Update from the Heartland
No.300
3.9.07 – 9.9.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
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:
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 :-)
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 :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment