Friday, 25 July 2008
 

Were Troops Forced to Assume New "Identities" For Obama Photo Ops?
Contributed by Ron Winter

My, my, my it seems we are barely into good Senator Barack Obama's "fact-finding" tour of the world outside the DC beltway and already a scandal is brewing.

My military friends wasted no time today informing me that the word out of Afghanistan is that troops were ordered to attend the Obama "breakfast" that has been all over the media and blogosphere. More to the point, some troops also were ordered to alter their identities, at least as far as their home states are concerned, for the benefit of the Senator's campaign.

Apparently, the Senator's campaign people wanted to make sure that the photo ops showed the Senator talking with service personnel from the appropriate parts of the country. Appropriate in this case apparently meaning places where he needs a big boost in the polls.

So if military people pictured with Barack were from, say, Michigan, they were told to say they were from someplace like Arizona instead.

This is problematic on several fronts. Remember this portion of the trip wasn't supposed to be campaign related, just a good ol' American Senator on a junket, er, Congressional Inquiry.

If it happened - and even though I wasn't there personally, this came in the way of far more than just rumors - there are a number of violations involved, civilian and military.

I saw Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday today insisting that Barack's trip was NOT taxpayer funded, even though the part where he was in Afghanistan IS taxpayer funded, because the Afghan part of the trip is supposed to be only about real, serious, Senate type stuff. That would be the kind of stuff one can only find during photo ops in the president's palace and the troops' dining facility, I guess.

Stuff you would find out by going out into the combat environments apparently was not on the list.

Well, we shouldn't worry about that. Wallace also interviewed Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the show Sunday. The admiral just came back from some far-forward front-line touring, along with Fox News reporter Jennifer Griffin and her film crew.

I'm not trying to give anyone an ulcer here, but if Barack is short on war stories and is in danger of trying to make more of his experiences than they warrant, he could always ask Jennifer for some pointers on what happens when one is right up against a firefight instead of sipping java in the dining facility. She and the crew with her were within range of Taliban weapons in at least one of the segments Fox showed, so the lady is a veteran and has some war stories to tell.

Aside from the Obama campaign's attempt to circumvent government regulations (if it happened as I was told it did) and turn his Afghanistan visit into a campaign sideshow - at taxpayer expense - I also am concerned that any military commanders would go along with this chicanery.

Are we in the middle of a two-front war and forcing our military commanders to watch their political rear ends at the same time they are ducking bombs and bullets?

This warrants an investigation. A serious investigation, not a political investigation. Did Obama misuse his position and taxpayer dollars to turn what is supposed to be a non-political trip into a campaign appearance?

Did commanders order troops to attend the Obama breakfast and lie about their true identities so his campaign could benefit?

And while we are at it, why was there far more air security for Obama's visit than our top generals receive when they are working in the area?

Obviously there were plenty of media people around in Afghanistan, otherwise I wouldn't know about this would I? So why didn't a single one of these so-called objective, non-political journalists find out about this?

After all, I am thousands of miles away and word got to me pretty quickly. What kind of journalists are we dealing with that can't come up with this story on their own when they are right on the scene?

More Winter's Soldier Story at www.RonaldWinterbooks.com

Contributed by Ron Winter on July 25, 2008 at 11:59 PM in Afghanistan | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack


Wednesday, 15 August 2007
 

This summer's must read
Contributed by Bill Faith

Lone Survivor - Top Reading Choice of the Summer
George "Rurik" Mellinger

xxxx
xxx

xxx

xxxx

A military mission gone horribly wrong, resulting in a bloody struggle against overwhelming odds, is a common enough tale. But Lone Survivor by Marcus Luttrell with Patrick Robinson (Little, Brown 2007) is a rare example of the genre. Defeat, and escape from complete catastrophe are not the usual subjects for uplift and inspiration. And in any case, I usually detest “uplift and inspiration” as nonsense for the weak-spined needing continual bracing. But this book inspires anyway, perhaps because it is not intended to be “inspirational”. You may read Lone Survivor as an inspiring adventure of a warrior battling against odds and numbers too great, and somehow surviving. But if you read it only as an adventure tale, you will have missed the author’s purpose and his deeper message.

It would be easy to make such a mistake. The first two chapters got off to a very slow and awkward start for me. The tone was excessively conversational. With nary a complete sentence. Just fragments. And lots of slang usage. Disjointed, you understand. And disorganized. Like this.  And everything seemingly exaggerated. Marcus’ boasting, and his eulogies to his friends, now dead, which seemed to rise to the level of hagiography.

With the third chapter, the tenor of the book completely changed, and the story became far more focused, tighter and better organized. In this, and the following chapters, Marcus Luttrell describes the gritty path which led to becoming a SEAL. This enthralled me, and illuminated much of the boasting which had gone before, and also the determination which was to follow. The training is always stressful and brutal in any of the military’s voluntary programs, Officer Candidate School (which this reviewer tried unsuccessfully), Airborne, Ranger or Special Forces, or SEALs. Luttrell maintains that SEAL training is the toughest of all, and reading his description, I’m quite prepared to believe him. Every branch of every service convinces itself that they are an elite, better and tougher than all the others, believing the same thing. But the SEALs seem to have the bragging rights. This hundred and twenty pages, by itself would be an excellent lesson for anyone who has never done military service, what it means to become a warrior, and why they do it. ...

