Crested Butte Bank XTERRA, July 2007

I wrote this right after the race, just getting around to posting it now.

What a day! What a weekend! First and foremost let me say, this was a blast!

I wanted to die often during the course of the day. I questioned my sanity, my motivation for doing triathlon in the first place and my future in the sport several times, but overall, I can't wait to sign up for next year.

First the overview. I almost managed to come in DFL, I only missed it by one in my age group (22/23) and overall by seven, (103/110.)

Swim 1200 meters/.75 mile: 24:19
T1: 3:04
Bike 24k/14.9 miles: 2:00:22
T2: 2:02
Run 9k/5.6 miles: 1:07:27
Total: 3:35:15

Breakfast was oatmeal, bagel with peanutbutter at about 6 a.m. A banana about 7:30 and a gel 15 min before the swim.

We stayed at a little hostel in Crested Butte. Got up about 5:30, ate, packed up and were down to the race site about 7. We were pretty early it seemed, there were very few people in transition. I picked out a spot and got marked.

After packet pick-up the day before we had a Q&A session with Seth Wealing, the XTERRA US champion and Melanie McQuaid, the world champion, and a couple of others including Jennifer Smith. Smith ended up winning the women's race, Mcquaid was second. Wealing was second for the men.

The Q&A was fun, they had plenty of good advice. Tire pressure for the mountain bike, shoes for trail running, etc...

Setting up.



The swim was supposed to be 1000meters, then it was supposed to be two 600 meter laps with a beach run in the middle. It turned out to be a deep water start (treading water) with two laps around a 600 meter course, then exit. It was all because of an unexpected abundance of seaweed in the lake. I actually ran into a bank of seaweed and it was so thick it stopped me. I often had seaweed hanging from my goggles when I turned my head to breathe. That didn't bother me that much. I wish I could blame my slow time on the seaweed, but I'm just that slow.

Here you can see the start. In the foreground is the bank of seaweed.



The race volunteers worked for days to clear the channel out to the course and the course itself in time for the race. They did a great job. There was much trepidation beforehand and very little complaining afterward.

**** this wetsuit!



Transition was uneventful.

The bike was a tough. The first about 4 miles included about 2 miles of pushing the bike up steep, muddy, rocky, rooty singletrack. Did I mention steep? Followed by an equally steep decent, which was a blast. Then we hit a dirt road for a mile or so. Then the killer. A long, slow (for me) slog up about 5 miles worth of jeep trail, and the inevitable decent down the other side.

Now I've only been mountain bike riding for a couple of months, but this was a great trail. I'm so happy we didn't come up the other side. The downhill was super technical. I was cursing at the top of a few sections and then laughing out loud when I got through them in relief. The end of this section was a stream crossing through about knee deep water. I'm hoping they took pictures, I'll buy it.

The end of the ride. I'm smiling on the outside, but I'm crying on the inside.



I'm glad I brought an extra pair of dry sock for the run. At the start of the run I was hurting. I had taken a gel before the swim and another during the bike. I drank a bottle of gatoraide and some water. My stomach was pretty upset. I hit the three aid stations on the run and drank gatoraide and water at each. But I ended up walking a good part of the first three miles of the course. It was the same course as the first part of the mountain bike ride, at least this time I didn't have to push my bike up it.

By the end of the run my quads felt like stone, but I stumbled in.



I'm going to have to figure out how to eat. I also figure that just getting faster will help. I think if I had finished in 2:40 instead of 3:30, I would have been fine. And I think that is a doable thing if I train well over this offseason.

I know my training was poor, and my conditioning for all three sports, (not to mention my technique,) needs much work. But now I know where I stand, and what to expect. I'll be back. Good times!

Boulder Stroke and Stride

This was a 750m swim and a 5k run back in June of 2007. There is an option to do a second lap for a 1500m swim. They have these every Thursday night during the summer at the Boulder Reservoir. This was my first open water swim, first swim in my wetsuit and first multisport experience. Wish I could say everything went great.

My goal for the swim at the start was to see how fast I could go. My goal after about 200m was just to live through it. I had a bit of a panic attack after I got out into deeper water. I couldn't put my face into the water and do a crawl stroke. Every time I put my face into the water I had to lift it right back out. I finished with a modified breast stroke with my head up out of the water.

I went through an interesting thought process during this time. I started thinking about how I could return my wetsuit, get my fees back for the races I've entered, where the heck are those lifeguards, etc... After a while, when I realized I was going to make it, I started thinking about how to fix this. I need to come back to the res and do laps where I can't touch and learn to deal with it. I will come back for a couple more of these races before my first tri.
My time was 20:19.

My heartrate was sky high in transition and for the first mile of the run. Transition:2:33.

The run was fine after my hr came down a bit. Finished in 26:19. Not bad for me, I'm usually slow. It will get faster when I can train myself not to panic on the swim.

Overall, 63rd out of 100. AG 9th out of 10. But I'll get faster.


UPDATE: I did several more of these races over the summer and didn't panic on the swim. I enjoy these enough to do more next summer.

Think I'm ready to start posting again

I'm going to start by posting a bunch of my race reports from last summer. Wanted to get this in before I start racing again next year.

Merry Christmas, too!

My first Triathlon was the Table Mountain Tri in June of 2007.

Here are the stats:
Pool swim, 500m: 10:41
T1: 1:44
13 mile bike: 39:22
T2: 1:07
3.1 mile run: 29:07
Total: 1:22:02

I wrote all this out just after the race.

This race was all about lessons learned for me. I managed to overtrain and overtaper at the same time. I trashed my legs with too much mountain biking last weekend and an overnight backpacking trip mid-week. I also somehow managed to not do any tri training for about 10 days leading up to this race. I think I need a written plan for the last week leading up to the race.

I had a very late wave start time: 10 am. So I had way too much time to sit around and wait to start to begin with, then the race start was delayed. The police closed part of the run course for an investigation, so the organizers had to reroute. My wave started at 10:40, the temp was about 80 degrees.

I was worried about the swim, because I'm not a swimmer (or cyclist or runner for that matter). But it was over before I knew it, and I didn't stop or backstroke at all.

My son took pictures and caught me with my head up.



So on to T1.



I'm big into visualization, so I have run through the transitions many times in my head. I hope I will get faster with practice, but I'm happy just because I didn't forget anything and I didn't have to go back for anything.

Headed out for the bike:



I rented a road bike for the race. I planned to ride my mountain bike, but I'm very happy I got this one. It's so much lighter. I adjusted the seat height and handlebars, but the seat was still too low and the handlebars in the wrong spot. The chain came off twice while shifting. I'm still glad I used this bike just because I know I worked a lot less than I would have with my heavier MTB. The time I lost fixing the chain, I more than made up for by pushing less weight, and I know it helped on the run.

I had water and gatoraide on the bike and drank about half of each. My biggest problem on the bike is my lack of experience. I shift the wrong way sometimes and I don't trust the bike around corners. I hit the brakes and slow down through most corners.

So I headed out on the run. No problems in transition. I tried to drink some water since the temp was getting into the high 80's by now.



The run was two laps now instead of one and about a tenth of a mile longer. Still a good run with two water/gatoraide stations. As usual for me my second lap was faster than my first. It takes me a long time to warm up and settle in to a pace.

Here I am, proud survivor of my very first Triathlon:



All in all a good day. Could have done without the heat and the almost three hour wait from marking to start, but still a good day. The race was pretty well organized and the volunteers were great. I've pretty much got my 17yo son convinced to do this with me next year. Hope we get the chance.

Tired of it all

I'm so tired of politics. Nothing changes it seems. I've decided to focus more on doing some of the things I really want to do, like the Triathlons, hiking and riding my motorcycle.

Nothing is going to change for a while anyway. The Republicans are bound now to the policy they started and the Democrats are paralyzed by politics. They could end the war but they only seem to care about the next election. They have the Republicans on the ropes but they won't lead. They will only talk.

I'm just tired of repeating the same things over and over again. So I posted links to some of my previous posts on the right side of the page. I'm going to be very busy this summer with two triathlons in July, taking my company to annual training in August and another tri in September. I want to do some serious riding in the mountains on my Triumph too. So, unless something really motivates me to write, that's where I'll be.

I don't have any reason to think so, just a feeling, but I suspect that this time next year I could be back in the desert. I just think I'm due for another deployment. I'm also feeling a little guilty for being back here for so long, it's been more than three years since my last one. I know guys who have been over three times.

Looks like a good book

New book by a former Navy SEAL. Here is a link to the first chapter: Lone Survivor

Triathlon training

I have been working out like crazy lately. I've decided to do a couple of sprint-distance triathlons. The first one is a 500 yard swim, a 20 kilometer (12.8 mile) bike, and 5k (3.2 mile) run. The second is the same except the swim is 750 meters.

I plan to do the bike part on my mountain bike instead of a road bike. I really want to do XTERRA style tri's. That's where the bike is a mountain bike race on dirt, and the run is a trail run. I wanted to do one this summer but it doesn't work out with my schedule. Next year I will do two, I hope.

But this is going to affect my blog posting time. I am spending a lot less time watching the news and more time training. I think that's probably a good thing. There isn't much good news happening right now. Apparently the single most important issue in America is whether Paris should be in jail or not. War? What war? We are doomed and we deserve what is coming.

I'm either going to get sent back to Iraq in the next year or the quitters will get their way and the war will come home to us. Either way, I'm going to try to enjoy myself in the meantime.

Okay...

I was tired and grumpy when I wrote that last post. I really like polar bears! Don't get me wrong. I still think all that stuff, except mayble I was a little hard on the polar bears and New Orleans.

It's not that I WANT the planet to heat up and destroy coastal areas and eliminate animals that can't cope. I hope none of that happens. I'm just saying that maybe that's just the way things go, from a geologic perspective.

Global warming... again

I liked what NASA Administrator Michael Griffin said the other day in an NPR interview.

"To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change," Griffin said. "I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."

I, for one, wouldn't mind seeing Colorado warm up a little bit. It's JUNE, for crying out loud, and it's STILL cold in the morning!

But seriously, he makes the same point I was trying to make in a previous blog. He just does it better. I understand why all the people living in coastal areas, and people who worry about polar bears more than people, are all up in arms about climate change. They have a dog in the hunt, so to speak. Personally, I don't expect the world to stay exactly the same forever, I don't expect every species of animal to survive infinitely, and I don't expect the government to provide me with health and happiness. (Just threw that last one in there to see if you are paying attention.)

Griffin is right, it is extreme arrogance to think we should try to "freeze" the planet, so to speak, in it's current state. We should try to minimize our impact, keep the air and the earth as clean as possible, protect wildlife from undue harm, etc... I'm in favor of most of the environmentalist agenda. I love the outdoors and want to see it protected for my kids. But I don't expect every glacier to be exactly the same for them as it is for me.

And not when it means crippling our economy or radically altering our way of life. If that makes me selfish, so be it. I like my car and my motorcycle. I like my heated and cooled house and my lights at night. I like the malls, theaters and coffee shops I am entertained at, and the heated swimming pool at my gym. I'm not willing to sacrifice that to try to save New Orleans and the polar bears. F 'em.

What the...?

Am I the only one who thinks that it's a tiny bit hypocritical of the left-wing loonies out in California to waste taxpayer money, not to mention the carbon emissions, to try to force those two stupid whales back out into the ocean?

There seems to be no limit to the lengths people will go to trying to save these whales. No amount of (tax) money that is too excessive. The Coast Guard is out there too. That's taxpayer money. Not to come across as heartless, but wouldn't it have been better to just let nature take it's course? Haven't we humans messed around with nature enough? Wasn't Al Gore just winning an Oscar for telling us how horrible it is when human activity affects nature?

For crying out loud, which is it?!?!

So in this case not only are these people inserting themselves into the natural cycle of life and death (the circle of life, right Simba?), but they are using fossil fuel powered boats to do it! And topping it off, of course, are the wasted tax dollars. Money which, obviously, should be going to rebuild New Orleans below sea level; in order to ensure a steady supply of victims during the next hurricane or when the icebergs all melt next year.

I can't even begin to imagine how a person can rationalize this kind of hypocrisy. But I guess they have plenty of practice, as highlighted by this blog report from an Al Gore speech. Scroll down to the pictures of the trucks in the parking lot.

I guarantee that I could write a blog about the hypocrisy of rightwingers too, but lefties make it sooooo easy.

53:10

My unofficial time for the Bolder Boulder was 53:10. I was pretty happy with that. I wanted to break 55 minutes and I did that. I would have liked to break 50, but maybe next year.

It was pretty crazy. 50,000 runners entered the race this year, the biggest field ever. There were bands on nearly every street corner and people lining the sidewalks spraying us with water as we ran by. At the end we ran into the Colorado University football stadium, around the track and over the finish line, with everyone cheering. It was awesome. Here is a link to some photos of the race.

Next goal is a triathlon later this summer. Before that though, my son wants to run a 5K with me on the 4th of July. Should be a good time.

Support the troops?

There is this concept I can't get my head around. I have heard several different times and from different people this idea that doesn't make sense to me. It's that if you truly support the troops, you should want them to come home from Iraq as soon as possible. I suppose that if you are among the growing group of people who believe the Iraq war should never have been started, you might believe that this is "support." But I don't think it is.

For one thing, when the war started, the majority of people here were in support. You can say, as some Senators have, that you have changed your mind now for whatever reason. If you are one of these people, you should know that your lack of resolve is not support, as pulling out of Iraq without leaving a stable situation will be a victory for the groups who desire to harm us. These groups will surely continue to attack us anywhere they can, with attacks in the U.S. being a high priority. So at best, the early pullout of troops would be a pause in the war, maybe a short one and maybe a long one; but only a pause.

The war would continue, but the attacks would happen at random, with high civilian casualties being a goal of the terrorists. Which brings me to my second point. The U.S. Army exist to protect American citizens and defend the United States. We have made it our business, since World War II at least, to extend this protection to the rest of the world. Whether this is a good idea or not is another debate, and whether we have been mostly successful or not is as well. I would argue that the U.S. has brought peace and respect for human rights to more people in the world than any other entity in the history of civilization. Maybe I'll blog that one day. Not now.

My point is that we Soldiers, mostly, believe that we are defending the U.S. in Iraq. I feel pretty confident in saying that although I haven't spoken to all the Soldiers in the Army. The war has been going on since 2003, Afghanistan the year before and 9/11 was in 2001. The normal active Army enlistment is 4 years, some more, some less. The normal Army Reserve enlistment is 6 years. This means that the vast majority of Soldiers in the Army have either joined since the war began, or have reenlisted during the war.

Anti-war groups (like the New York Times), and the media play up "stop loss" as a "back-door draft" that forces poor, unsuspecting troops to stay in the service long after they should have been set free from their bondage. Stop loss is used to keep units together from the time they recieve their deployment order until they come back from the deployment. Yes, some Soldiers are kept past their date of separation, but they are allowed to leave as soon as the unit gets back. This was true during the Gulf War and it makes sense. This may have caught some young Soldiers off guard at the beginning of the war, but everyone else knew about it and accepted it as part of being a Soldier. At this point, no one is being kept in the Military against their will past their normal date of separation, unless they are currently on a deployment order. If they choose to get out after the deployment, they will be allowed to do so. Anyone who says different is either ignorant of the regulations or is lying.

Much has been made of the Army Reserve forcing recently separated Soldiers to return to service, but this is overblown. Soldiers incur an 8 year obligation when they join. If they do 4 years on active duty or 6 years in the Reserve, they can opt to serve the balance in the Inactive Ready Reserve. Meaning, for most, that they do nothing and never hear from the Army again. During a time of war (which, in case you missed it, is now) the Army can call on the Soldier again, especially if the Soldier has a special or critically short skill. This happens, but much less often than I have heard reported in the media. Based on media reports, I would expect that half my platoon would be IRR Soldiers forced back to service. Not the case, I'm afraid.

This is a long way of saying that none of us are here against our will. We choose to serve our country. We don't serve our President, we don't serve to fight in a particular war that we happen to believe in. We believe our country is worth defending and we want to be a part of the team. I don't understand why that's so hard for people to grasp. Some of the comments I've read in other blogs online are sad. They come right out and say that anyone who joins the military is 'stupid and deserves what they get' to paraphrase. If you don't want to serve, don't. But why criticize those who choose to serve? Unless maybe you're feeling guilty about your choice?

Fortunately most Americans are great supporters of their military. And for the record, I don't think anyone should feel guilty about not serving. If it doesn't feel right, don't do it. The Army is stronger for being made up of men and women who are there because they feel that it is right for them. Be an entrepreneur, start a business that will help keep America's economy strong, that's important too. (And give a military discount!)

Back to my point. What was it again? Oh, yeah, support the troops by pulling them out of harms way. The reason this is not supporting the troops is because going into harms way IS OUR JOB! We go fight the bad guys so you don't have to. This sounds the same to me as saying: "We should stop sending police officers in to high crime areas because they might get hurt." That's what cops DO! They understand and accept the risk involved in their jobs, same with firefighters.

Leaving Iraq will cause the terrorists to believe that they have won, and that they can get away with attacking America, because we don't have the resolve to fight back. This will result in more attacks against American civilians. This is an unacceptable outcome.

So to recap: We didn't start the war, we were attacked. We decided to fight the terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq. At the time, a majority of the American people and our Representatives and Senators were in support of the decision. It's a knife in the back of all of the men and women in the military to start us on this mission and to want to quit now.

That's not support, that's treachery.

Military Appreciation Month

Just found out May is Military Appreciation Month. It's the 23rd. Not really a media blitz on the Military Appreciation, huh?

I run into people all the time who shake my hand and say thanks. I know the majority of people in America appreciate their military men and women. But the guy I saw in the PX yesterday, in a wheelchair with burns on his face and arm that I could see, he might have liked seeing a newspaper story or a TV show acknowledging Military Appreciation Month.

Brit Iron Rebels

I just got accepted into the Brit Iron Rebels! This is a, still pretty small, group of men and women who enjoy vintage and retro-styled British motorcycles. Not an outlaw club, but with some of the "rockers" mentality. There are less than 200 in the group, and we are spread out world-wide. We get together through an online forum.

Here is the website Brit Iron Rebels.

So in the five years since I wrote this, I sold my Thruxton and stopped participating in the BIR.

We had a pretty fun get-together in Gunnison in 2008. And I had a good time hanging out with the guys in the 5280 chapter, but I'm not a part of this group any longer.

56:30

I'm getting ready for my first 10K race. I ran race distance last night, 6.2 miles and did it in under one hour, 56:30. That's my goal for the race, under one hour.

That's a pretty slow time for serious runners, but I'm not a serious runner. I'm not really a runner at all, I have to run for my Army physical fitness test. Once I retire, I'll probably quit. Take up biking to stay in shape, it's easier on the joints.

This is the race: The Bolder Boulder. Wish me luck.

Read this article

Read this article in U.S. News and World Report.

U.S. News article

Better yet, buy the magazine and show them that stories like this, an honest account of the life and death of a Soldier, are what the American people want and need to see. This story paints a picture of an intelligent, thoughtful man; not a victim.

We make our choices and we take our chances. All of us, Soldier and civilian alike. Portraying Soldiers as unknowing victims of a deceptive government is an insult that I take very personally.

National Guard

Am I the only one who thinks the first job of the National Guard is to fight wars? I keep reading stories about how the Guard is being misused in Iraq when they should be at home ready to respond to natural disasters. That seems kind of ass-backwards to me. I would be pissed if the Guard were kept out of the fight just in case they were needed to clean up after a tornado.

What are the police and fire departments for? And do the people who choose to live in areas prone to hurricanes and tornados bear no responsibility for their choice? Why is this the Army's problem? Shouldn't it be the people, who choose to live in an area that has a "season" for natural disasters, who have to deal with the inevitable consequences of their choice? For that matter, why is it that my tax dollars are going to rebuild a city that is below sea level, when Al Gore clearly states that the level of the sea is going to rise even higher soon?

When I went through basic training the active duty, Reserve and National Guard troops were all together. The Guard guys were never taken off and given seperate training on how to respond to a hurricane or tornado. They were trained in the same things the rest of us were: how to shoot, move and communicate in combat.

It's great that the National Guard can help when needed. The Reserves has pitched in many times as well as troops from active duty units. No problem, glad to do it, too. But we shouldn't forget that the first job of the Army is to close with and destroy the enemy, not save people who choose to live in "Tornado Alley" from the consequences of their poor choice.

Update on the truck

We got the truck fixed in Tucson and drove it back to Denver. It cost a small fortune (to me.) The rear differential basically destroyed itself. We have no one to blame but ourselves, we knew we had a problem in there but we just tried to ride it out. No such luck.

It's a lesson in rationalization for us. We were basically trying to wish away a physical reality. Turns out that you can't do that. Who knew?

We are know looking at a few other areas where we have been doing the same thing. Our house is the biggest issue. Being in the Army, we could be moving pretty much any time. We need to get some things done in the house to make it ready in case we need to sell.

So we will spend less time playing this summer and more time doing the work.

Ft. Dix plot

So is there still any doubt that we are in a war? That group that was going to try to kill Soldiers at Ft. Dix are Muslim extremists. If we pull out of Iraq, there will be more attempts like this one. We are keeping the bulk of the terrorists occupied in Iraq, they want to defeat us there and give the U.S. a black eye.

The worst part is that our own "leaders" are trying to declare defeat and give the terrorists the victory, just to win political points. They are making us less safe.

If those men had gotten their weapons, and struck Ft. Dix this summer, there is a good chance I would have been there. My Reserve unit is scheduled to train at Ft. Dix for three weeks this summer. I don't think I'm being paranoid when I say I am no longer comfortable giving exact dates for our training.

I wonder if this will register with the majority of Americans? I already saw on the CNN site that the plot was being downplayed as "not that serious" of a threat. I think the mainstream media is going to try to blow this off as no big deal. They have been trumpeting for years that the U.S. is the problem in the world. It wouldn't look very good for them if the real bad guys (muslim extremists) reveal themselves.

Let's watch and see.

Broken down in Tucson

Well our old (97) Dodge broke down in Tucson. We were taking Kate's horses to a new home for a while in Marana, outside Tucson. The rear differential on the truck sort of ate itself. It needs to be rebuilt and it may take a couple of days to get it done.

We wanted to be back in Denver by Tuesday, it doesn't look like we will make it back until Thursday. And that's if they get the parts in tommorrow, if not it will be longer. Next truck will be a Toyota.

Combatives pictures

I had mentioned previously that I would put up some pictures from my Combatives training. I am hoping to get into the two-week long Level II Combatives class in June. I'll be able to teach Combatives to the company and possibly the Battalion, if they want to do it.

Here are some shots. Getting ready to start:



Goofing around a bit:



Here are a couple of guys going at it:



That's me on top:



The "final" was to get inside a boxer's guard and get him in a clinch. They were really hitting:



My turn:



Had to do that three times total. Hopefully I'll get some good pics when I go to level II.

What's the problem?

This may sound overly simplistic and maybe a little cynical, but here it goes. I have trouble getting all worked up over global warming. Obviously I want to live on a clean planet and have clean air to breathe and all that. But other than being concerned about the immediate effect that pollution has on our quality of life, I really can't make myself get too worried about what might happen to the planet some time in the future. Even if that time is within my lifetime.

First of all there is too much to worry about already. Paying the bills, raising the kids, going to the dentist, fixing the car, saving for retirement, watching out for that car with the drunk at the wheel... I don't even live on the coast, if the level of the ocean rises or falls a couple of feet, not my problem.

And whoever said life was going to be exactly the same in 50 years as it is right now anyway? Why does there have to be a city at the site of New Orleans, forever? There used to be a city at the foot of Mount Vesuvius, life goes on. Speaking of life going on, who made the rule that humans have to always be the dominant form of life on the planet? In fact this has only been the case for about 10,000 years, a drop in the bucket relatively speaking.

I believe we will invent our way out of this problem. I'll do my part to use less fossil fuels, for several reasons - including for the environment. But I refuse to worry too much any longer about this. We MAY end up living in a drastically different world in 50 years because of global climate change. But I believe that we for sure will be living in a drastically different world in 50 years for any number of other reasons (war, economics, technology...) that we would be better off focusing our attention on today.

Reality

Seems like there are a lot of people who refuse to accept the world as it is. They continue to insist on wishing for a world that doesn't exist, and coming up with solutions to problems that would work in THAT world, instead of the real world.

Two issues that illustrate this are gun control and the Iraq war.

First, gun control. In the imaginary world of the gun control advocates, all we need to do to stop gun violence is to make guns harder to buy and own. In this world it is the gun that is the problem, not the violent person behind the gun. Forget for a moment that there are already millions (hundreds of millions?) of guns out there in circulation. All gun manufacturing and sales could be completely stopped tomorrow and there would still be millions of guns in the United States alone.

Does it really do anyone any good at all to WISH that this wasn't the case? Argue all day long that we shouldn't have guns, that our culture is evil and violent because of our love affair with the gun, but how does that help solve the problem of protecting citizens from the violent nutjobs?

Not to go too deeply into the "gun culture" debate, but how do these people think we achieved the level of freedom we have in this country without a citizenry that the "ruling" class HAD to respect, due to the citizens ability to protect themselves? And if American culture is evil and violent because of our love of the gun, why do other cultures not get the same label when they allow the killing of sometimes thousands of their citizens? I'm thinking of Rawanda, Darfur, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, radical Islam, the Soviets, etc... We don't decry the "machete culture" of Rawanda and call for the ban of large knives, even though a couple of hundred thousand were killed with them there. Rape was also used to terrorize the citizens there, I've never seen a call for "penis control." Is it possible that guns are not the whole reason that men do violence to each other?

So regardless of whether you think our culture is good or bad, or whether we should have as many guns as we have, here we are. There is no going back to change things around to the way we now think they should be. If one good person had been armed in one of those classrooms at Virginia Tech, far fewer people might have died.

I also wish it wasn't this way, but I'm not counting on my good wishes to keep me safe.

