GETTING SERIOUS IN IRAQ

In my last post, I mentioned a need for a new strategy in Iraq. Well, Uncle Jimbo over at Blackfive lays out a pretty good one.

So we have a fairly simple choice here, reinforce and aim for a victory or retreat and manage a defeat. That's it. One must be chosen decisively and then implemented with a full effort. I choose to reinforce and here is what and why.

We never defeated Sadaam's Baathists and that has been our greatest problem. They cut and ran when the Thunder Run to Baghdad rolled by and when we disbanded the military we left a huge batch of thugs with no skills other than killing sitting idly by. They waited for the reprisals they assumed were coming, but when no one rounded them up for slaughter they cranked up the insurgency. Their initial successes led Al-Qaeda to begin the influx of foreign terrorists and we have been engaged with them ever since. Early on the Sadr brigades acted up and in a huge miscalculation we decided that the help of Al Sistani was more important than the trouble represented by Mookie and his iron-sandaled thugs. Wrong! A well-placed round or 2,000 lb bomb would have bought a lot more stability than a kow tow to a Shiite leader who, like the pope has no divisions.

Uncle Jimbo hits the nail on the head. We need to get serious there. We've been waging law-enforcement and diplomacy against these terrorist jackasses and their enablers when we should have been waging war.

I think our first target should be that snotty little pot-bellied pig Muqtada al-Sadr. Take him and his top henchmen out in rapid succession, and the Shiite militias will be in disarray. To keep them in disarray, we need to cut off their support from Iran, which means closing the border. That'll take more troops, but it'd be worth it. It's time to stop screwing around with these guys and start playing for keeps.

IS IT A CIVIL WAR OR NOT? AND WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

I'm sorry, but I just can't get fired up over the "Is it a civil war yet?" debate raging in the media. If someone has a gun to your head, you don't agonize over whether to call it a gun or a firearm. Your mental faculties are best reserved for more important things, like survival. But I don't expect the news media to focus on what's important when they report on war. They know less about war than I do about brain surgery. So, what are the important issues here? This is what I come up with:

What will happen inside Iraq if we leave? Will the country be engulfed in an all-out war for control? I think it will.

Will outside forces become involved in an Iraqi civil war? There's little doubt that Iran will. In fact, they appear to be involved already. Look for that involvement to increase exponentially.

And what about predominantly Sunni Muslim countries? With the Iranians backing the Iraqi Shiite majority, will they just stand by and let their Sunni bretheren in Iraq be slaughtered? I doubt it. Look for al Qaeda and their supporters to head to Iraq in greater numbers. And remember, Iran is on the verge of possessing nuclear weapons. And Pakistan (a predominantly Sunni country) already has them. A "civil war" in Iraq could quickily turn into a regional conflagration that has global implications.

Before we leave Iraq, we need to answer the above questions. Strangely, I haven't heard any of the "bring them home now" crowd address any of those issues. Not that I blame them, because there are no easy answers. And selling easy answers to the public is what they do. Instead, they just ignore the problem.

Ultimately, I think the only solution available to us now is to keep pushing on and try to stabilize Iraq. It won't be easy. And it'll cost us in blood and treasure. But walking away will cost us more in the long run. And if we do stay, there's another question that begs answering:

How are we going to stabilize Iraq? Because what we're doing now isn't working. We need to get serious about waging this war while there's still time.

AN INSIDE THE BELTWAY RIDDLE

Q: How is Senator-elect James Webb like a school holiday?

A: No Class.

h/t: Phoenix

DOMINO THEORY

With all of the talk about "phased redeployment" ( a euphemism for turning tail and running) of our troops in Iraq, and the debate about whether there is now a civil war raging there, there has been surprisingly little analysis of the long-term implications of our pulling out. Cliff May addresses these implications in his latest column at Townhall.com. This one is a must-read.

Many Americans see no link between the conflict in Iraq and America's war with the Militant Islamist movement. Osama bin Laden's top deputy, Ayman al -Zawahri, would beg to differ. He has called Iraq one of the "two most important battlefields" of the world war now underway.

The other key battlefield is Afghanistan. Should the U.S. accept defeat in Iraq, how many suicide - bombings in Kabul will be required before America and its allies retreat from that far less strategically vital front as well?

Make no mistake, once the terrorists have beaten us on one front (Iraq), they will redouble their efforts on other fronts, most notably Afghanistan. And then it's on to new territory. Maybe your back yard. The terrorists are in this for the long haul, folks. And we are too, whether we like it or not.

CHARLIE RANGEL WANTS A DRAFT (AGAIN)

It looks like old Charlie Rangel is at it again.  From the San Jose Mercury News:

Rangel says he's serious about reinstating the draft

WASHINGTON - Rep. Charles Rangel plans to resurrect a bill to reinstate the draft when Democrats take power in January, but the idea got a chilly reception Sunday in the heart of his Harlem district.

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq ... if, indeed, we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said Sunday.

Rangel floated the same idea in Congress two years ago, but ended up voting against his own bill, along with 401 other Congress members, when the measure came up just before the presidential election.

At the time, he accused Republicans of rushing it out as a stunt against Democrats instead of giving it a legitimate hearing.

But the soon-to-be chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee said Sunday a draft bill will be no stunt this time, insisting he's very serious about it.

"You bet your life; underscore serious," Rangel said on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday.

(emphasis mine)

Here's the deal.  A draft would bring in many thousands of new soldiers.  The problem is this, we don't have enough barracks and bases to house all these new troops.  We don't have enough ships and airplanes for them to man and maintain.  We don't have enough weapons for them to fire.  We can't feed them.  We don't even have enough uniforms for them to wear.  We'd need a massive amount of infrastructure in place before we even think about that kind of expansion.  And that costs money.  Lots of money.  Because building a new infrastructure is more expensive than maintaining an existing infrastructure.  And Charlie Rangel has yet to even mention spending this kind of money, or where it will come from.

To put it another way, instituting a draft before we have the means to house, equip, train, maintain, and transport all of the new personnel it would produce is akin to forming an airline, scheduling flights, and selling tickets before even buying your first airplane, or hiring your first pilot.  You'd have to be stupid to do this.  And Charlie Rangel isn't stupid.  But he hopes the public is.  Because Rangel is playing politics with our military.  Again.

BIG MOTHER IS WATCHING

The advance of the nanny state continues.  I saw this story linked on Drudge:

Belmont to be first U.S. city to ban all smoking

Belmont is set to make history by becoming the first city in the nation to ban smoking on its streets and almost everywhere else.

The Belmont City Council voted unanimously last night to pursue a strict law that will prohibit smoking anywhere in the city except for single-family detached residences. Smoking on the street, in a park and even in one’s car will become illegal and police would have the option of handing out tickets if they catch someone.

That story breaks on the heals of this one:

New York trans fat ban wins backing at hearing

NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York City's proposal for a near ban on artificial trans fat in restaurant food received overwhelming support at a hearing on Monday, as fast-food chain KFC separately said it would stop using oil containing the artery-clogging fat.

The American College of Cardiology was one of several medical groups that told the New York City Health Department hearing that trans fat needed to be removed to help the United States combat obesity and heart disease.

"We're all starting to look like Mr. Potato Head," said Howard Weintraub of New York University Medical Center. He was one of nearly 70 people who addressed the public hearing, a vast majority of whom supported the proposal.

Scared yet?  Of course those are just local stories, reflecting the actions of only two cities.  For now.  And the stage is being set for the health nazis to go on a nationwide offensive.  Hillary hints at it in outlining the Dems Congressional agenda.

She also said Democrats would focus on improving the quality and affordability of health care - a touchy matter for the former first lady, who in 1993 led her husband's calamitous attempt to overhaul the nation's health care system. The failure of that effort helped Republicans win control of both the Senate and House the following year.

"Health care is coming back," Clinton warned, adding, "It may be a bad dream for some."

A bad dream?  Nightmare is more like it.  Once the "government" is paying for our health care (which they'll do by raising our taxes), look for the health nazis to wield more power than ever.  I can see it now.

"We have a problem Mr. Smith" the doctor said.  "It looks like you've gained 15 pounds since your last exam.  That's not good.  Bad for the heart, you know.  I'm afraid you'll have to come back for monthly weigh-ins until you meet the government mandated standard."

The doctor handed Mr. Smith a diet plan.  "Now follow that to the letter" he said.  "Failure to make adequate progress will result in heavy fines (no pun intended).  I'm sure you'd agree that it's not fair to burden the taxpayers with the increased cost of your unhealthy eating habits."

Mr. Smith took the diet plan and left the office without saying a word.  He didn't want to complain about the intrusiveness of this whole process.  After all, he was getting "free" health care.  And no one likes an ingrate.

Free health care.  Free exams.  Free surgery.  Free drugs.  At no cost to you.  Unless you count the loss of your freedom.

TOUGH CALL

According to the Associated Press, CENTCOM Commander General John Abizaid is warning against setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.  Abizaid delivered his warning to the Senate Armed Services Committee today.

In arguing against a timetable for troop withdrawals, Abizaid told the committee that he and other U.S. commanders need flexibility in managing U.S. forces and determining how and when to pass on responsibility to Iraqi forces.

"Specific timetables limit that flexibility," the general said.

Earlier, Sen. Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat ready to take over the Armed Services Committee in January, said the administration must tell Iraq that U.S. troops will begin withdrawing in four to six months.

"We cannot save the Iraqis from themselves. The only way for Iraqi leaders to squarely face that reality is for President Bush to tell them that the United States will begin a phased redeployment of our forces within four to six months," Levin said at the outset of the hearing before Abizaid made his opening statement.

Let's see, it looks like we have a clash of opinions here.  Which should we take more seriously?  Who has the most credibility here?  One is an experienced military officer who has commanded troops in combat, has extensive time on the ground in Iraq and the Middle East, Speaks Arabic, and has extensive first-hand knowledge of the situation in Iraq.  The other is a pedantic blowhard politician with a bad combover and glasses that are about to slip off his nose.  Tough call, isn't it?

SO YOU WANT TO PLAY GAMES, EH?

It looks like the Dems will continue to block confirmation of John Bolton as Ambassador to the UN.  It's not that they vote "no" on Bolton, it's that they won't even let a vote come to the floor of the Senate.  To his credit, the President is standing by Bolton.  For now.  To understand the thought processes behind the Dem's strategy, just take a look at this quote from Senator Joseph Biden:

"Mr. President, if you really mean it, that you really want to cooperate and have a bipartisan (support) -- play by the rules, Mr. President. ... Send somebody else," Sen. Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat who is expected to head the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January, said on "This Week."

That's the Democrat definition of "bipartisan."  The President and the GOP give up on everything they want, and do it the Democrat way.  So much for "meet us halfway."

What the President ought to do is force the issue.  Bring the Bolton confirmation to the floor of the Senate.  If he's voted down, you'll get another nominee.  Refuse to bring the vote to the Senate floor, and you'll get another recess appointment.  Donald Rumsfeld.  Yeah, that's right.  Ambassador Rummy.  You wanna play games?  OK, let's play games.  How about hardball?

SHEEP, WOLVES, AND SHEEPDOGS

It's hard to say what our next course of action in the GWoT will be now that the Dems have taken control of Congress. But while we play the waiting game, we need to reflect on what it is we're up against, and on what needs to be done to meet that threat. We also need to look at what we're willing to do to meet the threat. Is there a discrepancy between what we need to do and what we're willing to do? If so, why? And are we cognizant of the risks associated with falling short in our efforts?

While you're thinking about this, you may want to read LTC (Ret.) Dave Grossman's On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs. It's very thought-provoking, and, in my opinion, dead on.

Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.

But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."

Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

Sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. Which are you? And which will you choose to lead our country come 2008?

THE DAY AFTER

Well, the Dems got their wish. Now they have control of the House, and probably control of the Senate, too. Their campaign was based on the "time for a new direction" meme. Of course, they still haven't told us what that new direction will be. "Not the old direction" won't cut it. You can't navigate by setting a course for "not north." I guess they have two years to figure it out. If they want to hold onto Congress, and win the White House in 2008, they'd better figure it out fast.

MARTINEZ CASE--POSSIBLE DEFENSE STRATEGY

A possible defense strategy may be emerging in the case of accused murderer Alberto Martinez.

Mental state may affect 'fragging' trial

Defense attorneys hinted Friday that a Supreme Court decision barring the execution of mentally retarded defendants could keep the Army from seeking a death sentence against the only soldier known to be charged with "fragging" - or killing his superior officer - during the Iraq war.

Little else was said by attorneys for Staff Sgt. Alberto Martinez during his arraignment Friday on two counts of premeditated murder.

He is charged with killing Capt. Phillip Esposito and 1st Lt. Louis Allen, his superior officers in the 42nd Infantry Division of the New York National Guard. Martinez did not enter a plea, which he can do later under military justice rules.

Col. Patrick Parrish, the judge overseeing the hearing, set a tentative trial date of June 4.

During the 30-minute hearing, defense attorney Maj. Marc Cipriano told Parrish they may raise issues of mental health that would prevent Martinez's execution under a 2002 Supreme Court decision that found sentencing mentally retarded criminals to death violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

Both Cipriano and the chief prosecutor, Maj. Craig McNeil, declined to speak to reporters after the hearing.

Being a psychology major, I took a psych course or two back in the day. And I don't recall ever reading or hearing that murdering sociopaths were, by definition, "mentally retarded." But it's been 20 years since I graduated, so I could be mistaken. The fact that his attorneys are even considering this is a sign of desperation.

RANDOM POLITICAL STUFF

Here are some things that have crossed my as the election nears:

The Dems have been carping about "chickenhawks" for several years now. Yet their party's most prominent member, Hillary Clinton, voted for the war in Iraq. Furthermore, she never served a day of her life in the military. And her daughter, who is of age to serve, isn't in the military. As near as I can tell, Hillary fits the moonbat-textbook definition of a chickenhawk. Why didn't they try to shove Hillary out the door, like they did with Joe Lieberman? And why aren't they supporting John Spencer, a Vietnam veteran? Of course, we already know the answer to those.

And Seeaking of Joe Lieberman, if the GOP retains control of the Senate, will he jump ship? I wouldn't blame him after the royal screwing his own party gave him. And hell, he'd still be more conservative than several of the Republicans already serving in the Senate.

Democrat Eliot Sptizer has a ridiculous lead over Republican John Faso in the race for Governor. So why is Spitzer airing a gazillion campaign commercials a day? You can't watch TV for thirty minutes around here without seeing one of his ads. Watch for Spitzer to make a run for the Presidency in a few years.

Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand's campaign website bio says:

Currently a partner at Boies, Schiller & Flexner, one of the premier law firms in the United States, Gillibrand works on a wide range of legal and policy-related issues and understands how to negotiate at the highest levels. Gillibrand also understands the needs of those who have no voice, representing many pro-bono cases for those in need of first-rate legal representation. She has represented abused women and their children as well as tenants seeking safe housing after lead paint and unsafe conditions were found in their homes.

According to her law firm's web site:

Kirsten Rutnik Gillibrand is a partner in the firm's Albany office. Her main practice areas include complex commercial litigation, securities litigation and white collar criminal defense matters.

White collar criminal defense? Does that mean that crooked CEOs are a part of the downtrodden now?

Democratic State Comptroller Alan Hevesi will probably win in his reelection bid. Can we count on presumptive AG-race winner Andrew Cuomo to investigate Hevisi's apparent misuse of the taxpayers' money to chauffeur his wife around?

UPDATE ON THE MURDER CASE AGAINST ALBERTO MARTINEZ

Here's the latest, from Newsday.com:

Soldier accused of 'fragging' to be arraigned at Fort Bragg

RALEIGH, N.C. -- When Staff Sgt. Alberto Martinez appears in court Friday, it will likely take less than an hour for a military judge to complete the arraignment of the only soldier known to be charged with "fragging" _ or killing his superior officer _ during the Iraq war.

The brief nature of the hearing doesn't matter to the widows of Capt. Phillip Esposito and 1st Lt. Louis Allen. They'll be at North Carolina's Fort Bragg, having made the long drive from their New York home to face Martinez.

"My husband started the process of holding Martinez accountable for his actions and I'm going to finish it for him," said Barbara Allen. "Every time he walks into a court room, he needs to walk past me."

Esposito, 30, of Suffern, N.Y., was Martinez's company commander in the 42nd Infantry Division of the New York National Guard. Allen, 34, of Milford, Pa., was the company's operations officer.

Allen said her husband, a teacher, was working with Esposito to stop black market sales of military equipment when they were wounded in June 7, 2005, by grenades and a mine that exploded in Esposito's room at one of Saddam Hussein's former palaces. The men died the next day at a base near Tikrit.

An Army captain testified at a hearing last year in Kuwait that Martinez, 39, of Troy, N.Y., twice told him he hated Esposito and was going to "frag" him, using the Vietnam War term that refers to a soldier killing a superior.

