Update no.260

Update from the Heartland
No.260
27.11.06 – 3.12.06

To all,
Army - 14 -- Navy -26. The domination continues -- five straight.
Sorry Greg and Sandy . . . not good enough . . . again this year.
As a good Marine, I must say, Semper Fidelis. Go Navy, Beat Army.
May God bless them all as they enter service to the Nation during wartime.

I think every citizen has an obligation to vote. I believe every citizen should give two to four years in national service of some form – the Peace Corps to the Marine Corps. Along with the sense of contribution to this Grand Republic, we also bear some commitment to humanity. It is in this light that I pass along this information. The leadership of the National Marrow Donor Program and The Marrow Foundation have asked us to notify our family and friends of the continuing need to help ill people with the Living Gift of Life. I ask you to visit:
http://pub.psbpr.com/marrowdonor/e-invite2/email.html
and, for information on how to become a marrow donor as I have been for more than 15 years, I urge you to visit the NMDP website:
http://www.marrow.org/helpnow
If every person on the planet could meet just one person who has been cured of a fatal disease by giving a marrow donation, everyone would be active volunteers on the Marrow Donor Registry. Please try to help in any manner appropriate for you.

Now, I must publicly thank Wil, Linda and others for their encouragement, assistance and advice in converting this forum into a Web Log [AKA Blog] format.
Second, I must publicly apologize for the inadvertent disclosure of contributor identity information over the span of a day or two. One of my contributors utilizes to blog Alert prompt to receive a message that his name appears in a blog. He immediately notified me. Unfortunately, as I was learning to use the blog system, I transferred text from my master files to the blog post for manipulation. In the transfer process I was using at the time, the hidden text, where references, links, contributor information are protected, crossed over as open text. Thanks to his alert, I was able to amend the transfer process to ensure none of the reference information goes into open text.
That said, I am pleased to announce the initiation of the Update from the Heartland Blog. For those so inclined, the URL addy is:
http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
I will continue to distribute the eMail version in addition to the Internet accessible blog format. Anyone is invited to comment or contribute via any media they wish. I also encourage comments on the new blog.I still have a lot to learn with the blog medium. The principle benefit is the worldwide accessibility. This is an open blog, which means anyone can read it and anyone can contribute to it. All subscribers are welcome to pass along the Update Blog URL to anyone they think might be interested. As is the nature of the medium, links to my website, and thus my books may help others become familiar with my writing.

A Monday Washington Post editorial, "Rape is Rape," illuminated an important aspect of the Maouloud Baby vs. Maryland ruling that I failed make. [256] "The common law, the court said, 'views the initial 'de-flowering' of a woman as the real harm or insult . . . after this initial infringement upon [her husband or father's] interest in a woman's sexual and reproductive functions, any further injury was considered to be less consequential. The damage was done." We can only hope Maryland and all other states with similar disgusting statutes, rapidly remove this blight on American law. The title of the Post editorial succinctly frames this issue and exposes certain grossly antiquated laws that fail to protect the personal integrity, privacy and body of every citizen.

The convulsions within the mere majority in the House of Representatives continue. Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi of California has apparently rejected the ranking Democrat, Representative Jane Harmon also from California, as well as the number two Democrat Representative Alcee Hastings of Florida for the position of chairman of the important House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I can understand the rejection of Hastings; he is as corrupt as “Dollar Bill” Jefferson and “Duke” Cunningham (although the latter is the only one in prison for his crimes, as yet). In fact, I am gobsmacked that a man of Hastings' dubious conduct is even allowed in the chamber, set aside membership of such an important committee. On the other hand, the Harmon rejection appears to be simple and barely disguised political retribution for not being liberal enough for Pelosi’s liking. As predicted, this is becoming quite entertaining. On Friday, Pelosi named Representative Silvestre Reyes of Texas to be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee – a Vietnam Vet and former U.S. Border Patrol agent. Reyes has been and will probably continue to be a loyal Democrat and outspoken critic of the Battle for Iraq . . . not quite as visible or as outspoken as John Murtha, but close. Thus, Pelosi continues her efforts to set the stage and ostracize anyone just a smidgen to the right of her uber-Left politics. We know what is coming and where this is headed . . . like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

The New York Times reported on Wednesday that the congressionally mandated, Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group will recommend to the President a pullback of troops from Iraq. Once again, the Times chose to be the conduit for a traitor and apparently feels no obligation to the Nation to protect classified material. The President of the United States has not yet received the Baker-Hamilton report. The conclusions and recommendations of the Baker Group have been positioned as potentially pivotal in the Battle for Iraq, and as a consequence may have a profound impact on our conduct of the War on Islamic Fascism. During wartime, there are elements of information we do not deserve to know or need to know. The Times editorial staff has apparently decided long ago that they have no obligation to help win the war -- a sad statement of American society -- while our soldiers and Marines continue to die for the very freedom they use to enable more sacrifice.

