previous post next post  

H&I* Fires, 29 JAN 2007

January 29, 2007 | | Comments (11) | TrackBacks (1)

Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That's only polite. [Hey - trackbacks work again!]

You're advertising here, we should get an ad at your place...

******************************
I was gonna bring up John Kerry at Davos, but I see that Brit Hume did it better than I would have anyway:

Ouch [John Podhoretz]

In response to Bill Kristol saying John Kerry shouldn't have left home to criticize American foreign policy abroad, Brit Hume yesterday quipped: "Is it really fair to John Kerry to argue, Bill, that when he's in Switzerland, he's away from home?" Chris Wallace responded by calling it a "cheap shot," which it was, and a great one.

H/t, JPod at NRO.

Heh. While I was compositing that bit - Fuzzybear Lioness sends this link to Powerline's post on the subject of Senator Kerry in Davos.

Interesting bit of blogging trivia. When this place gets a link from blogfather Jonah Goldberg, it's worth about 4500 visits. When Jonah's dog Cosmo links here to a picture of a sniper kitty, it's worth... 10K visits. It's clear - people prefer dog's opinions to pundit's opinions. I'll have to set Houdini up with access.

Right Wing Comfort Food as Right Wing Nation hosts the Carnival of the Recipes.

Gary Sinise and his support for the Disabled Veterans Memorial. Way to go, Lt. Dan. -the Armorer

*********************************
I don't typically pimp myself out on H&I Fires... but I just had to this time. Head over to my place for a little lesson in citizenship... compliments of my son's Webelo Pack. Trust me- you'll want to know what today's young boys are learning about American history. ~AFSis

*********************************

In Australia, at La Trobe University, toilets have been set aside for the exclusive use of Muslim students, who can access them via a cypher-lock door.

Heh.

I must say, I'm with Andrew Bolt on this one. -the Armorer

**********************************

Over the weekend Uncle Jimbo's post on Iran and the latest kidnapping has inspired fascinating discussion in comments--ranging from history to diplomacy to tactical discussions and speculation about the future. Check it out... thought-provoking and fascinating. - FbL

**********************************
"What are they here for if they are going to retreat from people with automatic weapons?" asked Arizona House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Warde Nichols. How about this, dillweed... back them up, unlike Texas did, and maybe next time they'll return fire. ~AFSis

********************************

The Armorer feels that AFSis is being a bit hard on Arizona State Representative Nichols, who, it would appear is actually asking the question in a way to suggest the answer she is hoping for - and of the people who can make that policy change.

*******************************

Yes, that is true, John... but I'm also guessing that the charges against the two Border Patrol agents is weighing heavily on the minds of all who patrol our borders these days.

Our government officials seem to have gotten into a habit of wanting law and order but they're not willing to take the steps necessary to protect those who promote law and order, no matter if they altercation occurs here in the US or in a war zone. -AFSis

**********************************

Steve Schippert of Threatswatch has a very detailed analysis of the Karbala abductions. - FbL

**********************************

*A term of art from the artillery. Harassment and Interdiction Fires.

Back in the day, when you could just kill people and break things without a note from a lawyer, they were pre-planned, but to the enemy, random, fires at known gathering points, road junctions, Main Supply Routes, assembly areas, etc - to keep the bad guy nervous that the world around him might start exploding at any minute.

Not really relevant to today's operating environment, right? But, it *is*

The UAVs we fly over Afghanistan and Pakistan looking for targets of opportunity are a form of H&I fires, if you really want to parse it finely. We just have better sensors and fire control now.

I call the post that because it's random things posted by me and people I've given posting privileges to. It's also an open trackback, so if (Don Surber uses it this way a lot) someone has a post they're proud of, but it really isn't either Castle kind of stuff, or topical to a particular post, I've basically given blanket permission to use that post for that purpose. Another term of art that might be appropriate is "Free Fire Zone".

Share This Article:

Categories:

1 Trackbacks

TrackBack this entry at http://www.thedonovan.com/cgi-bin/mt41/mt-tb.cgi/6735

Out of the mouths of babes from My Side of the Puddle on January 29, 2007 8:13 AM

Question ISSSSS "Which president was the first to live in the White House?" Answer ISSSSS... John Quincy Adams! (aren't you proud of me? I knew that one!) The question was followed up with "Is that White House the same one that GWB lives in now?" ... Read More

11 Comments

By AFSister on January 29, 2007 8:04 AM
Lt. Dan ROCKS THE HOUSE. Too bad we don't have more Hollywood types like him.
 
By Maggie on January 29, 2007 9:44 AM
I watched FoxNews Sunday and I missed Wallace calling it a cheap shot. I must have been laughing to loud at Brit's comment. Seriously though, I think Brit was trying to calm Bill down. Bill was really upset about it. That round table is my favorite political thing every week.
 
By kat-missouri on January 29, 2007 11:44 AM
Actually, Kerry is simply holding to form. I can say he's consistent, I just don't know why people don't call him on this "consistency". He went to Paris and met with the North Vietnamese. He went to Nicaraugua and negotiated with Ortega as a Senator. In fact, he came back with a "peace deal" to be signed. Let's see what he comes back with this time. All of these folks contact him because he's an elected subversive. He can only get away with it because we haven't officially "declared war" on any of these groups, so he's not technically committing treason. However, I find it so interesting how many people have been concerned about the over reaching powers of the Bush administration yet were ready to elect John Kerry. Personally, I find his actions much more scary. Kerry is only a Senator and yet he has publically violated the spirit of an original constitutional law that states only the President can negotiate with foreign powers. The only reason he gets away with it is because he hasn't actually signed any treaties on behalf of the United States. He walks a fine line to insure he doesn't violate the literal context of the law. Could you imagine a Kerry administration and your individual rights? Frankly, he wouldn't have been any better than Bush and maybe a lot worse. And, finally, if you really want to know why I think Kerry announced he wouldn't run in '08, it wasn't just that he didn't think he could win, but I think that he was already setting himself up to be the "ambassador" in a Democratic White House. On top of which, maybe he'd already been approached to meet with the Iranians. he had to know that would be a big negative bat to beat him with in the elections
 
By AFSister on January 29, 2007 1:39 PM
Yes, that is true, John... but I'm also guessing that the charges against the two Border Patrol agents is weighing heavily on the minds of all who patrol our borders these days. Our government officials seem to have gotten into a habit of wanting law and order but they're not willing to take the steps necessary to protect those who promote law and order, no matter if they altercation occurs here in the US or in a war zone.
 
By Pogue on January 29, 2007 3:11 PM
AFSis, the whole concept of troops on the border is a very touchy one in Az. There's lot's of military types involved in drug interdiction as well as border security. The governor does not want to start a war with Mexico, particularly when there are people around who don't think a second "Punitive Expedition" is all that bad an idea. Personally I get annoyed over people acting like the OP ran away from a fight as opposed to treating the situation as they were instructed to do. (For the record I don't know what their specific instructions were, I'm not in that unit, but I know it's really frowned upon to shoot at foreign nationals in anything other than self defense.)
 
By Rivrdog on January 29, 2007 7:33 PM
Re the Muslim toilets: I wonder if they remembered to put the toilet paper holder on the left side in all those stalls? It's not Halal to wipe with the right hand.
 
By AFSister on January 29, 2007 8:58 PM
Pogue, You would think that any mission involving protecting our borders would include authorization to detain, question, and even fire upon violators. According to the Fox article I linked, the current rules of force signed by the Department of Defense and border state governors, do not permit SOLDIERS to stop, arrest, or shoot armed illegal immigrants. They are "simply" there to report their findings to the Border Patrol. If the Soldiers protecting the border aren't allowed to provide protection force duties... why are they there? If they report their findings (in this case, armed drug runners) to the Border Patrol, and they are treated in the same manner the Texas agents were treated, they'll end up in jail instead of the armed drug runners. Seems to me if Rep. Nichols really wants to secure his state's border against attacks from Mexico, he'd make sure that anyone protecting our borders have the proper authority to do so. By crying foul, he's brought the problem to the public's attention.. but the question now is what will he do with that attention? He's raising the question- and he has the power to clarify/alter their ROE.... so why won't he do it? Maybe that's oversimplifying things- because I'm sure there's at least a little bit of thought about ROE's- but that's how I see it. If the government (state AND fed) won't support the mission by giving our Soldiers the proper authority to complete the mission... we're setting ourselves up for failure.
 
By BillT on January 30, 2007 6:38 AM
He's raising the question- and he has the power to clarify/alter their ROE.... so why won't he do it? Simple. If the troops are on Title 10 (active Federal service), the Big Army (in the form of the Theater Commander) sets the ROE. If the troops are on State Active Duty, the state Adjutant General (with direction by the Governor and with the recommendations of the state ARNG Inspector General's office) usually sets the ROE. Bear in mind that the Adjutant General is usually a member of the governor's cabinet. Getting your boss in political hot water is usually followed by the boss appointing your replacement.
 
By AFSister on January 30, 2007 7:51 AM
Ya know, sometimes I *hate* democracy.
 
By SangerM on January 30, 2007 1:46 PM
As you should, as you should... A tyranny of the majority, with no rhyme or reason to its thinking, caught up as it is in the ebb and flow of the 'thing' du jour... But what else is there....? [and BTW, exactly why there is an electoral college, and why Senators were originally selected by states' legislatures. We'd probably still have Teddy, but wouldn't bet on Kerry or Hilary... Frankly, this country would run a LOT better if the People didn't get to talk to Senators and Congressman quite as much as they do now, or rather if those folks could do their job without having to explain every thing they do every day of the year... Politics is messy, and the fed-level folks ought to be able to get as messy as they need to, to get things done. I believe in transparency and oversight, but not at the microscopic level. I realize it works both ways, but I can't help but think we wouldn't have so much divisivness if the elected could ignore their consitutents a little more... CSPAN and the like are NOT IMO good for America.]
 
By ry on January 30, 2007 8:31 PM
ANd where does Posse Commitatus come in with the border enforcement issue? Isn't that simply a criminal/civil affair that's forbiden them to do anyways? State of war, or preparation for one, would be one thing, but I'm not sure that this quite escapes the PossComm umbrella. that's a possible reason for why they aren't allowed, even if they're federalized as The Cheif advises, to detain and what not. Damn rules. Always get in the way don't they?(BUt I'm sure glad that they're there 95% of the time)
 
© 2008 John Donovan
All rights reserved.