On Iraq I think both sides of the political divide are engaged in wishful thinking. The left just wants to quit and refuses to accept that the consequences would be dire for us as well as them. The right doesn't seem to understand that the weak and fearful now outnumber the strong and brave in this country. The majority in America would rather run from the fight than finish it. Our enemies are blatant in their intentions and openly call for war against all of the west, they won't let us run from this. Yet we would rather watch American Idol and forget about all the killing and brutality that exists almost everywhere else in the world.

We should pull out of Iraq. I, as a Soldier, don't want to die for a country that has already decided that we have lost. I feel like a football player being told to go out and play the fourth quarter even though the coaches have declared the game lost. Except that instead of risking a torn ACL, I'm risking my life.

We could continue to make our stand in Iraq, we could win it. We could eventually leave a stable, democratic government in place. We would need help from the international community, instead of open hostility. Bush has made many mistakes, this was one of the biggest, not getting more international help.

But we have decided to quit. The reality of this decision is that we will fight the war somewhere of the enemy's choosing. So all of you who are so vehemently opposed to private citizens owning guns, would you please wear a button or t-shirt declaring this? I don't want to accidently save your ass during the next terrorist attack with my legally carried concealed weapon. I'm sure you would rather die than have to live with the fact that a gun, carried by a fellow citizen, saved you.

Good article

This is worth reprinting.

Wall Street Journal
April 18, 2007
Pg. 16

Hollywood Interrogates Al Qaeda

By Kyndra Rotunda

CBS's hit series "Criminal Minds" recently aired an episode entitled "Lessons Learned," where FBI agents traveled to Guantanamo Bay and coaxed a confession from a known terrorist detainee that led to the prevention of an anthrax attack on a Northern Virginia shopping mall. The point of the story was that the regular interrogation tactics (pictured as brutal assaults on the prisoner) were not working, and that the military should adopt the enlightened methods of the crack interrogators from "Criminal Minds."

Having served as an Army Judge Advocate General's Corps officer in Gitmo, a legal adviser to criminal investigators pursuing leads in the war on terror, and a Military Commissions prosecutor, I have first-hand knowledge and experience about what happens there. And here is the ironic truth: The military has outlawed some of the "Criminal Minds" interrogators' tactics -- in response to pressure by the international community.

On TV, an analyst observed the detainee's behavior from an adjoining room behind two-way glass for revealing body movements and language. Subtle movements and body language signaled which statements were true and which were false, leading to a breakthrough that saved lives. In reality, when such a tactic was used at Gitmo the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) called it "torture." Gitmo authorities used to employ Behavior Science Consultation Teams (BSCTs, pronounced "biscuits"), trained psychologists/psychiatrists who did exactly what the TV analyst did: used psychology to help interrogators learn the truth. But the ICRC considered their role in planning and assisting with interrogations "a flagrant violation of medical ethics." The military responded by curtailing the role of BSCTs.

On TV, CIA and FBI interrogators used the detainee's religion to gain leverage. The CIA interrogators refused to allow the detainee to pray; then the FBI allowed the prayers but adjusted them to manipulate the detainee's sense of time. Because of the manipulation, the detainee admitted responsibility for an attack that he incorrectly believed had already occurred, allowing the attack to be thwarted. In reality, the U.S. does not manipulate detainee's religious practices. In Gitmo, everything stops, including interrogations, so detainees can pray. The Islamic call to prayer is broadcast, several times a day, over loudspeakers. Everyone in and around the detention camp is forced to listen.

On TV, the interrogators give the detainee a prayer mat and point out the direction to Mecca to win his gratitude. In reality, the U.S. gives religious items such as prayer mats, prayer caps, prayer oil, prayer beads and Qurans to all detainees. They don't need anyone to point out the direction of Mecca because the U.S. paints black arrows on the ground pointing toward Mecca in every cell and around the camp.

In fact, at Camp Bucca, a U.S.-run detention camp in Iraq, the U.S. erected a tent as a makeshift mosque and designated it off-limits to prison guards so that detainees could pray in solitude. The detainees used their privacy to turn the "mosque" into a weapons cache, and then attacked the prison guards. This led to a battle for control of the camp that lasted four days.

Despite the debacle at Camp Bucca, the military still designates some items (such as the Quran) as "off-limits" to prison guards, even though detainees misuse the Quran to conceal illegal contraband, including prescription pills. U.S. forces in Gitmo go to these great lengths despite the fact that the Geneva Conventions provide for POWs to practice their religion only "on condition that they comply with the disciplinary routine prescribed by military authorities."

On "Criminal Minds," the detainee glanced toward bottles of water lining a table, and said, "They line it up to show what I cannot have." In reality, detainees at Gitmo receive ample food and water, including Halal meals and imported seasonal fruits and nuts from their native countries for special occasions.

While the crime show's creators must resort to fiction to depict interrogations, they don't have to fictionalize the contempt that most detainees show for Americans. Hollywood gets that part right. On TV, the fictional detainee said of killing innocent Americans: "There is no such thing, they were infidels . . . they hurt me by existing! The infidels will fall at the hands of the righteous, and that is when the jihad will end."

In reality, according to Gitmo's Web site, one detainee said, "The people who died on 9/11/2001 were not innocent . . . my group will shake up the U.S. and the countries who follow the U.S." Another told military police officers that he would "come to their homes and cut their throats like sheep." Yet another detainee threatened, "I will arrange for the kidnapping and execution of U.S. citizens living in Saudi Arabia. Small groups of four of five U.S. citizens will be kidnapped, held and executed. They will have their heads cut off." These real statements make one thing clear: life in Gitmo has not broken the detainees' spirits.

Hollywood sets unrealistic expectations for many things. The "Criminal Minds" episode represents one instance where truth is tamer, and many would argue stranger, than fiction.

Ms. Rotunda teaches at George Mason School of Law and is director of the law school's clinic that provides pro bono legal assistance to military families. She is currently writing a book about legal issues in the war on terror.

Soldiers as victims - again

I'm just going to link to another blog. This guy tells the story very well.

Ray Robinson

Mission Accomplished

I rode with the Patriot Guard Riders yesterday. The funeral was for a Soldier killed in Iraq, CPL Stephen Kowalczyk, in Boulder, CO. We put up a barrier of American flags between the family of the Soldier and the anti-gay protesters from some lunatic church.

When the protesters started chanting some stupid slogan, we all started repeating the Pledge of Allegiance. We repeated it for a good 45 minutes. The Casualty Assistance Officer is a friend of mine, he was inside the Church. He told me the family never knew the protesters were there. That's the whole idea behind the Patriot Guard. That and showing the family that there are Americans who care and respect the sacrifice of their Soldier.

I can't even begin to imagine a better group of people to be associated with. Some were veterans, some looked like stereotypical bikers and some were people passing by on the street who asked to join in. Anyone can participate, no motorcycle necessary.

They represent the best of America.

New training

Let me go a little deeper into what we did out in the field. We started the first day with a little orientation as to why we were out there training on tasks that normally would be considered outside of our lane as maintenance supervisors or motor sergeants.

All of us in this class are senior NCOs with 11 to 22 years of service. Average is probably about 16. So we have been around a while, almost all of us have been to war. But we were trained differently than Soldiers are trained now. When I started out the cold war was still going on. Reagan was president. A Soldier in a support role was expected to be able to man a fighting position on the perimeter of his base and shoot straight. He was also trained to deal with reacting to indirect fire (artillery), and Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) attacks. We spent a lot of time on NBC drills. The assumption at the time was that those were the kinds of things a Soldier in a support role, in the rear area of the battlefield would need to deal with. Made sense at the time.

The first Gulf War reinforced these assumptions. I was support during this time, an Army Photojournalist. I deployed to Israel, spent most of my time in a base camp of a Patriot unit and put my chemical protective mask on in record time whenever the "Scud" missle alarm went off. Then I was sent down to Operation Provide Comfort in northern Iraq and escorted civilian journalists around to the different refugee camps and checkpoints we had set up. Again, since Iraq was known to have chemical weapons and had used them in this very area (a fact we seem to have forgotten now), we always had our masks near.

I then changed my MOS to 19D, Cavalry Scout, and got to train as a combat arms Soldier, as opposed to the combat service support Soldier I had been. I loved it, it was worlds apart from what I had been doing. We rarely trained NBC, because we assumed we would be so close to the enemy that they would not risk using chemicals. We trained in hand-to-hand and I carried a pistol. Our job was to sneak and peek. Find the enemy, recon his positions and report. Only fight if we fucked up and got caught. Most fun I've ever had and got paid to do it. But I never saw my kids so I had to make a choice and I left. Came into the Reserves as a combat support Soldier again and am back on active duty supporting the Reserves.

So along comes the next war, as is inevitable. The training we had been doing up to the start of the Iraq War wasn't wrong, it was just based on wrong assumptions. The combat arms Soldiers I've talked to haven't really complained about the training they had, they knew they would be mixing it up. It's the support Soldiers who really were not equipped to deal with random IED attacks and ambushes. Our Vietnam era flak vests seemed plenty good to us, based on what we expected to encounter. I really don't see any reason to get all pissed off over not having equipment to deal with a threat that no one saw coming and was dealt with as quickly as possible once it was identified. It's not reasonable to think we could forsee every possible problem before it came up every single time. If you could you would make a fortune in the stock market. Maybe we could get Warren Buffet to work plans and ops in the Pentagon.