Read the whole thing here.

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 15, 2007 at 12:03 AM in Afghanistan, Books, George Mellinger, The American Warrior, US Navy | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack


Tuesday, 12 June 2007
 

"The One"
Contributed by Bill Faith

xxxx

xxx

I'm not going to have a lot to say about this one till the review copy I've been promised arrives but do check out Blackfive's post here and follow the links. I already know enough just from that post to know this won't be a book I have to make myself make time to read simply because I promised to review it. I can hardly wait till it gets here and it will affect my blogging when it does.

***

Read the first chapter of the book online here. (H/T: Michelle Malkin)

Contributed by Bill Faith on June 12, 2007 at 12:53 AM in Afghanistan, Books, The American Warrior, US Navy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack


Sunday, 03 June 2007
 

A Modest Proposal II
Contributed by 72nd TCS

The front page of the WaPo for Sunday, 6-3-07, has a story regarding the dismaying increase of killings of Americans in Iraq that has accompanied the recent surge.  Aspects of the article are equally applicable to the Afghan theater.  It begins like this--

Attacks on U.S. Troops in Iraq Grow in Lethality, Complexity
Bigger Bombs a Key Cause of May's High Death Toll

By Ann Scott Tyson and John Ward Anderson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, June 3, 2007; A01

As U.S. troops push more deeply into Baghdad and its volatile outskirts, Iraqi insurgents are using increasingly sophisticated and lethal means of attack, including bigger roadside bombs that are resulting in greater numbers of American fatalities relative to the number of wounded.

The article correctly points to the armor-piercing weapons known as explosively formed projectiles as a major factor in the new killing spree.  As mighrt be expected, there is no mention of Iran, which has been identified as the source of these deadly new IEDs.  Let it be known that--in the right circumstances--the MSM can bow to administration policy in the way it  presents the news.  It would seem that the Department of State has ditched the Bush Doctrine in favor of creating the appearance of reaching out to the main state-sponsors of terrorism, Iran and its lackey, Syria.  For the time being, at least, aggressive action to protect the lives of American troops is on the back burner.

This has to change, and the current modest proposal is intended to suggest a possible mode of defense, which might be termed "Operation Bellwether."  The basic technology of robotically-controlled vehicles is already well developed as, for example, in the popular spectacles called demolition derbys.  Why not create robotic unarmored Humvees that could precede military convoys by, say, fifty yards or so? To make them irresistible to the IED crowd, they could have generals' stars painted on the sides, and fly flag-rank pennants on the front fenders.  Visible personnel could be realistic rifle-toting dummies.

On the other hand, why not dress up prisoners in US Army uniforms, and let them serve as decoys?  We have an ample supply of Al-Qaeda types in military detention centers.  We hear constantly of how badly mistreated they are.  Why not put them out of their misery by letting their comrades dispatch them to Paradise?  There is ample precedent for this sort of thing.  The Red Army in World War II regularly marched Gulag prisoners through German minefields in front of their armed troops.  If that practice ever led to prosecution of Russian officers as war criminals, it is a well-kept secret.

Admittedly, prisoners captured in combat are different from common criminals.  Questions regarding Geneva Conventions--however irrelevant they may be in the light of the actual status of detainees--are sure to arise if the details became known.  Strict secrecy would have to be maintained. Operation Bellwether would be a natural for detachments of Special Forces, who are not renowned for blabbing to reporters.

The story merits careful reading.  It ends with a quotation from a British expert on Iraq, Toby Dodge:

Military officials and analysts say the factors contributing to the increased deaths will likely not ease soon. "We are looking at a very nasty summer," Dodge said.

Wouldn't it be nice if these officials and analysts were less resigned to the prospect of losing lots of lives, and  more disposed towards the "creative destruction" for which the capitalist world is justly famous?

Contributed by 72nd TCS on June 3, 2007 at 02:35 PM in Afghanistan, Current Affairs, Iraq, Islamism Delenda Est, John "72nd TCS" Werntz, War? What war? | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack


Monday, 30 April 2007
 

2007.04.30 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup
-- Breaking: Bush to veto Oink and Run bill tomorrow

Contributed by Bill Faith

See previous: 2007.04.29 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup

Below the fold (newest items at the top):

  • Ledeen Responds To Tenet
  • Broder Sticks To His Guns
  • The Consequences Of The Democrats' Iraq Policy
  • A Loser's History
  • Democrats’ Blood II
  • Bush Plans to Veto Iraq War Spending Bill on Tuesday
  • Former CIA Boss Out of Loop on Parts of His New Book
  • But I won't question his patriotism
  • Video: Tenet says Iraq wouldn’t have had nukes until 2007 or 2009
  • Tenet Does 60 Minutes
  • Afghan Infant Deaths Fall 40,000 Per Year After Eviction of Taliban
  • A basic tenet of public life, part 2

Who Won Harry?
J D Pendry, CSM, USA (Ret.)

You don't mind if I call you Harry do you? I'm just an Average American and since you preface every statement you make by portending what I want, I thought we would be comfortable using first names. I could call you Senator if you like, but understand that I get a searing pain in my right temple each time I think about that. As you know me so well and seem so concerned about my desires, I'm sure that you don't wish me any discomfort. My faith tells me I should not succumb to fits of rage, but I have simmered a bit about this one Harry. I'll try to be civil, but I may need to ask forgiveness afterwards.

So, if we have lost this war, who won it? You haven't exactly explained that for me or the rest of the Average Americans out here. As the twitch returns above my right temple, allow me to speculate:

"Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al Qaeda's global campaign and we devote considerable resources to the fight against al Qaeda Iraq.

They [Qazali network responsible for the deaths of five Soldiers in Karbala] were provided substantial funding, training on Iranian soil, advanced explosive munitions and technologies as well as run of the mill arms and ammunition, in some cases advice and in some cases even a degree of direction. ...

And there's no question, again, that Iranian financing is taking place through the Quds force of the Iranian Republican Guards Corps. ..."  -- General David Petraeus

Does that clear if up for you Harry?

Harry, I think you are a loser and what's more, real Americans don't care for losers -- losers at anything much less war. You see in war, I do not recall there being a second place trophy. ...

Continue reading "2007.04.30 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup"

Contributed by Bill Faith on April 30, 2007 at 01:45 AM in Afghanistan, Dem Dumbness, Dem Perfidy, Iran, Iraq, Islamism Delenda Est | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack


Sunday, 29 April 2007
 

2007.04.29 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup
Contributed by Bill Faith

See previous: 2007.04.28 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup

Deadlocked War Funding Bill May Halt Troop Carriers 

CAMP FALLUJAH, Iraq —  The armored carrier has a grim black slash across its side, burn marks on the door and a web of cracks along the window.

Like most of the Mine Resistant, Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles in Anbar province, this one has been hit as many as three times by enemy fire and bomb blasts. Yet, to date, no American troops have died while riding in one.

But efforts to buy thousands more carriers — each costing about $1 million — could be delayed if the White House and Congress do not resolve their deadlock over a $124.2 billion war spending bill.

About $3 billion for the vehicles is tied up in the legislation. The spending plan has stalled because of a dispute over provisions that would set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. ...

Joe Katzman has an excellent related post here.

Bottom line: Replacing HMMWVs with MRAP's saves American lives. The Army and Marines are waiting for money to replace a bunch of 'em. They don't have it yet because the Surrendercrats are playing political games instead of taking care of the troops.

It is my fervent and heartfelt hope that when the jihadis finally manage to nuke DC Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Mad Jack Murtha are just far enough from Ground Zero to see the flash and have a split second to realize what happened before the shock front arrives and liquefies their bodies. Catching the three of them somewhere on the left coast for a moonbat convention would be even better, of course.

Update after a night's sleep and some time to surf the web a little: I don't really want the Three Ratateers to die in the initial blast. I'd much prefer they die slow lingering deaths trapped in the rubble, preferably under the same rubble pile so they have time to congratulate each other on how well they managed the war. (No, Bill isn't "off his meds again." I'm not wishing any worse fate for the Ratateers than will be suffered by thousands of others if they succeed in implementing their proposed policies.)

Below the fold (newest items at the top):

  • Rice: 'Slam dunk' comment didn't lead to war
  • Officers: Ex-CIA chief Tenet a 'failed' leader
  • Scheuer: Don't Buy Tenet
  • A Basic Tenet of Public Life...
  • Meet the Press: Harry Reid's Plan for America
  • Top general: U.S. needs a bigger Army faster
  • Video: Murtha suggests impeachment
    if President doesn’t “compromise”
  • Good News In Anbar
  • Saudi’d Straight
  • And then what?
  • Terrorists Ecstatic With Democrats' Debate
  • 1st Assault Accordians, Advance to Rear!
  • "If Osama bin Laden stood up and said 'Here's my timetable for withdrawing from Iraq'...
  • "I'm ready for my fatwa"
  • US aircrews show Taliban no mercy
  • Certified Madness
  • Winners And Losers
  • Forgive My Unstiff Upper Lip
  • Another big fish in Iraq? 

Continue reading "2007.04.29 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup

Contributed by Bill Faith on April 29, 2007 at 01:06 AM in Afghanistan, Caring about our troops, Dem Dumbness, Dem Perfidy, Iran, Iraq, Islamism Delenda Est, Mad Jack Murtha | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack


Tuesday, 13 March 2007
 

Ernie may be dead, but his ghost still writes
Contributed by Bill Faith

Ernie Is Dead 
Greyhawk

Word from Mike Yon, in Baghdad:

My latest dispatch is published on the front page of Fox News. I am honored that Fox has agreed to begin publishing my major dispatches on their front page. I am also flattered that Fox has agreed to publish my work unedited.

Please click "Ernie is Dead" to read the latest.

Mike reminds us his "site remains independent and is 100% contingent on reader support. Thank you for considering supporting my work in Iraq through the end of 2007."

And, ...

Contributed by Bill Faith on March 13, 2007 at 05:42 PM in Afghanistan, Iraq, Islamism Delenda Est | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack


Monday, 12 March 2007
 

Dances with Osama?
Contributed by Bill Faith

Native American trackers to hunt bin Laden
Hat tips: Jules Crittenden, Dan Riehl

WASHINGTON: An elite group of Native American trackers is joining the hunt for terrorists crossing Afghanistan's borders.

The unit, the Shadow Wolves, was recruited from several tribes, including the Navajo, Sioux, Lakota and Apache. It is being sent to Tajikistan and Uzbekistan to pass on ancestral sign-reading skills to local border units.

In recent years, members of the Shadow Wolves have mainly tracked smugglers along the US border with Mexico.

But the Taliban's resurgence in Afghanistan and the US military's failure to hunt down Osama bin Laden - still at large on his 50th birthday on Saturday - has prompted the Pentagon to requisition them.

US Defence Secretary Robert M.Gates said last month: "If I were Osama bin Laden, I'd keep looking over my shoulder."

The Pentagon has been alarmed at the ease with which Taliban and al-Qa'ida fighters have been slipping in and out of Afghanistan. Defence officials are convinced their movements can be curtailed by the Shadow Wolves.  ...

***

Michelle Malkin has more here, A J Strata wonders why it took so long to think of the idea.

Contributed by Bill Faith on March 12, 2007 at 06:23 AM in Afghanistan, Islamism Delenda Est, Pakistan | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack


Friday, 09 March 2007
 

CIA goes a-huntin' in Pakistan
Contributed by Bill Faith

[Posted here by accident, moved here. Sorry.]

Contributed by Bill Faith on March 9, 2007 at 11:57 AM in Afghanistan, Islamism Delenda Est, Pakistan | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack


Sunday, 21 January 2007
 

For Queen, Country, and One Lance Corporal...
Contributed by Bill Faith

Balls. Big bloody brass British balls. Read it.

*** Update and bump. Original timestamp 2007.01.18.13:44

The Sunday Mirror has the full story here, Sky News has video here. (H/T: Allahpundit)

Contributed by Bill Faith on January 21, 2007 at 01:52 PM in Afghanistan, Bill Faith, Great Britain, Islamism Delenda Est | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack


Wednesday, 06 December 2006
 

I guess you'd have to say I'm still pro-victory (Updated)
Contributed by Bill Faith

More troops needed
2006.12.06 Washington Times Editorial

Today, the Iraq Study Group is expected to issue a report calling for a gradual, partial withdrawal of U.S. military forces in Iraq, with a goal of turning security responsibilities over to the Iraqi military, and to shift the American role away from fighting jihadists and toward training Iraqi forces. But with the security situation in Iraq deteriorating, it's past time for a serious debate on how to win the war by defeating the Islamofascists on the battlefield, instead of deluding ourselves into thinking that we can magically train Iraqis so that they can stand on their own to fight and win the war in the next four or six or eight months.

We are also kidding ourselves if we think that "redeploying" American forces away from Baghdad and hotbeds of terror like the Sunni Triangle and western Anbar province and moving them to places like Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates or Okinawa will stabilize Iraq or that political negotiations with Shi'ite or Sunni factions will change things for the better absent a decisive victory on the battlefield over the terrorists. While significant progress has been made toward building a capable Iraqi army over the past few years, the Iraqi military is by all accounts a very long way from being able to succeed on its own. Moreover, the Iraqi police remain a disaster area -- mired in corruption, infested with spies and terrorist sympathizers.

To win the war will require, at least in the short term, additional commitments of American troops to protect Iraqis from terrorists who prey on them, as Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham are suggesting.

American Enterprise Institute scholar Frederick Kagan argues persuasively that more resources combined with a different military strategy will be necessary to improve the situation. His research suggests that another 50,000 to 80,000 troops would enable the U.S. military to combat the terrorist armies now roiling in Baghdad without drawing forces away from Anbar and other dangerous parts of the country. The problem with earlier military operations such as Operation Together Forward II -- the recent unsuccessful effort to stabilize Baghdad -- is that the military failed to leave forces behind in areas that had been "cleared" of insurgents, thereby enabling the terrorists to return, ...

Emphasis mine. This is what I've been saying for months; flood the zone so there's nowhere to hide, then clean 'em out. Yes we're gonna take casualties, and I'll mourn every one, but in the long run is it better to mourn a few hundred soldiers now or a few thousand civilians later? After we clean out Baghdad and al-Anbar maybe a hundred thousand troops or so on Iran's border, with a few divisions more on the Afghan side, will get Ahmashiitehead's attention in time to keep the situation from getting completely out of hand. Just for the record, I still favor Blackfive's exit strategy:

 

***

Fight the Real War
Stabilizing Iraq while Iran and al Qaeda are ascendant is not “victory.”
By Andrew C. McCarthy (H/T: Michelle)

Iraq is disintegrating, and no one knows quite what to do.

Some, like congressional Democrats, a growing chorus of disaffected Republicans, the vaunted Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group, and departing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, think the answer is fewer American troops. Others, prominently including National Review’s Rich Lowry, aptly point out that the only stable precincts in Iraq (at least outside the Kurdish region, the war’s much ignored success story) are those that enjoy a high concentration of American troops. Wherever we see the political establishment’s preference for a light U.S. footprint, chaos reigns.

