Posted by Richard on September 11, 2007
Are you interested in more than a 20-second sound bite from Gen. Petraeus and some "interpretation" of his remarks by a talking head? Investors Business Daily has the complete text of his report to Congress.
Democrat after Democrat, in smarmy semi-polite terms, has called Petraeus a liar and a stooge of the Bush Administration. Read what he said and see if he sounds like a liar and stooge to you.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: congress, democrats, iraq, military, war | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on September 10, 2007
Remember when the left's mantra was "listen to the generals"? That was when Abizaid and Casey were pursuing a failing strategy, blaming it on a "civil war," and saying that more troops wouldn't help. Now that Gen. Petraeus (who was confirmed unanimously by the Senate, remember) has implemented a successful strategy, put the lie to the "civil war" meme, and shown that a few more troops, if effectively used, make all the difference in the world, the left doesn't want to listen to the generals anymore. It doesn't even want to accord them any courtesy or respect.
In the run-up to Petraeus' testimony before Congress, Democrats have finally embraced the idea of pre-emptive strikes — against our troops. Sen. Durbin accused the general of "manipulating statistics" before hearing what the general had to say. Sen. Feinstein, who praised Petraeus lavishly when confirming him, dismissed what he had to say because "I don't think General Petraeus has an independent view in that sense. General Petraeus is there to succeed."
And this morning's New York Times features a full-page ad paid for by George Soros and MoveOn.org headlined "General Petraeus or General Betray us? Cooking the books for the White House." As Pete Hegseth of Vets for Freedom put it:
Let's be clear: MoveOn.org is suggesting that General Petraeus has 'betrayed' his country. This is disgusting. To attack as a traitor an American general commanding forces in war because his 'on the ground' experience does not align with MoveOn.org's political objectives is utterly shameful. It shows contempt for America's military leadership, as well as for the troops who have confidence in him, as our fellow soldiers in Iraq certainly do.
…
MoveOn.org has been working closely with the Democratic congressional leadership –as an article in today's Sunday New York Times Magazine makes clear. And consider this comment by a Democratic senator from Friday's Politico: "'No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV,' noted one Democratic senator, who spoke on the condition on anonymity. 'The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us.'
So, veterans who served in Iraq ask the Democratic leaders in Congress: Does MoveOn.org speak for you? Do you agree with MoveOn.org? Or do you repudiate this despicable charge?
None of this is surprising, really, and not just because of differences over the war. Consider Feinstein's remark, because it illustrates a key characteristic of today's left. Petraeus is determined to succeed, and to Feinstein that's an unforgivable flaw.
The left doesn't like successful, achievement-oriented people, and generally works to punish success and pull down high achievers. They liked the generals who just muddled along, keeping their heads down and accomplishing little. They supported the troops as long as the troops weren't killing too many of the enemy and weren't making too much progress. They deny success is happening because they don't want it to be possible, and they'll work to undermine it.
Isn't that just what they do regarding economic policy, taxes, regulation, education, and so on? The left's resentment of achievement applies to the military just as it does to business and other aspects of life. It's losers and failures that they're eager to embrace, elevate, and reward.
UPDATE: A Democrat has denounced the Soros/MoveOn ad as "an outrageous and despicable act of slander that every member of the Congress – Democrat and Republican – has a solemn responsibility to condemn." No surprise — it's Sen. Joe Lieberman.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: congress, democrats, iraq, leftists, military, war | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on September 6, 2007
The Democrats have long insisted that they really do support the troops, that they have nothing but respect and admiration for the troops. Oh, yeah? Wednesday on the Senate floor, Sen. Charles Schumer labeled the Marines in Anbar province incompetent and said they're part of the problem, not the solution. And he insulted Iraqis, too, dubbing the tribal sheiks who are cooperating with us — the men President Bush met with on Labor Day — "warlords."
Duane Patterson has a 5-minute clip from Schumer's speech, but here's the money quote (emphasis added):
And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here. And that is because there was no one else there protecting.
Patterson observed that "Not only is Schumer calling the American military incompetent, he's calling them liars, as well," and offered relevant quotes from Generals Petraeus and Simmons.
