28 April 2008

Update no.333

Update from the Heartland
No.333
21.4.08 – 27.4.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The President has appointed General David Howell Petraeus, USA (USMA 1974) – Commander of the Multi-National Force - Iraq (CMNF-I) [301] – to replace Admiral Fallon, who resigned last month [327], as Commander-in-Chief, Central Command. The interim and acting CinC CentCom was Fallon’s deputy, Lieutenant General Martin Dempsey, USA (USMA 1974), probably ending his career. The President has also appointed Lieutenant General Raymond T. Odierno, USA (USMA 1976), for promotion to replace Petraeus as CMNF-I.
-- The King of Clubs on America's 'deck of cards' most-wanted list of Saddam's cronies, Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri, the vice-chairman of Saddam's Ba'ath Party, has apparently and finally been captured. Hopefully, he shall meet his fate as the other's have.
-- The State of Texas increased the count of children removed from the YFZ Ranch from 416 [332] to 462 -- the additions being underage mothers. Apparently, the state intends to prosecute the lifestyle . . . beyond just the protection of the children. There will be many facets to this case. Was the search of the YFZ Ranch legal and constitutional? The state violated the most fundamental of a citizen's rights -- privacy. Thus, the essence of the argument will boil down to what were the legitimate and proper interests of the State in exceeding the fundamental right to privacy of those families -- therein lies the debate.

Several news sources referred to a paper from the National Defense University regarding the decision-making process involved in the Battle for Iraq.
“Choosing War: The Decision to Invade Iraq and Its Aftermath”
by Joseph J. Collins
Institute for National Strategic Studies; National Defense University
Occasional Paper 5, published: April 2008
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Occasional_Papers/OP5.pdf
Collins provides a different view of the process, but limited in scope and quite shallow in depth. The best impartial assessment of the run-up and early years of the Battle for Iraq remains Thomas E. Ricks’ Fiasco – The American Military Adventure in Iraq (2006). The Collins paper dealt with the mechanics of the Battle for Iraq without addressing the bedrock foundational issues. We are still missing critical insight into the most basic elements.
1. Mobilization of the People for war – Without the broad support of the People, the President has limited warfighting capability. To fight a global war successively, or even a hot regional war, the economic resources of the Nation must be focused on the logistics of the endeavor. Such focus requires sacrifice at multiple levels, e.g., specific metals like aluminum, titanium and some steels could be diverted to defense purposes, making some materials less or not available for commercial production. Rationing might be necessary to ensure remaining non-defense resources are fairly distributed.
2. Coalition wartime government – Special, unique procedures need to be implemented within the Federal and state governments to allow for critical functions while presenting a united front to the enemy. Dissent, debate, and critical review are vital, essential aspects of any democracy; yet, carrying out those processes in public in wartime hurts the national interests of this Grand Republic.
3. Declaration of war – Perhaps, the single most influential missing link in the War on Islamic Fascism remains the President’s failure to seek and the Congress to pass a full and proper declaration of war in accordance with Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, leaving an extraordinary amount of ambiguity. The uncertainty made the President's task as Commander-in-Chief exceptionally more difficult and created a societal environment where the not-so-loyal opposition quite easily placed partisan party politics above defeating a determined enemy of the Nation and killers of innocent American citizens.
4. Preparation of the international community – Every nation needs allies . . . for support, for intelligence, for contributions, for leverage, for resources, and for all the other things needed to wage war successfully. Winston Churchill espoused a united Europe a decade before the conflagration. Franklin Roosevelt articulated the basis of a free, world community before the United States was forcibly drawn into the war. Both men took the long view and described a peaceful future – a societal objective beyond the sacrifice of war.
These are some of the broader foundational, societal elements of wage war successfully that have been missing from our current endeavor. These are the President’s tasks – no one else’s. If the President had been unsuccessful with any of those foundational elements, then the justification for war was not sufficient. We could have allowed the radical, fundamentalist jihadistanis to continue to attack until they accomplished something of sufficient magnitude to coalesce the American People and the international community. Collins focuses on the mechanics and misses the President’s role and consequences.
One last observation stimulated by the Collins paper involved learning. The military has long held an institutional process that constantly strives to learn. They try to learn what worked and what did not work. The National Command Authority encounters a far more difficult, complex and resistive learning process . . . politicians changes, political appointees change with them, and institutional learning is not an inherent function. Collins tickles the need. His last major section is titled, “Improving the National Security Decisionmaking and Execution Systems” – a reasonable attempt. Nonetheless, he fails to address the President’s role and bedrock elements, and yet the Collins paper is worth the effort.

A timely, companion piece for your consideration:
“The War on Terror Is Not a Crime”
by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey
Wall Street Journal
Published: April 25, 2008; Page A15
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120908451409543573.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

A name we most likely will hear again . . . Ben-Ami Kadish, 84, an American citizen, was arrested and charged with four counts of conspiracy. Some have likened Kadish's alleged betrayal of his country to that of Jonathan Pollard [21.11.1985] -- the convicted spy for Israel. Apparently, the FBI was convinced Pollard was not alone; it took them 27 years to find another traitor, or at least one of the them. A traitor is a traitor.