We're almost a year and a half down the road, now. The wheels of military justice are turning slowly, but they are turning.

INSULTING THE MILITARY

They say they support us, yet they insult us.  John Kerry did it a few days ago.  He basically called us dimwits.  I suppose that's an improvement over the accusations he was making about his "band of brothers" in the early 70s.  But these days, Kerry's a bush leaguer compared to some others.  Via Drudge:

If Americans knew the full extent of U.S. criminal conduct, they would receive returning Iraqi veterans as they did Vietnam veterans, Hersh said.

“In Vietnam, our soldiers came back and they were reviled as baby killers, in shame and humiliation,” he said. “It isn’t happening now, but I will tell you – there has never been an [American] army as violent and murderous as our army has been in Iraq.”

Thank you Seymour Hersch.  Asshole.  You can read the rest of this douchebag's screed here.  My blood is still boiling. 

THIS IS PATRIOTIC?

The antiwar, anti-Bush crowd is always crying about how no one has the right to question their patriotism. In fact, they tell us that their protests and criticisms are patriotic. So, are they patriots? What is a patriot. From Merriam-Webster Online:

one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests

I'll concede that some of them are. But some of them, too many of them, aren't. Like the sorry excuses for humanity that are responsible for this:




I took these pictures this morning in the town of Clifton Park, NY. Here's some background on the story from the Albany Times Union:

Vandals desecrate Old Glory

CLIFTON PARK -- Someone spray-painted obscenities on a prominent American flag visible from the Northway and a nearby American Legion memorial.

The graffiti "(expletive) Bush" and a depiction of a penis were scrawled on the 20-by-40-foot flag attached to the side of Wit's End gift shop in Clifton Park and visible from the Northway between exits 9 and 10.

Similar pictures in the same shade of green were painted on the American Legion Mohawk Post on Grooms Road in Halfmoon. Vandals defaced a rear door and white fence that surrounds its recently built memorial to deceased veterans, past commander Bob Dyer said Monday.

He and Wit's End owner Susan Hoffman said they believe the sites were damaged sometime Saturday night. The graffiti, and disbelief, remained Monday as cleanup strategies were being considered.

"The most outrageous thing is they did it on the flag," Hoffman said. "It's not the place to air your political views and make statements."

She said passing motorists spotted the vandalism, which marred the flag's white stripes, and called from cellphones to inform her of the damage.

Defacing the flag, especially by writing obscenities and drawing genital pictures on it, is not patriotic. It's immature and it's disrepectful. And it's about the level of discourse I expect from the left these days.

ELECTION SEASON--IS IT OVER YET?

OK, I know. I'm a lazy blogger. It's been a whole week since I've posted anything here. I guess it's time I got off my butt and did so. It's just that the news has been so depressing lately. As we get closer to the 2006 election, the news media is waging their own Tet offensive in a desperate attempt to win back Congress for the Democrats. The Dems are up and the GOP is down, they tell us. Nancy Pelosi is picking out new drapes for the Speaker's office. Americans are unhappy with the President, and with the Republicans in Congress. But does that mean that traditionally Republican voters are ready to become Democrats?

As someone who usually votes Republican, I count myself among those who are disappointed with the GOP. What are they doing wrong? Here's a short list:

-Too many of them, especially the President and the Senate Republicans, refuse to do anything to protect the borders.

-Ditto on immigration.

-Why are we screwing around in Iraq? Why is Porky (pig) al Sadr still alive? When are we going to start fighting to win, and stop worrying about our popularity on the "Arab street?" You can't make people love you, but you can make them respect you. Ask any drill sergeant, they'll explain it to you.

-No one wants to tell America the truth about our military: it's too small. I don't care how "flexible" or "lethal" an army is, you need more people if you're going to be in more places at one time. We need a cold war-sized military. Structured differently, to be sure, but as large as it was in the '80s. And it's going to cost money.

-School choice, anyone? The GOP needs to grow a backbone and take on the teachers unions. The public schools are still a sinkhole for tax dollars. We need a voucher program.

-And speaking of tax dollars, our fiscal "conservative" Republicans in DC are spending tax money like drunken sailors. Or sober Democrats.

So, am I going to sit the election out, like so many other conservatives are supposedly going to do? Am I going to withhold my vote; send a message to the GOP? The answer to this question is based on what I see happening if the Democrats take over Congress. Here's what I think we can expect:

-Endless investigations of the White House, and possibly impeachment proceedings against President Bush, as payback for the Clinton-Lewinski fiasco.

-Lawyers and "due process" for terrorists (i.e. illegal combatants) on the battlefield. A whole slew of terrorists will be released.

-No more NSA terrorist surveillance program. It'll be replaced by a law enforcement-style investigation program that'll look a lot like the method the Clinton administration used to fight terrorism.

-Cutting off money to bring about a withdrawal from Iraq.

-Higher taxes.

-More liberal judges, who'll give us more partial birth abortions, no notification for the parents of underage girls getting abortions, gay "marriage," and more constitutional rights for terrorists.

I could be wrong, of course. But based on the rhetoric of the past couple of years, I don't think I am. Sorry, but I can’t sit this one out, and I'm not voting for Democratic candidates. As much as I’d like to send a message to the lazy-ass Dem-wannabe GOP clowns in Congress, I won’t make my country pay the price for my anger with their stupid antics. I’ll hold my nose and pull the lever for GOP candidates. They may lose anyway, but it won’t be my fault.

SUPPORTING THE TROOPS

There's a column on Military.com by Paul Reickoff about which members of Congress support the troops.  The column contains a link to the website of the Iraq and Afghnaistan Veterans of America (of which Reickoff is Executive Director).  The IAVA site allows you to search for any member of the House or the Senate and to see the score the IAVA gives them for their support of the troops. 

I went to the site and checked out the scores of the Senators and Congressional Representatives from New York.  Much to my surprise (insert sarcastic tone here), all of the Democrats got scores of "B-" and above (except for Major Owens, who got a "C"), and all of the Republicans got a score of "C+" or below.  Now how could that be?  The IAVA is "nonpartisan," or so Reickoff claims in his column.

I did a Google search using the keywords "IAVA" and "partisan."  I found this post on Blackfive's site from March of 2006.  To summarize:

The IAVA has a few good points to make, but most of their intent is purely partisan politics.  Let's hope that their pro-military/pro-veteran stances aren't drowned out by opportunists like Gen. Clark and partisan political bull$#*!.

Hmm.  Maybe the IAVA is partisan after all.  On the other hand, maybe they aren't, and Blackfive is the one who doesn't support the troops.  But I'm inclined to believe the former.  And the latter is just ridiculous.

WAGING WAR LIKE YOU MEAN IT

Retired Army officer Ralph Peters' column in Frontpage Mag yesterday takes a hard look at where we're going wrong in the GWoT.

Killing with Kindness?

Have we lost the will to win wars? Not just in Iraq, but anywhere? Do we really believe that being nice is more important than victory?

It's hard enough to bear the timidity of our civilian leaders - anxious to start wars but without the guts to finish them - but now military leaders have fallen prey to political correctness. Unwilling to accept that war is, by its nature, a savage act and that defeat is immoral, influential officers are arguing for a kinder, gentler approach to our enemies.

They're going to lead us into failure, sacrificing our soldiers and Marines for nothing: Political correctness kills.

Obsessed with low-level "tactical" morality - war's inevitable mistakes - the officers in question have lost sight of the strategic morality of winning. Our Army and Marine Corps are about to suffer the imposition of a new counterinsurgency doctrine designed for fairy-tale conflicts and utterly inappropriate for the religion-fueled, ethnicity-driven hyper-violence of our time.

We're back to struggling to win hearts and minds that can't be won.

Peters is right.  There is nothing we can do to make the "Arab street" love us, but we can make them respect us.  This is done by winning the war.  And to do that, we need to start fighting like we want to win.  If we lose, then it won't matter how civilized we were while we were doing it.

CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?

As if we needed more evidence of the arrogance of judges.

Judge goes off the hook, hangs up court 2 days

New York Court of Claims Judge James Lack, who once chased a woman driver into her garage in a fit of road rage, shut down two days of court hearings scheduled at an upstate prison after he refused to surrender his cell phone to enter the facility, state officials confirmed yesterday.

Lack, 61, a former Republican state senator from East Northport, was supposed to hear 12 cases brought by prisoners suing the state for matters ranging from personal injury to medical malpractice beginning Wednesday. When guards at the Sullivan Correctional Facility, a maximum-security prison in Fallsburg, asked him to follow prison policy and either leave his cell phone in his car or allow them to store it, he refused, officials said.

