Sorry, Politics and no Pictures

Lots of talk this week about the strategy for dealing with Iraq. The Iraq Focus Group has supposedly concluded their meetings and is ready to present some recommendations to the President. This is, as you might imagine, a topic that is of great interest to those of us over here. First, there is always a chance that our tour could be extended. Even writing that is causing me pain. I would put the odds at not likely for our Brigade. We are Nat'l Guard and the majority of the Brigade will end up doing over 18 months of active duty, so I would think that we would be about last on the list. But it could happen as the easiest way to bring up troop levels is to extend troops that are already in theater as we are already here, trained, and experienced. We are soldiers, so if given the orders, we'll follow them, but I one for am hoping and praying that we come home when scheduled.

I have a little tool on this blog that lets me see who is visiting, and where they come from. The nice thing is that it shows where others have linked to my blog, which is always interesting. I got a hit around Thanksgiving from a message forum where the war was being debated. The poster, a gentleman named Sang, used a quote from my Thanksgiving post to bolster his argument that the troops over here see the war a little different than those of you back at home, and that morale is generally pretty good. The response was that I didn't know what I was talking about, and was just saying that to justify being here. Whatever. You know, if you want to protest the war go ahead, you have that right, and I will protect that right no matter how much I may disagree with you. But don't tell me what I think, or how you know more about what is going on here then I do because you watch the news. I don't think so. The media does on thing well reporting the war, and that is telling you how many people died yesterday. Everything else is hit or miss. Michelle Malkin has a great post up about the AP using unvalidated sources to spread enemy propaganda. They even use sources that they have been warned are not credible. Whatever they need to get their headline. Where am I going with this? I guess the point, if I have one, is that yes, we do want, even need, the war to mean something. But that doesn't mean that we are grasping at false news or making up stories. We'll let the AP handle that. Generally, I think most see that this effort is worth it, and the consequences of not succeeding are real and painful.

Now, with that being said, I personally have been struggling with how we will know that we have succeeded over here. Or to put it another way at what point can we come home and feel good about it? There are a lot of people smarter than I writing a lot on the topic. It seems to me that there are 2 camps on each side of the debate. On the pro-war camp, there are the folks that feel that the War On Terror is necessary is to prevent the spread of Islamofascism, and that military action is necessary to show our enemies that we mean business. This is the preemptive strike doctrine.

The second group on the pro-war side believes that leaving Iraq before it is stable will cause a humanitarian crisis of enormous proportions. You can read an example of this at the Rolling Stone of all places (credit to the Hammer for finding this gem). I'm haven't yet seen a counter argument to this yet, although I'm sure it is out there.

On the flip side, there are those that are against the war because of faulty pre war intelligence and they don't like the President. Basically there weren't any WMDs so we shouldn't be here, bring the troops home, etc, etc. What bothers me is about this line of thinking is that in order to think this way, you have to be convinced that the President is dishonest, immoral, and manipulative. I believe this be false. If anything, the President has not wavered from his belief that this war is the right thing to do, even in the face of continued, fierce opposition. If he was simply in it for personal gain/politics, wouldn't he have changed his tactics 2 years ago and left Iraq to defend itself? And, the same people that decry the President as an idiot, a moron, and too stupid to know how to do his job want you to believe that he is also a mastermind of manipulation. I don't think you can have it both ways.

Finally, there is a group that believes that fighting the War on Terror with a conventional army is a non starter, and that you can't treat terrorists like nation-states and fight them force on force. If you are against the war this seems to me to be an intelligent reason why, as you can definitely argue that we don't know how our actions here are impacting the people who would do us harm. An excellent synopsis can be found at Intel Dump (third/last story down), a blog that I've recently added to my weekly reading list. Good coverage on both sides of the issues. They have a few different writers, but the head guy is an Army Officer who spent some time over here so that usually lends to increased credibility in my book.

What do I think? First of all, part of the problem is that most of the information on this topic is opinion. There are very little facts that are offer any support, which makes it difficult to make a good decision. The key question for me is whether or not we are making America safer by "staying the course." Are we tying up Bin Laden and his cronies from making plans to attack America or are we creating more terrorists? Does our willingness to commit our troops show our enemies that attacking us is futile, and make them think twice about their next attack? Well, I think that the answer is yes, we are safer at home by fighting over here. But I sure wish I had more information to go on. I do think we need to adjust fire a little bit and mix things up some. More focus on training Iraqis and less on Americans doing the fighting. More money to rebuild infrastructure, add jobs, and increase the standard of living. More pressure on Syria and Iran to keep their terrorists at home and not over here. More int'l support which is of course a tough one due to the way this went down. I think avoiding mass genocide in and of itself is reason enough to be here. Hopefully, we are also spreadking democracy and deterring terrorism at the same time.

Distinguished Visitors and The General Responds

Our State Adjutant General, MG Lempke, and State Commander Sergeant Major, CSM Shunk, made a trip to Iraq this past week. It was good to see them out and about visiting the troops. There are currently around 650 Nebraska Guardsmen here in Iraq, and they visited us and a few other troops.

On returning back to the states, he commented on his visit in this story on Omaha.com. Here are some quotes from MG Lempke:

"I came away feeling that we've made an investment there that still has the potential to pay off for us, but it's not quite ready," said Maj. Gen. Roger Lempke.

"We need to be careful before we start talking about pulling out. But we do need to find new ways to pressure the government there to understand that we're not going to be the primary force forever," he said.

He also makes a nice analogy here that kind of matches what I posted last week about Secretary Rumsfeld's departure.

Lempke said he is hopeful that Rumsfeld's departure might foster renewed debate on U.S. strategy in Iraq, even if he disagrees with calls to withdraw from the country.
"When you know how the boss feels about something, you don't walk into the office with opinions that vary too much. Now, you'll see some freer discussion of strategy and tactics, which I think would be a good thing," he said.

I was lucky enough to get to have lunch with the General along with some of the other Nebraska soldiers. And, I was even luckier to get a coveted coin from him. For those of you unfamiliar with this tradition, the senior leaders carry around commemorative "coins" with them, usually the size of a silver dollar and bearing their unit symbol, rank, motto, or something else memorable. They hand them out to soldiers as a way of saying thanks. So, that was pretty cool.

Additionally, just yesterday SFC Kerchal and I were walking to chow for lunch when CSM Hall stopped and picked us up and gave us a ride. He and LTC Apprich share one of 2 NTV (non-tactical vehicles aka Ford Explorer) in the Squadron, so we got to ride in style. When we got there we happened to walk in at the same time as CSM Beam, who is the CSM for Multi-National Corps - Iraq, which is our higher-higher-higher headquarters. We got to watch as the CSMs partook in their favorite past time, which is making on the spot corrections for soldiers with uniform deficiencies. Sleeves rolled up on your ACU? Wrong answer, fix it. Wearing a non-authorized US flag? I don't think so. Hair too long? Get it cut. Good stuff, it is fun to watch the soldiers' faces as they realize that who they are getting corrected by. As we were wrapping up lunch, CSM Beam hooked us up with one of his coins for our hard work. So, I went from January 2002 (coin from 1SG Valenzuela for guarding the airport after 9/11) to 2 coins in 2 weeks. Pretty sweet.

If I may continue on with the politics, General Abizaid, the commander of all forces in the Mideast, had a little meeting on the hill earlier this week. Here is a quote that I really liked:

"With regard to hope not being a method, Senator [Clinton], I agree with you, and I would also say that despair is not a method," he said. "When I come to Washington, I feel despair. When I'm in Iraq with my commanders, when I talk to our soldiers, when I talk to the Iraqi leadership, they are not despairing."

