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.