Update from the Heartland
No.306
15.10.07 – 21.10.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.306
15.10.07 – 21.10.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Senator Sam Brownback dropped out of the presidential campaign, and I am good with that. His public statement suggests an inability to raise sufficient funds to compete; I guess it is money that decides elections rather than ideas and leadership. Anyway, I could not have voted for dear ol’ Sam . . . way too conservative socially for me. He has indicated he would not seek a third Senate term in 2010, and would run for governor. We shall see.
-- I watched an incredibly interesting and intriguing NOVA program, Tuesday evening, titled: "Ghost in your Genes" -- the story of "epigenetics" as we know it today, or the impact of environmental influences on the genetic code that defines us, and as we are learning, affects future generations. Beyond the human genome and our ability to manipulate the proteins, the “other factors” like epigenetics broadens the arena and amplifies the importance of embryonic stem cell research.
-- The Turkish Parliament approved use force against PKK rebels (ethnic Kurds) crossing the border with Iraq and causing trouble in Turkey. This escalation of tensions in a sensitive region is not helpful to anyone, and yet, it reflects the mounting frustration of the Turks to defend their security. Then, we have the absolutely silly resolution in the House of Representatives condemning the genocide of Armenians in 1915. House Resolution 106 [H.Res 106], offered by Representative Adam Schiff of California, was approved by the Foreign Affairs Committee by a vote of 27 to 21. This resolution must be rejected.
-- Thursday evening (18.10.07) in Karachi, Pakistan, assassins made an attempt on the life of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who had just returned to the country. The suicide bombing attack killed at least 136 innocent people, wounded 380+, and is believed to be the work of an al-Qaeda linked cell opposed to the moderate leader.
-- The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security of the House Judiciary Committee voted 13 to 2 to approve H.R. 3321 (9/10/2007) to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. The bill, in its present form, amends the procedures of the FISA court administration in an effort to improve Judicial and Legislative oversight of Executive surveillance efforts. It also provides legal immunity for actions taken in support of the government's intelligence surveillance program since 9/11. H.R. 3321 does not go far enough to enable, support and improve American domestic and international, electronic surveillance, intelligence programs, but it is better than the current law.
Quite a ta-do was made in the Press regarding the visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin to the Islamic Republic of Iran. What with public announcements that suicide bombers were targeting Voldya, the atmosphere of tension and intrigue made the visit all the more attractive to the Press. Add in the chummy photographs and video clips of Voldya and our good buddy Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and we have quite a little picture of an undaunted Russian president reaching out to the oppressed and beleaguered Iranians. Then, as if that was not enough, ol’ Voldya toss a threat out of the public table that Iran must not be attacked – a not-so-veiled slap at the United States, United Kingdom, France and other EU nations. Nonetheless, I have no problem whatsoever giving W’s good buddy Voldya full and unqualified credit for averting a war, if he can convince the mad mullahs of the Islamic Republic of Iran to cease and desist their enrichment programs and operations. I am more than happy to provide nuclear fuel for Iran or any other country to use in bona fide electric power generation plants. But, this ludicrous subterfuge espoused by Iamdinnajacket and his cronies that their enrichment program is for peaceful purposes cannot be tolerated; we are past the threshold in my opinion. The only way Iran’s enrichment program is for peaceful purposes, is if you consider the annihilation of Israel as a peaceful endeavor. I am not so naïve to think that is Putin’s purpose; I see more nefarious objectives, but I truly hope I am wrong. Amid the Putin-Ahmadinejad love-fest, the President publicly suggested that the lack of progress in stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons program risked World War III; such loose generalities are unproductive, simplistic, foolish, and otherwise inflammatory. He could go much farther down the road of convincing the American people and the World community of the serious threat of Iran’s nuclear weapons program by providing evidence, and stating the facts, like John Kennedy did in the Cuban Missile Crisis, or Franklin Roosevelt did in the early years of the war (his rhetoric was masterful). And, oh by the way, I believe we have been in World War III since 11.September.2001 (since we don’t have a clear marker event prior to 9/11), but hey, that’s just me, and I could be wrong.
I am truly proud of the continuing efforts by the United States armed forces to minimize wartime casualties and collateral damage especially to innocent civilians. However, attempts to make nice with our enemies and civilize warfare are wrong; they just get good men killed or injury. War is hell! Always has been; always will be; get over it.
An Open Letter to my congressional representatives:
Senators Pat Roberts, Sam Brownback, and Representative Todd Tiahrt:
While the law does not yet recognize citizens with other than heterosexual orientation as a protected class, a group of productive, law-abiding, American citizens endure isolation, discrimination and hate crimes simply because of their perceived sexual orientation or gender-identity. Non-heterosexual citizens do not enjoy “equal protection under the law,” as guaranteed every citizen by the Constitution. I laud and support the initiative by Congress to improve employment law with the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007; however, I am dismayed by subtle nuance in the language of the two versions before the House [H.R. 2015 and H.R. 3685]. The exclusion of gender-identity from the H.R. 3685 version purposefully neglects a segment of our society, and in clear conscience, should be viewed as unacceptable. Thus, I strongly urge you to vote for H.R. 2015 and reject H.R. 3685. Let us ensure all citizens of the United States receive the same respect, dignity, and protection of the law.