 "He was visibly upset," said Linda Foglia, state Department of Corrections spokeswoman.

"There was some reference that he was doing us a favor, and he left."

Lack declined to comment when reached at his court office in Hauppauge yesterday. But Court of Claims Presiding Judge Richard Sise said Lack was unaware of the policy and had told people with other court business to reach him on his cell phone.

"He just couldn't be out of touch that long," said David Bookstaver, Office of Court Administration spokesman.

Officials offered him the use of the facility's telephones, but he refused, Foglia said. The ban, in effect since September 1993, is so strictly enforced that even the state corrections commissioner is not allowed to bring a cell phone.

"If the governor came in, he would be required to give up his cell phone," said Denny Fitzpatrick, state corrections officers' union spokesman.

What a clown.  Do you think Judge Lack would let an attorney bring a cell phone into his court during a trial?  "I'll take HELL NO! for a thousand, Alex."  How many of my tax dollars were wasted on this dipshit's  temper tantrum?

ATTENTION CRYBABIES: GTFO

I saw this story linked on the Drudge Report:

Now even Yanks claim UK asylum

BRITAIN is such a soft touch that even Americans are coming here to claim asylum and sponge off the state.

The incredible revelation comes from immigration whistleblower Rory Clarke.

And yesterday the Government was forced to admit figures that backed him up.

Disgusted Rory, 34, contacted The Sun to expose the true depth of the asylum shambles. He said:

"Britain is seen as such a soft touch that poor people from countries such as America are even coming here now.

A couple of years ago I met two black guys from the States who were over here because they thought they could get a better standard of living.

One was from Ohio and the other from Kansas. They claimed asylum because they said they were racially discriminated against at home.

But they freely admitted they were here for the free healthcare and accommodation. It is an absolute joke.

They could have been here for up to five years before their application was processed."

Last night the Home Office admitted five American nationals have claimed asylum this year alone.

I think this is a great idea.  We should encourage every whining crybaby in the country to seek asylum elsewhere.  Sure, we'd lose most of our university professors, journalists, and lawyers (and almost all of our entertainers), but it would be worth it.

DEFENDING THE DEFENDERS

It's sad that there is a need for this kind of thing, but I'm glad it's out there.

Vietnam Vets Open War Crime Defense Fund

BROCKTON, Mass. - Gray-haired Patrick Barnes still wears a crew cut and sits ramrod straight in his chair. Before clamping his cell phone shut, he says "Semper Fi" to a buddy instead of "bye."

Barnes, a 58-year-old Marine veteran of Vietnam who earned a Purple Heart for wounds suffered during the 1968 Tet Offensive, is still military through and through. And he knows that in war, things happen "Boom!" - just like that - and triggers are pulled in split-second decisions.

That's why Barnes and fellow Vietnam veterans are starting a legal defense fund for Americans charged with war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"We're not concerned with guilt or innocence," he said. "We just want to make sure they have the best defense possible. Sitting here in Brockton or Quincy or New York or California, we don't know what happened."

Other similar defense funds have been sprung up. The mother of a Marine from New York who was cleared of murder charges created a fund, as did a group led by a retired Marine officer in Greensboro, N.C., who was twice wounded in Vietnam.

The funds have been set up in reaction to a series of cases in which U.S. servicemen have been charged with murder.

The Pentagon has contended that many of these cases do not involve split-second decisions made in the fog of war, but were deliberate, vengeful killings.

Among the major cases: Marines are under investigation on suspicion they deliberately killed 24 Iraqis civilians in a revenge attack after one of their own died in a roadside bombing Nov. 19 in Haditha, an insurgent stronghold in Iraq.

Separately, seven Marines are awaiting trial at Camp Pendleton, Calif., on charges of murdering an Iraqi last spring in Hamdania. Prosecutors said that Marines frustrated in the search for an insurgent dragged a civilian from his home, stuck him in a hole and shot him to death. They are accused of leaving a rifle and shovel nearby to make it look as if he had been caught digging a hole for a roadside bomb.

The Brockton veterans say they respect the Judge Advocate General Corps, the legal arm of the military, but fear the corps' young officers won't provide the best defense, especially against higher-ranking, experienced prosecutors. The defense fund would enable the servicemen to hire civilian defense attorneys if they want.

The article doens't give out an address or contact information for the fund.  If I can find it, I'll post it here.

DEMOCRATS BEHAVING BADLY

Columnist/blogger Lorie Byrd asks an excellent question: What if the Democrats behaved better?

One of the favorite topics of discussion in the media and among Iraq war critics is whether or not the Bush administration has properly prosecuted the war, but the topic I have yet to hear discussed is whether or not the anti-war left and the media in America have properly prosecuted their roles during the war in Iraq.

With Bob Woodward’s book, State of Denial, in the news, and the recent declassification of the April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate, the topic of how things are going in Iraq, whether we are more or less safe, and whether or not the action there has led to the recruitment of more terrorists, is a hot topic.

Not being debated, though, is what the status of the war in Iraq might be today if Democrat leaders and the media had conducted themselves differently. If all the successes of American troops in Iraq had been reported as studiously as the setbacks, would terrorists have been able to convince their young, impressionable followers that they were winning? If it were clear to the Iraqi people that politicians in D.C. were committed to finishing the mission in Iraq, would the attitude of the people there be different? If politicians and anti-war activists had not accused our own troops of engaging in torture, and worse, would world opinion, and specifically the opinion of the Iraqi people, be different?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, wars aren't fought by armies alone. If the politicians and the public aren't behind a war, the military can't win it. Our enemies understand this. The people who are supposedly poised to win control of Congress don't. As far as I'm concerned, that's all you need to know.

ALBERTO MARTINEZ UPDATE

I've been tracking the story of Alberto Martinez closely, but there haven't been any developments in some time.  Until today.

 GI could face execution in 'fragging'

FORT BRAGG, N.C. -- A Schaghticoke soldier accused of killing two U.S. officers in Iraq will face death penalty charges at an arraignment scheduled for Nov. 3 at Fort Bragg, military officials announced Monday.

Staff Sgt. Alberto B. Martinez, a 37-year-old New York Army National Guardsman, is charged with using explosives to "frag" Capt. Phillip T. Esposito, 30, of Suffern, Rockland County, and 1st Lt. Louis E. Allen, 34, of Milford, Pa., in June 2005 near Tikrit in Iraq.

He faces the death penalty on two counts of premeditated murder, wrongfully possessing private guns and alcohol; and wrongfully giving or selling printers and copiers to an Iraqi national.

Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, the General Court Martial Convening Authority, referred the charges to General Court Martial last week, and sent the case up as a capital case, according to a Monday news release by the XVIII Airborne Corps Public Affairs Office in North Carolina.

A military judge at Fort Bragg will formally present the charges against Martinez. The judge also will ensure during the hearing that Martinez has adequate counsel, Fort Bragg officials said. Martinez, a former member of the 42nd Infantry Division, could have paid for his own civilian defense but opted for military lawyers assigned to him at no personal cost.

The military charged Martinez last year in Kuwait with killing Esposito and Allen. Authorities say he held a grudge against Esposito, and detonated a mine and three grenades in the officers' room.

TODAY'S MUST-READ COLUMN

Former Air Force officer (and Democrat-turned-Republican) Jeff Clonts has a column posted on Militarty.com today titled The Politics of Hypocrisy.  It offers an interesting look into the liberal debate technique.

The modern liberal loves hypocrisy. It's just too easy and so politically correct. When faced with a diverse point of view, just raise the notion that your opponent is not worthy of taking a position. Some favorite fodder for liberals in our national history include slavery, our treatment of the American Indian, ignoring the Holocaust, US support for the Shah of Iran, the Iran-Contra fiasco, Viet Nam, and, of course, faulty intelligence about Iraqi WMDs. No matter the topic of discussion, you can bet the liberals will bring up one of these as proof we are we are not allowed to assume the moral high ground.

Every now and then I watch Prime Minister's Questions on C-Span. This is where the Prime Minister of Great Britain stands before the House of Commons and answers their questions. The first time I saw this I was astounded. Here was Tony Blair of the Labor Party receiving questions from his Conservative rivals and actually responding on-topic to the question at hand. They actually addressed each other, made extremely persuasive arguments, and debated national topics. Unlike our Congress, where most speeches are political sound bites made to empty chambers, or our presidential debates, where the candidates are not allowed to address each other directly, these men and women actually called each other on the carpet. At the end of the evening, the average British citizen not only knows why Blair supports an issue, they know both sides of the issue and can form their own decision.

