Is This A Great Country, Or What?

It was a couple months ago that I had the honor of being in the presence of the President of the United States. The event was a breakfast on the South Lawn where Gathering of Eagles, National Alliance of Families, Move America Forward and the Vets for Freedom were feted. I admit that I ate nothing because I feared ingesting anything would lead to me vomiting on the White House lawn, so awe struck was I by being an invited guest on the grounds of the White House. It was nice to be honored that way, and to be surrounded by people who were similarly moved. It is proof positive to me that this is the greatest country on the planet. After all, prior to that day in September I was not personally acquainted with anyone who had been invited to the White House, nor had I been able to converse with the sitting President and Vice President of the United States as if we were regular folk.

There is nothing wrong with fervently loving the good old US of A. These days many people will tell you that America is the cause of all of the world's ills. Nothing could be further from the truth. We, as Americans, are everything that is good about the world and the reason why the world is still a place where millions of people can live freely. A great part of that ability to let people live freely comes at the point of a weapon. A weapon cradled with both tender loving care and exacting precision. A weapon cradled by those among us who choose to wear the uniform of the United States Military. The mostly young warriors who currently serve are what is best about us. It has always been that way, but these kids, and their elder NCOs and officers, are special. They are truly golden.

The Ayatollah Khomeini once said, both in word and print, that there are no jokes in Islam. That is but one of the differences between the United States, and not just radical Islam, but the majority of the world. We have always had a somewhat self-deprecating sense of humor. The wry smile that comes before a side splitting joke at our own expense has always been one of our hallmarks. A nation that cannot laugh at itself cannot survive the trials and tribulations that a Super Power must endure; not for long anyway. The Soviet Union and the Third Reich have proven that. What we, as Americans, have been able to accomplish is nothing short of the greatest country the world has ever produced. We are the most caring, most imaginative, most giving people on the planet, and, when roused, the most capable of sustained military operations. We have proven to be unyielding in the prosecution of evil foes, and the current climate is no exception.

Many will say that we are fighting at least one unjust war, if not two. These are the same people who will laugh uproariously and protest loudly when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says, "There are no homosexuals in Iran," but pass away his comments about wiping Israel of the face of the planet as if they are just the utterances of a deranged homeless person. We are engaged in a war with radical Islam precisely because we can laugh at ourselves, and because we can allow those among us to disagree. It is not because we are occupying the Holy Land of Islam, nor because we support Israel. It is because we are the greatest nation on Earth, and we are the greatest because we are free. Freedom is not free, and no one knows that better than those who have worn the uniform.

I have ranted too many times in this arena about the political posturings of the anti-American forces on the left in this country. Likewise, the inane mutterings of Reps Pelosi and Paul, and Sens Kennedy and Reid have taken up too much space here already. I think anyone who reads my writings knows where I stand on those imbeciles. I am sick though, of all the bashing of the country I love. I have heard often that all Islam needs is a Reformation and the moderates will rise up to carry the standard. Unfortunately, I believe the Reformation is underway, and the radicals are winning. Those on the extreme American left cannot see that evil, but witness American ills at every availability. The "I Support the Troops, but Not the War" crowd cannot even find it in their hearts to publicly condemn the public lashing and subsequent jail term of an Islamic rape victim in Saudi Arabia because it would undercut their position on Iraq. They will, however, applaud the likes of Brian DePalma and Mark Cuban when they make a movie that depicts the rape and murder of Iraqis by American servicemen. Never mind that the movie seeks to be allegorical in nature.

I am tired of it. I no longer wish to dialogue with those types of people. I no longer wish to make them understand that we are engaged in a world-wide battle for our very survival. I have, instead, decided to channel all my efforts into supporting the brave men and women who currently wear our nations' uniform. I choose instead to back those valiant warriors with all my might, so that they may complete their mission; a mission I fully support and one which is, finally, going in the right direction. I support the troops and the mission because they support us. They support the country I love, my country, the United States of America. They fully know the stakes and, yet, still shoulder the burden and soldier, or sailor, or airman, or Marine, or Guardsman on. I love these kids because they are my country. So, this time of year do something kind for the men and women in uniform. Send them some love in the desert, and tell the next person who says I Support the Troops, but Not the War to just shut the hell up.

Culture of Mythology

With the near constant back and forth of our political leaders it occurred to me that American culture may quite rightly be at fault. After all, American Idol gets higher audience share than nearly everything else. News programs devote sizable portions of their air time to the trials and tribulations of Paris Hilton and Owen Wilson. I am not without sympathy for spoiled millionaires who get whatever they want, whenever they want it. I would, I am sure, have behaved in a similar fashion were I suddenly bequeathed millions at age 21. The constant fascination with their lives is what irks me. We are coming up on the 6th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, are simultaneously fighting two hot wars, and several warm ones too, and this is what people want to watch? Maybe al-Qaeda is justified in hating, if not all of us, than at least a simple majority of Americans.

While I am on the topic of al-Qaeda let's dispel a few myths there. Osama bin Laden has been characterized as a 6 foot 5 inch Saudi billionaire, dying from kidney disease. He has never been worth more than 20 million, is, at best 6 foot 1 and probably has Addison's Disease. I mentioned those things to someone recently and was asked, "How the hell do you know?" "Read a book," I responded. Lawrence Wright's exquisitely researched and foot-noted book The Looming Tower should be required reading for American school children, and the honorable men and women of Congress. Maybe then these superhuman qualities attributed to a psychotic, militantly Muslim madman could be replaced with the truth. Now I know the truth is not easily chopped into sound bites, but it is where we should all start. I have read the book a couple times and it was just released in paperback this week, so consider this a plug. If you're interested in the "real" story about al-Qaeda and militant Islam pick it up.

Another myth that needs dispelling is that the war in Iraq is a losing issue. First, we never lost a battle in Vietnam, but the media decided that was a loss because they forced our brave Vietnam vets to slink home with their tails between their legs. The same thing is being tried with our brave Middle Eastern Conflicts vets. Our warriors are ruthlessly hunting down and killing al-Qaeda and their cronies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both bin Laden and Zawahiri have released multiple tapes calling Iraq the "central war for dominance." Somehow though American mythology keeps replaying the WMD track. Let me say it once and for all, "IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW WE GOT THERE. WE ARE IN IRAQ NOW AND MUST WIN."

This week the Democratic Party took righteous indignation at the notion that President Bush would reference Vietnam and Iraq in the same breath. Vietnam has always been their stock in trade after all. The liberal left believes they won Vietnam by marching, banging drums, smoking pot and supporting the troops by calling them "baby-killers." The liberal left did win the Vietnam War. They just won it for the wrong side. That is the same model alive and well today for the left. They chant and sing, bang pots and support the troops by calling us, variably, "baby-killers," "war criminals," and the new and improved "bomb throwers." The similarities to Vietnam are real; just not in the way the left would have us believe. The left is helping our enemy maintain fighting strength and recruit new members to their culture of death. The left is actively trying to demoralize our brave men and women in uniform. The left is trying to bring about the overthrow of a democratically elected government, both here and in Iraq, and, most importantly, they are invested in us losing, at all costs.

The main difference between Iraq and Vietnam is that the NVA had no intention of visiting murder and mayhem on American cities. Al-Qaeda has, and will if given the safe haven an unstable Iraq will provide. Afghanistan under the Taliban will look like Canada in comparison to how a destabilized Iraq will look. Al-Qaeda and every associated cause will not only have a safe haven, but a revenue stream of petroleum. Iran has no interest in seeing a stable, democratic Iraq and the overwhelming number of foreign terrorists in Iraq are still Saudis. Iran provides arms and Saudi Arabia cannon fodder. Seems like Saudi Arabia has an inexhaustible stream of young men ready to die for Allah. Saudi Arabia wants no part of democracy in Iraq because it might give the locals back home some ideas. How could a region lousy with Maserati driving, yacht owning princes manage to maintain that lifestyle if democracy took hold?