Continuing extended comments from Update no.330:
“I believe possibly, that part of the psychology with the Iranians to call off war with Iraq was the threat of either initial or further use of chemicals by Saddam. I understand Saddam did launch inert rockets/missiles/scuds into Teheran. The sense of danger was extreme as the Iranians were not sure if the next volley might contain chemical weapons into the nation's capital...obviously a potential large loss of life with the Persian populace, something unacceptable for them. Again, I am not certain of this.
“Yes, I agree. I believe PA#103 was very likely an Iranian (Hezbollah?) retaliation, or Libyan blowback. I suppose most experts would support either vector. I use to have a great friend (he has passed on) who was a Clipper B747 captain and by luck, not in charge of PA#103 on that fateful day in history.
“Do you believe that it was primarily our military-residence in Saudi Arabia prior to 9/11? The Taliban seemed to have our support in Afghanistan until they went rogue. Of all the various things I read, it is interesting that al-Qaeda's principal opposition was our having the military presence ‘over-stayed’ in Saudi Arabia, after we ousted Saddam's armies from Kuwait. I guess they did not count on us finding a much better place to park our military in their region--Iraq. It sure has been costly though, but maybe I don't know or understand the strategic implications of not doing something. I do though fear what that ex-CIA author has coined as ‘blowback.’ Sometimes when I get a bit emotional about the campaign, I simplify it when in fact I know intellectually, that the pros and cons, pluses and minuses, of going to war, were/are far more complicated a matrix than most Americans (including myself) can appreciate. But generally I think you and I are on the very same paragraph and page, that if there were requirements strategic imperative and moral intervention to revoke Saddam’s current and future capacity to destabilize the Middle East and thus the globe, the plan was not well articulated; The mission not clearly identified; The program’s success milestones-objectives…not calculated/funded/resourced to the military. As you have said, Rumsfeld in modernizing the forces (Rumsfeld Doctrine), may have mucked things up.
“I did not agree on going to Iraq under just-war-theory. However, there was something about Rumsfeld that I almost admired, I may not have liked his doctrines or reasoning, but it was rather interesting to observe him because I think he truly believed wholeheartedly with what he was tasked to do, and tasking others to do. Interesting if Iraq had gone much differently, how Rumseld would now appear (today, it seems he has disappeared).
“I knew they were resource low and if any problems came up (which they did), their margins were too low to continue the mission. I did not know how much Carter had in that, or if it was more Harold Brown and his subordinates that mis-planned that adventure that was most tragic (for the guys conducting it, to our nation).
“A friend of mine called me last night and was telling me right after Carter met with Hamas, and he then left, Hamas started firing rockets onto Israel.
“While I thought Carter taking an initiative to get something done for some Middle East peace was probably well intentioned, going outside the parameters Bush's team is trying to operate in concert of, was probably why Carter gets into more perceived trouble and thus negates any achievable progress. Almost like a rogue ex-president.
“Wow, that is amazing! How did George W. get so far off from the track record and persona that his father H.W. had while serving? What went wrong?
“I heard the conservative Alexander Haig say on a nationally syndicated radio talk show (Michael Savage Show) about 1.5 years go, that the George W. Bush administration ‘hijacked the conservative party...they have nothing to do with being conservatives.’ That was rather damning, coming from Haig.
“If we could pick one item to give Bush-II a failing grade, which one item? On the economy I am sure we could pick the rising fuel prices, compare what they were when he entered office to today. The other item which is probably much higher on the list would be the Iraq War and how it was conducted, not to mention the trillions of dollars that will have been expended (if not already), with a very fuzzy list of objectives achieved. Those are the obvious. The questions of civil liberties breaches and ignoring international treaties would probably be on some folks list. I don't see leadership skills in Bush-II. I am sure he has them but does not project them, especially in a time when they are most needed. Many people I know who originally supported him on at least the first term (and voted for him), are very angry at him now, are pessimistic about our country's course, and they sense we are operating in a vacuum with no perceivable leadership. Just after 9/11, Bush-II had a period where he peaked in perceived leadership, and much of the globe was united to support America and our course on a war on radical extremists and terrorism. Bush-II had incredible political prestige capital handed to him, like a large bank deposit he did not anticipate. And he fumbled that, and then continued over and over, year by year. I knew it was bad when some of my friends who had been strong republicans, pulled out of their party, and are almost in a state of near-depression not knowing who to vote for in '08. The GOP sizzled out.
“When William Buckley passed away, some said so did the conservatives. That is a rather sad reflection. Speaking of Mr. Buckley, I guess he supported the Iraq War on the war's pretext back in '03. I read he reversed course in the last couple of years and said he felt it has been wrong given what he then (‘now’) knew. We're at the aviation spot of 'PNR' or Point of No-Return. Or are we? Maybe a good leader will still emerge and articulate a solid plan for helping Iraq while reducing our military presence. Gosh, it just gets more complicated pondering that too, like what's next, or what will happen with Iran?”
My reply:
Saddam was a very bad man. The World is a better place without him. I believe he used chemical weapons against the Iranians with devastating results, but I have not yet corroborated my belief.
You have a very lucky friend, and the aviation biz is replete with such stories. Even I have a few similar examples of divine providence. We may never know the true story of Pan Am 103 or TWA 800, but I continue to hold hope.
The U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia and other Islamic (Gulf) nations was one of al-Qaeda’s rationales for attacking the West. However, it is the explicit and implicit support for the dictators like the Shah and Saudi King that remains their primary objection. Al-Qaeda and many of the other jihadi groups seek Taliban-like fundamentalist theocratic governments to ‘purify’ the Islamic countries. Being a hedonistic, immoral, secular, Christian-crusader nation trying to ‘impose’ Western immoral principles – free speech, equality, freedom of religion, tolerance, diversity, et cetera – we are the real targets for the fundamentalists. The military presence is just a convenient excuse.
I’m not familiar with the term ‘blowback’ in this context.
As with most leaders, Rummy had his admirable traits, just as Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson had their good points. However, the consequence of Rummy’s actions shall not reflect well upon his tenure as SecDef.
I do not think Carter’s initiative with Hamas was a good thing – a former U.S. president in direct opposition to his Country and the sitting President. Just as we did not hear about Henry Kissinger’s early contacts with the PRC, I suspect there have been classified contacts with Syria and Iran, and perhaps even Hamas and Hezbollah, but for the United States to publicly acknowledge or recognize any contact with the two terrorist organizations would be like sitting down to negotiate with the Nazis or il Mafioso. During World War II, generally, the opposition (the Republicans) demonstrated how a loyal opposition should conduct themselves publicly. The British wartime unified government is the gold standard for such conduct. They disagreed; they argued; they resisted; they tried to influence; yet, they carried out their opposition in private and presented a unified front to our enemies.
What went wrong with W’s administration? Historians shall be debating the answer for many decades. I have an opinion, but I am only a humble citizen. If I could simplistically summarize my opinion in one word, that descriptor would be arrogance. In W’s case, there are various colors of even that one word. I would agree with Haig based on one fact alone – W vetoed only one bill (HR 810, the stem cell bill, 24.5.05) [241], and even that was for moral reasons, not financial, while Republicans controlled Congress. My one failing pick on the economy . . . his failure to veto all those damnable, obscene, earmarked, spending bills, taking us deeper into debt during wartime. On the war, his failure to gain a full declaration of war and failure to mobilize the Nation for war. On civil liberties, the grotesque misuse of counter-terrorism tools on non-warfighting, vindictive, politically parochial, witch-hunts (the Spitzer debacle, being one).
I did not always agree with Bill Buckley, but I truly admired his intellect, wit and confidence. I still believe Iraq was the correct and proper battleground, but the plan and execution of the Battle for Iraq were disastrously inadequate. So, in the context of hindsight, yes, the Battle for Iraq has been a terrible tragedy, but that was not because the objectives were not proper and noble.

Comments and contributions from Update no.332:
“I do not view an insidious anti-Semite as a good and decent human being. History is replete with careless actions by people like former President Carter and what they brought upon the Jewish people. If either one of us did what he just did with Hamas, we would be charged with high crimes. It would not bother me for his passport to be revoked the next time he does so, and while he is out of the country.”
My response:
Anti-Semite is a strong accusation, but I shall not argue the point. I am not a fan of Jimmy Carter, and shall leave it at that.
. . . round two:
“Perhaps anti-Semitic behavior is a better description, regardless of what he feels in his heart. A number of Jews left his staff recently over similar behavior and it is hard to ignore his repeated slams against Jews and Israel. So, call it whatever you wish, but it is wrong.”
. . . my response to round two:
Carter has caused me to wonder more than a few times. I still give him the benefit of the doubt. I also see his sometimes awkward statements and actions toward the Israeli-Palestinian situation as a bona-fide effort to find compromise. I have not and do not agree with all the actions of the Israeli government, but I do understand the basis. Yet, until both sides want a solution, there will never be peace, much like an addict or alcoholic who refuses to admit he has a problem. As I’ve stated, I am not a fan of Jimmy Carter.
. . . round three:
“I am comfortable with saying Jimmy Carter's behavior over the years fits the profile of an anti-Semite (prejudice against Jews). I quit giving him the benefit of the doubt about a year ago when a number of Jews on his staff quit for good reason. Regardless, you and I agree in principle. And, no matter what we think, he will pay no price for it. Perhaps he will be awarded another peace prize while the war against terror rages on.”

