Strategy Page has more on the Rules of Engagement situation, although I think Joel's post below is still the most informative I've seen. SP is under the impression that the rules have not gone into effect yet, though JHD assures me that they have. The thing to watch is how the rules are applied, and how they are handled by commanders and NCOs in the field. It's a topic that interests me, so I will continue to watch for items on it -- and if any of you learn anything on topic, please email me.
NRO has a very good piece today on Iraqi Army training, and the quality of the recruits.
Mudville has a call from Soldiers' Angels for donations of recreational equipment to wounded servicemen at Brooke Army Medical Center. I think I can probably come up with a couple of old pool cues. See what you can come up with.
MML
ROE TRUTH
Kathleen Parker’s article, “For Instructions On How To Lose War, Consult Flow Chart," inaccurately describes the effect of the recent change to the standing rules of engagement.
Maj Mannle from the Office of the SJA to the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) provided the following clarification in an information paper on this subject.
Key Points
a. Pertinent text of the (new) rule on the inherent right of self-defense. The rule states that, “unless otherwise directed by a unit commander, military members may exercise individual self-defense in response to a hostile act or demonstrated hostile intent. When individuals are assigned and acting as part of a unit, individual self-defense should be considered a subset of unit self defense.” (Emphasis added.) The rationale for the rule is to maximize and stress the primacy of unit self-defense for commanders- not to limit individual service members. Two points bear mention:
(1). No change regarding commanders’ authority. The rule merely quantifies what has always been ground truth: a commander, in the context of mission accomplishment, may place self-defense of the unit (i.e., all individuals) above that of one individual. Current language states that “unit commanders always retain the inherent right and obligation to exercise unit self-defense.” The previous SROE stated (with regard to individuals) that “their use of force must remain consistent with lawful orders of their superiors, the rules contained in this document, and other applicable rules of engagement promulgated for the mission or AOR.” Under both the previous and current SROE, a commander could decide he’d rather allow an enemy to advance in order to exploit the element of surprise, rather than have a Marine on an OP start shooting when that Marine decides he’s about to be attacked.
(2). Individual right of self-defense remains the default. Despite a commander’s ability to limit the right of individual self-defense, the rule is clear that individual service members have a standing right of individual self-defense. It takes express, unequivocal direction by a unit commander to subjugate this right to unit self-defense.
Both MNF-W and MNC-I received and carefully reviewed the new SROE in August. They concluded that the new SROE would not change the conduct of operations.
b. Lawful implementation of the rule. The notion that the rule cannot be “lawfully implemented” (enforced) because restricting [individual] self-defense contradicts the Code of Conduct is patently ridiculous. There is no relation whatsoever between the rule and the principle that Americans do not surrender when they have the means to resist.
5. Conclusion. CJCSI 3121.01B has changed to emphasize the primacy of unit self-defense, yet the rule in the current SROE on the inherent right of self-defense remains the same: individual service members may exercise the inherent right of self-defense- unless their unit commander directs otherwise.
RT Guard
I believe I have uncovered evidence that the Thai Royal Guards are the toughest fighting men alive. They'd have to be, to wear this uniform:
A man walks down the street wearing a hat like that, you know he's not afraid of anything.
ROE What?
Joel, would you mind to take a look into this? If this is being accurately portrayed, it's the most disturbing story I've heard in a while.
In June, the Pentagon changed its Standing Rules of Engagement to allow commanders to limit individual self-defense by members of their unit. Interpreted for me by two Army judge advocate general officers (JAGs), this essentially means that soldiers and Marines may not have the individual prerogative to fire upon an enemy when they are faced with an imminent threat of death or serious injury. That belongs only to commanders, who may not be present to make a decision every time a soldier or Marine faces a deadly threat.Hat tip: Sharp Knife.
The impetus behind the rule change likely evolved from concerns that a soldier might misinterpret a danger and kill an innocent instead of a bad actor. But critics say the solution to this ever-present tension is better training, not more restrictive rules.
Commanders and JAGs close to the debate say the rule change poses numerous potential problems and contradicts the guiding principle in all of America's rules of engagement, which is that nothing in these rules limits the inherent right of self-defense. If a soldier or Marine can't make a split-second decision to kill or be killed, even at the risk of making an erroneous judgment, he or she may eventually hesitate, fumble the wrong way, and end up dead.
UPDATE: I'm going to leave this post on top today, as it seems to me a tremendously important matter. You cannot "turn off" the right to self defense. It is the most fundamental right -- "the inherent right," as the piece puts it. The military can suppress free speech for a time, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and so forth. These rights, recognized in the Constitution, can be set aside by military orders. Volunteers, even draftees in the days of the draft, can be ordered into dangerous situations -- volunteers particularly.
Neither can you set aside personal responsibility for how the right is used. Whether you have orders or not, you as a serviceman are personally responsible for the fashion in which you bear the arms entrusted to you, even as a civilian who exercises the right to keep and bear arms is responsible for how he uses his arms. If you act "in self defense" in a fashion that is not appropriate, you have in fact committed a crime for which you can be punished under the UCMJ. This is true just as a civilian who wrongly shoots another can be punished under state and sometimes Federal law. More than that, you will answer to yourself, if you guess wrong and kill an innocent. For many, this will be a worse punishment than the law.
Because the responsibility exists in the law, in all times at all places, there is no need to abridge the right -- even were it moral to do so, which it is not. It is already the case that the soldier and Marine will answer for how he uses his arms. The military has apparently decided that it might prefer not to answer for how it has trained him to use them. Better that he should stand in place, and maybe die, than that the military should risk having to explain why he shot what turned out to be an innocent.
Such moral risks exist in war. There is no avoiding them, and though training can mitigate them no war can be fought without them. It will not help to tie his hands.
Nor is it right to do so. It is also the case that he will answer for how he has failed to use them. Only in some cases will the law participate in that process, if for example he refuses orders to fight. The worse case is the one in which he makes a choice not to defend himself or his unit -- guesses wrong about a figure who might be a civilian but who might be a suicide bomber -- and has to live with the memory of his friends.
These are awesome moral weights to bear at any age. Yet there is no avoiding them. The consequences -- sometimes legal, certainly moral -- will fall on these young men on the front lines. The worst of them cannot be touched by the law. It is hard enough that these men must take up such weights so young. It is unacceptable that the military should strip them of the power to choose and act. The weight will not leave their shoulders because the power left their hands.
IO
The COUNTERCOLUMN points out that the US military effort to place stories in the Iraqi press is not only legal but required by Joint Service doctrine.
Relevant passages occur in Annex D to Appendix B (Guidance for PSYOP Operations) and page 29 or so and following.Greyhawk at the Mudville Gazette, however, is not comforted because he's too busy being shocked by the latest outrage.
The guidance is very clear: IO operations should be an integral part of planning at all levels - strategic, operational, and tactical, and that IO operations include a PSYOP component, and PSYOP operations should be coordinated with Public Affairs.
The doctrine also makes it clear on page 29 that news media outlets are an increasingly important part of that battlefield.
The doctrine also makes it clear at several points that the general host nation population is a legitimate target for Information Operations. It was ever thus.
The only thing the doctrine prohibits, with regard to working with foreign media, is using the media to print false information. During time of war, all else is fair game.
Congratulations to those of you who are still reading - obviously you expressed your outrage by smashing something other than your computer screen. When will the Bush administration learn that it has no business supporting its policies?You know, this is one of those things that wouldn't have happened if everyone weren't so eager to write boooks about their role in public affairs. If you could rely on people's professionalism, you wouldn't have to worry about their personal sentiments.
It has become usual for every public official who attains any sort of prominence to write tell-all stories the moment they leave their posts (or sometimes before, as in the case of the "Anonymous" Mr. Scheuer). These things have different titles and authors, and they suggest different solutions to common problems. Nevertheless, every one of them could have had the same subtitle: "Why I'm right, and everyone else in the government is dead wrong." No one writes to express support, or to proudly explain their role in helping bring about successful policies. Everyone starts with the assertion that successful policies would have been much more successful if only people had listened to them, and that failed policies were a direct result of people not listening as well.
When you've been hit by one book after another of this type for five years, I'm sure you do get a bit gun shy. "Before we appoint this fellow to a critical position in the GWOT effort," you'd say, "We might as well start planning now for his expose. Find out whether it's going to say we're pawns controlled by a Jewish cabal or a domestic cabal, and also see if you can learn if he thinks we're trying to undermine his department because we are guilty of some secret plan to take over the oil supply, or if he just thinks we're undermining his department because we're morons."
"But we aren't undermining his department," your underling would point out. "After all, we're about to appoint this guy to a critical position in our war effort."
*Sigh.* "You just don't get D.C. politics, do you son?"
Giffts
Everybody's posting gift guides. I'll just repost a link to my favorite of them, No-Longer Drill Sgt. Rob's gift guide for deployed soldiers. Lots of men would like gifts off this list even if they aren't deployed military. I commented on it a year ago, and endorsed his choice of an Applegate-Fairbairn folder. A year later, I still carry that knife every day. It's the best folding knife on the market, I think -- certainly the best one I've encountered.
Here are a couple more "pointy" gifts. They're from a category called "custom knives," which means knives that are each individually forged by a smith who knows his business. They're works of art as much as tools, though in order to be a work of the knifemaker's art, they have to be entirely functional and very difficult to damage.
I am the proud owner of a "Stek" knife, which are hand-forged damascus steel, and sold apparently only through Ebay. (Here is what they're selling just now.) It's the most beautiful knife I've ever encountered, and the best by far. The man and his son, who work together to create these things, are masters of the art. Because items are for bid, price is not certain, but I wouldn't object to paying two-four hundred dollars for one of their full-sized fighting knives if I were planning to buy another. That's about usual in the market for a custom knife, and these are top quality. However, because it's on Ebay, you might get it for less if you're quick or careful.
Shoot! Magazine, a publication devoted to the "cowboy action shooting" hobby, endorsed ML Knives in their Nov/Dec edition. They're beautiful replicas of 18th/19th century designs. The article gives specs on the carbon steel he uses, and they sound like quality blades -- but I've never handled one, so I can't attest to them for certain, but only pass on Shoot!'s recommendation. (If anyone from ML Knives wants a formal review out of me, however, feel free to send me a Western or Alamo Bowie to examine.) A glance at their page of currently available knives shows that prices are quite reasonable for custom-made knives. That may be because they aren't as well known as some, or it may be because they target a very specific market, people who want a frontier-style knife that appears somewhat rustic. I happen to like that sort of thing, but it's not what everyone wants.
There are much more expensive custom knife makers out there -- take a look at KnifeLegends or KnifeArt to see just how high the prices can go. You can get a top-quality knife for a whole lot less than what they are asking, if you know where to look.
Barrett
It's bad enough that the AP decieved Barrett Rifles as to its purpose in soliciting an interview. It's worse that they then ran a story filled with inaccuracies ('penetrating tank armor from a mile away'), 42% of which was drawn directly from gun-control advocates, including only one quote from Barrett after they taped a long interview with him.
It's worst that Military.com picked up the story and ran it without comment. The AP editors can get away with saying that they know nothing about firearms, and so couldn't spot the bad information (and bad faith) from their reporter. Military.com has no such excuse.
Fortunately, they do have the Military.com forums:
* I guess those terrorists will just hide it under their coat and smuggle it into the airport. Please. This thing is huge, heavy and expensive. Just exactly how many have been recovered from crime scenes? How many have actually been used in the comission of a crime?There's quite a bit more.
* I'm a federal police lieutenant and a member of the Police Marksmanship Association. I do not have a problem with civilian ownership of these firearms or the Title I & II weapons out there. What people forget is that the same folks who are attracted to legal, registered full auto weapons, sound suppressors and artillery pieces also are generally the folks buying the Barrett M-82's and M-95's. We have yet to see a single criminal incident with a .50 caliber rifle.
* No Barretts have ever been used in a crime. Not once, not ever. They weigh 30 lbs. Shoot down a plane? With a semi-auto from how far away? Bull.
* I dont think you can fire it from the shoulder, all the classes we got didnt mention it. I never saw it employed in that fashion always used the bipod. My unit only used it to at most 1100M. it works pretty good, but the buffer is made of a plastic that gets pretty beat up after awhile. maybe with SLAP ammo you could get that range. as to the 10,000 yrds i doubt most could even see that far in typical engagement scenarios with the issue optic(M3).
Test
Have you tried this test? It is designed to measure whether or not your "worldview" is rooted in the Bible. I'm afraid I didn't do very well -- they rated me as a "Secular Humanist" overall, but I did particularly badly in the science section, where I scored negative twelve percent ("Communist").
There are three things I particularly love about this test.
1) Every question has a "correct answer." Even the one about the Bible's opinion on a flat tax.
2) The correct answer is always either "strongly agree" or "strongly disagree." The test permits you to "tend to agree/disagree," or state that you have "no opinion." These answers, however, are always wrong. The Bible is perfectly clear on every topic.
3) You actually get double points taken off for stating that you have "no opinion" versus having exactly the wrong answer. If you say you "strongly disagree" with a statement they want you to "strongly agree" with, you lose half as many points as if you say you have no opinion at all. It is apparently better to be flat wrong and sure of it, than to entertain any uncertainty in your beliefs.
This last accounts for my particularly hideous score in the science section. For example, I listed having "no opinion" on the question as to whether there was or was not evidence for a worldwide flood. Well, there is, in the form of narratives not only in the Bible but in every human culture; and there is also evidence against the proposition, in the form of geology. Does the one kind of evidence overwhelm the other, or do you remain open to the possibility that scientists may yet discover evidence to back the narrative? It wouldn't be the first time -- Homer's description of forms of armor used five hundred years before his birth proved to be perfectly accurate, and Troy was discovered after centuries of men believed that the whole thing was an untrue myth. It seems to me that the proper position is to recognize the evidence on both sides, favor the hard science because it's testable -- but with the provision that the other evidence does exist, and may someday be proven out.
Well, that kind of open-mindedness is apparently the work of evil Commies. Now, I've been accused of a lot of things in my time, but being a Communist -- that's a first.
Liberal Thinking
Via the Dawn Patrol, I found Right Wing of the Gods' critique of a piece called "My Liberal Manifesto." The Manifesto itself is not that interesting because it does not examine the ideas it puts forward, but instead merely asserts them. The formula is "I believe X," period.
The critique (which continues here) is much more interesting, because it explains the reasons behind why Dans, the author, agrees or disagrees with each position. As it stands, it is a very good explanation of a centrist-right libertarian's reasons for rejecting the leftist model. It would be a very useful exercise for someone who adheres to the original positions to explain why they think their positions are the stronger ones, addressing the particulars raised in the critique.
I am obviously not the person to do it, for the most part. I can, however, engage the gentleman on at least one question. I think he brings up a good point about government secrecy, a topic we were just discussing at length. I have to quote part of his answer on economics first, for reasons that will become clear:
I believe that the government is no more corrupt or inefficient than a huge multinational corporation (Enron),That argument underlies his argument against worrying over government secrecy, which is in part two of the critique.
Of course Enron was the exception, not the rule. The market also dealt with their dishonesty, as James K. Glassman noted:The Enron scandal was primarily a story of executives and auditors deceiving investors about the true state of a business. If it was "greed" that caused the deception, it was greed that uncovered it as well. James Chanos, a money manager who specializes in short-selling (speculating that a stock's price will fall), got wind of Enron's shenanigans, and tipped off a reporter at Fortune. Enron was forced to restate its earnings and acknowledge hidden debts.The government? It does the very same thing, as Walter Williams wrote:
Investors reacted with fury, dump-ing Enron stock. The company's worth declined from $30 billion to almost nothing. Before any indictment or government report, the market pronounced Enron guilty and imposed a sentence of capital punishment. Then longtime clients started punishing Arthur Andersen, Enron's auditor. Delta ended its 53-year relationship with the auditor, as did Merck and Freddie Mac. Andersen, and the executives who allowed it to stray, face oblivion.Enron used accounting gimmicks to hide debt and make corporate executives look good and earn fat bonuses. Congress does the same thing. Each year, it transfers vast sums of money from the Social Security and the Federal Highway trust funds to hide debt, and they boastfully lie to us saying they've not only balanced the budget but created a surplus.So what's the difference between Enron and the government? Enron doesn't exist anymore! Not because of government action, but because the people withdrew their support by selling their stock. Yet Washington has no such worry.
I believe the government should be transparent and open to prevent corruption rather than always hiding behind ‘national security’,The author goes on to state the argument from security in addition. Joel and I were just having that discussion, so I won't repeat it. I do think that the fellow raises an interesting point here, however: that it hardly matters if government corruption were exposed, as relatively few Americans care. It wouldn't make any difference if we knew.