So the question naturally arises: Do we need more troops? Answer: For … what?

To his great credit, President Bush has firmly resisted the cut-and-run approach through all the cheery euphemisms the Diplomats’ Thesaurus offers for surrender — “draw-down,” “redeployment,” “phased withdrawal,” etc. The president knows that, unlike all the solons offering him advice, he will be accountable to history for the results.  ...

WHAT IS “VICTORY”?
So, no, says the president. We are staying in Iraq until we win. Great. But what is winning? What is the “victory” we are seeking?

On this, there is no consensus. That is why Americans have soured on Iraq. History proves that the American people have plenty of stomach for a hard fight, however long it takes, if they understand and believe in what we are fighting for. And this, consequently, is where history will condemn the Bush administration.

Leadership, too often, has been rudderless. After 9/11, the president deployed our armed forces but told the American people the best thing they could do was go on with their lives — go shopping, lest the terrorists win. There was no sense of shared sacrifice. No stressing that the nation as a whole had a vested interest in facing down not just a relative handful of terrorists but a fundamentalist ideology, shared by millions, calling remorselessly for our destruction.

Our military, alone, was left to bear the burdens. ...

Perhaps worse, after rallying and winning reelection strictly because Americans trusted him more than Sen. Kerry to protect our security, the president went dark. From November 2004 until the middle of the following year, President Bush, leading a nation at war, was virtually mum on the subject. There were political reasons for this — there always are. ...

The “more troops” enthusiasts want to stanch Iraq’s ever bloodier sectarian strife. But Sunnis and Shia have been slaughtering each other intermittently for fourteen centuries. The thought that we infidels are going to put an end to that is as foolishly presumptuous as the pipedream that we will anytime soon achieve “two states living peacefully side-by-side” in Israel and “Palestine” — the latter’s existence being dedicated to annihilation of the former.

There is only one good reason for American troops to be in Iraq. It is the reason we sent them there in 2003: To fight and win the “war on terror” — i.e., the war against radical Islam — by deposing rogue regimes helping the terror network wage a long-term, existential jihad against the United States. You can argue that Iraq was the wrong rogue to start with; but destroying radical Islam’s will and its capacity to project power is what the war is about.

Iraq is but a single battlefield in that war. It is not “the war.” Stabilizing or even — mirabile dictu! — democratizing Iraq is not winning the war. It is the overseas equivalent of rebuilding the World Trade Center. The hard reality is that war exacts a terrible toll and its fallout must be addressed. This is why we hate war and resort to it only in the face of greater evils. But cleaning up war’s unavoidable messes is not the same as winning.

Winning the war means taking on the regimes and factions that are waging it. That is what the president promised to do after 9/11. “You’re with us or you’re with the terrorists.” ...

While our military protects Maliki, Iran, among other provocations, (a) arms anti-U.S. militias waging war against American and British forces in Iraq, (b) harbors al Qaeda members, (c) builds nukes, (d) threatens to destroy Israel and strike American targets, and (e) uses Hezbollah to wage a proxy terrorist war against Israel and, derivatively, us. Syria, meantime, (a) ushers foreign jihadists over its border into Iraq to join those killing American troops, (b) provides support and safe harbor for Hezbollah in the proxy war against Israel, and (c) works with Hezbollah to reassert itself — and crush the nascent, American-backed democratic movement — in Lebanon. Maliki, for his part, openly supports Hezbollah and draws the new Iraq into ever closer ties with Iran and Syria. ...

Iraq is a single front in a much larger war. If we don’t suppress Iran, Syria, the Taliban, al Qaeda, and the Sunni terror funding stream in Saudi Arabia, we can’t win in Iraq, no matter how victory is defined. You can’t win if you don’t take on the forces determined to see you lose. ...

There is a global jihad. It’s on, now. Like it or not. Rise to the challenge or not. You don’t want war with Iran? Fine. But never forget for a second that Iran is already at war with you.

Sooner or later, we are going to have to match with action the president’s ambitious post-9/11 promises that our enemies would be pursued globally, relentlessly, and until their defeat. Democracy promotion and regional conferences at which we pretend that the problem — Iran — may be the solution are not going to get this done. ...

“Death to America” is not just a slogan for our enemies. It’s a deeply held conviction, on which they are feverishly acting. Only when we are ready to take them seriously, when our leaders’ brave words are matched by determined deeds, can we win — in Iraq and, more importantly, in the greater war.

Cross-posted from Bill's Bites

Contributed by Bill Faith on December 6, 2006 at 02:44 AM in Afghanistan, Bill Faith, Iran, Iraq, Islamism Delenda Est | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack


Tuesday, 28 November 2006
 

May It Be
Contributed by The Gray Dog

There are hundreds if not thousands of Flash tributes circulating the blogosphere.  Tonight I humbly offer mine.  The pictures are not mine, the music is not mine and the brave men and women who are the subjects of these images are not me.  I have simply combined the artistic photographs of others and a hauntingly beautiful celtic melody with the men and women of valor to produce this simple offering.

May It Be

Contributed by The Gray Dog on November 28, 2006 at 09:45 PM in Afghanistan, Caring about our troops, Christmas, Coming home, Iraq, Music, Patriotism, Thank you, The Gray Dog | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack


Sunday, 12 November 2006
 

Sunday Musings
Contributed by The Gray Dog

RINOS, DINOS, NEOCONS and Leprechauns.  You just can’t survive today’s political scene without an appropriate tag.  Each party is in search of the perfect description, the ideal candidate and the winning platform, yet if Jesus Christ himself signaled his second coming, I’m sure the extremists in both parties would find him objectionable. 

What is conservative enough? Where is the dividing line that separates Conservatives and RINOs?  Is the extreme right of the Republican Party hell bent on imitating the failed practices of the George Soros wing of the Democrats?  Joe Lieberman is the perfect demonstration of what happens when the extreme wing of either party demands perfection.  On the other hand, a Democratic majority in the House and Senate is what happens when the Conservatives take their ball and stay home.

Democracy is not black or white.  It is a fluid system that demands weighing principles against pragmatism, convictions against realities.  Extremism on the other hand is a denial of reality.  The “my way or the highway” attitude often leads extremists to being stranded on the shoulder of the road.  It doesn’t matter what form extremism takes, Conservative extremism, Liberal extremism and Islamic extremism share the same short sighted vision which will cause them to fail. 

Continue reading "Sunday Musings"

Contributed by The Gray Dog on November 12, 2006 at 07:03 PM in Afghanistan, Current Affairs, Dem Dumbness, Iran, Iraq, Islamism Delenda Est, Joe Lieberman, Pakistan, Patriotism, Politics, Russia, The Gray Dog | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack


Tuesday, 31 October 2006
 

October Surprise.
Contributed by The Gray Dog

Down to the wire, the October Surprise was unleashed upon the Democrats yesterday.  Surprisingly it wasn’t launched by the Republicans, but instead the liberal’s very own “useful idiot” John Kerry. 

"You know, education - if you make the most of it - you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq,"

With that comment the Old War Dogs are pleased to make known their own 11th hour October surprise:

The Old War Dogs Forum is now open for membership at www.oldwardogs.org

This site was to be announced next week, but in light of Kerry’s comment and the importance of next week’s elections we hope you will visit what promises to be an exciting place for discourse on the issues of the day.

Participation does require registration, so don’t be shy.

Contributed by The Gray Dog on October 31, 2006 at 07:57 PM in 9/11, Afghanistan, Bill Faith, Bill's Bites, Bobbie Craig, Caring about our troops, CIA/NSA Treason, Current Affairs, Dem Dumbness, DisUnited Nations, G W Bush, Gene Harrison, George Mellinger, Iran, Iraq, Islamism Delenda Est, Jean Fraud Kerry, Jim Bartimus, Lloyd A. King, Mad Jack Murtha, Open Posts, Patriotism, Politics, Religion, Russ Vaughn, Shane Briscoe, Steve Gardner, The American Warrior, The Gray Dog, US Air Force, US Army, US Coast Guard, US Marine Corps, US Navy, Video, Viet Nam, War? What war?, William "1stCav" Page, Zero Ponsdorf | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack


Friday, 13 October 2006
 

Is it time for an Orange solution?
Contributed by Bill Faith

Rather than subject this site to the amount of troll shit I know I just ordered up, I'll simply mention here that there's a post on my satellite site that's sure as hell going to upset some tree-hugging jihadi-loving lefties, and probably even some people I usually get along with. Is it time for an Orange solution?

Contributed by Bill Faith on October 13, 2006 at 05:49 PM in Afghanistan, Bill Faith, Islamism Delenda Est | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack


Friday, 29 September 2006
 

The Blog of War
Contributed by George Mellinger

xxxx
xxx

During the Second World War three American reporters achieved fame for their reporting from the front with the troops, and the books they wrote about the experiences. Richard Tregaskis wrote Guadalcanal diary. Bill Maulden, best known for his cartoons of the dogfaces Willie and Joe wrote Up Front, and Ernie Pyle, the most revered of all, wrote Brave Men. After surviving the war Tregaskis and Maulden returned home to the daily grind of civilian journalism. After surviving the campaigns form North Africa to Europe. Ernie Pyle was killed during the last days of the Pacific war. All three men were famed for focusing their attention on the lot of the common soldier, leaving the great matters of campaigns and strategy to others. However, even they could not capture the immediacy and intensity of the individual soldier’s life. For reasons of security and morale much had to be omitted, and more toned down, removing the grittiness which might shock back home.

During Viet Nam, the relationship was entirely different, as the politicized media appeared to have taken sides and mutual suspicion between troops and journalists was the rarely achieved "best" relation. This reviewer found that the war he was fighting and the war being reported were two totally unrelated events. To a great extent, losing the media battle was what lost the Viet Nam war. During the first Gulf War of 1991, military-media relations did not sink to the Depths of Viet Nam, but were still marked by mistrust.

During the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, something new has happened, the rise of the internet and widespread blogging. Deployed troops can take their laptop computers with them and communicate home directly on a realtime basis. But so long as this is done by email, the effect is no more than letters home. What has truly made the difference is the rise of blogging technology appropriated by the deployed troops for instantaneous communication. For the first time an individual warrior can aspire to tell his side of the story, not just to his immediate family and neighbors but to all the world. If today, Walter Cronkite were to report a litany of defeats, ending with a portentous "And that’s the way it is", even before the administration spokesmen could cobble together a clumsy defense, he would be hooted down in cyberspace by angry soldiers denouncing his lies and telling their stories for themselves. For some of us, the Bush administration’s greatest ineptitude has been its public relations effort, so lame it might have cost us the war under previous conditions, but saved today, by the troops themselves and their un-brigaded supporters back home. They are doing for themselves what Ernie, Bill, and Richard did sixty years ago, and arguably doing it even better.

The two largest and most important of these public milblogs certainly are Mudville Gazette and Blackfive. Not much is known of Greyhawk, the owner and commander of Mudville, save that he is a serving Air Force Officer living in Germany, and judging by the F-16s on his site banner, probably with the 52 Fighter Wing.

More is known about Blackfive. He is Matthew Currier Burden, who left the Army in 2001 with the rank of Major, after a long and active career, often at the pointy end of the spear. In mid 2003 he took the name Blackfive for himself and his new website expressly to report the news which he felt the professional media were ignoring; since then, the site has gained a large following and today is the twentieth ranked blog by visits. Rated by the more subjective measure of quality, Blackfive is easily within the top five sites (Though the Old War Dogs have picked up the scent and are baying on his trail.)

Now Blackfive has written a book, The Blog of War, published in paperback by Simon & Schuster. This book is the story of milblogging as told by the milbloggers in their own words, taken from their posts of the last three years. Extended selections are taken from fifty or more blogs, including a few which have subsequently suspended activity. Several of these blogs have contributed passages for more than one chapter.

The very nature of blogging tends to weed out the inarticulate and uncommitted, but Matt has selected the best of the crop. And he has done a further remarkable job of arrangement, choosing the order in which accounts appear, and linking them into a coherent and logical sequence. This is not as easy as it appears. I know; my books are also based on collating related, but discrete narratives, so I have a special appreciation for what Matt has accomplished. Frankly, he has succeeded better than I. And finding just the right passage from each blog, assuring that the most important milblogs are all represented is a task involving heroic research of a sort which cannot be accomplished by search engine. it requires eyeball examination of judgement of dozens of blogs, and thousands of discreet posts.

In the first chapter several of these bloggers explain to their families why they volunteered to go. Some of these accounts are heart-wrenching, and others inspiring.

The next chapter describes the living conditions, day-to-day, of troops stationed in the war zone. It seems that wars always take place in desolate and barely liveable places, and if the place, such as Italy or Northen France, were not intolerable at the start of hostilities, it quickly becomes so. Spartan living is a major factor which sets apart soldiers on active duty, all of them, including those assigned to non-combat duties. And the living conditions in Iraq sound to me particularly unpleasant, even more after reading these accounts.

The next three chapters are entitled "The Healers", "Leaders, Warriors, and Diplomats", and "The Warriors". "Healers" of course contains the accounts of the nurses, doctors, and corpsmen, and includes accounts of saving the wounded, and sometimes failing to do so. And sometimes the wounded are Iraqis, even jihadis. The next two chapters seem remarkably close to each other. Leaders, Warriors, and Diplomats" includes more accounts of elections and civic action, though these areas often blend seamlessly. I might have placed "The Healers" third in the sequence rather than first, but that is a matter of author’s decision, and is a very minor difference in approaches. There is plenty of intense action and pucker here, and the chosen accounts communicate the experience with rare intensity. If you have friends or family over there, be sure to read these chapters, and you may better understand why they have come home more tightly strung and edgy than you remembered them. War is not intended to be pleasant for anyone. These chapters in particular I had to read in relatively small doses.

Perhaps one of the most moving sections of this book for me was the chapter "The Homefront", accounts blogged by anxiously waiting family members. It is true that the folks back home who have never been to war cannot understand what war is really like for the troops participating. But it is equally impossible for those troops to completely comprehend the fears of those consigned to wait helplessly at home, knowing little and understanding less of what is going on. And powerless to do anything beyond worry. The soldier becomes sensitized to the shriek of the siren, his wife to the ring of the telephone. This is a side of war I have not experienced. Matt’s book has helped me to make a start on understanding.

"The Fallen" relates the saddest experience, accounts of wives who have lost their husbands, and of soldiers who have lost a comrade in battle, perhaps right at their side. Again this is another essential chapter which must be read, but should be read in small doses. This is not the typical flowery "sweet to die for..." tribute. it is a much more powerful tribute to those who sacrificed their lives, and to those who sacrificed almost as much, those they loved.

The last chapter, "Homecoming" is a bittersweet ending, the joy of homecoming, and the difficulty, the shock of readjusting that is a part of the experience.

Finally the book’s Epilogue lists the bloggers whose contributions appeared in each chapter, and gives their names and a few details about each including an update on their current status. As I had become quite fond of several of these individuals through their blogs, it was a treat to learn their names and details that have not appeared on their blogs.

I give Blog of War my highest recommendation. If you are a veteran, of any war, it will help you place your own experience in better perspective. if you only know, or are related to a veteran or active warrior, this book is even more important for you to understand what is going on. I warn you, it should be read in small doses, but it must be read. Old soldiers aren’t supposed to get weepy-eyed, so I guess it must have just been a bad allergy season for me. Never before has the American soldier been as well reported.

For maintaining Blackfive and publishing this book, Matt Burden certainly has joined the elite circle of Richard Tregaskis, Bill Maulden and Ernie Pyle, perhaps at the lead of that list. This Old War Dog says a sincere and deeply felt, "Thanks, Matt."

-Rurik

Contributed by George Mellinger on September 29, 2006 at 12:53 AM in Afghanistan, Books, Caring about our troops, George Mellinger, Iraq, Patriotism, The American Warrior, Weblogs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack


Thursday, 28 September 2006
 

The Perfect Evil
Contributed by Bill Faith

The Perfect Evil
Part One of Three
Michael Yon

“The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.” Verbal Kint, in The Usual Suspects paraphrasing Baudelaire.

In Afghanistan, heroin has become the Devil’s cocktail. “Smack” is already one of the most addictive and destructive drugs on Earth, and now numerous academic studies show addiction levels on the rise particularly among younger children. In a place where 90% of the world’s heroin supply originates, the Taliban, al-Qaeda and others harvest profits from opium poppy cultivation to buy weapons and equipment used to attack soldiers and civilians engaged in a mostly stalled reconstruction mission.

A reverse symbiosis is at work: those who benefit most from the opium/heroin trades also benefit most from a destabilized Afghanistan, because a stable country with functioning government systems, reliable security forces and a framework of laws is a bad climate for the drug trade. Conversely, farmers growing crops such as cotton and beans benefit from a stable government climate, which affords the opportunity to think beyond the next crop cycle. In order to make agriculture a more successful business venture, farmers need a stable government as a partner. But since the interests of poppy farmers and narco-kings are in aggressive opposition to any plan to stabilize Afghanistan, this partnership is not even in the talking stages.

[Read the whole thing.]

Contributed by Bill Faith on September 28, 2006 at 12:20 AM in Afghanistan, Bill Faith, Islamism Delenda Est | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack


Friday, 22 September 2006
 

Not Only Our Own Heroes
Contributed by George Mellinger

How American warriors honor the memories of other brave men, even those who were on the other side.

In 1987, Soviet pilots of the 378 ShAP (Assault Aviation Regiment), based at Bagram and flying the Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot, built a memorial to five of their comrades who had fallen in battle. After the Soviets departed, the monument was destroyed. Most recently the remains of the monument was to be cleared for airfield construction, until some American Airmen decided it should be preserved

Too many memorials have been destroyed in too many nations.
I have a friend in Berlin who described beautiful memorials, murals and buildings, all destroyed because they were "Soviet".
No matter if history is good or bad, it must be preserved. Ray, Tom and I are "soldiers", like the five pilots honored by the memorial. I would hope another soldier would honor us as we honor these five men.

The Americans began work to gain permission to restore the monument. Here is The American version.

And here, in the forum of one of the websites I visit regularly, is the Russian version.  At the top of the first page is a photo of the original monument. Unfortunately the text on the first page is all in Russian, however, if you scroll to the bottom of the page and click the "2" to get to the second page, you will find David contacting them in English and much of the discussion now posted in both languages. Then continue to pages 3 and 4 for more discussion and photos from Bagram. It is fascinating to see the interaction of David Keeley and the assorted Russians. And it is heart-warming to see the gratitude of  these Russians as well.

"SSS" posts:

Есть же ТАКИЕ люди!.. (И при этом - среди американцев, которых я в массе недолюбливал)
Аж "my eyes became wet..."

A lot of respect, David! Thank you for all your care! (The Russian reads - That there are such people! And even among the Americans, whom I generally did not like previously.)

And "Airwolf":

Изменил мнение об американцах!
Thank you, David.

(I changed my opinion about Americans)

And Kommersant, one of Russia's major newspapers, has written an article calling him "Hero of Russia", a significant term since that is also the name of Russia's highest award, replacing the Hero of the Soviet Union, though that is still quite unofficial.

I wish David Keeley and his colleagues all success.

-Rurik

Contributed by George Mellinger on September 22, 2006 at 01:31 PM in Afghanistan, George Mellinger, Russia, US Air Force | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack


Monday, 07 August 2006
 

Afghanistan tosses Korean Christians
Contributed by Bill Faith

Bryan Preston:

Pluralistic? Religious freedom? Ha! Not even in the country that should know the dangers of state-sponsored sectarianism the most:

KABUL: Afghanistan has ordered hundreds of South Korean Christians to leave the country yesterday, accusing them of seeking to undermine Islamic culture and trying to spread Christianity.

Members of a South Korean non-governmental organisation, called the Institute of Asian Culture & Development, had prepared for a ’peace festival’ set for this weekend.

A member of the Korean group has said that the festival has been cancelled at the request of the Afghan government, Agence France-Presse reports.

[...]

[Read on.]

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 7, 2006 at 09:01 AM in Afghanistan, Bill Faith, Islamism Delenda Est, Religion | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack