24 September 2007

Update no.302

Update from the Heartland
No.302
17.9.07 – 23.9.07
Blog version:
http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The President nominated retired Federal District Court Chief Judge Michael B. Mukasey [298] (Southern District of New York) to be Attorney General of the United States, replacing Alberto Gonzales [299]. Based on Mike's public record and reputation, I believe he is a good choice to repair the injury to the Justice Department.
-- The transcript of Tom Ricks’ most recent, on-line interview regarding the Battle for Iraq:
“The War Over the War”
Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Military Reporter
Tuesday, September 18, 2007; 12:00 PM
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W8RH0159B1751059C0E393699C8250
Some goodies in this one.
-- French Foreign and European Affairs Minister Bernard Kouchner proclaimed that the world should prepare for war with the Islamic Republic of Iran, while negotiations for a peaceful solution continue. With the Iranians continuing to press their nuclear weapons program [301], it is nice to see the French getting realistic and serious. Of course, such talk drew considerable attention, and Bernard sought to downplay his words in the following days. Regardless of the diplomatic nuances, I think Bernard was spot on the money for this issue.
-- The Islamic Republic of Iran decided they needed to raise the ante on the brinksmanship game they are playing, so the commander of the Revolutionary Guards publicly threatened to strike U.S. targets in the Middle East with their medium range Shahab-3 ballistic missiles. If the Iranians seek a military confrontation with the United States and our allies, this is a pretty good way. And then, Columbia University invites Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak. Isn’t it interesting that we afford him far more freedom than he allows his citizens?
[HUMOROUS NOTE: Whoopi Goldberg came up with a great mnemonic to remember the name of the Iranian president – imadinnajacket. Say it aloud. Not bad, huh?]
-- After the Louisiana Appeals Court struck down the conviction of Mychal Bell [301], Louisiana District Court Judge J.P. Mauffray Jr. refused to release Bell from jail. The public protestations of LaSalle Parish District Attorney J. Reed Walters [300-1], denying racial motivation for prosecution of six (6) Jena High School students and pleading to remember the victim, are so bloody lame as to be laughable. I hear the Jena folks talk, and what I hear is . . . there is no racism in Jena, as long as the blacks know their place. I could be wrong, but that is what I hear. Fifty years ago, this nonsense went unrecognized, except by the folks involved. Today, world-wide instant communications can expose racists and hypocritical bigots in a flash. Let us not forget that it was students with a paucity of skin pigmentation who declared the “hanging tree” for whites only; it was white students who brandished lynching ropes on that tree; and it was white students who taunted the others. I would be pretty damn angry if I had dark skin and lived in that town . . . oh hell, I don’t have dark skin and don’t live in that town, and I am still angry. When will these damnable Neanderthals ever learn that “equal justice under the law” means just that? I do not condone violence for conflict resolution, and I certainly make no attempt to justify the actions of the Jena 6. However, I most emphatically condemn the racial bigotry, overt or otherwise, of J. Reed Walters and his lily-white, sanctimonious brethren. This will end . . . the easy way or the hard way; their choice. Yet, one positive consequence of the Jena 6 fiasco . . . the racists and bigots are in the spotlight again; we can see them. American Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, and kids brandishing lynch rope nooses on their pickups; now we can see them and deal with them. The insanity of racism is nauseating, vile, disgusting and otherwise repugnant.

The fog of speculation and conjecture persists regarding a probable, Israeli Air Force, deep penetration raid on a facility located in Northeastern Syria, near the border with Turkey and Iraq. Both Syrian and Israeli governments have remained eerily silent and obscure, relative to a major event that apparently occurred on 6.September.2007. The few snippets collected from various sources that seem to gain coherence remind me of another interesting historic date – 7.June.1981– the daring, surgical, Israeli Air Force strike on the Iraqi nuclear reactor complex at Osirak. Israel and the United States have been watching Syria for quite some time. Some sources point toward a large weapons cache destined for Hezbollah in Lebanon. Several other sources suggest the precipitating event was the arrival of a North Korean freighter at the port of Tartus, Syria, three days prior to the strike; the public hypothesis being that the North Koreans were delivering nuclear components and materials prior to dismantling of their nuclear weapons program. With all the war talk associated with Iran’s nuclear weapons program, this apparent Israeli-Syrian event deserves close scrutiny, but substantive information has been hard to come by so far.

We are returned to the homosexual rights debate; this time by the Maryland Court of Appeals in the case of Frank Conaway, et al. v. Gitanjali Deane , et al. [No. 44, Sept. Term 2006]. The case is actually an appellate review of the original judgment of Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock – Deane v. Conaway [case No.: 24-C-04-005390]. The Appeals Court rejected the decision of Judge Murdock and upheld the state’s traditional marriage law. As the applicable law is confined to state law, this Maryland Appeals Court decision cannot be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court. Of relevance and significance in this latest contest, Judge Murdock argued that the current marriage restriction violated the state’s Equal Rights Amendment, in that the heterosexual marriage definition discriminated against homosexuals on the basis of gender. The Appeals Court soundly rejected the argument and rightfully so. The use of gender bias in this debate is weak at the very best. The court also noted, "It is undisputed that the right to marry, in its most general sense, is a fundamental liberty interest that goes to the core of what the U.S. Supreme Court has called the right to ‘personal autonomy.’” {citing: Planned Parenthood v. Casey [505 U.S. 833 (1992)]} Then, the judges go to extraordinary lengths to deny that liberty to some citizens. While the circuit court did not delve into the Due Process and Equal Protection aspects, the Appeals Court did, and the reasoning used by this panel of judges is shallow, myopic and verging on ludicrous. The court literally acknowledges the gross societal discrimination based on sexual orientation and at the same time, denies that homosexual citizens are a suspect class under the law. The Appeals Court contorts itself to the point of convulsions as it tries to avoid any interpretation that might remotely be deemed precedent. So much of this ruling hangs upon the requirement for immutability in the classification of a suspect group, i.e., a person is born in a location (ethnicity or race) with a defined gender and skin pigmentation – elements they cannot control. While this court has not been convinced that homosexuality is genetic, they acknowledge the possibility; and yet, I find such reasoning verges upon ridiculous, in that sexual orientation is a very personal, internal, private trait. The public can and should only see reflections. I am flabbergasted that the court would present such a notion regarding sexual orientation, since religion, language and to some extent disabilit(ies) are not genetic either. This case represents the challenge faced by the courts and our society in the main in the application and interpretation of law. So many of these cases, Conaway now being another one, can be understood, interpreted and viewed in the light of one window -- the primacy of the People or the State. The court turns to established legislative law and narrow interpretations of judicial law in search for a definition of rights. Prima facie, the precedent of existing law remains a comfortable basis. The court claims no law exists “granting” homosexuals equal treatment under the law. In this sense, they are precisely correct. Yet, such logic fails to recognize or even acknowledge the 9th Amendment’s rights “retained by the People.” The court continues to search for the basis of fundamental rights when there is no definition of such rights. We, the People, grant certain rights to the government to act on our behalf – not the other way around. Perhaps the most illuminating sentence in this regard from the Conaway court is: “If the [Supreme] Court in Lawrence {v. Texas [539 U.S. 558 (2003)]} was unwilling to declare that the right of two persons of the same sex to engage in sexual intimacy was deeply rooted in history and tradition, we are not disposed to accept that the Lawrence Court intended to confer such status on the public recognition of an implicitly similar relationship.” The fallaciousness of such reasoning is staggering, and specifically ignores the potential for rights “retained by the People,” or even “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.” The Maryland Court of Appeals uses 244 pages of exhaustive legal reasoning in their attempt to rationalize the State’s dominance without saying so explicitly. This incessant search for some fundamental right to homosexual marriage is legal subterfuge at its very worst. There is NO such fundamental right, and there never will be. However, there is the MOST fundamental right for every citizen to be treated with dignity, respect and “equal treatment under the law.” And, the most fundamental right means recognition and respect for a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choice . . . except where the interests of the State in the public domain intrude or conflict. What is so bloody hard to understand about the equality? The mounting number of state court cases demonstrates one primary, common, irreconcilable element – they are trying desperately to avoid the essential root cause. Now, Conaway can be added to that sorry list.

Comments and contributions from Update no.301:
“Much has been said already about the mistakes of WMDs, oil, and so forth. Even so, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is about RIGHT over WRONG. It is not about how our leaders blew it or how stupid we appear to be to the rest of the world in the media. It is about RIGHT over WRONG, a cornerstone of what it means to be an American.
“We should reserve the right to get smarter everyday. Some days I even take my own advice. Because our leaders may have followed the wrong path for too long, fighting and killing Islamo-fascists remains a war of RIGHT over WRONG for the western world. Unfortunately, too many of us are missing the point – they will kill or enslave us if given the chance regardless of the traitorous public stand some of our citizens take against our honorable military leaders like General Petraeus.
“To run and hide because of past mistakes will be our undoing. We can debate it all everyday. But, at the same time we must confront the enemy, fight the enemy, and win for our survival.”
My proto-reply:
No comment necessary or possible. Yet, when will we ever learn?
. . . round two:
“If history repeats itself on the dark side, the next generation of freedom fighters will have to learn from our mistakes. Let's hope not and we can learn before it is too late.”
. . . my response to round two:
Yet, just as our parents began the Cold War and we finished it, so to I suspect the War on Islamic Fascism is a generational war. I suspect we’re talkin’ 20 perhaps 50 years before the bad guys figure out it is better to live in peace and tolerance. I hope I’m wrong, but I doubt it.

A contributor sent an article:
"Duty, Honor, Country 2007 -- An Open Letter to the New Generation of Military Officers Serving and Protecting Our Nation"
by Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF (Ret.)
I will not provide a link or a copy; if you want to read Bowman’s words, you can find them.
My reply was quite simple
:
This is talk of treason!
. . . round two:
"Well hopefully the 1st Amendment is still strong enough in our country that this guy, whoever he is, can still write his stuff and put it on the 'Net. The difference is when he actually plans or takes actions, or tries to incite others. Of course just writing it could be interpreted as inciting others I suppose, especially since he is retired military. Do you think it is for real?
"Do you think there is a group within our military that would/could accomplish something like this?
"I think the bigger problem we have is Pakistan, now that is where another coup is likely. However, before Iran I believe Syria could be in the sights of Israel and/or USA first, then Iran, and possibly something happening in Pakistan. That is worst-case-scenario and then dealing with the fact North Korea may have recently supplied Syria with capacity to use against Israel, is problematic."
. . . my response to round two:
Of course the 1st Amendment is strong enough. I believe I was very careful in my choice of words. I did not accuse Bowman of treason, but his words suggest and encourage serving officers of the Armed Forces of the United States take illegal offensive action against our Commander-in-Chief. That suggestion is the advocacy of treason. The Constitution provides specific, definitive steps for remedy of a rogue president. Nothing in his essay could be construed as constitutional, regardless of his assertions. Treason is indeed the action; conspiracy to commit treason is likewise a crime. However, Bowman’s suggestion is not conspiracy or treason, but his notional suggestion is! He walks a very fine line.
Might there be a group in the military capable of such action? Sure. The military is a very broad slice of American society. Just as there are folks who HATE George W. Bush for whatever their reasons may be, so too there are folks in military service who do not hold W. in high regard. BUT, I hope, pray, trust and believe that the preponderance of military officers are loyal professionals, like Colonel Martin 'Jiggs' Casey (Seven Days in May, 1964). Bottom line, Bob Bowman is dead wrong! And, I condemn his words.
Pakistan is indeed a far bigger problem for a host of reasons. Usama bin Ladin’s latest fatwa being prime evidence. Yes, numero uno, bar none, has been, is and most likely will remain the Islamic Republic of Iran – the hands down biggest state sponsor of world wide terrorism on the planet. The Israeli deep penetration strike into Syria two weeks ago is also a measure of how serious and precarious the situation is with those rogue states . . . and the ever-unpredictable Grand Dear Leader Umpa-Lumpa scurrying around in the background. I just do not see the path to defusing the nuclear confrontation with Iran or Syria, and the DPRK remains a worry, but a further destabilized Pakistan would not be helpful . . . although it might give us the excuse we need for dealing with the unrepentant tribal regions and the protectors of Usama.

Another contribution:
“How is it we can refuse the minutemen to speak at a university, refuse the former President of Harvard to speak at another university, and invite this generation's Hitler form Iran to speak at our expense? Last time I looked the minutemen and former Harvard President were not killing our military warriors in the desert.”
My response:
Rhetorical question, correct? I am not sure whether we shall see the reception the university will give Ahmadinejad. I suspect it will be far better and more respectful than they gave the others. Ahmadinejad has shown considerable skill in delivering his bellicose bravado for Islamic consumption while painting himself in the colors of the abused underdog – one of the lone voices standing up to the Great Satan, the evil capitalist United States. For true socialists and communists, he has to be a savior figure, just like Adolf Hitler was to the virulent anti-communists of the 1920’s & 1930’s. We shall see.
. . . along with this follow-up comment:
“Rest assured the reception the bad guy from Iran receives from Columbia University will include adulation making it a traitorous cliff to reside. And you note accurately in that the bad reception will be hidden if they can pull it off. Perhaps someone will be able to expose the truth for those of us who cannot and will not hold hands with the enemy as long as our troops are in harms way from his weapons.”

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

17 September 2007

Update no.301

Update from the Heartland
No.301
10.9.07 – 16.9.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
We remember THAT Tuesday, six years ago. We shall never forget what happened that day, and how our world changed.

To our Muslims friends, may Ramadan bring peace, joy and renewal to your lives.

The 15th of September on the Gregorian calendar each year offers remembrance of the extraordinary heroism, sacrifice and courage of The Few, who defiantly stopped Hitler’s inexorable advance across Europe in the summer skies over Great Britain. This is the day we celebrate Battle of Britain Day – lest we ever forget.

The follow-up news items:
-- With all the howling and ballyhooing surrounding the Petraeus-Crocker status report, my thoughts repeatedly return to one question, why couldn’t the generals convince Rummie and W. that they were wrong? Well, actually, I should say Rummie . . . I doubt W. knew enough to override his SecDef. W. cast his lot with Rummie and could not see the wisdom of Mattis, Petraeus, and the others who saw the situation in Iraq. Imagine, if you will, how things might have been quite different if Petraeus had been the C-in-C in Iraq instead of Sanchez. Then again, perhaps no general could have been successful as long as the head-strong and intransigent Donald Rumsfeld was the civilian master. All of this is idle and worthless speculation; four years of lost time is runaway behind you. Too many politicians and citizens are too deeply invested in failure. Any attempt at recovery will become progressively more tenuous as we approach next year’s election.
The graphics used by General Petraeus. . . courtesy of Der Spiegel:
http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/0,5538,24687,00.html
-- Last week’s takedown of an al-Qaeda-wannabe terrorist cell in Germany reminds us that we must remain ever vigilant. [300] It also reminds me that contemporary Germany has dealt with terrorism before, most notably der Rote Armee Fraktion [Red Army Faction (sometimes abbreviated RAF, which I am reticent to use in deference to our honorable brethren in the Royal Air Force) AKA the Baader-Meinhof Gang]. The B-M Gang was one of several anarchistic groups active in Europe in the 1970’s. I suspect the Germans will deal with the new variant in an equally effective manner. In an oddly related way, I just finished John le Carré’s “Absolute Friends” (Little, Brown & Co., 2004); his novel offers an intriguing twist to the challenges of neutralizing some of these fringe anarchist or terrorist groups.
-- After we recognized the racially motivated abuse of the Jena 6 [300], the Louisiana State 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal overturned the conviction of Mychal Bell, the first of the Jena 6 to be tried by LaSalle Parish District Attorney J. Reed Walters. There is hope that Jena, Louisiana, will mature and rise above their base racism.
-- Sheik Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, an important Sunni tribal leader in al-Anbar Province, was assassinated by al-Qaeda in Iraq, as a reprisal for his clans assistance to the United States and Coalition forces in Iraq. How many more clues do we need?
-- The Islamic Republic of Iran continues to add centrifuges for uranium enrichment in their nuclear program [137, 146 & sub]. How much farther down the road to a functional nuclear weapon are we going to allow the historical, undisputed, leader of state-sponsored terrorism to go?