Although all politicians are capable of political-speak, I've never heard a liberal actually answer a question with a salient, on-topic answer. They constantly criticize the war in Iraq and our efforts to fight terror, but when asked what they would do differently, they spout something like, "George Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction and took us into this war under false pretenses. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with September 11th. We must change course. New leadership is required, a new vision, a new strategy." Did I miss something here? The President's stated strategy is to train the Iraqi security forces until they can handle the job themselves, then bring our forces home. This may or may not be a good strategy, but it is a strategy. If the Democrats have a better one, what is it? I'm not opposed to a better strategy. How about giving us one, please!

(emphasis mine)

Someday, I hope to see our politicians engage in actual debate, as opposed to the sound bite snark-offs that we have now.  Unfortunately, thoughtful debate doesn't make for exciting television.  So don't expect the media to take any steps to encourage it. 

TIME TO GET TOUGH WITH LEAKERS

In his latest column, Brian Bresnahan, a former Major in the USMC takes on the spate of leaks coming from our intelligence community.

The potential damage and consequences to our nation from what is becoming an increasingly transparent intelligence community are immeasurable, but they are not intangible. Predicting the worst-case scenario because our nation's secrets can't be kept is suddenly not just something that has to be done as a matter of planning and war game preparation. It becomes a necessary exercise because the possibility of someone using our own information to harm us has gotten one step closer to reality.

A passionate concern for our nation's top secrets should apply regardless of the administration or political party in charge. America's classified material needs to be kept classified and only published for public consumption under the laws and through the processes established for doing so. Acceptance or indifference of anything less than strict adherence to these laws sets a dangerous precedent all future administrations and generations will suffer from.

Damn right!  It's time the Bush administration started doing something about all these leaks.  I know why they aren't.  They're afraid that investigation of the leaks, and the subsequent prosecution of the leakers will look politically motivated.  But a politically motivated failure to investigate and prosecute is just as reprehensible as politically motivated investigations and prosecutions. 

National security is at stake here.  The defense of our country is more important than avoiding verbal attacks by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.  They're going to criticize anyway.  It's better to catch hell for doing the right thing than to catch hell for sitting on your ass.  It's high time we start locking these blabbermouths in the intel community up.  We're at war, people.  Screw politics.

SOME MIDDLE EASTERN HISTORY FOR YOU

Check out this animated map.  It's a great illustration of who has controlled what over the last few thousand years.  The next time you hear some know-it-all blowhard spouting off about what Middle Eastern lands legitimately belong to whom, think of this map.  It's not quite as black and white as some would have us believe.

BROTHER CAN YOU SPARE A CLUE?

Our old pal, former President "Dhimmi" Carter is at it again.  That man's just not smart enough to shut his piehole.

FALLON, Nev. - Former President Jimmy Carter said Wednesday major policy changes are needed because the Iraq war has divided the nation "almost as much as Vietnam."

"So there's no doubt that our country is in much more danger now from terrorism than it would have been if we would have done what we should have done and stayed in Afghanistan," he said on the campaign trail with his son, Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Jack Carter.

The former president said the Bush administration made a "terrible mistake" by invading Iraq and diverting troops from Afghanistan.

OK, we "would have done what we should have done and stayed in Afghanistan?"  Last time I checked, we still have troops in Afghanistan.  If his argument is that we need more troops there, make that argument.  But saying that we left is an outright lie.  It is worth noting that during the 80s, the Russians maintained a troop level of about 100,000 troops in Afghanistan.  And we all know how well they did there.

As far as the country being divided, that wasn't caused by the Iraq war.  The division started in the aftermath of the 2000 Presidential election, when a gaggle of sore losers decided to do everything they could to make the Bush Presidency fail.

I should probably cut Dhimmi Carter a break.  After all, he is old, he was a miserable failure as a President, and his backside probably still smarts from the buggering the Iranians gave him back in 1979-1980.  But I'm not the forgiving type.  Besides, we're at war.  So shut the hell up, Dhimmi.

CREEPING DHIMMITUDE

Today's must-read piece is a column by Daniel Pipes titled Intimidating the West, from Rushdie to Benedict.  It explores the ever-increasing encroachment of Islamic law into the secular (for now, anyway) west.  This is a serious situation, and our political leadership appears to be ignoring it.  How many more times will the west allow itself to be punked by angry extremist Muslims?  Based on current events, I'm not confident that there's any end in sight.

THE NIE, TERRORISTS, AND THE IRAQ WAR

So, the National Intelligence Estimate concludes that the Iraq war is creating terrorists, or so we are told by the NY Times (a/k/a Leak Central).  The people on the left are dancing with glee over the "obvious" conclusion:  "Bush causes terrorism."  For the time being, I'll skip the obvious question here:  What does the rest of the NIE say?  (For an interesting analysis of this aspect, check out this excellent post by a former military intel specialist on the blog In From the Cold)

The question I want to ponder today is this:  Why is the Iraq war the principle force driving the creation of terrorists?  The anti-war crowd would tell us that the answer to this question is obvious.  But is it?  To find out, let's boldly go where no moonbat has gone before:  a strange new world known as The Planet of Critical Thinking.

So here's the situation, the US has invaded and toppled the governments of not one, but two Muslim countries.  One, Afghanistan, was an Islamist theocracy, governed under sharia (Islamic law), its leaders were deeply connected to the international Islamic extremist/terrorist movement.  It's leadership was complicit in the attacks on 9/11.  It's honored guest (UBL) was the most visible face of the Sunni extremist movement, and the head of the world's largest terrorist group.

The other country, Iraq, was a secular dictatorship.  It's leadership, while Muslim, was more Stalinist than Islamic in the way it did business.  There has been no definitive evidence that it was connected in any way to the 9/11 attacks, or to those who planned, financed, and carried them out.  In fact, some have argued that bin Laden and al Qaeda hated Saddam Hussein and his Baathist regime.

So, again I ask why.  Why is it that regime change in a secular dictatorship, one that supposedly had no relationship with Islamic extremism, would fuel terrorist fervor, and not a regime change in an Islamist, al Qaeda-linked theocracy?  If anything, the Afghanistan war should be most prominently featured on the AQ recruiting poster.  The way I see it, there are two reasons that the Iraq war plays more prominently in the recruiting of new terrorists.

1.  The presence of US troops in any Muslim country will inflame the passions of Muslims.  Regardless of the justification for the war, western troops are seen as a "crusader army."  The US was attacked first?  The UN approves?  France is on board?  The libtards at the Daily Kos are cool with it?  Too bad.  No crusader armies will be tolerated in the land of the faithful.  And Muslims will travel from all over to repel the invasion of the infidels.

2.  Arabs and Muslims, like the rest of us, get their view of the wider world from the news media.  And let's face it, the war in Iraq gets more airplay (and 90% negative airplay, at that) than the war in Afghanistan.  To listen to some media pundits, we gave up in Afghanistan.  All our troops and resources are in Iraq.  Of course, that isn't true.  But perception is reality.  Even in the middle east.

THE ROAD TO DHIMMITUDE

Each and every person in the US, Canada, and Eurpoe should read Victor Sharpe's Dhimmitude for Dummies at Frontpage magazine today.  It might cure the abject cluelessness with which most of us are confronting the current threat that radical Islam poses to the west.  Sadly, too many of us prefer to remain clueless, including most of our politicians and almost all of the news media.

AND SPEAKING OF IRAQI LINKS TO TERRORISM...

With Bill Clinton out there defending his record on terrorism, many people may not know what to believe.  Laurie Mylroie's recent column at Frontpage Magazine may shed some light on what was really going on behind the scenes at the Clinton White House.  Mylroie was Clinton's advisor on Iraq.  Mylroie's position is that there is evidence of an Iraqi connection to the 1993 WTC bombing.  Since convicted bomber Ramzi Youssef possessed an Iraqi passport, I'm inclined to believe that she may have a point.  It bears some looking into, at any rate.  Too bad the Clintonistas didn't agree back then.

FIRST HIT FROM IRAN

I installed a hit counter on this blog a couple months ago.  The counter, which is provided by Stat Counter, also allows me to see where my visitors are from.  Today, I saw my first hit from the Islamic Republic of Iran.  The hit came from a Google search for hashem al hussaini.  Al-Hussaini is an ex-Iraqi soldier who is thought by some to be John Doe #2 from the Oklahoma City bombing.  The Google search turned up this post from May of 2004 about Iraqi links to terrorism.  I don't know if it means anything that someone from Iran was doing a search on this guy, but it is interesting.

VOTER I.D. (UPDATED)

The Democrats are opposed to a measure requiring proof of citizenship to vote.  Big surprise, eh?  I wonder how they'd react to a bill that makes it illegal to require I.D. for the purchase of alcohol?  Or tobacco products?  They'd cry foul.  Accuse the GOP of selling out to the alcoholic beverage industry, or "big tobacco" (is there a "small tobacco?").  And they'd be right.  But they're the ones selling out now.  Whose interests are they representing here?  Surely not mine.

UPDATE: For those who think that requiring voters to have a valid I.D. constitutes an undue burden, I looked into the New York State Non-Driver I.D. Card:

A person of any age who does not have a driver license can apply to the DMV for a non-driver photo ID card. You must provide acceptable proofs of identity and date of birth. You can apply for a non-driver photo ID card if your NYS driver license is suspended or revoked. When you apply for a non-driver photo ID card you must surrender your NYS driver license. There are no exceptions. You do not have to surrender a non-driver photo ID card when you get a driver license or your driver license is reinstated.

A non-driver photo ID card contains the same personal information, photo, signature and special protection against alteration and fraud as a photo driver license.

So, what's the fee for the Non-Driver I.D. Card?

If you do not drive, you may choose a short-term non-driver ID card valid for 4 to 5 years, or a long-term ID card valid for 8 to 9 years. The exact period of your ID card and your fee depend on whether you select a short-term or long-term ID and the relationship between the date you apply and the expiration date (your month and day of birth). A short-term ID card will cost between $9.00 and $10.00. A long-term ID will cost between $13.00 and $14.00. These fees include a $5.00 photo document fee.

Wow, 14 whole dollars. For eight years. That comes out to $1.75 per year. Hell, I spend more than that in gas just driving to the polling place. I'll bet the Dems spend more than $1.75 per "poor" voter bussing them to the polls. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to learn that most (if not all) of the states have a similar I.D., at a comparable cost.

If our illustrious politicians still think that this modest fee is too much, they can always change the law so that there's no fee for a Non Driver I.D. Even if the state had to spend $10 million a year on I.D.s for economically disadvantaged voters (which would buy over 5.7 million I.D.s), it'd be well worth it to prevent illegals, felons, and dead people from voting. Not to mention the double (and triple, and quadruple) voting that can happen when no I.D. is required.

With a voter I.D. requirement and a nation-wide low-cost I.D. program in place, no one gets disenfranchised, and voter fraud would be drastically reduced. So, why are so many Dems opposed to requiring I.D.? Is it because, as I just said, "voter fraud would be drastically reduced?"

RESERVE PAY

I saw this story on Military.com this morning.

Most Reservists See Earnings Increase

Most U.S. military reservists see their earnings increase when they are called to active duty, contrary to the common belief that the earnings of reservists fall when they are activated, according to a RAND Corporation study issued.

The study by the nonprofit research organization, titled "Activation and the Earnings of Reservists," examined reservists who served less than 30 days on active duty in 2000 and more than 30 days in 2002 and 2003. It found that:

83 percent of reservists did not lose earnings when activated. Only 17 percent experienced a drop in earnings.

The average earnings of the activated reservists increased by 32 percent - amounting to $13,539.

6 percent of activated reservists had an earnings loss of more than $10,000. A total of 11 percent had an earnings loss of more than 10 percent of their previous year's earnings.

"Typically, these reservists are people in their mid 20s to mid 30s, with some college but not necessarily a bachelor's degree," said David Loughran, a RAND economist and lead author of the study. "Generally, military pay is quite good for this group. Moreover, reservists receive additional special pay when activated and their earnings are not subject to federal taxes."

The study also finds that 40 percent of reservists who were not activated in the period studied experienced an earnings loss as civilians. Since only 17 percent of activated reservists experienced an earnings loss during the study period, this finding suggests that being activated actually reduces the likelihood a reservist will experience an earnings loss.

I wonder whether the mainstream media will pick up on this story.  I don't know about you, but I'm not holding my breath.

IRAN WITH NUKES: ACCEPTABLE?

I saw this column over at Military.com. It's by Ivan Eland, a Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace and Liberty at the Independent Institute. While I disagree with Eland's argument, I do find it useful in understanding why the international community (an oxymoron, if ever there was one) has been useless in dealing with Iran. The following quote sums it up:

If Iran remains intransigent, the United States will probably have to accept that Iran will likely some day become a nuclear weapons state. Although undesirable, this outcome would not be catastrophic because the United States has the most formidable nuclear forces in the world and could likely deter any strike from the small Iranian atomic arsenal. The United States successfully deterred a nuclear attack by radical Maoist China after that regime got nuclear weapons in the 1960s. Nuclear deterrence should also work in the case of a theocratic Iran.

(emphasis mine)

So, religious fanatics who believe that dying in a jihad is the noblest of acts will be deterred by threat of death? People awaiting the return of the mahdi can be counted on to react like secular westerners? What Mr. Eland has done is to superimpose his own value system on the Iranins. He knows how they would react to US deterrence because that's how he would react. My guess is that the French -- and others who are dragging their feet in dealing with Iran -- have the same viewpoint.

If this situation is going to be dealt with before it spirals out of control, it's going to fall on the US. Again. This shit is getting old.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, USAF!

Happy 59th birthday to the best Air Force in the world.

Secretary, chief send Air Force birthday message

9/18/2006 - WASHINGTON (AFPN) -- The following is a message from Secretary of the Air Force Michael W. Wynne and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley on the Air Force's 59th birthday Sept. 18.

"Over the course of the past 59 years, the United States Air Force has established itself as the dominant force in air, space and cyberspace. Our knowledge-enabled Airmen have revolutionized the way our nation defends itself and its allies across the full spectrum of threats.

"Before our inception as an independent service, the Air Force responded wherever and whenever needed, whether for disaster relief, humanitarian operations or combat operations. We have only gotten better in time.

"Our heritage is one of technological innovation, courage and dedication. As we build on that proud heritage and look toward new and unlimited horizons, we will continue to deliver unmatched air, space and cyberspace dominance for the interdependent joint team and our nation.

"Your tireless commitment, agility and professionalism are the foundation for our successes. Without you, and the support of your families, we could not be the world-class team we are. America's Airmen exemplify our core values of Integrity First, Service Before Self and Excellence in All We Do.

"As we lead into our diamond anniversary celebration, we count on our most valuable asset -- our Airmen -- to continue the magnificent work our forebears began. We are confident you'll conquer tomorrow's challenges with the same courage, commitment and confidence that defined our first 59 years.

"Thanks to our entire Air Force family across the globe: active duty, civilian, Guard, Reserve, retirees, veterans and all their families. Happy birthday, Air Force!"

MUSLIM OUTRAGE

In response to a recent speech by the Pope, wherein he quoted a medieval text that portrayed Islam as a violent religion, angry Muslims have burned and shot Christian churches and murdered an Italian nun.  The message is clear, "apologize for calling us violent, or suffer the consequences."

So, what can we learn from this episode?  Apparently, Israel's existence is not the only thing that isn't being taught at madrassah's in the middle east.  The concept of irony isn't on the curriculum either.

A PERSONAL CHALLENEGE FROM ME TO YOU

I challenge you to read this column by Richard Miniter without experiencing a sharp spike in your blood pressure.  Go ahead, give it a try.  Unless you're clueless or deluded, I'll bet you can't do it.  I couldn't.  Damn.  Now I need some Advil or something.  Or maybe a beer.

A "BOOST" FOR NED LAMONT

It looks like Ned Lamont can count on some help from a former president in his bid to buy a Senate seat.

NEW HAVEN, Conn. - Democrat Ned Lamont's senatorial campaign got a boost Wednesday from former President Carter, who offered a blistering critique of Lieberman's support for the Iraq war. "He was one of the originators of public statements that misled the American people into believing that the Iraqi war was justified," the former Democratic president said on CNN's "Larry King Live."

"He's joined in with the Republican spokespersons by saying that Democrats who disagree are really supporting terrorism," Carter said. "So for all these reasons, I've lost my confidence in Joe Lieberman and don't wish to see him re-elected."

So, an endorsement from Jimmy "Punked by Islamic Extremists" Carter is considered a "boost?"  Quick history lesson:  Jimmy lost Connecticut to Ronald Reagan by 11% in the 1980 election.  Hell, he even lost the state to Gerald Ford in the 1976 election.  So, how is this a boost?

FIGHTING EVIL

Conservatives often accuse liberals of refusing to acknowledge the existence of, and to stand up to, evil.  Not true.  Liberals are showing an increasing willingness to fight what they see as the most evil force in the modern world:  Wal-Mart.  George Will looks at this epic battle of good (liberals) vs. evil (low, low prices) in his latest column:

People who buy their groceries from Wal-Mart -- it has one-fifth of the nation's grocery business -- save at least 17 percent. But because unions are strong in many grocery stores trying to compete with Wal-Mart, unions are yanking on the Democratic Party's leash, demanding laws to force Wal-Mart to pay wages and benefits higher than those that already are high enough to attract 77 times more applicants than there were jobs at this store.

The big-hearted progressives on Chicago's City Council, evidently unconcerned that the city gets zero sales tax revenues from a half a billion dollars that Chicago residents spend in the 42 suburban Wal-Marts, have passed a bill that, by dictating wages and benefits, would keep Wal-Marts from locating in the city. Richard Daley, a bread-and-butter Democrat, used his first veto in 17 years as mayor to swat it away.

Liberals think their campaign against Wal-Mart is a way of introducing the subject of class into America's political argument, and they are more correct than they understand. Their campaign is liberalism as condescension. It is a philosophic repugnance toward markets because consumer sovereignty results in the masses making messes. Liberals, aghast, see the choices Americans make with their dollars and their ballots, and announce -- yes, announce -- that Americans are sorely in need of more supervision by ... liberals.

That's what we need, less shopping choices and higher prices.  Am I missing anything.  Oh yeah, I forgot the most important thing, more union dollar$ going to Democratic candidates.  To hell with fighting terrorists.  We need to stop Wal-Mart before it's too late!

TODAY'S MUST-READS

Maggie Gallagher looks at who the real revisionists are in the whole debate over ABC's The Path to 9/11.

 

And who do the Democrats think our real enemies are?  Both Chris Muir's Day by Day and Cox and Forkum attempt an answer.

---

Check the weather nationwide with MSN Search: Try it now!

THINKING RED

"Thinking red."  That's the military term for analyzing a situation from your enemy's viewpoint.  Or, to quote Sun Tzu:

If you know your enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.

Brian Bresnahan, who served in OIF as a Major in the Marine Corps, takes a look at the GWoT through our enemy's eyes.

We read their newspapers and watch their news channels to see the hand of Allah at work. When they count the death of 500 of our Taliban brothers at the cost of two Americans as a loss for America, we know that god's will is being done. When their leaders like Howard Dean come on television shows and publicly state the same thing, we are sure that victory is Allah's will for us.

We are grateful to their politicians like Murtha and Hagel who argue for running away from us. That is the life blood of our cause -- to break their will. And while breaking their will, it gives us the propaganda to recruit others, to show potential recruits America 's leaders won't fight, we are winning. We use the words of their politicians to debate and attempt to demoralize their soldiers. We may lack the means to defeat them militarily, but we don't need to defeat their military. When America 's leaders give their people reasons not to fight we are accomplishing our objectives and inching closer to the victory we wait patiently for Allah to deliver.

So much of the analysis of the war we get from the media is focused purely on the US.  How many losses did we suffer?  How much money will it cost us?  What does the world think of us?  Besides betraying a Paris Hilton-like narcissism, analysis that is centered on the US gives us a picture that is not only incomplete, it's misleading.  Major Bresnahan's column is a good start, but I'd like to see more like it from our illustrious media.  But I'm not holding my breath.  Expecting the news media to abandon narcissism may be a bit unrealistic.

---

All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC.� Get a free 90-day trial!

SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

I'd hoped to post something profound today, but what can I say that hasn't already been said about 9/11?  The only thing that comes to mind is I fear that, inspite of all the rhetoric, we've forgotten that day.  Not the details, the timelines, and the speeches; we've forgotten how it felt to be attacked that day, and we've slipped back into our old complacent ways.  I'm going to take some time to search up some pictures and videos from 9/11/01, and reflect on how I felt that day.  If you're planning to do the same, this video might be a good place to start.

---

Got something to buy, sell or swap? Try Windows Live Expo

9-11 5th ANNIVARSARY REMEMBRANCE-REUNION

Note: This post will remain at the top for a few days. Newer posts can be found below


I got word from some folks down at Tyndall AFB in Florida that there will be a ceremony commemorating the 5th anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks. The ceremony begins at 9:00 AM on Septmeber 11th in Flag Park on Tyndall AFB. It will be followed by a memorial brunch in the Enlisted Club at 10:00AM. If you are interested in attending, check out the event website here.


Tyndall AFB is the home of 1st Air Force and the Continental US NORAD Region (CONR). CONR/1st AF is responsible for providing the air component of Operation Noble Eagle, the military's homeland defense operation. If you want to learn more about their mission, check out the 1st Air Force website.

TWINKLE TWINKLE LITTLE STAR

Now here's a shocker.  A recent study supports the belief that celebrities are more narcissistic than the average person.  From Forbes:

In case anyone needed proof, a new study supports the widely held perception: Celebrities are more in love with themselves than the average person.

That's the conclusion drawn by Drew Pinsky and S. Mark Young of the University of Southern California, whose study of 200 celebrities will appear in the Journal of Research in Personality.

It's not the entertainment industry that turns stars into narcissists, the study found. Rather, it suggests, the self-adoring seek jobs in show business.

The study, whose subjects were all guests on Pinsky's sex-advice radio show - not a place for shrinking violets - found that reality TV stars were the most narcissistic of all celebrities. Female stars were also more likely than their male counterparts to exhibit narcissistic traits.

Can you believe it?  That little bit of information caught me totally off guard.  I always thought that big stars are just like the rest of us.  Except smarter.  And better looking.  And more compassionate.

In related news, Vanity Fair has the exclusive on Tom and Katie's baby.

---

Check the weather nationwide with MSN Search: Try it now!

NEW YORK POLITICS: A WHITE KNIGHT ON A WHITE HORSE(?)

If you live in New York, you've probably seen Eliot Spitzer's campaign commercials. And if you've seen them, you know that the State's Attorney General, and Democratic candidate for Governor, is on a mission to clean up New York. The commercials leave no doubt that the day Spitzer takes office will signal the dawn of a new era for the Empire State. We will return to the glory days of yesteryear under the leadership of a man of unquestionable ethics. Yeah, right.

High-flying Spitzer hits ethical turbulence

Eliot Spitzer is running for governor as the best guy to clean up Albany, including its corrupt "pay-to-play" system of shaking down interest groups for campaign donations and other goodies.

So what the heck is he doing jetting around on the Gulfstream of a Wyoming businessman who wants to run race tracks and build casinos in New York?

It's one thing for Spitzer to pile up money and endorsements from insiders. Fish gotta swim, pols gotta grub for cash.

But accepting deeply discounted air travel from a gambling mogul doing lots of business with state government - as Spitzer and an aide did in May - is too cozy for comfort. The would-be Sheriff of Albany should be keeping a safe distance from favor seekers, not putting himself in a position where he owes them anything.

Spitzer was on a two-day fund-raising swing out West and needed to get from Phoenix to Tucson to Cincinnati and back to New York in a hurry. Casino developer Richard Fields got wind of his predicament and offered the use of his corporate jet. Thanks to him, Spitzer and his aide could meet their tight schedule, skip the long check-in lines and fly in style.

The offer practically screamed "conflict of interest." Fields is part of a group bidding to take over the Aqueduct, Belmont and Saratoga horse tracks. He also represents developers working with the Oneida Indians of Wisconsin to build a casino in the Catskills. Both issues will fall squarely on Spitzer's plate if he wins in November.

So this happened in May? And we're just hearing about it now? Had Spitzer been a Republican, I suspect that the story would've hit the papers before the private jet landed in Cincinnati. And speaking of Cincinnati (and Phoenix, and Tucson), what was Spitzer doing fundraising in Ohio and Arizona? Is our next Governor going to be bought and paid for by out-of-state interests? If he's going to run as the reform candidate, maybe Mr. Spitzer should read his own website:

We need to end the pay-to-play culture in Albany by making it against the law for those who do business with the state to give gifts to state employees or to donate to candidates for state office. And to level the playing field in our election process, we must adopt robust campaign finance reforms, including public financing for campaigns and independent, non-partisan redistricting reform.

Yeah, right.

MONEY QUOTE OF THE WEEK

From the Washington Post website:

Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out --that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

(emphasis mine)

So, the WaPO finally "get's" the whole Wilson-Plame affair. Better late than never, I guess.

h/t: Drudge

PAUL HACKETT (UPDATED)

I just saw Iraq war veteran and former Democratic candidate for Congress Paul Hackett on The O'Reilly Factor. Former CPA spokesman Dan Senor was the other guest. The subject of the segment was (ironically, as I soon saw) whether Donald Rumsfeld was out of line in referring to the antiwar crowd as appeasers in a recent speech to the American Legion.

Senor started, giving his reasoning for why it's important to see the job through in Iraq. When Hackett got his turn, he started off by attacking Senor personally. His first words were in German ("unter fuehrer," or something to that effect), apparently meant to imply that Senor is a Nazi. He then went on to point out that Senor didn't "fight" in Iraq, and he (Hackett) had. I was waiting for Hackett to say "I'm a war hero, and you're not, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah!" Hackett spent most of his time attacking Senor. Apparently, the irony of spending most of a segment about name calling by name calling was lost on him. As was the irony of calling a Jewish guy a Nazi.

I had heard of Hackett before, but I didn't know much about him. Now I know all I need to. I know that it's a damn good thing that this walking turd lost his bid for Congress. We have enough of those in Washington already. If we're lucky, Mr. Hackett will stay out of politics and stick to chasing ambulances.

Update: Hotair has video of part of the O'Reilly segment. It's too bad they don't have the whole thing, but you can get a pretty good idea from the portion they do have. Poor John Kasich (the substitute host) wasn't up to the task of reining in Hackett. It's too bad O'Reilly wasn't hosting tonight. I'd like to have seen his reaction to Major Moonbat's tirade.

A MESSAGE FOR THE CUT AND RUN CROWD

Frank Gaffney has an excellent column on Military.com today that examines the price of cutting and running in Iraq, titled Sounding Retreat. 

The defeatists typically offer two rationalizations for this course of action. The first contends that we need to retreat so as to compel the Iraqis to make the "tough decisions" about their own future that our presence and support allows them to postpone. 

Unfortunately, the decisions that will almost certainly flow from the perception -- let alone the reality -- that America is once again abandoning the Iraqi people will translate into the rise of another repressive authoritarian regime there, this time probably one closely aligned with Iran.  Such an outcome would not be good for freedom-loving people in Iraq and elsewhere, including here.

The defeatists' second rationale is even more disingenuous.  They complain bitterly that we do not have enough troops in Iraq to win.  Yet, with few exceptions, they are unwilling either to increase the deployment there or otherwise to build up our military to contend with current and future needs. 

This line fails to acknowledge that war is a come-as-you-are affair.  The United States faced the dangerous post-9/11 world with the armed forces and defense industrial base it had left following the 1990s, when many of today's defeatists cashed in yesterday's so-called "peace dividend."  It takes a relatively short time to dismantle large parts of our military's power-projection capabilities and infrastructure, and decades to reconstitute them.

(emphasis mine)

Gaffney's right.  We need to get our heads in the game and focus on defeating the insurgency in Iraq.  Call it "redeployment" if you want, but if we leave Iraq now, we are retreating in the face of the enemy.  Doing that will only embolden them.  Don't believe me?  Think this is just right wing hyperbole?  Let's consult an expert on al Qaeda.  Not some wannabe pundit from the media.  Most of those clowns didn't know al Qaeda from Al Bundy before 9/11.  I'm talking about the man who knows more about AQ than anyone:  Usama bin Laden.  From his 1996 fatwa:

 But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu.

(emphasis mine)

So tell me, how will adding Baghdad to that list make us any safer?  How will it weaken al Qaeda?  Bin Laden and his fellow travelers think the US is a paper tiger.  How will proving him right further our interests?  The short answer to each of these questions is:  it won't.  That being said, I have one more question:  whose interests are the rereatists trying to serve?  It's obviously not ours.

---

Search from any web page with powerful protection. Get the FREE Windows Live Toolbar Today!

FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION

Today's must-read is a column by W. Thomas Smith, Jr. at Townhall.com titled We cannot lose this fight.  Smith examines the basic rules of fighting and the reasons why cutting and running in Iraq is a bad idea.

Let�s look at the Vietnam War as an example of �game over� and without benefit to the quitter:

On April 25, 1975 � less than a week before the South Vietnamese capital fell to the Communists � a U.S. military delegation met with North Vietnamese officials in Hanoi to discuss the issue of Americans missing-in-action. At one point during the meeting, U.S. Army Colonel Harry G. Summers, Jr. turned to his North Vietnamese counterpart and said, �You know, you never beat us on the battlefield.�

The Vietnamese official thought for a moment, then responded. �That may be so, but it is also irrelevant.�

Now, we could argue all day about whether America�s involvement in Vietnam was right or wrong. But that too is irrelevant.

What is relevant for us in this war, is that cutting and running from Iraq will embolden the terrorists and fuel there recruiting efforts.  Of course, the cut and run crowd tells us that quite the oppositie is true.  But what do they know about the rules of war?  They're pacifists, for crying out loud.  And why in the blue hell should we take advice about fighting from pacifists?

---

Windows Live Spaces is here! It�s easy to create your own personal Web site.

NO CONNECTION?

I was surfing through the TV recently, when I ran across Don Imus on MSNBC interviewing Senator Joe Leiberman.  The interview covered predictable ground, but it contained one quote by Imus that's been bothering me for days.  He made the statement that Saddam Hussein's Iraq almost certainly had nothing to do with terrorism.  Leiberman said nothing to refute the assertion.

Now, this isn't the first time I've heard someone say this.  Hell, if you follow the news closely, you probably hear or read it at least once a week.  I have two problems with what Imus said.  Number one, it is demonstrably false.  Number two, it has become, by default, an accepted truth.  After having been repeated ad nauseum by "experts" in the media without being refuted, many people have come to accept it without question.

If you doubt my second assertion, you can test it for yourself.  Survey several of your friends and coworkers.  Choose people who aren't news junkies.  Ask them if Saddam Hussein had any links to terrorism.  I'f be willing to bet that a majority will answer, without hesitation, that he did not.  You see, "everyone knows this," therefore it's true.

Of course it isn't true.  Don't believe me?  Check out some of these posts from my archives.  They were all written in 2004, when I was deployed to Qatar for OEF/OIF.  I apologize if some of the links are dead.  I checked many of them earlier, and most are still active.

IRAQ AND TERRORISM looks at some of the terrorists that have taken refuge in Iraq, and one group that operated openly there.  It also looks at a posible link between Iraq and the 1993 WTC bombing.

WELL COLOR ME SURPRISED looks at Zarqawi's pre-invasion presence and activities in Iraq.

MORE EVIDENCE OF THAT WHICH DOES NOT EXIST looks at a possible AQ-Iraq connection.  It includes MSM reports from the 1990s that point to a possible connection.

IRAQ AND TERRORISM-PART 2 looks at a possible link between Iraq, Islamist extremists, and the Oklahoma City federal building bombing.

---

Call friends with PC-to-PC calling -- FREE

THE WILL TO WIN

Economist Walter Williams is the author of today's must-read column:  Will the West Defend Itself.  Among other things, he addresses the problems we're facing in putting down the Iraqi insurgency.

We might also note that the occupation of Germany and Japan didn't pose the occupation problems we face in Iraq. The reason is we completely demoralized our enemies, leaving them with neither the will nor the means to resist.

Our adversaries in the Middle East have advantages that the axis powers didn't have -- the Western press and public opinion. We've seen widespread condemnation of alleged atrocities and prisoner mistreatment by the U.S., but how much media condemnation have you seen of beheadings and other gross atrocities by Islamists?

Dr. Williams hit the nail right on the head.  The reason this war is dragging on, is that we've tried too hard to soft-pedal it in Iraq.  In WW II, the populations of Germany and Japan offered little resistance to occupation because they feared the devastation that would result from our response.  In the days before "smart" weapons and 24 hour news reporting about "disproportionate response," the bad guys were killed by wiping out the area they occupied.  Any civilians unfortunate enough to be nearby suffered the consequences.  Consequently, there was less motivation to resist, or even remain neutral and wait to see who came out on top.  The answer was obvious, the side with the biggest army would win.  And that wouldn't be the insurgents.

Our unwillingness to drop the hammer in Iraq, as humane as our motivations may be, will cost lives in the long run.  Cutting casualties in half may seem like a good thing in the short run, but if it lengthens the war, the final casualty tally may vastly exceed the number that may have resulted from an overwhelming first strike.  In the words of the late General Curtis E. LeMay:

"...if you are going to use military force, then you ought to use overwhelming military force. Use too much and deliberately use too much.. you�ll save lives, not only your own, but the enemy's too."

---

Check the weather nationwide with MSN Search: Try it now!