But you don't have to take the generals' word for it. Over at the Outside the Wire blog, JD Johannes has a short clip of LTC Valery Keaveny, one of those inept Marines in Anbar who actually talks with and fights alongside the tribesmen Schumer claims we couldn't protect. Johannes, a former Marine, director of the Iraq war documentary Outside the Wire, and independent war correspondent, added his own observations:
I've been on missions with tribal fighters. I've broken bread with them. I've asked them why they started standing up against Al Qaida and the insurgents.
The answer always involves the brutality of Al Qaida. Never once have I heard an Iraqi say they turned on Al Qaida because the coalition could not protect them from Al Qaida.
Which brings us back to LTC Keaveny's point. If a former insurgent is now working with the coalition–how is it possible the joined he joined the Awakening for protection from Al Qaida.
The second major error in Schumer's revisionist history is that he is trying to rewrite a claim no one should be making–that the surge caused the Anbar Awakening.
The Awakening started around this time last year–way before the surge was ever announced. …
Schumer isn't just lying about Anbar and the Marines, though. He claimed that we've just been "pushing on a balloon" and that the improvement in Anbar was offset by a worsening situation in "many other provinces." Bunk. Check out the metrics at The Victory Caucus, especially the map showing attacks per day per province. One, Baghdad, has 51. Three others are in the low 20s and one averages 15. Another six range from 1 to 7. The remaining seven provinces average zero (0) attacks. So Baghdad accounts for a third of the violence, and four of the eighteen provinces account for fully three-quarters of it.
While you're at TVC, check out the Info and News links for more stuff you won't hear on the evening news. Then sign the Stand by the Mission petition.
UPDATE: There is no coherent theme underlying Schumer's opposition to the mission, it's just gainsaying — throwing out whatever comes to mind and hoping some of it sticks. The U.S. failed to protect the Sunni tribes from al Qaeda, he now claims. But until very recently, he and his pals insisted strenuously that al Qaeda wasn't present or was an insignificant factor in Iraq, an administration fiction to divert attention from the "civil war" between Sunni and Shia. And since these Sunni tribesmen were previously fighting us, not al Qaeda, the idea that we let them down is just nonsense.
UPDATE 2: Rush made a good point today (Thurs.): Since forever, Schumer and other Democrats have argued that the Iraqis need to step forward and take responsibility for their own security. So when the Iraqis in Anbar successfully do that, Schumer sees it as a bad thing. This nonsense on stilts.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: democrats, iraq, marines, military, war | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on August 16, 2007
Today, MoveOn.org members are pressuring members of Congress to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and order an immediate retreat from Iraq. Vets for Freedom and Families United for Our Troops and Their Mission are urging people to call or fax their Senators and Representative to counter the defeatists' efforts:
Veterans of the Iraq war have joined with families of those serving and sacrificing in Iraq to focus on the cost of a U.S. defeat in Iraq. On Thursday, August 16, they will fight back against efforts by MoveOn.org to bully the American people into ending the mission just as it is showing significant signs of progress.
"As families of those who are serving or have made the ultimate sacrifice, we must educate our fellow Americans about the need to continue the mission and the terrible price we will pay if we retreat now," said Merrilee Carlson, the president of Families United for Our Troops and Their Mission.
Added Pete Hegseth, executive director of Vets for Freedom: "Moveon.org will talk a lot about the money we are spending. But what they won't discuss – and what in truth they just don't care about – is the overwhelming cost of U.S. and Iraqi lives and security if we give up too soon and lose this war. As veterans of Iraq who have served on the ground, we understand the progress that is being made and we know the terrible price that America will pay if we were to pack up and leave without defeating al-Qaeda."
They noted that possible outcomes of defeat include:
- A bloodbath in Iraq, costing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives and possibly destabilize the entire Middle East region.
- A failed state in Iraq and a safe haven for Al Qaeda to plan future attacks against America and her allies.
- An emboldened Iran in pursuit of nuclear weapons and a victorious Al Qaeda in pursuit of new ways to kill Americans at home and around the world.
Both organizations are urging their members, and all Americans who support the mission, to use August 16, 2007 to educate their members of Congress about the cost of defeat, to write to their local newspapers explaining the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal, and to engage their fellow citizens to discuss the issues at stake. Vets for Freedom will encourage all of its members to call their members of Congress on August 16.
For all the info you need to contact your congresscritters, go to this Victory Caucus page and enter your ZIP code.
I've been remiss, BTW, in not raving about the new Victory Caucus site. It's become an indispensable portal for news of the Iraq campaign. If you want links to the latest reports from official U.S. sources, blogs, new media, and MSM, along with up-to-date metrics on Iraq (imagine that — actual empirical data!) and reports/commentary from troops on the ground, this is the place. Visit the Victory Caucus regularly to stay informed about Iraq (better informed than CNN, which relies on the "narrative" of Michael Ware). I'll help by adding them to the sidebar shortly.
Vets for Freedom is another great place for war updates, especially information by and about the troops. And if you're an Iraq or Afghanistan veteran, sign up now for their September 17-18 Vets on the Hill project.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: congress, iraq, military, soldiers, victory | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on August 15, 2007
I hope you've been keeping up with the story of Scott Beauchamp, who wrote under the pseudonym "Scott Thomas." On July 20, I wrote about his article in The New Republic, "Shock Troops," in which he painted himself and his comrades as callous, brutal, and depraved. I wasn't persuaded:
I'm no expert on military mess halls, children's skulls, or Bradley Fighting Vehicles, but the stories told by "Scott Thomas" in the New Republic article strike me as not even remotely credible. …
Since then, we've learned his true identity and that he's an aspiring novelist who admitted to joining the military for Kerryesque resumé enhancement purposes, a former Howard Dean campaign worker, and the husband of a TNR staffer. The army investigated his claims and interviewed every soldier with whom he served, and they concluded categorically that there is no basis in fact for his allegations. He recanted in writing and faces administrative discipline. And he now refuses to speak with any journalists, including his employers/abettors at TNR.
Various bloggers looked into his other TNR stories and found them just as obviously bogus as "Shock Troops." In one, he wrote of soldiers stopping to change a flat in a "river of sewage" — their vehicles have run-flat tires. In another, he claimed some "square-backed" cartridges prove that Iraqi police committed murder — in the known universe, there's no such thing as a "square-backed" cartridge.
Despite all this, TNR stands by the fraudulent articles and claims they've "fact-checked" and corroborated them. Of course, they won't name any of the "experts" they've consulted (to confirm the "plausibility" of Beauchamp's claims) or the one person who purportedly corroborates the events in "Shock Troops."
In the face of overwhelming evidence and testimony discrediting the story of how he publicly ridiculed a disfigured woman, TNR claimed their careful "fact-checking" uncovered only one "minor" error: the incident didn't happen at a forward operating base in Iraq, it happened in Kuwait before Beauchamp ever got to Iraq. Never mind that there's no evidence (beyond their anonymous source) of it happening there either. And never mind that this "minor correction" destroys the primary thesis of "Shock Troops," that the brutality of war dehumanized Beauchamp and his buddies. Apparently the flight from Germany to Kuwait dehumanized him.
Lots of bloggers have done yeoman work on this story, including Michael Goldfarb (who got the ball rolling), Confederate Yankee, Ace of Spades, and Michelle Malkin . Just run through their posts of the past couple of weeks if you want all the fascinating details. If you just want a one-stop executive summary that will bring you up to speed, with a special emphasis on TNR's continuing fraud, read this Confederate Yankee post. And in a fascinating post last week, Michelle Malkin mirrored my recollection of the Vietnam Winter Soldier fraud and recounted other instances of Winter Soldier Syndrome.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: army, fraud, iraq, journalism, media bias, military, msm, propaganda, war | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on August 2, 2007
They came together at Camp Hale, high in the Colorado Rockies near Leadville, to participate in the largest ski school ever. Many had never seen snow. They became one of the most storied and gloried military units of all time, one that played a critical role in defeating the Axis in Europe:
Following two years of rigorous training, the Tenth Mountain Division was ordered to Italy in 1945 to spearhead an advance of the U.S. Army. In a series of actions that included Riva Ridge and Mt. Belvedere, the Tenth Mountain Division breached the supposedly impregnable Gothic Line in the Apennines and secured the Po River Valley to play a vital role in the liberation of northern Italy. By the time the Germans surrendered in May 1945, 992 ski troopers had lost their lives and 4,000 were wounded. This was the highest casualty rate of any U.S. division in the Mediterranean.