First of all, I have to give Mrs. Bill Clinton props for using "hope is not a method" which is one of my favorite lines. That is the last time you will probably here me give Hillary any props so don't get used to it. Second, I think with a few exceptions most serving over here understand why we are here and support the effort. Granted some days are worse than others, but generally the soldiers doing the fighting and dying support this war. Failure is simply not an option if we want a safe America. I posted a while back about our nations failure to react to any terrorist activity from '83 to '01 and how this weakness may have contributed to 9/11. How much more so will be viewed as weak by our enemies that have vowed to destroy us and our way of life if we leave the job unfinished? I think our media has already gone a long way to aiding and abetting the enemy in this endeavor by continuing to push the stories that show this effort in a negative light. The withdrawal of US forces at this point would solve nothing other than emboldening our enemies and leaving us vulnerable to attack.

That Didn't Take Long

I would have thought that the incoming majority party would have waited at least a week to start demanding changes, but I was wrong. Carl Levin, the incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee, has already called for a troop withdrawal and time table for exit. The incoming Senate Majority leader, Harry Reid, has also stated that a time table needs to be set and soon.

The White House had this to say:

"I believe it is very important ... for people making suggestions to
recognize that the best military options depend upon the conditions on the
ground," he said.

The idea by itself isn't a bad one. Think back to a time you started a new job, and the person you replaced still worked in your office. How easy was it to just head over to Eileen's and ask her a question about good ol' Hyperion, instead of figuring it out yourself? Why put in an hour on a problem when you know that that person can solve it in 30 seconds? But once they are gone, and you have nobody to go to, you end up learning more than you would have otherwise. Some things may get broken in the process, but eventually you get it figured it out.

In my opinion the issue lies in the getting the timing right. We do need to step back at some point and force the Iraqis to step up, take the training wheels off so to speak. But the risk here is more than just the numbers not adding up at the end of the month. What do you think happens if we leave too early and the country disintegrates? Thousands (hundreds of thousands? millions?) of innocent Iraqis die due to widespread sectarian violence and extrajudicial killings. Or someone else Iran swoops in and fills the power void. Would that be better for America? I don't think so. Now, if we can set up Iraq to govern themselves we lessen the more radical nation's influence on the Middle East which I believe is a good thing. Which of course is the challenge in front of us. I don't think you can say we are stepping back in 4 months and have this thing work. The Commanders on the ground need to make that decision.

I guess I'm not surprised with the timing. After another brutal year of attack campaigns (one of the very few things I didn't miss about being home) it is hard to believe that the 2 parties have any common ground. I don't know what the answer is, but until our country finds a way to come together and end the incessant arguing, our problems will never get solved. Immediately after 9/11 the country was united, but along the way this spirit got lost and we are now more divided than ever.

I think part of the reason is that the general public was never really asked to do anything other than sit in longer lines at the airport. I know this isn't WWII, but where are the War Bond tours, Rosie the Riveter, and rationing of consumer goods? The American public was ready, willing, and able to support the war on terror, but instead a pretty small portion of our population, the military and their families, has been asked to do the heavy lifting over and over again. I think looking back 5 years that is probably the biggest fault of the current administration, that they failed to engage Americans to become partners to help protect our great country. Instead, most don't understand what we are doing here or how they can help, and just see the body count piling up.

Rummy is Out and the Dems are In

So I'm sure you've seen the news by know that ol' Rummy stepped down yesterday. Reaction has been somewhat mixed. Some have seen it as knee jerk reaction to the Democrats taking control of Congress. My personal opinion is that it probably isn't a bad idea to have a change at the top. After over 3 years it may be good to get another set of eyes on the problem. It will be interesting to see what changes will be made in the strategy.

In bigger news, the Democrats are poised to have control of both the House and Senate. I'm curious to see how Congress and the Executive Branch will get along. This article details the President and Nancy Pelosi, the soon to be Speaker of the House, making nice. Pelosi is as liberal as they come and the fact that she is so far left, and not a more centrist Democrat, makes me wonder how much the new Congress will look to change. I think you can trust it will be a lot. The worry for me is that the Congress will move swiftly to bring the troops home. As much as I would rather be home, there is still much work to be done here to stabilize the country.

This fact really hit home the other day watching a 60 Minutes report on the hospital here at Anaconda. Beans and I were getting breakfast before doing the mail run, and the story came on the TV. It gave a really nice overview of the entire medivac procedure from the time a soldier is wounded until they get home to the states. They had interviews with the staff of the hospital in addition to wounded soldiers. It was a powerful piece on the dark side of war.

What really affected me and I think everyone watching that morning (I didn't see one person in the chow hall leave or not watching during the entire segment) was the wounded Iraqis they showed. Over half of the hospitals patients are wounded Iraqis, and the vast majority were wounded by suicide bombers or sectarian death squads and not coalition forces. They profiled an infant wounded by a bomb and a 12 year old girl injured by shrapnel. The baby ended up making a recovery, but the little girl was beyond help due to a traumatic brain injury. If we leave before Iraqi security forces are competent, many, many more women and children will die needlessly. Regardless of how we got here, I believe we have an obligation to the Iraqis to finish what we started and set them up for success, and not for failure. In this way we can honor the lives of the approximately 2800 US Servicemen and Servicewomen that have given their lives, in addition to enabling a fledgling democracy to stand on its own.

John Kerry is an Idiot - Part 2

This is a little higher quality picture of the now infamous pic from Irak. Drudge has it as his top story currently. The headline is "GIs drop smart bomb on Kerry: hilarious heroes fire back over dem and dumber crack about Iraq. I like it.

Why do I post this again you ask? Because if you open it up and zoom in, you will notice the Red Bull insignia of the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 34th Infantry Division. Yup, you got it, our higher headquarters for this deployment was involved in picture-gate. Pretty sweet. Generally we have a love/hate (I can't tell a lie, it is probably hate/hate) relationship with Brigade as they are our higher and, well, nobody in the military likes their higher. I am lucky in that I get along with all of the JAG people at Brigade, but I can't say the same for the rest of the unit, and I'm sure they would say the same about the (insert expletive here) Cav. Anyway, I've never been more proud to be associated with the Red Bulls than I am today. It even went so far that the head honchos down in Baghdad sent out some talking points about the picture. Rest assured that everybody knows it is a joke and nobody will be punished in any way.

I guess Mr. Waffle decided to apologize, kindof. Here is what he said.

"I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended," he added.

Man, this guy can't even apologize right. I regret that my words were misinterpreted? Not much of an apology in my book. I think he is saying that we in the military are too dumb to realize that he isn't really apologizing and is also saying that we weren't hip enough to get the joke. We get it John. Now go back to Massachusetts again please. The last 2 years have been nice without you.

John Kerry is an Idiot

I'm sure that by now everyone has heard of the remarks made by Senator and almost President John "Heinz" Kerry. Omaha.com does a nice job with lots of good quotes. (Completely off topic, but if you love America you should buy Hunt's Ketchup, a fine ConAgra brand, instead of Heinz. Do a blind taste test and you will agree that Hunts is a thicker, better tasting ketchup and more affordable. And you will be supporting hard working Midwesterners like myself and not East Coast socialities like the Heinz-Kerrys. I tried to upload a sweet picture of a Hunt's bottle but Blogger is not behaving tonight so you'll have to come up with a mental image instead. End of commercial). To quote him:

Kerry told a college crowd Monday: "You know education, if you make the most of it, and you study hard, and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Excuse me? Now, since I wasn't born with the last name of ketchup or hotel chain I was forced to go to a public university and not an ivy league school. That may not rate very high in John's book but I am awfully proud of my degree that the Army helped me pay for. I also don't have a law degree like "the waffle" but I did earn an MBA while working full time (and no, SSG Johnson, I didn't buy it online either so stop telling people that). I'm sure that wouldn't impress Johnny boy either since it came from a pedestrian university in the Midwest. It isn't like I'm unique either. There are lots of educated people in our unit, and a good chunk of the guys were either enrolled in college back home or are working on distance learning here in their limited spare time. So to say that everyone over here is stupid and uneducated is a bit of a stretch.

He has since retracted the comment and said it was botched joke aimed at the President and he didn't mean anything by it. And of course accusing "right wing nut jobs" (he actually said that) of taking the quote out of context.

"I'm sorry that that's happened he said of his earlier comment. "But I'm not going to stand back from the reality here, which is, they're trying to change the subject. It's their campaign of smear and fear."

Right. For as smart and as educated as he is, you would think he would be able to tell a simple George W. is an idiot joke, I mean come on, you hear 10 of those a day from the mainstream media and the Hollywood elite. Surely it isn't that hard to get it right the first time for a Yalie and a lawyer. This to me typifies why people don't like this guy. Whether he meant it or not, it comes off as elitist, leftist, and, well, stupid. His response was typical as well. Cheney had this to say:

"Of course, now Senator Kerry says he was just making a joke, and he botched it up. I guess we didn't get the nuance. He was for the joke before he was against it," Cheney said in a line meant to recall Bush's skewering of Kerry in their 2004 race for saying he had voted for war funds before he voted against them.

Well played Mr. VP, well played. You know that he has been waiting about 4 years to drop that line again. Howard Dean weighed in as well. This is a guy that I want in my corner after an embarrassing public moment.

"Bloopers happen," Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean told reporters in Burlington, Vt.

Pretty deep and insightful there Howard. Nice work. Bottom line, you said it John, so be a big boy, man up, and apologize to the troops that are in harms way, trying to do the right thing. Of course this rube will still think you are an idiot and continue to buy Hunts ketchup because it is the right thing to do (and the tasty way to do it).

CNN Sucks

Most of you that know me know that I am fairly even tempered and rarely get excited about much. Well, I've been excited for over a week since I saw the news that CNN was airing a video showing insurgent snipers shooting our troops. In the name of "journalistic integrity", they have chosen to air video that they secured from our sworn enemy. I haven't seen it, and won't see it, but from the description it depicts the insurgents laying in wait for our soldiers, planning their shot, praying to Allah for help, and then shooting, possibly killing, the soldiers that are protecting CNN's right to free speech. I am really at a loss to understand who thought this was a good idea. That video is of someone's son or daughter that is serving their country voluntarily (they may not have volunteered for this mission but they volunteered to join the Armed Forces). Can you imagine if that was your son/daughter/husband/father/brother/etc, and you either saw it flipping through the channels or someone emailed you the video off the internet? Is knowing the pain that this will cause to Americans worth the story and the ratings? I guess the answer is yes if you work at CNN.

You can read CNN's response here if you can stomach it. You have to scroll down a little bit, as Madonna's adoption is now the top story (who else besides me could care less about Madonna stealing a baby from some father that doesn't speak English). Some of the highlights are:

Of course, we also understood that some might conclude there is a public relations benefit for the insurgents if we aired the material, especially on CNN International.

You think? Wow, I'm glad that we have this kind of brain power behind this network. Of course, the media could care less about aiding and abetting the enemy, so I don't know why I'm surprised.

We also understood that this kind of footage is upsetting and disturbing for many viewers. But after getting beyond the emotional debate, we concluded the tape meets our criteria for newsworthiness.

Substitute "ratings" for "newsworthiness" and I think you have something here. I've got an idea, how about we air some counter-footage of some of our snipers doing their thing? I bet that our guys are at least 10 times as accurate and deadly as the insurgent hacks. That would be still be upsetting and disturbing, but the question is would it help push CNN's agenda?

That decision, as well as the decision to build a piece around the sniper tape -- in fact, all the decisions about this story -- were subject to hours of intense editorial debate at the highest levels here at CNN.

Oh, well at least you thought about it first. I guess that makes it okay. I'm sure the mothers of the 10 soldiers that took a round for you, Mr. Highest Level of CNN, won't mind the footage of her son being shot by the enemies of America shown to the whole world.

Blackfive, who is one of the most well read military bloggers out there, has a nice summary with a little stronger language than I used. You can check it out here if you don't mind a little profantiy.

I for one will not ever watch a minute of CNN again. Ever.

WTC and Terrorism

SGT Hanseling and I went to see World Trade Center tonight. It was a really good flick and I'm glad I went. I was a little bit nervous when I first heard about it because it is directed by Oliver Stone, but he did a nice job of telling the story of 2 Port Authority workers trapped under the rubble and stayed away from any type of political angle. The movie was very well made and definitley brought back memories of that day. Jon and I were talking about if afterwards and it is really amazing how much that one day changed the lives of millions of people. Surely I (and countless others) would not be over here writing this blog entry as we speak without 9/11. I also stumbled upon This Website tonight while waiting for the final round of the PGA to start. They are looking for 2996 bloggers to do a post on 9/11 commerating each victim that lost their life. I signed up to do one, they still need like 900 some more people so if you have a blog go get signed up and help.

The movie left me with one question that maybe some of you can help me answer. I know this has been asked before but I don't know that it has ever been answered. What do you think the terrorists were hoping to accomplish, other than the loss of American lives? What are their goals and how did this help them move toward completing these goals? Is it less American "interference" in world affairs? If so how does this help? Isn't the logical answer that we would look to strike back? Or, have the terrorists taken our past responses to terrorists attacks and assumed that we would simply wring our hands and go about our normal days? That wouldn't be an entirely incorrect assumption, as we have in recent times chosen to ignore blatant attacks on Americans. Here is a brief summary of some of the more deadly attacks that we ignored:

• 1983 - US Embassy in Beirut bombing. 63 dead (17 Americans). Response - covert team sent into to Beirut to gather intelligence. Yikes. That would deter me from future attacks. The embassy was also bombed again in 1984 resulting in 24 dead (2 Americans).
• 1983 - Beirut barracks bombing. We lost 241! US soldiers and our response was..... not a damn thing. The Secreatary of Defense at the time said we didn't want to retailiate because we risked upsetting some of the other Arab nations. The soldiers were there on a peacekeeping mission. Not only did we not respond, we pulled out of Lebanon soon after.
• 1988 - Pan Am Flight 103 destroyed. 270 people killed (189 Americans). 1 dude was convicted. Libya eventually paid out over 2 billion to the families. No military response.
• 1993 - Attack on WTC. 6 killed and over a 1000 injured. We fired a few cruise missles at a camel and some tents in the desert and called it a day.
• 1996 - Khobar towers bombing. 19 American servicemembers killed, hundreds injured. Suspects were rounded up, 4 convicted and later beheaded (ouch). Others escaped.
• 2000 - USS Cole bombing. 17 sailors killed, 40 or so wounded. Blew up a car with 2 suspects in it. Arrested 13 who later escaped and are still at large.

So, I'm sure you are asking yourself what's the point, or how about another Deal or No Deal post by now. I guess what I'm getting at is that maybe we have set ourselves up to be terror targets by our relatively weak response to being attacked. Rather than holding Nations accountable, we look to round up a few patsies, have a trial, and call it a day. Take Israel for example. 3 soldiers are kidnapped (not even killed) and they get right down to business. Give us back our guys or someone is going to get hurt. Now I'm not advocating that in all cases we should respond as such, or that the civlian casualties in the recent conflict are not unfortunate, but I think that type of response resonates in the mind of groups like Hezbollah. If I was a terrorist and read the American papers, I would assume that we have no backbone and would just as soon stay at home and cower in fear. Maybe this is why they feel like something can be accomplished by flying planes full of innocent people into building full of innocent people, or trying to blow up 10 planes full of innocent people at the same time.