Update no.273

Update from the Heartland

No.273

26.2.07 – 4.3.07

Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
On 14.November.1965, the 1st Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division began an air assault operation in the Ia Drang Valley, Republic of Vietnam. Then Major Crandall led A Company, 229th Assault Helicopter Battalion, lifting ground combat elements of the famed regiment. They landed in the middle of a North Vietnamese army regiment. The battle raged for several days, occasionally deteriorating to hand-to-hand combat. Crandall repeatedly flew into have small arms fire to remove the wounded and deliver ammunition. Several aircraft were shot out from underneath him; every helicopter took multiple hits. For his exemplary valor in combat, the President of the United States awarded Lieutenant Colonel Bruce P. Crandall, USA (Ret.), now 74, the Medal of Honor – the Nation’s highest award (equivalent to the Victoria Cross in the United Kingdom). The Battle of Ia Drang Valley was featured in the movie, “We were Soldiers.” Thank you, and may God bless you for your extraordinary service to this Grand Republic, Colonel Crandall.

Secretary of State Condolezza Rice announced the Bush administration's intention to participate in the upcoming ambassadorial and potentially ministerial Baghdad Conference regarding Iraq. All of Iraq's neighboring countries along with the United States and key allies are invited, including Syria and the Islamic Republic of Iran. A key element of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group advocated an active dialogue with the adjacent state antagonists. So it seems, the administration has altered course to engage Iran and Syria, presumably to find a more supportive environment for the necessary political solution to the sectarian violence in Iraq. We can hope.

Y’all may recall the little item regarding a string of high-profile U.S. attorneys being removed from office. [268, 270] Well, two of the four unidentified U.S. attorneys fired since December by the Bush administration can be added to the list, now:
Margaret Chiara of Grand Rapids, Michigan, and
Bud Cummins of Little Rock.
The official position of the Justice Department states that all but one of the dismissed U.S. attorneys were relieved for “performance-related” reasons -- odd, since most had glowing appraisals, according to Press reports. The speculation percolating near the surface centers upon disagreements between the affected attorneys and Washington over fundamental issues like the death penalty, corruption prosecution, and such. While any employer is entitled to dismiss employees unwilling to support the organization’s business, these positions are particularly sensitive. We are not talking about ditch-diggers or burger-flippers, here. This situation still sticks, and the government is doing little to assuage the concerns of the People. We could easily surmise these precipitant actions are intended to strengthen and extend the power of the Federal government, i.e., muscling-up Federalism – not exactly high on my list of principles to support.

Less than a week after Imam Mohammad al-Marawi firmly urged his followers during Friday prayers in the Habbaniyah mosque to resist al-Qaeda operatives in their area, he was killed along with a number of his brethren by a suicide bomber. The message was quite clear. If you oppose al-Qaeda, you will be a target regardless of your religion.

For those who would like to read an articulate opinion regarding the consequences of U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, I recommend the following article from the Stratfor Terrorism Intelligence Report:
"Iraq: Jihadist Perspectives on a U.S. Withdrawal"
by Fred Burton
posted: 21.February.2007
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1789785/posts>

Numerous reports this week illuminated what the Press calls "exaggerated intelligence" regarding the North Korean uranium enrichment program in support of the DPRK’s fission weapons efforts. I have no access to the dark side, thus I have no means to determine the veracity of the intelligence or the Press rendition of these reports. However, on such occasions, a reminder that the intelligence business is an art form, not a precise science. Let us not forget.

The saga of the poor, mistreated detainees and their legal wranglings continues. The most recent ruling came from the U.S. Court of Appeals, DC Circuit, in the case of Boumediene v. Bush [No. 05-5062]. The Court rejected their habeas corpus petitions as a consequence of the Military Commissions Act [254]. This case seems destined for the Supreme Court – one more attempt to bring battlefield detainees into criminal court. I truly do not understand the motivation in this contest.

In his Wednesday on-line Journal “Best of the Web Today,” James Taranto lamented an apparent common notion regarding religious-based elements of contemporary American politics. He observed, “Talk to people who lean left, and there's a good chance you'll hear them say how ‘scary’ they find the religious right and its influence on the Republican Party.” I suppose the implied application suggests I am leaning left politically. The ‘scary’ part rests with the penchant of the fundamental religious right to use the instruments of State to impose their values, their views, and their will upon all citizens. If the measure of the political divide can be defined as the right defining moral values for everyone and the left allowing people to live their lives as they choose, then I proudly proclaim my left-leaning, moderate, political position. I do not like the politicization of religion or the injection of religion into the essential political intercourse, especially with so many important issues before us. Religion like morals is a personal and private matter unless it enters the public domain; once in the public arena, everything is fair game. Religion does not and should not garner protected status in the public domain; clerics are just ordinary citizens like all the rest of us. I say, keep religion where it belongs.

On a related note, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments this week in the case of Hein v. Freedom From Religion [No. 06-157], destined to be an important High Court ruling regarding the Establishment Clause, and the extent of interaction between government and religion. The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation, a group of atheists and agnostics, filed a suit against the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives that President Bush established in 2001. While I am an outspoken advocate in the defense of the separation of church and state, we can carry this fundamental principle too far. This case appears to be one of those efforts, like other attempts to remove God from the Pledge, our national motto, and such. We need to pay attention to this one. I trust the Court will do the correct thing and/or provide guidelines for the interaction.

Several news items carried over from last week's Update. [272]

Episcopal Bishop Katharine Jefferts-Schori attended the global Anglican Communion in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, last week. The world-wide Anglican conclave played out as contentious as predicted -- conservatives versus liberals. [270] The result was a virtual edict demanding that the Episcopals conform to the conservative agenda. The sad facet of this ridiculous conflagration brightly illuminates our inability to focus on performance and deeds rather than impressions of what people might do in private. The argument being, private conduct describes the moral values of an individual. As with so many topics, we are content to act upon what we think someone might do in private rather than what they actually do in public. Are we truly that shallow?

A series of articles offered the opinions of the writers regarding the proper construct of a family. These are certainly not the first and most assuredly will not be the last on the topic of what a family should be. Leonard Pitts, syndicated Miami Herald columnist, touched off this thread. The titles set the stage.
“Cheney’s baby is a political statement, too.”
by Leonard Pitts
Wichita Eagle, Monday, 12.February.2007, page 5A.
"Mom and dad still best family structure"
by Brent Castillo
Wichita Eagle, Thursday, 15.February.2007, page 7A
“Once more with feeling: Kids need dads.”
by Leonard Pitts
Wichita Eagle, Monday, 19.February.2007, page 7A
The argument and contention centers upon the monogamous, heterosexual, married, family construct -- as normal. As is so often the case in this debate, folks roll out studies and other rationale to validate presumption that an adult male and an adult female join in a state-sanctioned marriage and produce their population-conscientious 2.2 children, and raise their children to be responsible, productive citizens. We are presented all the evidence, logic, history, and rationale to confirm what is blatantly obvious. And yet, the effort to stretch the normal biological construct to be a universal, all-encompassing, one-size-fits-all seems as wrong as other generalities and labels. Human insemination by means other than copulation dates back several centuries and became an established procedure circa 1949. The processes and procedures have continued to evolve to the point where any able-woman can become pregnant with a known or anonymous sperm donor. While the artificial insemination process continues to be refined and broadened, the adoption process seems to be regressing. We do not know how Mary Cheney, daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, became pregnant, since numerous methods were available to her and her partner. Sadly, Leonard Pitts and so many others focus on one particular family that does not conform to the societal norm. And yet, does it really matter?

Comments and contributions from Update no.272:
After re-reading last week’s Update, I realized I missed an important question of curiosity. The contributor said, "The American Civil War was a wrong cause."
I asked, would you be so kind to expand on your thoughts with this statement?
The response:
"The American Civil War is widely thought to be about slavery -- though to the South it was a states rights issue -- we actually thought we were being invaded, hence the huge turnout for enlistment, encouraged of course by severe draft laws and rules. To the North, it was many things but boiled down to a slavery issue. I think in the end we can settle on slavery -- or a way of life which many thought would eventually pass -- but not yet (1861). My relatives on my Dad's side did not have slaves (that I can find) yet we lost a great great uncle at Spottsylvania -- 21 yrs old at the time at the Mule Shoe (53rd NC) and his brother died the year before of wounds at Gettysburg. My great grandfather on my Mother's side lost his leg to Yankee surgeons after he was captured at Gettysburg -- 22nd NC, I think at Picket's Charge. Many think the Civil War was inevitable. I'm not so sure. It is like saying slavery might have been banned in the Declaration of Independence, but Southern planters threatened not to sign if banning it was included. Sometimes persuasion and argument is not enough, as you well know. So, I think since I believe that slavery was the larger issue, then to say fighting for slavery (although most Southerners would not admit that was why they were fighting) was a wrong cause is the gist of my point. I have thought about all this a lot and I am fairly convinced the war was not inevitable. Hard headedness and stupidity and the existence of West Point(!) had a lot to do with it.”
. . . my follow-up:
I would agree that the Civil War was a conflict of state's rights -- and yet, there are elements of a chicken n' egg scenario. Slavery was the catalytic issue. The abolitionists cared far less about the economic impact on the Southern states than they did about their "moral" agenda; they were quite comfortable dictating to the Southerners -- classic moral projectionists. Perhaps the Civil War was avoidable. As you noted, the confrontation was 85 years in the making; intransigence existed on both sides. The contribution of West Point is beyond my perception . . . so far. I am not a Federalist, never have been a Federalist, and most probably will never become a Federalist. I strongly believe we have gone way too far with contemporary Federalism. As with most arguments involving this topic, I find coherence with rationale on both sides. And yet, South Carolina chose to secede, less than a month after Lincoln's election . . . before he was even inaugurated and without giving him a chance to find a worthy compromise. South Carolina pulled the trigger and ignited the bloodiest conflagration in American history -- internecine no less. Maybe the Civil War was not inevitable, but based on the facts and the leaders on both sides, I suspect the violent confrontation would have happened eventually. We are still dealing with the consequences of racism to this very day.

Another contribution:
"A couple of notes. The Scimitar is a combat reconnaissance vehicle, not a tank. The Blues and Royals, part of the Household Cavalry, are part of the Royal Armoured Corps, and constitute part of a recce regiment.
"Can't concur with the opinion that 'Rummy was a good man . . . just the wrong man at the right time.' He personally interjected himself into the planning for Iraq that obliterated the careful planning of several decades. Further, more and more information is coming out about his being personally involved in Abu Ghraib and prisoner abuse -- as in providing guidance to the interrogators. And a lot more. As a friend recently opined, he is making Robert Strange MacNamara look good by comparison.
"Below is an interesting article from Sunday's [Washington] Post, written by a fellow at IISS [International Institute of Strategic Studies]."
"Failing in Baghdad -- The British Did It First"
by Toby Dodge
Sunday, February 25, 2007; B01
My response:
Stretching the popular perception of armored vehicles was inappropriate for someone with my background. Thank you for the catch.
When George W. selected Rummy as SecDef, the notional objective was trim up and harden the military – “fighting smart” was, I believe, a term he liked to use – as well as improve the efficiency of the overall national security apparatus. Given the demise of the Soviet Union [1991], the Military-Industrial Complex needed (and still does) revamping and streamlining to address contemporary threats. I think Rummy had some great ideas (at least from my perspective) and possessed the will power to make it happen. Unfortunately, 9/11 altered the foundation of that precept. Rather than developing and training in the new mode in peacetime where mistakes should be made, Rummy tried to slam-dunk the leaner-meaner modus operandi during wartime, thus violating a fundamental principle of warfighting – train as you fight and vice versa. Ground combat on the cheap, when no one had trained for that strategic approach, led to huge mistakes. Further and for the record, I have never been a fan of micro-management, and I am an absolute opponent of political leaders injecting themselves into tactical decision-making, e.g., Vietnam, Operation EAGLE CLAW, et cetera; regrettably, we can add Operation IRAQI FREEDOM to this infamous list. While I am not going to defend Rummy versus Robert Strange McNamara, the latter directly contributed to the sacrifice of a goodly portion of the 58,000 precious American lives lost in that fiasco. Rummy is not quite to that level of devastation.
Good article from Toby Dodge . . . certainly a reflection of the challenge. I have many images in my little pea-brain as I ruminate with his words. One dominant image prevails. Numerous folks have highlighted the tribal, sectarian and violent nature of the regional peoples, with the inference that American involvement in the local politics is a fool’s folly. Perhaps so; history certainly suggests as much, as Dodge notes. If the tribes confined their violence to themselves, I am all for letting them hack away at each other as they wish . . . after all, that has been their way for millennia. Unfortunately, Saddam and his ilk were not content to confine their intrigues to the tribes; they sought and seek horrific weapons, and they are comfortable terrorizing innocent citizens far beyond their borders. When confronted by their hereditary proclivities, rapid international communications and transportation, and vastly amplifying weapons, we can no longer ignore their antics. While their political inclinations may be unchanged from 1917, their weaponry and willingness to use those weapons are fundamentally more threatening. I am struggling with this dichotomy.

A contributor sent this interesting observation article on Clint Eastwood's "Letters from Iwo Jima:"
"Letters from Iwo Jima"
by Spencer Warren
Warren concluded, "This film desecrates the memory of every American who fought in the Pacific theater during the Second World War. It is an affront to every patriotic citizen. It would be comparable to a film presenting a Nazi's point of view."
My response:
It took me a while to read Warren’s essay. I certainly understand and appreciate his sentiment, and yet, I respectfully disagree. Whether Eastwood’s movie is accurate in that specific case is irrelevant, from my perspective. The underlying tone, that people are people, seems to be appropriate given my experience. It is natural to make our adversaries into the ugliest possible configuration to make our violence upon his people at least a little more palatable. In my humble opinion, his reaction to “Letters” is as much cultural and/or political bigotry as the uber-Left trying to paint Republicans as mindless drones dominated by a few fundamentalist Christian fanatics. People are people, for God’s sake. Wars are between governments and megalomaniacal leaders, not between people.
. . . with this follow-up:
"I did not send it to you because I agree with it. I'm glad the film was made. War is hell for all sides."
. . . and of course, my retort:
Amen . . . a disgusting human activity I would prefer disappeared and never happened again. Alas, the world is not an ideal place.

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