Respectfully,
Cap Parlier
The Wichita Eagle reported on a initiative by Senator Sam Brownback in a desperate attempt to garner supporters from beyond his immediate sphere.
“Brownback advocates an apology for slavery”
by Eagle news services
Wichita Eagle
published Tuesday, 16.October.2007
Given the House Armenian foolishness noted above, I had to write to the newspaper.
Reader Views,
I realize and acknowledge that Senator Sam Brownback is trying to keep a foundering campaign alive, but this lame excuse to garner votes only accentuates the absurdity of his prospects, and the foolish and destructive resolution in the House of Representatives condemning the massacre of Armenians in Turkey 90 years ago. Are we to apologize for every senseless inhumanity of past generations -- the massacre the rebellious slaves led by Spartacus, or the religious rabidity that executed Joan of Arc, or our ancestors who killed women they thought to be witches? While these feel-good actions like Brownback's slavery apology or the House's Ottoman Turk condemnation appeal to our humanity, not one of us in any of the generations alive in any country killed those Armenians or enslaved American citizens with dark skin pigmentation. Please, let's grow up and look forward to what we can do to improve the world we live in rather than shed tears for the mistakes of our collective past. And, Sam Brownback needs to recognize reality and forget about foolish gestures in a desperate attempt to save a dying campaign.
Respectfully,
Cap Parlier
Postscript: as noted above, Sam Brownback did indeed abandon his presidential campaign. Now, we can only hope he also abandons this silly slavery apology resolution as well.
With so many genuine heroes of my parent's generation passing, recognition becomes a challenge. Then, along comes one of those rare cases. I note with honor and enormous respect the passing of an incredible French patriot. The Saturday Telegraph published on obituary for Countess Andrée de Jongh, 90. Known as "Dédée" to those who survived by her work, Andrée began her efforts for the French resistance in May 1940, when the Germans advanced into Belgium. The German blitzkrieg left numerous soldiers and airmen stranded behind enemy lines. Andrée knew what had to be done. She organized and operated an underground railroad, to put it in American terms, called Le Réseau Comète -- the Comet Line, so called because of the speed at which it operated. The Comet Line funneled downed airmen via numerous routes and always ended at the same house in the French-Basque village of Urrugne, known as the "last house." Andrée saved hundreds of airmen and soldiers before she was betrayed in early 1943. She survived her Gestapo interrogation and two long years in the Mauthausen and Ravensbruck concentration camps. King George VI awarded her the George Medal – Britain’s highest award for civilian bravery – a genuine hero. May God bless her immortal soul.
Comments and contributions from Update no.305:
A long-term friend, fellow Marine and contributor stopped to make a visit.
"The Marine Corps Museum [in Quantico, Virginia] appeared to be fairly small, though it is an impressive and stylistic structure. I thought I would only be there about an hour or so. I was there for three hours, but could easily have spent more but I needed to get back on the road. You know how I feel about Iwo Jima, which is how all Marines feel about Iwo Jima. There was a wall with Marine pins, and the Navy pins of our corpsman brethren, representing all who lost their life on Iwo Jima. Tears stream down my face and drip onto the desk in front of me as I type and strain to contemplate the cost of taking that island. There were over 6800 pins on that wall. But rather than try to describe to you the exhibits I saw, other than to say all exhibits were done extremely well, I will tell you more about how I felt. Tears welled up in my eyes many, many times as I meandered throughout the museum. I saw several glassy-eyed men, ages ranging from much younger than my 55 years to some much older. And I knew they all felt what we feel, for we are 'The Few, The Proud, The Marines.'"
My simple reply:
No comment necessary. Heck, tears came to me just reading your words.
Another contribution:
"Americans will have plenty of time when the war is over to second- guess ourselves over how we conducted the war. But first, WE MUST WIN! If we lose, the civilized world ends as we know it. I was pleased to see that even Speaker Pelosi answered 'Yes, of course' when asked by Chris Wallace if she wanted us to win. To ease the burden of her answer to her party, she added a few 'buts' that were weak at best. Her brethren should take a cue from her and stand up and say the same. Hard to imagine anybody in the free world supporting the naysayers of the war given what they have to lose if we lose, yet too many do. One of my leftist friends explained it as a visceral hatred for President Bush and all he represents along with Republicans. She said that hatred overrides everything else. I asked, 'Does it override losing the war on terror?' She did not answer. We've heard that 'Hollywood' response too often lately.
"The bottom line - if terror wins, we lose our freedom and millions lose their lives. So, I say let your hatred for the opposing party not guide your good sense about the future. And, that goes for both parties. In effect, to aid and abet the enemy during a time of war, such as is being done in the case of el-Masri, could be our undoing unless we come to our senses. Only this week we learned about having to wait 10 hours before tapping communications in Iraq to find a captured soldier from New York. That delay because of checking with lawyers may have cost him his life and has no defense by our civilian and military leaders. It will be one of the dark decisions to remember of how we waged this war. LGEN Sanchez had the courageous opportunity to make a statement while he wore the uniform. To do so after he takes it off is not the type of courage I admire from him or any other military leader. A leader should be promoted for what he or she is 'going to do,' more than for 'what was done in the past' in my book.
"I wonder how many diplomats and famous types want to visit Iraq without the Blackwater protection?"