Which brings us to SGT Riley. SGT Riley was a member of the 507th Maintence Company, the company that got lost and separated at the beginning of the war and was ambushed in Ramadi. PFC Jessica Lynch is the most famous member of this company. SGT Riley is now an instructor at the Warrior Training Center here at Aberdeen Proving Ground. He spoke on the first day about how things were in his unit prior to their being sent to Iraq, and the events leading up to the day of the ambush, the ambush and his captivity by the Iraqis.

Much of what he said was very familiar to anyone who has served in a support unit. There was no emphasis on combat tasks, weapons maintenance, commo training, etc... The focus was always on mission, in the case of the 507th it was keeping equipment up and running. Don't get me wrong, combat oriented training was conducted at times in all units including mine, but it was really "check the block" type training to get it over with so we could get to the real work of turning wrenches.

Consequently when the 507th found itself in the wrong place at the wrong time, they were not trained or equipped to deal with the situation they were in. Jammed weapons and no communications were a huge part of the problem. They fought hard and have nothing of which to be ashamed. Over the past five years the Army has changed quite a bit. We are now emphasising a Warrior Ethos, which never existed before.

And every Soldier knows that they can find themselves in a firefight at any time in Iraq. My very first convoy in Iraq in 2003 we were engaged by small arms fire that hit around our vehicles and popped the tire of the vehicle in front of mine. We couldn't identify the source and I'm proud of my Soldiers for not randomly spraying fire into civilian homes and risking killing innocent people. The point being that young Soldiers are having to make life or death decisions like that every day in Iraq.

The new training emphasis in the Army is to make every Soldier combat capable. Every Soldier is now trained in Combatives, urban combat, checkpoints including searching people and vehicles and dealing with enemy prisioners and detaining civilians.

So we, old Soldiers that we are, showed up here expecting the same old classroom instruction and multiple-choice tests of the past; and found ourselves facing a whole new ballgame. Anyone who complained was basically told "the Army has changed, change with it or get out." Rightly so, in my opinion.

I've already mentioned some of the training we did, I won't dwell on it. But I have some pictures and I'll post some of them up. And I have more to say about the Combatives training, but I'll save that for next time.

Update from the Field

I'ts been two days out in the field, I'm pretty tired. We've slept 4-5 hours per night, training from 5am to 10pm. We've had weapons training - M16, .50cal, Mk-19, M249, M9 and M4; MOUT and combatives. I'll explain more later, I only have a few minutes now. I also have pictures.

We did some sparring during combatives training last night, I'm pretty sore all over. It's a total physical effort, trying to subdue another person. Two of the guys I was up against outweighed me, one by 40 pounds and one by 60. Throwing around that much weight is not easy. Think of UFC without the punching and kicking.

That's it, I'm going to bed.

ANCOC

The Advanced Non-Commissioned Officer Course at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Or ANCOC at APG, MD. I'm in the middle of the first week of the two-week course.

I am a Sergeant First Class, and this class is intended to make sure all Soldiers at my rank and in my MOS (military occupational specialty), are trained in the same areas and are proficient at our jobs.

I'm a mechanic and at my rank basically I'm in charge of a motor pool and a platoon of mechanics, usually 30 soldiers. I'm responsible for keeping the equipment up and running, scheduling preventive maintenance and keeping my troops trained and ready for the next deployment, when and if it comes.

So this week we have been getting lots of really boring, but necessary, training in logistics management and personnel management. Basically how to order parts for the equipment and how to deal with problem Soldiers.

Next week will be more fun. We will be taking training in Combatives, or hand-to-hand combat. If I make it through the course and pass all the tests I will be certified to teach Level 1 Combatives.

I had some hand-to-hand training over the years that I wasn't very impressed with. This is a new program the Army has adopted in the last two or three years, and it's supposed to be pretty good. I think the Marine Corps is using a similar program.

I'll post when I can.

HERE is a link to the Army combatives manual.

Traveling in Uniform

I'm sitting in the USO at the Baltimore/Washington Airport, waiting for a van to come that will take me to Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. I'm going to a two-week leadership school called the Advanced Non-Commissioned Officer Course.

The new rule in the Army is that when you are traveling on official orders, you must travel in uniform. So I spent the day in the Denver Airport, on the flight over here and now am sitting in the USO, in uniform. Used to be that you could not travel in uniform. I don't mind being in uniform, it is a bit like being under a microscope all the time though. But it's fun when the little kids see you and do a dead stop. "Daddy, LOOK!" It's cute.

While I was standing in line for a sub at the Denver Airport, a guy came up and asked if he could buy my lunch. I thought that was pretty cool. Then on the flight another guy offered to buy me a drink. If I drank, I would have taken it.

I sat for almost an hour talking to the lady in the seat next to mine about Iraq and what the media is not telling everyone. She said I should write a book. Maybe I will.

This seems like a hub for people coming from and going to theater. There are a bunch of Air Force people here. Judging from how clean their duffle bags are, I'd say they are getting ready to go over.

Well, looks like it's time to go. If I have internet access at the NCO Academy, I will write more while I'm in school. If not, see you in two weeks.

Another watch post

No politics this time.

I hesitate most of the time to post things that are very personal. I worry a little about having so much info about me out on the net. That's why you never read about my kids or anything very sensitive here. But after hanging around for a while on the couple of forums that I read, I realize that I'm not the only insane person posting stuff on the net. Actually, by comparison, I look pretty normal.

So I will go into the latest chapter in my search for the perfect watch. I took my blue "Bond" Omega Seamaster back to the dealer and traded it. So I traded this:


for this:



This is the insane part: I spent days agonizing over this. You would think choosing a watch would be pretty much a cut and dried issue. Find one you like and buy it. But for me it's different. Read this post first, to give you an idea what I mean. And this for part two of the story.

But here is the rationalization that I came up with for all this angst. (Really it's only a rationalization too, after all it IS just a watch...)

I started out looking for the ONE watch that could do everything. I was looking for a watch I could wear everyday for everything: sports, dress, going to the field or back to Iraq. I, of course, found out that this watch doesn't exist.

A couple of things bothered me about the blue Seamaster. I didn't like the hands, they look a little cheap to me, plus they don't show up at all in the dark. I didn't like the bracelet that came with it either. But the main thing is that I looked at this watch and I saw a businessman's watch. Not a Soldier's watch. So I traded it for the black Seamaster.

So here is my solution to the watch dilemma. The Seamaster for just about everything, a cheap digital for running, a Suunto Vector for hiking and in the field or on a deployment (along with the Seamaster), and this watch for dress:



A gift from my lovely wife.

Hopefully this solution will last.

Waiting for the wave

I just got through reading another story about Post-traumatic stress disorder. This one was about how homeless advocates are awaiting the next wave of homeless vets. "It's just a trickle now but the wave is coming," said one.

I've written other posts about this idea of servicemembers as victims. I read these stories all the time about the poor, victims of this war. There have been in the neighborhood of a half-million people deployed to the theater, more if you include Afghanistan.

Why can't the people who came home and continued on with their lives without a lot of drama be featured in a newspaper or magazine article? There are way more of us than there are of the PTSD sufferers. I had a little trouble when I came back adjusting to a "normal," civilian style life again. I jumped a bit at sudden noises, a pile of junk on the side of the highway made me break into a cold sweat and had my heart racing for a while. The biggest adjustment was just working myself up to care about anything at work that wasn't life or death. "You want me to care about this spreadsheet?" It didn't seem to matter after going on and sending Soldiers out on convoys for a year.

I wasn't a direct combat troop, so my experience can't be compared to someone who was. And I'm not saying that there aren't men and women out there who have real problems. There are and they need to be taken care of and their stories need to be told. But there are many, many more support troops than there are combat arms troops. Most of us come home and get on with life. Where are our stories?

All I'm saying is if you don't know any Soldiers, and your only knowledge of this war comes from media coverage; you are getting a very distorted picture of the situation.

When I look at coverage of the war, my impression is that all the troops over there are under a constant barrage of mortar and sniper fire, that every platoon loses three or four soldiers during their tour, and that every Soldier comes back either wounded or mentally screwed up for life.

Believe me, that's not the case.

I also keep reading about Reservists on their third or fourth tours in Iraq. I'm an Active Guard and Reserve Soldier. That means I'm on Active Duty but I support a Reserve unit. I know for a fact that very, very few Reserve Soldiers have done more than one involuntary tour in Iraq. That may change, but I'll tell you that the unit I deployed with in 2003/04 has not returned again and none of the Soldiers in that unit have been involuntarily sent back. The unit I am currently assigned to was deployed during the same time and none of the Soldiers have been involuntarily sent back. I know Soldiers from all across the country and the situation is the same.