What difference would that make? As my first post on this subject pointed out with Social Security, government corruption exists openly. The problem with corruption isn't so much that it's kept secret under "national security", it's that the people are oblivious to it even when it's not hidden from view. The corruption in government is made possible only because of the apathy of the people.
The argument hinges on the idea that Americans are prepared to accept corruption at a certain level, in order to avoid being bothered with stopping it. Political involvement of the type that can change Federal policies is hard work and lots of it, and there is no guarantee that you will achieve any success even if you invest that kind of time and work because there will be others organizing against you (look at MoveOn.org, for example; their endless fundraising and spending, organizing and politicing hasn't actually accomplished any of their goals). That kind of personal investment is something most people would rather not make, preferring to spend the time they have away from work on family or hobbies or other enjoyable activities.
Because the activity is so engrained in our political culture, changing it requires a tremendous amount of energy -- not just electing a new representative, but changing the entire leadership of at least one of the houses of Congress. You could do that either by pressuring or replacing the current leadership of the party in power, so that they became devout on the question of not playing budgetary games; or by electing a new party into power. The first of these two is hard, as described above. The second is easier, but perhaps very expensive: if you disagree with the opposition party on important matters, you may very well choose to accept a certain number of bad things from the current party rather than replace them with a party that will turn the government in a direction you would dislike.
The question is whether it would be the same with issues of moral corruption, rather than budgetary gamesmanship. The answer, I think, is that we would very much like to believe that it would not... but that there is probably a large zone of moral corruption issues where it would indeed be the same. I think there are some core, bedrock issues that Americans care about more than they care about their personal politics -- a government that openly banned the free exercise of religion, or ignored election results, would surely come in for serious trouble.
On the other hand, we have seen internal pressure used effectively, for example in the case of the recent abortive Supreme Court nomination. Without rehashing the merits of that particular case, it does show that there are at least some issues that are important enough to draw popular revolt within a party. The composition of the Supreme Court is probably one of them for both parties; abortion is one for the Democratic Party. There probably aren't a lot of issues like this, though, because the parties are both coalitions of groups with similar but different interests and priorities. On the issues where those interests are largely aligned, the party isn't terribly likely to buck its base anyway. A revolt of this type is therefore only likely to happen on issues when the coalition is broadly united on a point, and the party leadership goes the other way. Why would they do that?
Well, they might do it if it could be done in secret.
There is a real difference between the calculation described above, which Dans calls apathy but which is really an understandable economic calculation, and the case of moral corruption in secret. In the one case, we as a people are making decisions about what we care about enough to invest our time and energy in. We are aware of the cost of trying to change things, and the cost of leaving them alone, and we are making a free choice.
Even if Dans is correct that people would be apathetic on issues of moral corruption -- as I said, I think they might be on at least some of them, though there are bedrock issues that would draw revolt -- the "apathy" is itself an exercise of a free people. The evidence is all there; they can choose to look or not to look, to act or not to act. The nature of the Republic is preserved by this.
In cases where corruption is secret -- and here I am not asserting that there is any secret corruption going on in the government, because of course I do not know -- the People can't perform their duty as citizens. They have no choice. They are prevented from being moral actors, because they are given no knowledge. To the degree that the government operates secretly, it ceases to be a government of the People.
I am therefore moved to side with the liberal on this question, with the unfortunately large exception carved out by the argument from danger. Sadly, there are things that really do need to be secret. As Joel and I recently discussed, I think our national security could actually be improved by lessening secrecy and increasing distribution of sensitive information. But I do not argue that we can do that with all information. It is clear that we cannot. There really must be some secrecy for reasons of national security, and it would be irresponsible to argue otherwise.
Dans may very well be right that sunshine would not prevent corruption, or at least not many kinds of corruption. Even if it did not, it would still be the right thing to do. It is right because it preserves the character of the Republic, and allows the People to be free and to choose. To the very greatest degree possible, then, we ought to pursue it.
Bears
Lots of us bears around, apparently.
But there is something that lies beneath all of that kindness, an agressive person that will kill if you have to. Yes, you love people, but if the mess with you too much then out comes the beast within. People that have experienced this side of you keep their distance.Only for a while.
Congrats
As of today, Drill Sergeant Rob is not a drill sergeant any more. He says the best part is getting rid of the Smoky Bear hat (or, "Montana bash," as the cowboys say). I can't agree, being a confirmed wearer of large hats, but good luck to a man who's been training our warriors for a long time now. He's getting a promotion, and a ticket to Fort Carson.
Shameful add
Michelle Malkin has an excellent post about a shameful ad campaign that MoveOn.Org is using to attack President Bush and the war effort in Iraq. The ad proposes to show US troops eating Thanksgiving dinner in Iraq and then cuts to a scene of a weeping family gathered around a Thanksgiving dinner back in the states while the narrator asks why President Bush refuses to bring the troops home. However, in MoveOn.Org’s rush to use the stress and yearning of American military families to further their political propaganda they failed to notice that the troops they pictured in the ad are not even American. If you look at the soldiers pictured in the ad you will see that the camouflage pattern of their uniforms is a British pattern. Furthermore, US troops do not wear long khaki shorts as a uniform item. Apparently the charlatans at MoveOn.Org realized this and tried to doctor the picture.
Hey MoveOn.org, if you can’t even identify an American soldier then at least have the decency to leave us, and our families, out of your propaganda!
Cross posted at Southern Appeal.
Pace/WP
Balloon-Juice has a statement by General officer of Marines and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace on the topic of WP use in Fallujah. As Cole points out, Pace is willing to go to the mats even with Rumsfeld when he feels it matters -- as he has felt, on moral issues past.
Gays Military B5
Uncle Jimbo, former Special Forces, has been hosting an extraordinary discussion of the issue of 'gays in the military' over at BlackFive. Part one is here, and part two is just getting started.
It's been a very civil and well informed discussion, including comments from our own Joel Leggett. I think many of you might be interested in the debate.
Thanks
I am surprised and pleased by the welcome I have received at the Hall. Surprised, because the doughty warriors who congregate here consider me their equal. Pleased because of my desire to join them in the war of words and ideas that they partake in every day.
--Karrde
Cobloggers
I have offered a seat as co-blogger to Talon "Wilde" Karrde, frequent commenter and wise young man. He is the first poster at Grim's Hall to lack a formal military background. Still, he is a "Man of the West," as Southern Appeal puts it: a mathematician, a thinker, and a man who is newly devoted to learning the arts of arms. That makes him something of a gentleman, I think we can all agree, and I have been impressed with the quality of his thinking and writing here. I welcome him to the Hall.
respone II
Grim,
Your concern with intelligence sharing between Federal, State, and local governments is a legitimate concern. However, I believe that programs such as the Department of Homeland Security’s Intelligence and Information sharing Initiative are constructive attempts to address your concerns. You can read about it here. I also believe that secrets in our republic should be at the most minimal level necessary to protect national security. However, I believe that current events have necessitated a greater degree of secrecy. We are not fighting against an enemy organized as a traditional nation state. We are fighting an increasingly sophisticated terror network bent not only on the destruction of our way of life but as many innocent civilians as possible.
I will readily concede that our representatives do not always act in a manner befitting their station. However, I believe the recent vote to reject an immediate withdrawal from Iraq was a serious and important act. It certainly called out the cut-and-runners and sent a positive message. I would also offer up the example of the February 2001 Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security in the 21st Century as an example of some of the serious work our representatives are capable of that often don’t get the popular attention it deserves. That commission recognized that a direct attack on this nation is to be expected in the 21st century and that the risk was aggravated by the failure to share information.
My point is that although our representatives don’t always act in the way we think is appropriate we should refrain from comments that come across as blanket attacks on the institution of the legislative branch of our government.
As far as insurrection is concerned, while I acknowledge the possible theoretical necessity for it if a situation like that described in our Declaration of Independence ever arose I think the subject should be viewed like jury nullification; you can recognize its existence but it is never something that should be discussed lightly or even encouraged.
I have no doubt that JarheadDad is an honorable patriotic citizen. Nevertheless, even when we rant we should be careful that our rhetoric does not go too far. That said, I readily admit that I have been guilty of that sin myself in the past.
