Update from the Heartland
No.272
19.2.07 – 25.2.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,A number of contributors had a lot to say this week. A number of topics must be moved to next week. I try to make the Update topics current and relevant. Sometimes, we need to make adjustments.
A New York Times editorial titled “Making Martial Law Easier,” illuminated quiet changes to historic laws that could further alter our democracy. The Insurrection Act of 1807 and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 have been blocks of granite in the foundation of this Grand Republic; to alter them or cast them aside without proper public debate is unconscionable even in wartime – far more egregious than Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066 in 1942. The President may have been well-intentioned regarding potential unrest after major natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina, or our tissue-thin borders, or the rapidly changing events in the War on Islamic Fascism. However, two questions come to mind immediately: 1.) is this administration freakin’ crazy, or 2.) does the administration know something they are not telling us? Either answer is grotesquely unattractive. Further, and perhaps even worse, where the hell was Congress when these provisions were added to the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 passed last October. A measure of how deeply buried in the massive bill’s minutiae these provisions were, is reflected in how long it took for the Press to bring them to public light. I am not a Federalist and never have been a Federalist, although I am a staunch advocate for a strong national defense posture – both external and internal – especially during wartime. However, the President has gone too far and the Congress turned a blind eye. We are not talking about rights for stateless terrorist captives. The laws they are tinkering with are vital to our constitutional democracy and nearly as important as the Constitution. Fortunately, Senators Patrick Leahy and Christopher Bond have introduced S.513 (untitled), to correct this mistake; the bill has been referred to the Senate Armed Service Committee. As much as I rail against the New York Times from time to time, they got this one right . . . spot on!
Presidential-candidate Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton publicly stated, “Now, it’s time to say the redeployment should start in 90 days, or the Congress will revoke authorization for this war” – namely rescission of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 [PL 107-243]. The Press reports that the Democratic majority in Congress intends to formally present a bill for execution of Hillary's proposal. I am reticent to comment on such an outlandish proposal, but hey, why not! Let’s add a constitutional crisis to the schism surrounding the Battle for Iraq. We can all have a party!
Then, we have the senior senator from the great state of New York -- not a presidential candidate -- who is apparently upset at the prospect of the President ignoring a non-binding resolution that the Senate has not even passed. Chuck Schumer declared that if the President ignores the consensus of the Senate, “There will be resolution after resolution, amendment after amendment . . . just like in the days of Vietnam. The pressure will mount, the president will find he has no strategy, he will have to change his strategy and the vast majority of our troops will be taken out of harm's way and come home.” The quotation is attributed to Margaret Talev of the Kansas City Star. I tried to find the actual full text of Schumer’s statement; I could not, which makes me suspicious. If accurate, we have reason to fear what lies ahead.
The Senate confirmed the appointment of Vice Admiral John Michael McConnell, USN (Ret.) as the Director of National Intelligence and successor to John Negroponte. McConnell is a career intelligence officer and former Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) [1992-96]. Along with General Hayden [230] at the CIA, I expect the political tension within the Intelligence Community to subside and cooperation to improve significantly for the benefit of the People. We can only hope.
Interesting news from Iraq this week . . . well, actually, one news item from Iraq, and the other two items from London about Iraq. Nearly 100 years ago – 22.April.1915, to be exact – the German army introduced chemical warfare to the battlefield, when they fired numerous artillery shells loaded with chlorine gas. In three different incidents so far, the bad guys (in this case, I suspect regime remnants, rather than al-Qaeda, but the latter is possible) detonated explosives imbedded with cylinders of compressed chlorine gas to cause death and serious injury beyond the concussion and shrapnel from the bombs -- a serious turn in this war. The other news bits involve the deployment of Prince Harry to Iraq and the withdrawal of 1,600 of 7,100 British troops deployed to the Basra area of Iraq. Prime Minister Tony Blair made the announcement in the House of Commons and presented the redeployment as a measure of success in the transition of the southern region. Of course, everyone is spinning the announcement from victory to defeat. Along with that, the government also announced that Second Lieutenant Prince Henry of Wales (third in line for the British throne) will deploy with his Blues and Royals Regiment to Iraq, leading a platoon of Scimitar tanks.
Comments and contributions from Update no.271:
A contributor sent along an essay:
"Sergeant Major Speaks"
by J.D. Pendry
posted: February 18, 2007
<http://community.cnhi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/662100401/m/969104617>
My opinion:
For the most part, well done. However, as happens with my own arguments sometimes, when I don't get all the facts correct, it dampens my opinion substantially. A couple of quibbles:
1. Bush 41 started Somalia. Operation RESTORE HOPE began on 9.December.1992 [a month after he lost the election, but he was still POTUS]. Clinton's ineptitude cost the lives of those Rangers, and he deserves to carry that cross forever.
2. Kerry chose to highlight his opinions with the misdeeds of a few rogues. I'm not so sure his facts were wrong. His message, however, was emphatically wrong. Pendry's portrayal is accurate in my opinion, but calling him a liar is not technically accurate.
3. I'm not so easy on Bush 43. While I level most of my ire at the naysayers in Congress [as he does], Bush 43 deserves far more criticism than Pendry metes out. Rummy was a good man . . . just the wrong man at the right time. Bush 43 carries that accountability, not Rummy. And, worst of all, Bush 43 allowed Rummy to get away with war on the cheap. Their mismanagement has cost a lot of lives, and they shall bear that cross forever, as well.
Another contribution that became a lengthy but important thread:
"I heard (General) Odom speak at the Independent Institute. He makes a lot more sense than anybody who supports the war."
My response:
I know we have disagreed on the war. I appreciate Odom’s words and opinions, I just do not agree with his conclusions. That aside, I would like to ask you personally . . . if not Iraq, where? Where should we fight the next battle that will most certainly come? The Islamofascists and jihadistanis are not going to declare victory with our departure, lay down their weapons and explosives, and return to their tents and mud-huts. So, where would you propose we fight the next battle, or in other terms, where should we fight the bad guys?
. . . round 2:
"Thanks for your thoughtful question to my quick comment. I am no expert so I have to rely on other's judgments that I trust. Unfortunately, and I mean that sincerely, they tend to be people politically identifiable, i.e. usually Democratic and sometimes liberal. Some of those people are summarily dismissed by the pro-war side, such as Kuciniche, the Michael Moore's, etc, but Evan Iland, Odom, Korb, Abezaid, Murtha, Kerry are not so easily pushed aside. People with experience and knowledge carry some weight. Congressman Webb and Rep. Chuck Hagel come to mind. McCain, whom I respect because of his POW status and his service in the military, supports the war and I think he is wrong. I think he is politically motivated- brave, because the tide seems to have turned against the war, but like Bush almost stubborn in support of more war. The fundamental question as to if not there, where? carries so many assumptions with it -- one particularly -- that there are identifiable groups of "bad guys" that we can focus our military attention on. I think this is an over-simplification. Al-Qaeda seems to be more or less identifiable, but if you look into the history of what al-Qaeda is you come away scratching your head because we essentially created that group out of whole cloth during the Russian Invasion of Afghanistan. So are they worth rallying all the military might of America? I don't think so. We built them; we can take them down -- without the kind of cost and sacrifice seen in the war on Iraq. Well, then how about the identifiable groups -- the nations that we are lining up against -- Iran, Syria, etc? Ahmedinejad said he'll stop enriching if we will. Well? Why hasn't the administration claimed victory in this pissing contest and thrown a party? After all, we have thousands of war heads in stock and they have none. Because certain people in this admin -- Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, the usual suspects want a real war with Iran -- they want a fundamental cultural change -- a dominance in the world clearly spelled out in papers and letters for years. These people, I think, have agendas that are not in the best interest of our country. They may believe intellectually and philosophically that they have the answers and that the only way to deal with the perception they have of the enemy is to confront it and destroy it. We have the power to destroy anybody and anyplace in the world. Yet, these people are not military people -- they are not going to have to do the dirty work, they are not going to lose loved ones in this Armageddon -- for the most part -- (I know there are some who support the war and have relatives there fighting). Unlike yourself, most of the wonks pushing for war with Iran are chicken hawks, and we are easily fooled by them. Just as Texas is fooled by a carpet-bagging Connecticut Yankee frat-boy pseudo cowboy, so are the rest of us fooled by the demagoguery of Fox news, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck who all preach hatred and prejudice. The CS Monitor today shows a poll that says most of the world does not see the current struggle as a cultural clash of societies -- they see the problems as political and intolerance, not religion and culture. We are the ones who define the problem as a crusade -- Christianity vs. Islam. We show documentaries of Muslims calling for death to America and other emotionally charged clips. I think you would agree that one could easily put together clips of Americans enjoying, or seeming to enjoy killing Muslims. Imagine the Toby Keith song played over a backdrop of children slaughtered by bombs, homes destroyed, burning cities, soldiers shooting wounded combatants -- I think you get the picture. People I know who have been to Muslim countries tell me they were pleasantly surprised by the genuine warmth and welcome they received before the war.
“But I have just repeated stuff you have heard before -- there is a danger that extremists will try to harm us if we redeployed. They may try other events like 9/11 (which I see as a situation in which we may have been complicit). The world is a dangerous place. But, wouldn't you agree that rather than calming the tensions, lessening the dangers, healing the wounds, we have just made things worse? Bush et al say stopping the war amounts to defeat, and then the area will turn over to extremists Islamo-fascists. Stopping the war is a kind of defeat -- but not for American soldiers and taxpayers -- but, for the policy of the Bush administration -- which probably should be held legally accountable. Congress abrogated its Article I, Section 8, constitutional power and Bush illegally invaded a sovereign nation. Since Congress didn't follow the law, why should the President? you might say. That is another issue. You suggest that the jihadists will not declare victory and will continue to come after us. Is that what we are dealing with, jihadists who want to destroy America, as the pro-war argument goes? Or, are we in the middle of a civil war? Are the Taliban fighting Americans, or is that a struggle for national supremacy -- a power struggle in Afghanistan? Do the people killing each other in Iraq want to climb out of their tents after they run us out of Iraq and climb on boats and planes and attack us in Norfolk and San Diego? I really don't think so. As I said, there will be extremists who will attack us, but these are threats that existed before and have only been exacerbated by the war in Iraq. Hopeless situations breed hopeless people -- and hopeless people will kill themselves as a hopeless attempt to change a hopeless situation. That is a given. But what is happening in Iraq is not hopeless in that sense -- it is a power grab -- a struggle in a vacuum we have created -- a struggle to see which political faction can claim control. We need to redeploy -- bring in the governments of the region including Iran, Syria and Jordan, and police the place internationally until order can be restored. Then get out of Iraq and write off our losses financially -- nearly, what 400 billion? We can never forget the brave sacrifice that ordinary men and women have given to this cause. The American Civil War was a wrong cause, but valiant men died fighting for it. It is not the bravery, and commitment to service, and duty that is being criticized -- it is the arrogance and callousness of the chicken-hawks who started the war and are trying to save some face in continuing it.”
. . . my response to Round 2:
There is a key element for folks like me, who some citizens view as being pro-war – you illuminated John McCain as one – and that is, the time for debate is before the trigger is pulled (troops committed to battle); after that milestone is passed, the choice is win or lose. Most warriors will say, if we are going to fight, you fight all out with overwhelming forces and all the available tools. This notion of half-measures began in Vietnam and persists to this day serving only one purpose – getting good Americans killed. So, IMHO, John McCain is not “pro-war.” He knows all too well the lessons of Vietnam, and he’s an all-out guy – it’s that simple.
