraqis call fairness and then reject Arab notions of justice. Iraqis will more likely find it unjust if Saddam is excused on a legal technicality exposed by Clark or other foreign lawyers. Iraqis know that Saddam, is guilty of oppressing them. The minority who do not accept this are unlikely to be convinced by any trial. What Iraqis want most is a public accounting of at least some of these crimes, and an appropriate sentencing. Forerign liberal interests with separate agendas should not deny the Iraqi people this justice.

The Defense of Mario Lozano

The National Strategy.

2005-11-30T15:56:00.000-05:00

The Bush team has finally laid out a rational case for further action in Iraq and the plan for getting the job done. It is nothing you haven't heard here already, but the new National Strategy for Victory in Iraq is brilliantly organized, erudite and complete. It's overdue, but here's the short version, I'll comment at length later.

Executive Summary

OUR NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR VICTORY IN IRAQ:
Helping the Iraqi People Defeat the Terrorists and Build an Inclusive Democratic State

Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages

Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.

Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.

Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.

Victory in Iraq is a Vital U.S. Interest

Iraq is the central front in the global war on terror. Failure in Iraq will embolden terrorists and expand their reach; success in Iraq will deal them a decisive and crippling blow.

The fate of the greater Middle East -- which will have a profound and lasting impact on American security -- hangs in the balance.

Failure is Not an Option

Iraq would become a safe haven from which terrorists could plan attacks against America, American interests abroad, and our allies.

Middle East reformers would never again fully trust American assurances of support for democracy and human rights in the region -- a historic opportunity lost.
The resultant tribal and sectarian chaos would have major consequences for American security and interests in the region.

The Enemy Is Diffuse and Sophisticated

The enemy is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists, and terrorists affiliated with or inspired by Al Qaida. Distinct but integrated strategies are required to defeat each element.

Each element shares a common short-term objective -- to intimidate, terrorize, and tear down -- but has separate and incompatible long-term goals.

Exploiting these differences within the enemy is a key element of our strategy.

Our Strategy for Victory is Clear

We will help the Iraqi people build a new Iraq with a constitutional, representative government that respects civil rights and has security forces sufficient to maintain domestic order and keep Iraq from becoming a safe haven for terrorists. To achieve this end, we are pursuing an integrated strategy along three broad tracks, which together incorporate the efforts of the Iraqi government, the Coalition, cooperative countries in the region, the international community, and the United Nations.

The Political Track involves working to forge a broadly supported national compact for democratic governance by helping the Iraqi government:

Isolate enemy elements from those who can be won over to the political process by countering false propaganda and demonstrating to all Iraqis that they have a stake in a democratic Iraq;

Engage those outside the political process and invite in those willing to turn away from violence through ever-expanding avenues of participation; and
Build stable, pluralistic, and effective national institutions that can protect the interests of all Iraqis, and facilitate Iraq's full integration into the international community.

The Security Track involves carrying out a campaign to defeat the terrorists and neutralize the insurgency, developing Iraqi security forces, and helping the Iraqi government:

Clear areas of enemy control by remaining on the offensive, killing and capturing enemy fighters and denying them safe-haven;

Hold areas freed from enemy influence by ensuring that they remain under the control of the Iraqi government with an adequate Iraqi security force presence; and

Build Iraqi Security Forces and the capacity of local institutions to deliver services, advance the rule of law, and nurture civil society.

The Economic Track involves setting the foundation for a sound and self-sustaining economy by helping the Iraqi government:

Restore Iraq's infrastructure to meet increasing demand and the needs of a growing economy;

Reform Iraq's economy, which in the past has been shaped by war, dictatorship, and sanctions, so that it can be self-sustaining in the future; and

Build the capacity of Iraqi institutions to maintain infrastructure, rejoin the international economic community, and improve the general welfare of all Iraqis.

This Strategy is Integrated and its Elements are Mutually Reinforcing

Progress in each of the political, security, and economic tracks reinforces progress in the other tracks.
For instance, as the political process has moved forward, terrorists have become more isolated, leading to more intelligence on security threats from Iraqi citizens, which has led to better security in previously violent areas, a more stable infrastructure, the prospect of economic progress, and expanding political participation.

Victory Will Take Time

Our strategy is working: Much has been accomplished in Iraq, including the removal of Saddam's tyranny, negotiation of an interim constitution, restoration of full sovereignty, holding of free national elections, formation of an elected government, drafting of a permanent constitution, ratification of that constitution, introduction of a sound currency, gradual restoration of neglected infrastructure, the ongoing training and equipping of Iraqi security forces, and the increasing capability of those forces to take on the terrorists and secure their nation.

Yet many challenges remain: Iraq is overcoming decades of a vicious tyranny, where governmental authority stemmed solely from fear, terror, and brutality.

It is not realistic to expect a fully functioning democracy, able to defeat its enemies and peacefully reconcile generational grievances, to be in place less than three years after Saddam was finally removed from power.

Our comprehensive strategy will help Iraqis overcome remaining challenges, but defeating the multi-headed enemy in Iraq -- and ensuring that it cannot threaten Iraq's democratic gains once we leave -- requires persistent effort across many fronts.

Our Victory Strategy Is (and Must Be) Conditions Based

With resolve, victory will be achieved, although not by a date certain.

No war has ever been won on a timetable and neither will this one.

But lack of a timetable does not mean our posture in Iraq (both military and civilian) will remain static over time. As conditions change, our posture will change.

We expect, but cannot guarantee, that our force posture will change over the next year, as the political process advances and Iraqi security forces grow and gain experience.

While our military presence may become less visible, it will remain lethal and decisive, able to confront the enemy wherever it may organize.

Our mission in Iraq is to win the war. Our troops will return home when that mission is complete.

On Mudville

Heroes I Have Known

2005-11-29T15:08:00.000-05:00

This one's for New Yorkers in particular.

In the National Guard, unit bloodlines are often as crossed as those of European royalty. In New York’s infantry units this seems particularly true. In 2000, when I joined the 1-105th Infantry, Sgt. Christian Engledrum was already in the unit. Like everyone else who spent five minutes with him I began to think of him as a friend. Chris wasn’t the best looking guy, or the funniest, or the most charismatic, but he had a quality, a likeability that made him seem like an old friend right off. Four years later we were both in Iraq. On November 29, 2004, he was fresh in country with the famous 69th Infantry; I was almost through my tour with the 2-108th.

A roadside bomb took Chris’s life that day, along with PFC Wilfredo Urbino, another 105th Alumni. Their deaths hit my company hard. We had all been in the 105th together. Those who had been in Bravo Company with Chris flew down to Baghdad for his memorial. December 3rd was a bittersweet day of reunions and mourning. Men cried who I’d never imagined would. From the soldiers who were there I heard accounts of the ambush.

Mostly they talked of the incredible heroism of Spc. Daniel Swift, who like Chris was a New York Firefighter. Dan Swift also wounded in the attack, crawled out of the disabled vehicle and immediately fired his weapon at the most likely enemy position. As the rest of the patrol began to engage the enemy Dan began to work to save the wounded. According to one sergeant there that day, Swift did “everything right that day.” His Bronze Star medal hardly seems adequate recognition for his heroism.

I met Dan Swift briefly this past summer at the NYPD-FDNY rugby match dedicated to Sgt. Engledrum and his family. But I didn’t get the chance to really talk to him. I wish I had. I still want to thank him, soldier to soldier for doing his best to save my friends. For continuing to risk his life for theirs despite his wounds. For keeping his head in combat. Daniel Swift is truly a hero. Thank you!
On November, 29 2005, Americans and New Yorkers lost another hero. Staff Sgt. Steven Reynolds of Jordan NY was the 100th New Yorker to give his life in Iraq. He is unlikely to be the last. Again and again people who hear about my time in Iraq ask me: “Is it worth it.” As I think about our most recent losses, and about those closest to my heart, and about the close calls I had in Iraq, I still have to answer yes, I think it is.

It was worth it to dismantle the evil Hussein regime. Worth it to see that dictator and his colleagues sitting in a courtroom, answering for hundreds of murders in Dujail. Worth it to bring elections, a constitution, and democracy to Iraq. Worth it to pursue and cripple Zarqawi’s al-Qaeda in Iraq organization, killing or capturing hundreds of terrorists along the way.

I can’t speak for every soldier, only myself. But as a soldier, I understand the risks. I went to Iraq I knowing I might not come home. Stopping tyrants and terrorists requires that some of us make that sacrifice. In a post 9-11 world we no longer have the luxury to wait out our foes. Not a day goes by that I don’t think about my friends the heroes. Chris Engledrum, soldier, firefighter, husband, father, son and friend is foremost among them.

There are some in our country who would have us believe that Chris and Wilfredo Urbino, Steven Reynolds and the rest have died for nothing. Nothing could be further from the truth. They died to protect us from a destabilizing dictatorship in Iraq that supported terrorists. They died to protect us from an insurgency that harbors a group that identifies itself with al –Qaeda. My friends and comrades have died to bring the freedom, security and prosperity that we enjoy at home to a place where the lack of these qualities breeds hatred and terrorism. Terrorism that directly threatens us at home.

Continuing thanks to The Mudville Gazette

Why a Timetable is a Bad Idea?!

2005-11-25T19:13:00.000-05:00

The war in Iraq is not going as planned. It’s longer and bloodier than anticipated. The most important publicly given Casus Belli, WMD, has proved to be a red herring. These problems have led to more and more extreme political divisions. President Bush is suffering record low approval ratings that have been hovering below 40%. In congress, some Democrats normally hawkish on defense and even some Republicans have joined the chorus of voices calling for an exit strategy, a game plan with a timetable for getting our troops out of Iraq.

What’s wrong with a timetable? It certainly seems like an attractive idea, politically. Surely the Bush team must be tempted by the idea. But publicly members of the administration refuse to discuss any strategy besides ‘staying the course.’ The President is determined to avoid any appearance of a pullout. So why not an exit strategy?

Because fundamentally it’s a bad idea. “Exit strategy” became a popular catch phrase in the 1990s. As part of the Powell doctrine, the idea gained currency and cachet. Powell had learned lesson of Vietnam, and believed that American troops should not intervene overseas, without a clear strategy for withdrawal. Unfortunately while Powell meant that our goals should be clearly defined, the term has been co-opted, and is now being used to indicate mere chronological measure.

President Bush and his team have learned their lessons from Vietnam and from more recent conflicts like Reagan’s peacekeeping in Lebanon, and the events in Somalia a decade ago. When we give our adversaries the idea that we are willing to quit the field, they will seize the initiative. Publishing a timetable will provide the terrorists in Iraq, who are now blowing up children and hospitals, with an operational template. It offers them an advantage that they don’t need. Our goals are far better served if the insurgents know that our withdrawal depends on the security situation then on a predetermined schedule.

The president is aware, that while he could gain short term political relief by acceding to calls for a withdrawal schedule, such a commitment could backfire. The situation in Iraq is still fluid. Any withdrawal schedule would be susceptible to revision. Imagine the outcry, if after committing to a timetable, the President felt compelled to keep some troops in Iraq longer.

The president and the administration surely want to end the current situation in Iraq. As much as anyone else in the country they want an end to conflict, and the return of our forces from Iraq. The military has recently offered the possibility that some troops, possibly three brigades worth, or about 15,000, may come home early next year. The last time the Pentagon floated such an idea, in August, the White House shot them down. This time they have quietly acceded.

The White House has a Strategy for Iraq. It is a victory strategy. While there are some grounds for criticizing particulars of the current strategy, the lack of a concrete schedule is not among them. The administration’s criteria for an end to our military presence in Iraq have remained clear and consistent. We need to train and equip enough Iraqi forces to secure their own country. We need to ensure that the Iraqi government is self sufficient. And we need to maintain our ability to combat terror organizations such as Zarqawi’s al Qaeda in Iraq. It is worth remembering that we are at war with al Qaeda, an organization that has chosen to fight in Iraq.

As Iraqi security forces continue to improve and assume more responsibility for security in Iraq, our forces in Iraq will conversely decrease. As more regions of Iraq become secure American troops will be freed up. As the insurgents and terrorists are defeated and killed or captured we can begin to stand down. That is our strategy. As frustrating as it is to endure an open ended commitment, we should all realize that picking a date to bring our troops home is no guarantee of success or safety. It may even prolong the war.

As seen in today's Mudville Gazette!

Worth a look:

Rightwing Nation

OTA Weekend

Oblogatory Anecdotes

Zarqawi: Why we're still in Iraq.

2005-11-20T22:34:00.000-05:00

On Sunday Evening early reports from Iraq indicated that Abu Musab al Zarqawi, leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq just might may have been killed during a raid on an organization safehouse in Mosul. In any event at least eight terrorists were killed during the firefight. Three of the targets died by setting off explosives to take their own lives rather than be captured, confirming the reliability of the intelligence behind the raid. Eight members of al-Qaeda in Iraq are now dead. Terrorists, insurgents against democracy, members of an organization that beheads Americans and targets other Arabs even fellow Sunnis for suicide bombings.

The anti war movement, including members of the media and Democratic members of congress would have us believe that the current state of the war in Iraq indicates that we are losing the War on Terror. They claim that the situation in Iraq is dissolving into chaos. This despite the evidence of the elections and the new constitution. So it is unlikely that this raid will dissuade them, but it is none the less another significant indicator that we are making a difference in Iraq.
It is not merely that the raid destroyed an active cell of terrorist insurgents, dedicated to the destroying democracy in Iraq, and attacking America’s interests everywhere, though that is significant. It is also indicates that the security situation in Iraq is not as bad as the press reports, that focus on American casualties, would have us believe. The kind of intelligence, in this case a reliable tip, that leads to successful raids like this, only happens when ordinary people feel safe passing on information to American or Iraqi forces.

It would appear that al-Qaeda in Iraq miscalculated the atmosphere in Mosul, they obviously thought they would be safe there. But the someone in that city recognized that Mosul was better off without them. American commanders claim that intelligence about insurgents has continued to improve, which in turn indicates that in much of Iraq the security situation has improved. Every raid that nets another real insurgent makes ordinary Iraqis more willing to inform provide information.
This is not to say that the struggle is decided. Obviously this is a war, and al-Qaeda and Zarqawi, if he lives, can still operate where the people are supportive or cowed. But for those who still cannot see any link between Iraq and the War on Terror, al-Zarqawi offers a counterpoint. Whether or not there was a link at the war’s onset, there is now.

President Bush since September 11, 2001, has repeatedly avowed America’s willingness to “Hunt down terrorists, wherever they are.” Many of them, like Zarqawi, are in Iraq. Zarqawi has equaled or eclipsed bin Laden as the symbol of radical Islam’s hatred of America. When America chose to destroy Saddam’s despotic regime Zarqawi leapt into the fray, hoping to replace Hussein’s regime with al-Qaeda’s theocratic vision of rule, opposing America’s vision of Democracy. In 2004 Zarqawi formally proclaimed his allegiance to bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

Terrorism lives in Iraq. With or without Zarqawi, it will continue to try to nest there. Voices in America who are weary of this war, forget who it is we are fighting against. Some advocate an immediate pull out, others talk of a reasoned “withdrawal.” But unless they have a plan for defeating the forces of the insurgency, they are ignoring the facts.

The insurgents in Iraq are fighting to destroy a democracy. A few thousand violent insurgents are out to overcome the will of the millions of voters who turned out in the last two elections. The insurgency includes at least one faction that considers itself al-Qaeda’s franchise in Iraq. A franchise of the same al-Qaeda that has repeatedly declared war on the US. A franchise of the same group that attacked American interests over and over again. That attacked America itself on September 11, 2001. the antiwar movement wants us out of Iraq. After overthrowing Hussein, are we really willing to abandon Iraq to Zarqawi, or his heirs in al-Qaeda in Iraq?

Hillary Clinton: Smoking Gun!

2005-11-15T18:27:00.000-05:00

There is a smoking gun in the national debate over pre-war intelligence about Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), whether the president misled the public. That weapon is Democratic Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately for the militants if her own party, she reinforces the President’s case: he went with the best available intelligence. She does this merely by having voted for the war.

Radical war protesters, and far left liberals have maintained all long that Bush “lied” to get us into a war. Recently with the President struggling for approval, extreme partisan Democrats in the Senate have begun to seriously echo this sentiment, spinning it with the more politic turn of phrase “misled us.” The assertion being that the administration, at best carefully selected intelligence to make the case for war, and at worse cooked it up in White House staff offices.

Senator Clinton’s war vote essentially nullifies this proposition, as does her continuing silence on the issue. Clinton, more than any other politician, stands to gain by exploiting the President’s current weakness in the polls. Already the Democrat’s frontrunner for a presidential campaign starting in two years, Clinton could motivate the liberal primary voters by impugning Bush. Merely stating: “I felt I was misled into voting for the war,” might assure early victories in Iowa and New Hampshire in 2008. So why has she stayed mute?

Likely, because more than other Senators Clinton was in a position to analyze the intelligence that went to Congress two years ago. Yes the Bush administration, likely sent its most solid, most pro-war case to Congress. But even that case still included the usual caveats.

The Special National Intelligence Estimate (SNIE), that essentially made the case for WMD was produced by the entire intelligence community. It included reservations from the State Department and other agencies about the WMD related intelligence.
In October of 2002, Hillary Clinton was one of the Democrats who voted for the war. At the time she was in her tenth year as a national political figure. Eight of those years were in the White House where as first lady she was hailed by many as a “virtual co-president.”

As a White House veteran, she’d had complete access to intelligence; she was the closest political confidant that then President Bill Clinton had. She surely understood that the intelligence in the SNIE was “worst case scenario.” Certainly as a former White House insider she knew the current administration was “making a case” and as such had presented the most favorable documentation it could.

Why? Because the intelligence data was consistent with what she had seen in the White House. Her husband’s administration, too, had maintained the existence of Iraqi WMD. If the Bush administration had truly skewed the data, or if they had cooked some new revelations up, Clinton would have known. She, however, assessed the intelligence as valid, and voted for war.

She was not alone; 29 Senate Democrats voted for war, only 21 voted against, while 81 of 227 House Democrats voted for force. Of the 29 Senators who voted Yea, were soon to be Presidential Candidate John Kerry and running mate John Edwards, and former vice presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman. Three Democrat yes votes were members of the Intelligence Committee, two sit on Foreign Affairs and four, including Clinton sit on the Armed Services committee.

These senators routinely see intelligence. Many of them have been seeing it for years. None of them at the time expressed doubts or objections to the prevailing analysis in 2002. Most remain mute in the current debate. Some like Kerry last year and Clinton today would stand much to gain by proving they were intentionally misled.
Now some other Democrats, including Harry Reid who also voted Yea would have us believe that the administration was capable of completely deceiving all of that combined talent. The problem is that such an argument just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. And Senator Clinton’s yes vote sums up why not.

She had seen data on Iraqi WMD all the way back to 1992. She knew and understood the process by which the administration selected intelligence to send to congress, and how to find out what if anything was being omitted. She had the experience to understand the meaning and the importance of reservations and caveats in intelligence documents, including the SNIE. But she voted for war, and despite the benefits of saying she was misled into making a mistake Senator Clinton has thus far stood by her Yea vote.

Why? Because there was no conspiracy. Because whatever faults there were in the intelligence they were not the deliberate work of one party. Because overthrowing Saddam Hussein remains the right choice.

As advertised in the Mudville Gazette.

Betsy Newmark has a similar case on Jay Rockefeller

See Michelle Malkin's Google story.

Support NIF's open post.

Eleanor Clift, Wrong Again!

2005-11-13T19:00:00.000-05:00

I'm beginning to love Sundays just for the opportunity to watch Newsweek's Eleanor Clift consistently say something stupid on McGlaughlin's Sun. Morning show. Today she had two howler's.

First she said "We are losing the War on Terror." That must explain why we have avoided a major terrorist attack here in the US since 9-11-01. It further explains why the radical Islamists of al-Qaeda have turned to operations against fellow Arab muslims. Even before this weeks recent attacks on a Jordanian wedding party by terrorists of al Zarqawi's al Qaeda in Iraq, there were signs that Iraqi Sunnis even those within the Baathist led insurgency were seeking to divorce themselves from the tactics of Zarqawi's foreign fighters. As democratic politics advances in Iraq, a political solution looks more and more attractive to the bulk of Iraqi Sunnis and extremist violence is increasingly revealed as counterproductive. It must be because we're losing.

Clift's second major verbal gaffe revealed her ignorance about piracy. Speaking about last week's attempted cruise ship hijacking, by well armed Somali pirates operating off the Horn of Africa, Clift said accurately that piracy is a growing and worldwide threat. But she immediately revealed her lack of qualification to speak on a national forum by announcing that since piracy is prevalent today, the president needn't "...worry his pretty little head about it." Wrong on multiple counts Old Girl!

Her point if I can tease it out seemed to be that since this action was primarily a financial crime, it was unelated to the War on Terror. Wrong. There are well established connections between some of the warlord led factions that run Somalia and al-Qaeda. And terrorism is almost always funded by illegal activity, piracy, extortion, robbery counterfeiting etc. While there is no clear tie, and may be no drect one between THESE pirates and al-Quaeda, they are not unrelated problems. Hence the presence of US infantry and Special Forces troops in nearby Djibouti.

Even disregarding the terror link Clift is wrong about piracy. It is a problem for the US president. We are the worlds only superpower, and that stills means global naval power. The world looks to us to help ensure free passage of the seas. Piracy like terror can somettimes be state sponsored. Chinese military factions have been implicated in piracy in east Asian waters. And the costs of piracy are passed on to consumers as shipping and insurance costs rise. I hope the president worries about these things.

Wrong Eleanor Wrong!!!!

Visit beautiful downtown Mudville today!

Gitmo Parolees Strike Again!

2005-11-13T12:12:00.000-05:00

This story is from an AP press report that and comes from Russia's Interfax.
Rasul Kudayev, a Russian who was released from Guantanamo last year,has been detained on suspicion of involvement in attacks on police last month in southern Russia. Of course the MSM has been slow to pick up on this. Another example of why our detention of these combatants is the right thing to do. Another example of why a carch and release policy is misguided, and another example of the MSM ignoring stories incompatible with their agenda.

OOH RAH!

2005-11-10T11:20:00.000-05:00

HAPPY BIRTHDAY JARHEADS!!!!!

Victory Strategy not Exit Strategy

2005-11-04T19:31:00.000-05:00

Exactly one year after the American electorate confirmed a modicum of faith in President Bush, polling data shows that faith has disappeared. Every week brings a lower approval rating, setting records as they plummet into the 30s. A mere 37%, of Americans now approve of the president’s leadership. Buffeted by the gusts of crises, like the f ailed Miers nomination, and the Scooter Libby indictment, the administration is foundering in the constant gale that is Iraq. It need not be so.

Pragmatic critics from the center and the right, who wish to see Bush’s second term succeed, not fail, have called for a White House shake up. Such re-staffing has become a second term tradition in presidencies of the last few decades. And they are often undertaken in the face of bad news at the polls. So far the Bush administration has reflexively closed ranks, reflecting the president’s faith and loyalty in those who have served him well in the past. Even more than Reagan or Nixon this president is loyal to his own.

That is now his biggest obstacle. Bush is actually very close to achieving the Holy Grail of Republican/conservative politics, a Supreme Court, that if not ideologically right wing, will at least make decisions in keeping with a conservative interpretation of the law. When Sam Alito is confirmed conservatives will be able to breath easy for a decade or so, that the high court will not pursue an activist approach to social change. It may not be everything that the movement hoped for, but it will be essentially enough.
The president however, is in danger of having his swan song two or three years early. If Bush cannot convince the American people that his vision for America’s security is the right one, and do so in just twelve months, than he stands to lose the congress to Democrats and become a lame duck.

The problem lies in the White House, and the way this administration communicates its political message. Like many other bodies, this president’s greatest strength is also its greatest weakness. The consistent framing of Bush team’s message s has been a paradox. When speaking to “the base” and when running for office, Bush has been effective. But when explaining complex policy objectives, the traditional Bush style has failed.

There is no denying that the inner team of Cheney, Rove, Libby, et al. has in some ways been brilliant. But the light of day shone on their tactical style by the Fitzgerald probe, has further revealed the inherent weakness of the approach. The continuing debate over the war in Iraq makes this clear. Fully three years after the national decision that war in Iraq would be acceptable, mainstream Democrats are still hammering the administration over the arguments that led us there.

While there were myriad reasons to go to war in Iraq, the administration fixated on WMD as its focal point for sales. The evidence seemed strong enough to convince much of the nation, and many of the world’s intelligence services. The evidence was, in retrospect, equivocal at best. Hindsight being 20/20 the other concrete reasons for war may have been better off seeing he light of day earlier. But the Bush team’s most consistent communication mistake has been to underestimate the American public.

The basis for the strategy of regime change in Iraq can be found in the 2002 document “The National Security Strategy of the United States”(NSS). This white paper lays out the overlying strategy for US foreign policy. It combines classic realist thinking with neo-conservative policies and a recognition of globalization’s importance, and it shows the handiwork of then National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice. The key phrase, of the document is the goal of developing a “balance of power favorable to democracy.”

Yet the public face of the document was the phrase “preemptive war.” This is because the administration, after publishing a thorough, well crafted document, allowed the media to explain it to the public unaided. Shortly thereafter the PR team became focused on selling the war.

Many of the reasons for going to war are supported by the NSS. Iraq is perhaps the most important nation in the Arab world. Strong in terms of population, and resources. Diverse ethnically and religiously. Geographically positioned to balance Iranian power in the gulf, Iraq is strategically key.

Under Saddam Iraq had occupied our attention for over a decade. After one war, and a dozen years of air operations he remained a defiant dictator, who refused to play by the world’s rules. He played a coy game about WMD, pretending to have more than he denied he did. His continuing stance against the west, the UN, and international law, required resolution.