The greatest myth being perpetuated on the American public though is that we are at war. The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard are at war. The American public is at the mall watching the latest, mindlessly juvenile Will Ferrell offering. Next month I will be in the nation's capital, Washington, DC, a number of times. I will be visiting Congress on 10 September both to twist arms and slap backs. I care not for party affiliation. A number of democrats will receive an "atta boy" for recognizing that The Surge is working, and a number of republicans will be reminded that they work for us. I find it surprising that people who just a few months ago who had said Iraq was lost now say, well the strategy is working, but we still need a political answer. As if a political answer is possible without a military solution to precede it. I will also be in Washington, DC to counter the likes of International A.N.S.W.E.R., Code Pink, The World Workers Party, and various, assorted communists du jour. These groups plan to tell Congress to "do the people's bidding and end the war in Iraq." The American people have no bidding. As I already mentioned, they are at the mall. I, Gathering of Eagles, Move America Forward, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Vets for Freedom and other like-minded organizations and individuals will stand up to the loud mouths of the liberal left. We will tell them, in no uncertain terms, that we want our men and women home too, but as victors, not painted as losers. We will not allow these communist sympathizers to do to this generation what they did to those fine men and women who fought in Vietnam. We will tell them that their myths do not fool us. We know we are on the side of good.

I understand that there is a freedom of speech and an alleged free exchange of ideas in this country. I enlisted at 17 to help guarantee it. I also understand though that, like it or not, we are at war with radical Islam and they are not going away. We can disagree on the politics of war, and even the direction. I do not believe, for one, that the first few years of the war in Iraq were fought effectively. We should have been fighting under the proverbial "black flag" from day one. This is where we are now though and we are winning, even al-Qaeda says so. It is Walter Cronkite telling us that Tet was a loss, once again. The model has not changed. I will tell you this. I am a life-long republican. I registered 6 days after my 18th birthday and have not looked back. I registered late because I was in Infantry School at Ft. Benning, by the way. So, I am a life-long republican, but I'm not on the republican side, or the democrats side. I'm on our side. The United States' side, and will be regardless who the next President of the United States is; although I admit I would probably soil myself if a certain senator from New York were to win. The question I have to ask though, "Is that too much for me to ask of everyone else?" I sincerely urge everyone of you who can be in Washington, DC on 15 September to do so. Stand with me and say, "Enough. The sixties are over and our brave men and women in uniform deserve to be treated like the heroes they are." While you're at it tell one of our brothers from Vietnam Welcome Home. They, maybe above all others, deserve it.

No Retreat, No Surrender

I know that there are many good people on the democrat side of the proverbial aisle. I can even make the leap of faith to think that some of the anti-war protesters are kind, caring people who mean well. Unfortunately, the world is full of cannibals who want to eat us and no amount of wishing can make the bad guys go away. It seems though, that the leadership of the Democrat Party are willing shills for the anti-America movement organizations Code Pink, A.N.S.W.E.R. and United for Peace and Justice. These organizations are anything but well-meaning. They all have their roots in the American Communist Party and their leadership have been bashing the United States in general, and the American serviceman in particular, for better than 40 years. Simply put, these organizations, and the democrat elite are invested in a US defeat in not just the war in Iraq, but in the larger War on Terror in general. It is the only way for them to prove to their satisfaction that they have the ability to influence events in the US and the world.

I have made mention of the anti-America movement attempting to draw parallels between Iraq and Vietnam. They have used the Tet Offensive and the current Surge in Iraq as evidence that we are an immoral, imperialistic, war-mongering bunch who needs to become more sensitive to the world's needs. Forget for a moment that Tet was a win for the US forces. I have blogged extensively on the historical inaccuracies of the Left's portrayal of the "loss" we suffered during Tet. Walter Cronkite said it was a loss, so it must have been. Actually, it was a monumental defeat for the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese; General Giap said as much at the time. Giap also is on record as having said that the American anti-war movement was the only reason for optimism after Tet, and was a resource to be harnessed. Giap and his staff listened daily to reports by the American media and decided that North Vietnam could win the war, not through force of arms, but by force of will. he reasoned that if the North could simply hold on long enough the American left would win the war for him.

Much the same is happening now in Iraq. Even though Bin Laden and Zawahiri have both released Islamic diatribes explaining the historical context of Iraq through the Vietnam prism, the anti-war left refuses to publicly accept complicity in defeat. Any rational human being would be expected to hear Bin Laden and Zawahiri's statements regarding the assistance anti-American rhetoric provides to them and immediately be chastised. Al-Jazeera routinely plays video of A.N.S.W.E.R.'s anti-war rallies and statements from the likes of Sen Harry Reid (D-NV) and Rep. Jack Murtha(D-PA). If a person was well-meaning and truly had the country's best interests at heart that would be cause for them to self silence their rhetorical protestations. Since it has only fueled the accusations and moronic comments by the democrat hierarchy and their attendants one has to presume that the statements are designed to cause a loss in Iraq.

The Surge in Iraq has been characterized as the Tet Offensive, or a holding action that cannot be sustained. The problem with that logic is quite evident though. Someone wiser than I remarked to me today that "To compare Tet to the Surge is dishonest. First, Tet was the enemy's last gasp effort pushing against us and we broke them. The Surge is us pushing against them and revealing that Al-Qaeda is the true Paper Tiger." Think about that for a moment. If the left insists on saying, as Sen Reid recently did, that the war is lost, are they not, in effect, saying that the American military, with all its vaunted might, is incapable of defeating a rag-tag bunch of terrorists? How could a person, in good conscience, say our military is the greatest to ever take the field and then say we have lost? The answer must lie in political machinations. Either the left-most wing of the Democrat Party has deluded themselves, or they are liars. No middle ground exists.

Somehow the American public has been lulled into complacency by American Idol and the trials and tribulations of Paris Hilton. The healthy skepticism we have always displayed has been replaced with partisan lines in the sand. If you are a democrat and a republican says something it must be a lie, and vice versa. An email I have received numerous times has a white-board in a Marine Corps barracks which reads: America is not at war. The Marine Corps is at war. America is at the mall. That notion could not be more accurate and it is a sad commentary on the state of the American public. Barack Obama, one of the leading contenders for the Democrat Party nomination is on record having said that, if elected, he would sit down with middle-eastern dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This in the same week that news reports linked Iranian Special Forces to American combat deaths. It was also the week that the US military reported there is no Al-Qaeda in Iraq. It is just Al-Qaeda. Apparently the left is prepared to believe anything the terrorists and dictators say, but nothing the Americans utter; unless it helps their cause. What it comes down to is this: either you believe that we should confront our Islamic enemies and kill them or you think we should talk to them. If you picked the talking route, you are also signing on to give up some more of your money to the public coffers, which won't matter for long because some man who wants to meet 72 virgins will eventually blow you up or cut off your head.

I, personally, am against talking to anyone who believes that flying planes into buildings full of civilians is a negotiating tool. I am for killing them, wherever and whenever we can. Iraq may not have had weapons of mass destruction and did not have any direct operational control over the events of 9/11. Iraq is now, however, the magnet for jihadists and, in the words of Bin Laden and Zawahiri, the "central front in the battle for worldwide supremacy." Iraq is the front lines in the battle for a worldwide caliphate and I have no desire to pray to Allah five times per day. My solution is simple: Unleash the dogs of war and let our men in uniform kick ass. The job of the Army is to win wars, not police streets. It is time for some good old fashioned military action, which will be borne by those who volunteered for it; the infantry. We may have chosen the venue, but we did not choose this fight. If Al-Qaeda and their compatriots want a return to the 6th Century so badly I say we accommodate their wishes and go medieval on them. Anything less is aiding and abetting the enemy. This is a fight we must win, or sacrifice all that we hold dear.

Never Hit Softly

This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
William Shakespeare

The Senate Majority leader, Harry Reid, has called for a time table for troop withdrawal in Iraq. This is, ostensibly, because the Iraqi government has not met the benchmarks we have set for them. I say we, but, truthfully, it is the micro managers in Congress who have set these goals. I will not bother to reiterate the myriad of reasons why pulling our troops out precipitously is a bad idea for the country as a whole. The Left just ignores the very real threat radical Islam poses to the country. In their defense though, they do have Global Warming threats with which to contend. Now that's really scary stuff. I also will not spend much time on the civilian casualties that will result from a Coalition Troop withdrawal before the country is stabilized. Let's just say, be prepared for film of terrified civilians being cut down by jihadists. Picture the Iraqi citizenry begging to be allowed to cower on tanks or prostrating themselves on airfields as the American helicopters lift off. Think the Fall of Saigon and you'll have some idea of what to expect. The real casualties will be among American men, and yes women, and it will be brutal, bloody and, possibly more than we can bear.

As an Army retreats from a hostile force it moves in a nearly straight line. It is hard to protect the flanks and, frequently, small elements are cut off from the main body. All the while Al-Qaeda and militant jihadi opportunists will snipe at them, detonate IEDs and confront lightly armed units. You could very well witness an entire platoon of Americans butchered on the evening news. The terrorists will not hang back and wait for us to leave. They will press the attack everywhere at once, and soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coast guardsmen will pay the price in blood.

The Left will gleefully talk of their victory as our troops are pulled out, but if you mention the civilians left behind they will be more sanguine. "Oh well," they will say "they brought it on themselves. We were there long enough for them to stand up. It's not our fault." Never mind that these self same hypocrites are the ones calling for action in Darfur to end the genocide; a genocide perpetrated by militant Islamists. That's different, will be the argument. Darfur is a humanitarian effort. Last time I checked, no one in Darfur had attacked the United States and there was no imminent threat of attack, so I cannot see how they can use that argument for Iraq, but still proselytize for Darfur. I, of course, not being a liberal am probably not bright enough to figure it out. More likely, hypocrisy is the liberal stock in trade because after all, they are down with the struggle for oppressed people; just not oppressed people freed by a republican President.

The millions of civilians that will perish will be seen as just so much collateral damage caused by a rogue cowboy who over-stepped his bounds. "Not our fault," our liberal friends will say as they prepare another round of organic carrot juice. What will be harder to ignore, but just as easy for them to disavow, is the American military losses. For years now I have witnessed the ultra-left call soldiers "baby-killer" and have seen vitriolic signage exhorting soldiers to shoot their officers. This though comes in tandem with people swearing they support the troops. How these two things are mutually possible is beyond my limited cognitive power.

What is not beyond my cognitive powers though, is the fact that a precipitous withdrawal, under fire, puts our troops into a special kind of harms way. Many more mothers will receive their Gold Stars should this reach fruition. It will be more than I can bear. I have listened to these blow hards in Congress, shaken their hands at ceremonies and watched them kiss babies. All the while they plot the betrayal of men and women they put into battle, only to cut the legs from under them when it became politically expedient. I loathe that type of bovine excrement and the lemmings in the nation who follow them, gleefully, are simply too much for me to tolerate. We need to convince these honorable men and women of the Legislative Branch that, whatever the reason we went there, we are in Iraq and we need to win. Al-Zahahiri, Al Qaeda's number 2 man, released a 90 minute video tape only yesterday calling Iraq the central fight for Islamic sharia law dominance. Yet Harry Reid sees only a civil war. This is the fight of the ages and we are in danger of losing our way of life. This war must be won. I promised a Gold Star mother recently that I would not let her son's, Sgt Brian Romines, sacrifice to have been in vain. I am prepared to do whatever it takes to support our brave men and women over in The Box. We have not lost Senator Reid, and I, for one am offended that you would say so. I would bleed on the flag to keep the stripes red. Is that too much to expect of an elected official? Sadly, the answer to that is probably yes.

Honoring Our Own

People who know me are familiar with my affinity and respect for Vietnam veterans. I have spoken and written many things detailing how, and why they are my personal Gold Standard for warriors. I do not need to articulate the broader reasons again. I will, however, take this opportunity to pay special attention to the Delaware Valley Vietnam Veterans, or DV3, as they are affectionately known. I have witnessed many things undertaken by ordinary people to honor others, but DV3 rises to a special level in that regard. This past weekend the members of DV3 erected their 22nd Annual Flag Memorial in Bucks County. It is truly an experience that causes me to look for the good in people.

Over 58,000 American flags are placed in the ground by volunteers. The flags are arranged so as to exactly mirror the Vietnam Wall in DC. Each flag represents one service member killed or missing in action in Vietnam. This year the flags were placed in the ground by a tireless group of volunteers on a day when the thermometer reached 92 degrees. With no shade to protect them, a dozen or so hardy souls braved the direct sunlight and placed the flags in exacting detail. The memorial has been set up for 22 years to mourn and honor those valiant men, and nine women lost to the Vietnam War.

This year the memorial was expanded to include all the conflicts of the 20th and 21st Centuries. Stations were set up along the edge of the Flag Memorial. At each station a description of a particular war was provided and the casualty numbers were totaled. Plastic-coated sheets of paper were placed in binders for ease of use. The grim statistics of each conflict were in stark contrast to the flags which bordered them, and the green grass which enveloped them. From World War I through Enduring and Iraqi Freedom the totals for those who have made the ultimate sacrifice were meticulously annotated. Surprise greeted many visitors when they saw how large the numbers were. More than a few people expressed shock at the number of non-combat deaths associated with each conflict.

For the most part, Vietnam veterans came home to scorn and derision, or, if they were lucky to apathy. The Delaware Valley Vietnam Veterans have channeled that treatment into something good and noble. They have developed a memorial that is at once honorable and apolitical. In a time where everything related to the military is politicized, DV3 has managed to remind us all that those who have given everything for the rest of us deserve not only remembrance, but respect. I was moved by the memorial. For those of us who have served there is no higher reward than the respect of our brethren. I started this post with a statement reiterating my love and respect for the noble warriors of Vietnam. DV3 and their Flag Memorial just reminded me why. Good job brothers and WELCOME HOME.

History Revisited

Lately I have noticed that the war in Iraq has decided parallels to the war in Vietnam. No, not the quagmire comment bandied about by the Left; nor the notion that all the warriors in Iraq are there because they had no other viable alternative. Well, maybe that is the correlation. The far-Left in America is always reminding the rest of us that they are smarter and more creative than the rest of us. It seems though that they have accepted the notion of "it ain't broke, don't fix it" when it comes to opposing American national security issues. I say that because while reading Whitewash/Blackwash: The Myths of the Viet Nam War something I have long believed was put forth in a more learned way than I have been able to muster. Simply put, the extreme-Left in America is helping our jihadist enemy kill United States soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coast guardsmen by extending the war in Iraq.

"The North Vietnamese government paid close attention to all of this, listening every day to world news on the radio, tracking the progress of the antiwar movement. They considered the antiwar movement essential to their strategy and rejoiced in visits to Hanoi by American public figures condemning the US involvement. They acknowledged privately that Tet had been a staggering defeat, but took heart from realizing that they had gained a political advantage, as shown so clearly by Johnson's decision to not run for office again. At that point they became supremely confident that all they had to do was maintain a level of conflict in South Vietnam long enough and the US would pull out, not because of lack of ability to wage the war, but because steady erosion of the will to fight would force an eventual withdrawal." pgs. 19-20

If that sounds eerily familiar it is because the jihadis have been doing the same thing the North Vietnamese did. If anything, it is easier for the jihadis to follow the news and plant their own stories. The 24 hour news cycle, ability to post anything, anytime on the internet and the complicity of a world-wide media that sees no good in anything the US undertakes outside our borders, and precious little inside, all make it easier for the bad guys to shape the war. The anti-American Left, most noticeably A.N.S.W.E.R. and Code Pink, have taken a page from the playbook of the 60s and 70s antiwar movement. In fact, some of them are one in the same. Code Pink sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to Fallujah, while the US Marines were fighting in Fallujah. Ramsey Clark defended Saddam Hussein in his war crimes trial. The politicians who owe their job security to the most radical elements of the American left trumpet the notion that "The War in Iarq is lost," or "The Americans are the real terrorists." The newspaper of record, The New York Times does its part and places Abu Ghraib photos on the front page for 6 straight weeks, but relegates an uncovered plot to blow up fuel tanks at JFK International Airport to page 30.

People have been conditioned to think that the antiwar movement is considerate and compassionate and simply wants the suffering to end. The truth is that for the hard liners among them the opposite is the truth. I have stood on the street and been called a war criminal and baby killer. The far left does not like soldiers, much less support them. They feel we are somehow less evolved than they are. If it were not for the virulent antiwar movement here in the US we could have conceivably struck hard enough that the jihadis would have chosen to abandon this particular battlefield. At the very least the jihadis would have been denied as much positive recruitment and little, to no, public support among the rank and file Iraqis.

I am still a firm believer in the American spirit. I know the American fighting man cannot be defeated in battle. I am not the first to say that the only way we can lose is if we are defeated here at home, but it is more than factual. It is a historical precedent. It is time to stand up and refuse to accept a revisitng of bad behavior. It is time for those of us who care to simply say: enough.

A Difference in Kind

The good looking gent with the winning smile and the Medal of Honor around his neck is Command Sergeant Major Jon R. Cavaiani, US Army Special Forces. I had the distinct honor and pleasure to hear him speak at a Support the Troops rally in Philadelphia recently. The citation for the actions which resulted in his being awarded the Medal were also read aloud. The Sergeant Major could not have been more humble concerning the award. In fact, in his speech he referenced it not at all. He spoke of the valiant young soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines currently fighting for the country, and the importance of supporting them fully. He spoke of emigrating to the United States from his native Ireland as a young boy. He spoke of the greatness of the United States and the love of country exhibited by all those who have worn the uniform; in peace time or in war. Sergeant Major Cavaiani spoke of making the ultimate sacrifice, and remembering those who have. The Sergeant Major did not tell those of us assembled in Northeast Philadelphia that the United States is a great country, in grave danger, in a dangerous world where carnivores are intent on destroying us. The Sergeant Major did not have to tell those of us standing there that information because we already know. The too small crowd assembled was nearly all veterans, with a handful of ardent, long-time supporters. We get it. We know that threats do not go away because we might wish it so.

The second and third photos were taken less than a week after the first. They were taken in New London, CT outside the gates of the Coast Guard Academy. The people holding the signs are supporters of A.N.S.W.E.R., a militant anti-American group that hides behind a facade of respectability. A.N.S.W.E.R. trumpets their concern for the troops, and a desire to eradicate racism. As the signs so decidedly demonstrate though, what they are truly concerned with is forcing an anti-American, politically correct, ultra-leftist agenda down the throats of the rest of us.

A couple hundred of us, once again mostly veterans with ardent supporters interspersed amongst us, stood across from A.N.S.W.E.R.'s assembled supporters as they waved Che Guevara flags and hurled insults at us. We were called "baby-killers," "war-mongerers," "bomb-makers," "sexist, racist, homophobes," and "hicks." We were chastised for not enlisting; never mind that 90% of those present have served. We were excoriated for being too dense to understand that if we just love people, war will go away. We were informed that they support the troops. Of course, as the Coast Guardsman and their families made their way past the A.N.S.W.E.R crowd not one hand was extended, nor was one greeting offered.

The assorted speakers on A.N.S.W.E.R.'s side of the street sceeched foul comments about the President and Vice President. They accused them both of war crimes. They called them liars and criminals and demanded that they be impeached. All the while repeatedly shouting that it is A.N.S.W.E.R. and its supporters who truly support the troops. It apparently has escaped these people that you cannot call the President of the United States a terrorist and say you support the troops doing his bidding. You cannot separate the Commander-in-Chief and his charges. They are by definition and nature mutually inclusive.

Gathering of Eagles was formed in response to concerns for our War Memorials in DC, specifically the Vietnam Wall. We were concerned that it and the other memorials would be defaced during yet another anti-everything American rally that A.N.S.W.E.R. had planned in Washington, DC. "Oh no," the assembled leftists cried, "We would never deface a memorial." Well, do a simple Google search of their actions at New London, CT and you will most certainly find a photograph of the Coast Guard Academy's sign receiving some anarchist sprucing up. "It's only chalk," they said. "What's the big deal," they continue. "Don't you want peace?" The point is that it goes to respect. Respect for country and those who serve it; something the overwhelming majority of this group seems to be lacking. The kids among them can almost be forgiven, and the 60's holdovers are simply pathetic, but they are all clueless as to what threats we, as a country, face. A more disparate group than white, Republican males were killed on 9/11.

A sign that was prominent in its size, if not its artistic character caused me to smile. In single line, marker lettering on a piece of large, yellow cardboard had been written, "Draft Young Republicans." Many of us recognized the irony and responded with something to the effect of, "You don't have to draft us, we enlist." Better than 80% of registered voters in the active duty military are republicans. Not because we hate liberals, but because we cherish the American tradition and the Republican Party more closely mirrors that; although lately the Republican's actions have been questionable on that score. What unites the Gathering of Eagles and our supporters is not a political ideology, but rather a love of, and for, the country. We see not a cause for shame, nor a reason to apologize when we see the flag. That's why American flags proliferate on our side of protests, and drag the ground or fly upside down, if they even exist, on A.N.S.W.E.R.'s.

I know not where we will go from here. I do not know if the Gathering of Eagles will become the vehicle for positive change I envision. I do know though, that as long as it exists I will champion the cause, and counter A.N.S.W.E.R. wherever and whenever they congregate. The reason I know I will do this leads me back to where this post started; back to the Sergeant Major. In more than 600 days of captivity as a POW of the North Vietnamese, after helping to extract his men at the cost of his own freedom, the Sergeant Major never lost his love, nor faith in the greater good of the country. If after all he has sacrificed, and after hearing him say he would gladly endure it again if it would make a difference in the lives of those serving now, how can I do anything but stand up, salute Old Glory and give it my all?

Always Faithful

I had the distinct pleasure and honor to be at the homecoming for the 3/14th Marine Regiment on Saturday, 21 April. As the Patriot Guard Riders, looking more like a Mongol horde than the completely altruistic group they are, came tearing around the corner astride their big, loud, mostly Harley Davidson motorcycles the crowd assembled in the armory parking lot broke into wild cheers. As each bike rolled past, the crowd chanted and yelled. The noise was overwhelming and infectious. I did not think it could get any louder, but then the first bus carrying Marines turned into the street in front of the armory. The assembled mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons, daughters, wives and just plain folks went wild with delight. Young Marines climbed out of the air hatches to stand atop the buses, waving both the American and Marine Corps flags. I yelled myself hoarse screaming WELCOME HOME! to these very young warriors. I am tougher than the average bear, but I admit that tears filled my eyes as the 19 and 20 year old Marines posed atop their buses.

I had spent nearly four hours at the armory awaiting the return of the Marines. I spoke to family members and friends who could not wait to see their loved ones. To be sure, there were a number of people present who were not related to any of the Marines. Men and women like me who have served previously, and a few who, though they never served, just wanted to let the Marines know they are loved. It was a funny thing though, all those A.N.S.W.E.R. types who march so vociferously and so passionately for an end to the war because they truly support the troops were absent. Not one A.N.S.W.E.R. shirt, or the like was visible; Not inside the armory grounds and not out on the route where thousands had lined the streets to welcome the Marines home. In fact, the Marines were so moved by the masses of people all along the route from North Carolina to Pennsylvania that they fairly gushed, repeating over and over how good it made them feel to see the outpouring of support. Not one of the dozens of Marines with whom I spoke related any recollection of the peace protesters. Granted, some of the people who have marched for peace may have been present somewhere along the route, silently standing by as the buses and their motorcycle escort roared by, but none were visible and none were in Philadelphia.

I have posted before on my belief that you cannot truly be in support of the troops if you do not support their mission. You can believe the mission has been botched, but you cannot be against it because the troops and their mission cannot be separated. They are one in the same. I now know that the A.N.S.W.E.R. crowd is disingenuous in their mantra that they support the troops. If they truly support the troops they would have been out in force to welcome them home. In fact, if we are to believe that those against the war are the majority of Americans, then their numbers should have dwarfed ours. And yet, in the nearly 500 mile route the Marines took home, not one peace protest was in evidence. What greater opportunity for a peaceful protest exists than to welcome the Marines home?

I recently received the best analogy for this nonsense of supporting the warrior, but not the war. I cannot take credit for it, but I have used it numerous times since. Imagine if you will that it is 1965 and I said, "You know I support this Dr. King guy, but I just can't get behind his Civil Rights mission. People are getting hurt down South. Police dogs are being sent against the people demonstrating for Civil Rights, and water hoses are being turned on them. Why, there have even been people killed for these Civil Rights. I just can't support something where innocent people are killed." What would be the response? First I would be decried as racist for not wanting equality for all, and then I would be berated for not understanding the importance of Civil Rights. Now I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but it seems to me that the logic is equally false when applied to the war in Iraq. My Dr. King analogy is the same logic the far-left is using for pulling out of Iraq, and yet, it is accepted as logical in some quarters.

I would further posit that the notion that the war is lost is equally illogical. If you were to ask 1,000 random people what country could defeat our military, 99% of them would respond "No country can defeat our military. It is the best in the world." Well, if the latter statement is true, how can the former be anything other than laughable? The two things are mutually exclusive. Now I may be accused of over simplifying a complicated situation. If that's true though, let me ask another question: If our military can, indeed, be defeated by an insurgency, who will protect us here in the United States when the terrorists come? The police? Police don't stop crimes, they solve them. They certainly are not prepared to combat terrorists in the streets of our cities and towns. I know that police officers all across the country would charge valiantly into the fray against terrorists were they to appear on our shores as they have in Iraq. I also know we would lose a great many brave officers were that to happen.

So, I started this diatribe relating how moving it was to welcome the mostly teenage Marines home from the war in Iraq. I have committed to attending welcome home ceremonies all across the region until the war is won. I will drive for hours, wait more and yell myself hoarse greeting them upon their return. I will also refuse to accept the "I support the troops, but not the mission" mantra any longer. I see it as utterly disingenuous and completely false. You can, intellectually and with good conscience, opine that the war in Iraq began on a faulty premise, and continue that it has not been handled well, while in my presence. No longer though, will I allow the notion that it is illegal, or worse, that the mission and the warriors can be torn asunder. I will challenge that rhetoric with words and deeds. Dissent is patriotic, sedition is not. For someone to suggest that they support warriors prosecuting what they consider an illegal war is fallacious. No one can do that, not with any degree of honesty.

The war may not have been necessary when it began. That is for historians somewhere in the future to decide. What is definable now though, is that our enemies believe that this arena is a battle for supremacy. Anyone who suggests that the war is lost, or suggests that there is no recourse left but complete withdrawal is helping the enemy. I am through questioning those people's judgement. I am now questioning their patriotism. When the inevitable response of "How dare you question my patriotism? I am a patriot!" comes my way, I will simply say, What would you do differently if you weren't?

Burn the Bridges

Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock.
Will Rogers

Will Rogers also famously said that he did not belong to an organized political party; he considered himself a Democrat. Well the current Democrat Party leadership definitely has no relationship to the Will Rogers mode of diplomacy, and precious little relationship to any actual organization. They have sold the country out for political expediency. Before you begin screaming about the Republican Party contradictions hold on. I will get to them in turn. The Democrat Party however, is worthy of particular scorn and derision. They have sold their souls to a malingering group of America-haters and 60s radical holdovers. While American warriors are in the field Congressional Democrats dither over how much pork to add to a bill designed to fund those American warriors. The Congressional Democrats seek to micromanage a war that nearly all of them authorized, while soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines fight and die to protect freedom. Of course the Congressional Democrats will say the warriors are not protecting freedom. They are caught in the midst of a Civil War they say. The Democrats will also tell you that they are trying to prevent more American deaths, but the truth is much more pernicious. The war, in Iraq at least, could be over by now were our warriors not hamstrung by political correctness and asinine rules of engagement. Had all those people "marching for peace" and supporting the troops by burning them in effigy, simply got behind the war effort it would be over. The Congressional Democrats, and their unwashed masters in the peace movement, have caused the deaths of American military men and women by prolonging the war, and preventing it from being waged in the only way it can be won.

There are only two ways to win a war. The first requires a Nagasaki/Hiroshima type response. The second requires a Sherman or Patton approach. No one would support the prior absent a WMD attack on the United States, so the latter is the only means available. We have to kill the enemy wherever and whenever we can and we must destroy his means and will to resist. That means denying safe haven, and relocating sympathetic civilian populations. You simply cannot allow the enemy to melt back into the community after an attack; nor can they be afforded sanctuary on holy ground. We cannot hope to effectively prosecute a war as long as our fighting men, the sharp end of the spear, remain fettered. We must release the hounds. Don't bother me with Vietnam notions of the hearts and minds approach either. The only thing Iraq has in common with Vietnam is poor management. In World War II we chose to defeat Germany before Japan, although it was the Japanese that attacked us at Pearl Harbor. We did not try to win hearts nor minds with either, and that worked out quite well. The frame of reference should be all out war, not some kinder, gentler act of aggression.

The Congressional Republicans, as well as the administration, bear responsibility for poor planning and then lackluster prosecution. They had the luxury of several years to truly go after the terrorists and clean house, but opted instead for some video game desire of war. Predator drones, cruise missiles and Stealth bombers are the hallmarks of modern warfare, but once infantry touch down the Queen of Battle cannot be asked to perform the tasks of a county sheriff. The infantry's job is killing bad guys and they should not be deployed anywhere unless they are free to do so. The Surge seems to be having a good effect. It may be too little, too late though. The media and Congressional Democrats will ignore good news at this point, and the Congressional Republicans are, for the most part, too weak to be effective.

So, who suffers? The infantryman, whether he be Army or Marine, and his brothers in the combat arms branches of the military bear the brunt of the political machinations. Men who, by nature, temperament and career choice are against politics as practiced in Washington, D.C. sweat, bleed and die for men in $1,500 suits who bicker about spinach harvests earmarks before they go on Easter break. Maybe it has always been this way, but I for one will not stand idly by. A generation of warriors fought honorably in Vietnam, only to be sold out by the suits in Washington. Those Vietnam vets came home to derision and hate-filled speech from their fellow Americans. Americans who wallowed in luxury because of the sacrifice of men who chose to proudly wear the uniform of the Armed Forces gave no thought to from where their security came. I will not sit idly by and watch this generation of warrior get treated that way. This then, is a call to action. It is time for those of us who have served to be heard. Call your Congressman. Refuse to be shouted down by the Birkenstock wearing miscreant, and stand up to be counted. The soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines need actual support, not yellow magnets on your car. Stand up for them now. Not only would they do it for you, they already are.