Another contribution:
“Just a note from a former prosecutor (and judge and defense counsel, as well) regarding the 'Liberty City Seven'- the prosecution doesn't appear to have a case. It doesn't matter whether you 'know' somebody committed a crime, you have to be able to prove it with admissible evidence. This is a long ways from another OJ trial.
“Unfortunately, this follows other cases where the Federal government has prematurely trumpeted up the solution of a case and the arrest of would-be perpetrators, only to have the case dissolve before trial or at trial. Perhaps they should have let the would-be perps do more (while being monitored) before making the arrest and going public. They could have obtained more evidence. Sadly, DOJ spokesmen have done that as well to the Brits and other foreign police -- spoken out on a case too soon (usually for political reasons) and thereby blow the case. As noted in the excerpt below, the FBI even was wary about the case.
“From a Miami paper (before the 2nd trial):
“The arrests made for a sensational sound bite - and a temporary diversion for the administration, a moment of seeming victory in the war on terror, a fleeting quiet place in the growing public clamor about illegal wiretaps and the growing disaster in Iraq. But FBI brass was a bit more realistic. They cautioned that the ineffectual group was ‘more aspirational than operational.’ Today that even seems a bit overstated. Forget about America; this was a ragtag group that couldn't wage a ground war on a jar of peppercorns.
“The question at the heart of the farce: Was the group's leader, Narseal ‘Brother Naz’ Batiste, really bent on destroying the Sears Tower in Chicago, or was he simply trying to beat a couple of government informants posing as al-Qaeda operatives out of $50,000?”
My reply:
I suppose there is more than a little commonality between prosecution of crimes and the execution of the War on Islamic Fascism -- reactive versus preemptive action. I do not have access to the details in the Liberty City 7 -- only that which has been in the Press. As a citizen, I am not willing to let them commit their crimes. Like making a joke about explosives at a TSA security screening station, I could care less what their true intentions were; they made threats we cannot afford to allow them to enter the execution phase. Yet, with the demonstrated performance of this administration, the supposition of the unspecified Miami newspaper bears some credence. I still hope these yayhoos get prosecuted and punished for their foolishness.

A different contribution:
“Great calls on the FAA and the population problems. The FAA is probably the worst road block to aviation progress in the world from what I can see.
“Re: population: I wonder when the tree huggers will finally recognize that pressure on the environment is really caused by the rapidly growing world population. Guess it will last out my lifetime and I'm not sure why I really care but I seem to.”
My response:
Not just the tree-huggers but the entire uber-Left who are quite comfortable with redistributing everyone else’s wealth to satisfy their sense of compassion. We confine nomadic tribes who moved for survival, and then we are shamed to give money for food, when they starve. We convince aboriginal folks to put clothes on and embrace Western ways, and then we are condemned for our heartlessness when they die of alcoholism. The confrontation is coming, and we may be feeling the opening volleys as we speak.

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

21 April 2008

Update no.332

Update from the Heartland
No.332
14.3.08 – 20.4.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) failed in his second attempt to convict members of the homegrown jihadi terrorist cell known as the Liberty City 7 [237, 315]. As a reminder, these are the guys who conspired to attack the Sears Tower in Chicago. Those nagging sensations of disbelief similar to the aftermath of the O.J. Simpson criminal trial have returned.
-- Long term subscribers to this humble forum may recall the Maryland Court of Special Appeals ruling in Maouloud Baby vs. State of Maryland [MD CSA 00225/05] [256, 260], centering on the withdrawal of consent in what began as consensual sexual intercourse and reversing the trial court's decision. The state appealed to the Court of Appeals -- the state's highest court -- and the decision came Thursday [State of Maryland vs. Maouloud Baby (MD CA 0014/07)]. The judicial pronouncement sequence hung upon the definition of 'holding' versus 'dictum' – a legal nuance. Regardless, the court vacated the Special Appeals' ruling and remanded the case for retrial. To the rest of us, the court declared that 'no' means 'stop' no matter when given. This case and its appeals join a list of examples of how foolish and antiquated our laws are attempting to regulate sexual conduct, and more importantly, the desperate need for reform.

One lesson from my experience as an aviator . . . any competent pilot can find something to ground an aircraft anytime he wishes not to fly. Not to be an alarmist, aircraft and the operation of aircraft is a continuous exercise in the art of compromise. The design engineers go to extraordinary lengths to balance safety, weight, cost, performance, reliability, maintainability, ease of operation, among a myriad of other factors. Concomitantly, aviation is one of the most regulated industries on the planet. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), as we know it today, grew from the passage of the Air Commerce Act of 1926 [PL 69-254] and the formation of the Aeronautics Branch of the Department of Commerce. As the industry matured, the Branch evolved into a series of agencies including the Bureau of Air Commerce, the Civil Aeronautics Authority, the Civil Aeronautics Administration with its Civil Aeronautics Board, and eventually the FAA. The regulation of design began with the Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR) that became the current Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). The prime charge of the FAA is public safety – from the passengers and crew to citizens on the terra firma. I am reminded . . .
"A ship in port is safe, but that's not what ships are built for."
-- Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper, USN.
I could go on ad nauseum, but the point of this little trip down memory lane leads me back to my first sentence. The current airline maintenance fiasco appears to be consistent with the FAA’s demonstrated performance, using a very heavy hand and a massive club in an excessive action that disregards the welfare of the flying public, the economic viability of airline operations, or the preservation of the delicate balance essential in aircraft design. The FAA appears to be far more worried and driven by their public image than in the safe and efficient operation of our Air Transportation System. The aviation industry needs regulation and impartial supervision. Yet, excessive regulation that ignores the balance of aircraft design and operation will ultimate confine the airplanes to the safety of the ground.

Two weeks ago, Texas state authorities raided the Yearning For Zion Ranch outside El Dorado, Texas – the polygamist compound founded by convicted and imprisoned felon Warren Jeffs [231]. The State removed from their parents and took into custody 416 children from the ranch. The instigating spark was reportedly a couple of telephone calls from a 16-year-old girl, who claimed to have been sexually abused by a 50-year-old man. The State has claimed the polygamist compound is an extended communal family, and one case of abuse is sufficient rationale to remove all children. This case will be evolving over many months and may well end up before the bar of the Supreme Court. In the public debate, I am torn by vastly conflicting views, and my opinion will mostly evolve as facts are brought to public illumination. My opinion of the Jeffs clan has not changed since May 2006 [231]. On one hand, I am a ‘verging-on-violent’ protector of children from all kinds of abuse -- physical, mental and emotional. I believe, as I have written numerous times, that the State has been far too tolerant and lenient of abusive parents as well as the contribution of dysfunctional parents to the creation of criminals. On the other hand, this action appears to be a grotesque over-reaction by the State of Texas, made even worse by a personal bias against those who choose to live in a different manner than some socially acceptable norm. I eagerly await the judge's rationale for signing the warrant that enabled the raid and extrication of 416 children from their families. We still have much to learn from this episode, but my impression so far places this action on a growing list excessive, heavy-handed intrusions by the State.

Wait . . . given the last two items, are we seeing a trend here?

When do people who procreate without bound become accountable for the stress they place upon the society around them? Is it the responsibility of the ‘have’ nations to feed and care for those communities that have out grown their sustenance support structure? If so, where is the threshold of tolerance? I remember the somber, dire predictions of Paul R. Ehrlich in his book – The Population Bomb (1968) – that civil war(s) would erupt before the end of the 20th Century as a direct consequence of over-population of the planet. The underlying premise of Ehrlich’s hypothesis grew from the reality of finite arable land and water resources coupled with an exponentially expanding population. While Ehrlich may have missed the time frame by a few decades, it seems we are beginning to see the early signs of the civil war(s) he predicted. The threshold of tolerance in my query is out there. Eventually, we will have to face the stark reality that unrestrained procreation will only hasten the confrontation, and we shall bear witness to a societal demonstration of Darwin’s Theory – survival of the fittest.

A similar argument, as noted above, can be raised for such topics as border security & immigration reform, universal health care, cost-effective labor & outsourcing, ad infinitum. When you carry these faux-compassionate initiatives to their extreme, we inevitably arrive at the same point – communism . . . in the classic Marxist form.

The Supreme Court affirmed lethal injection, as a means of execution in death penalty cases, that did not violate the 8th Amendment's "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" Clause -- Baze v. Rees [552 U.S. ___ (2008); no. 07–5439]. The ruling offers an exceptional view into the reasoning of the sitting justices as well as a broad review of a controversial societal issue. Chief Justice Roberts rendered the opinion of the Court. Associate Justice Stevens, in his concurring opinion, wrote, "I have relied on my own experience in reaching the conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty represents 'the pointless and needless extinction of life with only marginal contributions to any discernible social or public purposes. A penalty with such negligible returns to the State [is] patently excessive and cruel and unusual punishment violative of the Eighth Amendment.'" An interesting subtle argument here is the contention that mistakes might be made because a licensed anesthesiologist does not administer the drugs, while doctors have chosen not to participate because the activity violates their Hippocratic oath, in their opinion. The objectors attempt to recreate a reverse Catch-22. Stevens went on to conclude, "The conclusion that I have reached with regard to the constitutionality of the death penalty itself makes my decision in this case particularly difficult. It does not, however, justify a refusal to respect precedents that remain a part of our law. This Court has held that the death penalty is constitutional, and has established a framework for evaluating the constitutionality of particular methods of execution. Under those precedents, whether as interpreted by The Chief Justice or Justice Ginsburg, I am persuaded that the evidence adduced by petitioners fails to prove that Kentucky's lethal injection protocol violates the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, I join the Court's judgment." Antonin the Impaler, AKA Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, took Justice Stevens to task with a blistering concurring opinion; he said, "Purer expression cannot be found of the principle of rule by judicial fiat. In the face of Justice Stevens' experience, the experience of all others is, it appears, of little consequence." Consistent visitors to this Update Forum will recognize my rare agreement with The Impaler, yet here is one of those exceptional cases -- spot on, Antonin! The ruling dealt with the adequateness and constitutionality of the Kentucky protocol, not with the death penalty itself, and centered upon the use of sodium thiopental to render the criminal unconscious. When the 8th Amendment was ratified, public decapitation was still a popular form of execution. Public hanging and firing squad executions were commonly in use for a century after ratification. Various forms of administering the court's sentence have been used through phases of our history. And yet, we fret about the painlessness of the perpetrator's final moments when quite often he showed no mercy whatsoever for his victims. As to my opinion, I feel no compassion or urge to molly-coddle a man who has mercilessly killed innocent human beings or inflicted extraordinary pain and suffering during their crime, or a woman who committed high treason against her country, or a serial rapist, or a man who raped and buried alive a 12-year-old girl. Is my wish to extinguish the life of such people retribution? Yes! I make no excuses and offer no mitigation for my opinion regarding those un-human people who hold such contempt for their fellow man and demonstrate their inhumanity. The uber-Left likes to denigrate the use of execution for certain capital crimes, characterizing the opinions of such citizens as barbaric, medieval tantrums of ill-informed and un-intellectual people. I choose to turn the argument . . . what value comes to society in keeping evil men alive? Like so many of the ugly sides of life -- war, crimes, poverty, hunger, disease, abortion -- the death penalty remains a regrettable fact of life. As long as there are vermin masquerading as humans who commit such unspeakable actions of cruelty, I shall advocate for their speedy extermination. And yet, as an eternal optimist, I look forward to the day when everyone can respect the rights, freedoms, and diversity of others, and there is no war, no crime, and no evil people. I am not so naive to think I shall see that day in my lifetime.

Comments and contributions from Update no.330:
"I forgot/failed to make a few points below that I was thinking of and then did not include them:
"** Saddam is also said to have used chemical agents against Iran during their Iran-Iraq War, actually known as The Persian Gulf War. Once again, an unconventional use of weapons by Saddam. Some 100,000+ Persians were reported killed by Saddam's authorization for the use of chemical weapons.
"** I have a really interesting book on the winning of that war by Iraq against Iran. I picked the book up at a used bookstore and it is fascinating about the trench warfare, and how Saddam eventually, but with great difficulty, gained superiority and defeated Iran. We were supplying Iraq though with satellite intel. I wonder whether the initiation of the Iran-Iraq War had anything to do with a strategy outlined to Saddam after the Iranian Hostage Crisis and fall of the Shah.
"** Had the Iran-Iraq War not happened, there would not have been the tanker wars, had those not taken place, The USS Vincennces would not have mistaken the Iran Air Airbus for a possible F-14 coming at them from Iran. If you minus out the Libyan plot, there are many who still profess that Pan Am #103 was downed by Iranian supported actors for retaliation over the shooting down of the Iran Air flight in the Strait of Hormuz. And you might be aware that there was an assassination attempt on the USS Vincennces' captain, here in San Diego. I've read there are far greater numbers of Iranian terrorist cells and/or Hezbollah in America, than al-Qaeda operatives here.
"** Saddam had demonstrated he was an international wildcard not only due to the invasion of Kuwait (even though there have been claims he was given a 'blessing' of no USA involvement to stop him, after his claims of Kuwait's slant oil drilling into Iraqi territory), but probably of more weight when he fired the scuds at both Israel and Saudi Arabia.
"One must wonder how the landscape would be had the Shah and his family stayed in power in Iran, and had Saddam not attacked Iran or Kuwait. It is strange how many geopolitical events of high magnitude were compressed in that couple year period (1979/80) of the Shah's fall, Iranian Hostage Crisis, Saddam's rise to president after a much earlier coup by the Ba'ath Party in Iraq, Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan, and Saddam's launching war on Iran.
"Many people do not like Jimmy Carter (ex nuclear sub lieutenant Carter, although he never got to take one out, he did command diesel subs), he gets bashed daily on talk radio, but we must give this very intelligent and diligent ex-President credit because if we consider the enormity of multiple events in his term, I believe some other presidents would have escalated America into nuclear war. Carter did boldly articulate to the Soviets (I believe a PDD that Brzezinski drafted for Carter) that we would protect our national-strategic interests in the Persian Gulf up to and including the use of nukes if required. I believe they now call that the 'Carter Doctrine' and I think after the Iranian debacle, we stations nuke B-52's at Diego Garcia (was it the Rapid Deployment Force there too?). Many people blame Carter for USA not rescuing the American hostages in Tehran, yet they don't fully understand the complexity of that mission that Delta Forces along with many other military resources help, and although criticized for being too marginal a force-for-rescue, had the helicopter and C-130 not come together in a terrible and fiery ground-taxi accident, there were still possibilities a rescue could have still be achievable (though not likely). But that was a tipping point and had our hostages been extricated militarily from that failed mission, Carter would have been the hero and likely been reelected a 2nd term. Diplomacy that was already in action under Carter, was utilized by an incoming Reagan/Bush brigade for a quick perceived win by their own efforts, thereby adding to a Reagan legacy that he did something Carter could not do (it was much more complicated than that I believe). Not being too political here, I always remember Carter (and Brzezinski) and his legacy for wonderful attempt at achieving peace in the Middle East (and remember that terrible day of Sadat's execution which was another pivotal geopolitical Middle East event), as I always remember Nixon (and Kissinger) for China (and managing Israeli wars without greater escalation), and of course Watergate almost negated any gains."
My reply:
Yes, indeed, there were reports of Saddam using chemical weapons against Iran during their war (‘80-‘88), but I have no unclassified information to confirm that use in a similar manner as we do with the Halabja attack.
Saddam attacked Iran for his reasons regardless of any alleged encouragement or support from the United States or others. Sure, there were collateral consequences to the Iran-Iraq War – the Vincennes (CG-49) shoot down Iran Air Flight 655 (3.7.88) being one. [BTW, the Vincennes incident may have contributed to the PanAm 103 bombing; in our book, Kevin and I point to IranAir 655 as a contributor to the TWA800 incident. We may never know for certain.]
Whether the presence & strength of the Shah might have altered events is simply revisionist conjecture. Yet, it seems the cultures of the region are attracted to strong, dictatorial leaders. One of al-Qaeda’s principal reasons for their assault of the Western democracies and specifically the United States is our support for the region’s dictators – for us, a classic example of the “devil you know.”
I do not look kindly upon the presidency of Jimmy Carter for a myriad of reasons. Jimmy is a good and decent human being with good intentions, but he was a lousy president and suffers from swallowing too much of his own grape Kool-Aid. Operation EAGLE CLAW (the Iranian hostage rescue mission) failed because of Jimmy Carter & Harold Brown. I give him credit for making the attempt, but their meddling in the execution of the operation destined it to failure.
So I am not perceived as mindlessly partisan here, I heap enormous criticism on Richard Nixon & his cronies, whom history may well show had a far more injurious impact on We, the People, than any president in U.S. history . . . although George W. is working ‘mightily hard’ to exceed Nixon’s abuses.

Comments and contributions from Update no.331:
"We're gonna have to part ways on the Olympic Torch thing, Cap. As far as I'm concerned, The Chicoms are reaping what they have sewn. Maybe if they weren't such hard-asses when it comes to religion, or if they didn't use slave labor, or if they didn't threaten to take Taiwan by force of arms, maybe so many people wouldn't be pissed at them. I'm tired of the world kissing the ass of this dictatorship. The Torch run generates a lot of exposure, and if people want to use it to point out the many flaws of Communist China, go for it. Maybe the IOC should have realized that given China's lack of concern for human rights, Beijing may not be the best place to hold the 2008 Olympics. Then again, the IOC decided to get rid of baseball in the next Olympics in a decision where, I believe, some anti-Americanism factored into it. I guess they don't realize how huge baseball is in parts of Asia, Central America, South America and the Caribbean. A-duh! But I bet they keep curling or ballroom dancing."
My response:
If the PRC was trying to sell communism like Hitler tried to sell Nazi-fascism in 1936, I might be a little more sympathetic to the boycott talk. I object to the oppression of Chinese communism as much as any freedom-loving person, but mixing politics and sport diminishes the purity of sport. Sure, given Beijing’s history for atmospheric pollution, I am amazed the IOC selected the city, but that burden belongs to the IOC, no one else. Sure, the IOC has politics in it, and they can certainly choose that which they wish to display. If our athletes choose to compete, then let them compete with the full support of the American People. If the POTUS, as a political leader, chooses not to attend, I’m good with that, but trying to tackle the Torch runners or snuff out the flame, that is plain and simple hooliganism that besmirches the freedom we cherish.
The PRC did not decide on Beijing as the site of the 2008 Games; the IOC did.
The PRC is not the same nation it was in the days Mao Tse Tung’s Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. They have a long way to go for the Chinese people to know true freedom, but they are moving in a better direction.
By using the Games to protest the conduct of the PRC, we taint sport as a neutral medium of exchange like music and art.
As Associate Justice Louis Brandeis so succinctly said (1914), “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.”
Thus, I say, let us not denigrate the Games. Let us take the fullest advantage to use the open door into the PRC before and during the Games to shine a bright light on life within the PRC.

Another contribution:
"If the deciders at the White House, the Justice Department, and the CIA who are responsible for war crimes ever face the equivalent of the Nuremberg trials, or at least an unsparing Congressional investigation, an essential witness against them will be Murat Kurnaz. His book, 'Five Years of My Life: An Innocent Man in Guantánamo' (Palgrave MacMillan), has just been published.
"CBS's 60 Minutes, keeping Edward R. Murrow's legacy alive, provided an introduction to Kurnaz on March 30, with Scott Pelley detailing how, three months after 9/11, this German citizen 'found himself in a [U.S.] prison system that required no evidence and answered to no one'-even though a secret government file eventually revealed 'information from the FBI, German intelligence and even the U.S. military pointing to his innocence.' Even then, he was kept in his cage."
My response:
I saw the 60 Minutes program when originally broadcast. A most unfortunate incident. Do you think there have ever been innocent, non-combatant people incarcerated for long periods of time during wartime? He was in the wrong place at the wrong time. His status was eventually reconciled. His case does not alter my opinion regarding the detaining of battlefield combatants.
. . . a follow-up:
"This is a serious problem in America today- the disconnect between ideology vs. reality. No offense meant here, but your side tends to disregard and downplay patterns of criminality, evidence of atrocities, magnitude of death by glib comments like, must have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. This extends to the white house- a top-down systemic malady. I am sorry my comments seem to mean nothing to you. With your intellect, grasp of knowledge, and usual honesty, but for your ideology you might be leading the cause for impeachment and war crime trials."
. . . my follow-up response:
On the contrary, your comments mean a great deal to me. Most folks who find fault with my opinions simply ignore them and do nothing. You take up the pen in rebuttal, and for that I am immensely grateful.
Yes, perhaps sometimes I flippantly discount wartime death & destruction. Guilty! I have never found compassion for those who operate at the margins of the battlefield or flirt with adventure in violent countries . . . one reason you will not find Mexico or Columbia or Pakistan on my list of countries to visit.
I do not rationalize criminality. I disagree that a crime has been committed. There is a huge difference between the two. Our argument in this context goes back quite a ways, and we always return to the same root questions that never seem to get answered.

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

14 April 2008

Update no.331

Update from the Heartland
No.331
7.4.08 – 13.4.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Grandson Judson James celebrates his first birthday next weekend. I just had to share the creativity and ingenuity of Judson's parents -- Melissa & Tyson. This is the invitation card they produced to recognize the occasion. Needless to say, we are shamelessly proud parents and grandparents. Congratulations, Judson James . . . and many more.
Judson James' bEARTHday Announcement
[Judson James 1st Bday card Mod 3.jpg]

MEDAL OF HONOR
Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael A. Monsoor, USN
On 29.September.2006, as an automatic weapons gunner in Task Unit Ramadi for Naval Special Warfare Task Group Arabian Peninsula, in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Monsoor, 25, made an instantaneous decision to sacrifice his life to save his comrades, when he dove onto a grenade. President Bush honored Mike's parents at a White House ceremony awarding their son the Medal of Honor posthumously. I am reminded of the immortal words of an earlier president.
"I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom."
-- Abraham Lincoln - condolence letter to Mrs. Lydia Bixby, 21.November.1864

Lest we forget the heroism of previous generations, I offer this link to a commemorative video, remembering the warriors of the Battle of Chosin Reservoir.
http://video.yahoo.com/watch?fr=yvmtf&v=33876

There is no doubt in my little pea-brain that the mad mullahs of the Islamic Republic of Iran are stimulating Muqtada al-Sadr [141 & sub] and his Mahdi militia to violence in Iraq. This is how the IRI and other state-sponsors of terrorism work . . . they use surrogates, like al-Sadr and Hezbollah’s Sheik Hassan Nasrallah [240 & sub], to do their bidding -- plausible deniability, just like Nixon & his lackeys. In today's political environment, we are impotent to deal with the root cause, so we shall muddle along reacting to attacks rather than eliminated the principal supporter, trainer, stimulator and sponsor of those who bring violence to the World. Many more precious young men and women, in this newest generation of patriots and probably several more behind them, will give their lives in defense of this Grand Republic, because of our lack of cohesion, focus and political will.

The current fiasco surrounding the Olympic Torch Relay in Greece, England, France and now the United States nauseates me. The Olympic Games are sport -- competition, camaraderie, community. I resented and protested Jimmy Carter's boycott decision of the 1980 Olympic Games. Chancellor Adolf Hitler tired to politicize the 1936 Olympic Games; he failed; the World rose above his petty bravado. Jimmy Carter was not up to the challenge. And, the idiocy of the anti-China protesters in supposedly mature, enlightened, Western democracies is an embarrassing blemish. What a sad statement regarding our ability to keep things in proper perspective. Just like the requirement for separation between church and State, so to there should be, must be, separation between sport and politics. I am all in favor of freedom for Tibet, Taiwan and other oppressed people, but using the Olympic Games for such protest is as wrong as the despicable funeral protests of Fred Phelps and his vermin followers. The Olympic Relay is not about China; it is about the majesty of sport and the athletes who work so hard to compete at the international level.

An interesting bit of intelligence regarding the intentions of our good buddy, Hugo Chavez, and his bellicose bravado toward his neighbor [326]:
“Dangerous Liaison: Is Hugo Chavez Friends with FARC?”
by Jens Glüsing
Der Spiegel
Published: 7.April.2008
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,545910,00.html
The article begins, "A spectacular find may prove what many have long suspected. E-mails and other files found on a FARC laptop in the jungles of Ecuador show that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez may have close relations with the terror group." For those who may not recall, FARC = Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. Does anyone wish to hazard a guess as to FARC's political objectives? And, why would Chavez be aiding a terrorist group trying to overcome the duly elected government of Columbia? A Castro-Guevara wannabe, Chavez is far from done with his political and violent intrigue in the region.

Another article worthy of debate:
“The Three Revolutions”
by Henry A. Kissinger
Washington Post
Monday, April 7, 2008; Page A17
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W0RH01C486511059C0E3935289AE10
Henry wrote, “The long-predicted national debate about national security policy has yet to occur. Essentially tactical issues have overwhelmed the most important challenge a new administration will confront: how to distill a new international order from three simultaneous revolutions occurring around the globe:
(a) the transformation of the traditional state system of Europe;
(b) the radical Islamist challenge to historic notions of sovereignty; and
(c) the drift of the center of gravity of international affairs from the Atlantic to the Pacific and Indian Oceans.”
Henry poses a series of relevant questions to frame the proper public debate. Any opinions?

An alternative view of the Battle for Iraq . . . worthy of your time:
"Iraq and Its Costs"
by Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham
Wall Street Journal
April 7, 2008; Page A13
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120752308688293493.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

The jury at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, by a 9-2 majority, concluded the judicial examination of the death of Diana, Princess of Wales:
“Diana inquest: William and Harry welcome verdict after jury blames paparazzi and Paul”
by Gordon Rayner and Andrew Pierce
The Telegraph [of London]
Last Updated: 2:09am BST; 09/04/2008 [9.April.2008]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/08/ndiana108.xml&DCMP=EMC-new_08042008
As with so many accidents, a string of related events led to Diana's death, yet the precipitating or catalytic action clearly rests with the paparazzi who pursued the limousine that night; they deserve to be charged with involuntary manslaughter and pay their debt to society, and yet, the French judicial inquiry chose to back away from the criminal conduct of the paparazzi.

We received no comments or contributions from Update no.330.

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

07 April 2008

Update no.330

Update from the Heartland
No.330
31.3.08 – 6.4.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
This week’s Update comes a little late. I am in Painesville, Ohio, this week and will probably be here most of next week, working on a component test with a supplier, to solve a field problem and determine a fix – success, just slow going. Please pardon the delay in the distribution of this week’s Update.

The follow-up news items:
-- On Monday, the Supremes declined to review the DC Circuit's ruling in the case of United States v. Rayburn House Office Building [USDC DC no. 06-3105 (2006); no. 06mj00231)] -- a case I commented on last August [295]. I shall not bore you with a rehash, but just to say I am deeply disappointed that we shall not hear from the Supremes. Thus, Representative William Jennings Jefferson of Louisiana AKA ‘Dollar Bill’ Jefferson [233, 240, 258, & sub] will successfully deny some of the FBI's evidence for the government's prosecution in his corruption trial, which I hope is coming soon. Jefferson was re-elected in 2006, despite the corruption charges and will probably be re-elected again this year. I disagreed with the DC Circuit, and now, I disagree with the Supreme Court.
-- Zimbabwean president and dictator Robert Gabriel Mugabe finally failed to rig an election sufficiently to win. [85, 159] He single-handedly destroyed a country, taking a successful, productive nation (formerly Rhodesia) to one of the poorest, most regressive countries on the planet. If he does not face the justice he so despicably deserves, I hope he just disappears into a hole somewhere. I expect Zimbabwe will finally see a better day. Well, not so fast! Before I could publish this week's Update, Mugabe has begun his typical aggressive, oppressive crackdown on the opposition and foreign journalists. He shall not go quietly into the night.
-- We seem to be getting more Libyans into al-Qaeda leadership positions. First, we dealt with Abu Farraj al-Libbi [178], and then Abu Laith al-Libi [321]. Now, the New York Times reports that an obscure, 30-something, militant, Libyan cleric by the name of Abu Yahya al-Libi, is now considered to be a top al-Qaeda strategist. I suppose when Colonel Moammar decided to relinquish his role at a state-sponsor of terrorism, the radical Muslims in that North African country had to find another outlet for their rabid ideology and/or violent nature. To me, the news is simple; we have another target.
-- An English friend, colleague and contributor sent this update regarding the RMS Cutty Sark restoration:
"Cutty Sark: refit for purpose"
Telegraph [of London]
Last Updated: 12:01am BST; 05/04/2008
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/04/05/sm_cuttysark05.xml&page=1
As you will recall, the Cutty Sark was damaged by fire during the early morning hours of 21.May.2007 [285]. We still do not know the fire's root cause and may never know, although I remain suspicious of disgusting vandalism. As noted in the Telegraph article, the curators face the typical challenge between reverence for history and the commercialization of history to sustain the facility.

On 1.February.2008, United States District Court Judge Susan Ritchie Bolton issued her decision in the case of Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association vs. Kempthorne [USDC AZ no. 06-CV-1744-PHX-SRB (2008)], enabling the Fish & Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, to declare 8.6 million (that’s million with an ‘M’) acres of Arizona, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico as critical habitat for the “endangered” Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix Occidentalis Lucida). The laws in question are the Endangered Species Act of 1973 [PL 93-205] and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 [PL 91-190], both signed into law by President Nixon. Susan acknowledged that the law allows for aggressive designation with imprecise criteria to release, i.e., easy in, difficult to remove. More significantly, she observed that the law only provided for two categories of habitat -- occupied and unoccupied; and yet, she saw fit to expand the law to include occupation "likely to occur," which sides with the government and opens the law to interpretation by the Executive Branch as it sees fit – power she believes Congress granted to the Fish & Wildlife Service. Several key elements of this decision reflect upon all of us. A Federal judge did what judges do -- interpreted the law based on her opinion of the legislation’s intent. What is missing from Susan's reasoning is the essence of the Ninth Amendment -- Congress did not provide for "likely to occur," therefore that subtlety should remain with the People. Laws and judicial pronouncements like the subject documents do not affect the vast majority of us directly, yet, I urge you to see beyond the obvious to realize the implications of such broad judicial interpretations. For the record, I am an advocate for endangered species like the Mexican Spotted Owl. Like most of us, I marvel at the majesty of seeing wild creatures in its native habitat, and I want the Mexican Spotted Owl to survive and thrive. However, like virtually every confrontation or conflict, the key to stability rests in finding balance. Radical environmentalists would make the entire planet an 'occupied' habitat, while raging capitalists would claim these little critters are not important to human progress. Let it suffice to say, Susan Bolton's sanction of the Federal government's wielding of a powerful bludgeon throws western states seriously out of balance. I hope the Arizona Cattle Growers appeal the Kempthorne decision and adopt the broader constitutional argument; Bolton went too far. Lastly, I ask, does anyone sense the odd, distant thread that Richard Milhous Nixon signed into law so many of these bludgeon instruments that dramatically expanded the reach, intrusiveness and power of the Federal government? Republicans like to point an accusatory finger at Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his New Deal legislation and actions, and yet it was Nixon's versions that place the Federal government in our living rooms and bedrooms. Are we destined for a new revolution?

A friend and I discussed education. I said, "Learning to learn properly teaches us to learn forever," to which he translated into Spanish -- "El proceso de aprender de aprender con correción nos enseña a aprender para siempre." Perhaps this exchange might be useful to others.

Comments and contributions from Update no.329:
“The Medellin thing really sticks in my craw. From what I remember in doing research for a novel a while ago, the U.S. did not sign up to join the Int'l Criminal Court. As far as I'm concerned, they, like any other U.N. body, have no authority to tell us how to run our country. For Bush to say we should abide by their ruling is another example of what perplexes me about this guy. He has no problem saying we'll go after terrorists wherever they are, and if that honks off some foreign governments, too bad. But everything else, from border security to this, his attitude seems to be let's placate these foreign governments so they'll think we're nice people. Somebody please clone Teddy Roosevelt and put him in the Oval Office.”

Another comment:
“It still amazes me how people of this country, or anywhere in the world for that matter, so quickly forget the truly important history lessons; including "we were under fire as soon as we touched down in Bosnia." I wish we had a balderdash meter...Bill or Hillary....you make the call! Don't let us become complacent....I find your tenacity for history and the research that goes along with it quite refreshing.”

A contribution:
“Interesting Op-Ed by Mr. Holbrooke (I have a book or two of his).
“Fighting America's longest war”
by Richard Holbrooke
San Diego Union-Tribune
Published: April 2, 2008
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080402/news_lz1e2holbrook.html
“My opinion is after 9/11, had Bush & GWB-43's cabinet/administration focused more specifically on Afghanistan (Al-Qaida), versus getting distracted/diverted/depleted (and perhaps some claim ‘drained’) by Iraq, we'd have a much different situation and I believe better footing for a focused war on terrorists (and any state sponsors) who target America. Many say immediately after 9/11 there was much unity and support for America, only to see that prestige factor capital decline after our entrance into the Iraq campaign/theater. I guess some might call it ‘likeability’ but one must be respected too, even more important than liked in strategic geopolitics (or the grand chessboard). Unfortunately, the likeability and respect seem to me to have declined towards our country, much over mission creep and now not having the clear vision of what our goals are in Iraq (or to have lost them in the fog of war). There is as much negative-synergy as energetic positive synergy, and I'm afraid our costs of supporting the Iraqi operations, tends to pollute the accomplishments of Afghanistan.
“Then again, I am glad I'm not in position to make the decisions nor have to read the daily NSC briefings of threats.”
My reply:
I see the War on Islamic Fascism in a different light. There is no question we had to go into Afghanistan, given the al-Qaeda haven created by the Taliban. I have long argued, even before 9/11 that Iraq had to be eliminated as a threat. I have been very critical of the Clinton administration's handling of the Iraq situation. Nonetheless, I remain convinced Iraq was a proper target for a host of reasons. That said, I have been staunchly critical of the Bush administration, not for the objectives they chose, but for the failure to mobilize the Nation for war and to provide the necessary resources to fight these battles in the greater war. War on the cheap is rarely successful and generally gets a lot of good men killed. So, my criticism of George W. is not where he chose to fight, but how he chose to fight. I agree with Admiral Mullen; we are grossly understaffed to wage war successfully.
Ambassador Holbrook's article is encouraging and yet disappointing. From my knowledge & perspective, I agree with his assessment. He closed with, “But even as the United States and its NATO allies move deeper into the cauldron, questions must be asked: When, and how, will the international community hand responsibility for Afghanistan back to its government? Will short-term success create a long-term trap for the United States and its allies, as the war becomes the longest in American history?”
First, I'm not particularly concerned about the duration of these battles. I have long held the opinion that the War on Islamic Fascism is a generational or more likely a multi-generational war. Second, the Cold War took 45 years to win; we always overlook that little factoid. Third, we are not fighting traditional field battles; we are fighting a counter-insurgency engagement, which means special operations and political operatives. Unfortunately, the President has failed in one of his primary responsibilities in wartime -- coalescing the American will and mobilizing the necessary resources to fight and win the war. So, we are relegated to stumbling along, sacrificing our youth and treasure, and stimulating the naysayers to distract us from the objective.
The answers to Richard's questions:
1. When the Afghan & Iraqi governments are strong enough to defend themselves. The same task took several decades in Germany, Italy and Japan. There is no reason we should think the task less difficult in this war or battles; in fact, quite the opposite for many reasons.
2. There is always that risk, especially if we take our eyes off the ball. The voices against fighting World War II and the subsequent occupation of the Axis countries did not regain their voices for several decades. We will not be so lucky as we see in the current political Silly Season. To me, the risk is not in Afghanistan; the real risk is here . . . “right here in River City.”
. . . to which came this follow-up:
“Let me add some of my replies below, .
“I know there is much controversy over how Saddam might have been a threat, and to what degree. You may have read or been exposed to data I did not see or understand.
“Certainly if we could build a model Middle East country, that would be nice for the Iraqis. Is it worth the cost? Are we to be into nation-building? Did Iraq fit the just-war-theory? In terms of eliminating a threat of terrorism, unless I am wrong, I don't think even CIA or think tanks could establish a connection between Iraq/Saddam and Al-Qaeda/Osama/911. If Saddam made three grave errors (and he paid with life), I think it was to launch on Kuwait, then when Gulf War I began, sending scuds into Saudi Arabia and Israel. When Saddam initially came into power, he quickly began war with Iran. Overall, I can completely understand why most Iraqis from Muslim to Chaldean, hated Saddam. “I agree. When a nation must go to war, it should have the collective will of its people. Even Queen Elizabeth I knew this.
“From an aviator to aviator perspective, I would say we did not have the destination selected, had not plugged in all the intermediate coordinates for our path, have not made the appropriate course corrections, and then only used 70% for takeoff power. We burned precious fuel floating around trying to determine the destination. It is incumbent on the leader(s) to not only have accomplished the outlined tasks, but have the capacity/ability/skill to articulate the mission to all involved whether directly or indirectly.
“Where is Churchill when you need him?
“Japan is a good example of a nation that eventually has been greatly rewarded through rebuilding, after their failed follies of WWII and imperial quest.
“And therein lies a big problem, I've not been able to determine from this administration, what the goals are. I think I saw CNN using a slogan the other day (not that CNN is my source): ‘Changing Rationalizations for War.’
“You have also made some good points that we Americans are too impatient, we are a sound byte and video bit society expecting changes from one news cycle to the next, as those very news cycles get compressed.
“I just picked up two soft back books: The Pentagon's New Map and Blueprint for Action, both books by Thomas P.M. Barnett. I have been impressed reading excerpts, and saw him on C-SPAN a year ago during a presentation, and was impressed by his vision and alignment with my thoughts on why Bush-II & administration have not properly conducted the wars we are in. You might go check out Mr. Barnett @:
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/
“He writes a blog in there too, I need to start checking them out. His books in hardcover are actually remaindered by many bookstores at discount, so you may be able to get them on-line for $5 (+/-) a copy.”
. . . and my follow-up response:
I wish I had possessed a laptop and kept notes of events during the last 50 years, but alas such is not the case. I wish I could quote to you the evidence against Saddam. The best I can do is: 16.March.1988, Saddam Hussein attacked his citizens in Halabja, Iraq, with a vile combination of chemical agents, including the nerve agents sarin, tabun and VX, and the blister-agent mustard gas (from WWI infamy), killing 5,000+ Iraqis. All the agents were produced in Iraq by Iraqis.
I was a Marine on the dark side when Saddam attacked Iran on 22.August.1980; while I had access, I saw plenty of raw intelligence regarding Saddam's tactics. I was still on the dark side when the Israelis struck the Iraqi nuclear facility at Osirak, on 7.June.1981, and I produced the briefing related to the facility and strike for the Commanding General, III Marine Amphibious Force (CinC Marine Forces, WestPac). Let it suffice to say, the Israelis were justified in their preemptive strike. There is a huge body of evidence on Saddam's various programs regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD); unfortunately, I cannot quote all that information. How much more evidence do we need? The threat was the clandestine supply of those weapons and/or technology to al-Qaeda operatives – directly or indirectly – not a cooperative attack involving Iraq.
We are not into nation-building. However, when we break it; we fix it . . . as it has been 65 years. No, Iraq does not fit the 'just-war-theory;' the assumption of a quick action was foolish in the extreme. I have not tried to make a connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda; the administration foolishly tried to simplify the threat from Saddam with al-Qaeda, but that does not mean the threat was not present. Unfortunately for George W. & his passel of clowns, American citizens are far better informed and engaged than previous generations. Like war on the cheap, justification on the simplistic is destined to fail. George has made more than a few mistakes as Commander-in-Chief.
Well said, on your analogy. Spot on!
Churchill, indeed!
Being a good wartime president or effective commander-in-chief takes much more than just pulling the trigger. George was decisive and courageous in pulling the trigger, but he failed to learn the lessons of the First Gulf War from his daddy. They had 3 times the number of troops for little ol' Kuwait. Unfortunately, all this crowd drank Rumsfeld's Kool-Aid in taking on Iraq with so few troops and so little ability to control the ground, along with a very naïve view of the aftermath. Regardless, the trigger was pulled; we need to finish the job.

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