Bush and Cheney have come under fire from the left for conflating Iraq and al Qaeda. The left is fond of proclaiming that Iraq had little to do with al Qaeda and nothing to do with 9-11. Bush has done little to explain the real nexus. The very real dictates of US policy in the Persian Gulf required, at least, a policy of containment against Saddam. But containment required US troops based in Saudi Arabia and other gulf states.

These deployments were sore point in Arab politics, exploited to no end by Osama and al Qaeda who saw US presence in “The Kingdom” as blasphemy. While removing US bases, may not have appeased bin Laden it would have negated one of his major recruiting points. While US troops in Iraq draw insurgent recruits, “The Kingdom” is holy ground in ways Iraq is not. When US troops eventually depart a secure democratic Iraq, their will be a balance of power that doesn’t require a high profile US presence in the region.

Continuing UN sanctions, resulted in humanitarian distress in Iraq. This resulted in the Oil for Food program. Along with weakening the UN by continuing defiance of the sanctions, Saddam enriched himself and his Baathist cronies by corrupting the UN bureaucracy. Rebuilding the credibility of the UN also required an endgame in Iraq.

Creating a stable, democratic Iraq, with a free market economy will go a long way to establishing that power balance that favors democracy in the mid-east. By overturning the repressive, closed regime, that stood outside the laws of nations, but inside the center circle of the middle east, we have taken a step into securing the future.

Today the administration still cannot seem to frame the debate in favorable terms. They seem content to allow the media, the Democrats, and the far left to frame the debate. Aside from curt sound bites about “staying the course” the administration has been incredibly inarticulate about the war. Meanwhile the anti-war movement seizes ever opportunity to nay say our efforts. The recent “milestone” of the 2000th service death is a case in point.

If President Bush has any hope of turning around his current misfortunes, he needs a political staff that focuses on the facts about this war. Starting with the fact that the insurgents are not freedom fighters, liberators, or a populist resistance. The insurgents are mainly remnant Baathists and foreign fighters who’ve flocked to the al-Qaeda banner. They are fighting to destroy the democratic gains Iraq has made.

The president needs to stop letting the left define the debate. America doesn’t need an exit strategy. We need a victory strategy. And that has to be better defined then “staying the course.” Not only would the American people be better served, but our forces in Iraq would be too, if the President defines a unified administration strategy in Iraq. How are American troops going to improve Iraq forces, how is State going to influence the security situation. An effective information campaign, based upon a coherent unified strategy is currently AWOL. The most effective messages on the war have come from outside the administration. Christopher Hitchens, Michael Rubin, Ralph Peters and others have demonstrated the message is rational and palatable. But American’s need to hear it from the president.

The president needs to stand on our successes: Saddam’s removal, elections, a constitution, the growth of loyal Iraqi forces, and to lay out a detailed path forward. It is time for some original language and some original thinking. This is going to require some new blood. At the very least the war message should be farmed out to a new PR team. Not only the president, but the country, and the truth would be served.

Mudville Gazette
NIF
Obligatory Anecdotes

ACLU restricts rights!

2005-11-02T20:56:00.000-05:00

Thanks to Bill O'Reilly for pointing out this story in the NY Sun. Liberal hypocrisy appears to know no bounds. It seems NYCLU, the New York branch of the ACLU, has decided that only the government needs to respect rights of New Yorkers to ACLU standards. The NYCLU the branch that is sueing the City of New York, sueing to stop random bag searches of persons entering the city's the subways, has instituted a bag search policy in their offices. That's right, New York's guardians of civil rights are searching all bags entering their offices.

So it appears that while the ACLU considers it unreasonable to search people getting on a large mass transportation system, of the sort that was attacked in London this summer, it's perfectly reasnoable to search persons entering the ACLU's New York offices. I hope that the corporation counsel for the City of New York is paying attention. This would certainly be good evidence to enter at trial, showing that the searches on the subways meet a standard of reasonable that the ACLU applies at its own facilities.

It MAY indeed be reasonable to search bags at the ACLU office, after all plenty of people want to blow up liberals. Although to my knowledge none of us has ever acted upon these urges. It is more reasonable to assume that at some point al-Qaeda may indeed re-use their subway strategy here in NY. Maybe we should all sue the NYCLU.

Thanks for the link at John In Carolina
Mudville Gazette
See also Stop the ACLU

Referral

2005-11-02T20:11:00.000-05:00

Everyone should check out Michael Rubin's editorial from yesterday's National Review Online. It helps put the Libby "scandal" into perspective. It's awesome.

Dems Cry Crocodile Tears For CIA

2005-11-01T17:22:00.000-05:00

It’s interesting and troublesome to listen to the Democrats and assorted liberal interests as they continue to bludgeon the Bush administration over the Wilson/Plame case. A major part of their criticism, now, focuses on the possibility of damage done to foreign intelligence networks by the outing of Ms. Plame. While no one in good conscience can condone the hobbling of our intelligence agencies, the democrats have historically done just that. Now they are crying crocodile tears for the CIA. Where were Arianna Huffington, Michael Moore, Eleanor Clift of Newsweek, 60 Minutes’ Ed Bradley, NY Times’ Maureen Dowd and all the rest of the gang, when it was the Democrats busily undermining our intelligence capabilities?

Because it was a different story during the Clinton years. Under Clinton’s lead the Democrats were willing to disable C IA operations, including those against terrorists, Outgoing Bill Clinton told incoming President Bush that al-Qaeda then constituted he gravest threat to national security. Yet he took executive actions that critically hampered the CIA’s ability to gather information about terrorist cells. In 1995 Clinton CIA director John Deutch published an internal order preventing the recruitment of intelligence sources, aka spies, with possible human rights violations in their background. CIA insiders called this “The Human Rights Scrub.”

This, according published accounts of CIA insiders, caused a risk averse attitude in the CIA operations division, the agency’s spy recruiting arm. All potential spies had to be investigated and approved by high ranking CIA officials back in DC if there was a possibility of criminal background or human rights violations in their past. This led to an incredible decline in recruiting of sources. Most of the people in a position to provide quality information about terrorist cells have sullied backgrounds. CIA officers often didn’t bother recruiting these persons, fearing there efforts would be dis-approved by the DC bosses. By raising the bar Clinton and the democrats in effect shut the door on information.

There is reason to believe that this policy was established at the behest of Robert Torricelli, then Democratic Senator of New Jersey. Torricelli was apparently reacting to the possible involvement of a CIA informant in Guatemala, in a pair of murders. At the time Senator Toricelli “outed” the CIA’s source Colonel Julio Alpirez, naming him publicly as a CIA informant.

If it is important to keep undercover CIA officers identities secret, and it is, then it is just as important to keep their informants identities secret. For many of the same reasons when intelligence assets are identified not only are their lives at greater risk, and their intelligence value nullified, but the same repercussions can apply to anyone else in that information chain. As Joe Wilson’s supporters have been quick to point out, when an intelligence asset is publicly identified, it potentially exposes all of that assets sources and connections. Further, when an intelligence agency cannot secure the identities of its sources it also hampers recruiting, no one wants to spy for an agency that can’t keep secrets. Yet when Senator Torricelli placed assets lives at risk, made spies and potential spies fear exposure, and encouraged the Clinton administration to restrict recruitment of knowledgeable sources, where was the outcry from the left?

Clinton also presided over a gutting of the agency’s operational side in his first term. According to the 9-11 report so beloved by Bush critics, starting in 1992, funding and positions were cut form the clandestine service. In 1995 the agency graduated only 25 new agents, the lowest number in history. It wasn’t until 1998 five years after the first WTC attack, two years after the Khobar towers, and the same year that al Qaeda attacked US embassies in Africa. The CIA's budget was fair game for a peace dividend, because if you were worried about anything but the economy, well you were stupid. Yet in the mid 1990’s when the CIA was being crippled where was the outcry from the left?

The destruction of a CIA officer’s cover is a serious matter. It is certainly a threat to intelligence operations, and thereby national security. The plaintive cries of the Democratic Party and the rest of the left would be more credible these days if they had a solid history of supporting and respecting the clandestine service’s contributions to our security.

Continuing thanks to my friends Mudville Gazette

Red Hot Cuppa Politics
has a great list of Wilson's lies, may be incomplete but it is damning

Seems it came from A Rose By Any Other Name
See Also NIF
And Obligitory Anecdotes, Open Trackback

The In-Credible Mr. Wilson.

2005-10-30T22:59:00.000-05:00

In the aftermath of Friday’s indictment of I. Lewis Libby, the MSM has engaged in an orgy of blame and reprobation against the Bush Administration. Independent council Patrick Fitzgerald cautioned against reading into the indictment, against using it as a comment on the war. But much of the media has ignored him to do just that. The Philadelphia Enquirer ran a front page "analysis" by Dick Polman with the headline:
“Libby prosecution puts justification for war on trial.” Meanwhile on this morning’s McLaughlin Group, Eleanor Clift the liberal conscience of Newsweek was busy saying that it doesn’t matter that the federal justice system has found it impossible to make a case for an administration wide conspiracy. She is going to help make it in “the court of public opinion.”

In celebration, both CBS’ 60 Minutes, and NBC’s dateline ran pieces about Valerie and Joseph Wilson, featuring interviews with Joseph Wilson. To be sure on Dateline Wilson made a point to demur from claiming victim status for himself or his wife. He made it clear that the victim here is the nation. To be fair this echoes Mr. Fitzpatrick’s assertion, along with the CIA’s that the blowing of Ms Plame/Mrs Wilson’s cover is a National Security issue. And one I have to agree with.

If anyone intentionally blew Ms Plame’s cover, they deserve to be punished. But the burden of proof here is high. To violate this law, one would have to know that the agent’s status was covert. Mr. Fitzpatrick has thus far been unable to make this case against anyone, and in spite of the MSM’s slanted reporting, he has not left the investigation open “against” Carl Rove or anyone else. He has kept the investigation open, and will empanel another grand jury, as a procedural convenience to support the expected US v. Libby trial.

The media has focused entirely on the administration players. They continue to ignore the roles played by some of their own members, including Robert Novack, the man who really damaged National Security by publishing the information. And they have practically lionized Joseph Wilson . This in spite of the essential dishonesty of his original role in this drama. A role which was publicly as petty and destructive as anything that the MSM attributes to Libby, Cheney Rove et al.

Wilson opened the first act with his inaccurate and self centered account of his trip to Niger. Wilson made a variety of claims about this trip which were misleading, some were outright lies. He started lying with his claim that the VP’s office originated the request for his trip, to backstop an unseen intelligence report from the CIA. It turns out the CIA was looking to back up its own position which ran counter to VP’s.

Wilson who never filed a formal report, but was merely debriefed by the State Dept. and CIA, Did write the now famous NY Times Op-Ed piece. In it seemed particularly upset that his information was ignored. This is in spite of the massive amount of equivocal intelligence that was coming in. Nobody listened to poor Joe Wilson. Maybe he should have actually written a report, before he went public.

Wilson seems to think that his inability to find evidence that Hussein had acquired uranium in one country Nigeria disproves that he attempted to acquire it in any African nation. Again to be fair Mr. Wilson, his investigation was probably thorough enough to show that Hussein had not succeeded in acquisition. It in no way proves that Hussein had not inquired about and attempted to purchase yellowcake. Wilson’s case cannot address this, because short of success any attempt would remain covert.

Mr. Wilson was apparently frustrated over what he perceived as the slight of being ignored. Despite the fact that he was a State Dept. officer for over twenty years he seems terribly naïve about the intelligence process. Even though he had never filed an official report of his findings, even though there was a raging debate over the entire intelligence package on WMD, even though his finding didn’t quite disprove a covert attempt somewhere in Africa, he wanted to be listened to.

So when President Bush went on to mention what his people still considered the possibility of Iraqi uranium quest in Africa, Joe Wilson took it personally. Though he had an apparently high standard of proof for the attempt in Africa, he assumed that in “ignoring” his finding (still unpublished), the administration was “intentionally twisting the facts. So he finally sat down to write a report.

This was a public account of the trip on the op-ed page of the NY Times. There for the first time Wilson wrote down the findings of his trip to Niger. But he outright lied about the circumstances leading up to the trip. So now we have a Washington insider, with a wife who not only works for the CIA, but who recommended him for the trip to Niger, writing a false account of how he was selected for that trip, out of pique at being ignored. If I was Valery Plame I’d have killed my husband around then. They both should have suspected what was coming.

While the Wilson’s had a moral right to expect the administration to respect Valery Plame’s career, they should have been savvy enough to see the risk. Particularly since: A) Wilson falsely attributed the VPs office as the originator of his trip. And B) Mrs Wilson nee Plame had actually recommended him for the role. In almost any political staff effective enough to win the presidency, there are going to be operatives well versed in the tactics of smearing in leaking. To expect that everyone who worked for Bush and Cheney would take the moral high ground, and allow Mr. Wilson to perpetuate his false version of why he went to Niger seems the height of folly. In effect Mr. Wilson was hiding behind his wife’s cover, betting that the entirety of the Bush team would let him lie rather than blow her cover. He reminds me of the little boy crying to his mother after picking a fight with his older brother, and losing.

Crossposted at Mudville Gazette
Another Rovian Conspiracy
New England Republican
Betsy's Page

2000!!!! Do Liberals Care?

2005-10-26T17:56:00.000-04:00

The predicted media frenzy over the two thousandth death in Iraq has arrived. The question occurs to me: Where really is the moral high ground? The anti-war movement, the war protestors, and liberals assume they have it. They base this on the value of human life. They talk about the value of each and every life. They talk about how bad they feel for the fallen soldiers, and their families. And the media just eats it up

Do these protesters somehow place more value on these lost lives? More than those who want to see the war in Iraq continued to defeat the insurgency? Do they care more about these lives than their fellow soldiers? More than I do?

A year ago today, I almost became one of that two thousand. Riding in the back of a soft skinned Iraqi National Guard pick up truck, after a our extraction helicopter failed to appear, a heard and felt the blast of an IED at the head of the convoy. As we un-assed the truck a second one went off. One of those blasts, from a 155mm shell drove a fragment through an armored humvee door into the arm of one of our forward observers.

As I treated that solider for the long ugly shell fragment piercing his forearm, a third shell exploded a few meters away. Sgt Olin was bleeding, going into shock and screaming in pain from the broken bones in his arm. Sgt. Olin was awarded one of five purple hearts earned that night, the rest were for relatively minor injuries. We were all lucky that night.

Two days later some of our luck ran out. Our first platoon was ambushed by an IED and small arms attack. Spc. Segun Frederick Akintade was struck in the base of the skull by a shell fragment that impacted in the gap between his vest and his helmet. The wound was catastrophic. Still two soldiers, infantry riflemen responded, trying to stop the massive bleeding. With the rest of the unit engaged in a fire fight, a senior battalion medic worked his way over. The three soldiers worked desperately, to save Akintade. Air medivac was enroute.

On a routine patrol 12 or 15 miles away we heard the radio call for the helicopter. Racing down Iraqi highway one at 90 miles an hour we heard they were doing CPR. We arrived just before the bird, still unaware of who was dying. A squad leader looked at me and mouth the name Akintade. The insurgents had broken contact. We started expanding our perimeter. Three angry platoons scoured the nearby farms, but they were gone. The medic had Akintade loaded on the helicopter where he was finally pronounced dead.

This Friday, I’m going with other soldiers to visits Akintade’s grave on LI. How many of the protesters will do that? How many of them have knelt exposed to dangerous enemy fire, treating a wounded comrade while the world exploded around them? How many of them have signed up for the kind of commitment that being a soldier requires, for that kind of sacrifice?

Sure some of them have been soldiers. But lot’s more haven’t. But their moral attitude is predicated on their belief that they care more about life than I do. But was does that mean. Are they better people? Are anti-war liberals nicer to their neighbors? Are they better citizens? I live in New York. I run into dozens of anti-war tyoes daily. Sure some of them are decent people, but their attitude of moral superiority, through their renunciation of violence, for their exaltation of life doesn’t ring true.

The soldiers I know all believe in the sanctity of life as well. None of us are, to my knowledge, are psychotics. The soldiers I know who’ve taken lives have regretted it. And they have all grieved for their fallen comrades. Even the ones they didn’t know.

I’ve spent time in Somalia and Iraq, and seen the wages of lawlessness. When all good men shun any resort to violence, bad men are free to do as they will. The crimes of Saddam and his cohort are a matter of record, horrifically so. Soldiers, and the rest of us who are not overwhelmingly opposed to all war simply have an understanding of this. If that makes me morally inferior, than it is such moral inferiority, that allows the liberals to preen with their moral advantage. They say that 2000 is not just a number. But how many of them cried at Akintade’s funeral?

As always, take a look at Mudville Gazette. See also: Stop The ACLU Open Trackback.
Michelle Malkin
Obligatory Anecdotes
Bacon Bits

Shilling For Saddam!!!!

2005-10-24T17:26:00.000-04:00

Since even before last Wednesday’s start of Saddam’s now postponed trial we have heard the cries of left wing lawyers and their attendants that Saddam cannot get a fair trial under the current proceedings. While the murder of a lawyer for one of Hussein’s co-defendants is problematic, the intellectual protests against the proceedings are misguided. Far less has been said about the ability of the prosecution to safeguard it’s witnesses. The environment in Iraq works as much for the defendants as against.

Leading the charge is the Human Rights Watch, long time critics of Saddam the dictator now the insurers of Saddam’s rights. HRW has a long list of criticisms, many based on their own special assumptions about how the law and in particular international law should play in this case. Included in this is a detailed reading of particular conflicts between three sets of laws; prior Iraqi law, special Iraqi law enacted for this case, and international law, including UN resolutions. But HRW protests most loudly on the grounds that the trial will not be seen as fair, particularly by Iraqis, and that the death penalty, almost guaranteed by the current legal structure in Iraq if a guilty verdict is reached, is at best immoral, and possibly illegal.

HRW is backed up on this by the UN which continues to insist it should have custody of the trial, but will not support the current Iraqi court because the death penalty is on the table. A parade of liberal American lawyers has expressed “concerns” about the legitimacy of the courts.

One thing at a time. First the court is as legitimate as it can be. While it was created under US auspices, that was done so under “international law” guiding occupying powers. Since the Transfer of Sovereignty occurred in June of 2004, the Iraqi government has continued to recognize the court. This includes legislation by the current, democratically elected legislature.

Secondly, while Hussein is guilty of a myriad of crimes under International Laws, this particular case is about the 148 murders of Shiite males in the city of Ad Dujayl in 1982. It is the sovereign right of the Iraqi state to try this as a domestic murder case. Whatever conflicts with international proceedings occur, the Iraqi court has the right to insist on the first crack at Saddam. Further, the US legal team that created the current strategy was smart. By starting small, local and domestic, they leave the possibility open of international tribunals if the Iraqis fail.

The HRW and its associate legal allies also make the mistake of denying the Iraqi courts their sovereign right to de-conflict the various tensions between the various layers of law, particularly Iraqi domestic laws. That is the proper province national courts, not non-governmental agencies. These self appointed watch dogs also object to a variety of procedural events that they claim are not in keeping with UN safeguards of rights of the accused. In doing so they neglect the extremely problematic atmosphere of the investigation, conducted in an occupied country during an insurgency, where witness intimidation by Saddam’s allies remains in play. And their use of the European High Court’s decisions on UN resolutions is laughable. The Iraqi courts are in no way required to accept European decisions as precedent, and Iraqis have a different view of justice.

In fact it is their misunderstanding of Iraqi culture that truly destroys HRW’s case. They claim that they are looking out for Iraqis by making sure that Iraqis will have a clear sense that the trial was fair. But their continued objections to the death penalty demonstrates a clear gap in the two cultures view of justice. Iraqi, like all Arab and Muslim nations retains the death penalty. It is a historical and cultural part of their conception of justice. While HRW lawyers are certainly entitled to their objections to the death penalty, along with the UN, the fact remains that it is considered part of jurisprudence in the Arab world. In Iraq’s case it is now a democratically approved measure.

HRW can claim to watching out for fairness, based on western standards, but they cannot claim to speak for what Iraqis would call fairness while rejecting Iraqi cultural notions of justice. In fact I think most Iraqis would be more likely to think it unfair if Saddam was exculpated based on some technical legal sophistry. The people of Iraq overwhelming ly know that Saddam their official leader for 25 years is guilty of oppressing them. The minority who do not accept this are unlikely to be convinced at any rate. What Iraqis want most is a public accounting of at least a portion of these crimes, and an appropriate sentencing.

Under Iraqi law, under Islamic legal precepts, for historical and cultural reasons, to these people the appropriate answer is the death penalty. HRW, Amnesty International, thousands of liberal lawyers and the official UN organization can be against the death penalty. But 75 nation states including not only the Arab states, not only newly democratic Iraq and Afghanistan, but Japan, South Korea, the US and other democracies, still retain the death penalty as an option. Distaste for the punishment does not make the process unfair.

Cross posted on THM' Bacon Bits
and at the Mudville Gazette
and at NIF

More Insurgent Academics!

2005-10-19T00:12:00.000-04:00

Here’s another example of America’s incredibly left leaning professors, another one who ignores facts and remains terribly misinformed about his subject matter. Monday’s Asia Times, apparently a pretty liberal sheet overall, carried this piece by Professor Mark Levine. Mark is a professor of Modern Middle Eastern History at UC Irvine.

First a look at Mark’s evaluation of the Iraqi Constitution. Here is a brief cut and pasted look at some of his argument:

"Saturday's referendum will likely neither end the insurgency nor bring the country closer to significant democratic development. The original draft of the constitution did set important benchmarks for democracy and personal freedom for Iraqis. But these advances are overshadowed by what the constitution left out. Specifically, there are no references to three issues that are of primary concern to most Arab, and especially Sunni Iraqis: a prohibition on the long-term presence of foreign - read American - troops in the country; a firm statement emphasizing Iraqi control of production and distribution of the country's oil resources; and a commitment to rebuilding the social infrastructure that was devastated by the invasion and subsequent wholesale privatization of the country's economy under US auspices.

For most every Arab Iraqi the withdrawal of all American and other foreign troops is the sine qua non for ending the insurgency. That the constitutional negotiators couldn't include any prohibition of foreign troops, or deal straightforwardly with the other two core issues, demonstrates the continuing and largely deleterious power of the US in the country's internal affairs."

This is the heart of his message. It shows an amazing amount of ignorance for someone with a Doctorate in History. I suppose that by specializing in Middle Eastern history, Levine managed to avoid looking at very many functional constitutions. I guess those American History classes were too long ago to remember. Still someone with his credentials should know a few facts. First a constitution is not an exhaustive list of legislation. It is a foundation document on which to base specific laws. In addition the very act creating a constitution demonstrates a determination to independent sovereignty. Writing and negotiating the document demonstrates an intent to reduce the number and role of US forces.

Another fact that he seems to have misplaced, historically speaking constitutions that include sweeping socialist economic policies have not fared so well. The road to economic prosperity in the past century or so, has been liberal market economics. This requires at least a stable and relatively open rule of law. Nations with stable civil societies, democratic institutions and regulated but free markets advance and prosper fastest. Civil society is the biggest missing piece in Iraq, not a constitutionally enforced socialist economy.

Whether through further ignorance, or willful deceit, Levine next conflates a variety of factions in Iraq. Removal of American forces may be the end state desired by all Iraqis. But “every Arab” is not in the Insurgency. The Sunnis are the Sunnis and only a miniscule portion of them participate in the insurgency.

The highest estimated count of insurgents, which I dispute, but will use for argument’s sake, is 200,000. This is less than 1% of the entire population. It is in fact only about 4% of the Sunni Arab population. Far less than the number of Sunnis who turned out to vote on Saturday. It is even less than the number of Sunni Arabs who voted in January. It seems that far more of the Sunnis are interested in a political solution than in violence.

Which highlights his further ignorance in stating that American forces are the real object of the violence. By every account the leaders of the insurgency are smart and sophisticated. They must know, that without the active insurgency, American forces would have been more than halved by now. No, they are aiming there weapons at us, but it is a psychological operation against the Shiites. A play for power in the post-occupation.

Saddam’s Trial is just beginning as I write this, It’s 7 AM 19 Oct. in Baghdad right now. He’s on trial for conspiring to kill 148 men in the city of Ad Dujayl. His point man and agent in that city was one Abdullah Raweed, for 15 months after the fall of Saddam’s defeat and six months after Saddam’s arrest, Raweed continued to intimidate the Shiite majority in Ad Dujayl. When my company finally locked him up in June 2004, witness began to come forth, there fear was over. The insurgency is about continuing hat kind of intimidation.

So who is this Professor of History who has no idea of constitutional formation? Who thinks that what is wrong with Iraq is that America is removing the Socialism? In his own words:

“My research and teaching focus on the following issues: histories, theologies and political and cultural economies of the Middle East and Islam in the modern and contemporary periods, Palestine/Israel, comparative studies of imperialism and colonialism, urban planning and architecture (history and theory), critical theory, and globalization studies with a comparative focus on popular cultures and religion in Europe and the Muslim world. I have also begun a new project which studies the origins of civil societies and public spheres in the Muslim world and explores how Gramsci and Foucault grappled with specifically religious themes in their work within this framework.”

Note to the uninitiated Gramsci and Foucault pretty much stand in for Marx here.

“I am also a professional musician and have worked with artists such as Mick Jagger, Dr. John, Johnny Copeland, Albert Collins, Chuck D, Michael Franti, Ozomatli, world music artists Hassan Hakmoun, Sara Alexander and others.”

Pretty important to let people interested in your Academic credentials know all of this (it's on his UC website.)

“My scholarship, activism and music are all tied to my commitment to struggles for social justice in the United States and around the world. I am also an Advisory Board member of Occupation Watch (which was established by Global Exchange and other organizations to monitor the American occupation of Iraq and help build indigenous and autonomous civil society institutions in the country.”

Well now we know where he stands. Even as a professor he’s not particularly interested in the facts as much as pursuing an activist agenda. As we’ve seen he abuses the few facts he manages to understand. But a professor of History who thinks a constitution should be an exhaustive, explicit, rigid and socialist document, really doesn’t understand much about History. Does he? No he just wants to blame America first.

HUGE Hat Tip to John at Random Jottings for this story.

Thanks as always to Greyhawk and Co.

There's a New Trackback Party at Obligatory Anecdotes!

Justice for Dujail

2005-10-18T13:05:00.000-04:00

Ad Dujayl today is a small bustling city, of perhaps 50,000 mostly Shi’a souls. Some of whom still look wounded and scared. Two parts dusty Medieval Arabia and one part dusty Wild West, the city is sprinkled with a dusting of modernity. Once, before 1982, it was a less dusty, and less wild. According to its citizens, it was an oasis, a garden spot in the semi-arid terrain of the Mesopotamian valley. A soccer stadium used by national teams stood at the crossroads near the city’s gate.

The city economy flourished, primarily through agriculture. Lush date palm plantations surrounded the city, watered by the Isaky Canal, a major branch of the Tigris. Dates remain a staple cash crop throughout the mid-east. Today, a few miles down the highway, the groves reappear. They are easily spotted, with orderly rows of palm trees each green top exactly as tall as its neighbors.

On June 8, 1982, Saddam was passing through Ad Dujayl, when a group of men ambushed his motorcade. These men were Shiite males, members of the Iranian backed Dawa party, and Ad Dujayl citizens. Unfortunately, for all of us, Saddam survived.

We know, from witness accounts that he went immediately afterwards to the city hospital, where he spent a few minutes composing himself. Within hours the city was surrounded and sealed by a combination of forces including military and secret police. Helicopters strafed farmers near the ambush site. Tanks closed the roads. Local legend has it that Saddam’s brother asked permission to level the city and exterminate the inhabitants. Saddam reportedly answered that there were a few citizens worth saving.

Males suspected of Dawa party association, or simply of being related to members were rounded up. Any past expression against Saddam or the Baath party was enough. One witness that I encountered spoke of nearly five hundred males killed in the immediate aftermath. Some were shot, some suffocated in closed crowded rooms at Abu Ghraib, some were merely stranded deep in the desert without water.

The 148 victims listed in the current proceedings represent the best documented cases. Those men were certainly killed, and we can trace their identities and their deaths, by name. Iraqis have not always kept the best records. In some cases entire families were wiped out and dispersed, leaving many victims unnamed and uncounted on paper.

In addition to the slaughter, of several hundred men, Hussein used other tools of revenge. Date palm groves were razed. Not one still stands within five miles of town. The stadium was demolished, its land taken by the military for air defense artillery emplacements. Like Adam and Eve these Shiites were out of the Garden and into the desert.

Saddam removed the city from official maps. He then renamed the city “al Halas: The Horseman” a title borrowed from Saladin, the Iraqi Kurd who chased Richard the Lion Hearted's crusaders from the holy land in the 12th century. Al Halas along with Stalin was among Saddam’s role models.

A redistribution of the remaining farmland took place. Local Sunni leaders from the Raweed clan, used their Baath party positions to seize fields from Shiite farmers and distribute it to their own relatives.

The Raweeds were Saddam's appointed agents here. I was they who identified Dawa members, and their families. They who benefitted from Hussein's largesse. Even when the sanctions were in place Abdullah, the lan elder was recieving new luxury cars as gifts from Saddam. It was they who held the city in terror, for a year after Saddam's fall.

The campaign of terror continued for decades, with the Raweeds in charge . One witness who recounted the day of the ambush, and the ensuing murder of his son described other crimes. In 1991 nearly a decade after the failed ambush, he was called to his sister’s house. He found police and a judge outside. Inside was incredible carnage. All the household women from adolescent girls to grandmothers had been raped and beheaded. It is rumored that secret police videotaped these crimes to use as a chilling piece of propaganda.

Today, Saddam, the ultimate sponsor of these atrocities, is finally being called to answer for at least 148 murders at a criminal trial. Last June American soldiers knocked down the gate to the Raweed family compound. Abdullah Raweed fired on them. He survived the return fire, and was arrested. His arrest started the ball rolling and witnessses soon lined up to tell their stories.

Dujayli citizens now live less fearful lives, though the threat of violence remains. Late last year, insurgents launched a car bomb at their city council building. It was defeated by the courage of Iraqi National Guard soldiers who live and work in the city. A city now rebuilding itself. The dust remains, but hope has grown. And the possibility of justice for what they suffered fuels that hope.

Throughout Iraq, from the Shiite south, to the Kurdish north, hundreds of other villages and cities were victims of this kind of fear and terror.Many of them far worse. Some places larger numbers were slaughtered, the Kurds faced gas attacks. Those crimes too remain to be tried. I saw thousands of faces still haunted by fear all over Iraq, some had hope now too. Elections, a constitution, and now justice for a mass murderer.

In 2003 we put an end to his reign of terror. Incredibly there are people who still can’t find a just rationale for the war. Maybe they don’t understand the significance of Saturday’s referendum. The importance of the democratic trend. These folks should watch this trial closely.

Thanks as always to Mudville!

My new favorite blog: Obligatory Anecdotes

A Domestic Battle For Hearts And Minds

2005-10-13T16:22:00.000-04:00

As regular visitors to the blogosphere should already know, Bucknell University has added its name to the list of academic institutions that have brought political correctness to the level of the absurd. In this case it borders on outright anti-Americanism. On August 29 of this year the Bucknell Conservative Club sent out a university wide e-mail announcing their sponsorship of guest speaker Major John Krenson. They wrote: “Where were you during the months following 9/11? Maj John Krenson was hunting terroroists.”

According to Evan Coyne Maloney at Brain Terminal, who first reported the story, this prompted an immediate response by the University

“Those two words—‘hunting terrorists’--resulted in three students being called to Bucknell's Office of the President by Kathy Owens, the Executive Assistant to the President.
According to the students, when they arrived at the President's Office for the meeting, Ms. Owens held up a print-out of the offending e-mail and said "we have a problem here," telling the students that the words "hunting terrorists" were offensive. For the next half-hour, the three students were given a lecture on inappropriate phrasing.”

This begs the question, who would be offended by the phrase? Terrorists? There is a book by former FBI agent Joe Navarro using the phrase as its title. As a US Army infantryman I’ve used the phrase again and again to describe missions I conducted in Iraq, as well as missions my fellow soldiers undertook in Afghanistan. In fact it is an apt description of a major focus of the combined US security apparatus. We are in fact, actively hunting terrorists. A few bleeding hearts have objected to applying the word 'hunt' to human prey, but we routinely refer to dectectives "hunting for a killer" during murder cases. In this case it is more apt, as our forces are authorised to KILL the enemy. Are we really that concerned about offending the terrorists. Or is that liberal academic types still can't bring themselves to appreciate the need for the US government to take violent action? KILL and HUNT are such nasty words.

These students were counseled by their university, for inappropriate and offensive language. Yet the university system has not found it necessary to censor or even censure speech that is truly offensive. Even when it condones violent action taken against the US. University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill has not been counseled by that institution for his use of the phrase “little Eichmanns” to describe the victims of 9/11. That phrase is truly offensive, to Americans, to New Yorkers, to anyone who lost friends or family that day, but the University allows his free speech without comment.

Nor has Columbia University yet offered any words of rebuke for their Professor Nicholas de Genova, who in 2003 called for a “thousand Mogadishu’s” in Iraq. That phrase was and remains patently offensive to US soldiers and veterans everywhere. But I guess at Columbia it’s appropriate to call for the death of US soldiers. Apparently it’s inappropriate at Bucknell to call for a similar end to America’s terrorist enemies.

The fact that there is a liberal bias at American universities is nothing new. Americans for years have understood that the realm of academia is predominantly on the left half of American society. A 2003 study by the National Association of Scholars exposed just how lopsided the political leanings of America’s professorial ranks really are. A minimum of a 7-1 ratio of liberal leaning professors, measured by voting preferences not part affiliation was demonstrated.

More and more the concept a liberal education in America is being replaced by an education by Liberals. These liberals hide behind the ideas of free speech and academic integrity to protect the non-sense spouted by the likes of de Genova and Churchill. To be fair these moonbats ARE entitled to their nutty anti-American opinions. But Academia's silent sanction of this hate speech is in stark contrast to the enforcement of the PC code of student speech.

An email from self identified conservatives is subject to review for the phrase, "hunting terrorists. Where is the outcry from the rest of academia? Why don't these students have the right to a free and open exchange of their ideas? Basically because our university system has been hijacked. The liberals of the Ivory Tower spout whatever platitude is convenient at the moment. Free speech for themselves, but not for anyone who offends them.

This is clearly an anti-democratic stance. While academics pay lip service to free speech, and academic integrity, they clearly mean to control speech in their world. While it has always been mildly alarming that the entire realm of higher learning is so heavily weighted towards the left, the situation has become downright scary today. Who wants to send their children to a school system that favors the speech of a Ward Churchill over a Major Krenson?

America is engaged in a global struggle. Our enemies are very real and very dangerous. Yet our universities would censure those who speak up for our country, and reward those who encourage our foes. That universities are liberal strongholds is a tolerable imbalance. That they are becoming anti-American strongholds is not. This is in fact a flanking attack at our will to win. As Americans we need to keep watch, to ensure that higher education does not become a means for the propaganda machine of our foe.

Continued Thanks to the folks at Mudville Gazette.

An Appeal to History!!

2005-10-06T11:00:00.000-04:00

Mostly missing from the debate on the war is an informed sense of historical or political theory, a real sense of history. The language of such discourse has truly declined in America,part of a broader educational trend. This is not really news. It has however effected the way we discuss this war. While more and more Americans receive college degrees, their educational value has changed. Once upon a time in America a bachelors degree indicated a breadth of knowledge, and an analytical mindset. Today college education generally indicates a more specialized and technical knowledge. This is not necessarily all bad, but it does have some unfortunate consequences.

What brings this to mind is a running debate I’ve had, via comments on the blog on a liberal military focused website. The individual with whom I’ve been corresponding styles himself “Santayana” as in the historian. George Santayana most famous for predicting those who fail to understand history are condemned to repeat it. This Santayana has seemingly read a fair bit of history, and feels the US is now in the process of repeating past mistakes.

As another adage goes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. My sense is that this Santayana is an autodidact, self taught, and has read whatever history he finds interesting. He has been particularly focused on the US actions in Iran in the 1950s supporting the Pahlevi dynasty over a tenuous democracy. He uses this as a launching point for a condemnation of US foreign policy since then as morally bankrupt, irresponsible and self destructive. He plants the seeds of our current problems in Iraq and the Gulf on the events of the fifties.

While this is in some ways a cogent and accurate analysis, it is ultimately a facile one. Our Santayana willfully ignores the role that balance of power politics, great power politics play, in the decision making of national leaders, including ours. While an American president, in any era may have a range of options, these options are constrained. Other powers will react to any move with their own countermoves.
Lots and lots of Americans, like Santayana, have read historical narratives. This is not the same as reading history.

The real Santayana would never have simply looked at a single narrative thread of events and analyzed them without context. Critical thinking about History has devolved to criticizing Western Civilization. History has now become the story of dead white male oppressors, devoid of context that would enhance understanding. It seems to be a blind spot in the philosophy of the cultural relativist reformers who can rationalize the behavior of everyone but our the West's leaders. These "reformers" have slowly eroded the relevance and meaning of the study of history in America.

This goes hand in hand with a decline in the teaching of civics. It is no longer fashionable, in most school districts, to even imply that citizens have some civic duty to anyone but themselves. And so our political vocabulary has been eroded, and our discourse has become far less articulate.

Political Science is an application of History. For political scientist history is the natural laboratory. We are limited to such a lab, because for the most part we cannot conduct experiments. So political scientists, particularly in the field of International Relations (IR) study history, the source of our knowledge of how states act.

Central to most theories of IR is this idea of Balance of Power. It has many variances and can be an active measure by states, or a natural tendency like water seeking low ground. Either way it indicates a sought after state of equilibrium between nations. Nations and leaders are constrained to balance the power of others.
This occurs on a global level, as in the cold war between the US and the USSR, and on a regional level as in the Persian Gulf where states have sought to stabilize the region, including great powers from the outside.

A true understanding of this theory explains why the US, HAD to become a super power. It explains why the US has to take an interest in the Gulf. Not that we necessarily had back the Shah, or that we had to go to war with Iraq, but reality constrains our options to act or not. Our leaders are not free to ignore the world. The consequences of not taking a particular action are often more immediate then the unseen ones later.

So yes in the 1950s we backed the Shah, against Soviet entrée into the Gulf. The immediate consequences of which were foreseeable. They surely would have been worse than the fall of the Shah in ’79 and the continuing crises since. We supplied Muhajadeen with weapons, money and organizational advice in the ‘80s. The Russians were a nuclear power, threatening the balance of power in the Gulf. We were constrained to act. Not backing the groups that would become the Taliban was not an option.

Machiavelli paraphrased, says the enemy of my enemy is my friend. This truism holds no matter how bad your new friend may be. But the world is not static, it is fluid, much to the chagrin of the uneducated. Hence the Soviet threat disintegrated and the Taliban and America’s natural antagonism was revealed. Yet liberals today love to harp on how we armed Bin Laden, without considering the circumstances. This kind of shoddy thinking goes un-critiqued by the MSM, most of whom are lacking any historical or political depth. By these arguments We should never have allied with the Soviets against the Nazis, since they to became our enemy.

Interestingly my friend Santayana, has never read Machiavelli. That perhaps is what bothers me the most. Here is a man claiming the inheritance of a title, claiming to speak to, for and of the Historical context of America’s policies. But this fellow has never taken a day to read The Prince. A book that with discourses and notes is less than one hundred and fifty pages.

The young man is symptomatic of America's intellect today. Many of us pick and choose what we read, and then claim subject matter expertise. Like Tom Cruise going on about psychiatry, we have surveyed only those works that buttress our prejudices, and then we claim expert knowledge. We go to University, seeking specialized technical knowledge, to enhance our earning power and leave with a narrow band of knowledge and deem ourselves educated. A view, mostly encouraged by the system.

This is no new lament. Harold Bloom and his ilk have been on this for years. But it has reduced the articulateness of our political conversations. Now more than ever we need a sense of history. Not a simple historical narrative that underlines our own ideology, but a broad and analytical reading that highlights the complexities of the world. A reading that provides a context for the actions of the past and guidance for the present.

Army hit by MSM attacks!

2005-10-04T15:04:00.000-04:00

It appears that the MSM and allied liberal organizations are launching a full on campaign against the Army now. There’s the continued inaccurate and misrepresented story of recruiting shortfalls, which can’t seem to explain that the Army was only short of about 1000 recruits this year. We fell seven thousand short of a goal that was higher by 8,000 than last year. Re-enlistment more than made up the difference to keep the Army numbers the same. We are only short of our goal to grow the Army.

Worse yet is the campaign by the GI Right’s Hotline. This group, like a military oriented ACLU from hell, provides information about how to back out of your military commitment, at any stage. But now they have taken to advocating AWOLs. A USA Today story describes how the Army has mostly not chosen to prosecute IRR soldiers who have ignored last year’s activation orders. The folks at GIRH have taken to counseling IRR soldiers that it’s okay to be AWOL to the point of desertion, SINCE THE Army is not pursuing cases. This is akin to the ACLU encouraging violent hate speech because no one is prosecuting it.

The Army is not charging these people for a variety of reasons. I saw the list of billets that the IRR call up was meant to fill, and I remember seeing they needed one Army band soldier. Many of the billets should have been filled from other resources. And the Army is looking to avoid the negative publicity that the MSM will bring to bear if it chases down a few civilian soldiers for this crime. But a crime it is. And the crime of being AWOL, now a year later can be charged to these soldiers as desertion. No statute of limitations here. This “rights” group is encouraging these soldiers to break the law in a way that can land them long stretches in military or federal prisons, if the Army suddenly finds its interest served by a prosecution. Not very good legal advice.

The subject of Army prosecution, is at the heart of this week’s most egregiously anti-Army stories. On Sunday Dayton Daily News ran a group of Articles about military prosecutions in Iraq. Three reporters, not soldiers, not lawyers and not statisticians or social scientists, reported on what they see as inequities in the military system. The articles explore the facts that the military has pursued cases of misconduct against Soldiers more often when other soldiers are victimized, than when Iraqis were. Well duh!

We are at war in Iraq. And while most Iraqis are not insurgents most insurgents are Iraqis. An army at war does not investigate every act of violence that its soldiers commit, that would be institutional suicide. The articles make some strong statistical claims:

“A Daily News analysis of records from the Army Court-Martial Management Information System database found that 226 soldiers were charged with offenses between the first deployments and Jan. 1, 2005. Of the 1,038 separate charges, fewer than one in 10 involved crimes against Iraqis. Virtually all of the rest, more than 900 charges, involved crimes against other soldiers, property, drug or alcohol offenses and violations of military rules.
Charges involving Iraqi victims were three times more likely to be dismissed or withdrawn by the Army than cases in which the victims were soldiers or civilian military employees, the examination found.”

“The Dayton Daily News found many examples in which soldiers were punished more severely for property crimes than for violent crimes that involved foreign victims.”

One Article goes on to label this a pattern. These are reporters doing the analysis. What was there methodology? What are the margins of error? And most importantly do they understand conditions on the ground? Soldiers in a war zone NEED to able to apply violence! They need to be able to apply it in an instant. Without hesitation! Any thing less and people can die. This of course opens the door for abuses, but that is what the chain of command is there for.
What these Reporters can’t know is that allegations of crime follow soldiers wherever they go. On my fifth night in Iraq, I found myself on my first raid. As we approached a village identified by an intelligence source as a meeting place and rocket launching site, we came under fire from three sides. A few 40mm HE grenades chased off the shooters. And then we proceeded to take down the hamlet of seven buildings. The only occupied building had two women and a dozen or so kids. But all were thoroughly searched.

When we returned in daylight, we were told that we had been mistaken for cattle thieves, and we were accused of stealing a large quantity of gold. Should the Army have investigated these claims? They didn’t! And interestingly similar claims followed us around our area for our tour. We were always “mistaken for thieves” when we took fire. We always stole something when we left.
Counter-insurgency warfare is one of the most difficult missions the military has. The balance between aggressiveness and compassion must be found. Yes there probably are some abuses. But there are no blanket panaceas, and many of the allegations of abuse are hollow and pro forma.

I am proud of the soldiers I served with. I can’t imagine anyone in my company stealing from civilians. We used violence on people sure. That was the job. And at times soldiers were tempted to cross the line on violence, but my chain of command was always there supervising. And soldiers did monitor themselves.

I remember one pesky teenager last November. He wouldn’t move on when instructed. After repeated and increasingly angry “IMSHEE!”s, I finally gave him a shove. In my annoyance momentarily forgetting I outweighed him by 100 lbs. and was several times stronger I launched him a dozen feet or more. He was angry and his pride was hurt, I was sheepish about it. I had violated no policy, no order. I had used appropriate force, but in stretching it to the limit I had embarrassed myself. But I knew to tone it down henceforth. That happens a lot to soldiers. We police ourselves.

Worth a good look: No oil for Pacifists

Today's Post

2005-10-03T05:21:00.000-04:00

No Post today except the NY Post!!!!!

Truth About Body Armor !

2005-09-30T00:14:00.000-04:00

There’s more controversy brewing over the body armor issue. Stirring the pot as usual is Operation Truth’s Paul Reikhoff. Paul has some great qualities and no one can mistake his sincerity on this issue. He deeply cares about soldiers lives. He sure served his time in Iraq, I’ll give him that. And we all want to see our troops equipped with the best possible body armor and other protective equipment available. I know if I ever return to Iraq, I want the best possible equipment, again. Including the latest body armor. I wore an issued Interceptor with SAPI plate throughout my 2004 tour. Today the DOD is rapidly replacing the plates with a thinner lighter version, they too want to save as many soldiers as possible.

To listen to Reikhoff, you would think that somewhere deep in the Pentagon’s bowels, Rumsfeld’s gnome-accountants have factored everything and decided that a few more funerals are cheaper than some new body armor. But Paul’s still angry that he and his men rode to Baghdad with older generation flak jackets. And yeah, that has probably cost somebody their life. And yeah that plain sucks! No way around that. But it’s not like the DOD is trying to screw soldiers out of gear. Overall we field the best trained and best equipped force on the planet. American technology is a force multiplier. There is no dark conspiracy to keep gear away from soldiers.

Sometimes bureaucracy and accounting do get in the way. Maybe I’m used to it because of where I’ve done my time. I spent four years of active duty in the Marines. The Shoestring Service. Back in the 90s we lived on Army and Navy hand me downs. We got issued new technologies only after the Army was fully upgraded not before. Lately it seems things have gotten better for the Corps. But my time in the National Guard seemed much the same, always last to get the gear. It’s a fact of life. Someone has to get gear last. As an enhanced brigade we did better than other Guard units, but not as good as the active Army. Right up until we were going to Iraq anyway.

The four plus months of pre-deployment were like Army Christmas. We upgraded from M16 rifles to M4 carbines. We got the new Interceptor vests. We went through a rapid fielding iniative RFI issue, where we got off the shelf technologies, including a new helmet and microfiber underwear. The bonanaza continued in Iraq where we upgrade our paq-4 laser sights to paq-2s, and where we constantly received armor improvements for our vehicles. We went from about 40 percent up-armored humvees, to about 90 percent.

Sure there are problems, but from what I could see the system was working hard to upgrade our equipment. Should we have waited until every soldier had an Interceptor with SAPI plates before invading? Should we have waited until every vehicle in the Army is up-Armored. According to Paul Reikhoff we should have. I really would have like to have gone to combat with a hand held death ray. Should we hold off on the next war until we have phasers? Rumsfeld received scorn for his statement: “You go to war with Army you have, not the Army you want.” But the scorn was undeserved. That’s how it works. And credit where credit is due, it’s Don Rumsfeld who has pursued the transformation of the military to maintain technological superiority, to include personal defense. Just remember Paul, those Vietnam era vests, were all they had in Vietnam. And that enemy was far tougher.

What brings this all up is the debate between congress and the DOD over implementing a plan to reimburse soldiers and Marines who bought there own armor “and equipment.” On September 29, The AP ran a story. It seems that a year after Reikhoff talked Senator Dodd of Connecticut into sponsoring a bill ordering reimbursement, the Pentagon has failed to go forward, Dodd and Reikhoffare furious.
Is DOD shirking the law? Maybe but I doubt it. The bill noble sounding as it may be in the ideal, was a bad idea. And implementing it has been tough. Rumsfeld and Defense, are trying to find a way for unit commanders to decide who gets reimbursed and who doesn’t. That’s a sound idea, making the best out of a bad situation. The idea that I can just order protective gear and send it a bill to the Pentagon is truly problematic. Sure some soldiers or their families ordered Interceptors with plates. But one Marine’s father, quoted in the article, wants $1000 for body armor he bought for his son’s legs. Now as an Infantryman I moved around a lot, mounted and dismounted. The gear we had was pretty cumbersome, I’m not sure Kevlar coated legs would have been anything but burdensome.

Thus the congress has dropped a hot ball of crap in Rumsfeld’s lap. And he has to find a way to deal with it. Who should be allowed to buy gear? For how much money. What’s reasonable? And for whom? A Turret gunner may need more or different armor then a dismount, but gunners can become dismounts if their vehicle goes down. War is fluid, What if I want a riot face shield? What if the cook who never leaves his safe comfy base decides he needs a bomb suit to get by? And what if I fake the receipt, send it back, or sell it to the new guy replacing me at a 50% discount but get a 100% reimbursement. These are the reasons that Defense fought the bill. And they are the reasons that unit commanders must be the ones to decide what’s reimbursed. Only they are in a position to know what is reasonable for a soldier to consider a deficiency worth paying out of pocket for. If we’re going to do this it’s worth doing right. And if they’re getting reimbursed a little more time won’t hurt. Hooah!!!

Side Note: If you read yesterday's post and are intersted in fighting the ACLU, click here!

ACLU Assails Army

2005-09-29T02:50:00.000-04:00

The NYCLU is continuing its campaign against military recruiting. But it’s hard to figure out what they’re objecting to. Last week they announced a campaign to “monitor” recruiters in New York City public schools. On Wednesday night’s O’Reilly Factor, mouthpiece Michael Gross continued to assert that recruiter needs to be scrutinized for potential abuses. He and the NYCLU specifically deny that this is in any way an anti-war effort. But that is hard to sustain in view of the facts.

Even Nat Hentoff former ACLU board member and a Village Voice columnist, could not rationalize the groups stance. "This is a political, not a civil liberties, issue for them," he said. "Unless they can show any kind of constitutional danger, what I see is a free exchange of speech.” Hentoff is not exactly a military supporter, but realizes that interference with the military’s mission and with student’s rights to hear their pitches amounts to a real free speech violation.

The Civil Liberties Union has made political hay out of the “Opt Out” clause in the No Child Left Behind Act. The act ensures that schools receiving federal aid, virtually every public school in the nation, provide student contact information to recruiters. The Opt Out clause ensures that students and their parents can notify their school that they wish to “opt out” of this information sharing. This sounds like an amazingly well crafted piece of legislation for Washington. It provides a balance between the needs and prerogatives of the Federal government and the rights of individuals.

That’s not enough for our liberal watchdogs. According to their webpage on this subject: “Unfortunately, little noticed provisions of No Child Left Behind have given the military unprecedented access to students in school and an aggressive military has turned some of our schools into a recruiting ground.” Schools have always been a recruiting ground. High Schools, Colleges, Trade Schools, that’s where young people plan their futures, and where prospective employers and educators pitch to them.

Somehow the ACLU/NYCLU fears that it is all being abused. Guard against abuses, monitor abuses. What abuses?

The New York City Department of Education cannot document any abuses. Margie Feinberg, of the department’s public affairs office said the department has "not heard of any specific instances" of complaints from students. Individual schools would handle complaints about recruiters.” None of these has been turned up.
Interviewed by the New York Sun, NYCLU spokeswomen Donna Lieberman provided much invective and few facts.

“Ms. Lieberman accused military recruiters of using strong-arm tactics in schools in what she called an attempt ‘to meet the demands for more soldiers to fight an increasingly unpopular war. Students shouldn't have to subject themselves to aggressive military recruitment efforts students face intimidation, harassment, and abuse’ Ms. Lieberman told Sun.”

Her words do not appear to support the group’s assertion that this is not about the war. When she was asked to name a case of recruiting abuse, all Ms. Lieberman came up with was one case upstate. A student there claimed to have been threatened with criminal charges after taking a batch of brochures from a military recruiter's table. That hardly sounds like recruiter abuse. An overreaction perhaps, but one by a law abiding and very overworked sergeant, harassed by a disrespectful adolescent.

So Where’s the Beef? Recruiters will always be in our schools. We will always need soldiers. Sure a few recruiters may cross the line. But the military has a criminal justice system that parallels the civilian one to deal with abuses. One that is substantially more effective at rooting out and dealing with offenders than its civilian equivalent. Could this be in part because its boundaries have not been stretched by the likes of the ACLU?

Help Fight the ACLU Here.

So Called Freedom Center Quashed

2005-09-28T20:03:00.000-04:00

Kudos to New York's Govenor Pataki, for finally seeing the light. Today he finally put the kabosh on the International Freedom Center at ground zero. Saying that there was "too much opposition, too much controversy!" Pataki used his authority as executive of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation to put this bad idea to bed.

"We must move forward with our first priority, the creation of an inspiring memorial to pay tribute to our lost loved ones and tell their stories to the world," Pataki said in a statement.

This was overdue. The so called Freedom Center was opposed by families of victims, the Patrolman's Benevolence Association, the Unifromed Firefighters Association, and thousands of decent people in New York and throughout the nation. But Overdue or not it is a welcome step.

Race Baiting the President

2005-09-28T01:27:00.000-04:00

They’re at it again. Playing the race card where no racism was even remotely to be found. Liberals are using prominent black voices to whip anti-Bush frenzy over the race issue. It’s unfair, silly and downright irresponsible, not to mention just plain dishonest. It’s not just Rangel’s calling Bush a modern Bull Connor. It’s not just Farrakhan’s nutty ideas that Bush had Navy Seals blow up the levees. The stigma of racism is again being picked up by every liberal who wishes Bush wasn’t president. Chris Matthews has taken to making offhand remarks on Hardball, about how the administration has shown its racism in the disaster response.

These charges range from the silly to the slimy. Farrakhan has long existed on the fringes of fringe. Nobody takes his assertion seriously, it only made the news because it was good for a laugh. But the charges by Rangel, and other “mainstream” black leaders have had more resonance. With liberals willing to believe the worst about president Bush at every turn such rhetoric resonates with media and “mainstream” liberals like Matthews. Now half the nation believes the president is a racist. In politics charges need not be true, to stick.

Fortunately in time the facts usually win out. President Bush is no racist. Aside from the fact that the first two black Secretaries of State have been Powell and Rice, there is ample evidence. Even regarding the hurricane itself, Bush is not factually vulnerable.

Bush called the governor on Sunday before the storm hit, urging evacuation. While it was certainly easier for the middle class to evacuate than for urban blacks, this is not evidence of presidential racism. The president didn’t strand all those buses. While elements of the federal response were slow and uncoordinated, military ships and helicopters were conducting rescue missions as soon as flooding began.

Bush has since promised 200 Billion dollars for reconstruction in New Orleans. Much of this largesse is slated to reconstruct black urban neighborhoods. Not exactly a racist effort. Reconstruction will require the hiring of thousands of workers, offering employment to the local working class. In fact, President Bushes spending habits, are so far from racist that they are profligate enough to be under attack from the right.

Under President Bush anti-poverty programs have increased there spending by 42%. One of the largest increases in history. And Bush has been brave enough to call for an end to corporate welfare for rich whites. He has fought to decrease spending on farm subsidies, and technology subsidies for corporations. He spends more on poverty then any President in history. Is that racist? Figures are available at The Heritage Foundation.

Bushes spending policies on poverty, the war, and now disaster relief are leading him into hot water with fiscal pragmatists and conservatives. His promise to halve the deficit by 2008, is now up in the smoke of war and natural disaster. Like many on the right I think that the president needs to take a good hard look at the budget, and then make some hard choices. But one area he is not vulnerable, at least not in fact, is on racism.

So why are the liberals engaged in this race baiting? Well the president’s approval rating is significantly low. So dishonorable attacks are more likely to find open ears. But I think there may be a concerted effort here. Men like Sharpton and Jackson are experts at extortion, political and economic. It seems that this is an effort to extort a minority candidate, or at least an acceptable one, to replace Justice O’Connor. Having watched the President’s last pick breeze through his inquisition to imminent approval, the left is frustrated. They are distraught that a President with an approval rating hovering at 40 percent may be shrewd enough to secure a conservative court for the next few decades. So they are desperate to further weaken him. In the end their lack of honor only weakens themselves.

Betsy Newmark has been following the Democrats' efforts to secure a Dem-friendly candidate.

Justice for Saddam.

2005-09-26T16:54:00.000-04:00

The New York Times today featured two Op-Ed pieces, written by law professors, on the upcoming trial of Saddam Hussein for the 1982 Dujail murders. The Times claims that its Op-Ed page is designed to allow for the publication of views that differ substantially from the papers own editorial position. Why then put two pieces together that are essentially critical of the upcoming trial?

Eric Posner a professor of Law at the University of Chicago proposes to instruct the Iraqi Tribunal on how to mete out justice. He does so based on his perceptions of International Law, and in the name of political stability in Iraq. He argues a case that the court should frame Hussein’s conviction in very narrow terms, that would be inapplicable to lower level participants. This is a privileged American Law Professor, who has never spent a day in the town of Ad Dujail, or anywhere in Iraq to my knowledge, calling on the Iraqi justice system to go easy on conspirators in a mass murder. Because he thinks it’s what’s best for them.

As I wrote directly to Mr. Posner, it is unfortunate that many of the co-conspirators have escaped justice on this matter, and will never be charged in spite of considerable evidence against them. The so called low level Baathists who are vulnerable to prosecution have mostly decided to forcibly oppose the new Iraqi government. Like liberal theorists from other disciplines, Posner proposes rewarding the murderous behavior of Saddamists and the insurgents, on the hopes that they will accede to the new administration. This is a man who calls himself a lawyer.

The reason that Saddam Hussein is being tried for this particular case, is that the soldiers who were responsible for Ad Dujail in 2004, were horrified by accounts of the mass murder that they collected witness statements in the hopes of bringing justice to these citizens. At the time some of the perpetrators walked free in the city, still intimidating the local Shiite majority. Today because of thinking like Posner’s many of are free again.

If Iraq chooses to heed the advice of Mr. Posner’s ilk they should at least look to the model of South Africa. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission there allowed for amnesty for crimes in the name of the state. But the forgiveness required a full and public accounting and an admission of guilt and regret. This process allowed for participation and rebuilding and for public accountability. So far most of Iraq’s oppressive clique has denied guilt and continued to resist a democratic future. Mr. Posner would reward their obstructionism.

Gary J. Bass, law professor at Princeton argues against sentencing Saddam to death for these murders. He acknowledges all the reasons that this is desirable up front, protecting the lives of the Iraqi court officers, and minimizing the spectacle. But he argues that without a series of trials that fully accounts for all Saddam’s crimes justice cannot be served.

This is not the case. If Saddam Hussein is sentenced to death on the 150 counts of murder stemming from the Dujail incident, justice will certainly be served. Should the Iraqi court choose to execute that sentence without pursuing other counts that will be their sovereign decision. And no one in America or in Iraq will be under the impression that Hussein is being put to death for those crimes alone. Iraqis like Americans understand the concept of a symbol. In a very real way the Dujail murders serve as a symbol for all Hussein’s crimes against humanity.

As for a full accounting, if Hussein is tried and executed for the Dujail murders it may enable the courts to pursue his co-conspirators on the hundreds of other counts. With Saddam truly gone, resistance to the Iraqi government may diminish. Sunnis and Shiites alike will see that the current regime is empowered as the legitimate embodiment of coercive force.

Finally both Lawyers seem to either mistake or intentionally conflate the concepts of sovereign and international law. Make no mistake. This case is about Iraqi law and Iraqi justice. Saddam’s crimes may be genocidal. They can be classified as crimes against humanity. But he is being tried for 150 counts of statutory murder in a domestic Iraqi court. This is not about International law. This is about Iraqi law and Justice for Saddam’s victims.

911 Call Freedom's in Dange

2005-09-22T14:04:00.000-04:00

If you live in or around New York City. Or if you ever have, you know how amazing it is for cops and fire fighters, especially their unions to agree on anything. But the Uniformed Firefighters Association and the Patrolmean's Benevolent Association have finaly found common ground. Once again at ground zero.

Tomorrow is the deadline for the decision on the so called Interantional Freedom Center . This is the abherration of a museum that the moonbat NYC Lower Manhattan Cultural Council(LMCC) wants to foist on New York and on the nation, as part of a redesigned World Trade Center. It is unac ceptable to the city, the state and the nation.

As reported here and elsewhere the LMCC is likely to turn the exhibit into a Political statement that bashes the government, the military and America herself. The LMCC display, now at Cooper Union in Manhattan bashes the administration repeatedly. It mocks the military, and American values by insulting and purporting to speak in the name of Pat Tillman the US Army Ranger killed in Afghanistan.

While three of New York's congressional delegation are on board, threatening to withold funds and investigate if necessary, it should not come to that. Conatct NYC's Mayor and New York State's Governor and let them know this memorial should not be tainted by those who would use the word freeedom to mock America's values.

Mayor Bloomberg can be reached at: 212 New York(639-9675) (or 311 for residents)

Governor Pataki at : 518-474-8390
See todays New York Post for more details.

Catch and Release Guantanamo Style

2005-09-22T11:30:00.000-04:00

This should provide some food for thought for anyone wavering on the issue of the prison at Guantanamo. The facility was created to hold personnel captured fighting US forces, or committing acts of terror. Personnel who were not uniformed soldiers. The administration claims that it has the right to hold these combatants, in order to protect American lives.

Apparently the real problem with the process was not prisoner’s rights, but early releases. As in Iraq, some detainees have been unconditionally released. Declared to be “no longer a threat.” And as in Iraq some of these men immediately picked up where they left off.

According to a Sept. 22, London Daily Telegraph Report:

“More than a dozen prisoners released from Guantanamo Bay have returned to the ‘battlefield’ to fight Americans. The terrorists, freed in the belief that "they posed a very low threat", have either been killed, captured or wounded in attacks on coalition forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Others are thought to be still organizing attacks with the Taliban or al Qa'eda.”

This dozen only represents those who have been found out. How many more constitute those others. So far 170 prisoners have been unconditionally released. So far a dozen plus have been killed captured or wounded. The purpose of the prison was to protect Americans, not to mention Afghanis building a democracy.

It is unlikely that this evidence will convince the left that this prison is a necessary evil of modern life. But there is hope that it will convince anyone who merely harbored doubts. It is unfortunate, that America, the symbol of democracy worldwide, must maintain such a prison. But we must remember why.

We didn’t ask to be attacked on September 11, 2001. We didn’t ask the Taliban to harbor al-Quaeda. We didn’t tell them to wage a war of terror. We didn’t force them to fight as non-state guerillas. And we certainly didn’t tell the prisoners we released to pick up arms again.

Americans, who are liberal on the law, have problems with the detentions. Even some moderates, including military officers have expressed doubts. The idea of due process is deeply ingrained in the fabric of our society. But we must remember what we are up against.

Despite the new designation of enemy combatants, these prisoners are more akin to prisoners of war than to criminals. The designation, which stripped them of certain POW rights, was assigned because they are not uniformed agents of a state. They are terrorists and guerrillas. They were captured in the act of waging war on America or her allies. Captured almost exclusively by military agencies. Overwhelmingly they are not American citizens, and were not captured on American soil. They were not arrested by law enforcement authorities.

As initially conceived and enacted the prison at Guantanamo had problems. Some of these problems have slowly been corrected. Conditions have improved at Guantanamo. The release of 170 prisoners shows that the military and administration are serious about trying to sort threats from the harmless

Other problems are more intractable. When we hear anecdotal evidence of abuses at Guantanamo, we should remember that such anecdotes come from every prison and jail in existence. Prisoner abuse is an act that occurs for complex social and psychological reasons. It is not a symptom of conservative politics. Prisons in Chirac’s France and Schroeder’s Germany have been found to tolerate abuse as well.

We should also remember that among the few prisoners released were many who remained our enemy. In our attempt to appear fair and honest we put the lives of American soldiers, and Afghanis at risk. And if one or more of those released prisoners goes on to al-Quaeda level mass terrorism we will have risked even more.

Do our liberals have any good answer to the problem? For years we’ve allowed murderers back on the street in America. Respect for the constitution has forced us to tolerate that. But the constitution calls on the Government to provide for self defense. It does not require us to allow foreigners to walk free while planning our destruction.

Europe vs the US

2005-09-20T18:08:00.000-04:00

The concept of Balance of Power has been the basis for the modern the study of International Relations (IR). Though liberal internationalist claim it is obsolete. In its most basic form it says that in the international sphere, lesser powers will band together in the face of a greater power. The concept even informs the current National Security Strategy of the US, which calls for a “balance of power” favorable to democracy. Recently pundits like Thomas Barnett and Thomas Friedman have posited that globalization has nullified the need for this strategy. Today however, it looks like our own allies are balancing against us. The recent refusal by NATO to expand the mission in Afghanistan is the latest sign. NATO insists that an expansion into anti-terrorism would put their peacekeeping forces at risk. It would also free American military forces now conveniently tied down. From resistance to the war in Iraq, to a contrarian stance on Iranian nuclear issues, our European Allies have been steadily showing the signs of “balancing” against US policy.

Balance of Power theories generally fall into the realist school of IR. In recent years a neorealist view has gained currency. This version of the theory emphasizes balancing against threats and minimizes balancing against power alone. Historically, states will balance against threats first. So western Europe, during the Cold War, balanced against the nearer and more aggressive Soviet Union, by siding with the more powerful, but friendlier and more distant US.

In the absence of a direct threat to security nation states seek to increase their own power and influence, and to minimize the influence of any dominant or potentially dominant power, known as a hegemon.

Since 1991 we have lived in an era of American hegemony. Whether or not we directly threaten a nation state or not, the inclination of lesser powers has been to commence balancing against American power, to preserve their own freedom of maneuver. These lesser or regional powers include the obvious candidates, China, Iran, North Korea and even Russia. But the list also includes our allies. The European Union, under the leadership of France and Germany seeks to lessen American influence.

The “Atlantic Union” consists entirely of democracies. Even in a post Soviet era we share mainly overlapping security interests. So why should our allies be balancing against us? Answers from abroad generally include phrases like, “American arrogance,” or “unilateral policy” or “irresponsible.” The bottom line is that nation states like humans resist limitations on their freedoms. States naturally seek to reduce the power of any state that can dominate international politics. It’s never easy being number one, even one’s friends can become resentful and jealous.

This also explains why Britain and the recently freed nations of eastern Europe have chosen to stand with us. They feel more threatened by nearby German and French primacy in Europe, than by America’s global ascendancy. They are in fact counterbalancing the western European mainstream.

These minor acts of balancing may indicate a significant shift in global alignments. Western Europeans, who today spend far less on defense then America don’t see threats in the same terms we do. Europeans have indicated that they no longer feel indebted to American power for their security.

Globalization theorists like Friedman and Barnett have down played classic realism with its emphasis on balancing. They assert that economic linkages between nation, globalization, and trade have reduced the likelihood of war between developed nations, and their near peers and trading partners. There may be something to the idea that nations with serious economic interdependencies are not likely to go to war. China indeed may never want to fight a war with the US. But globalization theorists need to remember that the most recent global power struggle included serious balancing efforts, but no great power war.

For almost fifty years the US and the Soviet Union waged a serious competition for global supremacy, without fighting a war. Balancing, alliances, economic competition, espionage, and other tactics were the means of fighting the cold war. While one should not expect a cold war with Europe or even China, it is best to remember the limitations of globalization. It may even be that Europe and China may wish to preserve American hegemony in the globalizing world. But if they do, they will seek to constrain that hegemony, to rein our power as tightly as possible, while at the same time trying to shape it to their own ends.

So today, knowing how important the mission against al-Quaeda and Taliban holdouts in Afghanistan is, our allies refuse to actively participate. They would rather see a powerful America stretched a little thin. By doing so they constrain our efforts in Iraq. They gain a greater voice in negotiations with Iran. A game in which they are willing to allow the Iranians more points than is in our interest. So now the Iranians too are able to balance American power, and with the complicity of our own so called allies. Who said balance of power politics are dead?

Today's Read:

Conservative Grapevine

ACLU vs the Army

2005-09-16T15:19:00.000-04:00

Once again we have widespread evidence of abuse, of the truth, by those sorry misguided extremists at the ACLU. This time because they have no concept of what life is like in an infantry combat unit, whether in peacetime or in a war-zone. In the person of Executive Director Anthony Romero, they have seized on an internal Army document to further their agenda in the media.

The US Army has conducted a series of thorough investigations and reviews of alleged detainee abuse in Iraq. The ACLU sued the Army to gain the release of 1800 pages. The Army concluded that there is no systemic pattern of abuse. They did investigate 400 allegations, and pinpoint 200 cases where soldiers had been singled out for punishment by the Army for abuse. The ACLU of course is shrilly screaming about an Army wide failure.

It’s obvious to anyone with a pulse, that there have been incidents of abuse in detention settings in Iraq. Abu Ghraib is the case in point. But the Army has been extremely forthcoming about that case, as well as others. The keystone document in question here is one by the Army’s inspector general’s office. The Army’s point is that these numbers do not represent a systemic failure.

Thousands of Iraqis have been processed as detainees in Iraq, some for merely a few days, or even hours, as they are investigated, for insurgent ties. Some are held for longer periods of time, and some unfortunately go through the system repeatedly. The Army works so hard at providing a level of fairness that reflects American civil liberties that insurgents are often returned home within 30 days, to fight and kill again.

The ACLU however has chosen to focus on the few incidents when abuse occurs, rather than the vast multitude where it does not. This is not a problem peculiar to the Army. Prisoner abuse is an unfortunate side effect of any detention system. While liberal activists routinely try to portray this as result of conservatives in power, the problem is endemic to prisons.

This is not merely a US problem. Prisons in Europe suffer the same problems. Yes even France, Italy and Germany have seen substantiated cases of prison abuse. In the late 1990s the Beauvais prison was investigated and the director was was dismissed for an atmosphere that fostered abuse. An Italian magistrate issued 82 restraining orders against prison officials. Twenty one were taken into custody the rest placed under house arrest. German prisons have seen similar occurrences. This in the “Liberal” European countries, so often critical of America’s perceived failings.

The famous Stanford psychology experiments where students role playing as guards soon became abusive to the student “prisoners” demonstrates how human nature plays out in these circumstances. It is obvious that even professional prison guards and administrators have a hard time overcoming the temptation to enforce street justice.
American soldiers are not professional penologists. True, MPs are trained in correctional matters, but that is a small part of their overall training. And not all detention facilities in Iraq are maintained by MPs, some are small temporary jails, on infantry posts and other small bases. Even in larger facilities, like Abu Ghraib, and the prison at FOB Brassfield Mora near Samarra, MPs are supplemented by other soldiers.

All soldiers are briefed on the laws of war, and trained in basic detainee handling. Soldiers however are human beings. Some percentage will always forget or ignore their training. When deploying to a combat zone, soldiers tend to focus on training that will help keep them alive. But if soldiers were perfect, we would not need, small unit, administrative and judicial processes to correct them.

In understand the need for the ACLU. I virulently disagree with nearly everything they say, but I recognize the need for someone to challenge the limits of constitutional liberties. They are a necessary evil. Anthony Romero, should stick to defending American’s civil liberties. He and the rest of his crew have no idea what it takes to run an Army. They have no idea what it takes to survive a year in a combat zone. And they do America a great disservice by trying to tar the entire Army with the brush of a few soldiers that the Army has rooted out on its own.

Confirmation!!!!

2005-09-13T15:18:00.000-04:00

One thing I've noticed tuning into the Robert's hearing. Of all the people in the room who have thus far been allowed to speak, Judge Roberts is by far the smartest. He is far more articulate and concise in his use of language than any of his interviwers. Republicans and Democrats alike seem almost childlike in their grasp of legal history and analysis compared to Judge Roberts. Why aren't more smart people running the country?

Gun Control, a Compararive Policy Study!!!

2005-09-12T11:11:00.000-04:00

Here’s a story with a boatload of Irony. Betsy Newmark and Dave Kopel have publicized a post disaster initiative in New Orleans. The New Orleans Mayor through his police chief has authorized law enforcement and soldiers to go door to door to seize firearms. Not illegal weapons, the legally owned weapons of citizens. This despite the Louisiana constitution’s unequivocal and forthright version of the second amendment:

The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.

So where’s the Irony? Soldiers in New Orleans are doing something soldiers in Iraq cannot. That’s right Iraqis retain their right to keep and bear arms. Every household in Iraq is entitled to one firearm. This right is almost universally exercised. Almost every house holds an AK-47 assault rifle. It doesn’t matter how many males from that house may be in custody, their weapons are sacrosanct.

How did this insane policy come about? In the aftermath of Saddam’s fall, when looting was rampant, Iraqi advisers to the military convinced US generals to allow Iraq’s households to retain their weapons. To reduce looting. To reduce looting Mayor Nagin! In spite of having outlived it’s usefulness, this policy was never revoked. I can tell you stories about how problematic this is for our troops.

During the entire time I was in Iraq I found this ridiculous policy completely objectionable. But there was no way to communicate those objections. I bitched to my Commander, who agreed with me, but as the decision was miles over our head in the chain of command it didn’t matter. And after June 28, 2004 it was out of American hands altogether.

Every time we conducted a “raid” on a house, we had to plan to face AK-7 fire. On a few occasions this proved to be the case. There are provisions for parole or the likes. Released detainees, even those held for substantiated insurgent acts are allowed to return to armed homes.

So US soldiers are disarming law abiding American citizens in New Orleans, but they are forbidden from disarming known insurgents in Iraq. Am I the only one who sees a serious issue with this? What is wrong with this picture?

9 1 1 For Freedom!!!!

2005-09-11T00:21:00.000-04:00

The recent revelation that the Lower Manhattan Cultural Council is sponsoring a an anti-administration, anti-military essentially anti-American art exhibit at Cooper Union merely confirms their complete unsuitability for involvement in the World Trade Center redevelopment effort. The display at the New York college is shameful, but it is a temporary exhibit and essentially harmless where it is. Located on the grounds of a private institution, it is displayed mainly to liberal partisans who seek it out.

The museum at the ground zero is another matter. This is shared public space, made secularly sacred to the tradition of American freedom. While there is certainly a place, indeed a need, for dissent in any celebration of freedom, such dissent should be appropriate. This is not a matter of censorship, but of community values.

New York City, NY State and America were struck by terrorist at the WTC on September 11, 2001. It was an assault on all of us as a community. Most of the victims were New Yorkers, almost all were Americans. Any memorial or cultural additions at ground zero, should respect this. How much more appropriate would a museum that reflects the real meaning of freedom be?

Segun Fredrick Akintade 34 years old was a NY city resident. Originally a Nigerian immigrant, he was a successful businessman working on a college degree at CCNY. Segun joined the National Guard in 2001, just a few months before September 11.
He was killed by an enemy ambush while returning from a mission in the desert, west of Ad Dujail on 28 Oct 2004.Segun became a citizen just before deploying. He was extremely sympathetic towards the Iraqis. Perhaps growing up in Nigeria explains why he understood, these people were the mission.

Christian Engledrum was a New York city firefighter, on September 11, 2001. He was also a sergeant in the National Guard. He initially responded to the 9-11 attacks with the FDNY. He responded to his nation’s war on terror in 2004 when he was called to duty in Iraq. Chris, and Akintade were in the same unit prior to deploying, but Segun was deployed to Iraq with the 2-108th Infantry, in early 2004. Chris deployed 9 months later with the 1-69th. They died only a month, and a few miles apart in Iraq, not having seen each other in more than a year.

Why can’t we have a Freedom Center that recognizes the sacrifices these two New Yorkers made in the name of freedom? Both men believed they were fighting for freedom. To preserve the freedoms we enjoy here in NY. To bring those freedoms to a people who had never enjoyed them. Today the International Freedom Center plans are in the hands of an organization that mocks these ideals.

Pat Tillman wasn’t a New Yorker. He was an American, who saw the attacks for what they were. He answered the attacks by placing his nation above himself, and choosing the Army above the NFL. He put freedom above finances. And he paid the ultimate price, dying in Afghanistan while fighting to ensure freedom continued to supplant Tyranny and Terror there.

The Lower Manhattan Cultural Council disdains and belittles Tillman’s patriotism. In the Cooper Union exhibit they claim to speak in Tillman’s name to make their own political point, opposing not only the war in Iraq but our efforts in Afghanistan as well. Should these people define New York’s public face of freedom?

Let’s keep the Lower Manhattan Cultural Center out of our Freedom Center. Let’s create a Freedom Center that celebrates freedom not merely as a license to create political art in poor taste. Let’s create a Freedom Center that celebrates freedom as an essential value that underlies what America means. A value that is worth fighting for and even dying for. Let's stand up for our Freedom Center.

Contact the Lower Manhattan Development Corp

Or tell NY's Govenor Pataki.

And see "Take Back The Memorial"

See also:
Right Wing Nuthouse
Betsy's Page
Michelle Malkin

Mudville

Announcement!

2005-09-09T14:45:00.000-04:00

Look for My opinion piece in Sunday morning's NY Post.
It's a celebration of a few real heroes I know!!!!