Ignoring Victory

On a blustery, but sunny St. Patrick's Day, tens of thousands of veterans and their supporters gathered on the Mall in Washington, D.C. They had come from nearly every state in the union and by nearly every vehicular conveyance to stand together in defense of the war memorials. International A.N.S.W.E.R., a coalition of far left organizations, had two months earlier sponsored an anti-war rally at the Navy Memorial in D.C., after which the steps of the Capitol building had been spray painted. So, when this self-same organization announced plans to stage a protest march on the Pentagon out of the Constitution Gardens, with the Vietnam Wall as a backdrop, veterans of all ages were understandably worried. Posts on Indy media sites referenced spray paint and the Vietnam Wall, as a means to call attention to the anti-war movement. Fast and furious emails between individual veterans became the Gathering of Eagles, and a movement was born. As A.N.S.W.E.R.'s supporters trickled into the Mall they were greeted not only by Washington, D.C. and federal police, but also Park Service and metal detectors. Most surprisingly to the anti-war crowd were the number of veterans ringing not only the Vietnam Wall, but all the war memorials.

I began my day with a security detachment at the World War II Memorial. Code Pink's supporters were rallying on the hill adjacent to the memorial before joining the protest march on the Pentagon. As their supporters trickled into the memorial we shadowed them about the perimeter. We never barred their way and we did not attempt to intimidate them into leaving the area before they were ready, but we did make our presence known. We engaged in no dialogue with them. Our very high-profile presence said all we needed to say. After several hours of that Code Pink moved off to Constitution Avenue and we moved down to the Lincoln Memorial.

My duty at the WWII Memorial, while completely worthy and necessary, had sort of made me feel like it was 1968 and I was stationed in Okinawa, champing to get into the action. Well, as we moved into the Lincoln Memorial area we found the action we had desired. My Marshall unit was placed along the street in between the veterans/supporters and the A.N.S.W.E.R. march. Our job was not to protect the veterans from A.N.S.W.E.R., but rather to prevent our guys from getting to close to them. From the beginning our mission had been described as non-confrontational. To be sure, we would have defended ourselves and the memorials from any aggression, but even these miscreants apparently had more sense than to challenge us physically.

Unfortunately, while in the presence of all manner of law enforcement the marchers showed their true feelings for us. Statements such as, "You guys don't look like America we look like America," and "Why don't you enlist if you support the troops so much? We support the troops, not you," rained down on us. Of course our responses of "Support the troops? We are the troops," fell on deaf ears. To be told that those of us dressed in various combinations of military gear were not representative of America, and that we did not support the troops stung, but the anti-war/peace rally crowd was just getting started.

"MURDERERS!! BABY-KILLERS!! and various hateful, expletive filled rants erupted from the advocates of peace as they slowly walked by. They referred to us as fascists, compared us to Nazis and informed us repeatedly that we were the problem for the country, not the answer. I have to say that I never thought I would hear words like this from my fellow countrymen. It angered me, and saddened me all at the same time. Our side responded to their hate-filled rants, giving as good as we got. Nothing could have prepared me for the appearance of the A.N.S.W.E.R. marchers carrying an upside-down American flag. Veterans howled and the crowd prepared to surge. Truthfully, had anyone moved to grab the flag from further desecration, I would have abdicated my responsibilities and joined the mass. The police moved in-between us and them and, of course, we allowed the rabble to exercise a foul representation of free speech. As the flag moved out of site I watched a wheelchair bound WWII Purple Heart recipient cry soundlessly. Rage welled up in me, and still we let the peace march walk by unmolested.

Eventually, the marchers had all moved off and we were able to visit amongst ourselves. I had organized a bus from Philadelphia and South Jersey, but had not met most of the riders. While waiting for the bus to return from its parking place I took the opportunity to visit with them. It was at this point that the only physical confrontation nearly occurred. A 40-something, goateed, L.L. Bean wearing "radical" and his wife passed immediately in front of us; on their way to their to a Volvo station wagon festooned with "Free Tibet" and "Ben and Jerry" stickers no doubt. Anyway, he began to philosophize about war in general. Having had enough I told him an expletive enhanced statement to move along and be quiet. When he continued his monologue I charged him, and with a heavy-handed chest bump I told him, "Get out of here now before I hand you your ass. These Vietnam veterans have suffered enough of your bullshit." For his wife anyway, discretion was the better part of valor because, as my Vietnam guys ushered me one way, the rabble's partner ushered him in the other. As the bus arrived I stood at the door and hugged each vet as they climbed aboard. Tears welled up in my eyes and I have never felt more a part of anything.

That day and the next found various accolades coming my way. Different units presented me with cards, coins and patches. The Vietnam Veteran's Memorial Society made me an associate member, which means more to me than a Silver Star. The most moving thing though was not a physical expression. It was a statement. I was asked if I knew why nobody moved to stop me from challenging the protester who dared denigrate my Vietnam vets. My response was something on the lines of I moved too fast, blah, blah, blah. "No," I was told. "It was because nobody ever defended us before. It has always been us, taking our side, while everyone else either attacked us or ignored us. Nobody stopped you because we all think of you as one of us now." I have always considered the Vietnam warriors as the Gold Standard. When I joined the Army they were my senior NCOs. To be considered among their number is, to me, the greatest award I could attain. Brothers, I will always defend you. That I promise. The media ignored our victory that day, but we know we out-numbered the other side. We know we did our duty as we always have, and I will always do mine by you.

Consequences? What Consequences?

The past couple of weeks have been ripe for opinion. The US Senate voted 81 to 0 to confirm Lt. Gen David Petraeus as the new Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq. Along with the command comes his fourth star, and a host of well wishes from the honorable men and women in the Senate. Of course, these self-same hired hands are also planning to vote to condemn the proposed troop "surge" that Gen. Petraeus has endorsed as the proper solution to the current problems in Iraq. Apparently the seeming disconnect, if not outright hypocrisy, of these two positions is lost on the stellar intellects who grace us with their presence in the upper chamber of Congress. The esteemed members of congress behind the non-binding resolutions currently making the rounds, have decried this disconnect as immaterial. They are not proposing "peace with honor," just dialogue, they argue. Of course, not more than a couple of months ago the same politicians were decrying the war effort in Iraq as simply supporting the status quo. Now, with a new plan led by a new commander (who wrote the book on counter-insurgency), the anti-war contingent in Congress is telling us that the non-binding resolutions are nothing more than a means to make the President wake up to the fact that we must find a way to withdraw from Iraq.

When the Baker-Hamilton Group released its report, the anti-war caucus trumpeted its findings by way of every media venue that would have them. "We must use diplomacy in the region" was the standard mantra. The Baker-Hamilton Group also endorsed a temporary surge, and both James Baker and Lee Hamilton testified as such before Congress last week. That part of the equation does not fit the current mode of attack though, so it has been routinely ignored. The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which was released last week was also cherry-picked by Congress. Statements concerning the "dismal" situation in Iraq were made ad nauseum, but the statements refuting the characterization of Iraq as a civil war were ignored. In case you missed it, the NIE referred to the current imbroglio in Iraq as follows, "The Intelligence Community judges that the term "civil war" does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, al-Qa'ida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence. Nonetheless, the term "civil war" accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of violence, ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population displacements." The estimate continues, "Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources, and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq. If Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this Estimate, we would judge that this would almost certainly lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi Government, and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation." The portion of the report that was released continues on its bureaucratic path for a couple more pages, detailing the potential for intervention from neighboring countries. None of that information comports with the political machinations though, so it may as well not exist.

The anti-war legislators have picked up the support of leftist actors who have "patiently" held their tongues until their "consciences" demanded they speak. At a self-proclaimed "peace protest" in Washington, DC, 10,000 people listened to Tim Robbins explain that our current occupation in Iraq is leading us down the "path to ethnic cleansing." Sean Penn decried the military use of "heavy armament to kill civilians," and Hanoi Jane herself, responding to a question concerning the 3,000,000 people who were murdered after we precipitously left Vietnam, said, "it's a shame our intervention there caused it." These people are the public face of the anti-war rhetoric. They routinely call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, regardless of the consequences. These actors and their allies in Congress should cease calling themselves a "peace movement" and should begin to call themselves what they are: a withdrawal movement. That, at least, would be honest. Neither the actors nor the members of congress care that peace will not return if we leave Iraq. Both the members of congress and the actors have continuously attempted to frame Iraq in the Vietnam mold. For the most part it is Vietnam that defined their opposition models, and, in the case of Jane Fonda, solidified her role in the hearts of the No War For Any Reason! crowd.

So, what is to be done? It is the highest of folly to think that a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would result in anything but further, more intense turmoil in the Middle East. It has already been proven that Iran has been meddling in Iraqi affairs, and may be directly responsible for American deaths. At the very least they have provided material support and border entry to insurgents. Iranian agents have been captured inside Iraq. Until a Presidential order was issued last week, these agents were held for three days and released. American forces may now capture and/or kill any Iranian agents found to be operating inside Iraq. Were we to leave before the Iraqi government could fully implement security and law enforcement controls, Iran would undoubtedly attempt to foment further violence in the hopes of setting up a totalitarian Shia regime friendly to Iran, if not an outright puppet state. The Sunni, already feeling marginalized, would have no choice but to openly oppose such an arrangement. Ethnic cleansing could then result, as could a spreading of the hostilities across regional borders. No one can say for sure what would happen, but we have to admit it would not be good for us, or the rest of the world, let alone the Middle East.

It would seem then that there is no choice but to give Gen. Petraeus the chance to implement the plan of which the surge is but one part. That may not be possible though. With anti-war momentum growing and becoming more emboldened everyday, Congress may act to cut off the funds for military action. Many members of Congress have said that the non-binding resolutions are not a precursor to that, but enough Vietnam-style rhetoric is popping up that cutting off the money cannot be far away. Senators Kennedy and Feingold have called for an immediate cutting off of the funds necessary to sustain the war effort. Perennial presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has called for a cessation of war funding and an immediate withdrawal. Even Senator Clinton remarked that when she becomes President in January 2009 that she will end the war. Funny how none of these stances make any reference to planning for peace; something that they excoriated the current administration for failing to do. It seems that Vietnam is the rallying cry. Forget that when we pulled out of Vietnam neither the North Vietnamese Army nor the Viet Cong followed us home. The same cannot be said of Iraq. Bin Laden has referenced both Vietnam and, more recently, Somalia as examples of American "cowardice." Bin Laden concluded that, "Americans love life so much that they are not willing to risk it." What makes any rational individual think a precipitous withdrawal would have any effect but to further that notion, and the radical Islamic cause?

Unfortunately, the cause for withdrawal has gathered momentum and the Vietnamization of Iraq has begun. I recently saw a "mock graveyard" arranged on the campus of the University of Pennsylvania. The names of civilians killed in Iraq were listed on placards nailed to posts in the ground. Most of these were attributed to ambiguous actions such as "tank attack" or "mortar attack," but a couple stated that the victim had been murdered by American soldiers. Those particular "tombstones" were removed rather quickly, but the slippery slope has been reached. The call for cutting off the troops in the field has begun, and before you know it all who have ever served will, once again, be baby-killing rapists. The far left has ceased blaming the politicians and has moved on to the soldiers and marines fighting for the Left's right to slander them. If I remember Newton's 3rd Law of Motion from 9th grade correctly, every action has and equal and opposite reaction. Pulling the troops out of Iraq before the country can successfully govern itself would provide an opposite reaction to that which we desire. It would not provide peace, nor would it promote security here.

We have not suffered a terrorist attack on US shores since 9/11 partly because we have been lucky, partly because some of our intelligence services are good, and partly because the jihadist focus is elsewhere. With no American devils to kill in Iraq the militant Islamists will seek out us and other democracies. That means bombs on subways in Manhattan, or buses in Los Angeles, or something much worse in Phoenix. Those events may still come to pass, whether or not the ship of state that is Iraq rights itself. No one can predict the future, not with any certainty. What can be predicted though is that actions have consequences; no matter what the immediate-withdrawal crowd tells you. The radicals will be emboldened by a withdrawal. They will see it as an American defeat. The hand-wringers among us have shrilly declared the war in Iraq to be a "recruiting" tool for radicals. A loss there would be the biggest recruiting tool al-Qaeda and its brethren could ever dream of. Everybody loves a winner. That's why the winning team of each year's Super Bowl sees a spike in its merchandising. Al-Qaeda recruitment after an American loss would be the exact same brand of marketing, on a nefarious scale. Nowhere in the world would it be safe to be an American. At this point I am uncertain if the anti-war momentum can be stopped, or even slowed down. I do not profess to know with any certainty what will befall us if we were to pull out tomorrow. I do know however, that the end result for the country I hold most dear will be one for which we are not prepared. I do know that such action will result in many more of my fellow citizens being murdered and maimed by terrorists who hate our freedoms. Most importantly, I know that we will simply have to fight them again on their ground, or lose our way of life. It may be years before that happens, but that will not make it any easier. Life is full of tough decisions, and the right ones are usually the toughest. The right decision now is to give the President's plan, with Gen. Petraeus walking point, a chance to succeed. I am not optimistic that that will happen, but in my heart I know it is the type of tough decision that Americans have always been called upon to make. I only hope it does not take another 9/11 before we all decide to make it.

The Stomach for Battle

The President of the United States will address the nation in prime time tonight. The smart money is betting he will lay out plans for a "surge" of troops in Iraq. The perceived reasoning for the surge is a desire to pacify the capital city, Baghdad. Ahead of the President's address I would like to offer my plan for stabilizing Iraq once and for all.

The first thing that needs to be done is that the borders with Iran and Syria need to be locked down. This will require two divisions of integrated infantry/armor. The Army's 3rd and 4th Divisions fit the bill. Both divisions would then have to be supported by a minimum of one squadron each of Spectre gunships, Apache attack helicopters and A-10 close support aircraft. The armor units, with the infantry in support, would engage any, and every, enemy group attempting to gain entry into Iraq. When these enemy insurgents are caught in the open the attendant aircraft would then kill them without mercy. If terrorists were killed just inside either Syria's or Iran's borders, so be it. It is important that the flow of insurgents and material support be stopped as completely as possible. The cost of attempting entry into Iraq across either border must become so high as to be prohibitive. Without this action no stabilzation is possible.

Once the borders are closed to insurgent reinforcements, US Army and Marine infantry, as well as combat-ready Iraqi Army units, could begin the push from the interior of Iraq. In a classic hammer and anvil action, conducted on a large scale, the American and Iraqi units would relentlessly push the Sunni insurgents, al-Qaeda forces and Baathist holdovers back toward the borders, and smash them on the anvil of the 3rd and 4th Infantry. Both infantry divisions boast high-profile Medal of Honor recipients, Audie Murphy from the 3rd and Teddy Roosevelt Jr from the 4th. Neither unit will shirk the responsibility, and both divisions will comport themselves like the tigers they are. The line will hold in the face of the undisciplined terrorists who run into it. The fighting would be ferocious, aggressive and bloody, but more so for the enemy, which would be treated to a "no quarter asked, none given" type of warfare to which they are unaccustomed. It is an unassailable fact that when actual battles are fought our troops always win. It will be no different here. The added bonus will be that the accompanying Iraqi units will earn respect and confidence. The majority of these Iraqi forces, once bloodied, will learn the invaluable lessons that cannot be taught through rehearsal. Some of the Iraqi troops will have no stomach for it, but those who do will eventually become the much-needed NCO corps of the still nascent Iraqi Army. The majority of Coalition casualties have been from IEDs, not major engagements. We would take casualties, to be sure, but this type of action would reward the aggressive, highly disciplined nature of both our Army and Marine infantry. With the Sunni insurgency thus destroyed or rendered, at the very least combat ineffective, the political situation could then be addressed.