The next topic deserves a proper tone. Thus, I lead off with this quotation:
Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, service neither liberty nor safety.”
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759, Poor Richard’s Almanac
The march of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) through the courts against the government’s use of various intelligence collection tools in the War on Islamic Fascism continues unabated and at a rapid pace. The latest court decision came last week from United States District Judge Victor Makkero (Southern District of New York) in the case of Doe v. Gonzales [USDC, SDNY 04 Civ. 2614 (VM) {2007}] – actually, the second ruling from Judge Makkero. This case differs from ACLU v. NSA [291, 297] as it focuses on the FBI’s use of National Security Letters (NSLs) to collect intelligence, presumably to identify suspected or potential terrorists. The judge scrutinized the USA Patriot Act of 2001 [PL 107-56], the Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986 [PL 99-508], and the USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, [PL 109-177], and declared relevant actionable sections unconstitutional. Judge Makkero argues that Congress seriously over-stepped its constitutional authority and compromised the separation and balance of powers. Given the facts, the judge nailed it; the law is the law; and yet, this judgment further hinders the government’s warfighting ability. Since al-Qaeda undoubtedly reads and understands English, I am certain they shall draw some comfort in the Doe v. Gonzales ruling. Nonetheless, I suspect the government will pursue a rapid appeal as aggressively as possible. Beyond the question of law, this case illuminates some of the challenges we face in the War on Islamic Fascism. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is one of the principle enforcement agencies of the Federal government; therein lays the challenge. The FBI possesses broad national domestic law enforcement authority. There are few agencies in the United States at any level that have the reach of the FBI. Further, there are few constraints between the intelligence collection and analysis sections of the FBI and the law enforcement element. In discussions like this involving the FBI, I remember the personal files maintained by former Director J. Edgar Hoover – that is the abuse of such information collection we all fear. In contrast, the CIA, NSA, NRO, DIA, et al, have no authority regarding law enforcement and are expressly prohibited from domestic operations except as allowed by law, e.g., border security and war of drugs. We need the FBI to be actively and aggressively engaged in domestic surveillance for intelligence purposes. Our constitutional freedoms depend upon an inherent distrust of government and the balance of independent supervision regarding the exercise of the power provided by the instruments of State. That independent supervision has been and remains predominantly vested in the Judicial Branch. Thus, it would seem to me, we must have a barrier between the intelligence and enforcement segments of the FBI. Perhaps a legal prohibition of data collect by intelligence from migrating to the enforcement branch; the best that could be accomplished might be pointing the enforcement guys in the right direction for them to obtain a warrant, and then allow separate data collection in accordance with the rules of evidence by the enforcement branch, thus placing judicial review between intelligence and enforcement. The condemnation of the FBI’s participation in the warrantless surveillance program comes easily to free people, and yet we need a strong, aggressive, vigilant FBI as an essential instrument in the War on Islamic Fascism. We need the FBI in the data mining business, but the thought of such activity appearing in the judicial prosecutorial process is unacceptable. Another option would be authorization of the NSA to conduct domestic surveillance for intelligence purposes only, and require a judicial review for transferring actionable intelligence to the FBI; this is a less attractive option, in my opinion. Nonetheless, Judge Makkero got it right and did what had to be done. Congress must quickly digest the Doe v. Gonzales decision and get this ambiguity fixed pronto without waiting for the appeals process. A Judicial barrier between intelligence and enforcement should do the trick.

Commander of the Multi-National Force - Iraq (MNF-I), General David Howell Petraeus, USA (USMA 1974) and United States Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Clark Crocker testified before both House and Senate committees on the status of operations in Iraq. While the political progress has been minute, the military security has achieved demonstrably positive results. General Petraeus has been far more effective than his predecessors Generals Sanchez and Casey. While no one has claimed or even suggested anything remotely like military success of the ground in Iraq, there has been undeniable improvement under General Petraeus. Let us give the man his due. But, nope, it is not to be. Regrettably, the Democratic Party is so heavily invested in the notion of unilateral withdrawal they appear absolutely incapable of acknowledging progress. As vehemently as they criticize the President for his intransigence, they are equally, if not more so, intransigent, unable to deviate a twitch from their set course. There is one major distinction . . . George W. Bush is the President of the United States of America, and Commander-in-Chief of the entire Armed Forces of the United States. They are just wannabes and political malcontents, and their whining sounds distinctly like fingernails on a chalk board rather than bona-fide and constructive criticism. And, what is worse, some of their number have engaged in a character assassination of a general officer who has served this Nation honorably for better than 30 years, and is achieving the best results of any general to date. These baying naysayers anger me. And, at times and circumstances like these, I am reminded of events on Capitol Hill during testimony on 9.June.1954, when Army counsel Joseph Welch confronted Senator Joe McCarthy and castigated the bully senator. “Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?” I want to say the same thing to MoveOn.org, Dennis Kucinich, Dick Durbin, et al.

The legalization of prostitution (along with other sinful behavior) has been a topic of this forum repeatedly. [291-3, et al] I do not intend to rehash my opinion, as I imagine it is rather boring. I read an interesting opinion and direct your attention to:
“Fantasies, Well Meant”
by Bob Herbert
Op-Ed Columnist
New York Times
Published: September 11, 2007
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/09/11/opinion/11herbert.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fBob%20Herbert
As with all sinful conduct, criticism comes easily, and insistence on avoidance or abstention seems quite acceptable and logical. And yet, shallow, in-the-instant reactions like Herbert and Marcus [293] ignore the causal realities to focus on the symptoms. Are there disturbing negative consequences of prostitution? Yes, absolutely and without equivocation! We can choose to continue reacting to our outrage at the symptomatic consequences, or we can find some orderly, logical, reasonable way of dealing with prostitution, as we should with all the other sinful pursuits. Herbert’s focus on the negatives ignores the positives. I have offered my opinion as well as my recommendation for addressing the root cause, and yet I doubt my admonitions will have any effect whatsoever, but there it is . . . my opinion.

Comments and contributions from Update no.300:
Several comments came in response to my review of the Halberstam book "The Coldest Winter."
First
:
"There is a great book on the Korean War by S.L.A. Marshall, called the 'The River and the Gauntlet: Defeat of the Eighth Army by the Chinese Communist Forces, November, 1950, in the Battle of the Chongchon River, Korea.' It is long out of print, but was reprinted through the Time Reading program. You can get a copy through Alibris.
"It is a great read of the harrowing defeat and escape of soldiers of the 8th Army when the Chinese came in. You would appreciate it."
Second:
"I've only read one David Halberstam novel, but it is among my favorites. 'Summer of '49,' which details the AL Pennant race between the Red Sox and the Yankees. Not only did Halberstam tell the story from the POV of the players involved, but also from the POV of the average man on the street who rooted for these teams. Someone who can cover a wide variety of topics from sports to politics to war, and do it so well, is indeed a rare talent. Shortly after his death I did a little tribute to Halberstam on my radio show, mainly talking about the great job he did with 'Summer of '49.' This world indeed lost an excellent story teller the day he passed away."
Third:
"I did not know David Halberstam was a classmate of yours. Nor that he had gone to the Academy. I had read, some years ago, his book 'The Best and the Brightest,' or close to that title, and have been a super fan of his ever since. I've not read any of his other books but surely should have. He has a way, almost like NO other writer I've ever come across, of sifting out the real players in an on-going situation, finding out, by research, who said (orally or in writing) what to whom, when, and what affect that had in directing the situation in one way or another towards it's ultimate conclusion.
"His knowledge of geopolitics, government, plain old politics, history, etc, etc, and how all play a part in how things happen in this world, is virtually unparalleled in MY opinion. He brings all the players together, in their correct positions of power and influence, in a way no one else does-----that I have ever read anyway.
"I did not know Gen. Ridgway, or the Marine Gen. O.P. Smith. I did know way back then LtCol Ray Davis, CO of I believe 7th Mar Regt, already a hero from WW2, who led his Marines in that epic strategic withdrawal over impossible terrain, in impossible weather, and all the while fighting an overwhelmingly superior force. The story is well known among Marines, anyway. Davis won the Medal of Honor, as did at least one of his subordinate officers, A Capt Barber I think. Davis went on to become Ass't CMC and maybe the 1st 4 star Ass't CMC. "
My reply:
First things first, Ray Davis was the CO, 1st Bn., 7th Marines, during the Battle of Chosin Reservoir, and indeed won the Medal of Honor for extraordinary bravery in action; CO, 7th Marines was Homer Litzenberg, who won the Navy Cross during the battle. I've met a few Medal of Honor recipients . . . regular guys who rose to the challenge of an extraordinary moment. The only MoH holder I’ve been able to talk with at any length was Bob Modrzejewski – a major when I knew him – then, a Captain of Marines, CO, K Co., 3d Bn., 4th Marines, 3d Marine Division, won the MoH for conspicuous gallantry in combat in Vietnam, 18.July.1966; hellava story. I never met Davis, but certainly know of him.
No, sorry for the confusion . . . David Halberstam was not my classmate or a Naval Academy alumnus -- just a great author. My classmate was the one who gave me the opportunity to read Halberstam's book; he’s retired a Marine colonel, public affairs officer, who has been quite successful promoting books for various publishing companies. I hope you do read "The Coldest Winter" -- great book; I know you will enjoy it and get a lot from it.

Another contribution:
"If you have never checked out the many books on 'THE ART OF WAR' that Gary Gagliardi has published, I recommend some of them to you. I just repurchased the revised books 'THE ART OF WAR FOR THE SALES WARRIOR.' Gary has done enormous quality work on how to apply 'THE ART OF WAR' to various life situations, from personal, relational, professional, and corporate. I've e-communicated with him before and he has great insights. His homepage is:
www.scienceofstrategy.com
"And on this Tuesday observation of 9/11/01, may God bless those warriors who are fighting for freedom and against evil; and may the U.S.A. military lessen their losses. And comfort be given to all the families/friends of the victims of 9/11, and Iraq War.
"I was very concerned of an event today, for various reasons (I tend to be a spatial type observer) I have already highlighted. Thankfully, nothing has happened and I hope our intelligence gathering will identify and thwart any individuals/groups planning, capable and willing to wage violence against innocents here and abroad, in the name of their own selfish interests. Safety to the many in operations of the known and unknown conducting tasks and sacrificing so we may enjoy our present freedoms."
My response:
I have read Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War;” I have not read any of Gary’s versions. I’ll give them a look see. Selling books is never an easy proposition, but I keep trying; and, I imagine Gary can relate to the challenge.

Another contribution:
"I enjoy reading Thomas Friedman's Op-Ed works in NYT[imes]. I also enjoyed (as much of the country did per the NYT best seller list) his book “THE WORLD IS FLAT” (although Lou Dobbs is not a fan) and “THE LEXUS AND THE OLIVE TREE.”
"Reading this week's Op-Ed by Friedman, filed from Erbil, Iraq, he says something more profound/accurate and well written than I've seen in a long time, he opined the lead paragraph in this week's essay headlined – “DEMOCRACY IN THE ARAB WORLD:”
"One of the most troubling lessons of the Iraq invasion is just how empty the Arab dictatorships are. Once you break the palace, by ousting the dictator, the elevator goes straight to the mosque. There is nothing in between--no civil society, no real labor unions, no real human rights groups, no real parliaments or press. So it is not surprising to see the sort of clerical leadership that has emerged in both the Sunni and Shiite areas of Iraq."
"I might add, that had the post-war rebuilding effort in Iraq been more properly planned & executed, our difficulties in the war there could have been greatly reduced had the Iraqi people been able to transition from the difficulties of wars (3 of them since the 1980's), to a future of hope and opportunity--safety and economic. Keeping the power on would be a start, having prevented the raiding of the antiquities in museums to maintaining primary Baghdad area safety for citizens on the streets, would have been big pluses. The unemployment rate has skyrocketed, folks don't feel safe, and many educated have emigrated, others have fled and now live illegally in other countries (many Christian Iraqis for example).
"Hopefully that elevator that Friedman speaks of, does not start on the way down in Saudi Arabia, or other nation-states currently said to be our friends, yet capable of waging proxy wars against America."
My reply:
As I have stated earlier, I believe Iraq was the correct battlefield for this fight . . . for a host of reasons. And, I have been quite critical of W., Rummie, et al, from the outset, for their gross misestimation of the Battle for Iraq. The naiveté of that lot . . . to think Iraq was going to be some cake-walk, was and still is staggering to me. My estimation of the troops required was 0.5-1M men, to establish and maintain security, and we had a window to rebuild Iraq; we’ve blown the opportunity, and it may not be recoverable. I also thought we were going into a generational fight, and I still believe that. So, the thought that our withdrawal from Iraq would end things is ludicrous. And, the notion that a military solution was possible accentuates the naiveté of Rummie. We wasted four years and many thousands of lives by the incompetence of that bunch – very disappointing. At this stage, I would be happy with securing the country, and then leaving them to the dysfunctional reality of their infantile political process. If they then revert to civil war, so be it. We allow al-Qaeda in Iraq to ignite the sectarian violence; we have an obligation of eradicate al-Qaeda in Iraq, to give the Iraqis a decent chance at success.

A different contribution from another thread:
"Back as GW was about to declare he was going to Iraq to depose Saddam and get rid of WMD's. "I did not believe GW's invasion idea was a good one. That he should hold off and explore further his many other options. After all, he was the most powerful man on earth with the muscle to back him up. T. Roosevelt had said years before to speak softly but carry a big stick. GW certainly had the biggest stick around, but he could not seem to speak softly.
"And, BTW has never learned that ability.
"My reasoning was that I saw Iraq as becoming another Vietnam (MY war). There was no real plan, other than to bull our way in and get the Bastard. He needed getting, no doubt, and that we could pretty much easily do that was a foregone conclusion. BUT----what then? I saw no overall strategy, no plan, no concepts of what the aftermath might well mean for us in light of the many tribal type factions who would be involved."
My response:
I have always thought Iraq was the correct battleground, and I still do. W. & Rummie fought it the wrong way; we needed Petraeus four years ago.
. . . round two:
"Maybe. Can't go back now though. So how do we solve this quite important (for all sorts of reasons) dilemma?
"BTW, I am not convinced that Petraeus & the Ambassador actually and literally wrote that report from their own personal observations. It smells of White House interference. Maybe we shall see."
. . . my response to round two:
Historians and free citizens will be debating the Battles of Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the War on Islamic Fascism for decades, if not centuries. Indeed, we cannot go back. Whether the report was written by the White House, only the players know. Petraeus and Crocker have only their integrity for their protection; if they did not agree with the words, they should have resigned. Regardless of who wrote the words, they are their words for history, now. I believe Petraeus is a better man than to be cast in the role of being W’s lackey. Both men handled themselves well despite the tantrums on those petulant senators and representatives. Thus, who wrote the report is immaterial to me; both men stood before God, mother and country; that’s enough for me.
How do we solve this dilemma? I shall now offer my solution to world hunger. My opinion . . . for whatever that is worth . . . does not matter a hoot, but I do have an opinion. Petraeus finally did what should have been done four years ago . . . connect with the local tribal leaders and work with them to eliminate the radicals, primarily al-Qaeda in Iraq in the Sunni regions and the Iranians in the Shiite areas. Democracy in any form cannot exist without security. And, there are forces that need anarchy to achieve their results. The Iraqis, with our assistance, must identify, localize and eliminate those elements. I think the best we can hope for is a loose confederation of the various tribes. I cannot see how a federal system is going to work. And yet, envy and resources must be equitably disbursed to give a confederation any hope of stability. I also believe we will be in Iraq for a generation, if not longer. The next election will tell the story. And, as with so many critical societal decisions, we are likely to vote like an opinion poll rather than what should be done. So be it. We shall reap what we sow.

Another contribution:
"I always maintained prior to the war in March 2003, that the reasons for going there were not at all related to the alleged W.M.D.s there. There was no linkage between 911 and Saddam, no linkage between Iraq and al-Qaeda, and thus the supposed 'war on terror' had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq, other then to add enormous volatile fuel to the fire and increase the risk to America from terrorism, which we will well know the effect of, in the next event (soon on the horizon). What Osama bin Laden could never have accomplished, George W. Bush has accomplished, the biggest recruitment of jihadists against the west!"
My response:
On this, we do not agree. Because the previous four administrations (Carter to Clinton) chose to ignore the signs and rely on the pseudo-comfort of our geographic insulation does not distill down to 9/11 as the catalytic event. Likewise, to pretend unilateral withdrawal from Iraq will end the violence is naïve, IMHO. I pull no punches in my criticism of the gross mismanagement of the Battles for Iraq and Afghanistan by W. and his lieutenants; based on the performance of the last four years, I suspect history will not be kind to W. So be it. But, his poor decisions do not alter the reality that we have been engaged in a war by Islam-fascists for the last nearly 30 years. Our slowness to recognize that reality was not W’s burden to bear; at least he had the courage to confront those who intended us harm; that fact shall not change.
. . . round two:
"I think you articulate the climate/situation well. However, why could G.W.B. and administration not have articulated this too, instead of using the W.M.D. basis? And Greenspan would have nothing to gain by making his statements that seem more truthful than what G.W.B. has been capable of."
. . . my reply to round two:
The answer to your question . . . just one word -- arrogance! And, for the record, I disagree with The Maestro -- his immense eminence Alan Greenspan.

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

10 September 2007

Update no.300

Update from the Heartland
No.300
3.9.07 – 9.9.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
A good friend, Brother Marine, and classmate of mine invited me to review an advance copy of a book he knew I would appreciate. I finished the book this week, and here is my review:
If you read nothing beyond this sentence, just know that David Halberstam’s latest and last book – “The Coldest Winter – America and the Korean War” (Hyperion, 2007), offers a definitive view of the domestic and international political forces that took the United States back to war in 1950. The book is an absolute must-read for any person who seeks to understand the early years of the Cold War, the struggle that was the Korean War, and the setup of what would become the Vietnam War.
The image Halberstam creates for us emerges from his deft usage of incisive words from the personal to the global scale, as he describes the confluence of multitudinous elements – Harry Truman; the 1948 election; MacArthur’s egocentrism and contempt for civilian authority; Joseph Stalin; nuclear weapons; the Berlin Airlift; Soviet detonation of their first atomic bomb; an incompetent Secretary of Defense [Louis Johnson (1949-50)]; Communism and the subjugation of China; Dean Acheson’s pivotal, January 1950, speech excluding Korea; Kim Il Sung’s Soviet-encouraged ambition to unite Korea as Mao Tse-Tung united China; McCarthyism and red-bating; Alger Hiss; and the United States of America as reluctant and timid superpower. Halberstam offers a direct, coherent illumination of the various forces as they were multiplied and divided on the world stage of those years.
Halberstam sets the tone for the tale, by opening his book with the rapid, dispersed, but uneasy advance north toward the Yalu River during the fall of 1950, and into the jaws of a massive Chinese ambush of the 2nd Infantry Division at Unsan and the 1st Marine Division at Chosin Reservoir. Then, he methodically lays out the events and decisions that led the Americans to such a precarious position. Through it all and despite the politics of Washington, Moscow, Beijing, or the Dai Ichi Building, Halberstam's words are respectful of the soldiers who endured unimaginable hardship and a fanatical enemy, not for the generals, but for each other. He draws the personality and character of the players from the dusty bins of history, and adds immensely to our understanding of those years, and the military leaders -- Matt Ridgway, O.P. Smith, Peng Dehuai -- who fought the war.
This is not a military warfighting book or tome to rationalize the political genesis of the war. This is a book about people – ordinary to important, famous to obscure – who found themselves in difficult circumstances and did the best they could to make things better. Halberstam's exceptional writing skill delivers a compelling story that draws the reader into the history. "The Coldest Winter" now joins "The Best and the Brightest" and "The Powers That Be" as an essential chronicle of the mid-20th Century.
I strongly recommend and proudly encourage every person to buy and carefully read every precious word of David Halberstam's "The Coldest Winter." You will not be disappointed.

The follow-up news items:
-- Our sincerest congratulations to the security services of Germany and Denmark for their penetration and takedown of terrorist cells with links to al-Qaeda, targeting various gathering spots frequented by American military and ex-patriot folks. Well done! Now, they need to find the other bastards who knew these guys and remove them from civilized society.
-- The last British troops withdrew from Central Basra as part of the draw down initiated by former Prime Minister Tony Blair. [272] The British Army remains at Basra Airport, for now.
-- The serious dust storm that immobilized the twin Mars robotic rovers, Spirit and Opportunity, two months ago [294], has cleared, and the two mechanical explorers survived the storm. They have resumed returning extraordinary images and data from the surface of Mars, as they had begun more than three years ago. [132, 213] Before the storm, Rover Opportunity completed its reconnoiter of Crater Victoria and found the path it will take to the bottom. Controllers and the rover are preparing for the historic and important descent. Congratulations to the Rover Team.
-- We note the passing of famed, Italian tenor Luciano Pavarotti, 71, after a protracted struggle against pancreatic cancer – a magnificent voice has been silenced.
-- Legendary, innovative, aircraft designer Paul B. MacCready, 81, passed away. He designed numerous ultra-low-speed aircraft including the Gossamer Condor.
-- Veteran adventurer Steve Fossett, 63, went missing on Monday, after taking off from a private airstrip in a small plane. He was reportedly scouting a site to practice for setting the world land speed record. [The current record is: 763.035 mph (Mach 1.016); set by Andy Green on 25.9.1997, at Black Rock Desert, Nevada, U.S.A.]
-- Perhaps apropos . . . Fred Thompson, 65 – the actor and former senator – announced his candidacy for President on the Jay Leno Show Wednesday night. The choice of venue for such an important political event seems rather odd to me – an entertainment forum. Well, hey, at least he’s in it now – no more speculation.
-- Senator Charles Timothy "Chuck" Hagel of Nebraska announced he would not seek reelection next year, after two terms -- another Republican seat opens up. I have not been a fan of Hagel for some time now. [184, et al]

I have supported and advocated for Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research for at least 15 years. I have argued from a lay perspective in favor of such research and against those voices fretting about the consequences of the class of research. Then, along comes a report in the Washington Post about a recent and controversial decision by the British government.
“Britain to Allow Creation of Hybrid Embryos”
by Rick Weiss
Washington Post
Thursday, September 6, 2007; Page A11
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W8RH02AC3A490059C0E3936F242A20
One of the principal objectives of the British effort seeks to encourage embryonic stem cell research while skirting around the moral issue of when life begins. The controversial process involves injecting human DNA into cow or rabbit eggs whose own DNA has been largely, but not fully, removed; scientists call these cells chimeras -- the mythical Greek creature with a lion's head, a goat's body and a serpent's tail. After stimulation, the resultant cellular division can be studied without offending sensitivities. None of the cells would be allowed to proceed beyond the early stages of differentiation, and most likely would not survive regardless. Workarounds like this hybrid approach concern me far more than the disapproval of the naysayers. This is a mistake, but George W. Bush's ideological-based restrictions inherently force marginal deviations like this chimeric option. Embryonic stem cell research deserves an upfront, straight-forward, focused, national effort comparable to the Manhattan Project, manned spaceflight, or the Human Genome Project. We are not getting that attention from this administration.

We may have thought racism was a vile remnant from the distant, dark side of our history, perhaps these days confined to Third World resentment and xenophobia. If so, we would be wrong. On 19.August.2007, a mob of suspected neo-Nazi youth nearly beat to death eight Indian young men in Mügeln, Saxony, Germany – a small village about halfway between Leipzig and Dresden in the Döllnitz Valley. Well, that’s Germany and her Nazi past after all, we might say. Well, wrong again! Regrettably, I draw your attention to the small town of Jena, Louisiana. The first of the so-called Jena 6 (all teenaged males that happen to have dark skin pigmentation) was convicted of aggravated battery growing from boiling racial tension in the town. Battery is a crime, but so is inciting a riot and racial injustice. To condemn the dark-skinned students for their actions without equally condemning light-skinned students for their actions and contributions to the string of incidents is myopic and racist. And, while I am at it, I condemn all the parents for allowing this disgusting episode to go this far. Germany continues her convulsions in the aftermath of the Mügeln incident. Jena has attracted some undoubtedly unwanted attention, and deservedly so. Mindless racism is still with us, and we must not rest until intolerance, public prejudice and discrimination are eradicated.

General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are due to report on their progress with the Battle for Iraq, to Congress, next week. As expected, cyberspace has erupted with a plethora of pre-report assessments and opinions from a wide variety of pundits and talking heads . . . far too many for me to even read, digest and comment upon in this humble forum. Thus, this week, I shall leave the notation and reading to the subscriber. That said, I shall extract from the flood a few morsels that might prove useful.
1.) This link is to a video clip that offers a few facts to consider:
http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv
2.) Another former British Army Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Michael Jackson, GCB, CBE, DSO, offered up his opinion of Rummie and the Coalition strategy (or lack of same) in the aftermath of the invasion phase of the Battle for Iraq. Here are two views of Sir Mike's opinion
"Gen Sir Mike Jackson's attack draws U.S. ire"
by Robert Watts and Tim Shipman
Sunday Telegraph:
12:18am BST; 2.September.2007.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/01/wirq601.xml
and,
"Second Retired British General Slams U.S."
by Tariq Panja
Associated Press
Sunday, 2.September.2007
[Sorry, no link]
3.) This article offers some unique insight into the basis for some of the progress we have seen:
“Anatomy of a Tribal Revolt”
by Dave Kilcullen
Small Wars Journal
August 29, 2007; 2:52 AM
http://www.smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/08/anatomy-of-a-tribal-revolt/
4.) Lastly, this related article that might help with perspective:
“When War Was The Answer”
by George Will
September 02, 2007
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/when_war_was_the_answer.html
Next, we shall chew on the congressional testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. The excitement continues.

I just could not pass this one up after reading the following Der Spiegel article:
“Former Detainees Abused Back Home – ‘I'd Rather Return to Guantánamo’”
Der Spiegel
September 06, 2007
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,504237,00.html
Once repatriated to his native Tunisia, Abdullah al-Hajji found himself a constant object of interest for the Tunisian security services. He left Tunisia in 1990, joined his brethren jihadistanis, and was arrested in Pakistan in 2002, sent to Guantánamo Bay, and repatriated to Tunisia in 2006. Abdullah’s opinion of life back home provided the subtitle. My opinion of the detention center and process remains unchanged. [290 et all]

Comments and contributions from Update no.299:
“To comment on you final statement in "Update no.299." Yes we will survive G.W., A.G.and all the others of late that have proven themselves incompetent to be in leadership positions, mostly at our expense, I might add. But alas, not to the greatness we once enjoyed. Once again it has been proven that there are two interpretations of the law (one for THEM, and one for us). It is only when public indignation reaches a certain level that we see resignations (not prosecutions). A slap on the wrist, seems to have become the norm.
“As far as my present views on G.W. are concerned. Firstly let me state that I am Non Partisan, and consider myself a moderate. I voted for G.W., which at the time seemed like a no brainier. I still believe I made the right choice, as his decisions at the beginning of his Presidency convince it was the right thing to do. (not finding WMD doesn't mean that they didn't exist. Hussein didn't murder several thousand of his own people with a pea-shooter!) However, his decisions of late fill me with shame and disgust, as with a lot of people. In retrospect, I'm wondering now was I voting for someone who had the ability and guts to lead, or merely against his opponent, which is another trend that seems to be coming the norm. Should he resign? I say no. Primarily because the next two in line seem even more incompetent to lead this country. I'm somewhat fearful of Pelosi, as her views appear so partisan, that she might put us in more of mess, both domestically & internationally, than we already are. I only hope that a person with leadership abilities comes out of the woodwork before the next Presidential Election, and not ‘Same song, different singer ,’ as the saying goes. It getting harder and harder not to adopt a negative attitude.”
My reply:
I understand the feelings precisely. W. has been a disappointment. I have admired his courage and decisiveness, especially in the early days after 9/11. I still believe Iraq was the proper battlefield for a host of reasons. As I have written for many years, we had plenty of reasons to go after Saddam Hussein since 1988. We failed to complete the job in 1991, in order to preserve a fragile coalition. The best chronicle of the mismanagement of the Battle for Iraq remains Tom Ricks' "Fiasco;" I urge every citizen to read Tom's book -- the history is important.
Likewise, I thought I made the best decision given the circumstances in both 2000 and 2004, although I articulated my doubts and misgivings during 2004 episode. As is our way, we will face a different set of the same choices next year.
Despite my doom & gloom from time to time, I have faith in the grandeur and resilience of this Grand Republic, and the durability and power of freedom. Americans tend to be complacent, distant, and exude a laissez-faire attitude toward the world around us . . . that is until our freedom and way of life is threatened. We have faced those threats repeatedly in the past, as we face them today, and we will undoubtedly face many more times even after the current threat is convinced to live in peace.
I am not confident in the two-party, primary process. We shall see what the next year has in store for us. One thing I am certain of, we need change. W. had his shot; he blew it; we need new leadership, new ideas, and a new approach.

Another contribution, from a different thread, based on this query:
“I'm just interested in a legal question for personal information. When a Marine is ordered to kill women and children, which comes first - the duty to obey orders, or the duty not to kill women and children? What is the soldier supposed to do here?”
An opinion from one of our contributors:
“Though it seems to me to be a case of going too far in retaliation, it likely is not a perfectly put forth scenario 1. Most if not all of those Marines had been in combat for some time and seen things happen which made them spring loaded to follow the Sergeant's orders almost regardless. HE was the most experienced, and their leader. Marines are taught to follow the leader and obey orders. They also have a few classes in the subject of ‘Illegal’ orders, and are taught that if an illegal order is issued, one does not have to obey it and in fact should not.
“But for an 18-19-20 year old kid, in combat, scared to death, trying to stay alive despite having seen things no one should have to see ever, and trying to make sure he does his best to protect his buddies (almost the first rule in combat for Marines after take the offensive if you can and fight till there is no threat or no more Marines left). For THAT young Marine, legal and illegal likely became blurred. Some had maybe seen women or even children come forward and then kill themselves in a huge explosion which also killed friendlies. WHO can you trust, if not your Sergeant?
“Obviously when something like this, especially nowadays in the age of instant news media reports-----someone is going to have to be sacrificed. Perhaps more than one, and perhaps a bit more up the leadership chain. But RARELY to a very high level. Why? Because it IS war!! And war is ugly, full of horror, atrocity, etc. In Vietnam, MY war, little girls would come up to us to try and sell us Coca-Colas. The word was do NOT let them get too close, and for God's sake do not take and drink that Coke (which very likely may have had ground glass in it). I was not far away when a suicide bomber got into our MAG-11 (DaNang) Bomb dump after it was already exploding all over on Easter Sunday, 1969, due in FACT not to any enemy action but a fire started in the HUGE Ammo dump not far away belonging to all "I" Corps. HUGE ammo dump. A worker was mowing grass on a berm. Something happened, a fire started and spread quickly, stuff exploded, and all Hell broke loose for about 24 hours. I have a much more detailed story about that----but not for now. But the suicide bomber did not start it all!! He was just sort of an afterthought, though he almost caused even more damage than was already happening.
“I know how you must feel about this latest thing. But do not take just one reporter's version as gospel. I expect the situation was a lot more complicated that that, and fast moving. Not much time to think things out for these young men. Plus the implications in their ‘minds’ of things from Other combat times they'd been thru.
“Bottom line? No ‘legal’ opinion can come from me. Sorry.”
My contribution to this thread:
This type of combat is like so many other wars and yet it is different. We have faced fanatics before -- Moros after the Spanish-American War, Japanese on the Pacific Islands, Viet Cong during the Vietnam War, and now jihadistani Islamo-facists. Our current enemy has no reservation whatsoever to use women and children as shields or even as human bombs. As you note, this enemy engages coalition forces from residential homes, threatens to kill families if they try to flee, and seeks coalition reaction to produce graphic civilian casualties for the evening news.
I cannot render a legal opinion either. I have not seen all the facts, but what I have seen suggests those Marines were in a bad situation, made worse by an immoral enemy, and did the best they could. Split second decisions are required for survival. Retrospective, arm-chair quarterbacking lasts for ever. I have to trust the Marine leaders who made the decision to court-martial those Marines, and I sure as hell hope they have far more definitive evidence to suggest intentional murder, but from what I have seen so far, I am disappointed these legal proceedings have gone this far.
Soldiers and Marines in combat deserve our support, not our condemnation. I have voiced my opinion on many of these events as well as Abu Graib and other war time events. And yet, I feel like we must trust the officers who must judge these events. I pray they will do the proper things for our young soldiers and Marines in difficult combat.

A different contribution:
“Just read the Tom Ricks thing you linked me to. Great.
“Looks to me as though the Brits have given up on Iraq.
“Gonzales was a Bush man, whether qualified or not. That is where his loyalties were -- and likely still are. But then the majority of high-rankers in GW's administration were chosen for Some knowledge of the job they would fill, but mostly due to loyalty to GW. My opinion.”
No reply necessary.

Another contribution from a different contributor:
“I was against the Iraq War prior to March 2003.
“My belief was that it was never fully nor accurately articulated for the purpose of the war. I also compared it to 'just-war' theories from various sources--political, military, spiritual and religious, and did not the justification for a full scale war.
“Another belief of mine prior to March 2003, was the war would cause a marginalizing of our global geo-strategic and geo-political prestige.
“But even more importantly, my belief was the war would create a 'blowback' or unintended consequences from terrorism, as if we were adding fuel to an already burning fire. I did not think the Iraq War would prevent another 9/11, it would in fact invite more of them.
“In studies of Sun Tzu or Carl von Clausewitz (among others), I don't think our strategy and tactics will get into the history books of war success, even though the ‘mission accomplished’ theme was practiced off San Diego in May of 2003.
“If we truly must win the hearts and minds of Muslims who could turn from moderate to radical, we did not do it from this war, if anything, our war helped to only serve as a recruitment device for dangerous terrorists.
“On Rummie, I believe most of the criticism leveled at him from the military brass, is he tried to fight the war from a PC paradigm and reduced forces levels, not giving the resources to the military charged with winning.
“I have many great materials on the war, from pro to con, and try to keep my mind open, I even bought J. Paul Bremer III's book to get his account. Bremer's tragic flaw (in hindsight) was firing most of the military and police (and even civilians...I have no idea if they had pensions), and thus effectively removing the internal security forces in Iraq and allowing for a vacuum/reason of disgruntled former Iraqi police/military to join a fight against American forces.
“The porous borders in Iraq should have been sealed/secured.
“More thought and resources should have been directed at maintaining/rebuilding key infrastructure and stimulating an economy that would/could have benefited the Iraqi commoners.
“And, it was a tragedy that so much culture/history was not protected early on, in all the museums and elsewhere, and valuables that exceeded the price of any monetary price, were looted or siphoned off.
“Cap, in 2002, I dated and was planning to marry a wonderful Iraqi woman—[xxxxxx]. She was Chaldean (Christian Iraqi). She did not care for Muslims although she did not seem to hate them like some of the Christian Iraqis. She had only been in America for about one year, spoke fairly good English, and of course Arabic and her native tongue Aramaic (same as Christ). She came to America as a war refuge, by way of the Vatican, because of Gulf War I. She had been a pharmacist in Baghdad, and was finishing her education hear to take the tests in America to become a pharmacist. My attractions to her were her overall goodness, intelligence, attractive features, and more eastern-than-western ways which were interesting. She told me stories of bombs going off near where she lived, during Gulf War I. She stayed in Iraq when most of her family left, to take care of her father until his death shortly before immigrating to America. She loved America and the ‘incredible opportunities.’ One day we discussed the then-obvious war footing in the spring of 2002, and although she hated Saddam, she also was against the coming war. One day I outlined why I was also against it, and then she said ‘unfortunately, your country, will lose the war, and that troubles me, and you will lose because your people do not have the will to fight this war, the Iraqis have the will to fight and the will to fight will win over all the technology.’ And may I add, they have long memories, longer than ours.
“My late grandfather was a major in the Marine Corps, retired from them. He was made for the Marines, and made by them, and helped define them too. He loved this country and cared deeply for all human life. I wish I could have discourse with him about his thoughts of this current war.
“War is chaos, and I wish the current administration (and those still on-board) would have fully calculated the carrying costs, sunken costs, and defined very clearly a purpose/path with timetables. And accountability would be nice without any denial.
“Obviously the human tragedy is beyond the pale, both in troop losses (and severe injuries), and innocent Iraqi looses. I'm still hunting for the GREATER GOOD possibilities the architects of this war envisioned, and I hope they at least attempted this process, but I am not even sure any longer.
“Of course this list could go on, and I am sure you could add to it.”
My response:
Truth be told, I have advocated for what has become the Battle for Iraq since 16.March.1988, when Saddam crossed the line and used Phosgene to kill 5,000+ innocent Kurds in Halabja, Iraq; that was the day his chronic state-sponsorship of terrorism took on a dramatically more ominous darkness. So, when W. said we’re going to take down Saddam, I said it’s about freakin’ time. I have written many essays stating my rationale, and to this day, I still contend that Iraq was the ideal battleground for the War on Islamic Fascism. That said, however, I have been and remain an outspoken critic of the administration and the mismanagement of the battle. Rather than reiterate my opinion, I strongly urge everyone to read “Fiasco – The American Military Adventure in Iraq” by Thomas E. Ricks (Penguin Press, 2006); he articulates my view far better than me. Tom is not kind to Rummie, Wolfie, Franks, Sanchez, et al.
I have acknowledged that the Battles for Afghanistan and Iraq may be recruitment tools for radical Muslims. We shall see, I suppose. My opinion on the recruitment device is not as solidified as my opinion on the battles. However, I believe radical Muslims have been radicalized by fundamentalist Islamic clerics several decades before 9/11. Successive administrations from Jimmy Carter on . . . , chose to believe or pretend that we were insulated from the Islamo-fascist terrorists; 9/11 changed the equation radically. Thus, to suggest W. is somehow responsible for the radicalization of Muslims is wrong, IMHO.
Rummie had a good idea to transform the military in peacetime; his notions of war and his intransigence toward battlefield realities made him one of the worst SecDef’s in history, ranking with Larry Johnson, Bob McNamara, and Harold Brown.
I share your views of the conduct of the Battle for Iraq; one word comes to mind – incompetent. Tom illuminates the array of incompetencies in “Fiasco.” The principles of war have been proven time and again, and yet Rummie brow-beat the generals into violating more than a few of those principles of war. I understand, appreciate and recognize your girlfriend’s opinion on the Battle for Iraq. I am certain many of our enemies believe the same way. And yet, I think she underestimates the American People. History shall tell the tale.

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

03 September 2007

Update no.299

Update from the Heartland
No.299
27.8.07 – 2.9.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Happy Labor Day . . . to our American subscribers.

The follow-up news items:
-- The White House announced the resignation of U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, effective mid-September. I am truly surprised it took this long. [268 & subsequent]
-- White House Press Secretary Robert Anthony "Tony" Snow, 52, also announced his resignation. [158, 252, 277] President Bush picked Snow's deputy, Dana Marie Perino, 35, to replace Snow when he leaves in two week.
-- Michael Vick stood before a federal judge and pled guilty. His attempt at contrition left me disappointed, but hey, at least he made that attempt, which is more than many criminals do. [298]

United States Senator Larry Edwin Craig of Idaho finds himself in deep kimchi, and his lame protestations made the sordid episode all the more disgusting. Presidential candidate and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee summarized it best . . . “The American people will forgive us for being sinners. They will not forgive us for being hypocrites.” When will they ever learn? 'Nuf said. Craig resigned his Senate seat on Saturday.

Then, all in the same week, we add the announcement by Senator John William Warner of Virginia that the influential, senior senator was not going to seek reelection. The complications for Republican Party's prospects in next year's election continue to multiply, seemingly exponentially.

I have collected various, recent, journalistic assessments of the war. First:
"Who Lost Iraq?"
by James Dobbins
Washington Post
Published: August 23, 2007
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W7RH02ABA81ED059C0E3936D4A34A0
The second was an on-line interview with Tom Ricks -- Washington Post journalist and author of "Fiasco:"
"The War Over the War"
by Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post
Tuesday, August 21, 2007; 12:00 PM
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W7RH02B582035059C0E3936DF543A0
The third comes from New York Times Op-Ed columnist Tom Friedman:
"The Kurdish Secret"
by Thomas L. Friedman
Op-Ed Columnist
New York Times
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/opinion/02friedmancolumn.html?th&emc=th
We have heard quite a bit from American politicians, journalists and generals. Here is a different perspective:
"Army chief predicts a 'generation of conflict'"
by Michael Evans
The Times (of London)
August 28, 2007
http://timesonline-emails.co.uk/go.asp?/bTNL001/mKBQE24/q2BZ524/uNSC46/xD5BBR
Chief of the General Staff Sir Francis Richard Dannatt, KCB, CBE, MC, offered his views of the War on Islamic Fascism. As reported by Evans, the general observed, “The threats and challenges to our society are . . . global and have sympathisers in many societies and countries, including at home" -- true for the United Kingdom, true for the United States. Dannatt went on to say, “The challenge of this generation is as great as any that have gone before us in the last century. It is a battle of ideas, and the battleground will be unpredictable. We need to be prepared for a very wide range of tasks, from warfighting . . . operations to low-level combat within a complex environment, whilst critically maintaining the support of the population, the consent of the nation and maintaining our own values and reputation” – sober words from an accomplished professional. I must say, spot on, general.

Congress simply loves to propose and enact laws that play to the emotions of the citizenry as pabulum for the masses of ill-informed and un-thinking citizens who elect them. Far too many of these feel-good bills flow forth from Capitol Hill, and yet every once in a while, one of these specimens triggers my ire, again. The latest example comes to us from Representative Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado -- the Child Pornography Elimination Act of 2007 (H.R.3148). The bill stiffens criminal penalties for anyone in possession of pornographic material involving children, and goes after, i.e., criminalizes, electronic service providers who “knowingly” or “negligently” transmit child pornography. Sounds fantastic and appropriate . . . doesn’t it? After all, we cannot condone the exploitation or abuse of children for any reason, especially sexual. The problem for lawmakers like Musgrave rests in the very nature and essence of the Internet – freedom – freedom for good and unfortunately also for bad. Laws like this one are comparable to using a howitzer or a nuclear device to kill a bothersome gnat – far more collateral damage than intended consequence. For those who do not use the Internet or do not understand the World Wide Web, intrusions, restrictions and prohibitions are not a problem; after all, the law sounds good and does not affect them. Laws like these treat the symptoms rather than the root cause. In my humble opinion, the root cause in some, perhaps many but not all, cases has been and remains negligent and/or complicit parents or guardians. I say not all because I suspect some of these materials are generated by children themselves using modern technology, but parents/guardians still bear some culpability. This bill is wrong despite its good intentions. We can only hope it dies a quite death by benign neglect in the House Judiciary Committee.

A recent Kansas court case flashed into national prominence by its relevance to the boiling immigration policy question. Nicholas L. Martinez, an illegal alien, pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine and endangering a child. [Martinez had been charged with the sale of cocaine, possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, endangering a child, theft, and unlawful possession of an identification card.] The issue before the Kansas Court of Appeals – Kansas v. Martinez [KS CA no. 96,613] – hinged upon Martinez’s contention he was denied Due Process because of his immigration status. The court found in his favor. The essence of the laws cited by the Kansas court focuses upon the lack of state immigration law and the fact that immigration law is a Federal jurisdiction. From my lay perspective, the Kansas appeals court interpreted the law properly and wisely. This case represents our far greater vulnerability regarding simple illegal immigration as well as the far more sinister War on Islamic Fascism. Our judicial system presumes individuals are innocent and law-abiding, and exerts extraordinary due process to ensure that the rights of every citizen, indeed every individual regardless of status, receives equal and fair treatment given a violation. The Martinez ruling cites the U.S. Supreme Court decision Mapp v. Ohio [367 U.S. 643 (1961)]:
"Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence. As Mr. Justice Brandeis, dissenting, said in Olmstead v. United States [277 U.S. 438 (1928)]: 'Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. . . . If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law into himself; it invites anarchy.'"
As much as we may be offended by the Martinez ruling, it is the law. This case can now join others that demonstrate the failure of the Federal government to perform its constitutionally required duty. The Nation teeters on the verge of anarchy. The Executive has failed to enforce existing law, and Congress has failed to amend and reform federal immigration law to account for today’s conditions. Illegal aliens, terrorists, and Islamofascists learn quickly how to use our laws against us; and, we have only ourselves to blame; we elect these buffoons who are far more interested in self-aggrandizement and reelection than they are in performing their constitutional duties. I wonder if we will learn before it is too late . . . if it is not already too late.

Beyond Larry Craig's hypocrisy and lame denials, I suspect his claim of entrapment may very well hold validity, but his guilty plea to disorderly conduct negated the legal basis for all that aspect of the debate. According to Laura M. MacDonald ["America’s Toe-Tapping Menace;" New York Times, published: 2.September.2007], homosexual men utilize a proven, discreet and delicately choreographed code to find like minded men in public places, to avoid being beaten to death by an irate, straight, macho-male. Thus, and most likely, Craig received signals that led him to pursue the connection. These public restroom events represent a sad statement on the condition of our society, that some otherwise productive citizens are driven to seek sexual gratification in such risky ways. Some talking heads question the double standard in comparing David Vitter [292] and Larry Craig, or even Bill Clinton. The difference lays with Craig’s guilty plea in his effort to avoid judicial and public scrutiny; he was embarrassed by his actions. Lastly, others have hypothesize that the Minneapolis Police were on a homophobic witch hunt. I have a hard time absorbing that argument. The police have far more serious law-breakers to pursue without targeting homosexual men. I suspect the airport police station received a few too many complaints from citizens offended by overt or aggressive homosexual advances. As my words imply, I have mixed opinions regarding this kerfuffle. I advocate for and seek a more enlightened and tolerant society, less schizophrenic about sex, and I encourage every citizen who breaks the law to stand up and be accountable for their actions. If the law is wrong, work to change the law. To vilify homosexual citizens is wrong. However, society has an obligation to define fair, equal and acceptable conduct and behavior within the public domain.

As fate would have it, another interesting article came along to keep the topic of legalization of drugs [298] simmering on the stove. This week’s addition to the debate is:
“Canada's Shooting Gallery”
by Mary Anastasia O'Grady
Wall Street Journal
August 27, 2007; Page A10
http://www.wsj.com/wsjgate?source=jopinaowsj&URI=/article/0,,SB118816976955209258,00.html%3Fmod%3Dopinion%26ojcontent%3Dotep
Mary tells the sad story of Canada’s free syringe program (InSite) intended to give drug addicts some protection from communicable diseases like HIV and Hepatitis-C. While the public health objective is laudable to an extent, the program accentuates the failure of the controlled substances prohibition process – and, says as much in the article. Mary observes, “Even the most pro-legalization libertarians would have to agree that a government that engages in drugging the citizenry is pretty far removed from the classic definition of the modern liberal state.” In some respects, I do agree. The notion of the State contributing to the self-destruction of a human being is hardly an enlightened condition. However, what is missing at this level of discourse seems to be a citizen’s individual and private freedom of choice. If the State was administering the drugs with the intention of neutralizing or destroying a person, the observation might have validity. Certainly, making free needle exchange the cornerstone of a more empathetic drug policy is like a teaspoon of water on a raging conflagration, it seems to me. The consummate and collateral effects are only marginally better than prohibition and criminalization. There are most likely a myriad of reasons individuals seek the oblivion of psychotropic substances, and yet it appears the rendered essence must be dissatisfaction with their lot in life and the concomitant desire to ‘zone out.’ Mary concludes, “Something is also very wrong when society officially winks at its own prohibition laws. Indeed, InSite demonstrates that encouraging drug use through the welfare state while at the same time attempting prohibition is not just illogical. It also produces the worst of all worlds.” While the Canadians have made an attempt, however futile, to lessen the risk associated with injectable drugs, they have hardly gone the distance. My suggestion: give them what they seek and help them along their way; namely, the State should provide shelter, sustenance as they desire, and free access to their substance(s) of choice in high-quality, defined dosage, pharmaceutical-grade drugs along with their associated application means. This sounds silly, I know. However, I ask you to seriously think about it. By taking this step, we eliminate the illegal, smuggling, drug trade; we localize those individuals so inclined such that they can be monitored and more importantly, removed from interfering with productive society; and, we allow them the free exercise of their liberty, i.e., when they decide they have had enough, they can seek appropriate treatment and extrication . . . or termination of their miserable lives as they may wish. The point of such a harsh approach is recognition of every individual citizen’s constitutional freedom of choice without indirectly sustaining the current criminal subculture. These wayward individuals could be cared for properly rather than criminalizing their conduct, and perpetuating the cycle of violence and destruction. The bottom-line reality remains, that those prone to addictive behavior will never seek or fulfill treatment until they convince themselves they want to change. No one can cure them, no matter how hard we try; only they can cure themselves. Until that time, we should eliminate the criminal element and ease the burden on society of those so inclined. Our vast counter-narcotrafficking dollars would be spent in a far more efficient manner.

Comments and contributions from Update no.298:
"What is your take [on the Gonzales resignation], Cap? Presidents before (thru their Attorney Generals) have fired as many as ALL the federal prosecutors. They serve at the pleasure of the Pres. But somehow this time, with these firings, it was different. And then the hard core push Really came on. Was Mr G even remotely qualified to begin with? Was he just a yes man for GW? Etc, etc, etc."
My reply:
My take . . . this should have happened at least six months ago, more like nine months ago when the U.S. attorney firing fiasco became public. Yes, you are quite right; U.S. attorneys are appointees and serve at the pleasure of the President. Thus, each of the U.S. attorneys is subject to dismissal at any time for no other reason than the President’s displeasure. However, just because such dismissals are legal does not justify the inept handling of the process by Gonzales and his lieutenants. Like it or not, regardless of the process by which they attain the office, U.S. attorneys are essential officers of the court and directly reflect upon our system of justice. If any U.S. attorney becomes stained by political partisanship, our justice system is seriously diminished. For the Attorney General of the United States of America to testify under oath that he cannot recall critical events in any case is reprehensible, disgusting, and reflective of the partisan politics. IMHO, Alberto Gonzales was far more concerned about loyal to the George W. Bush than to the law. He is not the first, and probably will not be the last.
Was Gonzales qualified to be Attorney General? I cannot pass judgment on his legal prowess; I am neither a lawyer nor a judge. I imagine he is a very nice person and a good friend to the George W. Bush. However, I believe Alberto Gonzales was and is incompetent as the Attorney General of the United States. I recall my impressions of George Mitchell during the Nixon-Watergate fiasco; Gonzales has joined Mitchell in the category revolting performances.
Was Gonzales just a yes-man? My opinion, yes, absolutely. As I said, he apparently was far more interested in loyalty to George W. Bush – the man – rather than being a responsible officer of the law and leader of the Justice Department. That is never good. When the law becomes subservient to political expediency, any democracy becomes fatally corroded. Yet, we survived Richard Nixon and George Mitchell; we shall survive George W. Bush and Alberto Gonzales.

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