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

Random Thoughts

As the last week of the year brings an end to 2006 some bits and pieces have occupied my thoughts. Chief among my decidedly scatter-shot, cerebral meanderings is the wonderful news that the Ethiopian Army has whipped the Islamist forces in Somalia at every turn. I would like to extend warm, well-wishes to the Ethiopians for taking the fight to the world's enemy. The spate of military victories cheers me on a number of levels. It proves to me that our armed forces could do the same thing if they were just released from the political leashes that bind them to some perceived notion of humanitarianism. I have, therefore, come to a decision on what should be done to stabilize Baghdad, if not Iraq as a whole. We should borrow 20,000 Ethiopian troops and allow them to be the proposed "surge". This would satisfy the President's perceived desire to add troops, while adhering to the democrats wishes that no more American troops be put into harm's way in Iraq. When the Ethiopians were finished kicking the proverbial hind ends, and taking the proverbial names we could then offer Ethiopia some form of remuneration. Of course, this would take a large portion of the Ethiopian Army out of the fight in Somalia for some time, so we could donate a squadron of F-16s and a Specter gunship to Ethiopia, as a means of filling the gaps until the ground forces return. We could even throw in a herd of beef cattle, a boat-load of grain and whichever female, B-list celebrity the Ethiopians wish.

Of course, the obstructionists in the Democratic Party would howl that we were outsourcing American jobs and further oppressing the African people, but they would get over that soon enough. We could then speak to the coalition building we performed by including the Ethiopians in the fight for freedom. It would also serve as a reminder that the American military can win this war, if they are allowed to fight unfettered. I am not proposing unlawful action on either the Ethiopians or our part, but let's remove the ties that bind. During the American Civil War, Sherman's famous "March to the Sea" was accomplished with a remarkably small number of casualties, on both sides, but broke the back of the Confederacy. Sherman attacked the, heretofore untouched, infrastructure of the South and laid waste to the wealthy plantation owners possessions and property. Since these wealthy planters drove the secessionist movement, at little sacrifice to themselves, Sherman rightly assumed that bringing the fight to what they held most dear would end the war. Patton's Third Army accomplished nearly the same feat after the Normandy invasion. Had Patton not been plagued by the institutional jealousy of his superiors the Third Army could have probably ended World War II in the European theater much sooner, and thus spared both American and Jewish lives. A "scorched earth" surge in the problem ares of Iraq would have the same effect.

For too long we have allowed terrorists to hide amongst the civilian population in Iraq. Al-Sadr has become powerful because we allowed him to remain alive, when all signs pointed to removing him by whatever means were necessary. We should push into Sadr City and tear out the cancer which plagues the Iraqi civilian population. With all the talk of American casualties, scant notice is payed to the death toll among Iraqi civilians. It is no wonder the population harbors the terrorists. We have done absolutely nothing to show the Iraqis that we will ruthlessly destroy the enemy, so why should they help us? CNN broadcasts into Iraq. With talking head after talking head shouting for a pull-out of American forces, the Iraqi population does not trust us to protect them. You would not inform on the terrorists either if you believed that sometime next year you would be left alone with them. The Taliban came to power in just that way. The Afghans, tired of a decade of war with the Soviets, decided that stability, even of an extremist nature, was better than more civilian bloodshed. Could you honestly blame Mohammad of 416 Ali Baba Ln, Baghdad, for just wanting the random killing to end? After all, he has a family and just wants to see them grow old. Informing on the bad guys when the good guys apparently will not be around much longer is no way to see that desire become a reality.

I also spent not a little time this week thinking about President Ford. With the cable television apotheosis going non-stop who didn't? By all accounts the private citizen who was Gerald Ford Jr. was a decent, loving father and family man. That deserves to be recognized, but should be separated from his decidedly mediocre term as President of the United States. He pardoned not only the Vietnam draft dodgers, but also military deserters. He also gave us the Helsinki Accord, which made the Soviet Union's hold on eastern Europe "inviolate." He paid virtually no attention to inflation. WIN buttons, Whip Inflation Now, were his only real response to that crisis. In addition, he gave us John Paul Stevens; the majority opinion writer of the US Supreme Court eminent domain decision. Not much has been debated concerning those things, but much has been made of his desire to be a healer. I would argue that healer-in chief is not a position, and that desire was at the expense of being a leader. All of that paints a pretty dismal picture. His term is destined to be consigned to the Millard Fillmore category, at best.

Some may have noticed that I did not include President Ford's pardon of President Nixon among his foibles. That is because I feel it was the right thing to do. Unless the President of the United States commits murder, or sells top secret documents to the Russians while in office, I believe his successor owes him that. It should be recognized that President Ford actually pardoned two presidents. One in particular, and one with the blanket statement I mentioned earlier. William Jefferson Clinton was himself a draft dodger, although no one mentioned that fact during his presidency. That means President Ford is responsible not only for President Carter, but President Clinton as well. Is it any wonder that Helen Thomas speaks so highly of him? As egregious as the pardoning of draft dodgers and deserters was, (as a volunteer veteran I will never forgive him that transgression), the worst thing he did was speak to Bob Woodward, and allow him to tape the conversation. This has been described as "courageous" by various people on the Left. I would argue that it is akin to breaking up with someone via email, or maybe Post-it note. President Ford had to know how Woodward would use the information, and yet he went ahead with the interview, with the proviso that it not be released until after his death, or whenever Woodward published the Ford biography, whichever came first. That Woodward had typed transcripts ready for public airing on The Larry King Show before the late president was even cold speaks to his Machiavellian machinations. President Ford was publicly on record earlier this year as supporting President Bush on the Iraq War. Bob Woodward would have you believe otherwise. A thorough, careful reading of the former president's words seems to suggest that he only disagreed with the main rationale for going to war. President Ford believed the WMD characterization was the least important offense. His own words suggest that we should have highlighted Hussein's multiple violations of the UN resolutions. Up to the end President Ford voiced support for the military action which removed Saddam Hussein. No one will remember that now though, thanks to Bob Woodward. So, whatever the reasoning, it was a contemptible act on the former president's part, and questions both his decency and his cognition.

That may seem a overly harsh characterization to some, but ever since President Carter's whirlwind tour of Leftist dictators commenced presidents have lost some of their decorum. The Presidency is the most exclusive of clubs. They should not talk ill of the predecessors, nor their successors. They can, and should, disagree with actions that trouble their conscience, but that should always be tempered with the grace and good taste their position demands. I believe it was Alexander Hamilton who rightfully said, (or at least I have always seen it attributed to him), "When [ex-president's] leave office, they should leave the country as well, or else they will haunt like ghosts the new one." Obviously, the world was a different place then. In the 18th century, words an ex-president might utter in some far flung land might never make it back to our shores. That is not the case now. Ex-President's Carter and Clinton have both made disparaging, offensive comments while in other countries. These utterances are not only in bad taste; they are potentially damaging to both our national security and our world standing. Ex-presidents should recognize that, and, figuratively, leave the country once their term(s) is done. President Bush 41 has done exactly that, and has been widely praised for it. President Ford would have done well to emulate President Bush. It would not have saved his presidential standing, but it would have secured his private position as eminently decent.

Finally, Saddam Hussein's appeals have run their course. He has been ordered hanged by the neck until dead, within the next four weeks. It cheers me to hear the news, and causes me to wonder at the judicial proceedings. Scores of eye witnesses testified, multiple judges and defense lawyers were seated, and a comprehensive appeals process was undertaken. All that delivered a court order that the sentence of death be served, and served quickly. There may indeed be unbridled sectarian strife in the Sunni Triangle, but Saddam will be executed for his crimes before January is done. Meanwhile, convicted cop-killer, and left-wing darling, Mumia Abu-Jamal sits unrepentant on Death Row in Pennsylvania. 25 years after he murdered Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner, Jamal is still writing pseudo-scholarly articles, and addressing college graduations, while the likes of Danny Glover and Ed Asner call for his retrial. No matter that both Glover and Asner are on record as never having read the transcripts of Jamal's original trial, or the appeal documents since. They believe Jamal innocent because it assuages their liberal guilt. Well, I have read the transcripts and Jamal did it. If you need more information to sway you to that argument go to www.danielfaulkner.com. Iraq may have more than it's fair share of problems, both large and small, but they do know how to deal with a convicted murderer. Maybe we could petition the court in Iraq to hear Jamal's appeal. I will gladly help pay the airfare for him when the sentence is confirmed.

View My Milblogging.com Profile

Historical Context

"Once you are sounfortunate to be drawn into a war, no price is too great to pay for an early and victorious peace. All economy of soldiers or supplies is the worst extravagance in war."
Sir Winston Churchill

The assorted major media outlets are all agog that combat deaths in Iraq have eclipsed the number of Americans killed on 9/11. What, exactly, one death toll has to do with the other escapes me. The argument of these esteemed, ever-so learned, honorable men and women seems to be that a war is only worth waging if it is relatively bloodless. For the most part, those bleating this news have never served, nor even know anyone who has. They inhabit a strata of society that is insulated from sacrifice, and the messy business of war. The rough men who stand ready in the night to visit violence upon our enemies are not welcome at the polite dinner parties at which the Fourth Estate holds court. Seen in that light, how these honorable men and women can persist in claiming to support the troops is beyond my limited comprehension. "Support the Troops! Bring them home!" they bellow; this despite the fact that the military is an all volunteer force. The combat troops know exactly for what they are fighting. It does not concern these valiant soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines that deaths in combat have exceeded the number murdered by Islamic extremists on 9/11. Those killed in action were their friends and brothers-in-arms, not the faceless number the press so avidly touts. The supposed rationale for marking the occasion of each warrior's death is to honor them, but it is, in fact, just the opposite. It cheapens their passing, and ignores the larger historical significance of their sacrifice.

2,117 American servicemen were killed at Pearl Harbor. During the course of our campaign to avenge that cowardly attack, 405,399 men were killed in action in the various theaters of operation. That number includes 1,465 killed on the beaches of Normandy; 6,821 killed taking the island of Iwo Jima; and an estimated 19,000 killed during The Battle of the Bulge. If we accept the current logic, we should have given up the fight for freedom sometime in 1942. Wait, wait, the respected men and women of the press will scream when confronted with these numbers. You can't compare Iraq to World War II. This despite the fact that they do just that when discussing the time we have spent fighting in Iraq. How many times have you heard some talking head say, "We have already spent more time in Iraq than we spent winning World War II." Yet, when you compare the sacrifice we expended to win that war somehow the paradigm shifts. "Iraq didn't attack us!" Neither did Germany. "Hitler declared war on us." So did bin Laden. "Al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq when we invaded." They are now, and Saddam Hussein did have material ties to various terrorist organizations, if not operational one's. "Hussein didn't knock down the towers on 9/11." No, but he would have given any terrorist group that asked for it material and/or financial support. In fact, a November 3, 2006, New York Times article reported that as late as 2002 Hussein was still working on a nuclear weapons program, and had acquired the trigger for a nuclear device. How did they know that? It was on a website set up by the federal government. The feds had posted 48,000 boxes of documents captured during Operation Iraqi Freedom, and asked for help translating them. Upon being given notice that the Times intended to publish an article about the trigger, the feds took down the site. That was just another example, in a long string of actions, of the hallowed Paper of Record seeking to influence public opinion and policy. They effectively denied us another tool to fight the terrorists who would destroy us. One wonders how these same gentlemen of the press would report the D-Day, or Battle of the Bulge casualty figures today.

The Fourth Estate seeking to influence the opinion of the masses is not new. During the Civil War, newspapers routinely called for restraint, and are even credited with helping to instigate the draft riots in the Northeast. President Lincoln was excoriated by the press on a daily basis. In fact, he would probably recognize some of the rhetoric currently aimed at President Bush. It has not changed much in 142 years. What has changed is the notion of hope. By portraying the current killed in action figures almost in a vacuum, the major press outlets have undermined hope. Many people and entities deserve the ignominy of dividing us, but none more so than the press. They have reported the figures without the greater historical context they demand. Each death of an American service member pains me, but seen through the prism of history they pale in comparison. During President Lincoln's term in office more Americans were killed in combat than in all the wars the country ever fought combined; up to, and including Vietnam. Think of that in the context of the number lost during World War II. Most Americans still do not anyone killed in combat. During World War II, everyone did. That fact alone begs the question: why then does the press report on the war the way it does?

All Americans, regardless of social position, or political stripe, have opinions and will, in the right circumstance, act in their own best interests. This is not always a bad thing, but in the case of a supposedly objective press it is anathema to our principles and ideals. At some point, the major media outlets became brazenly convinced of their own importance. They ceased reporting the who, what, where, when, and how of news, and concentrated all their energies on the why. The front page of nearly every newspaper has become a repository for what the editors believe we should think. This has come about not through some nefarious cabal of media moguls, but rather through the reporters all being graduated from the same type of school. Gone is the hard-boiled, ham-fisted, hard-drinking newsman who wanted to get the scoop. He has been replaced by the perfectly coiffed, impeccably tailored celebrity who wants to "make a difference." These journalists are, for the most part, left leaning; never mind that they are all registered independents. Poll after poll has shown that they vote in favor of democrats disproportionately, and at all levels of government. From that set of ideals comes the mindset that American military force should not ever be utilized beyond humanitarian relief, and the very occasional limited show of force. Overwhelmingly, today's working journalists believe the United States is deserving of international disdain and scorn due to our "imperialist" transgressions. Forget that we have never set up an empire that even remotely resembles the world's previous super-powers. Over a hundred years ago, with limited forays into the Far East and the Caribbean we conquered the Philippines, Cuba and Puerto Rico. Subsequently we gave those lands back to the inhabitants; to our own detriment some would suggest.

At the conclusion of World War II, the United States stood poised around the globe with the greatest armed force the world had ever seen. Over a million soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines could have been strategically deployed to annex large swaths of the world. We could have, some would argue should have, challenged the USSR for immediate supremacy. Instead, as is the nature of great democracies, we disbanded our citizen soldiery and went home. The United States is now, and has always been, the shining city on the hill, which serves as a beacon of hope for the rest of the freedom loving world. It is our responsibility not only to defend ourselves wherever and whenever the need arises, but also to defend those, whenever possible, who cannot defend themselves when the forces of oppression would subjugate them. The Founding fathers envisioned us as a nation where good, hopeful men and women could make their way in the world. They cautioned against needless involvement in foreign affairs because they all came from a continent which had always fought needless wars for Empire. The brave men who stood against the mightiest nation on Earth did not see the United States of America as a place where we would isolate ourselves from the world. Those brave Founding Fathers saw us as a place where freedom could emanate to encompass the entire world; not through force of arms, but rather, through force of ideals. They would not have shied away from combating evil wherever it arose. They saw us as a nation "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." They also envisioned a free press as one of the bulwarks against tyranny. They did not see freedom of the press as absolute, nor did they see it as means to determine opinion. Instead, they saw the right of freedom of the press as a means for the common man to acquire knowledge by which he might draw his own conclusions. I am not for limiting the scope or breadth of the press, far from it. I proudly wore the uniform of the US Army as an infantryman because I cherish that right, as well as it's attendants. What I am for though, is a free press which returns to what the Constitutional framers considered of paramount importance: report the news, not your personal, or institutional bias. I honor the hard-working men and women of the press who braved hardship, combat and strife so that we, the public, could be informed. All I ask is that they remember that they are not the intelligentsia tasked with telling us, the proletariat, how and what to think. I would further ask that their reporting be given the historical context it deserves. No historical event exists in a vacuum, and Iraq, as well as the larger war on Islamic extremism, does not either. Ladies and gentlemen of the press, with rights and privileges comes responsibility. That responsibility is not to your personal ideology, nor your agency's bottom line. It is to those whom you serve: the American public. Reporting events to political advantage damages us collectively, and you would be well served to remember that. Islamic terrorists killed nearly 3,000 Americans in under an hour on 9/11. In five years of fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq they have only just barely matched that feat. Civilians were murdered indiscriminately on 9/11, but volunteer warriors have died since then battling Islamic extremists; both to avenge their murdered countrymen, and to secure our blessings of freedom. No matter what your personal opinion is on this war, or any other, the historical context and significance of our combat deaths belongs to those last three sentences, and those sentences alone.

View My Milblogging.com Profile

Peace in Our Time

On the heels of the Iraq Study Group report some simple things occurred to me. Immediately, I can only express my dismay at a world, and time, gone by. No war has ever been concluded effectively by diplomacy. One need only look to the past fifty years, or so, to see that diplomacy is what should occur after we have forcefully, and completely, vanquished our foes. The Korean and Vietnam Wars were ended by diplomacy. Neither resulted in a satisfactory conclusion of hostilities. American troops may have been removed from immediate harm's way, but the killing did not stop. At least in those instances we faced a foe who wished to end conflict; if only on terms more favorable to them. Our present battles find us engaged with a series of foes who have no desire to negotiate, no one with whom to negotiate and no means to enforce any treaty. It is the nature of the asymmetrical war in which we are currently embroiled that no central command exists. Those with whom the ISG would have us negotiate, Iran and Syria, have in mind radically different ends than do we. Freedom, democracy and justice do not factor into their plans for Iraq, or the larger Middle East. The only way to ensure that our jihadist enemy does not visit war on the scope, if not exactly the scale, of Hiroshima to our shores is to defeat them resoundingly everywhere they attempt to hide. Negotiating with Iran and Syria from a point of weakness will not accomplish that end. Stabilizing Iraq, and killing the terrorists therein, will. Simply put, Iraq is the central front in the battle against Muslim extremism, no matter what some more political minded beasts may say.

To that end, Iraq must be stabilized and many more of the enemy there must be killed. That includes Muqtada al-Sadr, and his reported 60,000 militia men. We must break the spirit of the militant Islamists by reigning down fire and brimstone upon them. They respect nothing else. We are currently seen, in the words of bin Laden, as a weak horse and/or paper tiger, unwillingly to accept casualties. As it stands now we are not actively taking the fight to the terrorists in Iraq. The ISG would have us do less. The esteemed men and women of this Blue Ribbon panel would have us fight this war as Vietnam in reverse. We would now, after three and a half years of fighting in Iraq, remove the main combat forces and embed advisors with Iraqi troops. After all, goes the argument, "the Iraqis have been training for three years. American soldiers are routinely deployed to combat after several months of training." That neglects the fundamental strength of the US military; namely the Non-Commissioned Officer corps. When I joined the 7th Infantry Division (Light) as a fresh-faced 18 year old straight out of Basic and AIT, my squad leader had six years service under his belt. My platoon sergeant had 14 years service to his credit and my 1st Sergeant had twenty. All three were combat veterans. Every platoon cadre was similarly comprised of, to my young eyes, crusty, old veterans. Most of them were younger then, than I am now, but they seemed so old. They inspired respect, and not a little fear. Human nature is to seek cover, or run away from the sound of gunfire. Surviving close combat demands just the opposite. Only the respect for, and fear of, a seasoned veteran can instill the instinct required to over-come basic human emotion. The Iraqi army does not have that cadre of leadership yet. You can make a soldier in a few month's time, but you cannot make a leader without years of experience. NCOs are experts because they have made more mistakes than the average soldier, and lived through it. They therefore know what not to do.

As of yet, there is also no banking system to speak of in Iraq . This means soldiers, upon receiving their pay, must return to their home towns to deliver the money to their families. At any given time no combat unit is at full strength. There are also infiltrators in their midst. By some accounts, 20-25% of recruits are terrorist sympathizers at best, and terrorists themselves at worst. The purging of the Baath Party left a power vacuum, and nature, abhorring a vacuum, filled it. Unfortunately for us, those that filled it were not always to be trusted. Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki is thus in a more than dangerous position. In addition, he receives contradictory messages from our leaders. President Bush has absolutely no intention of removing combat troops until the region is stabilized, but his political adversaries would have us bring them home now. Maliki therefore, cannot go after al-Sadr because if American troops are brought home precipitously, al-Sadr's militia may be the only thing left to keep him alive. Daily, Maliki receives mixed messages on our intentions. CNN, and The New York Times scream for immediate withdrawal. Faced with uncertainty from the US, Maliki has retreated into tribal allegiance with the only Shiite leader strong enough to prevent the Sunni insurgents from rolling over the country. Seen in that light I ask, what would you do? Iran and Syria have fomented the violence by arming and supporting terrorists on both ideological sides. This is mainly because Iranian President Amadinejad seeks the return of the Mahdi; the Koranic savior who can only return after the world is thrust into Armageddon. It matters not if we believe in the Mahdi's return, Amadinejad does, and is openly attempting to hasten his return. Al-Sadr's militia, Jaish al-Mahdi, the Army of the Mahdi, highlights exactly how confusingly opaque the entire situation is.

So, what are we to do? Numerous sources have screamed that the military is nearly broken, over-extended and in a deep malaise. None of those things are true. Young men do not volunteer for combat arms jobs thinking they will not go to war. As a 17 year old I volunteered for the infantry, when I was offered every job available. My grandfather and father, both former infantrymen, tried to talk me into Flight School, to no avail. So it is with the current crop of soldier and marine. Their average age is 20. They could not have volunteered before they were 17, so they knew for what they were volunteering; if not exactly the specifics. They knew war was in the offing and gladly accepted that mantle. The Army and Marine combat arms units are also re-enlisting at higher rates than normal. Recruiting as a whole may be down some, but it is by no means dismal, nor dire. So, neither morale nor malaise would seem to be anywhere, but in the minds of those who are safe here in the US. As for being over-extended no such thing is true. We do need more combat troops, but that has always been true. In the last months of World War II Gen. Patton's Third Army had around 350,000 men, but no more than two battalions of infantry in reserve. It was the same on all fronts. All available infantry units, as was the case then, need to be utilized, and that includes the National Guard and Reserves.

The National Guard is just that, a national guard. The National Guard has fought in every war since the American Revolution. The militias that battled the British at Bunker Hill, Concord and Lexington were overwhelmingly part-time soldiers, and the ancestors of the present Guard. Ask any liberal what he thinks about the 2nd Amendment and he will tell you that it was meant for the militia, or our current National Guard, not individuals. How then can anyone say the Guard should not be deployed in a combat role? It either is the direct offspring of those storied militias of the Revolutionary War, or it isn't. Since the 18th century the National Guard has been deployed to bolster active duty units. It is their primary mission. Flood relief and other state calamities are tertiary goals. They are called the National Guard because they guard the nation first, and serve at the discretion of the Commander in Chief. They should not take the lead when Regular Army units are available, but they should fight. Do not get me wrong, I am not in favor of deploying hundreds of thousands of troops to Iraq. I agree with Gen. Abizaid that troops in that large a concentration would provide too many targets and too large a footprint. In fact, I am not even in favor of a surge unless they will be allowed to do what they are constituted to do. War is a messy business, undertaken by hard men. It means fighting, and that means killing, and, yes, dying. We must recognize that Americans will die, but more will die, with no result, if we allow the present conditions to persist. In historical context, in just over three months fighting 90,000 men were killed during the Battle of the Bulge. It is the nature of war that a full out assault on your enemy causes less casualties than letting the foe pick the time and place of battle. The enemy always gets a vote, but it should not be the only vote, nor the most advantageous one for him.

We must take the fight to the enemy. Currently that arena is primarily Iraq. Instead of worrying about an "exit strategy" we should concern ourselves with a very simple plan: We Win, They Lose. The comparisons to the time spent fighting WWII are sophistry, at best. There was no exit strategy in December 1944, in fact Eisenhower and his staff were hoping the war would be over by 1946, or 1947. They had no idea of an "exit strategy" because nothing but utter, total victory would suffice. It is the same now, but too many of us do not recognize it. Our enemies are, in the words of Winston Churchill, a gathering storm. If we do not defeat them, and defeat them decisively, in Iraq it will be nothing more than a matter of time before the free world is lost. It may not be that the US will succumb in our lifetimes, and it will not be due solely to force of arms. Our financial markets are globally connected in such a way though, that our enemies can, and will, collapse our economy, gleefully, if given the chance. The US, for good or ill, is the world's economic hyperpower, so if our economy falters the entire world is impacted. Nothing would cheer our jihadist enemies more than to have another Great Depression visited upon us. The way to prevent that is to take the fight to the jihadists whenever we can, and wherever they are. That means al-Sadr in his mosque, if necessary. The jihadists use mosques liberally when it benefits them, and scream bloody murder when we defile them. We must refuse to accept that as legitimate. If they wish to trumpet Geneva Convention rights for armed combatants we should remind them that those same conventions make exception for the destruction of holy places when they are used as battlements.

We must also continue to export that which is best about us. What's best about us is not McDonald's cheeseburgers and Britney Spears CDs. What's best about us is our true, unassailable love of freedom, and the belief in our fellow man. We cannot negotiate our way out of this fight, and we cannot fight it piecemeal. We must fight it aggressively, brutally, with no quarter asked, and none given. Only then, as has always been our practice, can we disband our democratic warriors and let them come home to lead their lives. That is what democracies have always done. For better or for ill, we are now the pre-eminent democracy and we cannot, should not and must not do anything but defeat the evil extremists loose in the world. This may not have been the best time to fight this fight, but then again it is seldom the right time to fight. Had the jihadist proliferation in the region been left unchecked, we would have had to fight this battle by 2020, or 2025 anyway, and with an assuredly more horrific cost in human lives. And to those who would say we are creating terrorists and causing a proliferation, I say two things: 1) If that were true we would have created Nazis by killing them in WWII and, 2) good, they are congregating in a place where we can kill them more effectively, and with less loss of American life.

In his book, The Soul of Battle, Victor David Hanson, quotes a passage from former World War II Supreme Allied Commander, and President of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower's memoirs, "Daily as it [the war] progressed there grew within me the conviction that as never before in a war between many nations the forces that stood for human good and men's rights were this time confronted by a completely evil conspiracy with which no compromise could be tolerated. Because only by the utter destruction of the Axis was a decent world possible, the war became for me a crusade in the traditional sense of that often misused word." As Hanson further notes, Thomas Macauley once wrote, "the essence of war is violence, and that moderation in war is imbecility." In the same book Hanson references a speech by Lt. Gen. George S. Patton to his troops in 1944, when absolute victory in World War II was anything but assured, "We'll win this war, but we'll win it only by showing the enemy we have more guts than they have or will ever have." Those three men belong to a different time and age, but their words resound now with urgency. In fact, were I to remove the names and the Axis reference, and simply attribute Hanson's research, most would be hard pressed to differentiate them from the battle in which we are now engaged. That is the point. The battle which currently threatens to consume us is one of time immemorial, namely democracy versus evil. No ideology, once aroused, is as dangerous to its enemies as a democratic nation, because free men know exactly what they stand to lose. I can only hope that we still have the time, and wherewithal to wake up. We did not choose this fight, no matter what some may say, but we must win it. Peace in our time is only possible through a military victory. To paraphrase Churchill, we can no longer, feed the crocodile in the hopes that he eats us last.

View My Milblogging.com Profile

Wolves in Holy Men's Clothes

By now everyone is, no doubt, aware that last week six imams were removed from a US Airways flight for behavior deemed suspicious. According to a Washington Times article written by Audrey Hudson these holy men were praying loudly in the concourse before boarding the plane bound for Phoenix. Once on the plane, they dispersed from their assigned seats in pairs, with two in the front row of first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin. Three of the men then asked for seat-belt extenders, which they then placed on the floor at their feet. The imams then allegedly began speaking loudly, in both Arabic and English, criticizing the war in Iraq and President Bush, and talking about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. A passenger allegedly passed a note to a flight attendant voicing concern over the imams actions and, eventually, the imams were escorted from the plane in handcuffs. The imams, Mahdi Bray who is the executive director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, and Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee(D-TX) have now cried foul, suggesting that US Airways' response was not only humiliating and discriminatory, but racist. These honorable citizens have now called on Congress to pass legislation outlawing passenger profiling.

Let's deal with the imams actions as individual events. First, people certainly have the right to pray loudly wherever and whenever they wish. In my Center City Philadelphia neighborhood there are always crack-pots on the corner with megaphones proclaiming that I am destined to burn in the fires of Hell if I do not repent my evil ways. I ignore them routinely. The imams Muslim chants would have drawn more attention than the crack-pots, but by themselves the prayers would probably not have drawn much more that a scornful look. Most likely I would have seen it as self-aggrandizement designed to provoke attention. To what end they would have desired such attention I cannot presume, but in these litigious times a lawsuit is not out of the question.

Second, the seat-belt extenders would have probably gone unseen by me, with one exception. Since 9/11 I always sit in the last row of the plane with my back against the bulkhead. I also inform the nearest flight crew member that I am a former infantryman and that they can call on me in any emergency. So, due to my self-imposed positioning I might have noticed the request, and would have definitely noticed if, once received, the extenders were not immediately utilized. Would this have provoked a response? Probably not, but it would have prompted me to give them the hairy eyeball.

Third, the criticism in Arabic and English of the President and the war, as well as the references to al Qaeda and bin Laden would have set the bells ringing. I live in a very liberal neighborhood though, so I have become quite inured to that type of talk. A 70 year old member of the Granny Brigade for Peace was dining next to me just last night and made similar statements. At this point though, Arabic speaking would have caused me to visually locate each one of the imams.

Finally, having visually located each one of the imams I would have undoubtedly noticed that they had secured all the egress and ingress points of the plane. At that point I would have risen to my feet. I would have immediately notified the nearest crew member that their positioning was nothing short of operational security, and exactly the model of the 9/11 hijackers. You can rest assured that the plane would not have left the ground with them in that arrangement; even if my actions resulted in law enforcement having a conversation with me. As the saying goes, I would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six. Whether or not the situation would have become physical is only hypothetical, but I would not have left the plane voluntarily with the imams still in place.

The imams have said that all their behavior is explainable and innocent. The two who moved to first-class say they were upgraded, but the gate agent reports that the imams had been informed that no first-class seats were available. The imams, when removed from the plane were nonetheless in first-class. Likewise, the request for seat-belt extenders has been explained as a need for comfort. The flight attendants told police though, that the men were not over sized, and anyway they did not use the extenders. The imams also deny speaking in Arabic, or discussing politics, but several witnesses stated that they did just that. The imams, and the aforementioned Mr. Bray and Rep. Jackson-Lee have decried this as nothing more than an example of Islamaphobia and "flying while Muslim."

Nothing exists in a vacuum. We live in a post-9/11 world and, unfortunately for the imams, all the perpetrators of terroristic murder and mayhem have been fundamentalist Muslims. If the imams actions were innocent, and I do not believe they were, they should have known better than to provoke concern. Some have suggested that the imams actions were nothing more than an attempt to shine a light on the the unfair, discriminatory practices of the airline industry. After all the apologists offer, none of the imam's actions were illegal. They may not have been illegal, but they do bear a second look. Until white guys with Irish surnames start cutting people's throats with box cutters, and guys in pink pants and penny-loafers start blowing themselves up in Times Square, Muslims should bear extra scrutiny. I am not suggesting that white guys with Irish surnames, pink pants wearing preppies, or anybody else for that matter be given a pass on screening. I want everybody to take off their shoes at the security checkpoint and pass through the metal detector. Common sense though dictates that those who look like those responsible for the acts on 9/11 be given extra scrutiny. Look at the mugshots of the 9/11 hijackers. They all look the same. It is what it is. Profiling is the basis of all police work, and has been proven to prevent crime. If you are mugged by a one-armed, 5 foot tall white guy you would not want the police to stop the Harlem Globetrotters' tour bus in an effort to secure your wallet.

I have no idea what it will take to awaken the American public to the threat of Islamic fundamentalism. Already Americans are voicing hesitation to report suspicious behavior for fear of being sued. Little old ladies in wheelchairs are being twice-screened at airports for fear of offending anyone. That valuable, and limited resources are being diverted from catching the bad guys apparently means nothing to a certain segment of the population. I am no Constitutional scholar, but the last time I read it I noticed no right to be free from offense. In fact, the First Amendment specifically protects outrageous behavior because normal behavior needs no such protection. You can not yell fire in a crowded movie theatre though, and that is what the imams did, regardless of their intent. I personally believe that their actions were a security probe before a larger operation. I am nearly certain that something on a grand scale is currently in the works by those who would do us harm. I recognize that I am but one, albeit well-trained, infantryman, and not Superman. I could not have hoped to neutralize six men unarmed. I do know that I will not allow any terrorist act to go unchallenged on my watch, and as Drill Sergeant Estrada told me, it's always my watch. I can only hope that other freedom loving Americans would back my play if violence was needed. The passengers and crew on United Flight 93 lead me to believe they would. I am only sad that the politically correct crowd has placed us in the position where such action will someday soon be needed. How many more of my fellow citizens must be lost before we realize that we are in a fight for our survival, and serious action is needed to combat that threat?

View My Milblogging.com Profile

Veteran's Day

Washington, D.C. could not have had better weather Saturday. I had ventured down from Philadelphia, with my 26 month old daughter and her future stepmother in tow, to be amongst my guys. It was a day to put politics, both of war and otherwise, behind us; at least for the day. I met two Iwo Jima Marines, one a 95 year old, wheel chair bound, retired Gunnery Sergeant, who nearly ripped my arm from the socket pulling me towards him for a bear hug. I hung out with a crew of 75th Rangers who were united by their time in Vietnam. They delighted in calling me a "baby." I turned those tables by reminding them that they are now the "old guys." I received a feet off the ground bear hug from a Korean War infantryman who was exuberant to see me because I was wearing my 7th ID (Light) t-shirt. He was with the 7th as an infantryman attached to a tank unit. When the Chinese knocked out all the tanks he and his infantry battalion used them as improvised fighting positions against the Chinese wave attacks. When he finally put me back down on the ground he grabbed my shoulder, spun me towards the Vietnam Veteran's tent, which was manned by a dozen guys who were no stranger to recreational violence I am sure, and loudly questioned, "You guys wanna fight with two REAL SOLDIERS?" I knew we were in for a resounding thumping, but I was somehow cheerfully swept along by this bear. I figured if he could handle the Chinese then how bad could this be. It wasn't to be though. One of the 'Nam vets, laughing, approached us and said, "No Top. Nobody wants to mess with you." "Damn right you don't," was his reply. We all exchanged handshakes and hugs, laughing at our shared bond, which makes such remarks commonplace and, somehow, flattering. With a furious back pounding and arm pumping the Forgotten War soldier wandered off.

The most poignant moment came when I stopped at the Vietnam Wall. As is my practice, I stopped before the panel bearing the name Curtis R. Smoot. I deposited a cigarette at the base of the panel and, with arms outstretched, placed my hands on his name. I held them there for 30 seconds, wished Curtis well and moved on. I had only made it a couple of steps away when a hand fell on my shoulder. "Excuse me sir, but did you just touch Curtis Smoot's name?" I replied that, yes, indeed I had. "Did you know Curtis?" he asked. "No sir, I wore his bracelet for 20 years, until it literally broke in half. I visit him whenever I'm in DC." "Why did you wear Curtis' bracelet for so long?" he queried, looking me directly in the eyes. Looking back at this kind soul I said, "Because he's from right outside New Orleans and that's my hometown. When I joined the Army I was originally in the 4th of the 9th Infantry, but we were redesignated the 1st of the 9th. I figured since Curtis was 1st of the 9th Cav that it was some kind of sign. I just knew he was watching over me." "Would you like to hear the story of the day we lost Curtis?" he asked. "Sir, I've been waiting more than 20 years for someone to ask me that question," was all I could say.

Rich then proceeded to tell me the story of how the Loach, that Curtis was the door-gunner on, had been shot down. It fell into a river in Cambodia, and reports had two men making it out. One, WO1 Houser, had escaped and evaded for several days before walking into a firebase. Houser reported that he had not seen Curtis after the chopper hit, but credible reports had the other survivor as being Curtis. Rich told me how they tracked down every story they could for months afterward, hoping to find a POW camp and rescue Curtis, "but we never did," he said, with watery eyes. By this point I was glad my sunglasses were hiding my eyes. "I've been standing here all day hoping to meet someone who knew Curtis, thank you," he finished. "Well, I never knew him, but he's been a part of my life for so long that hearing that story was just what I needed today. Thank you so very much." We parted company then, with hugs and handshakes, and, wiping away tears, I retrieved my girls. They had been standing in the grassy area surrounded by all manner of activity, not really knowing what to do. When I was once again with them my future wife asked with evident concern, "Everything go okay?" "Yeah, if John Wayne had walked up to me it could not have been better."

That was the point of the day for me. There were Cavalry slouch hats (how in the hell are there always so many of those guys?), various berets, baseball caps emblazoned with bright unit logos, and boonie hats everywhere. Young, and a great many not so young, men remembered a time gone by, and we all stood a little taller. We laughed so hard we nearly cried, and then cried a little. I knew all day that there was no place on Earth I'd rather be, nor anyplace I belonged more. All I've ever wanted as a soldier, and now a veteran, was for my country to love me as much as I love it. I heard the Secretary of the Army say recently, "The military is sustained by the attitude and gratitude of our countrymen." I guess that's true 364 days out of the year, but on November 11th all I want is to be with my guys. So, to all those currently in harm's way, and to all those who have ever served I say: Happy Veteran's Day my brothers and sisters, I am grateful for your service, and proud beyond belief to be a member of what is truly, all at once, the most exclusive and inclusive club on Earth.


View My Milblogging.com Profile

The Winds of Change. Really?

First, let me say that there is absolutely no truth to the rumor that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (God help me I may vomit) plans to convert the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan into a floating abortion clinic. Second, the claim that Sen Chuck Schumer (D-NY) plans to allow male cats and dogs to marry by Constitutional amendment has no basis in fact. Both those reports are nothing more than vile gossip propagated by the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. With that said, I would prefer space aliens to liberal democrats as stewards of Congress, but things are not what some will tell you they are. Most notably, this election was not a referendum on the war in Iraq. If that were so, Joe Lieberman (I-CT) could not have beaten Ned Lamont (D) in the People's Democratic Republic of Connecticut. In fact, the overwhelming majority of the democrats elected to Congress two days ago were conservative democrats. They won specifically because they were not uber-liberals, unlike their leadership. Nearly all of them are moderates. It remains to be seen whether or not the incoming congressional class will be steamrolled by the likes of Miss America, excuse me Speaker Pelosi, and Chuck "my mother did not raise me right" Schumer, or if the freshman class will be able to bring their mandate to bear.

I whole-heartedly believe, and discussion of exit polls seems to confirm, that most people voted because they were sick and tired of Congress. It took some doing, but the honorable men and women in Congress had lower approval ratings than even mean old President Bush. The American public voted to change the culture of polarization, and the republicans, rightly or wrongly, were seen as the worst offenders. I have lamented what a democratic take over would mean to national security, and I still have those fears. I am concerned that Peace With Honor may become the rallying point for Iraq, which may cheer the Birkenstock crowd still fighting Vietnam, but spells disaster for us collectively. I may have to eat those words if this new crop of congressional freshmen can cut their own swath through the party politics. The elections were a triumph over fervent liberalism. Don't think so? Then why were Speaker Pelosi (D-CA), Harry Reid (D-NV) and Ted "I'll drive"Kennedy (D-MA) so absent from the public eye in the last few weeks before the election? It certainly isn't because they are shrinking violets who eschew the world stage. They are not shy, unassuming wall-flowers who recoil when confronted by a bevy of microphones. Now we must see what the newest members in the world's greatest form of government will do when confronted by those honorable members of Congress.

My greatest disappointment came not in the state in which I reside, but rather in neighboring Maryland. I knew Bob Casey (D-PA) would be rewarded for making no campaign events the center of his campaign. Rick Santorum was just too reviled. No, the loss which affected me most was Michael Steele. He is a thoughtful, stalwart, decent sort who was pelted with Oreo cookies for having the temerity to be black, and yet, run as a republican. After all, the democrats have been so good to blacks over the years. They have seen to it that they have been taken care of with welfare, Medicaid and failing, inner city schools. Where were those champions of tolerance when Michael Steele was subjected to hate speech? Oh that's right, that only counts when you have a D behind your name. Or to paraphrase George Clooney, when you are a republican you get what you deserve. That is reprehensible, and the US Senate is the lesser for Steele's exclusion. No other candidate made me think more than Michael Steele. In hindsight that may have been the problem. The Democratic Party has been doing the thinking for all the rest of us for so long that when anyone else challenges that birth-right he is sure to lose. I can only hope that Mr. Steele has not been completely soured on the process and someday makes another run for public office. I would surely understand if he does not, but I certainly hope he does.

I wonder now that the democrats have regained their birth-right if the impartial men and women of the press will hold them to account. I suspect the love fest will continue, but I have been wrong before. After all, even I have voted for a democrat, or four. The democrats, after years of opposing anything put forth by the republicans, must now put forth ideas of their own. Cynic that I am, I believe the economy, which the impartial members of the press have repeatedly informed us is so abysmal, will suddenly be seen as profoundly grand. This without one single iota of handling by anyone. Of course, that cannot happen before January when the democrats officially take control. We may even begin to see some good stories from Iraq. That may be too much to hope for, but a boy can wish. What will have to happen is that the press will be forced to ask the democrats what, exactly, is their plan to combat radical Islam. The democratic leadership will no longer be able to simply pat the impartial members of the press on the head, say "a new direction" and send them, giggling, on their way. Even David "I love hemp" Gregory might have to pose a tough question or, God help us, two, to some token democrat. That, of course, will be more to keep the token in line, than for any desire to edify us as a people.

Whatever happens I can only hope, ( I do not pray, ever), that the alleged support for the troops these elected officials so vehemently espouse translates as true support. I hope that the soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen who have fought, bled and died so valiantly, steadfastly and with such honor, will not now have the rug pulled out from under them. The incoming congressional class number among their members more than a few veterans. I can only hope that those public servants who have worn the uniform in the years since Vietnam will stand the line. I separate them from the Vietnam vets because I firmly believe the 'Nam vets in Congress have had their worldview colored by the utterly horrid treatment they received upon re-entering the "World" after their time in Hell. What else explains Sen. Kerry (D-MA) and Rep Murtha (D-PA) politicizing their service and dishonoring all of us who have served? Stockholm Syndrome? Although they have both made horrible remarks disparaging other vets, both of these honorable men will, no doubt, have their hypocrisy rewarded with positions of influence in the new Congress.

Luckily, as is patently evidenced by my words, I am not bitter. I plan to behave just as all my liberal friends have done. I will festoon myself, vehicle and abode with stickers proclaiming the date when democratic control will be removed. I will yell from the rooftops whenever they exhibit any example of malfeasance, non-feasance or hypocrisy. Oh wait, that's what I have always done, and it apparently means nothing because it is their intentions, not their words or deeds, that matter. Sen Robert Byrd (D-WV) can utter the word "nigger" in the august senate chamber, and nary a peep is heard from the NAACP. Republican voters can be denied poll access by having the vans for their transportation vandalized beyond use, and the ACLU leaps not to their defense. And who can forget former President Bill Clinton. He can treat women with utter, public disdain, use and discard them, and leading feminists will offer him oral satisfaction as a reward. At least, the recounts cannot take very long this year. Oh wait, although there were nearly a dozen races decided by less than 5,000 votes, and several decided by less than 1,500, there were no recounts. Apparently the Diebold voting machines work perfectly well whenever the democrats win. Sen. Schumer even counseled Sen. George Allen to"behave like a gentleman and concede" although his vote count was only 7,000 short Of James Webb's. This out of 2,400,000 cast. Somehow one has to wonder why Sen. Schumer did not counsel Vice President Gore and Sen. Kerry to concede like gentlemen. I no longer seem to fit in the party I've called home for twenty years, and I'll be damned if I'll join the one who behaves as I have described above. Maybe it is time to register as an independent. At least then, the pollsters will care for whom I intend to vote, and hell, I'll be able to swear, with impunity, at them both.

Giving the Troops Their Due

I am already so sick of the uproar, both actual and feigned, over Sen. John Kerry's remarks Monday that I was just going to start ignoring all conversation regarding them. For those of you who have been hiding under a rock, or those who's television watching habits revolve around Dancing with the Stars, Sen Kerry (D-MA) was speaking to a college audience Monday. During a speech, in which he repeatedly bashed President Bush, Kerry said, "If you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't you get stuck in Iraq." When I initially heard just that 10-15 seconds of the senator's speech Tuesday I was irritated, not outraged mind you, because I have come to expect comments such as this from most of those in positions of leadership in the Democratic Party. Some time later in the day I heard a longer portion of the speech. It immediately became evident, to me at least, that he was attempting to disparage the President, and not servicemen of any stripe. Since then though, I have gone over to the outrage camp.

My outrage fuse was prepared when the honorable senator gave an angry, gesticulation filled, refusal to apology. The major theme of his adamant non-apology was that since he was obviously ridiculing the President of the United States, with a poorly articulated joke, no apology was necessary. This, in spite of the fact that the President actually received better grades than him at their cherished alma mater. Sen Kerry angrily denounced the republican spin machine, Rush Limbaugh and the vast right-wing conspiracy as fueling a nonexistent fire. Prominent democrats, most of whom I believe harbor these anti-military sentiments, rushed to label his comments as, in the words of Sen Hillary Clinton (D-NY), "inappropriate." Wow. With such stinging rebukes how could Sen Kerry do anything but what he did yesterday? In a carefully worded statement posted on his website the senator said, "As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop. I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended."

Well a few things are wrong with this apology. First, the apology was at least one day too late. Second, it should have been delivered the same way the initial insult was: in front of television cameras. Third, what exactly was the joke? And finally, it rings a little hollow when he does his politico-qualifying about regretting his words were "misinterpreted." Okay though, apologize he did. Unfortunately the statement does not end as it did in the previous paragraph. It goes on to state, "It is clear the Republican Party would rather talk about anything but their failed security policy. I don't want my verbal slip to be a diversion from the real issues. I will continue to fight for a change of course to provide real security for our country, and a winning strategy for our troops." With that final paragraph he undercut the apology by further politicizing his error, and lit my fuse. It became clear to me, as both an infantryman and an American, that the senator does not care if he offends me, or anyone else not joined to him at the hip. Why else would he consider it acceptable to a) post the statement and not deliver it and b) undo any good he had done by reverting to partisan politics?

What everyone on the left, and that includes the Democratic Party's minions in the major press outlets, fails to realize, or in this case chooses to ignore, is that life does not exist in a vacuum. The honorable senator has made disparaging comments for political expediency before. Upon returning from Vietnam he delivered the now infamous, and mostly discredited "Winter Soldier" diatribe. Most people will remember it for the pompous way he pronounced Ghengis Khan, but in it he accused huge swathes of veterans of being murderers, perpetrators of war crimes, rapists and more. I will not revisit it in full, but if you want the entire transcript you can find it here http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKerryTestimony.html. The good senator has also made remarks where he accused American soldiers in Iraq of "terrorizing women and children in the dead of night." There is more than a pattern here. There is a close- held ideology, shared by many on the left, that the military is intrinsically bad. War is a messy business, so its purveyors must be unenlightened slobs goes the uber-liberal mindset. The senator is simply buying into that idea, whether he wore the uniform or not.

In the last two days I have heard various news outlets refer to Sen Kerry's remarks as, "a badly delivered joke," "unintended slip of the tongue," and parroting the good senator, "a poorly articulated joke." Nowhere, except talk radio, have I heard any indignation, nor even the use of alleged, or the like, before the provided explanations. It seems the venerated, honorable men and women of the press, (so cynical when it comes to the utterances of those evil republicans), have accepted whole hog the senator's explanation and cannot wait to exonerate him. These are the same people who castigated Trent Lott for making a bone-headed comment at a frail Strom Thurmond's 214th birthday party. The press hounded Lott so relentlessly he was forced to resign his leadership post after he had made multiple, public apologies for mis-speaking. Likewise, Rush Limbaugh (no bastion of decorum himself) made less than charitable comments about Michael J. Fox's commercial for a congressional candidate in Missouri, and has been blasted every day for nearly two weeks. The honorable junior senator from Massachusetts even referenced Limbaugh in his non-apology screed, which he delivered before his written apology. The vaunted men and women in the press were nowhere to be found when both George Clooney and Michael Moore ridiculed Charlton Heston's Alzheimer's. In fact, the prevailing wind seemed to be that Moses had brought it upon himself by having the temerity to Chair the N.R.A. When questioned about his references to Heston's Alzheimer's, Clooney reportedly said "I don't care. He's the Chairman of the National Rifle Association. He deserves what anyone says about him." I did not hear the press howl with outrage at the battering of this victim of mental illness. Maybe it is just because Clooney is so damned pretty.

Sen. John F. Kerry is certainly not being treated with kid gloves because of his movie star good looks. So, what is one to think? Obviously, certain groups are fair game for ridicule and abuse, and the press will dutifully report it as the dems being "tough on their aggressive opponents." We have to remember that up until yesterday Sen. Kerry was still the titular head of the Democratic Party. As his party's presidential candidate in the last cycle we have to presume that he still holds some standing in the party. Nobody loves a loser more than the left-wing fringe. Don't think so? Witness Al Gore and Jimmy Carter's unceasing adoration amongst the great unwashed, hippiesque masses. So, when Sen. Kerry says things that are outrageous, outlandish and simply inane I have to think that a plurality of his party agrees. Why else were there laughs at the line which initially got him into so much trouble? What joke did those stellar college students get that all the rest of us missed? Not too long ago Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) compared American soldiers to the regimes of the Nazis and Pol Pot. He eventually provided a "to the extent that I offended anyone I am sorry apology" too. Or how about the senior senator from Massachusetts who, while speaking of the Abu Ghraib abuses (and they were abuses of power, not torture) said, "Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management. U.S. Management." Senator Kennedy's (D-MA) more thoughtful brothers are, no doubt, spinning in their graves. Howard Dean, the Chairman of the DNC, can make all manner of off-color remarks and the press is suddenly too busy reporting on cats in trees and the dangers of trans-fats. If that's not a sign of the press' political leanings I do not know what is.

Sen. Kerry's sin, at least in the eyes of those running for election in his party, was not that he said what he said, but rather that he said it so close to the election. That reason alone is why the apology was finally made. It also explains why he made it in writing. Apparently, even the good senator's hypocrisy has a limit. I do not know why he feels the way he does. I do know he seems to think himself smarter than all the rest of us; this after he wore those atrocious shorts while wind-sailing to prove his masculinity. I do know he has a fondness for saying things like, "I did vote for it, before I voted against it." His slips of the tongue are at least as prevalent as the president's, but no constant ridicule befalls him. I do not think John Stewart, or David Letterman will beat this particular horse. Regardless, the senator did serve honorably in combat, for which I applaud him. I honor equally any man or woman who has ever worn the uniform, whether they saw combat or did their time pushing paper around a desk. Only ten percent of us have ever served, in any capacity, and that does bear recognizing. What the senator seems to have forgotten though, is that his service does not entitle him to carte blanche when it comes to his statements or actions. We are all accountable, and in this case the senator is no different. So, having already banned Heinz products from my house two years ago, I will simply say, one veteran to another, Senator, that you may or may not have left the word "us" out of your prepared statement does not matter. That I truly believe you intended to ridicule the President of the United States does not matter either. It was tacky and tasteless, but so then is all politics. What matters Senator, is that you dishonored all the men and women who have ever served, and you know we deserve better.

Pulling the Lever

It is the highest of hypocrisy and partisan demagoguery to suggest that the democrats are in favor of the Islamic terrorists winning this war, or any other. It is not, however, a stretch to state that the terrorists are in favor of the democrats winning. The reasons for this have been addressed by me in earlier posts, but simply stated, the dems and their allies in the press think that the way to end terrorism is to negotiate with the bad guys and use law enforcement resources when transgressions occur. Obviously the terrorists would prefer that tactic, rather than the one currently being endorsed by the republicans. The political landscape is not black and white. There are shades of grey. Joe Lieberman, a former democrat and current independent, is in favor of taking the fight to the terrorists militarily. Republican senators Chuck Hagel-NE, and John Warner-VA are both on record as saying the current policy does not work, and have suggested exploring some sort of phased withdrawal. For the most part though, the republicans want to continue the fight militarily and the dems want to withdraw and negotiate. Negotiate with whom exactly, is still undetermined. Most of the press is with the dems on this, and the media savvy terrorists cannot help but see this everyday.

All the news out of Iraq is bad. Daily we are treated to images of IEDs, blood in the streets, exhausted soldiers and marines humping ever heavier equipment loads, and, just this week, video of an Islamist sniper firing on American troops. The sniper video was given to CNN by a terrorist group. As it opens, Arabic writing fills the screen and we see soldiers and HUMMVEEs in the background. I openly admit I changed the channel at that point. What came next were images of American soldiers running for cover from the unseen attack. CNN defended their actions as simple news reporting, "painful" as that might be. CNN dismissed criticism of the airing by stating that journalistic integrity demanded it be shown. This is the same line of thought offered up by The New York Times when they revealed secret programs designed to thwart and/or capture/kill terrorists. Now, I am not trying to suggest that there is some conspiracy afoot in the media. There is no secret cabal directing the actions of the three networks and the nation's largest newspapers, but there is an underlying mindset. For the most part, those who pursued journalism from the mid 60s on were, and are, liberals. Just like a certain segment of society pursues law, or pipe-fitting, or yes, soldiering, most of those currently engaged as journalists have a certain viewpoint of the world. That viewpoint is, in most cases, liberal or secularly progressive. They, therefore, favor the Democratic Party line. Hence, all the news out of Iraq is bad, which helps the democratic candidates currently up for election, which, in turn, helps the terrorists.