Many, many Reservists have gone back for second and third tours voluntarily, but that's their decision.

I hate to say it but I get the impression that there are people out there who can't wait for the "wave" of homeless vets to hit the streets.

Service

I just finished reading another Op-Ed article where the author said that if Bush wants war so badly, he should send his own kids. She also implied that since he never fought in a war, he is not qualified to run this one.

I have a couple of problems with this attitude. One is that, whether Bush got help to get into the guard or not, he served in the military. He was a jet fighter pilot. That is something that most people can't do. His daddy wasn't up there in the jet with him, chances are you couldn't do it and I don't think I could do it. My big question is why was it okay for Bill Clinton to manipulate the system to avoid service altogether, but not okay for Bush to pull strings to serve in the guard? And how are we to trust Hillary or Obama to lead us in the future if they never served in the military?

Actually, based on the often heard attitude from the left that only the poor, dumb kids join the military; don't you want someone who is smart enough to get OUT of going to war to be president?

The logical end of this line of argument is that no Senator, Congressperson, Cabinet member, President, Vice-president or even newspaper columnist should be allowed to express an opinion or cast a vote regarding war unless they served in actual combat or have a child in combat. I actually have no problem with that, but I think it's going to be a problem for most people in politics right now. How do you like the idea of the country being led by a bunch of guys like me?

Of course I understand that there would be no war if it weren't for George Bush and the evil, capitalist right-wing neo-cons. I realize that Bush is responsible for all the bad things in the world, or at least America is. Or our way of life is, or something like that...

And Bush lied, RIGHT? So if it weren't for George Bush, we wouldn't need a military, and all those poor, dumb kids wouldn't be preyed upon by lying, manipulating recruiters. (We support the troops, just not the recruiters, even though they are troops too...)

How about this: Fanatics around the world hate us. Some would like to kill Americans, and they don't care if you are military or civilian, liberal or conservative. We need a military to protect us. Join or don't join, I don't care. Just don't rationalize the reason you didn't join by denigrating my reasons for joining. I wasn't poor and I'm not stupid.

Understand that if it's okay for you not to join, and you don't want your kids to join, then it's okay for Bush too. You can't have it both ways. And even people who didn't serve, or have kids who aren't serving, are allowed to have an opinion on the war, including Bush. Every right you have applies to all other Americans.

If you are going to take the right to form opinions about the war away from Bush, because his kids aren't over there; then you have to take that right away from yourself if your kids aren't over there. None of us wants to live like that. That wouldn't be the country that I have served to protect for 19 years.

Support

Congress is debating non-binding resolutions claiming to "support the troops," but not an increase in troop strength in Iraq. The reason behind not sending more troops is that the war is already lost and cannot be won, no matter how many troops we send in.

Most Soldiers (including me) are saying that you can't have it both ways. You can't say the war is lost and that you support the troops, but you are not willing to end the war. That's as hypocritical as saying you don't support "tax cuts for the rich" and then turn around at tax time and claim those cuts for yourself... I'm sure no rich liberal has done that...

Let's discuss support. Say you have a brother. He asks you to help him pay for his wedding, he wants $5000. Then he says he's going to marry a stripper from a local club.

What do you do? One option is you say "I trust my brother's judgement, and she seems like a nice girl." You give him the money. That's supporting your brother.
Or you say, "My brother is making a mistake, this girl is going to ruin him." So you don't give him the money. That is also support, although he may not appreciate it at the time. Hopefully one day he will understand, but you have to take a stand that is unpopular sometimes.

What you don't do is say, "My brother is making a mistake, this girl will ruin him," and give him the money anyway. If you care about your brother you tell him how you feel and you stand behind your words even if it hurts him in the short term.

The congressmen and women who vote against the "surge," but refuse to end the war are not supporting the troops. I wrote about this in a previous post: "Lead, follow or get the f*** out of the way."

I'm writing about it again because people don't seem to understand the damage that this resolution is doing to troop morale. How can you allow a war to continue that you believe to be lost? You are supposed to be the leaders, you are in charge. To continue to fund the war, while standing in opposition to it, is cowardice.

I'm glad that the Democrats won the majority in the House and Senate. We've already seen the warrantless wiretapping deal get fixed. The administration changed their position on that quickly, to allow judicial oversight. That's a good thing. But now the Democrats have the power to end the war, by cutting funding. The choice if you are against the war is very clear: you end it. You end it or you shut up. Because your words are hurting the Soldiers that you are continuing to send to Iraq.

I don't agree with the contention that the war is lost. I believe that we can still create conditions in Iraq for a stable democracy, and I believe that in the long run a free, stable Iraq will benefit the west. But I'm not in charge. I wasn't elected to make the decisions. I'm going to follow the orders of our elected leaders.

The American people sent a Democrat majority to congress. Let's see some leadership.

Obscene Amenities

Here are a couple of shots of me with some of the "obscene amenities" that goofball Arkin wrote about HERE. You can click the picture to see it bigger.


Shaving on the road. I was with a Transportation Company. We hauled mostly heavy equipment, tanks and stuff, all over Iraq.



Inside the tent. So it got a little cluttered, sue me.



This is one of the roadside marketplaces where we bought ice made from water we couldn't drink.




All in all, we were just in the lap of luxury. First class all the way.

Ehren Watada is a coward

Just calling it like I see it.

I have no problem with a guy who opposes the war. I have no problem with a Soldier who opposes the war. I have a major problem with a guy who joins the Army during a war, swears an oath and then, when the chips are down, bails out on his Soldiers and his duty.

I don't know what this kid was thinking when he joined the Army. He talks now about the "lies" that Bush told to get us into the war and how he just thought more and more about it and decided that he couldn't support the war.

Well, it's too late, pal. You made a commitment. You made a promise, but not to the country, not to the American people, not to the government and certainly not to the president.

You made that commitment to me. Me and all the other Soldiers in the Army. The Army put it's faith in you and your word as an Officer and a Gentleman. The Army trained you and gave you the highest honor a man (or woman) could be given: the opportunity to lead Soldiers.

If you are a civilian you may have no idea what I'm talking about, and that's okay. If you are a Soldier and you don't know what I'm talking about, you should consider another line of work (after your ETS, of course...).

This is the ultimate betrayal, for an officer to turn his back on his Soldiers, whatever the reason. He can talk about principles and "waking the American people up," or whatever high-minded rationalizations he has come up with; but it boils down to betraying the Soldiers who put their trust in him. And betraying me, as a senior Non-Commissioned Officer. I need officers I can trust, not little boys who run away at the first sign of danger. The Army is not a game, and it's not a job. It's a service. You choose to serve or you don't. If you choose to serve, you serve your soldiers. Their needs come before your own needs.

There are only two things that should matter to an Army leader: Accomplish the mission - Take care of the Soldier. Politics are a secondary concern. I rant and rave here on my little blog, but you'll never read anything here that would compromise a mission or put a Soldier in danger.

If he wanted to speak out against the war after he left the Army, no problem. Had he led his Soldiers in Iraq, his words would have carried some weight. As it stands, he is just a coward, looking for an excuse to cover the fact that he's afraid of getting his ass shot off.

Words of wisdom from Col. Jessep:
Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns.

...my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!

Feingold must have read my blog

I found the story that follows today. I guess Senator Feingold must have read my "Lead, follow or get the F*** out of the way" blog entry!

I'm not saying I agree with him, but I respect him for pointing out that Congress could end this war if they want. But they don't, they want us to fail so they can use it in future elections. That's low.

Wall Street Journal
February 2, 2007
Pg. 18

Potomac Watch

Senator Feingold's Sin

By Kimberley A. Strassel

The Senate is teeming with courageous souls these days, most of them Republicans who have taken that brave step of following the opinion polls and abandoning their president in a time of war. Meanwhile, one of the few senators showing some backbone in the Iraq debate is being shunned as the skunk at the war critics' party.

Sen. Russ Feingold held a hearing this week on Congress's constitutional power to shut off funds for the Iraq war, and followed it up a day later with legislation that would do just that. The Wisconsin pacifist might not understand the importance of winning in Iraq -- or the cost of losing -- but at least there's an element of principle to his actions. He's opposed the war from the start and his proposal to cut off money after six months would certainly end it. It also happens to be Congress's one legitimate means of stopping a war.

Mr. Feingold's reward for honesty was to preside over what might have been the least-attended hearing so far in the Iraq debate. And those of his Senate colleagues who did bother to show up looked like they couldn't wait to hit an exit door. "If Congress doesn't stop this war, it's not because it doesn't have the power. It's because it doesn't have the will," declared Mr. Feingold. Ted Kennedy -- one of two Democrats who put in an appearance -- could be seen shifting uncomfortably in his seat.