My response:
In no small measure, the naysayers either do not believe we are or should be at war, or they do not feel the threat. And, the President has been largely ineffective in communicating the threat, and grossly ineffective in coalescing the necessary unifying political partnership to wage war successfully. If W. was not so bloody inarticulate, he might have had a chance, but how does anyone take seriously a leader who cannot speak properly in public?
Flag rank officers have a unique position in our society. Some feeling that societal responsibility; some do not. We need hard as nails military leaders like Al Gray, George Patton, Chesty Puller, and such, but more importantly we need thinkers and big picture military leaders like Dwight Eisenhower, Jim Mattis, et al. And, y’re spot on . . . performance not plans.
. . . round two:
"Well said about W's less than skilled communicating abilities. I prefer a good decision-maker above all, but a good decision becomes lousy if you can't convince anyone other than yourself to do it."
. . . my response to round two:
John F. Kennedy said of Winston Churchill, "He mobilized the English language and sent it into battle." In the summer of 1940, the British had little else beyond Winston’s words of encouragement, a mere handful of fighter pilots, and the Royal Navy. The President’s primary task above all else in Article II is national security; and, while he does not bear arms himself, his task becomes mobilizing the Nation in times of war. W. has failed in his primary task. I laud his decisiveness as well as his decision to take the fight to Afghanistan and Iraq, and I still do; but, I condemn his performance in execution of those decisions. You summarized it perfectly.
. . . the last word:
"Agreed. W does not seem to have to presence or skill to rally the populace to save themselves."
Another contribution:
"Regarding the Blackwater situation, the incident on September 16 at Nisoor Square in which over 20 Iraqis were killed was grossly excessive over-reaction. Evidence and witnesses from U.S. Army and Iraqi (notably Kurd witnesses) have shown that the Blackwater people were not fired on--at all-- and they continued to fire at vehicles GOING AWAY from them. Virtually all the damaged vehicles had holes in the rear windows. Their story about being attacked is false and more and more holes are being poked in the original Blackwater story. Perhaps the driver of one car panicked and didn't stop, but after he was killed, the Blackwater people continued to indiscriminately fire at fleeing vehicles and people--including from helos. Also, all the shells found in the area were those of Blackwater weapons--no AK-47 shells, which is the weapon used by the insurgents.
"The September 16 was not the first incident of Blackwater problems--in one infamous case, a drunk Blackwater employee killed a bodyguard of a senior Iraqi government. But the Nisoor Square incident was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.
"This is not helping us--the U.S. Army unit stationed in the Nisoor Square area immediately hit the streets and told the inhabitants that they had nothing to do with the incident -- they were really worried that all hell would break loose. For them it was a very tense few days. The military is not happy with Blackwater, as they are complicating the counterinsurgency mission. It is hard to win peoples' hearts and minds when a faction of your side is alienating the populace. In fact, there have been reports of Blackwater guards pulling weapons on U.S. military personnel. Blackwater has earned a bad name with the U.S. military, as they get blamed for the company's bad acts. It likely will be replaced by another security firm."
My reply:
I make no attempt to sanctify or sterilize Blackwater or any of the other contractors. Further, I truly believe, as I have written for many years, the only reason companies like Blackwater exist is because we have been unwilling to raise the Army we need . . . and I continue to curse and condemn Rummie’s words about going to war with the Army you have.
Further, I know the professional military has objected to Blackwater and the other contractors for a host of reasons, and I’m with the professional military. However, given the conditions created by the Executive and Legislative branches, we have a tracks-don’t-meet situation, thus the necessity of Blackwater, et al.
All that aside, we have what we have. For better or worse, we put Blackwater in extraordinarily difficult taskings . . . out-manned, out-gunned, known destinations, and no back-up. I know if I was in the situation, I want to survive and accomplish my mission, and that virtually demands a shoot-first and sort the aftermath later approach. These guys have no choice; they have virtually zero margin for error.
So, I still contend . . . the intersection incident was not pretty and has an ugly smell to it, but that’s the nature of the beast; and, I still believe Blackwater is a necessary albeit vital capability dictated by woefully inadequate forces to do the job.
I have long held the believe that half-measures get good men killed. And, here is yet one more example.
. . . round two:
"I agree absolutely that the Executive and Legislative branches have abdicated their responsibility to adequately man and equip our forces-both military and security. It is a failure that is problematic on several counts and we will be trying to solve this for years. Before we went in, the high reliance on contractors was viewed with concern and sadly, the events have validated those concerns. We really need to review the issue of using private contractors to do tasks normally done by the military. In addition to cost and political issues, we may are treading on legal issues as well.
"Blackwater, unfortunately, has become the face of contractor excesses. It already had a bad rep before the 16 September incident, and that was the last straw. Iraqis officials were refusing to attend meetings where Blackwater was providing security. While the guards might have been justified in shooting at the car whose driver panicked, they went way beyond any self-defense in what followed. As I noted before, they fired at vehicles and people that were fleeing. There has been nothing to show that Blackwater guards were actually fired upon by Iraqis. There might actually have been a fight between two Blackwater groups. Blackwaters' version - actually versions- of facts has not been corroborated and, as a result, their credibility has gone into the toilet. As it looks now, they aren't going to be fired, but they won't recompete for the new contract. That all may change as the Iraqis make further decisions.
"Part of the problem is the contractors' 'security first and last' guidelines. That isn't how the services operate--they are involved in COIN and can't alienate the populace. Below is a paragraph from an article on contractors--Col Hammes is a Marine.
"As far back as 2005, U.S. officers in Iraq such as Col. Hammes were worried that while contractors may have been fulfilling their contract, they were also "making enemies each time they went out." U.S. Army Col. Peter Mansoor, one of the leading experts on counterinsurgency, similarly noted in January 2007, that 'if they push traffic off the roads or if they shoot up a car that looks suspicious, whatever it may be, they may be operating within their contract -- to the detriment of the mission, which is to bring the people over to your side. I would much rather see basically all armed entities in a counter-insurgency operation fall under a military chain of command.'"
. . . my reply to round two:
To be blunt, I am not so concerned about the legal aspects in the middle of a war. I'll probably be crucified for such a statement, but that's it. We would not be having this discussion, if the administration had done what they were supposed to do. War on the cheap is always disastrous.
I do not disagree . . . to use a double negative . . . but, I have far more empathy for what the Blackwater agents must deal with in such extraordinarily difficult circumstances. And, I don't particularly care about fleeing cars . . . war is not a police agent; it is war.
I do not dispute the various condemnations of Blackwater's aggressive tactics, but rather than ostracize Blackwater, we should be admonishing the administration for not providing the proper resources. So, perhaps diplomats should wait until the country is secure, and then there would be no need for diplomatic protection. Hammes & Mansoor are correct, and Blackwater does not contribute to winning a COIN operation -- that is not their mission.
. . . round three:
"Likely that will happen-- but Gates wants this pretty badly--and DoD originally set the rules."
. . . my reply to round three:
If DoD gains control of the contractors, they are brought under military rules of engagement, and given the support they deserve, why have contractors? This all draws back to inadequate resources in the military and DSS to do what must be done. I was against the reactive rules of engagement we suffered under in Vietnam; I remain against reactive rules of engagement in any war including this one. Waiting to be fired upon is an asinine notion conjured up by weak kneed politicians far from harm’s way.
. . . round four:
"That was one of the basic questions at the beginning of this--the large number of contractors, and the lack of control and accountability. To date, the USG can't say how many contractors are being employed in Iraq. Not sure that the ROE are made by politicians in DC--they are military and the front-line people have a strong say, at least that is my understanding. One problem is that we are doing COIN operations in the midst of what is a civil war. Also, its not just the ROE, but the way things are done. While the contractors may be fulfilling their contract, they are adversely affecting the overall mission. One answer is to modify their contracts. You are spot on in that the root cause of the mess is the inadequate resources provided the military, DSS and other security. Unfortunately, due to political considerations, that likely won't really be examined and addressed until the next administration."
. . . my reply to round four:
I stretched things a bit. For the most part, RoE are written by the military. However, where do you think the notion of not going after the NVAF fighter bases came from? The ludicrous notion of reactive engagement comes from the political environment created by the Press and politicians, and translated into the RoE an individual pilot or soldier must try to survive with.
Yes, I agree. The necessary proactive engagement tactics used by Blackwater are definitely counter-productive to the broad COIN and battle objectives, but I'm having a hard time seeing how to make the tracks meet.
1. We need the diplomats and administrators trying to help the Iraqis get some semblance of infrastructure running.
2. Those folks need protection to allow them to accomplish their mission in a hostile, anarchistic environment.
3. The USG has insufficient forces to provide the necessary protection. Hell, from the get-go, the military has had grossly insufficient forces to perform the most basic elements of their mission -- security.
Something has to give. If we impose military RoE on Blackwater, they and their principles will die at a much greater rate than they do already. Our choices are slim to none, it seems to me.
A. Pick up and leave; abandon any hope of achieving some order or stability; and probably sacrifice any credibility in the Islamic world.
B. Staff up to do the job properly and accomplish the mission.
C. Muddle along in our current woefully inadequate manner and pray for some kind of miracle
'B' is so unlikely as to be impossible unless we have another 9/11 event before 'A' is executed. 'A' may well happen given our current political environment. 'C' is the most likely. Very sad and truly tragic, but that's life. W. will not be remember well, it seems.
"That's just my opinion, but I could be wrong."
A contribution from a different subscriber:
"I agree with you about Gen Sanchez. But finding any active duty Generals or Admirals who will stand up to the national command authority.
"One thing about Blackwater. Those men are mostly all experienced combat vets. It is war, as you say. People get hurt. The idea then is first of all to keep from getting hurt yourself. You are no good to anyone dead. So proactive rather than reactive is good in my mind."
My response:
Yeah, I know, but there are generals willing to stand up to an errant administration . . . Greg Neubold for one, and there are others.
Proactive over reactive . . . you betcha. When y’ve got six guys in such situations, you cannot afford to let the bad guys take the first shot.
Yet another contribution:
"I read the rest of the speech and believe that over 50% of it was about how the journalists of the military (those in attendance and by association, all journalists) had rendered great harm to the military, the war, and the country, by lying and not telling the truth about what was going on in Iraq (and other places) and by reporting what was only convenient to the journalists' political agenda.
"He also blames Congress and others for the mess. None of this was reported nor will it be because it is highly critical of reporters and Congress. Only the administration’s failures are reported.