That does not mean I think either the liberal press or the Democratic Party want to help the terrorists. It is ridiculous that I have to state that, but in these polarized times I have to, or risk the scathing, ill-informed comments that are sure to appear. That neither group wants to help the terrorists matters not. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. The press and the dems honestly believe that their course of proposed action is the best; even though reams of historical evidence contradicts them. Neville Chamberlain famously delivered the "Peace in Our Time" speech in 1938. The irony of that was underscored the following year when the German Blitzkrieg slammed into Poland. In 1994 Yasser Arafat and Shimon Peres shared the Nobel Prize for Peace. What a boon that has been for Arab-Israeli relations. And who could forget the negotiations that allowed U.S. forces to leave Vietnam. Millions were slaughtered in the aftermath, some even before all the U.S. helicopters had left the Embassy's roof in Hanoi. I could go on ad nauseum, but I believe these recent historical references prove my point: You cannot negotiate with pure evil. Cessation of hostilities under a cease-fire agreement only gives the evil forces time to regroup and rearm.

Vietnam is worth revisiting for a moment, if only because the major press outlets, and their political masters in the Democratic Party, insist on comparing it to our current operations in Iraq. The comparison is sophistry at best. As retired Colonel Oliver North recently reported, "In Vietnam, U.S. troops faced nearly a quarter million conscripted, but well trained, disciplined and equipped North Vietnamese Army regulars and upwards of 100,000 highly organized Viet Cong insurgents on a daily basis from 1966 onward. Both the NVA and the VC "irregulars" were well indoctrinated in communist ideology, received direct aid from the Soviet Union, communist China and the Warsaw Pact and benefited from logistics and politico-military support networks in neighboring countries. During major campaigns against U.S. and South Vietnamese forces--of which there were many each year--both the NVA and the VC responded to centralized command and control directed by authorities in Hanoi. None of that is true in Iraq." Some may quibble that Syria and Iran are, indeed, politico-military support networks, but the rest of the Colonel's reasoning is unassailable. We have all been lectured to, numerous times, by both the press and liberal democrats on the nature of the insurgency in Iraq. The insurgents operate in cells, independent of each other, so they are particularly hard to counter say the omnipotent one's on the left. The insurgents won't stand up and fight they say. We have to bring the boys home because the insurgents will never fight us symmetrically, left-wingers say. They will continue to kill Americans with IEDs, so we might as well leave them to their business and come home. The American casualty rate is just unacceptable given the insurgents unwillingness to fight us like men, the left avers. If they cannot even bear to call the evil doers what they are, terrorists, how can we expect them to fight them the way they must be fought?

None of that has anything to do with Vietnam, and precious little to do with Iraq. Roughly 2,800 men and women have been killed in Iraq. At least 104 of them this month alone. Over 6,800 were killed during the battle for Iwo Jima during World War II. Frequently Iraqi Freedom opponents will cite the fact that we have now been in Iraq nearly as long as we fought in WWII, but few mention that the casualty figures pale in comparison. Colonel North added in the piece referenced above, "During the Tet Offensive in Vietnam there were more than 2,100 casualties per week." Now consider those numbers and tell me how the casualty rates even compare. Do not get me wrong. As an infantryman, past, now and forever, every soldier's, marine's, sailor's and airmen's death touches me. I make a point to look at The Washington Post's Faces of the Fallen section every day. There are short biographies, synopsis of the action that resulted in their death and photos of every servicemember killed. It never ceases to make me teary-eyed, but the casualty rates are simply picayune compared to the number in every war we ever fought before venturing into this desert. To suggest that we must pull out before the job is done because too many volunteer warriors have lost their lives cheapens not only their deaths, but the deaths of all those who's mothers received telegrams during WWII and Korea, or chaplain's visits during Vietnam.

Michael Smerconish, a local radio show host in Philadelphia, recently took a trip to the Middle East under the aegis of the Department of Defense. He traveled to CentCom and met with everyone in the chain of command. He started with Secretary Rumsfeld, worked his way through various generals and admirals, and eventually wound up with 19 and 20 year old enlisted men. Smerconish, no "stay the course hawk," told his radio audience the thing that most impressed him was how proud these "kids" are of their service, and how much they believe in the mission. To pull them out now, before the Iraqis can stand by themselves, cheapens these brave servicemen's sacrifices, but also the sacrifice their families back here have borne. Not to mention the sacrifice the Iraqis have borne. Hundreds of thousands have been killed by the terrorists. Are we to abandon the rest to the slaughter that is sure to follow any ignominious exit? If so, we should be prepared for a bloodbath that will make the Killing Fields of Cambodia, and the genocide in Rwanda look like a street fight between the Sharks and the Jets in comparison. Does anyone honestly believe that the departure of U.S. forces before the democratically elected Iraqis are ready will stabilize the region? So, if no one actually believes our departure will stabilize the region then what's really being said is: We do not want to wage war against the terrorists who would kill us all. We only want to prosecute them, in U.S. federal courts, when they break American laws.

Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's Alec Station, was the man most intimately tasked with killing and/or capturing Osama bin Laden. During a recent radio broadcast on 1210 am in Philadelphia he was asked by the host Michael Smerconish, "Which party do you think bin Laden wants to win the Senate and House. Does he care?" Without hesitation Scheuer responded, "The best possible situation would be for the democrats to win both houses." He explained further that with President Bush still in power the recruiting potential for new Islamic terrorists would continue, and the democrats in Congress would prevent the President from undertaking further military actions to combat what would be then an ever-growing threat. So, in effect Osama bin Laden needs President Bush as a bogeyman of sorts, but doesn't want him to be able to act unabated. A democrat controlled House and Senate would slow the President's efforts to combat terrorism. That is not to say that the democrats are any less patriotic, but their oft stated policy of a less forceful approach to combating terrorism is just wrong. In many ways that policy is the more American approach. We, as Americans, want to think the best of everyone. We want to believe that everyone can see the beauty of us as a people, if only we give them the chance. Unfortunately, that is a very narrow world-view, and it is potentially deadly to us as a people, and a country. At the tail end of the interview I referenced above Scheuer was quick to point out that he was not trying to tell people for whom they should vote. "Vote for whomever you want, but you have to understand how your vote hinders or helps the Islamist terrorists." That statement is what this mid-term election is about.

By now, having cited Colonel Oliver North, Michael Smerconish and Michael Scheuer some of you are, no doubt, cursing me for being a republican ideologue who truly hates liberty and peace, puppies and small children. I am certain to be accused of fear mongering and, once again, xenophobia. I am sure I will be considered nothing more than a desperate Kool-Aid drinking hack, shrilly trying anything to keep my team in power. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is not a single, solitary social issue with which Rick Santorum and I agree; at least not one I have ever heard him articulate. I truly wish there was a candidate that shared my liberal social values, my libertarian economic positions and my somewhat hawkish national security concerns. That candidate just does not exist, not now, and maybe not ever. So, what is one to do? Everyone draws their line in the sand somewhere, and for me that line comes down to the fight for U.S. survival. Whether or not we want to accept it, the Islamists are intent on ruling, at least, the entire Arab world, and have a desire to bring us to our knees. They wish for us to be unable to intercede on the world stage so they can bring back the bygone age of the Caliphate. They want to institute sharia laws in every land that was ever, or is now, inhabited by Muslims. That is not my opinion. That is the oft stated goal of Islamists everywhere, from bin Laden to Iranian President Amadinejad. The question then becomes: Do we give our best weapons, hope, democracy and freedom, a chance? Or do we once again bury our heads in the sand and hope the bad guys leave us alone? If we pull out of Iraq, as the democrats want, before the country is truly stable, we risk allowing madmen not only opportunity, but means to destroy us. Billions of dollars from oil revenue will sponsor all manner of terrorist acts, all over the world. A nuclear explosion in one, or more American cities will no longer be theory. At that point it will be too late for me to say I told you so. I'll be too busy trying to save my daughter from the ravages of a ruined world. Am I then saying vote republican or the world will blow up? No, I am saying vote for the man or woman in your district, republican, democrat or independent, who understands the threat we face. In my state that is Rick Santorum. I am voting for him Tuesday, but, should his social stances not soften with time, I will gladly help you throw him out when the work of war is good and truly done.