Response
Grim,
First of all, I am not troubled by the increase in secrecy in our government at this time. Since we are engaged in a war against militant Islam with troops in the field in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places an increase in government secrecy is simply to be expected. Furthermore, I disagree with your claim that this increase somehow hampers national security by making the information harder to share. As someone who has held a Top Secret SCI clearance, I could share classified information with anyone who had the appropriate clearances and a need to know regardless of what agency they belonged to. I did this regularly with members of the DoD, DoJ, and Homeland Security. Consequently, I believe you are mistaken when you claim that the increase in classified information represents a threat to information sharing and national security.
Unfortunately, the rest of your post utilizes an unnecessary degree of overstatement and hyperbolic claims. Under no circumstances would I actively seek to incite rebellion in my country even if I thought a cabal of evil men had usurped power. Instead, I would actively seek to expose them and have them brought to justice. Violent insurrection means wide scale bloodshed and death. I think it is reckless and irresponsible for you to suggest that such a course of action is appropriate even in the case you offer up as requiring it.
However, such reckless talk leads to additional reckless talk. For instance, Jarheaddad makes the ridiculous claim that “we are nowhere close to being a democratic Republic any longer.” Oh really? Then I guess my entire 15 years of service in the Marine Corps has been based on a lie since it was entered into with my oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Additionally, I would ask what JarheadDad thinks the service of his son is based on since he to took that same oath. If JarheadDad believes half of what he wrote, and agrees with your statement about when its is incumbent to rebel, he needs to convince his son to leave the Corps as soon as possible and join him in fomenting rebellion against our government. I will assure you that if I thought our republic as established by the Constitution no longer existed I would not spend one minuet more in the Corps than was absolutely necessary. However, since I believe our Constitution is still in effect I will gladly remain bound to my oath.
Words have meaning and ideas have consequences. That is why we need to reject such overblown rhetoric. It needlessly incites additional overblown rhetoric that in turn undermines confidence in our system of government that at best only creates disaffection and at worst inspires people like Timothy McVeigh.
Tragic Story
The LA Times has the story of Colonel Ted Westhusing, suicide. The reporter cites a psychologist and some witnesses to suggest that the Colonel killed himself because he was troubled by the role of USIS contractors in Iraq.
About 1 p.m., a USIS manager went looking for Westhusing because he was scheduled for a ride back to the Green Zone. After getting no answer, the manager returned about 15 minutes later. Another USIS employee peeked through a window. He saw Westhusing lying on the floor in a pool of blood.Or possibly, the reporter allows family members to suggest without rebuttal, he was murdered by the contractors:
The manager rushed into the trailer and tried to revive Westhusing. The manager told investigators that he picked up the pistol at Westhusing's feet and tossed it onto the bed.
"I knew people would show up," that manager said later in attempting to explain why he had handled the weapon. "With 30 years from military and law enforcement training, I did not want the weapon to get bumped and go off."
After a three-month inquiry, investigators declared Westhusing's death a suicide. A test showed gunpowder residue on his hands. A shell casing in the room bore markings indicating it had been fired from his service revolver.
Then there was the note.
Investigators found it lying on Westhusing's bed. The handwriting matched his.
Westhusing's family and friends are troubled that he died at Camp Dublin, where he was without a bodyguard, surrounded by the same contractors he suspected of wrongdoing. They wonder why the manager who discovered Westhusing's body and picked up his weapon was not tested for gunpowder residue.The Times piece is disturbing, and it is also sloppy. The two things together are dangerous. Consider:
Mostly, they wonder how Col. Ted Westhusing — father, husband, son and expert on doing right — could have found himself in a place so dark that he saw no light.
"He's the last person who would commit suicide," said Fichtelberg, his graduate school colleague. "He couldn't have done it. He's just too damn stubborn."
A shell casing in the room bore markings indicating it had been fired from his service revolver.Revolvers don't throw casings. Furthermore, the Army doesn't issue "service revolvers." That's two very obvious details that should have made the editor question just how certain the reporter was about the facts of the crime scene.
Apparently, the editor didn't notice.
How many more details are gotten wrong through simple sloppiness of reporting? That one is obvious; how many more mistakes did he make that aren't obvious? Enough to clear the suspicion the reporter allows bereaved family members to place on USIS contractors? Enough that the correct details would extend suspicion elsewhere?
Unfortunately, war is hard on men and suicides dog every military undertaking. War can seem like madness at times. Is this a tragedy of that sort? A three month investigation ruled that it was. The reporter appears to want to suggest otherwise. Before he's allowed to do so, he'd better get his facts straight.
JL
Joe Lieberman, who should have been forwarded as last year's candidate for President from the Democratic primaries, has a piece in Opinion Journal. The occasion is his return from his fourth trip to Iraq. He reports military and economic progress in extraordinary quantities, and praises our soldiers and Marines.
And then, he gets around to the question that has been baffling me these last several weeks:
Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.I still don't understand where the sudden calls for withdrawal are coming from. Now, of any point since the fall of Baghdad to the Coalition, is surely the time for robust confidence. What is the cause for the decline of confidence? It doesn't make any sense.
On Civility
Civility is getting harder to find, as Eric pointed out in the comments to the post two down from here. Consider this post from Balloon Juice, which asserts that a certain blogger who shall not be named here is a traitor to his country.
The discussion in the comments, while it is no more productive that you'd expect given such a hearty starting point for the debate, is nevertheless marked by points of civility. In particular, John Cole and Kimmitt discuss the issue well, though they don't achieve any sort of resolution. Still, it's a remarkably civilized debate given that it begins with accusations of treason.
The question is whether it is proper to have a civilized debate that begins with accusations of treason. Treason is, after all, a capital crime: if you declare in seriousness that you believe another man to be a traitor, you are calling for his death. That is not something to do lightly. In fact, it ought only to be done in deadly earnest: that is, you should really intend to see the man dead, to further his prosecution to the very point of the gallows. If you do not feel that way, you ought not to raise the charge.
And if you do, what is left to discuss?
We are coming to that binary breaking point on a number of questions. The President is accused by some of such things that, if the charges are believed, demand more than rhetoric or the organizing of a better electoral strategy for next year or three years on. The administration has occasionally been accused of fixing votes, including the 2000 election by which it came to power. The US military is accused -- here by Kimmitt, who is trying to be rational, and who is not defending the fellow accused of treason -- of operating "a network of illegal torture facilities scattered around the world!" "Our Administration kidnaps, tortures, and kills people without oversight," he continues.
If you believe that, and especially if you believe all of it, are you not called to more than blogging? To more than political donations, or organizing? To more than another empty protest march, so common and toothless that they may as well not happen at all? I don't see how anyone could believe those charges, watch the ineffectiveness of the protest movements and political opposition, and not plot insurrection. It would seem both logical and reasonable.
I support Congressional investigations when they come up, if only because that kind of oversight is the only hope we have of avoiding what otherwise appears to be a civil war in the making. Yet even that requires some faith in the institutions, which is increasingly absent and may be deservedly absent. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, for example, issued its report on prewar intelligence which all but cleared the administration. The Committee is then accused of rolling over to protect them. Is the accusation fair? Well, to be honest, none of us know: but the Senate's behavior on other occasions hardly inspires confidence. I can't think of a single time in the last year or so that I've looked upon the Senate, or most any Senator, and been proud of them or moved to confidence in their honesty and probity. Not since Zell Miller retired -- whether you liked or hated him, at least you knew he gave it to you as he saw it. Is there even one Senator you trust like that now? I can't think of one.
If the Senate Select Committee issues another report, as they are said to be preparing to do, and it also appears to give the administration a pass -- will that be enough? Why should it be? What has the Senate done to show us that its judgment is worth heeding? I believe that the Administration is not guilty of secret plots to manipulate intelligence, but I wouldn't trust the Senate if they said it even though I believed it already.
Who will we trust, then? And when we get to the point that the answer is "No one," what are we to do with a government that increasingly operates in secret? Classification activity increased 25% in 2003 alone. These increases come in the very sectors where the nation's interests are most closely touched, and where conspiracy theories are most likely to arise. If the Senate isn't trusted to perform its oversight role -- and I think it is only an honest opinion that they ought to do a whole lot more to prove they are worthy of trust -- what then?
What then, as far as I can tell, is this: those who believe that the government has been overrun by conspirators will be forced to more serious action than organization. I think they will be morally forced to it; if they really believe the charges they raise and further, they ought to be engaged in it. If I believed in those charges, I would be myself. A patriot ought to be ready to reject, by the faith of his body, the rise of tyranny in the heart of the Republic.
Insofar as that happens, those of us who do not believe the charges will be forced to defend the government. The fact that the Senate is filled with faithless politicians does not change the fact that they were duly elected. Many of us have taken oaths, and others who have not formally sworn the oaths believe in them anyway. We will do what our oaths require.
The only hope for avoiding that, I honestly believe, lies in peeling back the secrecy at least enough that we can regain confidence in the oversight. We need to be able to verify enough of the details that the Senate's pronouncements are able to be confirmed. National security still requires some secrets, but we must make sure that declassification of secrets that are no longer critical becomes a national priority. It would help, too, if we started electing leaders whose character we admired rather than whose connections to political machines were overwhelming. Perhaps blogs can help with that, by getting the word out for smaller candidates who aren't as tied-in to the machines.
Civility is more necessary than ever, if we are to have that kind of achievement. We need to be able to talk across the aisle, so that we can work together to demand of our politicians the things they don't apparently feel obligated to provide on their own: an accounting of their behavior. If at last we can no longer trust them to watch one another, we must be united in demanding that they present themselves to us. I will gladly support forcing "my" politicians to present such an accounting, if the folks on the other side will do the same for theirs.
SNSL II
I enjoyed my outing with the little Snake Slayer so much that I took some time today to go back to the range. I bought a box of Winchester cartridges and worked my way through about half of it, amid some other shooting. After about a dozen rounds, I found I was starting to be able to cluster my shots in the five-six ring, down and right of center. That normally means you are tightening your grip during the discharge. Perfectly understandable, when firing a beast like this little thing!
I concentrated on not doing that, and blew out the center of the target with the last two shots. Can I do that every time? I'm looking forward to finding out. Still, I think with practice that it's possible to achieve real marksmanship with these derringers.
RR: Libs
It would appear that all of my favorite liberal bloggers have gone inactive. Sovay keeps intending to get back to it, but hasn't time. Lizard Queen has vanished; I hope she is doing well. KGC abandoned his blog about a year ago. Deuddersun hasn't been heard from in months.
With that in mind, I'd like to ask readers to suggest new liberal blogs, both for the links but also just to read on occasion. I know who the top liberal bloggers are, but I'm no more interested in the top liberal blogs than I am in the top conservative ones. This is for the reasons we discussed a few days ago: what I want are people who are comfortable with disagreement, who enjoy exploring ideas, and who will be happy to entertain polite challenges, and issue the same.
Because such places tend to be smaller, they're harder to find. If you know of any, please leave a comment.
RR: SNSL
I finally got that derringer I ordered... er, six months ago? Nine months ago? Something like that.
I'd ordered a Bond Arms Texas Defender, but what I actually got was their upgrade model, which for some reason they decided to call the Snake Slayer. All Bond Arms guns are essentially the same, with one variation off the standard double-barrel derringer:
Texas Defender: 3" barrel, short grip.
Cowboy Defender: 3" barrel, short grip, no trigger guard (so it looks like an old Remington derringer for Cowboy Action shooters).
Century 2000: 3.5" barrel, short grip.
Snake Slayer: 3.5" barrel, long grip.
All of which means nothing, since you can buy the extra sized grip as an aftermarket, plus the barrels are interchangable. So what you're really buying is the one you want out of the box, but you can make it into any of them (including the Cowboy, as the trigger guard is removable). Plus, you can buy a barrel for your same derringer that can shoot pretty much any major cartridge made, from .22 LR to .44 Special or .45 Long Colt. All you need is an allen wrench, included, and you can swap out barrels as easy as easy can be.
This one is chambered for .45 Long Colt, but will also take .410 shotgun shells. In fact, Bond Arms will happily sell you .410 shotgun shells loaded with 00 buckshot. I was shooting Hornady .45 Long Colt "Cowboy" loads, which are cast lead without jackets.
There are four things which are notable.
1) This is an extremely challenging weapon. Recoil is stiff, the stiffest I've ever encountered in a handgun. It's got almost no barrel anyway, so accuracy is quite poor. Out of twenty rounds, I kept all of them on paper, but I only had one in the X ring; two in the eight ring; five in the six-seven ring; and the rest were just somewhere on the paper. Not good. Still, for defense at extremely close ranges (FBI crime reports suggest that most gunfights take place at less than ten feet) it would be adequate.
2) The barrel is so short that, even at fifteen feet, the bullet is "tumbling" rather than traveling straight. That could create a nasty wound cavity. This is a good thing for everyone except, of course, the fellow on the business end.
3) It has a crossbar safety, as well as being single-action. As long as you exercise the usual precautions that you should always exercise when handling a firearm, the risk of accidental discharge is as close to zero as an engineer could desire.
4) The report and the cloud of smoke are worthy of comment.
So here's the comment: I arrived at the range on a cold, grey day. There was a small crowd of young people there with a couple of experienced instructors. I assume they were taking a course on firearms safety or something similar. They occupied most of the lanes, so I had to wait a bit. It was not unpleasant, though, watching them shoot: young men and women learning the ropes, and accepting the challenges and responsibilities that come with handling a dangerous weapon.
They kindly made room for me at the next ceasefire, and so I set up on the lane furthest to the left (which is desirable, as it keeps hot brass from being pitched on you by the semiautomatics). I was of course wearing earplugs, as hearing protection is (and ought to be) mandatory. Even so, I could hear the buzz of conversation from these young folks. They were wondering just what it was I was going to shoot, as I wasn't obviously in possession of a firearm.
I took out the derringer, laid it on the mat, and carefully loaded the first two rounds. I could hear the two young ladies tittering. "It's so tiny!" one of them said to the other. I smiled, because I understood. They'd been firing .45 ACPs and Sig Sauer 9mms, which are much more impressive to look at even though they fire a round that is substantially weaker than the old Long Colt. They didn't have enough experience to notice how big the bore of the barrels were.
The thing about the .45 LC is this: in 1873, the US Army had to ask Colt to go back to the drawing board and produce a less-powerful version of the cartridge for Army use. It was too hard-hitting for professional soldiers, even firing it out of 7-1/2" barrels from a full-sized Colt Single Action Army revolver. This thing has almost no barrel at all, and none of the mass of the Colt to absorb the recoil.
I discharged the tiny thing. For about half a minute, there was utter silence on the range.
It takes about five seconds for even a reasonable breeze, such as we had, to clear the smoke well enough that you could see the result of the shot. The report is a shockwave, for a handgun -- obviously any serious rifle will put it to shame. Still, between the report and the cloud of smoke, it's a fairly serious psychological weapon. If you should discharge it in a street while defending yourself from the average armed robber, I would think he would be halfway to the nearest train station before the smoke cleared even if you missed him. If you hit him, I'm fairly sure that tumbling .45 would put him down.
I cocked it again, fired again, and then reloaded and worked through the box. Afterwards, at the next ceasefire, one of the instructors came over to me.
"What on earth is that thing you're firing?" he asked. I told him.
"What does it shoot?" he wondered. I took a spare cartridge out of my pocket and handed it to him.
His eyes got big. "My God," he said. "Hey, Bob, come here and look at this."
So, here's my verdict: if you're up to a real challenge, you might like a Bond Arms derringer in one of the heavy calibers. As a "toss it in your pants pocket on your way to town" gun, it's perfect. I have no doubt that it would be effective as a defensive firearm, at the sort of close ranges where crime is apt to take place. The psychological effect of it is apt to stop fights and disperse crowds, as it was shocking even to experienced firearm instructors.
However, it's not for beginners, and it's not for the weak. You'd better have the wrists to back it up.
Attention
You are all familiar with JHD. It is with sympathy and honor we remark the passage of his father. I will leave it to the man himself to speak to the gentleman's history, though the eulogy he sent me was most impressive. I hope he will repeat it to you, though it is not mine to do so.
The next world, however we find it, will be better that men such as this have gone there before us. Raise your glasses, brothers and sisters.
RumsfMoon
I absolutely cannot wait for the next Rumsfeld press conference. I would give anything to hear his answer if a reporter asked him, "Sir, is it true that the US military plans a forward base on the Moon for the purpose of shooting at UFOs?"
I hope there's a cameraman handy, too. I'd love to see the look on Rumsfeld's face.
SpcVT
Specialist Van Treuren adds context from an AP report to an NY Times report about the bombing at an Iraqi hospital this week. Then, Major K. adds still more context absent from both reports. Readers who follow the MilBlogs are thus much better informed than readers of AP wire reports, and at least twice as well informed as those who are still getting their news from the NY Times.
Katrina-Iraq-MOE
"MOE" is military-speak for anything you can use to measure and track progress toward a given goal. Here are two, for the success of the mission in Iraq.
I. A Gift
Iraq's Red Crescent Donates $1 million to Katrina victims. (H/t Greyhawk).
"I wish we could have a billion dollars to give," Said Hakki, the organization's president, said by telephone from Baghdad. "Even then, it is not enough to show our appreciation for what the U.S. has done for Iraq and is still doing."In the early days after Katrina, Bangladesh donated $1 million as well. It was a great shock, as the government of Bangladesh is run by a coalition of three parties, two of which are Islamist in outlook. They remembered what we had done during the tsunami, though, and wanted to do right by us in turn.
How much does that mean in the 'hearts and minds' war? Bangladesh's Islamist movement has what Daniel was calling 'shame cultures,' so it is possible to read the generosity in the wrong way. The motive in Bangladesh is less likely to be a sense of love, than the desire to avoid the shame of being seen less generous than the American. So, a generous gift from Bangladesh does not prove that we have won hearts or minds.
On the other hand, it doesn't have to: establishing reciprocal bonds of honor and duty works almost as well. Love is better, because it will drive actions taken in secret as well as those taken in public. But if you can't have love, honor and duty is the next best thing.
How does the Iraq gift appear in that light? Iraqi Muslims also participate in a shame culture. The gift in this case, however, appears to be given not out of a sense of duty, but out of a sense of love. The Red Crescent is a self-selecting group, made up of people who are likely to express fellow-feeling through charitable giving. It can't be read as revealing for all of Iraqi society. Nevertheless, with those caveats said, we have to read this as a strongly positive MOE.
II. Iraqi Operations
Iraq's vice president reports that Iraqi forces now implement 70% of security operations. Mackubin Thomas Owens notes that, if the standard is "US-Iraqi or independent Iraqi operations," the figure is 80%.
Bill Roggio noted in an email yesterday traveling on a certain highway in Iraq, the name of which I will leave out for OPSEC reasons. It was, as he reminded us, a highway that had always been extremely dangerous -- until Iraqi forces were able to take it over. They are more effective at many kinds of security operations because (a) they speak the language, and (b) they all naturally understand the culture, and (c) they can more easily spot someone who doesn't belong. That leaves them especially capable of handling the "hold" part of "clear and hold" operations, and other similar security ops.
But wait, that's not all. As the COUNTERCOLUMN points out, the Iraqi Army is now conducting air assault missions.
Air assaults are very challenging, involving a great deal of staff work and specialized troop training. They can stretch officers and NCOs to the limit. The fact that Iraqi troops are now capable of conducting air assaults alongside the 101st, the masters of the art, is very encouraging. Will any national news outlets grasp the significance of this development? Nope.Again, the MOE here is strongly positive. Far from depressed, we ought to be most encouraged by the recent progress.
Thanksgiving
We gather today to feast with some of our friends and family, and to miss the ones who are not there with us. It can be hard to be as thankful as the holiday calls for when those you care about are far away. My respects to all of you who must endure that, and manage still to remember the purpose in your hearts.
I see that InstaPundit is recipe-blogging in preparation for the holiday. We've been known to do that here, though mostly with recipes for cooking over open fires (see also the comments). I've encountered a couple of good cookbooks lately, by the way. The first one is mostly for people who, like me, prefer to cook over an open fire: Barbecue, Biscuits and Beans by the founders of the Western Chuck Wagon Assoc.
There's also The All American Cowboy Cookbook. What's interesting about this one is that it's got recipes from rodeo riders, cowboy poets, owners of ranches, and also actors who have famously played cowboys. As a result, the type of food on offer is widely varied and will suit any taste or skill level.
For example, Baxter Black and his wife submitted a great recipe for cooking barbecue ribs in a fire pit that requires you to hose the sand and dirt off them the next day before you chow down on them. This is real cowboy cooking. Some of the ranch recipes are very simple ("Cowboy Beans: 1 pound dry beans, 1 tsp garlic powder, 1 tsp onion powder, 1 tsp salt"). On the other hand, Clint Eastwood entered a recipe he calls "Spaghetti Western," which features shrimp and sea scallops... so if you like to eat fancy food, there are several recipes from Hollywood gourmets and the fancier dude ranches.
Also, though it's the wrong time of year, I remember I offered my recipe for PETA Pie, in honor of Eat An Animal For PETA Day. It's pretty good if you like meat pies, which I learned to do because of a fondness for medieval history. You don't encounter pies in America much that aren't sweet -- chicken pot pie is the only one that comes to mind. Still, give it a try sometime.
Enjoy the feast.
CENTCOM Cares
A few weeks ago, we had a soldier from CENTCOM PA drop by and spam our comments section. Eric remarked, as I recall, "We just got spammed by CENTCOM! CENTCOM cares what we think! Cool!"
Well, they do indeed care. They sent me an email this morning asking me to link to them, and they sent along an appropriate image as well. I'm only too happy to add the link: just click on the CENTCOM badge, on the sidebar.
Wrong Way
I've been speaking to points of etiquette lately. Here is a point at which the traditions of etiquette have reached their limits. It comes in a letter directed at Captain Jason von Steenwyck:
I'm not ignorant. I don't like bigots or liars. Moore included. You included.The Army forbids its officers from fighting duels, which was the traditional response to such a challenge. The Captain responds gallantly, according to the forms which are still allowed:
Don't bother to respond.
I hold that neither has been established.... So let the evidence be brought forth! It will either be an opportunity for self-examination and growth, or it will be an opportunity for much laughter, mirth and merriment at the expense of some frothy-mouthed morons.That is too much. The honor of an officer of the United States military should not be a light matter, against which the word of any fool can stand. It is not right that a man of his proven valor should have to invite "evidence" of his bigotry and deceitfulness. The challenge has no right to be entertained.
In the days before the duel, the ancient Germanic code held that oath-swearing could take the place of trials by combat. It was a complicated process, but in short, the oaths of the honorable could outweigh any charge, so long as enough such men were willing to swear by their fellow. In a time before forensics, that could be a useful way of asserting the confidence of a close community in a man known by all to be of good heart. In a time after dueling, perhaps it can again serve as a way of asserting the confidence of a community of fighting men in the honor of one of their own.
I'll take my oath by the Captain. I defy anyone to say he is either a liar or a bigot.
SoA
Another fellow I met on that evening was "Sandy" Shapero, CEO of Spirit of America. They're doing some work in Iraq, and are raising funds for:
- Helping Iraqi and American school children build crucial bonds ofIt's good work they do, and they don't get any government money. If you're thinking of giving to charity this holiday season, or wanting to help the mission in Iraq, Spirit of America is a good way to go about it.
trust and understanding.
- Helping the Marines set up women's centers in both countries that
can provide job training, Internet access, day care services, and a
place where women can meet to exchange ideas and form mutual support
networks.
- Working with the Army in Najaf to improve health care services by
setting up a central cardiac monitoring system at a key teaching
hospital.
- Improving relations between Iraqis and Marines in Al Anbar Province
by donating school supplies, shoes, sports equipment, watches, and
other gifts to Iraqi children.
- Assisting the Marines as they help local farmers rejuvenate their
land.
SF Democ
Don't miss this piece from Foreign Policy by Green Beret James A. Gavrilis. It describes how he and his company set up a functioning democracy in the early days of the Iraq war.
The story reminded me of the evening I spent listening to LtCol Couvillon, USMC, describing his stint as "military governor" of Wasit. Obvioiusly these good ideas aren't limited to the Special Forces. (I also met Omar and Mohammed on the same evening, though they don't know they met me -- I only shook their hands, thanked them, and left them to talk to more important people than me.)
As we have apparently decided to take stock of Iraq right now, we can usefully remember how far it has come in those two years. A tyranny that had known no self-government for decades now has flourishing small communities like this. They exist in spite of the violence, which seeks to blot out these small acts of freedom and return a new tyranny to the land. It will not be.
Ralph Peters
He writes mad better than most, but this time, he's really mad.
I am absolutely astonished by the calls for withdrawal, coming as they do at this time. Of course, they've been coming all along from certain parties, but I can't see any reason why now would be the time you decided to believe that it wasn't going to work. As I wrote in an email to certain parties (with certain details redacted):
In April '04, we had insurgents holding eleven cities across Iraq openly against the US Army. In September '04, the Army had shut all that down, but there were still strongholds in Anbar. In November '04, after Fallujah, those strongholds started to fall one by one. By this summer, we're seeing Sunni tribes who had been somewhat loyal to the insurgents breaking off and supporting the government. Now, we're seeing even some of the more serious tribes negotiating with the government, and we've got clear-and-hold operations throughout Anbar.That's the question that baffles me. I realize those who know nothing at all about military science get their opinion of the progress from the media, which apparently also knows nothing about military science. Their reports mention every explosion, but contain no context of increasing stability. Even the Jordan bomb, so clearly a disaster for al Qaeda, was reported as proof of their influence. The image you might take away is of an insurgency that's no less powerful today than it was last year, or a year and a half ago: an enemy that makes no mistakes, whose every attack is an unqualified success.
Last winter, we were having insurgent attacks in force against American military posts -- remember when the general officers had to take up arms in Ramadi? When was the last time they tried to overrun a US firebase? January? I know the *** is demoralizing, but they do *** because they can't do assaults.
All the evidence is that our boys are rolling them up, and the new Iraqi government is starting to get its feet under it. I don't see why anyone has any doubt that we're winning, and winning big. Meanwhile, al Qaeda's use of murder squads aimed at civilians is cutting the heart out of their support among Muslims. Zarqawi was disowned by his tribe today; last week, we had the largest Muslim organization in the world condemn suicide bombing. If we get to the point that Muslims in general are opposed to groups that carry out suicide attacks, we've won the GWOT for all intents and purposes. After that, we just need to focus on penetrating and capturing the cells in the West, while encouraging democracy and openness abroad.
That's not to say that it isn't still a long road with some dark places along it. But it is to say -- what are people thinking? How can anyone stand up and say that the war isn't winnable, when we are so clearly winning it?
Still, why have these calls suddenly jumped to the front page and the top of the agenda? Why now? There have been no events on the ground in Iraq to explain a sudden sense of failure. There has been no Tet offensive to misread as an enemy victory. Even if you judge only from the media, without any context to explain the progress being made, surely things don't appear to be getting sharply worse. They just don't explain how it's getting better.
Is it just because Bush's poll numbers are bad, and so the political opposition -- as Peters suggests -- is piling on for that reason? Can it really be that the opposition is so uninterested in national security and the success of America's military and her foreign policy? Can it really be that the only thing driving this is domestic politics -- that the leadership of one of our two policital parties is willing to lose a war purely in pursuit of domestic politics? Whether or not that is so, it's certainly driven the leadership of both parties into playing high-profile games with what ought to be an issue of serious thought.
I want to hear a convincing argument that this is not the case. I will be happy to embrace it, if someone can make it to me. So far, I'm not seeing it. What I'm seeing is a political class that needs an education. It's not just senior officials saying that the dispute is hurting morale -- I've been hearing it from fighters in the field and from their families. The New York Times decided to ask some soldiers, and reports that the dispute between Congress and the President has little effect on morale. Maybe that's true, and I've just heard from people who feel differently than most.
Still, in the last line of the article, they mention this: "Many in uniform say it is the job of the nation's political leaders to communicate the importance of the mission and the need for national sacrifice to a new generation of soldiers." I agree -- the leaders do need to communicate that. They need to show that they understand how important it is to succeed in the mission. These political games need to end. You can't play at standing behind the soldiers and their mission. You have to really be behind them.
Boys
I'm not sure exactly why, but my son has recently developed an interest in guns. Both my wife and I carry concealed sometimes (with legal permits, of course), my wife in particular, but we have always taken pains not to have him aware of it (if only so he won't pipe up in public and say, "Mommy, will you take your gun out?"). The guns are locked out of sight and unloaded, separate from their ammo, except the firearms for night defense -- which are also locked out of sight in a safe, and in a condition where they can't be used without some knowledge of how they operate. The safe is sealed and locked every morning before he gets up, so I'm pretty sure that it's not my behavior that has caused this interest. He doesn't see me carrying a gun, in other words, or handling them, or whatever.
I'm not opposed to teaching him about them, just the opposite -- but he's only three. I thought swords would be enough for a while yet. And indeed, the other day we took a long walk, and he carried his wooden sword along. Every few feet, he'd stop and pretend to fight "another monster!" It's very endearing.
However, he has for some time also been picking up sticks that are kind of gun-shaped, and carrying them around. He makes a gun noise: "jugga-jugga!" I guess he got the idea from Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, or Raiders of the Lost Ark, or The Lone Ranger, or one of the other adventure movies he likes to watch when he isn't watching Kipper the Dog.
He has also been begging me to buy him a toy gun. I resisted for a long while. Guns are not toys, I keep telling him; they are a serious business. Still, he's playing "guns" anyway with the sticks; and, I reflected, with a toy that had some semblance to how a real firearm operates, I could start teaching him firearms safety in an enviornment with no consequences if he screws up (e.g., "Don't point that at me!" won't cause anyone to get shot if he does anyway). By the time he's old enough, if I'm dilligent about it, he should know the rules of firearms safety as second nature. I hope, in other words, that I'm doing the right thing by encouraging his interest rather than creating a forbidden object to desire; and by taking the opportunity to teach him how to behave safely and with responsibility. Besides, I had toy guns as a kid.
I weighed and considered this for a long time. I finally made up my mind to go ahead with it, if he continued to show interest, yesterday afternoon. He was playing with his stick gun again. "I've got a gun, daddy!" he said.
I sighed, and pointed to his sword. "You've also got a sword," I replied. "What do you need a gun for anyway?"
He looked at me seriously, and said, "For shooting bad guys."
Well, I couldn't argue with that. It's the very reason I own guns.
So, since he was pleasant and good today, I offered to buy him a toy; and he insisted that he wanted a gun. So we went to WalMart, and he picked out a toy shotgun (the "Montana," of a line of toys that replicate old cowboy guns -- he passed up Star Wars stuff for this). I gave him the initial lecture about gun saftey (which I'm sure went right over his head, but by the time he's ten he'll be able to recite it backwards in his sleep). Then I gave him the thing, and took him home.
A few hours later, I'm up in my office working, and I can hear him operating the thing down below. He's in the bedroom, watching a movie. His mother's voice drifts up.
"Beowulf! Are you shooting Bambi?"
A pause while he answers.
"You're shooting Bambi's Mom?!?!?"
Well, uh, boys will be boys, you know.
Iraq
You've probably all seen the new group blog, No End But Victory. I entirely support the concept behind it.
I have not written about Iraq in a little while, but only because I haven't seen anything to change my opinion of the place. The September before last I wrote "Clausewitz and the Triangle" while guest-blogging at the Mudville Gazette, which laid out the forces at work in Iraq from the perspective of military science. I think, a year and more on, that it still is the correct understanding.
Events have played out as the analysis suggested they should. The insurgent attacks have undermined their cause more than they've helped it, with the result that talk of "inkblots" or "oil spots" is now on our side instead of theirs. The tribes who had been in support of the insurgency have increasingly been splitting off and supporting US military efforts, as Bill Roggio has been reporting all summer and fall. The January elections enjoyed a large turnout and little violence, and the more recent elections enjoyed both a wider turnout and even less violence than the January elections.
Over the summer I posted two pieces to Bill's site that were the same sort of large-scale analysis. "In Response to a Question" was the first. It looked at the insurgents' problem again, and found it to be the same problem but at a later stage of development. Whereas in the September 2004 piece, the insurgents were creating no-go areas and holding towns against the United States for certain periods, the Fallujah campaign marked the start of a grinding away of any insurgent strongpoint. By the summer, the only places the insurgents could "hold" were the places no one was bothering to attack yet -- fewer and fewer as time went along. By this point, we are managing successful "clear and hold" operations throughout the Sunni Triangle, with the aid of increasingly capable Iraqi military units. Even tribes who are genuine allies of the insurgency must now reconsider their long-term future. That process is ongoing, with more and more even of the hardcore tribal insurgents shifting their stance to one amenable to the government's existence.
The other piece was "A Question of Victory," which proposed a test for victory not merely in Iraq, but in the larger GWOT. It predicted that al Qaeda's victory -- in Iraq, and elsewhere -- required that they create and maintain a sense of family bond with their various supporters in Iraq and elsewhere:
Victory is possible when and if al Qaeda's claim to a family bond fails. At that point, the tribal component will not be honor-bound to support the insurgency. If they are not family, they are enemy.Activity type one is something the military is working on, building relationships among Iraqi army units and American ones. Reconstruction projects, always under-reported but always ongoing, are another. But activity type two is of increasing importance, as demonstrated by the recent attacks in Jordan. The attacks were an attempt to strike at forces beyond Iraq, for the small reason of disrupting broader Coalition activity, and the large reason of appearing more powerful than the insurgency really is. The effect was to create a vision of kinslaying:
What kind of activity can break that bond? There are only two types.
1) Activity on the Coalition's part that makes the tribes feel a stronger family bond to us than to al Qaeda.
2) Activity on al Qaeda's part that will be interpreted as kinslaying.
Zarqawi in particular and Al-Qaeda in general have attracted a measure of support from the Jordanian underclasses, creating a dilemma for the Government of King Abdullah II as he attempts to build on the softly-softly work of his late father, King Hussein, in simultaneously forging ties with the Jewish state, appeasing Jordan's chief foreign aid donor, the US, with limited democratic reform, lifting living standards for its have-nots while retaining credibility on the Arab street. Yet in the battle for hearts and minds which runs parallel to the hot war on terror, Zarqawi might have over-reached himself with the Amman attacks.But these are the only kinds of attacks the insurgency can manage. They have no alternative strategy, because they have no capacity for an alternative strategy. They cannot concentrate on holding territory because they can hold none. They cannot negotiate because their ideology forbids it. They cannot defeat the American military, so no strategy based on that is available. They can use IEDs to bomb American and Iraqi military targets, but as those targets become hardened each successful attack requires more planning and expertise -- which means that a strategy based on that kind of attack means fewer successsful attacks over time, which the insurgency cannot afford. They must appear to be growing in power, not diminishing.
They cannot stop bombing civilian targets because they would fade out of the public mind, which for an insurgency is exactly equivalent to military defeat. They must continue bombing civilian targets, in more and more horrific fashion, if they are to continue the illusion of being a powerful, undefeatable foe. That this illusion might lead to a political decision by US politicians to withdraw is their only hope.
Yet the very means by which the illusion is maintained are the very means by which they are achieving our major condition of victory in the GWOT -- not just in Iraq, but worldwide. As they carry on in this fashion, they convince the Muslim world that they are not defenders of Muslims and Islam, but evil men. More protests against al Qaeda will result. More Islamic clerics will come out against suicide bombings, as Hasyim Muzadi did last week. Who is he, you ask? He is the leader of Nahdlatul Ulama, which with forty million members is the largest Muslim religious organization in the world.
I haven't written about Iraq much lately, because all there is to say is the same things again. These forces were and are the crucial forces at work in this war. All that is required is time and leverage, and al Qaeda must provide us with ever-increasing leverage in order to fight us at all. Victory is certain.
What I cannot predict is when al Qaeda's capability in Iraq will collapse, but there is no doubt at all that it will. They are exhausting their one critical store, the sense among Muslims that they represent defenders of Muslims and Islam. Their resiliance to date has come only from that store, as it has so far allowed them to replenish their ranks with new volunteers. When it is gone, al Qaeda in Iraq will be no more dangerous than Jemaah Islamiyah is in Southeast Asia. They may be able to carry out the occasional bombing, but they won't represent a danger to the stability of even weak, third-world nations.
The project of democracy in Iraq will then be like the project in Indonesia or Malaysia -- a project with a long way to go, that is to say, but one in which there is nevertheless notable progress.
All that the American people need to do is be patient and have faith. All that the American military needs to do is allow its men to carry on as they are doing, kicking the insurgents down every time they stand up, holding territory, building the Iraqi army and infrastructure, and building "family" ties through honorable action. That was my analysis in September 2004, and it remains my analysis today.
No End But Victory, indeed.
Hook Sends
Sergeant Hook wants you to read this. Hook's been around a long time, and I've never gotten an all-hands MilBlog request from him before now. Go and read what he has been asked to share with you.
Military honors
JHD sends this story about USMC casualty notification. It is called "Final Salute."
Cassandra suggests you read another piece, called "What we owe them." It is about another of our fallen 2/2 Marines, Lance Corporal Nickolas Schiavoni.
The guys over at Edefense Online have put up a very interesting article about the Serbian Air defense battery that managed to knock down an F-16 and F-117 during the Kosovo war. These were not some ill trained Arabs led by thugs. Instead, these were some competent soldiers led by a smart and bold professional officer, getting the most out of what he had. How many more Colonel Zoltans are out there?
That incident, like the reports about the Indian Air Force handing the USAF its collective butt in some top gun exercises in 2004, should be a warning that technology doesn't win by itself--you need people, leadership, training, and above all, don't underestimate your opponent.
But we all knew that, right?
First, we have The Republicans stepping on their collective training aid in the Senate. At random, see Hugh Hewitt. Et tu, Fristus? And I have a message for the Senator: Don't even think about running for President in 2008, you fool.
And today, we have Representative Murtha, unmanning himself. I also have a message for the Representative: You are a walking advertisement for term limits. Resign now, and mitigate some of your disgrace.
Do these 'honorable' men have any idea the message that their actions sends? Apparently not. Go take a gander at memeorandum and just see what's being said.
UPDATE:
via Hugh Hewitt again, the transcript of Hugh and Mark Steyn discussing the situation.
Some side notes
Aaron's "deck of death" for bloggers is still ongoing. It appears to me that we may have succeeded in voting Doc a card, for which I thank you. Aaron hasn't yet posted the totals for clubs, but I appreciate everyone who took the time to get over there and vote for Doc. I didn't think to endorse someone for the hearts (although I voted for Baldilocks -- no offense to Soldier's Angels, but Baldilocks and I are old mates from Easy Company. There's a group photo and everything.
It looks like spades are about to get started. I'll gladly endorse The Nation of Riflemen. Good luck to them.
I also added The Donovan to the sidebar today. It's another one of those places I never quite realized I hadn't already linked. Anybody else who wonders why I haven't linked to you, feel free to drop me a line. It's probably just that I'm too busy with my (ahem) other job that I don't get around to editing the template often.
OSM
It looks like the launch for Open Source Media, or OSM, or whatever it will actually be called, went reasonably well (except for that copyright thing). Dennis the Peasant will be amused to know that I learned the address for the new OSM website from his blog. I imagine they'll email me about it sometime soon. Or not -- since we're meant to be Open Source specialists, I suppose it's not unreasonable to expect us to find these things out for ourselves.
"THOSE BOYS ARE WINGING IT!" Dennis says. Well, indeed they do appear to be. Nothing wrong with that. Those of us who score 92% "Indiana Jones" (h/t Geek w/a .45) don't mind a little bit of making it up as you go along. This is supposed to be fun, after all. If the money doesn't turn up, it's no big deal. I was doing this anyway, and my only plans for it were to give to my wife to invest in her flower garden. If it doesn't show up, she'll just invest my money instead. :)
So far, it has been fun, and more importantly it's been a good learning experience. Blogs are going to revolutionize the media experience even more than they have. PJM/OSM/whatever is a good first effort. I've always thought of it along the lines of the early labor unions. It may yet pull out the initial difficulties and be the next AFL/CIO; or it may yet be the Knights of Labor, and pave the way for the next AFL/CIO. It's a worthy effort either way, and I'm happy to help as much as I can.
Which isn't much, I will be the first to admit. Still, I do wish them well.
Logan
Captain Ed invokes the Logan Act. Nathan at Hoosier Illuminati calls foul.
I think Nathan puts it a bit too strongly when he says, "invoking the Logan Act ought to be the equivalent of Godwin’s Law—whoever mentions it first, loses." The Logan Act really is the law, and it is strongly worded. The fact that it has never been successfully enforced doesn't change the fact that it's on the books.
Nevertheless, we had a good go at the Logan Act here and at Del's FreeSpeech. What we discovered was that:
1) No one had ever been convicted of it, as Nathan points out, and
2) Furthermore, Senators are obviously exempt.
The text of the law is here. The relevant clause:
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.Emphasis added. Senators do indeed have authority to carry on correspondence and intercourse with foreign governments, and indeed to authorize others to do it on their behalf and that of their constituents. So do Representatives. It's one of their formal duties: witness Henry Hyde's recent letter on behalf of a statue of General MacArthur.
The Logan Act might someday be enforced, even though it never has been -- it is the law, after all. But it can't be enforced against a Congressman.