Update from the Heartland
No.301
10.9.07 – 16.9.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
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 :-)
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 :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment