A Difference in Kind

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Always Faithful

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Burn the Bridges

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

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

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

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

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

Ignoring Victory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consequences? What Consequences?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Stomach for Battle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

View My Milblogging.com Profile

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