The sad part of so many articles, opinion columns, and editorials seems to bubble up from the supposition that anyone not publicly espousing fundamentalist, evangelical, Christian interpretations must be rejecting or attacking religion. I am compelled to note that religion or religious citizens are NOT under attack. And yet, anyone who seeks to project their moral values, lifestyle choices, or standards for living on any other citizen must recognize there will be resistance no matter how noble their intentions. In my humble opinion, the best advice for those who rejoice in the purity of their Christian moral values is to celebrate within themselves and their families, and leave other citizens to live their lives as they choose. Moral projection is a dangerous path, and we can see the consequences all around us in our troubled world.

If we truly believe the immortal words of our Founders . . .
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”
. . . when does the State have the right to infringe upon a citizen’s unalienable Rights, and by what authority? An easy answer might be, when one citizen’s exercise of his unalienable Rights infringes upon another citizen’s equally valid, unalienable Rights. Given this argument, the rub comes in the definition or interpretation of infringement. For example, the current chief of the thought police might proclaim that immoral dreams are a crime against humanity, and thus the State has legitimate interest in stamping out lust. By the Founder’s statement and implication, does the State have the authority to decide when its interests exceeds a citizen’s individual rights, and if so, how do they draw the line? One person believes the limit is his property line; another the front door, but the moral projectionist might well want the line drawn at expressed thoughts or eventually the neural synaptic sequences that define lewd or lascivious thoughts. This administration has pressed far beyond commonly accepted limits, and the likes of Senator Sam Brownback seek the power to push even farther beyond those limits. Asking each of us to sacrifice or give way a little in wartime is one thing; institutionalizing, or making permanent, those intrusions upon our private lives is all together something different. We, the People, must decide where that line is to be drawn in wartime and in the permanent peace time (when it comes). The State must not and cannot define such things as they continue their encroachment upon our unalienable Rights endowed by God.

The odd thing about the attitudes and drive of moral projectionist politicians like Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas remains the selective application of their morality. Brownback is a widely known, aggressive, and unabashed advocate for governmental intrusion on a citizen's freedom of choice. He is morally offended by a woman's fundamental right to privacy and right to choose to remain pregnant. If moral projectionist Sam can be so offended for an unborn embryo that is unwanted by its mother or not even in a uterus, why isn't Sam vehemently outraged by the child abuse and neglect of born children? His obvious lack of moral outrage for the living virtually negates his sense of offense for the unborn. He forfeits his self-professed moral position.

Comments and contributions from Update no.259:
"Rangel has lied repeated about the makeup of the current military to inflame the passions of his supporters stuck in the 60s. The following quote from "Feeling the draft" by Oliver North is more accurate. Enough said. We do not need the draft yet, but we do need a larger Army and Marine Corps.
"'Despite denigrating comments like Sen. Kerry's 'If you don't study hard you get stuck in Iraq,' today's soldier, sailor, airman, Guardsman and Marine is better educated than his civilian counterpart. And according to the Department of Defense, the overwhelming majority of military personnel killed in action in Afghanistan and Iraq -- nearly 74 percent -- have been white. Hispanic/Latino deaths make up about 11.5 percent; blacks account for less than 10 percent. Yet, the overall U.S. population of more than 300 million is 14 percent Hispanic and 12 percent black.'
"Murdoch did understate the travesty of justice that continues to this day regarding the murderer Simpson, but he did the right thing to cancel it. I would not count on not hearing from that scum again. He will continue to resurface and create more agony for the families of his murder victims. Sadly, there are still those who continue to profess his innocence.
"Making hypocrisy public is a good thing for all sides of an issue or debate. It cannot be for one group - it must be for all.
"Agreed on the Oswald. But, I'm sure the conspiracy theorists will continue."
My reply:
I certainly agree on the falsehood of Rangel’s logic and rationale, and yet we are still faced with an available ground combat force that is too few in number to conduct proper ground control operations and sustain itself. The Army has had some difficulty recruiting a volunteer force of the present size. How will they triple the ranks of infantry and special operations units? General Conway rather clearly articulated the Marine Corps dilemma. Ollie North’s points against the draft are valid and accurate, however, the implicit assumption in his argument is the current force structure is adequate for the task at hand, and that is where I fundamentally disagree with him. Thus, the question for me is, how do we significantly increase the size of our ground combat forces and control the ground to allow the new government time to sink roots and establish authority. The current game of musical chairs with our available forces is not cutting it.
To take up the topic of mission, I see it in very clear terms (in priority order):
1. deploy sufficient forces to control the security and safety of the country to include local police to border control and national defense,
2. train and equip indigenous forces to assume security responsibility without diminishment of local, regional or national security,
3. assist the government in the establishment of proper infrastructure for adequate, sustained, standard of living for all citizens,
4. assist industry in the development of sustainable growth and self-sufficiency at the earliest possible date, and
5. assist the government in the education, training and engagement of the citizenry in the democratic process of governance.
Those are the mission objectives as I see them for any nation-state that required intervention . . . in this case to date, Afghanistan and Iraq; might include Syria and Iran, if necessary.
The only, reasoning people who could profess Simpson’s innocence are those who did not hear the testimony or review the evidence, or are so blinded by racial bias as to refuse to see the evidence. Fortunately, I was living in the UK at the time of his trial, and the proceedings were broadcast live, largely without commercial interruption. The physical evidence was not lock tight but it was extraordinarily compelling. However, it was the DNA evidence that was irrefutable, especially when placed in the context of the other physical evidence. The defense put on a masterful show, as they are obligated to do. And, I knew the prosecution was in trouble at the bloody glove fiasco – long before Johnny Cochrane’s “if it does not fit, you must acquit” soliloquy. I listened to the verdict live, and to say the least, I was absolutely gobsmacked as my British brethren would say. That man is as guilty as it gets, and yet, the jury acquitted him, which does not mean he was innocent. I can only hope that one day he meets an end appropriate to his crimes.
Oh yes, conspiracists are alive and well . . . several were preaching their theories the very day we went to Deely Plaza.
. . . along with this follow-up:
"Your mission priorities are clearly stated and important to pursue. I wonder, however, if the first objective should be met first - defeating the enemy. I would say that our first obligation is to win by stamping out the bad guys with force. Then we can pursue your well stated mission steps. Perhaps one reason it appears we cannot deploy proper forces is because we are deployed in places that can be reduced or eliminated for the time being. I could be wrong, but doing the math tells me we have enough forces and firepower if we have the will to deploy them. I realize it is a difficult position for most people to take, but it must be taken or we will continue this war until it breaks us. A clear military victory may not be easy, but it is possible to break the will of a people. Just look at our will right now, shaky as it is. What would happen if we sent another 100,000 troops in right now from all corners where they are not really needed and stepped on the bad guys with all the force necessary to win without reservation? We would be condemned by some and hailed by some just like now. I say, play to win or don't go."
. . . and I had to add this point:
For clarity, my no.1 objective of security and safety gives the allied forces virtually unlimited authority. For example, we might declare any person not authorized to be in possession of a weapon or explosives in the public domain is subject to death; every vehicle or person subject to immediate search without a warrant; and there are no safe havens – no home, no mosque, no church, no hospital, nothing. In other words, if you carry a weapon other than authorized by allied command, you will be engaged. The borders should be sealed and only inspected, authorized traffic will be allowed to pass; any violation will be subject to death. That is a glimpse of what I mean by “control the security and safety of the country.” I also mean stay and maintain control, not just pacify and move to the next hotspot, thus my call for three or more times the number of boots on the ground that we have now. Germany, Italy and Japan did not have ethnic factions at war with each other. Iraq and Afghanistan do. We must provide an environment secure enough to allow the government to assume control. We lost our opportunity. Now, we would have to be invited by the fledgling government.
. . . to which was added:
"Very good thoughts on your part and thanks for clarifying. Agreed with one point - the terrorists will have to be defeated somewhere on this planet or we will be assimilated eventually unless we are willing to kill them without reservation."

Another contribution from a different person:
"Based on my personal experiences, expanding the reserve and national guard forces (emphasis on recruiting and enticing troops leaving active duty) is preferable to the draft for increasing our counter-terror capability. The Iraq/Afghan messes have been fought by the reserve/guard folks to a large degree. The cost of increasing the benefits for these folks would draw a larger number of those leaving active duty and result in a more experienced and mature fighting machine for the US."
My response:
Well said, actually. If the reserves and national guard could recruit sufficient troops and those appropriate units were federalized to full-time service, then perhaps it might work. While the mobilization I propose is not to the scale of World War II, I would say we need to be at least halfway to that size. If we can grow our ground combat force as large as it needs to be with volunteers by any reasonable means, we must do it. A volunteer force is far better than a conscript or mercenary force. Nonetheless, we must control the ground if these fledgling governments are to have any chance for maturity. We only controlled the ground for a short time after the beginning of Operations ENDURING FREEDOM and IRAQI FREEDOM. Because we had insufficient boots on the ground, the remnants of our adversaries along with al-Qaeda operatives and other jihadistanis were allowed to regroup, rearm, and redeploy, and now the sectarian murder squads are added to the mix. E voila . . . c’est la guerre. The news from al-Anbar Province seems to punctuate this reality.

Another contribution:
"A thought on the draft by Ringel:
"I don't believe we (USA) have ever drafted a woman - if that is right I think everyone will do a double take regardless of the performance to date of the women in uniform."
My response:
Good point! I’m not aware of women being assigned to ground combat units. If they are, then women should be subject to conscription as well. If we are unable to recruit sufficient numbers of support troops, then that should open the draft up to women also. I’m not in favor of drafting men let alone women. However, I am interested in winning the Battles for Afghanistan and Iraq, and decisively winning the War on Islamic Fascism, and for that we need a much larger Army and Marine Corps. We haven’t yet committed to winning this thing decisively, so we are even farther away from growing the ground combat forces. We need to make a clear statement. We should get a good indicator of where this will be going when we see the results of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group.

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)