Actually, I believe it was the highest casualty rate of any U.S. division, period — more than 30 percent. The 10th also earned more medals than any other division.
After the war, members of the 10th Mountain Division created the U.S. ski industry. Among their numbers were Monty Atwater (Alta, Utah), Friedl Pfeifer (Aspen Mountain), and Pete Seibert (Vail). And a fellow named Bob Dole, who'd been badly injured and thus had an excuse for pursuing the law and politics instead of a more honorable winter sports career.
Several hundred of the remaining WWII veterans of the 10th are gathering together one last time in Denver today through Sunday:
The final reunion for the first division in the country to specialize in mountain warfare begins Thursday at the Denver Marriott Tech Center. But Tripp and Kentz already had their final meeting in the spring.
Kentz's 84-year-old heart gave out in May. The nearly 88-year-old Tripp drove up to Tennessee Pass near Leadville to place a wreath for his friend at a memorial to the 10th Mountain Division. The last thing he hopes to do for him is to make the long climb to the top of Mount Sopris this summer with Kentz's family to scatter his ashes.
"We are dropping like flies," Tripp says of a division that once numbered nearly 16,000 but has dwindled to 1,500. The surviving mountain soldiers range in age from 81 to more than 100.
They're dying at the rate of one a day. The National Association of the 10th Mountain Division put it this way:
… This will be the last official National Reunion organized by the WW II Veterans. Future reunions may be organized by the Descendants, veterans of the Division serving after WWII or others. We are hoping most of our WW II Veterans will attend this special reunion.
The Last Ridge by McKay Jenkins tells the story of the 10th, and has earned high praise. Now, there's a documentary of the same name based on the book. It's being broadcast on PBS stations, and a DVD is available (the link has both air dates and DVD ordering information).
But this Saturday, August 4 at 2 PM, the Colorado Historical Society is presenting a special showing of The Last Ridge at the Colorado History Museum. McKay Jenkins and film producer Abbie Kealy (a 10th Mountain descendant) will speak and sign copies of the DVD and book. Tickets ($7 or $15) include museum admission, so you can also see the Soldiers on Skis exhibit. A pretty sweet deal for anyone near Denver who's interested in military history.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: army, colorado, heroism, military, skiing, soldiers, veterans, war | 1 Comment »
Posted by Richard on July 24, 2007
The cut-and-run Democrats have long argued that our presence in Iraq has merely stirred things up and given al-Qaida an effective recruiting tool. Well, we've certainly stirred things up — and thanks to the success of our surgin' general, David Petraeus, we have a bevy of new Iraqi recruits. Except they've got al-Qaida in their cross hairs.
On Saturday, members of the 1st Cavalry Division based near Taji brokered a formal agreement between Sunni and Shiite tribal leaders to join forces against al-Qaida and other jihadists. The Sunni and Shiite agreed to use members of more than 25 local tribes to protect the area around Taji, just 12 miles north of Baghdad.
The deal is just the latest example of the progress Democrats claim isn't happening in Iraq — a series of deals with various tribes and militia groups that at one point were part of the insurgency. But it's the first involving both Sunni and Shiite sheiks together.
Read the whole thing.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: al qaeda, iraq, military, victory, war | 1 Comment »
Posted by Richard on July 20, 2007
In a Detroit hotel early in 1971, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, led by Al Hubbard and John Effin' Kerry, staged the three-day "Winter Soldier investigation." Over a hundred Vietnam vets testified that they and their fellow soldiers committed and/or witnessed a horrendous list of atrocities and barbarous acts. Later that year, John Effin' Kerry testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and repeated many of those claims. Those stories of massive war crimes played an important role in turning much of the American public — myself included — decisively against the war and against the military.