At this point, the Sunni insurgency would be largely destroyed. We could then turn our attention to the Army of the Mahdi. An American surge, coordinated with Iraqi Army units, could then push into Sadr City and the other problematic neighborhoods of Baghdad. It would be bloody, door-to-door fighting and the US Marines would have to bear the brunt of the action. The Marines are, by nature and design, "shock troops." Need a beach taken? Need a perimeter breakout? Call the Marines. This would be the Marines' beach. Invoke the name of Chesty Puller and the Marines will fight like caged lions. Fighting this way would best utilize the Marines as a force, and give the Iraqi Army units a reason to stand and fight. Soldiers the world over will fight for their flag, but they die for their friends. I have no reason to believe the Iraqi soldiers are any different. The Devil Dogs would have to be unleashed for the operation to succeed. If enemy forces, of any stripe, seek shelter inside buildings, and that includes mosques, the full weight of American firepower should be brought to bear. We should not sacrifice a squad of brave Americans or Iraqis to neutralize a sniper hiding inside any building. Any structure used as cover or concealment should be unhesitatingly destroyed by all available means; several high-explosive shells fired from an Abrahams tank would end most engagements. The Geneva Accords are very specific on the illegal use of religious houses of worship, and it is high time we recognized that. In the long run, denying the enemy safe harbor, at the expense of infrastructure, will save American military and Iraqi civilian lives. On Sherman's March to the Sea he laid waste to the Southern countryside with very little loss of Union or, for that matter, Confederate, life. This had the effect of breaking the backbone of Southern resistance, and it will work in Iraq equally well. We have paid too much attention to buildings, cultural sensitivities and our public image. The American military and Iraqi civilians have paid the price for that misguided policy.

Once Muqtada al-Sadr's militia is fully engaged, Prime Minister Maliki will be able to publicy denounce al-Sadr for the thug that he is. With the Sunni insurgency on the run and the Shiite militias being crushed the democratically elected Iraqi government will be able to stand on it's own and make the tough decisions necessary to stabilize the country; that includes the arrest and trial of any group in armed defiance of the government. If any group, or it's members, attempt to resist arrest through armed revolt they will be terminated. The Iraqi National Police could then be purged of the bad apples. Local communities could begin to constitute their own police forces, which would be beholden to their citizenry, and not the local warlord. Business as usual would cease, and Iraqi civillians could begin to go about their daily lives without fear of retribution for collaboration. They would also be free from indiscriminate bombings designed to foment sectarian strife.

While all this ground action is going on, al-Qaeda would probably attempt to divert resources through a terror campaign. This could manifest itself in any number of ways. That is why it is important that the USS Eisenhower and its battle group be tasked with rapid response to any threat in the Straits of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf. The Ike, and her guided missile cruisers, destroyers, frigates and attack submarines would have to be reinforced, at least temporarily. The battle group would have to have, at least two guided-missile cruisers, two to three guided-missile destroyers and one ASW frigate, as well as her normal two attack submarines. Any attempt to close the Straits and/or sabotage oil platforms, refineries, and pipelines would have to be met with immediate, overwhelming force. This means, if necessary, helicopter insertions by the Marine forces and lightning quick retaliation against any attempt to attack oil tankers. The protection of international sea-lanes has always been the primary mission of the US Navy, and they are good at it; better, in fact, than anyone in the world when they are allowed to do it.

My airborne qualified friends are by now, no doubt, wondering how I have left the 82nd and 101st out of the fight thus far. Those two units would have to remain on alert as a rapid response force. Their "light" nature would best be utilized whenever and wherever a little extra muscle was needed. If the 3rd or 4th Divisions need some assistance drop in a brigade of paratroopers to give them a quick boost. Marines a little out-numbered in Anbar, or while defending a port from terrorists? Nothing like death from above to cause a reversal in fortune. My grandfather, a veteran of the 82nd and Merrill's Marauders in WWII, would tell the story of an 82nd Airborne specialist. During the Battle of the Bulge, US forces were retreating en masse before the German Panzers. A US tank commander heading away from the "bulge" noticed a soldier digging in alongside a road . When the tank commander questioned what in the hell the specialist thought he was doing the response he received in reply was, "Sir, I'm 82nd Airborne and this is as far as the bastards are going." Thus chastened, the tank commander turned his tank command around, and the line held. The 82nd and the 101st have earned their reputations. Involving the paratroopers as a quick reaction force will give them ample opportunity to showcase why that reputation is so well deserved.

This will not be a 100 hour series of engagements. The border phase would take at least 6 weeks, and maybe as long as 10 to 12 weeks. The hammer and anvil component, in conjunction with the push into the Shiite neighborhoods currently dominated by the militias will take roughly the same amount of time. We are, therefore, looking at a minimum of 6 months of major combat. I know some of the opponents to the war will trot out the old "Mission Accomplished" photos and decry the further loss of life. The UN will assuredly hold conferences, and the French will wring their hands at the lack of humanity involved. Cindy Sheehan will call our fighting men terrorists, Hugh Chavez will label it imperialist aggression, and The New York Times will gleefully report it all. We, as a nation, will have to ignore them all. We will have to respond to the nightly news footage of dead and dying Americans with the bitter resolve our grandparents did during World War II. We will have to flood any lawmaker with phone calls who dared to suggest a pull-out or cut-off of funds to our troops, until the deeds were good and truly done.

The end result would be a relatively stable Iraq able to support the assured growing pains any democracy must endure. Without daily suicide bombings and IEDs to distract them, the civilian administration branches of our uniformed military could then do what they do best; train police, build roads, repave airfields, etc. The Marshall Plan worked specifically because then retired General Marshall utilized military and civilian forces in coordinated projects. He did not see the plan to reconstitute war-devastated Europe purely as Secretary of State, but rather as a general overseeing the military improvising, adapting and overcoming all obstacles. It would be no different in Iraq. Without the daily threats of terrorim, job creation would accelerate, oil pipelines would begin to operate at near capacity, and the Iraqi government could go about its bureacratic business. The problem of Islamic terrorism is not going away. The exit strategy for Iraq is either we win and rebuild the country, or lose and fight somewhere else on as grand a scale as Iraqi Freedom, soon. The Islamists see the United States as a "paper tiger" to use bin Laden's words. If we prove them wrong in Iraq, continue to assist Afghanistan with its problems, fill in the military gaps for countries like Ethiopia as they battle Islamic extremists, all while taking the fight to terorists in lightning fast raids whenever they rear their heads, we can make both our country and the world a better, safer place.

Peace only works when both sides want it. Islamic terrorists have no reason to want peace, while shedding the blood of innocent people gets their demands heard and met. We must show the al-Qaedas of the world what the force of democracy means, and it must be merciless. No sympathy was shown for Emperor Hirohito. No tears were shed for Hitler. We must make those who would destroy us pay, and pay dearly every time they attack us. It must be done now in Iraq, so that we do not have to fight on a larger scale a generation from now. I do not expect that my plan will be the one the President puts forth tomorrow night. I doubt he will have the time to read my blog today, but I hope that tonight's speech has elements closer to mine than to those elucidated by Rep. Murtha or Sen. Feingold. The plan I have laid out is not chimerical, nor are the threats to our country. My plan for victory is strategic in nature. Tactical decisions must be made by the commanders on the ground. The field commanders must know that if they do not achieve their objectives they will be immediately replaced by their deputies. It worked for Patton, and it will work in Iraq. If the soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen know we, as a nation, are behind them, they will succeed. Many have accused President Bush of being a trigger-happy cowboy. Well, my heroes have always been cowboys. I just hope that tonight the President is more Wyatt Earp at the OK Corral than JR Ewing on the North Forty. All our lives depend on it, whether we wish it so or not.

View My Milblogging.com Profile