That's because Sen. Feingold is coming uncomfortably close to unmasking the political charade playing on the Senate stage. Critics of President Bush want an unhappy public to see them taking action on the war. So we have the Biden-Warner compromise resolution condemning the plan to increase the forces. There is also talk of capping troops, of requiring redeployments to Afghanistan, of benchmarks and progress reports.

All these proposals have one overriding thing in common: While they may hurt the war effort, none are significant enough for Congress to take responsibility when Iraq is irrevocably lost. This is President Bush's war, and his critics won't take any step that puts them on the hook as well. Sen. Feingold's sin is to suggest that Congress do something more than play politics.

It's a delicate high-wire act, made more complex by the opponents' need to reassure the public that their actions, which will surely encourage the enemy and deflate troop morale, won't, in fact, encourage the enemy or deflate troop morale. This has led to the spectacle of the Senate one day unanimously voting to confirm Gen. David Petraeus, and the next taking up resolutions that would kneecap his plan for success. John Warner and Chuck Hagel are all for the troops, just not for letting them win. Very courageous indeed.

Meanwhile, back in the distasteful department, Sen. Feingold's hearing also drew attention (darn him!) to the other pachyderm in the room: the Constitution. The Senate next week may well pass a resolution that criticizes the Iraq troop buildup, yet notably it will be "non-binding." Should the president ignore it -- which he will have the legal and moral right to do -- pressure will increase for Congress to take real steps to micromanage the war, say with a troop ceiling.

But as constitutional scholars testified at the hearing, Congress (even one worried about its political backside) does not have an unfettered right to be commander in chief. The Founders specifically chose not to give Congress the right to "make" war, worried that this term might allow legislators to conduct military engagements. Instead, Congress was restricted to "declaring" war, which is what it did when it authorized President Bush to invade Iraq. Another constitutional power is to end war, by refusing to appropriate money. But "in the conduct of war, in the conduct of foreign affairs, the president is in fact the decider," said University of Virginia professor Robert Turner.

It is thus dawning on senators that any plans for tinkering with Iraq might not prove so easy. Mr. Feingold largely focused on the question of cutting off funds, but the three or four other war opponents present were eager to coax the assembled witnesses into giving them constitutional cover for other actions.

Sen. Dick Durbin floated the latest brainstorm: Since Congress's authorization of the Iraq war was premised on finding WMD and deposing Saddam Hussein -- and since we never found WMD and Saddam is now gone -- doesn't Congress have the constitutional right to revisit the war authorization? Even the liberal scholars, who'd been picked for their willingness to testify that Congress can do whatever it wants, looked peaky at the idea. That included one-time assistant-attorney general Walter Dellinger, who felt so strongly about executive power in the 1990s that he advised President Clinton to invade Haiti without congressional authority, but today believes the Republican in the Oval Office is getting away with too much.

The pesky constitution is a new hitch for the war critics, whose strategy was to briefly act as backseat generals, get the headlines, and then wait for President Bush to take the fall. Instead, Sen. Arlen Specter was gauche enough at the Feingold hearing to worry out loud that Congress was setting down a path that may lead to a "confrontation" between the two branches.

He might well worry. If one thing has defined the Bush years, it has been the president's willingness to exert his executive authority in defense of America. He's done it with detainees, with wiretaps, with military commissions. And he fervently believes success in Iraq is crucial to American security. In any thorny debate over just how much authority Congress has to interfere, it's a good bet Mr. Bush's own legal team will be pointing out the strong constitutional case that only the president has the right to decide where and how to deploy troops, as well as noting the peril of ceding any of that authority to 535 mini-me commanders in Congress.

What happens then? What happens if President Bush ignores Congress's attempt to direct the war? A few in the Democratic Party would love for an excuse to commence impeachment proceedings, but the rest understand that's political suicide. Then there's court. If liberals were unhappy about the Supremes deciding the 2000 election, imagine the theater of nine black robes deciding the outcome of the Iraq war.

Whatever comes, Congress is to blame. For a month the Senate has been trying to wrestle control of Iraq from the president, but undercover, and in a way that that avoids accountability. Sen. Feingold shone a light under that rock this week, and now the hard questions begin.

Non-lethal weapons

I heard one of those goofy actors talking about Iran at the big war protest this past weekend. He was asked if the U.S. should allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon? His response was that WE (the U.S.) have them so we don't have the right to tell Iran they can't have them.

This puts us on the same moral level as Iran. I don't believe we belong there. Actions speak louder than words though so think about the differences between the U.S. and our enemies. (And I do believe Iran is an enemy, listen to Ahmadinejad speeches to his own people.)

If we pick up a suspected terrorist he is put into custody, maybe in Cuba, maybe in Iraq. The ACLU and Sean Penn can scream all they want, but that person is treated humanely, well fed and will be released one day if they are no longer a threat. On the other hand, the bad guys pick up an American, they torture and kill them, if possible in camera so they can release it on the internet.

Here's an easy way to distinguish between the two sides in this conflict: look at the weapons we have in development and the weapons they are using against us.

They use car bombs in markets crowded with civilians. We are developing the weapon in the story I have included here, along with several other non-lethal alternatives to the venerable Ma Deuce, .50 caliber machine gun. (I think it's cool they tested it on reporters!)

So this is why I think it's okay for us to tell Iran they can't have nukes. No matter what administration is in power, no matter whether some soldiers on the ground make mistakes or commit crimes; WE have the moral high ground, WE are the good guys. Our intentions are clear from our actions.

San Diego Union-Tribune
January 25, 2007
Pg. 1

Nonlethal Blast From Ray Gun Feels Like Fire

Military is interested in weapon of the future

By Elliott Minor, Associated Press

MOODY AIR FORCE BASE, Ga. – The military calls its new weapon an “active denial system,” but that's an understatement. It's a ray gun that shoots a beam that makes people feel as if they are about to catch fire.

Apart from causing that terrifying sensation, the technology is supposed to be harmless – a nonlethal way to get enemies to drop their weapons.

Military officials say it could save the lives of innocent civilians and service members in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

The weapon is not expected to go into production until at least 2010, but all branches of the military have expressed interest in it, officials said.

During the first media demonstration of the weapon yesterday, airmen fired beams from a large-dish antenna atop a Humvee at people pretending to be rioters and acting out other scenarios that U.S. troops might encounter in war zones.

The device's two-man crew located their targets through powerful lenses and fired beams from more than 500 yards away. That is nearly 17 times the range of existing nonlethal weapons, such as rubber bullets.

Anyone hit by the beam immediately jumped out of its path because of the sudden blast of heat throughout the body. While the 130-degree heat was not painful, it was intense enough to make the participants think their clothes were about to ignite.

“This is one of the key technologies for the future,” said Marine Col. Kirk Hymes, director of the nonlethal weapons program at Quantico, Va., which helped develop the new weapon. “Nonlethal weapons are important for the escalation of force, especially in the environments our forces are operating in.”

The system uses electromagnetic millimeter waves, which can penetrate only 1/64th of an inch of skin, just enough to cause discomfort. By comparison, microwaves used in the common kitchen appliance penetrate several inches of flesh.

The millimeter waves cannot go through walls, but they can penetrate most clothing, officials said. They refused to comment on whether the waves can go through glass.

The weapon could be mounted aboard ships, airplanes and helicopters, and routinely used for security or anti-terrorism operations.

“There should be no collateral damage to this,” said Senior Airman Adam Navin, 22, of Green Bay, Wis., who has served several tours in Iraq.

Navin and two other airmen were role players in yesterday's demonstration. They and 10 reporters who volunteered were shot with the beams. The beams easily penetrated layers of winter clothing.

The system was developed by the military, but the two devices being evaluated were built by defense contractor Raytheon.

Airman Blaine Pernell, 22, of suburban New Orleans, said he could have used the system during his four tours in Iraq, where he manned watchtowers around a base near Kirkuk. He said Iraqis constantly pulled up and faked car problems so they could scout out U.S. forces.

“All we could do is watch them,” he said. But if they had the ray gun, troops “could have dispersed them.”

This guy tops Kerry

This article appeared in the Washington Post. I'm not sure I can even describe how pissed off I was when I read this. Keep a couple of things in mind as you read this.

The troops are also part of the American public, and therefore entitled to freedom of speech as much as any civilian.

I don't know what "obscene amenities" he is talking about, maybe he means when we switched from folding cots to bunk beds after 9 months. Or that we get hot food...

"Mercenary" means someone who is paid to fight for a country other than his own. I guess this guy doesn't think American Soldiers are a part of HIS country.

So read this and go back a re-read a couple of my previous posts like This one.
Or this one.

You will see more of this, I guarantee.

The Troops Also Need to Support the American People
By William M. Arkin January 30, 2007; 8:51 AM ET

I've been mulling over an NBC Nightly News report from Iraq last Friday in which a number of soldiers expressed frustration with opposition to war in the United States.

I'm sure the soldiers were expressing a majority opinion common amongst the ranks - that's why it is news - and I'm also sure no one in the military leadership or the administration put the soldiers up to expressing their views, nor steered NBC reporter Richard Engel to the story.

I'm all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army. But I also hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn't for them to disapprove of the American people.

Friday's NBC Nightly News included a story from my colleague and friend Richard Engel, who was embedded with an active duty Army infantry battalion from Fort Lewis, Washington.

Engel relayed how "troops here say they are increasingly frustrated by American criticism of the war. Many take it personally, believing it is also criticism of what they've been fighting for."

First up was 21 year old junior enlisted man Tyler Johnson, whom Engel said was frustrated about war skepticism and thinks that critics "should come over and see what it's like firsthand before criticizing."

"You may support or say we support the troops, but, so you're not supporting what they do, what they're here sweating for, what we bleed for, what we die for. It just don't make sense to me," Johnson said.

Next up was Staff Sergeant Manuel Sahagun, who is on his second tour in Iraq. He complained that "one thing I don't like is when people back home say they support the troops, but they don't support the war. If they're going to support us, support us all the way."

Next was Specialist Peter Manna: "If they don't think we're doing a good job, everything that we've done here is all in vain," he said.

These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President's handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect.

Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order.

Sure, it is the junior enlisted men who go to jail. But even at anti-war protests, the focus is firmly on the White House and the policy. We don't see very many "baby killer" epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon.

So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?

I can imagine some post-9/11 moment, when the American people say enough already with the wars against terrorism and those in the national security establishment feel these same frustrations. In my little parable, those in leadership positions shake their heads that the people don't get it, that they don't understand that the threat from terrorism, while difficult to defeat, demands commitment and sacrifice and is very real because it is so shadowy, that the very survival of the United States is at stake. Those Hoovers and Nixons will use these kids in uniform as their soldiers. If it weren't about the United States, I'd say the story would end with a military coup where those in the know, and those with fire in their bellies, would save the nation from the people.

But it is the United States, and the recent NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.

The notion of dirty work is that, like laundry, it is something that has to be done but no one else wants to do it. But Iraq is not dirty work: it is not some necessary endeavor; the people just don't believe that anymore.

I'll accept that the soldiers, in order to soldier on, have to believe that they are manning the parapet, and that's where their frustrations come in. I'll accept as well that they are young and naïve and are frustrated with their own lack of progress and the never changing situation in Iraq. Cut off from society and constantly told that everyone supports them, no wonder the debate back home confuses them.

America needs to ponder what it is we really owe those in uniform. I don't believe America needs a draft though I imagine we'd be having a different discussion if we had one.

Watch update

I didn't end up getting the watch I said I was going to get. I decided that the blue faced Omega Seamaster would be a better choice. Here's a picture:




It's called the "Bond" watch because it is the one used in the last several Bond movies. (Bond wears Rolex in the books, but Rolex didn't want to pay for the placement.)

It's perfect. I think the blue goes better with everything than the black would have. This particular model has been discontiued by Omega, there is a new internal movement that they are using now. The watch in "Casino Royale" is slightly different. Obviously I'm a big Bond fan, IMO, the new Bond kicks ass.

This may well be the only automatic watch I ever own... but you never know...

Lead, follow, or get the f*** out of the way

The height of cowardice has to be the Representatives working towards this resolution against the troop buildup in Iraq, but who are unwilling to end the war. Here is my reasoning:

The Representatives are responsible for providing the funding for all government activities. They could end the war in Iraq in short order if they voted to stop funding it. They could do so in such a way that the military wouldn't end up getting screwed. And they could make their case very clear: that they are doing it to end the war and not because they don't "support the troops." I think the country would "get" that.

So any of the Reps that are saying they don't support the build-up because it won't work, or they think the war is already lost, but are not in support of cutting funding, are cowards. Senators don't control the money but they could call for a cut in the funding. They lack the courage of their convictions. If you truly believe that the war is lost, then how can you not force an end to it? You are sending troops to fight and possibly die in a war you believe to be lost, when you could stop it!

This leads me to one of only two conclusions: either you don't believe the war is lost and you are only saying that because it's what your party is telling you to say; or you do believe the war is lost, you do believe that soldiers will die needlessly and you don't care as long as the policy can't be blamed on you.

Now I do think we can win. I do think it's important for us to win. I think there are only two ways we can fail. One is that the Iraqi government can't function and the Iraqi people choose to fight against each other rather than embrace freedom and democracy. We can't control that, but I am proud to have been (and possibly be again) part of giving them that opportunity. The second way we can fail is by giving up, which is what the left is in real danger of doing. I don't see how success is possible when half of our leaders are predicting failure.

As a Soldier, I don't really want to go back to Iraq if failure is the expected result. Talk about a real bummer. "Go risk your life for us, troop. We know you will fail, but we don't care as long as we can blame your failure on someone else."

I disagree with the people who say we will fail. But I have a lot of respect for those Representatives who think the war is lost and are calling for cutting funding for the war. Because they are willing to make a decision, state it clearly and back it up with action.

I think this is why Bush has maintained support of the military for so long. We respect decision makers, people who have to make the call, much more than the people who stand on the sidelines and nitpick. I've been the guy who has to make the unpopular decision. I've had to stand in front of the platoon and announce that we are working on Sunday, or working all night or running another convoy to Baghdad. Obviously not on the same scale as taking a nation to war, but I have more respect and sympathy for Bush than a civilian might because of this experience. Bush was the guy who was on the spot after 9/11, he had to make the call.

So I would like to see our leaders take a stand. If you are going to send more troops in, then do it with the intention of winning. If you don't believe we can win then bring all the troops home. We need leaders, unfortunately all we have are politicians.

Not very fired up

I'm not really in a ranting mood lately so I haven't been posting. But I thought this was funny. It's going around on email, good times.

WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT TO TURN ON THE TV AND HEAR ANY U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN GIVE THE FOLLOWING SPEECH?

My Fellow Americans: As you all know, the defeat of Iraq regime has been completed. Since congress does not want to spend any more money on this war, our mission in Iraq is complete.

This morning I gave the order for a complete removal of all American forces from Iraq. This action will be complete within 30 days. It is now to begin the reckoning.

Before me, I have two lists. One list contains the names of countries which have stood by our side during the Iraq conflict. This list is short. The United Kingdom, Spain, Bulgaria, Australia, and Poland are some of the countries listed there.

The other list contains everyone not on the first list. Most of the world's nations are on that list. My press secretary will be distributing copies of both lists later this evening.

Let me start by saying that effective immediately, foreign aid to those nations on List 2 ceases immediately and indefinitely. The money saved during the first year alone will pretty much pay for the costs of the Iraqi war.

The American people are no longer going to pour money into third world Hell-holes and watch those government leaders grow fat on corruption.
Need help with a famine? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France.

In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect this money toward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home. On that note, a word to terrorist organizations. Screw with us and we will hunt you down and eliminate you and all your friends from the face of the earth.

Thirsting for a gutsy country to terrorize? Try France, or maybe China.
I am ordering the immediate severing of diplomatic relations with France, Germany, and Russia. Thanks for all your help, comrades. We are retiring from NATO as well. Bon chance, mes amis.

I have instructed the Mayor of New York City to begin towing the many UN diplomatic vehicles located in Manhattan with more than two unpaid parking tickets to sites where those vehicles will be stripped, shredded and crushed. I don't care about whatever treaty pertains to this. You creeps have tens of thousands of unpaid tickets. Pay those tickets tomorrow or watch you're precious Benzes, Bimmers and limos be turned over to some of the finest chop shops in the world. I love New York

A special note to our neighbors. Canada is on List 2. Since we are likely to be seeing a lot more of each other, you folks might want to try not pissing us off for a change.

Mexico is also on List 2. President Fox and his entire corrupt government really need an attitude adjustment. I will have a couple extra tank and infantry divisions sitting around. Guess where I am going to put em? Yep, border security. So start doing something with your oil.

Oh, by the way, the United States is abrogating the NAFTA Treaty - starting now.

We are tired of the one-way highway. Immediately, we'll be drilling for oil in Alaska - which will take care of this country's oil needs for decades to come. If you're an environmentalist who opposes this decision, I refer you to List 2 above: pick a country and move there. They care.

It is time for America to focus on its own welfare and its own citizens. Some will accuse us of isolationism. I answer them by saying, "darn tootin."

Nearly a century of trying to help folks live a decent life around the world has only earned us the undying enmity of just about everyone on the planet. It is time to eliminate hunger in America. It is time to eliminate homelessness in America. It is time to eliminate World Cup Soccer from America. To the nations on List 1, A final thought. Thanks guys. We owe you and we won't forget.

To the nations on List 2, a final thought: You might want to learn to speak Arabic ..

God bless America. Thank you and good night.

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English, thank a soldier.