There was just one problem. Much, if not all, of the Winter Soldier testimony was bogus. Some of the "witnesses" weren't who they claimed to be. Others lied about having served in Vietnam or even in the military. At least one later filed a sworn affidavit alleging that John Effin' Kerry had pressured him into testifying falsely about American atrocities.
McQ at QandO, himself a Vietnam vet, wrote an excellent summary of The Fraud of the Winter Soldier back during the 2004 election campaign. There's a wealth of information and links at WinterSoldier.com. Why should you brush up on this bit of history? Because it's about to repeat itself.
With a few egregious exceptions, the anti-war mantra has long been, "we support the troops, we just don't support the mission." But the anti-war left is growing increasingly frustrated. As I noted recently, opposition to the war is only about an inch deep. Many Americans are mildly displeased about the Iraq situation, but remarkably few are strongly opposed or really angry. Look at the lack of participation in the increasingly irrelevant anti-war demonstrations.
Opponents of the war must be looking for some way to rekindle the anti-war fervor of the 70s, some way to anger and sicken and disgust mainstream Americans and turn them decisively against the war.
Well, how about repeating the John Effin' Kerry gambit? How about once again portraying American soldiers as barbaric monsters who've been dehumanized by war and by their evil superiors up the chain of command?
In any group of 160,000, there are inevitably a few nasty people who do bad things. And this enemy doesn't hesitate to fraudulently accuse our soldiers of doing bad things. But with the Haditha case falling apart, I don't doubt that some on the left are ready to rev it up a notch, and the first salvo may have been fired. A New Republic article, "Shock Troops," purported to be by an anonymous soldier in Baghdad, is that salvo.
The article is subscription-only, but Michael Goldfarb at The Weekly Standard has extensive quotes and commentary. Be sure to check out the responses from members of the military. Also, McQ at QandO does a fine job of dissecting this garbage, and he adds some useful ruminations about the military equivalent of urban legends.
I'm no expert on military mess halls, children's skulls, or Bradley Fighting Vehicles, but the stories told by "Scott Thomas" in the New Republic article strike me as not even remotely credible. This is pure BS, and it doesn't pass the smell test. I'm astonished that the editors at the New Republic didn't toss this nonsense in the circular file. I suppose it shows just how willing to believe the worst of our soldiers they are — or how willing to do anything to undermine the war effort.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: iraq, kerry, media bias, military, propaganda, soldiers, war | 1 Comment »
Posted by Richard on July 12, 2007
Remember the Haditha Marines? The media covered the charges in a frenzy, calling it the worst atrocity of the Iraq war. Time magazine called the three enlisted Marines accused of shooting Iraqi civilians "symbols of a war gone bad," and Congressman John Murtha called them "cold-blooded murderers." Four officers were accused of covering up the "atrocity."
Well, the first Article 32 investigation (analogous to a civlian grand jury investigation) of one of the accused murderers has concluded, and the investigating officer recommended dismissal of the charges against Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt. A previous Article 32 investigation of one of the officers, Capt. Randy Stone, also recommended dismissal of charges.
Defend Our Marines has tons of information about the Haditha case and related matters. Gateway Pundit quoted the Fox News report, adding emphasis and editorializing a bit, and then asked what I assume is a rhetorical question about those who had so loudly trumpeted the charges:
The conclusion of the investigation was reported on Tuesday.
FOX News reported:An investigating officer has recommended dismissing murder charges against a U.S. Marine accused in the slayings of three Iraqi men in a squad action that killed 24 civilians in the town of Haditha, according to a report.
The government's theory that Lance Cpl. Justin L. Sharratt had executed the three men was "incredible" and relied on contradictory statements by Iraqis, Lt. Col. Paul Ware said in the report, released Tuesday by Sharratt's defense attorneys.
"To believe the government version of facts is to disregard clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, and sets a dangerous precedent that, in my opinion, may encourage others to bear false witness against Marines as a tactic to erode public support of the Marine Corps and mission in Iraq," Ware wrote. (Ya think?)
…
Do you suppose any of the media outlets will beg forgiveness for slandering this marine?
One of the problems with this kind of conflict and enemy is that it's difficult at best, and often impossible, to determine who is a "civilian." The enemy aren't "soldiers" wearing uniforms and marching under a battle flag. They can be shooting or planting explosives one minute and unarmed "civilians" the next. Or the "civilians" could be the family members, lookouts, and logistical support for the people doing the shooting.
I'm sure there are some bad apples among U.S. troops doing things for which they should be punished.
But I'm also certain that the Islamofascists, who've beaten us badly in the public relations war, have long been encouraging their partisans to bear false witness against U.S. troops in order to erode public support for the mission.
I'm just wondering if Rep. Jack Murtha and the others who aided and abetted our enemies in this matter cynically did so as a tactic to erode puplic support, or if they're merely what the communists used to call "useful idiots"?
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: iraq, justice, marines, media bias, military, murtha, war | 2 Comments »
Posted by Richard on May 28, 2007
On May 30, 2005, when this blog was just seven weeks old, I posted "What I did for Memorial Day":
I talked with my dad this weekend. That's not unusual; I call him or he calls me most weekends. He's 89, so there's no telling how many more conversations we'll have.
He wasn't a very good father — occasionally a bit abusive and otherwise always quite distant. For most of my adult life, I returned the favor by being distant (both physically and emotionally) myself. But with age came first a "water under the bridge" attitude, then forgiveness, and eventually love.
My dad was a career Army officer who served in both WWII and Korea. This weekend — for the first time — I said something to him that I should have said many times.
I thanked him for his service.
We both got pretty choked up. It felt real good.
My dad passed away last August. I'm so very glad that I thanked him while he was still alive. I wish I could visit his grave this Memorial Day and thank him again. He's in the veteran's section of Highland Memorial Gardens in Knoxville. I hope someone has put up flags, like they do in Arlington.
Last year, I posted Edgar Guest's moving poem and Isaac Wankerl's wonderful photo of Arlington. I can't improve on those, so here they are again.
Please take a moment today to remember those who died "that liberty shall live," as Guest put it. And if you have friends or relatives — or maybe an elderly neighbor down the street — who are veterans, thank them now. Don't wait until they have a marker over their head. The WWII veterans in particular are rapidly dwindling in number, and they really did fight so that "free men wear no tyrant's chain."
Memorial Dayby Edgar A. Guest (1881-1959) |
|
|
The finest tribute we can pay
Unto our hero dead to-day, Is not a rose wreath, white and red, In memory of the blood they shed; It is to stand beside each mound, Each couch of consecrated ground, And pledge ourselves as warriors true Unto the work they died to do. Into God's valleys where they lie |
Our hearts must be the roses red
We place above our hero dead; To-day beside their graves we must Renew allegiance to their trust; Must bare our heads and humbly say We hold the Flag as dear as they, And stand, as once they stood, to die To keep the Stars and Stripes on high. The finest tribute we can pay |
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: heroism, memorial day, military, patriotism, soldiers, war | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on May 26, 2007
Want to do something nice for our service men and women this Memorial Day weekend? Participate in Shauna Fleming's A Million Thanks project. Write a thank you card or letter expressing your appreciation for their service.
You can hand-make a card or just write a short note. Here are some sample cards and letters to inspire you. Or you can just go to the store, find a card that says "Thank You" on the outside, and simply write "for your service" inside — it doesn't get any easier. You don't need to buy a stamp.
For some more suggestions and some rules and guidelines (like how to do multiple cards or letters, or what to say or not say), check this page. Then, just drop your card(s) or letter(s) off at your nearest Buick, Pontiac, or GMC dealer, and they'll see that it gets delivered to an active duty, retired, or wounded service man or woman. Not sure where the nearest Buick, Pontiac, or GMC dealership is? Enter your ZIP code here, and they'll direct you. Don't forget car dealers are closed Sunday, so do it Saturday, OK?
Oh, and while you're there, thank someone at the dealership for their support. I'm not a big fan of General Motors (the domestic car-maker I'm rooting for is Ford), but they're doing a nice thing for A Million Thanks.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: memorial day, military, patriotism, soldiers | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on May 3, 2007
This may be the single stupidest decision to come out of the Pentagon since the Vietnam War days. It's so short-sighted and ignorant and insanely counter-productive that it causes weird conspiracy theories like the ones I sometimes have about the Stupid Party to cross my mind: Could this be the work of someone trying to ensure failure and defeat? Someone deliberately silencing the most knowledgeable, articulate, informative, effective, moving, and persuasive voices in support of the War Against Islamofascism? It might as well be; the effect is the same, regardless of the motive.
It's too late and I'm too tired to write up the lengthy but unfocused rant that's been bubbling up since I first heard this news. So I'll just let Hugh Hewitt fill you in:
The Pentagon has issued new regulations effectively shutting down all active duty military blogs.
I find this decision to be so amazingly ill-informed about how the milblogs have served the war effort and the cause of the military as to raise real doubts about the military's ability to ever get ahead of the enemy in the information war. Really, if such a blunder can happen without anyone even asking about the ill effects on the effort to keep information flowing from people in the know to combat the ceaseless propaganda from the enemy, then the brass involved cannot possibly understand how the information war is playing out.
The new rules (.pdf) obtained by Wired News require a commander be consulted before every blog update.
"This is the final nail in the coffin for combat blogging," said retired paratrooper Matthew Burden, editor of The Blog of War anthology. "No more military bloggers writing about their experiences in the combat zone. This is the best PR the military has — it's most honest voice out of the war zone. And it's being silenced."
In my mind, it's anybody's guess as to who's more interested in silencing milbloggers, the Islamofascists or the Democrats. Michelle Malkin has lots more info. The 2007 Milblog Conference is this weekend, making this story even more ironic and infuriating.
I can't even think clearly about what should be done — maybe tomorrow. Some moron with stars on his shoulders ought to be horsewhipped. Express your outrage to somebody somewhere who might make a difference. You are outraged, aren't you?
UPDATE: The online firestorm this ignited seems to be having an effect. The Army is backing off — sort of. Maybe. It sounds to me a bit like, "Well, the regulations don't really mean what they say. Unless your CO decides they do." I suspect we'll be hearing more about this.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: army, blogging, censorship, conspiracy theories, military, soldiers, war | 3 Comments »
Posted by Richard on May 3, 2007
Words fail me. Michelle Malkin:
Reader Bill N. e-mails the back story of the veto pen Bush used to nix the Democrats' surrender bill:
Bush signed the veto with a pen given to him by Robert Derga, the father of Marine Corps Reserve Cpl. Dustin Derga, who was killed in Iraq on May 8, 2005. The elder Derga spoke with Bush two weeks ago at a meeting the president had with military families at the White House.
Derga asked Bush to promise to use the pen in his veto. On Tuesday, Derga contacted the White House to remind Bush to use the pen, and so he did. The 24-year-old Dustin Derga served with Lima Company, 3rd Battalion 25th Marines from Columbus, Ohio. The five-year Marine reservist and fire team leader was killed by an armor-piercing round in Anbar Province.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: bush, character, heroism, iraq, military, victory, war | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on May 2, 2007
If you share my contempt and disgust for the Democrats' embrace of defeat, if you agree that the war is lost only if we retreat or surrender, if you think America's strategy for dealing with the global Islamofascist movement should be the same strategy that Ronald Reagan adopted toward the Communist bloc — "We win, they lose" — please sign the petition below.
But first, click here to email your friends and urge them to sign it, too.
(NOTE: If you don’t see the petition below, you have JavaScript turned off. Go to We Win, They Lose to sign.)
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: congress, defeat, democrats, harry reid, iraq, military, pelosi, politics, victory | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on April 20, 2007
Any day now, I expect Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Shadow Secretary of State) and Sen. Harry Reid (Shadow Secretary of Defense) to announce that they're heading for an undisclosed location in the Middle East to meet with representatives of Syria, Iran, al Qaeda in Iraq, and the Mahdi Army. Their purpose? To begin negotiating the terms of surrender for the United States.
I think Rob at Say Anything has their number:
So Harry thinks the war is lost. Today anyway. But just three days ago Reid was still talking about giving the troops a “strategy for success” and giving the troops “every penny” they need.
Which is it? Are we going to try to be successful in Iraq or are we just going to give up and come home?
I think the answer for the Democrats is “neither.” They aren’t interested in trying to win the war in Iraq (as evidenced by Harry’s declaration of defeat above) nor are they interested in withdrawing gracefully. …
The Democrats want nothing less than a full-scale defeat and embarrassment for the President in Iraq, because that’s what will help them the most politically. They want that, and they don’t care how many troops have to die to get it.
Burning Zeal and Judicious Asininity thought along the same lines about the undermining of morale, comparing Reid's declaration of defeat to Tokyo Rose and Lord Haw Haw, respectively.
Engram at Back Talk has a marvelous post entitled "When al Qaeda talks…" You really need to read the whole thing, but I can't resist quoting this gem:
I wish al Qaeda would directly attach puppet strings to Harry Reid so they could make him say these things without having to kill 200 innocent Iraqis every few weeks. It would be much more efficient that way.
You ought to read Jed Babbin's new column, too. For a lighter take, you can always count on ScrappleFace: "Reid Supports the Troops Who Lost the War"
But the best counterpoint to Reid's contemptible claim comes, naturally, from a Milblogger in Iraq, SSG Thul (I'm quoting almost the whole post because it's too good to excerpt; but click the link anyway, check out his blog, and maybe leave a note of thanks in the comments):
This is the creme de la creme of what the Appeal For Courage is all about. The leader of the majority party of the United States Senate has proclaimed to the world that the war in Iraq is lost. Done. Over. So what the heck are we still doing here then? Why isn't he making plans to fly us home tomorrow?
Oh yeah, that's right, because we haven't lost the war. In point of fact, we are winning the war, though you would never know it from what the media reports. Here in my room, I have a small TV that stays perpetually on the AFN news channel. CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, and Fox are all represented. Yet from none of these news sources have I heard even a peep about the fact that the Coalition yesterday announced the transfer of security responsibilities of the 4th Iraqi province to the Iraqi government. Instead we hear about the wave of bombings in Baghdad. Not one of the anchors that are interviewing the 'live from the Green Zone' reporters has apparently taken notice of the fact that the reporters are no longer wearing body armor.
So you might ask how we can be winning the war when all you see on TV news is reports of bombings and death squads and such. The answer is simple. All of those reports come out of Baghdad itself. There are no reporters out here in the provinces. In nearly 13 months, I have seen one reporter here at Al Asad, and that was a gentleman from 60 Minutes who has been following our brigade from training through deployment to Iraq.
The name of this blog comes from the oath I swore when I enlisted in the Army. I will support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And though I don't consider Sen. Reid an enemy, he surely is not an ally. He is heading a group of politicians who are actively trying to undermine the war effort, and would prefer that we lose the war to further their own political ends. They want to set a timeline for military withdrawal to coincide with the 2008 elections. To further his political career, he is intentionally putting my soldiers and I more at risk.
According to Sen Reid's logic, we would have surrendered to the Germans in December of 1944. During the Battle of the Bulge, the German Army nearly broke the Allied front, and the US suffered one of the highest casualty counts for any battle of the war in Europe. Yet less than 6 months later, the war was over, with Germany surrendering unconditionally.
According to Sen Reid's logic, President Lincoln should have surrendered to the Confederacy in the spring of 1864. The battles of Cold Harbor and the Wilderness, on top of the costly victory at Gettysburg the summer before, were proportionally much worse than the recent suicide bombing campaign in Baghdad. Yet just a year after Cold Harbor, the Confederacy was a footnote in history.
I can only hope that the American people at home will trust the soldiers on the ground instead of the politicians trying to advance their careers. If we can hang on long enough to win the war, it will be a tough time to be a Democrat in America. Stabbing the troops in the back during a war will be hard to live down.
Bravo, Sergeant! Bless your noble heart, stay safe, and know that many here at home support you and your mission and have the utmost admiration for and confidence in our troops.
The Appeal for Courage that the Sergeant mentioned is something I blogged about last month. If you're active duty military, Reserve, or National Guard, please go there and sign up.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: congress, defeat, democrats, harry reid, iraq, military, pelosi, politics, victory | Leave a Comment »