"Here is the whole speech: http://www.militaryreporters.org/sanchez_101207.html"
My response:
I agree, but my ire was not leveled at his comments on the Press. Sanchez failed in his tasking in Iraq, and it was not because of the Press. Sure, he was setup. But, the failure is still his, and his alone.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
The follow-up news items:
-- Senator Sam Brownback dropped out of the presidential campaign, and I am good with that. His public statement suggests an inability to raise sufficient funds to compete; I guess it is money that decides elections rather than ideas and leadership. Anyway, I could not have voted for dear ol’ Sam . . . way too conservative socially for me. He has indicated he would not seek a third Senate term in 2010, and would run for governor. We shall see.
-- I watched an incredibly interesting and intriguing NOVA program, Tuesday evening, titled: "Ghost in your Genes" -- the story of "epigenetics" as we know it today, or the impact of environmental influences on the genetic code that defines us, and as we are learning, affects future generations. Beyond the human genome and our ability to manipulate the proteins, the “other factors” like epigenetics broadens the arena and amplifies the importance of embryonic stem cell research.
-- The Turkish Parliament approved use force against PKK rebels (ethnic Kurds) crossing the border with Iraq and causing trouble in Turkey. This escalation of tensions in a sensitive region is not helpful to anyone, and yet, it reflects the mounting frustration of the Turks to defend their security. Then, we have the absolutely silly resolution in the House of Representatives condemning the genocide of Armenians in 1915. House Resolution 106 [H.Res 106], offered by Representative Adam Schiff of California, was approved by the Foreign Affairs Committee by a vote of 27 to 21. This resolution must be rejected.
-- Thursday evening (18.10.07) in Karachi, Pakistan, assassins made an attempt on the life of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who had just returned to the country. The suicide bombing attack killed at least 136 innocent people, wounded 380+, and is believed to be the work of an al-Qaeda linked cell opposed to the moderate leader.
-- The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security of the House Judiciary Committee voted 13 to 2 to approve H.R. 3321 (9/10/2007) to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. The bill, in its present form, amends the procedures of the FISA court administration in an effort to improve Judicial and Legislative oversight of Executive surveillance efforts. It also provides legal immunity for actions taken in support of the government's intelligence surveillance program since 9/11. H.R. 3321 does not go far enough to enable, support and improve American domestic and international, electronic surveillance, intelligence programs, but it is better than the current law.
Quite a ta-do was made in the Press regarding the visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin to the Islamic Republic of Iran. What with public announcements that suicide bombers were targeting Voldya, the atmosphere of tension and intrigue made the visit all the more attractive to the Press. Add in the chummy photographs and video clips of Voldya and our good buddy Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and we have quite a little picture of an undaunted Russian president reaching out to the oppressed and beleaguered Iranians. Then, as if that was not enough, ol’ Voldya toss a threat out of the public table that Iran must not be attacked – a not-so-veiled slap at the United States, United Kingdom, France and other EU nations. Nonetheless, I have no problem whatsoever giving W’s good buddy Voldya full and unqualified credit for averting a war, if he can convince the mad mullahs of the Islamic Republic of Iran to cease and desist their enrichment programs and operations. I am more than happy to provide nuclear fuel for Iran or any other country to use in bona fide electric power generation plants. But, this ludicrous subterfuge espoused by Iamdinnajacket and his cronies that their enrichment program is for peaceful purposes cannot be tolerated; we are past the threshold in my opinion. The only way Iran’s enrichment program is for peaceful purposes, is if you consider the annihilation of Israel as a peaceful endeavor. I am not so naïve to think that is Putin’s purpose; I see more nefarious objectives, but I truly hope I am wrong. Amid the Putin-Ahmadinejad love-fest, the President publicly suggested that the lack of progress in stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons program risked World War III; such loose generalities are unproductive, simplistic, foolish, and otherwise inflammatory. He could go much farther down the road of convincing the American people and the World community of the serious threat of Iran’s nuclear weapons program by providing evidence, and stating the facts, like John Kennedy did in the Cuban Missile Crisis, or Franklin Roosevelt did in the early years of the war (his rhetoric was masterful). And, oh by the way, I believe we have been in World War III since 11.September.2001 (since we don’t have a clear marker event prior to 9/11), but hey, that’s just me, and I could be wrong.
I am truly proud of the continuing efforts by the United States armed forces to minimize wartime casualties and collateral damage especially to innocent civilians. However, attempts to make nice with our enemies and civilize warfare are wrong; they just get good men killed or injury. War is hell! Always has been; always will be; get over it.
An Open Letter to my congressional representatives:
Senators Pat Roberts, Sam Brownback, and Representative Todd Tiahrt:
While the law does not yet recognize citizens with other than heterosexual orientation as a protected class, a group of productive, law-abiding, American citizens endure isolation, discrimination and hate crimes simply because of their perceived sexual orientation or gender-identity. Non-heterosexual citizens do not enjoy “equal protection under the law,” as guaranteed every citizen by the Constitution. I laud and support the initiative by Congress to improve employment law with the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007; however, I am dismayed by subtle nuance in the language of the two versions before the House [H.R. 2015 and H.R. 3685]. The exclusion of gender-identity from the H.R. 3685 version purposefully neglects a segment of our society, and in clear conscience, should be viewed as unacceptable. Thus, I strongly urge you to vote for H.R. 2015 and reject H.R. 3685. Let us ensure all citizens of the United States receive the same respect, dignity, and protection of the law.
Respectfully,
Cap Parlier
The Wichita Eagle reported on a initiative by Senator Sam Brownback in a desperate attempt to garner supporters from beyond his immediate sphere.
“Brownback advocates an apology for slavery”
by Eagle news services
Wichita Eagle
published Tuesday, 16.October.2007
Given the House Armenian foolishness noted above, I had to write to the newspaper.
Reader Views,
I realize and acknowledge that Senator Sam Brownback is trying to keep a foundering campaign alive, but this lame excuse to garner votes only accentuates the absurdity of his prospects, and the foolish and destructive resolution in the House of Representatives condemning the massacre of Armenians in Turkey 90 years ago. Are we to apologize for every senseless inhumanity of past generations -- the massacre the rebellious slaves led by Spartacus, or the religious rabidity that executed Joan of Arc, or our ancestors who killed women they thought to be witches? While these feel-good actions like Brownback's slavery apology or the House's Ottoman Turk condemnation appeal to our humanity, not one of us in any of the generations alive in any country killed those Armenians or enslaved American citizens with dark skin pigmentation. Please, let's grow up and look forward to what we can do to improve the world we live in rather than shed tears for the mistakes of our collective past. And, Sam Brownback needs to recognize reality and forget about foolish gestures in a desperate attempt to save a dying campaign.
Respectfully,
Cap Parlier
Postscript: as noted above, Sam Brownback did indeed abandon his presidential campaign. Now, we can only hope he also abandons this silly slavery apology resolution as well.
With so many genuine heroes of my parent's generation passing, recognition becomes a challenge. Then, along comes one of those rare cases. I note with honor and enormous respect the passing of an incredible French patriot. The Saturday Telegraph published on obituary for Countess Andrée de Jongh, 90. Known as "Dédée" to those who survived by her work, Andrée began her efforts for the French resistance in May 1940, when the Germans advanced into Belgium. The German blitzkrieg left numerous soldiers and airmen stranded behind enemy lines. Andrée knew what had to be done. She organized and operated an underground railroad, to put it in American terms, called Le Réseau Comète -- the Comet Line, so called because of the speed at which it operated. The Comet Line funneled downed airmen via numerous routes and always ended at the same house in the French-Basque village of Urrugne, known as the "last house." Andrée saved hundreds of airmen and soldiers before she was betrayed in early 1943. She survived her Gestapo interrogation and two long years in the Mauthausen and Ravensbruck concentration camps. King George VI awarded her the George Medal – Britain’s highest award for civilian bravery – a genuine hero. May God bless her immortal soul.
Comments and contributions from Update no.305:
A long-term friend, fellow Marine and contributor stopped to make a visit.
"The Marine Corps Museum [in Quantico, Virginia] appeared to be fairly small, though it is an impressive and stylistic structure. I thought I would only be there about an hour or so. I was there for three hours, but could easily have spent more but I needed to get back on the road. You know how I feel about Iwo Jima, which is how all Marines feel about Iwo Jima. There was a wall with Marine pins, and the Navy pins of our corpsman brethren, representing all who lost their life on Iwo Jima. Tears stream down my face and drip onto the desk in front of me as I type and strain to contemplate the cost of taking that island. There were over 6800 pins on that wall. But rather than try to describe to you the exhibits I saw, other than to say all exhibits were done extremely well, I will tell you more about how I felt. Tears welled up in my eyes many, many times as I meandered throughout the museum. I saw several glassy-eyed men, ages ranging from much younger than my 55 years to some much older. And I knew they all felt what we feel, for we are 'The Few, The Proud, The Marines.'"
My simple reply:
No comment necessary. Heck, tears came to me just reading your words.
Another contribution:
"Americans will have plenty of time when the war is over to second- guess ourselves over how we conducted the war. But first, WE MUST WIN! If we lose, the civilized world ends as we know it. I was pleased to see that even Speaker Pelosi answered 'Yes, of course' when asked by Chris Wallace if she wanted us to win. To ease the burden of her answer to her party, she added a few 'buts' that were weak at best. Her brethren should take a cue from her and stand up and say the same. Hard to imagine anybody in the free world supporting the naysayers of the war given what they have to lose if we lose, yet too many do. One of my leftist friends explained it as a visceral hatred for President Bush and all he represents along with Republicans. She said that hatred overrides everything else. I asked, 'Does it override losing the war on terror?' She did not answer. We've heard that 'Hollywood' response too often lately.
"The bottom line - if terror wins, we lose our freedom and millions lose their lives. So, I say let your hatred for the opposing party not guide your good sense about the future. And, that goes for both parties. In effect, to aid and abet the enemy during a time of war, such as is being done in the case of el-Masri, could be our undoing unless we come to our senses. Only this week we learned about having to wait 10 hours before tapping communications in Iraq to find a captured soldier from New York. That delay because of checking with lawyers may have cost him his life and has no defense by our civilian and military leaders. It will be one of the dark decisions to remember of how we waged this war. LGEN Sanchez had the courageous opportunity to make a statement while he wore the uniform. To do so after he takes it off is not the type of courage I admire from him or any other military leader. A leader should be promoted for what he or she is 'going to do,' more than for 'what was done in the past' in my book.
"I wonder how many diplomats and famous types want to visit Iraq without the Blackwater protection?"
My response:
In no small measure, the naysayers either do not believe we are or should be at war, or they do not feel the threat. And, the President has been largely ineffective in communicating the threat, and grossly ineffective in coalescing the necessary unifying political partnership to wage war successfully. If W. was not so bloody inarticulate, he might have had a chance, but how does anyone take seriously a leader who cannot speak properly in public?