Some may define the Battle for Iraq as a modern-day crusade. I do not. This fight is NOT about religion or oil or land or hegemony; it is about a group of people who seek to impose their will upon our freedom. The fact that religion is mixed up in this is not particularly surprising. And yet, let the record show, since 1979, I advocated for a strong confrontation with the Islamic Republic of Iran, and I still do. If you have read our book on TWA 800, then you have seen that aspect. However, even George W. Bush and Dick Cheney chose not to confront state-sponsors of terrorism or even al-Qaeda . . . until 9/11. We tolerated and endured attacks on Americans by Iranians, Iraqis, Libyans, Palestinians and al-Qaeda for 22 years before we did anything substantive about it. I was ready for war a long time ago, and I was disappointed by five successive presidents and their administrations for their lack of will-power to defend Americans and the United States of America. So, we can criticize George W. Bush for the many mistakes and failures of his administration, but I say God bless him for finally finding the courage to do what should have been done 22 year ago. With that said, does anyone think we would be at war, if al-Qaeda had not chosen to kill so many innocent people on 11.September.2001? I don’t! Jimmy, Ron, George, Bill and George had plenty of evidence and justification, but they chose not to until 3,000+ peaceful, innocent Americans and other world citizens were murdered.
We have discussed the legality aspect before. I have seen nothing even remotely illegal by Congress or the President. I am still looking for the argument in support of your opinion.
Since I think my instigating question is important, feedback is critical. Thus, as I understand your words, you do not believe that al-Qaeda and the other jihadistanis will return to the United States to inflict injury on our citizens. If so, are you willing to gamble with other innocent lives -- the lives of your neighbors, your family, your fellow citizens? The Islamofascist threat existed for 13 years before they first attacked our homeland; we did essentially nothing – beyond criminal conviction of the perpetrators and certainly not punishing the real instigators. The message to those who would harm us was they could attack us with impunity. Some of us believe the next attack on the homeland came on the evening of 17.July.1996, but that is another story. Regardless, the next bona fide homeland attack, excluding sovereign territory like embassies, came on 9/11. I am not willing to take those risks again. I have no desire to make nice with these poor, disadvantaged, misguided, murderous fanatics. Thus, the only interpretation of your opinion that I can make is, you do not believe the Islamofascists or jihadistanis will attack our homeland and you are willing to risk that possibility. Is this interpretation correct?
. . . and Round 3:
"I think we need to discuss 9/11 a little further before we can get to any common ground about Iraq. The illegality of the war is based on my understanding of the Constitution, in that Congress can only declare war. After they declare war, then the President is the Commander-in-Chief. It was not supposed to be that he can decide to declare war and also be the CIC. This mistake should have been clear after the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. This separation of power is essential to our way of life and government. He took advantage of the powers Congress ill advisedly gave him, (and Congress probably will not do again anytime soon) and misled us into an invasion of a sovereign country that was not a threat to us. Though I feel there are too many unanswered questions about 9/11, one thing is clear -- Iraq had nothing to do with it, and for that matter, neither did Iran. If you wanted war so bad against the "poor, disadvantaged, misguided, murderous fanatics" that is fine. But, you would have to persuade others and define clearly who and where they are. You seem to think they are in Iran. The guys who flew the planes into the buildings, assuming they were not double agents, or dupes, or stooges, or whatever, at least those that have been identified, were mostly Saudi, were they not? There is an extreme group of people who want to do us harm. We know who they are just as we knew who some of the guys were who ended up flying into the world trade centers. We had the tools in place to stop them. We did not need to have our rights abrogated, public funds wasted on new and bigger bureaucracies in order to monitor and stop them. But instead, we are pursuing a Neocon policy of the new American century -- feeding the Military-Industrial Complex and endangering the lives of our volunteer National Guardsmen in Iraq. If things had gone as planned, we would probably be in Iran now. I simply disagree with you on the nature of the threat, what to do about it and the oversimplification of the identity of who they are.
"As for TWA800, I respect your ideas on that and your superb book about it, but I disagree with the premise that that was a terrorist event connected to Iran. I am of the persuasion it was a military mishap of some kind. I use "prowar" too loosely. I mean those who support the war in Iraq. The UN considered it illegal, but I hesitate to mention that because most people who seem to be supporters of the war and right-wing oriented do not seem to respect that institution, but there it is. But regardless of the UN, in international law. it is illegal to attack another country without provocation. To fabricate the justification as the Bush administration did is a serious crime -- and consequently the actions are criminal, hence illegal. We do not have the brave men and women in Congress in enough numbers to impeach Bush and Cheney. Most Americans are conservative and are uncomfortable thinking their leaders are acting illegally. It is one thing to be embarrassed by a leader caught having sex in the White House -- that offends everybody and thus he was forced to testify under oath. To consider that leaders might be culpable for high crimes unrelated to sex, that they should be held accountable and put under oath and made to answer for their actions, inactions, derelictions, omissions, commissions, etc, seems to be beyond most Americans' imaginations. Hence the Politicos, Pelosi et al have sensed this and will not pursue impeachment for something infinitely worse than sex. I just think we are better than what we have been in the world for the last six years. 400 people in Gitmo without even being charged. Torture condoned by the government. Waste of lives and treasure. For what? Do you seriously think we are battling a definable enemy in Iraq? I do not. I think we have created a vacuum that a civil war is going to resolve with a lot of deaths -- unless international peace -- keeping forces can be brought in to stop the violence. I think all those military people who want to go over there should be supported with all the power we have- to help police a horrible situation created by this Admin-and all those who do not want to be over there should be home. This was a war of choice by Bush fueled by jingoism, fear and fabrication.”
. . . my response to Round 3:
I suppose that is one of the essential points . . . no one can predict the future. However, the President of the United States has that awesome responsibility, and he has far more relevant information to make those decisions than we do; thus, the Constitution gives him extraordinary powers to act on behalf of the People.
I do not link the Islamic Republic of Iran directly to the events of 9/11. However, the IRI has been and remains the single biggest contributor to state-sponsored terrorism for the last 20 years; they certainly bear culpability for the environment they helped create. Iraq was not a direct participant in the events of 9/11, but likewise, Saddam's Iraq was an accomplice just as a getaway car driver in a bank robbery. Every citizen has the freedom and choice to grasp or ignore whatever facts they wish, and to see whatever they wish to see. That does not alter the facts. The leaders of Iraq and Iran have chosen to condemn the United States, kill American citizens, as well as encourage and fund those who terrorize peaceful, innocent people. Yes, those that executed the 9/11 attacks were predominately Saudi Wahabists, but that does not diminish the far broader membership of al-Qaeda or the even broader fundamentalist jihadistanis.
The lack of a full and proper declaration of war has been discussed in this forum numerous times. [220-2, 234-8] I don’t need to rehash those arguments. Have you read the full text of Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 [PL 107-243]? If so, what action has the President taken outside the language of this law?
Intelligence analysis is an imprecise art form, and the United States is even more crippled by the lack of a broad, top-rung, HumInt capability. As I noted in last week's Update, Tom Rick's "Fiasco" illuminated the tragic shortcomings of the American Intelligence Community and the failures of the Executive in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, and is a must-read for anyone concerned about such things. I offered my opinion on the gross inadequacy of our HumInt collection process, and I believe that gap directly contributed to the poor judgments leading to Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. And yet, all of these are happy-for-glad details that do not alter the bona fide threat Saddam's Iraq represented to our prosecution of the War on Islamic Fascism.
We do not agree on TWA 800, but that's life, and there is plenty of room for disagreement on that particular incident.
The detainees do not deserve or warrant criminal charges; they are battlefield captives . . . closer to POW’s, but not even to that status; they are well below criminal status. And, as such, there should be no habeas corpus for them under the law. The administration made a huge mistake opening that door.
The civil war element of the current violence is real, profound and enormously complicating to the situation. However, let us not forget that Zarqawi and al-Qaeda in Iraq perpetrated the Golden Dome Mosque bombing in Samara, a year ago. There was only one purpose – incite the Shia majority; they were successful, and we did not respond properly to such a provocation. The Shia got the message, picked up the axe, and went to work. Voila, we have a nasty mess. We were the targets before that, which is fine; that is what soldiers do; but, after the Samara bombing, all hell broke loose with internecine sectarian violence.
I absolutely do not agree with the premise that this administration created the mess. We did not bomb the mosque in Samara. We did not kill innocent people indiscriminately. We did not instigate the violence. We sacrificed our blood and treasure to depose a sadistic, genocidal, megalomaniacal dictator. We did support free and open elections. We did try to get their infrastructure up and running. We most certainly failed to have proper occupation and transition plans, but that does not make us bad guys. Your words suggest that the United States of America are the bad guys; is that really what you believe and the message you wish to convey?
I do not want another innocent American life lost to these madmen. To do that, soldiers stand in harm’s way; that is what soldiers do; and, some will be injured or killed. Freedom is not free. I can understand and appreciate the political revulsion regarding the current occupant of the Office of the President of the United States of America. That is OK. However, I cannot understand and I do not accept making the United States out to be the bad guys, just because some of us are not political aligned with the President. Whether we like it or not, George W. Bush is the duly elected president of all Americans, not just those who agree with some or all of his actions.
And, another lengthy but worthy thread:
"[This Update] is a discussion meant to stimulate the minds of all who listen, to gather their opinions and ideas and solutions in an attempt to be better citizens of this great country. To be citizens who care enough to speak out, to shout when they feel shouting is called for, to put forth their ideas about what course our country should take. Or be taking. To speak of this social/political/human experiment we have been undertaking for now over 200 years. Speak of it's rights, it's wrongs, its good things, and it's failings. All through an analysis of the various happenings we experience as we go on day to day---in good times, bad times, war and peace times, socially changing times, etc., etc, etc.
"So comments are welcome. Desired. Wanted. But mostly Needed.
"I am not the originator of this discussion. I am not its best or most prolific or most historically significant commentator. I do not have the wisdom of Some who contribute here who know Intimately thru their own education/study/etc the writings of famous people who have gone before us. Writers who had much to tell the generations following them. So they wrote. Though wrote with no way of forcing their ideas upon future generations. Only hoping that some new scholars would take up what they had said and offer it to others in the now time.
"So some have done that. One person I know of is an often contributor to the blog. Anomously of course, as is always the case here. Brilliant, knowledgeable, able to put the facts of the past to blending in with the facts of the present. For we have heard Many great people say that without a knowledge of the past, we here and now are doomed to repeat the failures of the past.
"One might correlate that to the facts of how we handled the Vietnam War in the end, and what we are struggling with now over the war in Iraq.
"I agree about that hotel.
"The Kansas thing on double homicide gets far into the ongoing national debate over the status of a fetus (as yet unborn child). So in that regard one must decide when the fetus becomes a child waiting to be born, or just a fetus---period----with no rights. It is a quagmire I for one do not wish to enter.
"Many will write about, and have already written about how we got into Iraq this last time. And whether or not it was the right decision at the time. Based on the right conclusions made from the right HumInt. Many have spoken about it too. Of those speakers or writers with reasonable credentials, most all have valid points to support their own arguments. Yes we did what we should have done, or No we did not. That is all well and good---BUT the bottom line is that our President took us there as Commander-in-Chief. His job. We elected him to make that kind of decision. He did. So now we have no choice but to support the troops there AND their Generals with whatever they need to win the fight.
"Yes win. Not figure out how to get our butts out of this mess. Win.
"But what does win mean in this case? The Iraq case? Many who do agree that we now have to win think they know. I don't. I just know we have to win. In most all wars -- and Iraq is a part of a larger war -- the best way in the end is to let the Generals fight the war. They have risen by no easy means to the positions they now hold, and know how to prosecute war. Let them do that. Keep the civilian leadership out of it once the decision is made to fight. That decision may have been right or may have been wrong, but only history can judge that. And history is about what was -- not about what is.
"I don't have any answers here. But I just felt a need to say something about this most important subject. Sorry I'm not the Guru in this."
My response:
Anyone is welcome to comment . . . as you said quite nicely -- speak out. A vigorous public debate is essential to a durable democracy. Thus, as you accurately stated, I encourage opposing opinions, some that I do not agree with for one or more reasons, some that I do.
Yeah, the hotel & censorship [angered] me ; they made their choice, I made mine. I also understand your reticence to get into the abortion debate; it is a very volatile topic. No need to comment unless you wish to do so. I will continue to stir the pot.
Sadly, too many Americans are so consumed by blind, political affiliation that they forget the President's awesome responsibility to protect us from harm, and that affiliation tends to blind them to the threats around us.
Equally sad, we seem to have forgotten that the time of the civilian leadership and to a large extent the generals is in the planning and decision phases. Once the trigger is pulled, the landing begins, the attack is initiated, the time of the generals passes to the sergeants. The naysayers may have irreparably poisoned the well – hard to say, just yet.
The definition of winning is simple to me -- a stable, unified, peaceful, free Iraq. The objective is hardly simple or easy, and it may take a generation or more to achieve this objective. And, if the well has been poisoned, the objective may not be achievable, period.
. . . and this follow-up:
“Amen. A stable, peaceful, unified, free Iraq. Ha! Shades of a place I myself visited a few times -- Vietnam.
“I bet THAT stable etc stuff doesn't happen for at least a generation or two! Maybe more. That whole area (Middle East) is really Tribal in Nature -- and THAT is something (taken in it's entirety) that we just flat do not understand. Maybe Cannot.
“In my opinion it was not our duty/obligation/responsibility or even RIGHT to take on the task of making Iraq all the above. And I said so back in 2003 or whenever -- in some things I wrote about going for Saddam by force. I could see then that we could easily beat the Iraqis in battle, and get Saddam sooner or later, but what then? Then Vietnam or Korea whatever. A quagmire that could drain our very life-blood in the end.“However now that is not the debate. We took on that task, rightly or wrongly. In MY opinion, it was/is an un-doable task. But we did take it on.
“Yes, Cap. It passes in a way to the Sgts. But I'd expand that a bit and say it passes to the junior officers and All the enlisted. Guided but not constrained by the Generals. The Generals say this is what we have to do. The more junior Marines then say Aye, Aye, Sir, and begin to figure out how to do it. (Helped by their mid-grade Officers who make a plan). Then the junior guys strap on their gear and go do it. Un-encumbered now by the Generals. Able and even having been told to make whatever revisions to the plan as are necessary by the events which take place as they proceed. Do the mission is the bottom line.
“So -- in the end, it is the more junior Marines mostly whose job it will be to actually do the fighting, bleeding and dying.
“I find it truly amazing to this day that we can find young men and women in our midst who are willing to take all that on. But we do. Just like we've ALWAYS been able to do since back in a small bar/lounge called Tun's Tavern in Philadelphia, PA, in November 1775. I too was one who took up the challenge, now some 50+ years ago. You were too a bit later.
“Pssst: I think it really is the fancy dress uniform and the term "Marine" that does it. Not easy to become eligible to be called "Marine." I believe almost all who thought it would be neat to be a Marine for at least a while (like me even) had no clue what becoming one would entail. Or what remaining one would entail -- for it does not stop after boot camp or OCS. It goes on and on, for as long as you wear that uniform. Every day in every way. It's the Corps!! Semper Fi.
My short reply:
Just a short note since I am trying to get this Update to press . . . When I was a young second lieutenant, fresh out of the Naval Academy, The Basic School, and Ranger School, I lead a platoon of Marines with 3rd Recon in WestPac. When I joined a team on a mission, I always told the team leader, usually a sergeant or corporal, that I was just another rifle (in my case, usually, a shotgun + pistol). They needed to lead their teams as they trained so many times . . . just not the same as a regular infantry platoon. May not have been correct, but it worked for us.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