Flag rank officers have a unique position in our society. Some feeling that societal responsibility; some do not. We need hard as nails military leaders like Al Gray, George Patton, Chesty Puller, and such, but more importantly we need thinkers and big picture military leaders like Dwight Eisenhower, Jim Mattis, et al. And, y’re spot on . . . performance not plans.
. . . round two:
"Well said about W's less than skilled communicating abilities. I prefer a good decision-maker above all, but a good decision becomes lousy if you can't convince anyone other than yourself to do it."
. . . my response to round two:
John F. Kennedy said of Winston Churchill, "He mobilized the English language and sent it into battle." In the summer of 1940, the British had little else beyond Winston’s words of encouragement, a mere handful of fighter pilots, and the Royal Navy. The President’s primary task above all else in Article II is national security; and, while he does not bear arms himself, his task becomes mobilizing the Nation in times of war. W. has failed in his primary task. I laud his decisiveness as well as his decision to take the fight to Afghanistan and Iraq, and I still do; but, I condemn his performance in execution of those decisions. You summarized it perfectly.
. . . the last word:
"Agreed. W does not seem to have to presence or skill to rally the populace to save themselves."
Another contribution:
"Regarding the Blackwater situation, the incident on September 16 at Nisoor Square in which over 20 Iraqis were killed was grossly excessive over-reaction. Evidence and witnesses from U.S. Army and Iraqi (notably Kurd witnesses) have shown that the Blackwater people were not fired on--at all-- and they continued to fire at vehicles GOING AWAY from them. Virtually all the damaged vehicles had holes in the rear windows. Their story about being attacked is false and more and more holes are being poked in the original Blackwater story. Perhaps the driver of one car panicked and didn't stop, but after he was killed, the Blackwater people continued to indiscriminately fire at fleeing vehicles and people--including from helos. Also, all the shells found in the area were those of Blackwater weapons--no AK-47 shells, which is the weapon used by the insurgents.
"The September 16 was not the first incident of Blackwater problems--in one infamous case, a drunk Blackwater employee killed a bodyguard of a senior Iraqi government. But the Nisoor Square incident was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.
"This is not helping us--the U.S. Army unit stationed in the Nisoor Square area immediately hit the streets and told the inhabitants that they had nothing to do with the incident -- they were really worried that all hell would break loose. For them it was a very tense few days. The military is not happy with Blackwater, as they are complicating the counterinsurgency mission. It is hard to win peoples' hearts and minds when a faction of your side is alienating the populace. In fact, there have been reports of Blackwater guards pulling weapons on U.S. military personnel. Blackwater has earned a bad name with the U.S. military, as they get blamed for the company's bad acts. It likely will be replaced by another security firm."
My reply:
I make no attempt to sanctify or sterilize Blackwater or any of the other contractors. Further, I truly believe, as I have written for many years, the only reason companies like Blackwater exist is because we have been unwilling to raise the Army we need . . . and I continue to curse and condemn Rummie’s words about going to war with the Army you have.
Further, I know the professional military has objected to Blackwater and the other contractors for a host of reasons, and I’m with the professional military. However, given the conditions created by the Executive and Legislative branches, we have a tracks-don’t-meet situation, thus the necessity of Blackwater, et al.
All that aside, we have what we have. For better or worse, we put Blackwater in extraordinarily difficult taskings . . . out-manned, out-gunned, known destinations, and no back-up. I know if I was in the situation, I want to survive and accomplish my mission, and that virtually demands a shoot-first and sort the aftermath later approach. These guys have no choice; they have virtually zero margin for error.
So, I still contend . . . the intersection incident was not pretty and has an ugly smell to it, but that’s the nature of the beast; and, I still believe Blackwater is a necessary albeit vital capability dictated by woefully inadequate forces to do the job.
I have long held the believe that half-measures get good men killed. And, here is yet one more example.
. . . round two:
"I agree absolutely that the Executive and Legislative branches have abdicated their responsibility to adequately man and equip our forces-both military and security. It is a failure that is problematic on several counts and we will be trying to solve this for years. Before we went in, the high reliance on contractors was viewed with concern and sadly, the events have validated those concerns. We really need to review the issue of using private contractors to do tasks normally done by the military. In addition to cost and political issues, we may are treading on legal issues as well.
"Blackwater, unfortunately, has become the face of contractor excesses. It already had a bad rep before the 16 September incident, and that was the last straw. Iraqis officials were refusing to attend meetings where Blackwater was providing security. While the guards might have been justified in shooting at the car whose driver panicked, they went way beyond any self-defense in what followed. As I noted before, they fired at vehicles and people that were fleeing. There has been nothing to show that Blackwater guards were actually fired upon by Iraqis. There might actually have been a fight between two Blackwater groups. Blackwaters' version - actually versions- of facts has not been corroborated and, as a result, their credibility has gone into the toilet. As it looks now, they aren't going to be fired, but they won't recompete for the new contract. That all may change as the Iraqis make further decisions.
"Part of the problem is the contractors' 'security first and last' guidelines. That isn't how the services operate--they are involved in COIN and can't alienate the populace. Below is a paragraph from an article on contractors--Col Hammes is a Marine.
"As far back as 2005, U.S. officers in Iraq such as Col. Hammes were worried that while contractors may have been fulfilling their contract, they were also "making enemies each time they went out." U.S. Army Col. Peter Mansoor, one of the leading experts on counterinsurgency, similarly noted in January 2007, that 'if they push traffic off the roads or if they shoot up a car that looks suspicious, whatever it may be, they may be operating within their contract -- to the detriment of the mission, which is to bring the people over to your side. I would much rather see basically all armed entities in a counter-insurgency operation fall under a military chain of command.'"
. . . my reply to round two:
To be blunt, I am not so concerned about the legal aspects in the middle of a war. I'll probably be crucified for such a statement, but that's it. We would not be having this discussion, if the administration had done what they were supposed to do. War on the cheap is always disastrous.
I do not disagree . . . to use a double negative . . . but, I have far more empathy for what the Blackwater agents must deal with in such extraordinarily difficult circumstances. And, I don't particularly care about fleeing cars . . . war is not a police agent; it is war.
I do not dispute the various condemnations of Blackwater's aggressive tactics, but rather than ostracize Blackwater, we should be admonishing the administration for not providing the proper resources. So, perhaps diplomats should wait until the country is secure, and then there would be no need for diplomatic protection. Hammes & Mansoor are correct, and Blackwater does not contribute to winning a COIN operation -- that is not their mission.
. . . round three:
"Likely that will happen-- but Gates wants this pretty badly--and DoD originally set the rules."
. . . my reply to round three:
If DoD gains control of the contractors, they are brought under military rules of engagement, and given the support they deserve, why have contractors? This all draws back to inadequate resources in the military and DSS to do what must be done. I was against the reactive rules of engagement we suffered under in Vietnam; I remain against reactive rules of engagement in any war including this one. Waiting to be fired upon is an asinine notion conjured up by weak kneed politicians far from harm’s way.
. . . round four:
"That was one of the basic questions at the beginning of this--the large number of contractors, and the lack of control and accountability. To date, the USG can't say how many contractors are being employed in Iraq. Not sure that the ROE are made by politicians in DC--they are military and the front-line people have a strong say, at least that is my understanding. One problem is that we are doing COIN operations in the midst of what is a civil war. Also, its not just the ROE, but the way things are done. While the contractors may be fulfilling their contract, they are adversely affecting the overall mission. One answer is to modify their contracts. You are spot on in that the root cause of the mess is the inadequate resources provided the military, DSS and other security. Unfortunately, due to political considerations, that likely won't really be examined and addressed until the next administration."
. . . my reply to round four:
I stretched things a bit. For the most part, RoE are written by the military. However, where do you think the notion of not going after the NVAF fighter bases came from? The ludicrous notion of reactive engagement comes from the political environment created by the Press and politicians, and translated into the RoE an individual pilot or soldier must try to survive with.
Yes, I agree. The necessary proactive engagement tactics used by Blackwater are definitely counter-productive to the broad COIN and battle objectives, but I'm having a hard time seeing how to make the tracks meet.
1. We need the diplomats and administrators trying to help the Iraqis get some semblance of infrastructure running.
2. Those folks need protection to allow them to accomplish their mission in a hostile, anarchistic environment.
3. The USG has insufficient forces to provide the necessary protection. Hell, from the get-go, the military has had grossly insufficient forces to perform the most basic elements of their mission -- security.
Something has to give. If we impose military RoE on Blackwater, they and their principles will die at a much greater rate than they do already. Our choices are slim to none, it seems to me.
A. Pick up and leave; abandon any hope of achieving some order or stability; and probably sacrifice any credibility in the Islamic world.
B. Staff up to do the job properly and accomplish the mission.
C. Muddle along in our current woefully inadequate manner and pray for some kind of miracle
'B' is so unlikely as to be impossible unless we have another 9/11 event before 'A' is executed. 'A' may well happen given our current political environment. 'C' is the most likely. Very sad and truly tragic, but that's life. W. will not be remember well, it seems.
"That's just my opinion, but I could be wrong."
A contribution from a different subscriber:
"I agree with you about Gen Sanchez. But finding any active duty Generals or Admirals who will stand up to the national command authority.
"One thing about Blackwater. Those men are mostly all experienced combat vets. It is war, as you say. People get hurt. The idea then is first of all to keep from getting hurt yourself. You are no good to anyone dead. So proactive rather than reactive is good in my mind."
My response:
Yeah, I know, but there are generals willing to stand up to an errant administration . . . Greg Neubold for one, and there are others.
Proactive over reactive . . . you betcha. When y’ve got six guys in such situations, you cannot afford to let the bad guys take the first shot.
Yet another contribution:
"I read the rest of the speech and believe that over 50% of it was about how the journalists of the military (those in attendance and by association, all journalists) had rendered great harm to the military, the war, and the country, by lying and not telling the truth about what was going on in Iraq (and other places) and by reporting what was only convenient to the journalists' political agenda.
"He also blames Congress and others for the mess. None of this was reported nor will it be because it is highly critical of reporters and Congress. Only the administration’s failures are reported.
"Here is the whole speech: http://www.militaryreporters.org/sanchez_101207.html"
My response:
I agree, but my ire was not leveled at his comments on the Press. Sanchez failed in his tasking in Iraq, and it was not because of the Press. Sure, he was setup. But, the failure is still his, and his alone.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment