Argghhh! The Home Of Two Of Jonah's Military Guys..: August 12, 2007

by Denizens on Aug 18, 2007 | General Commentary

The Whatziss, revealed!

A Laurel, and Hearty Handshake to Old Fat Sailor and Mongo for getting it right. It is, indeed, a round for the WWI 3" Stokes mortar.

Hosting provided by FotoTime

This woulda been your next clue if we'd needed one.

But OFS and Mongo took care of it.

Interesting method of fuzing, eh? Right before you hang and drop the round, you pulled the ring, inserted the round, and let it go - the lever flipped free as it cleared the tube, and off it went.

The Stokes mortar is essentially the first modern mortar. I could write a learned treatise here, but heck, real weapons geek Bruce Canfield has already done so - if you'd like to know more about the Stokes - simply click here.

by John on Aug 18, 2007 | Ammunition | Artillery | Gun Pr0n - A Naughty Expose' of the fiddly bits

Out O' The Closet

No, not *that* one -- *this* one, from the AKO website.

Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI) and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Training Requirement
ALARACT 153-2007 DTG 171457Z JUL 07 directs all Soldiers (AD, USAR, and ARNG) to participate in training on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI) and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) by 18 OCT 2007. This chain teaching program will inform leaders and Soldiers of the causes and physical and psychological effects of mTBI/PTSD and provide information on how to seek subsequent treatment of those conditions. In order to remain Army Strong, every leader and Soldier must be capable of identifying symptoms and ensuring that treatment is available to every Soldier who requires or requests it.

In 1976, the Powers That Be in the Joisey Guard declared that Agent Orange exposure and / or PTSD (especially that icky “and” part) rendered the exposee physically and mentally unfit for future combat and thus ineligible for membership in the NJARNG. Translation: We’re gonna get a black eye with the Big Army if anybody signs up for that AO class action suit or freaks out on a weekend drill.

Then somebody did the math -- they’d wind up with a bigger black eye if they tossed out 90% of their helicopter pilots because of politics. The end result was that nobody got bounced and several of my buds made some significant contributions in various aspects of the aviation field.

And we kept the PTB from resurrecting the PTSD issue by keeping our ghosts to ourselves -- or among ourselves.

Nice to see that somebody's finally deciding to take the long view…

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Meanwhile, somebody was busting caps down the block last night; a couple of MP5s and at least one AK-type from the sounds. The Shadows think it was the local cops going after a bunch of dacoits, because they weren't put on alert. Being a cop over here is particularly dangerous -- three were killed in a firefight last week -- since even the bicycle thieves can scrape up significant firepower.

Along the border, ground troops are sweeping the area around Chaghmalai in South Waziristan to recover the survivors of an ambushed convoy. "Militants" are holding them and demanding the release of ten terrs (including three suspected bombers) caught in the sweep following a suicider's attack in Islamabad. Several firefights erupted in Tora Teegha and Ghut Khawa when troops were sweeping the towns -- seven friendly KIA and at least fifteen terrs dead, four more wounded and captured. The "militants" forebade the townsfolk to evacuate, but the "swim in the sea of the people" tactic seems to have backfired -- the locals have started warning the troops about ambush sites and pointing out terr strongpoints.

And, further north, two men were killed when a bomb exploded in a house in Swabi. Both were in close proximity to the bomb when it went off, which could lead one to speculate along certain lines...

by CW4BillT on Aug 18, 2007 | Observations on things Military | Postcards from the Edgy

News of Fort Riley and the 1st Division.

PATROLLING MANSOUR
Photo by Spc. L.B. Edgar, 7th MPAD

Pfc. Brandon Tripp, an artilleryman with Battery A, 2nd Battalion, 32nd Field Artillery Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, keeps a watchful eye while Soldiers speak with residents of Hateen, a neighborhood in Baghdad's Mansour District. The joint operation between coalition forces and Iraqi security forces disrupted insurgent activities in the area with a search of residents' homes.

Okay, this next bit is for Maggie - Sailors at Fort Riley - about as far away from salt water as you can get in this country...

Hey - they're sure going to be "joint" when it's all over... and I think Lieutenant Del Carpio is *really* going to appreciate being in the Navy, based on how she's found Army life so far...

SAILORS GET USED TO ARMY LIFE AT FUNSTON
By Gary Skidmore
1st Brigade

Navy Cmdr. Phil Blaine is a pharmacist. He's also a member of a transition team destined for Afghanistan. He and the other members of his team will be standing up a hospital when they deploy, but first, they have to get through their training at Fort Riley.

The equipment they wear weighs between 50 and 70 pounds and for someone who isn't used to wearing it, it doesn't take long to get worn down. That was the hardest thing Navy Lt. Priscilla Del Carpio had to deal with. "Never in a million years did I think I'd be doing all this Army stuff," Del Carpio said. "I knew I'd be deploying sooner or later, but I always thought it would have been with the Navy.

'The body armor is something you get used to eventually," Del Carpio said. "But when I first put it on I thought, 'holy moly,' and then add your weapons and all your other gear; it wears you down. "It doesn't hurt nearly as bad as it did the first two days I wore it," she said. "The first day I wore it, I really thought I was going to cry,"

Another thing Del Carpio said she had to get used to were the terms the Army uses. "They speak a different language then we do," she said. "Sometimes we have them slow down and explain what they just said. But we're getting used to it and it's become second nature to us now."

Blaine, Del Caprio and the rest of their team were learning building clearing techniques, one of the most dangerous jobs there is, said Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Walder, the first sergeant for Battery G, 1st Battalion, 5th Field Artillery Regiment. "We're showing them the basic stack procedures, sectors of fire and entry techniques," Walder said.

The training is progressive, Walder said. "It's the crawl, walk, run method of teaching. We're starting everyone off in 'glass houses,'" said Walder, explaining a glass house as a taped-off area symbolizing a building with rooms. The next level for the teams to master is a closed building.

"It's basically the same thing as the glass house but we've added walls and have them work in a dimly-lighted area," Walder said. From there, the last step is a blank-fire assault on a building. "We've added pictures of the enemy and of friendly bystanders," Walder said. "As they make their way through the building they have to pick and choose where they fire.

"Knowing how to do this is a great basic skill to have," Walder said. "No matter what type of unit they belong to, if you get told you have to do this, there's no such thing as an administrative move. You will have to do it, and knowing how will save their lives."

"This is like drinking water through a fire hose," Blaine said of the training. "There's so much to do, so much to learn. We're like sponges and taking it all in." Blaine said since he and his team have been training, they've done a lot of marksmanship, convoy movements, classroom work and language training. "We've had a lot of classroom work in the Dari language," Blaine said.

"Hopefully, we'll be able to converse with our counterparts when we get there. At least we'll be able to say 'hello' and 'goodbye.'"

by John on Aug 18, 2007 | Global War on Terror (GWOT)

Army Spouses offer advice on coping with a deployment.

From my personal experience of dealing with being in the family of a deployed soldier when my father went to Vietnam, I wish we had done things differently, and stayed at a military installation vice moving to be with family - and we possibly could have done both - gone to Fort Carson, which would have been close to the family in Denver anyway. Of course, Vietnam was a very different war, from the Army's perspective. We did deploy divisions over as units - but once in-theater, they stayed and were fed by individual rotation and replacement.

The current approach, deploying and returning as a unit, is so many orders of magnitude better than that system I don't have space to describe it. The movie We Were Soldiers does a good job of covering the impact of combat on a unit deployed as a unit - and with the families staying together at Fort Benning. What it doesn't show is the isolation and complete lack of support after a unit had been deployed for over a year and the rotation cycle broke up the support arrangements back home. I'm pretty sure that was the loneliest gnawing-at-your-vitals year in my mother's life, far worse than Dad's tour in Korea, where they were newlyweds with no kids.

The stuff in here is pretty good, but it's missing something (which I've told the Fort Riley PAO about) - the other way for military spouses to get connected, whether they stayed on post or went somewhere else - SpouseBuzz.

What's missing from this piece? Technically, nothing. But Some Soldier's Mom would argue that similar services might be nice for... parents of deployed warriors, too.

SPOUSES OFFER TIPS TO SURVIVE DEPLOYMENT
By Anna Staatz
Staff writer

When Army wives talked about what they rely on the most to get them through a deployment, the reoccurring theme was each other. So it's not too surprising that their advice for deployment survival included getting a job, becoming involved with your family readiness group, find a community group to be a part of - do whatever you need to do to make new friends and meet new people at whatever post you find yourself at.

Staying or leaving

When facing a deployment, one of the questions a Family must answer is whether or not to stay near the post the spouse is deploying from or move away to a hometown or closer to Family. Stacie Belt, family readiness group coordinator, said the decision is a personal one that only can be made by the people in a military Family. Belt said about 50 percent of Families choose to stay on or near a post during deployment, while others choose to move closer to Family. Mostly, Belt said, it is a wash between what support a Family has available elsewhere and how well they've become acquainted with the Fort Riley area. "If they've been able to get in with the community and find projects to do, a lot of them won't go home because they've found enough to keep them busy during the deployment," Belt said.

Personally, Belt said, she has had both experiences. During her husband's deployment to Korea, she moved the Family near her parents. During his Operation Iraqi Freedom deployment, she stayed put near post. "It was wonderful being with my parents for a year and they were very supportive, but I missed that military connection," she said. "We were in an area that did not have any military Families and I truly missed being with other Families."

Lindsey Savant is married to Sgt. Robert Savant, Company D, 1st Battalion, 28th Infantry Regiment, 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division. The couple has two children, Julie, 8, and Cadence, 3. They opted to stay put at Fort Riley during the deployment of 4th IBCT mostly for the sake of keeping Julie and Cadence in the same environment and for the sake of Lindsey keeping her employment as a family child care provider stable.

"We chose to stay here for the stabilization of our children and the stabilization of my job," Lindsey said. "Julie had already been in school here for one year and had made friends and I didn't want to transfer and then have to move her back here after a year in a strange school ... At the time of the deployment, I had Cadence enrolled here at CDC and she had friends there as well. I did not want to uproot either one of them."

Keeping the children as stable as possible also factored in to Sgt. 1st Class Antonio Diaz, and his wife, Wendy's decision to stay at Fort Riley. Wendy also was able to find a job working at the Fort Riley Middle School Teen Center as the Homework Tech only days prior to her husband's deployment, which factored into her decision to stay. Antonio is currently deployed with Company D, 1st Bn., 28th Inf. Regt. Wendy said work, a routine for her children and an atmosphere in which others could easily relate to what she and her Family were going through were important reasons to stay at Fort Riley. The Diaz's have two children, Antonio, 10, and Gabrielle, 2. This is the family's first combat deployment.

"Past deployments, I had always returned home," she said. "I was younger, with only one child. I was immature and very dependent upon my husband as well as my family. Now I am older and educated and understand the importance of being an independent and self-reliant woman."

Wendy said in the past, when she moved closer to immediate family during a deployment, they were supportive, but beyond them she had no other form of support such as she receives from post organizations and activities. "They can never understand or relate to the heart break that my family and I experience," she said.

FRGs

Many wives said they were very thankful for the support of their family readiness groups during a deployment and they have found friends they will keep for a lifetime through their FRG. "I have three amazing friends who have been there every step of the way," Diaz said. "We have created a bond that only women who are enduring the same situation can create."

Alisha Torres has been able to find both support and information through her FRG. It is the first deployment for Torres and her husband, Alex, who is a first lieutenant in 1st Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment, 4th IBCT, 1st Inf. Div. "The people I've met through FRG and at work have been my best support," she said. "The other wives can relate to my situation and you're never
alone."

Savant echoed similar sentiments about the 1st Bn., 28th Inf. Regt., FRG. "We at the 1-28 have an awesome FRG," she said. "All of the wives are great and will do anything to help you out." Most FRGs have social events, meetings to help inform members of the latest news about their unit, as well as informal gatherings for movie night or a spouse's night out.

Keeping your Sanity

Switching to being a single parent or dealing with the absence of a husband during a deployment is difficult. Many wives said the same thing Soldiers often say when dealing with deployment: stay busy. "Working in general is a great outlet," Torres said. "I stay busy and the days seem to fly by." Torres also said it helps to keep a sense of humor about things.

"We use the karaoke machine in my home," she said. "We may not sound like stars, but we have a great time." Dealing with the loneliness also is key to making it through a deployment without hurting yourself or worrying a husband thousands of miles away many of the spouses said. "Loneliness is very difficult because everyone experiences it at different rates and might show it differently," Savant said. "All I can say about that is not to sit around and think about it. Stay busy and focused on the tasks at hand." Diaz said the best way she has found to deal with deployment doesn't even really involve her husband.

"Learn how to define yourself and not depend on him," she said. "Get a job or go back to school. Behind every strong man is a strong woman." Belt said spouses should take time to educate themselves on the many programs and activities on post by contacting Army Community Services, the Soldier and Family Support Center, the Armed Services YMCA and other groups such as the rear detachment desks. "Learn what's out there and what it can do for you," she said.

by John on Aug 18, 2007 | Observations on things Military

August 17, 2007

H&I Fires* 17 AUG 2007

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

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

A new, self-employed "embed" heads to Iraq. Bob Calvert, of Talking With Heroes:

Back to Iraq to Talk with Heroes
For those who are hearing about the Talking with Heroes Internet talk show for the very first time I am Bob Calvert, the host. What we do is not about politics. It is all about supporting our men and women in uniform, and their families.

This one is unique - among his sponsors...in fact his *major* sponsor: Soldier's Angels.

A special thanks to Patti and Jeff Bader and Soldiers Angels for being the main sponsor of this upcoming trip to Iraq. And thank you to all those who have been supportive of this project, some for short periods of time and others from the very beginnning back in 2005.

No - not one thin dime of your Project Valour-IT money is involved with this. That money goes to the cause you gave it for. And not surprising, to me - is the Castle's Own Denizenne Fuzzybear Lioness is up to her furry chin in this... [and we mean the furry chin comment in the *best* way, of course] -the Armorer

Oh, and the comments on yesterday's H&I have gotten toothsome and fun, you should go check 'em out. Heck, they're even endorsed by Maggie!

I am still lost in the comments below......my mind trailed off at "Uh, oh - I see Damian demands I erect the Octagon..."

-the Armorer

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

Dammit. Sometimes life just isn't fair. -the Armorer

*********************************
Featured YouTube Smackdown video for August 17:
I.E.D. Attacks in Iraq - Panterapete187

Note: If you aren't familiar with the YouTube Smackdown, please visit the first link above before taking a look at the second. Thanks. - Rickbert
*********************************
Update: Forgot to mention, Soldiers Angels is in the KC Star.
Killer Robots and 20 kilowatt lasers that make mortars go "boom"

Top 25 Strangest Laws

22. In France, it is forbidden to call a pig Napoleon [ed..but Josephine and Chirac are still open]
8. In Kentucky, it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon more than six-feet long.[ed...and you would conceal that...where?]

Putin Announces Warsaw Pact 2 (minus Warsaw; he must still be pining for the "good ol' days"). While some folks disavow a new Cold War because they know what Cold War was about:

Both sides know there will be no new Cold War because money binds them so closely, Eduard Radzinsky believes.[snip]
Margot Light also believes there cannot be another Cold War.

"You only have to look at how the supply of oil and gas has divided Europe to understand that there isn't that same kind of solidarity on the Western side while Russia has no real allies," she says.

"Nor is there any ideological divide. There is probably more belief in socialism in the West now than there is in Russia."

I always love when people dismiss the economic reasons for war, by far the most prevalent reason that nations have gone to war, for the barely concealing "ideological" reasons. Which, now that that ideology is gone, the reasoning goes, so does the cause for war. That's right after she notes the economic and resource issues. For instance, Putin believes strongly that Russia should be a super power. It has resources, people, land and money. He does long for the good ol' days when the Cold War meant Mother Russia was an economic, military and political power house. Maybe, he's not interested in direct nuclear brinkmanship, but he is certainly interested in creating security tensions with Iranian nuclear plants, arms sells and a proxy, proxy war. It keeps the Caucuses firmly within his grasp and thus, their oil, their money and their territory through which more Russian oil and natural gas can flow. Ergo, money.

Why do people always have to bring ideology into a perfectly good war? Frankly, I think its a good thing. Might remind some folks about how they want to live and who they want to associate with: Freedom or autocracy? Maybe all these nations pine for the good ol' days, too. Might explain, soul stealing, brain eating, Zombie Democracies.

-kat
****************
A shocking new study shows that Iraq is set to disintegrate!. You know, because all those studies before that said it was about to disintegrate were wrong and this report is right! Particularly because it was done in Berlin and those Berliners know things!

Okay...I don't know how much more sarcasm I can generate. They are basically advocating "federalism" for Iraq. As if that were new, too. Hey! Maybe next week they'll write a new song and call it, "Duetscheland Uber Alas!"
-Kat

by Denizens on Aug 17, 2007 | General Commentary

Hah! You thought I'd let you off the hook.

Nope. Even though you don't care, based on the number of responses, we're going to keep plugging at this whatziss.

After the whining about size, I gave you a larger size. Now I'll add a touch of context.

Hosting provided by FotoTime

With an even larger view of the gizmo available by clicking here.

It *is* a fuze - you've gotten that much. But you've not gotten it quite right, yet.

Update: Perhaps this will help.

Update 2: Mebbe *this* will help. Prolly not, but who knows? Actually, it should, if you can connect the dots.

by John on Aug 17, 2007 | Gun Pr0n - A Naughty Expose' of the fiddly bits

On remodeling...

Installment 9 of my sister's saga:

Subtitle: When your clothes drier becomes a counter top.
The tiny flies have mostly died. Many of them committed suicide in our beverages. We would look down at our drinks and find 10 itty-bitty bug bodies floating in them. Not too appetizing, eh? They also had a penchant for flying up noses and into ears. We are not mourning their passing.

I had planned to spend Monday packing up the kitchen in a logical manner. You know, putting things into neatly labeled boxes and placing them in reasonable locations. But nooooo. They wanted to begin demolition on Monday. That meant cramming stuff into boxes and putting it anywhere it would fit. I may never find some of it again. We also moved the dining room furniture into the living room which still contained its own furnishings. The dining room table slid very nicely over the coffee table. During all of this hullabaloo, Dodger came into the kitchen, looked at the workers, and peed a river on the floor. He is such an expressive canine.

We took Erin to Chicago for a few days to see the musical “The Twenty-fifth Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee.” If you ever have a chance to see this play, absolutely do it! The first laugh comes about 30 seconds into it and you won’t stop laughing until it is done. A word of caution: it is not a show for children due to a small amount of bad language and a hilarious song about unexpected adolescent erections. There were some stunned parents and grandparents in the audience. As Erin said, anybody can check these shows out on the Internet!

We returned home about 10:30 Thursday night. I opened the door and reached out to turn on the light, but the wall was gone. There was no switch. So I walked my fingers along the closet door until I found the hallway and located the light switch. The house was very warm, so we wanted to turn the air conditioner down. The thermostat had been located on the missing wall. We searched and searched to no avail. A worker showed it to me in the morning. It is now taped onto the furnace in the basement. I never would have found it in a million years.

They have created a little kitchen in the utility room. They moved my sink base, dishwasher, and range downstairs. I did not think I would still have the dishwasher, so I am very grateful. There is no prep space, however, so I am using the drier as a counter top. I haven’t tried to cook anything complex yet and may decide that heating things up is about as complex as I want to get.

Oh, I almost forgot. They taped heavy sheets of plastic over the entries into the living room to keep the dust out. That was very thoughtful and we appreciated it. Except the refrigerator was in there, too. It was a little hard to get breakfast.

We put the kitchen table in the family room. It is a little crowded, but it works. Our dishes are being stored in a book case and the coffee maker and toaster are out there, too. This of course meant packing up the things that are normally in those spaces. I love packing, especially in a hurry.

The exterior wall has been removed, as has the wall between the kitchen and dining room. Now we can really see how large the new room will be. It will be so nice when it is done, if we can hold on that long!

Heh. Okay, here's our saga. I drove out, took a picture of the progress on the Boudoir of Argghhh!, clapped people on the back for doing such a good job and being so neat, fed Sergeant S'mudge, Caretaker and Construction Supervisor of the New Castle, and went home. The material was dropped yesterday for the Arsenal Vault of Argghhh!, construction on which starts next Monday!

"Big Earthquake in Peru. Send USNS Comfort. NOW"

by John on Aug 17, 2007 | I think it's funny!

August 16, 2007

H&I Fires* 16 AUG 2007

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

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

As I'm sure you've heard, there has been a devastating earthquake in Peru. The death toll has climbed above 300. This story got some people to thinking.

Good thinking Springbored!......Maggie

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

Armor mentioned the little show case of corporations hoping to sell some nifty products to the military. No video and limited pictures, but an interesting little article about the event here: New Era of Counter Terror Weapons

Also, if you missed it, three wounded warriors were on Fox the other day talking about their experiences. One Cpl Padilla (no relation to the terror suspect) talks about being wounded and his friends braving a hail of fire to rescue him.

With the recent planned designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization I started pulling together some information on the Iranian economic situation and possible effects of this designation. The BBC had written a brief report about the challenges.

After I wrote this review that included information on Ahmedinijad's continued consolidation of power in the presidency, the thought came to me that the recent gasoline rationing can be more than simply a production or economic issue. My two bets are: 1) suspect attacks so they are building reserves to support military operations for more than 30 days; 2) it's main impact is on the "masses"; gasoline rationing means that any opposition cannot freely or even covertly meet. to oppose Ahmedinijad in any way including planning political opposition in the upcoming elections.

-Kat

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

Perhaps one of our Canadian readers can explain the logic behind this decision in the context of the others cited? -the Armorer

**********************************
Featured YouTube Smackdown video for August 16:
Featured: ISI: IED vs RG31 in Dyala - kateebjihad

Note: If you aren't familiar with the YouTube Smackdown, please visit the first link above before taking a look at the second. Thanks. - Rickbert
**********************************

See: US Army War College, The Quranic Concept of War by Joseph C. Myers

When you live in a place where there are lots of tornadoes, a trailer is a bad place to inhabit. When you live in a place where there are lots of earthquakes, and hardly any tornadoes, a trailer is an *excellent* place to inhabit. Think about it. The jolts attendant upon moving the trailer along the roads are, I betcha, more violent than the average earthquake.

Therefore, it's obvious that people who live in earthquake-prone areas like Peru should live in house trailers, and leave the wheels and springs on, and people who live in tornado-prone areas, like Northern Georgia, Tennessee, and the General Midwest, should live in substantial stone buildings.

See, I've solved that problem! That was eas

posted by Justthisguy on August 16, 2007 10:05 AM

posted by Justthisguy on August 16, 2007 10:08 AM

If I understand the Iranian situation correctly, all their gasoline is produced in one large refinery. The shortages are due to lack of product.

posted by Chuck Simmins on August 16, 2007 10:43 AM

John, don't use the word "logic" in connection with a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, let alone ask for a rational explanation of their decision-making.

Steyn didn't even mention this challenge.

posted by Damian on August 16, 2007 12:25 PM

re: IRGC designated as terrorist organization.

someone in TJAG office should probably best be promulgating something pretty quick-like now. this complicates things as per Geneva III.

posted by MajMike on August 16, 2007 12:26 PM

First of all, it confirms what a twit Steyn is. He fails to understand basic concepts on a regular basis so serves little use as an edjificational tool for you poor southerners. Note his use of "Christian" for a sub-set of Christian as well as his ascription of a constitutional ruling, in the case Vriend, issued in 1998 by the Supreme Court of Canada that sexual orientation is to be understood to be included in human rights legislation to the human right commission that later reheard the case and was bound by it. Heed such hyperventaliting fearmongering dopes at your peril.

Essentially, in the present case about the taxi you have a ruling that manages conflicting rights - that of the disabled and that of the religious believer, though I do not know the basis for the no-dog-in-taxi form of Islamic piety. You get clashes of rights all the time in human rights law. Recently, I was involved in one settlement that had to deal with conflicting needs of two sorts of persons with disabilities. You deal with it by dealing with it accomodating both as best as possible.

posted by Alan on August 16, 2007 1:06 PM

Breathe, Alan, breathe! That's why I asked, after all.

I'm still not sure I understand it clearly, however.

Why is the guy objecting to printing gay material on religious grounds (though he found someone who would) different from the resolution of the guy objecting to transporting a dog on religious grounds (Islam considers dogs to be unclean, as they do pigs), where he has the requirement to secure an accomodation for the disabled person?

Stripping away all the Steyn-ism from it...

posted by John of Argghhh! on August 16, 2007 1:47 PM

I don't know as it depends on the facts of each case. Remember, Steyn may be misrepresenting the facts to make his hyperventilations more entertaining. Maybe what is the unstated fact is that the printing firm cannot be "Christian" so another printer in the same firm could have done the work. A taxi driver has no back-up in the car. But I have no idea. Like Steyn.

posted by Alan on August 16, 2007 2:00 PM

1. I have known Muslims who have kept dogs, so just like women covering their face, the dog thing is a personal belief; so why should it be accommodated at all? Besides, the taxi driver isn't being asked the kiss the dog, just take it somewhere.

2. Why is accommodation of every possible quirk and superstition superseding assimilation as a more of Western Civilization? Of course, if your beliefs are based on Christian principles, they cannot possibly be accommodated, as that would violate the mythical separation of Church and State...

posted by Oldloadr on August 16, 2007 2:56 PM

I have no idea what you are talking about in relation to #2 as Christian beliefs, including non-judging, are doing fine in Canada as well as the US I understand. On #1, as I said, Steyn provided no link or explanation so I assume he is misrepresenting the facts through the run of the mill vacuous scoffing.

posted by Alan on August 16, 2007 3:11 PM

And, to be clear, no picking on Alan as if he represents the Canadian government, in all it's glory, 'k?

He's just tryin' to help, so no point scoring!

8^ )

posted by John of Argghhh! on August 16, 2007 3:14 PM

someone in TJAG office should probably best be promulgating something pretty quick-like now. this complicates things as per Geneva III.

Huh...good point. But maybe that's why they are a "special" terrorist organization?

And, if we actually went to war with them and they had uniforms on, by acting as a legitimate force, wouldn't they have simply fell within a new designation re: geneva conventions?

posted by kat-missouri on August 16, 2007 3:17 PM

That is rule #17 in the ground breaking 1999 edition of the "Guide to the Care and Feeding of Reasonably Polite Blog Comment Makers of Opposing Views."

posted by Alan on August 16, 2007 3:27 PM

No point-scoring?

Given the fact that I'm just as Canadian as our friend Alan, and that I've actually had dinner and a drink or three with him on a couple of occasions, I'll politely request your indulgence as I ignore your request, John. Hopefully the Rulez won't be too badly bent.

Alan, you ASSUME Steyn is lying? As a lawyer, do you honestly expect us to take that rebuttal seriously?

Let me provide some links. Here is an article that delves more deeply into the circumstances that gave rise to the complaint, and into the details of the ruling, which include a provision that a driver who refuses service to a disabled customer must wait with that customer until the next available taxi arrives.

Here is some additional context for the Muslim taxi drivers versus patrons with seeing-eye-dogs conflict. As you can see, this isn't a one-off.

Unfortunately, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal doesn't seem to have put the final ruling up on its website yet, but here is a preliminary ruling from October of last year on the attempt to have the case dismissed.

And the concerns about double-standards when it comes to Christian religious beliefs is further explored in this ruling, where two lesbians filed a complaint against a Knights of Columbus hall for failing to rent it to them for a same-sex wedding reception.

I know you CAN make an argument, Alan. I wonder whether or not you value the opinion of anyone at this site enough to actually make one, though. Because so far, your response has been nothing more than a dismissive wave of the hand.

posted by Damian on August 16, 2007 3:52 PM

Ten years ago I first became acquainted with Ica, during a trip to Lima. There I sampled some of its finest grapes, in the form of Pisco. Soon there after I became a good friend with other potable versions: D.O.C. Valle del Ica. Suprisingly fine wines, for everyone has heard of Argentinian and Chilean wines, and not those coming from Perú.

I feel deeply for the people of Perú, and its well shaken vintages.

posted by Boquisucio on August 16, 2007 4:22 PM

I raise y'all a challenge. Any untoward remarks against our Kanook friend will be swiftly countered with a sacrificial Molson down my tummy.

Uuuurp!

posted by Boquisucio on August 16, 2007 4:29 PM

Uh, oh - I see Damian demands I erect the Octagon...

posted by John of Argghhh! on August 16, 2007 7:23 PM

1. Damian - I had already checked your link on the KofC which is why I expressed that opinion. I guess not everybody here took it seriously...
2. I didn't think I was tryig to score points; but I admit I was trying to be contraversal to bring out more debate on the subject.

posted by Oldloadr on August 16, 2007 8:35 PM

See, Damian does what Steyn chooses not to. By using 47 words Steyn can only, and happily misrepresents, sways and do all those those things that are rhetorical but which Damian calls a lie. Damian, by comparison, provides some proof. The rest of what Damian says is frankly fluffery...or maybe puffery - which is really odd as he isn't very fluffy or puffy at all even with the music hall outrage about my supposed dismissiveness.

Pap should be dismissed - even if that would undermine 90% of blogging. The point still stands. You can misrepresent one or two cases out of thousands before human rights tribunals to shout "THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!" Compare how a while ago we bloggers were all in a tizzy about unregulated religious arbitration in Ontario but none of the same bloggers blogged about it becoming regulated a few months ago - those I sent some (not Damian) the regulation. Less news worth often means less post worthy, sadly, with blogs. How many bloggers post titles like "Sky Not Falling Today"...or newspaper columnists for that matter.

But look at the article Damian refers to. One hundred and fifty taxi drivers have ignored the man and the dog but it is the Muslim driver who gets the treatment because his religious beliefs (which we can assume are honestly held) made the man with the dog's "blood boil." Did he bring the complaint against all taxi cab firms in the area, clearly a possible tactic, or just the one with that last cabbie? And how did he choose structure his claim? One always structures one's claims, you know.

I have no idea what lesbians and Knights of Columbus have to do with dogs and taxis. But that is a problem with cherry picking one isolated case and placing it next to another - from two different jurisdictions, one being BC. There was also the couple given the boot from a "Christian" B+B in PEI who lost a human rights case there, too. I suppose the implication is that there is a war on Christians, though it seems really to be a ban on the intolerant supply of commercial services by Christians - something both the faith and human rights codes lean against. The law still stands and was applied: do not provide a service if your faith cannot accommodate short of undue hardship. The taxi firm did accommodate, though the individual driver would not drive. How did the Hall accommodate? They didn't. Is it a worthy comparison? Not a chance. As I said, you can't compare these two cases as easily as Steyn would have you believe. The case on the hall is the matter of a ruling which turned on the question of "undue" hardship. The other was after a settlement by the taxi firm. It is likely the driver and his beliefs were not in any position to actually guide the outcome at all.

Believe me - if there was the slightest evidence of it, I might believe it but being a Christian in Canada I am happily not concerned. I am far more concerned for the faith by the money changers, adulterers and other sinners within. But that is the wicked work a little understanding can do. You can find even arguments in favour of Satan if you craft your research from the Bible just so. A little learning is indeed a dangerous thing. Newspaper columnists are some of the best proof of it. Damian is not. He is a good man indeed whose shit I would gladly be flung with if only to assist him in becoming a better man thereby.

PS: Damian, John goaded me by email to reply. He really did. I think he's the real trouble maker around here.

posted by Alan on August 16, 2007 9:07 PM

Alan, JD is most definitely the trouble-maker around here. And I am most definitely puffy and fluffy - just ask my wife, who sees me at my puffiest and fluffiest. 'Nuff said. Prolly too much, in fact. :P

Here's my big problem with your rebuttal, Alan: you haven't bothered to rebut. Oh, you've said that the cases I've pointed out are cherry-picking, and not representative of the whole. Perhaps you're right, but again, why do you simply want John's readers to take your word on it - especially when they have some evidence of to the contrary (albeit evidence you say isn't representative of the whole)?

And by the way, the KofC claim and the dogs-and-taxis claim were both filed in the same jurisdiction, namely British Columbia, not different ones as you wrongly suggested.

Back to the main point, though: John asked what was a sincere and reasonable question, which was how we might be able to explain the logic behind apparently contradictory decisions. I submitted that trying to apply logic to them was futile, and provided a bit of support for that idea in the form of yet another claim in the same jurisdiction that put Christian religious beliefs behind same-sex human rights, whereas the taxi claim put Muslim religious rights ahead of disabled human rights. The situations aren't identical, but they're congruent. And all you've done is insult Mark Steyn and tell everyone that my evidence is thin and off-point without providing a shred of support for your own position, other than an implied "trust me, I'm a lawyer."

I hope you can see why I'm reluctant to do so.

(Did I offer up enough insults for a cage-match? No? I'll try better next time.)

posted by Damian on August 16, 2007 10:11 PM

OK, I will drop the mock insult but I am, sorry, still very much unimpressed. I missed the BC taxi thing. Me wrong. So why is there no great human rights commission conspiracy?

The first difference is really that one is a settlement. The blind man agreed to what Steyn portrays as "his treatment". It is his fault that the ruling is structured as it is. Similarly, the human rights commission was not in control of the issue in the case of the teacher. The Supreme Court found our constitution included sexual orientation in the protection of human characteristics relating to "sex". And he doesn't distinguish between people in the commercial sphere - the KoC - importing their prejudices. Would the hall have been rented to a bi-racial couple in 1968 or a Catholic-Protestant one in 1958? Likely not. That is why human rights law is there - to free us from such prejudices. This does not mean the KoC aren't having their religion stomped on. They are free to have their hall, use it for religious purposes and wear funny hats - and forget that reaction...I am a Mason and know what a funny hat is.

But when you move into the public sphere and offer goods on the market, you have to follow the law whether it is in relation to product safety, taxation or selling freely throughout the public without discrimination. So Steyn neither understands the field he is discussing not the lack of analogy among the particular cases he uses to make his non-point. Pap. You may still find me dismissive to Steyn but I am very comfortable with that as everything of his I have had the misfortune to read carries this quality of shoddy thought. People can be broadly read and still stunned.

posted by Alan on August 17, 2007 6:08 AM

I am a Mason and know what a funny hat is.

Aha! Much is made clear. Dammed Illuminati.

Alan - for this space, a day that screams "The Sky Is Not Falling" is one where the posts are full of livestock, a letter from a politician, and questions about quaint and abstruse legal questions in foreign countries... but I gotta keep it interesting enough people will come back... right? Hell yes right, my ego demands it!

While I agree it gets difficult, sometimes, to slog through it all as both sides in any question that makes it to the news tend to describe things from the extreme viewpoint - I really was looking for the explanation of the seeming dichotomy of Damian's observation:

I submitted that trying to apply logic to them was futile, and provided a bit of support for that idea in the form of yet another claim in the same jurisdiction that put Christian religious beliefs behind same-sex human rights, whereas the taxi claim put Muslim religious rights ahead of disabled human rights.

With the core of my perplexity therein represented by the italicized section.

Alan's early discussions make sense, if suffering from the disappointing aspect of technical legalities trumping, with no real discussion of the underlying conflict (seemingly endemic to lawyerly explanations, however seasoned with barbs tossed in at individuals) at issue, summed in the italicized bit of Damian's proffer.

Alans last two paras get to the heart of the matter - from a legal perspective. His continued dismissing of Steyn that he tosses in then bumps the applecart - spilling some fine Granny Smiths' - as he then just calls us ignorant fools guilty of shoddy thought... by proxy.

Dammed Illuminati-smarty-pants.

posted by John of Argghhh! on August 17, 2007 6:49 AM

I only called Steyn a twit. It is up to you to associate yourself with a person whole hog no matter what as opposed to the quality of their individual statements. I think you are smart enough to take my heed in fact, however much I am the minor prophet shouting in the wilderness. That means I think you are as clever as me. That is an unbelievable compliment.

posted by Alan on August 17, 2007 7:04 AM

Snerk. [Moves to mirror to check for "Kick me" sign...]

posted by John of Argghhh! on August 17, 2007 7:21 AM

kat: thx for noticing.

..and there is no "IF" about it. IRGC is now / has been physically present in the battlespace. IRGC is now / has been in custody. IRGC wears uniforms, and sometimes may or may not be wearing such uniform and may or may not be carrying their Geneva ID card.

competant tribunals will need to be convened.

posted by MajMike on August 17, 2007 8:10 AM

I believe the final issue here is the differential treatment of religious beliefs of a minority, when a Jew or a Christian expressing any ideas of faith or attempting to live by them in all aspects of their lives tends to bring out the horror of potential theocracy. Crucifix on a wall? No. Prayer rugs and special sinks for ablutions? Yes. Carry a bible in school? Be ridiculed for your faith. Carry a Koran and you are suddenly everyone's persecuted, brilliant brother.

It is a matter of how you view the situation.

Mention God as a guiding factor in your personal and public life? A lunatic who is on the verge of creating Armageddon in order to fulfill some biblical prophesy. Insist that Allah, his messenger and the stringent laws of Shariah be the guide of your own personal life, those around you and the future of the free democratic country that has given you asylum? You are suddenly a celebrity invited to all sorts of official government events, political dinners and all over the television.

If Jerry Falwell talks about a woman's place is at home (not that I agree, just mentioning), he is lambasted from one end of the English speaking world to another. Yusif Zakaria writes a two page op-ed on the need to cover women from head to toe, make her subject to a male family member's whim, insist her only protection is in the bosom of her family or marriage and, suddenly, he is everybody's darling, simply defending his cultural beliefs even as he lives and practices them within a free and democratic state.

You see, we are not about whether one religion is better, but we are concerned that, when our constitutional laws are used to depress our beliefs and push them into the darkness behind the doors of an unseen private life where public demonstrations are villified, that other religions are not only allowed to flourish in public, but are given protections (including such foul things as designating disagreement as hate speech and providing government funded forums for preaching) that we are not and never have been afforded.

Frankly, we don't need those protections, however, it is simply hypocrisy to make it otherwise for another. Laws and human rights protections be d*mned. They are being bent to imply something that does not exist and has never been planned (namely, the Christian theocratic take over of a secular state) while offering a hand to something that is widely stated publicly as THE plan: namely the institution of Islam over all nations.

I just read some idiot saying he would prefer Extremist Muslims over "fundamentalist Christian's". What sort of idiocy and self loathing breeds that?

The secularists have succeeded in demonizing Christianity, only to turn around and swill down an even more stringent, dare I say, violent and exclusionary religion. that is what we are talking about. Parsing laws means nothing compared to that.

posted by kat-missouri on August 17, 2007 8:22 AM

That has nothing to do with it, k-m. Import all the external factors and comfortable grudges all you like - it has nothing to do with it.

posted by Alan on August 17, 2007 8:34 AM

Now you're talking like a lawyer, Alan.

It has *everything* to do with it - the legal niceties of each separate incident notwithstanding.

The point is - reasonable people, with inexpert knowledge, looking at the events can come away with the impression that Damian, Oldloadr, Kat, and Steyn have come away with - and just asserting hand-wave legalisms and dismissing the concerns fails to address the concerns - it actually fans them.

Engagement - and reasoned explanation is more helpful. Just saying "Trust me, I'm a lawyer" isn't, as Damian noted.

Because while you are looking at it through the legal prism, and wanting to reduce it to the specific circumstances of each case - defensible, surely - you are hand-waving away the larger cultural context in which it swims.

IOW, perception is reality, and you are only chipping, in very small ways, at the perception, and dismissing, in a sense, the views of people who's perceptions don't match your own.

posted by John of Argghhh! on August 17, 2007 8:41 AM

I trust then you will similarly roll over and accept tangential understandings of matters military and geo-political, then John. This is not about "legalese" but about how something actually works. If you do not enngage with the system to understand it, as with any system, you will fail to understand. Steyn is a great proponent of the shopping of failed understanding.

So if you want to import a lot of non-relevant non-truths to distract and undermine a discussion about one topic you must support doing that for all topics. I know you have too much integrity to do that so I hope this illustration...illustrates.

posted by Alan on August 17, 2007 8:52 AM

head.hurts.
*switches focus to helping Maggie find out where John erected the Octagon*

posted by AFSister on August 17, 2007 9:00 AM

One of the reasons I started this blog was to provide the context that many times the MSM leaves out, due to ignorance, or time and space constraints.

I think I do try to "accept tangential understandings of matters military and geo-political" - but not to roll over on them.

Nor do I expect you to.

I'm just suggesting that simply dismissing them isn't helpful to your attempt to enlighten, as they are part of the context, too.

One of the things that irks me about many otherwise fine blogs is just the sort of thing you are talking about.

Of course - it's also part of what makes them more popular, too, as many of the willing-to-comment wanderers of the internet are looking for exactly that.

One thing that keeps a lot of people away from the blogs, unless they like that. It's been interesting to watch the blogs evolve.

It's another reason that the bulletin board-style spaces still thrive - they're moderated, and people feel safer there. Unfortunately, in many cases, that just reinforces the bubble people live in, too.

posted by John of Argghhh! on August 17, 2007 9:03 AM

Snerk - we got one, Alan. AFSis is down for the count!

posted by John of Argghhh! on August 17, 2007 9:06 AM

Consider, however, that I have a number of time described in lay language how this opinion you have cited in a poor opinion. Dismissing the irrelevant to the question is very importantif one is to get to the nub. Yet people are called moonbats for suggesting less on many blogs.

If the point is to observe upon how society has changed, that is fine but readers are getting into "shoulda, coulda, woulda" area if they do not come to a problem with understanding open to receive an education on the new topic. Frankly, I am a bit surprised that people in the military or Damian in another logical regulation system are as unfamiliar with what are fairly general systems of legal process. But fear not - again, I only dismiss Steyn not you or the Denizens.

posted by Alan on August 17, 2007 9:11 AM

..and there is no "IF" about it. IRGC is now / has been physically present in the battlespace. IRGC is now / has been in custody. IRGC wears uniforms, and sometimes may or may not be wearing such uniform and may or may not be carrying their Geneva ID card.
competant tribunals will need to be convened.

Okay...when I said "if" I meant as in a "formal declaration or recognition" of said war, not this proxy war without officially recognized "war".

And, when I said "wearing uniforms", I did mean to imply that, if they are in Iraq now, without a uniform and participating in terrorist acts, they do not fall within the III conventions as opposed to, if we went head to head with a battalion and they had on uniforms, captures, wounded, etc would fall within the appropriate convention.

Why is it not that straight forward?

posted by kat-missouri on August 17, 2007 9:25 AM

I have to speak up about the Law (as sacred as it is to lawyers) and the simple truths of right and wrong to us huddled masses of middle class fly-over people:
1. In 1854, the US Supreme Court ruled that a black man was not a human being endowed by his creator with certain inalienable rights. That made it law, but it didn’t make it right (BTW, I’m a real Southerner, so for me to use that argument is revealing to those who understand U.S. culture).
2. In 1973, the same institution ruled that an unborn baby was not a human endowed by his/her creator with the most basic of inalienable rights (life). That made it law, but it didn’t make it right.
3. I can go back further: During the colonial period, the British Parliament enacted laws to protect and support British business at home at the expense of business interests in the colonies. Then, they enacted taxes targeted specifically at the colonies without allowing those colonies any voice in the matter; what followed was called a revolution.
Therefore, Alan, pardon the rest of us if we don’t have the same respect for the “Law” as you have.
Bottom line: If a muslim cabby has the right to refuse a blind man, the KofC certainly has the right to refuse access to lesbians. That is what’s right; regardless of what the “Law” of your county, my country or any other country has to say.
BTW, if it wasn’t for lawyers, we wouldn’t need lawyers.

posted by Oldloadr on August 17, 2007 9:28 AM

And I know somebody is going to say, "If it wasn't for soldiers, we wouldn't need soldier, either." Hey, that's true, as well, but I'm more willing to live in a country with no lawyers than one with no defense establishment, but I admit I may have a bias there (LOL).

posted by Oldloadr on August 17, 2007 9:33 AM

I don't have any particular respect for law or lawyers. I do think it is something you have to work to understand if you are going to get supportable opinions on it and its implications. If you are satisfied with not engaging with what the actual rule - accomodating to the point of undue hardship - even means, you are admitting you can't be bothered learning that which is easily learned.

The world is generally confusing to those with closed minds to their own education. You can do better.

posted by Alan on August 17, 2007 9:35 AM

Alan, I'm not a lawyer, as you know, so maybe this is all just going way over my head. But I'm not sure you're being consistent here:

If you're going to hammer the KofC on this point, don't you have to hammer the Muslim taxi driver too? Nobody is telling him he has to allow a seeing-eye dog into his home, just into his cab. This is the crux of my confusion, because it sure looks like a double standard to this layman's eyes.

posted by Damian on August 17, 2007 9:41 AM

I think the we're circling the issue - how hard *good* communication is.

posted by John of Argghhh! on August 17, 2007 9:41 AM

Heh - this is spiraling faster than I can keep up - and I have to go have my soul crushed at a meeting.

posted by John of Argghhh! on August 17, 2007 9:43 AM

Alan - Engaging and understanding are not the same as agreeing with the processes or agendas of those who practice the "Law." I fully understand how lawyers get to where they get to in these silly decisions and I fully disagree with the whole process. Are you saying that makes me closed-minded because I think the system is broken. I'd say someone who keeps on believing in a broken system is the one who is closed minded.

posted by Oldloadr on August 17, 2007 9:43 AM

No, John, Damian is circling smaller and smaller circles to get to the nub. It takes time to learn. I am not saying I am either right or a perfect educator but you have to do this, especially with law.

Remember it is not the taxi driver, it is the firm. The firm and the blind man agreed to a way out of the complaint that made them happy. That is the difference with the settlement and the order against the Hall owners. It was in a way a private solution that worked for them and may have effectively left out both the commission and the taxi driver from the final outcome. Both the firm and the blind man agreed to each give to get a solution that works. One may infer that the blind man accepted the honesty of the beliefs of the Muslim taxi driver due to his accomodation in return.

Compared to that, how did the KoC accomodate people of opposing belief in the supply of the rental of the Hall? They didn't. So the blind guy has an arrangement to get a taxi from the (for profit) company supplying the service while the lesbians do not get a hall from the (non-profit) company. That is how I see it playing out.

posted by Alan on August 17, 2007 9:52 AM

Frankly, Oldloadr, I think that if you consider law is involved with "agenda", is "silly", is "broken" and that you "fuly disagree with the whole process" that you have decided neither to engage with or understand what law is. That is unfortunate in a democratic society which has to have a legal system and I would be interested in what cause someone to be so jaded to their civic responsibilities in relation to the Republic they love.

posted by Alan on August 17, 2007 9:58 AM

The answer as to what would make someone so jaded is in my comments above concerning Supreme Court rulings.
As to not engaging, that doesn't make sense since:
1. What are we doing here?
2. I never mentioned whether I vote in every election (which I do), or if I contact my elected official (which I do) or if I try to influence those around me during election cycles (which I do) so how can you say I'm not engaged. In fact I am fully engaged and enraged...
To me, it is not acedemic, but the very survival of Western civilization and the Judeo-Christian ethic

posted by Oldloadr on August 17, 2007 10:07 AM

BTW - I didn't know that despising the legal profession reflected poorly on meeting my civic responsibilities... I would be interested in hearing the logic on that one.(LOL)

posted by Oldloadr on August 17, 2007 10:12 AM

Start with separation of powers of the Republic under the constutition and go from there.

posted by Alan on August 17, 2007 10:15 AM

Ahh. I finally understand. You're saying that because the blind man agreed to settle with the taxi company beforehand, instead of letting the tribunal hear his case and render a decision, that we can't blame the tribunal for the resulting odd standard.

Fair enough. The dogs-and-taxis case wasn't decided, it was settled - privately, between the parties involved, and not by some directive of the BC Human Rights Commission. I get it.

There's the logical explanation you were looking for, John.

Although, Alan, I do wish you had made that point clearly at the beginning of the exchange, rather than making us wade through all the rest of your non-arguments first. ;)

posted by Damian on August 17, 2007 10:38 AM

Who said I was a great communicator? ;-)

Remember, too, in the Alberta gay teacher case, it was the Supreme Court that effectively made the determination, not the human rights commission by stating something that should have been obvious in our Charter of Rights. So, Steyn's examples of a great HRC conspiracy are not examples of HRC dealings at all. Which makes for a bad observation on his part.

posted by Alan on August 17, 2007 10:44 AM

You know alan, I completely understand the legal reasoning behind these decisions in regards to settlement v. order.

However, it does not change the perception. And while you were busy dissing the "perception" as an unworthy adversary of the law, it is "perception" of illegality, immorality and inequality that drives the writing and application of law. In fact, no such law protecting human rights would exist if someone did not perceive an inequality.

the law said separate but equal. People perceived that it was separate, but it was unequal. We get civil rights movements and desegregation. The law was wrong.

Without "perception" there is no law.

Constitution says all men are created equal. Another law written in at the same time as the constitution was written states that a blackman is only 1/3 a man to be counted towards the census. Now, is that law written because it is a known fact that a black man is worth 1/3 of a whiteman or is it because that is the perception of that time? And, because perceptions change, the law is rescinded.

And, finally, just because the legal endings do follow the law, it does not change my perception that specific laws that are to protect the rights of individuals are being used to protect and set group rights above the individual. It does not change my perception that some bizarre social and cultural shift has taken place wherein Christians, particularly openly faithful Christians, are now the spawn of all evil and Muslims are the good guys.

Not that I see Muslims as evil per se, but I certainly do not see Christians as evil God haters not practicing the correct religion because I object strenuously to certain practices and beliefs of Muslims. Particularly, when I see those beliefs as being forced on certain segments of society and when it specifically violates those tenets of individual rights.

posted by kat-missouri on August 17, 2007 11:02 AM

Your preceptions are independent of the law. They, you would agree, are at odds with the perceptions of other citizens. That is why law is so important and so sadly dismissed by lay people. That attitude is like trying to play a game with no concern for the rules. In a democracy, it is worse because the civic responsbility of the citizens is to ensure the rules make sense. Otherwise, they make sense for someone else.

If bitching about the law is like bitching about your flat tire. Fix it.

posted by Alan on August 17, 2007 11:33 AM

I am a Mason and know what a funny hat is.

Hey now. I'm a Mason too and I'm not familiar with funny hats. Of course I'm not a Shriner, just blue lodge and Scottish Rite.

After watching this donnybrook I'm still left with some qualms and quibbles.

Now the fact that the blind guy settled the case may be well and good for him but what about other people with service animals (not all service animals are dogs and not all people using such animals are blind).

From a practical point of view (not the laws forte) isn't it much more practical to have a printer find a substitute printer than to have a taxi driver find a substitute driver? The time constraint on taxi travel seems to militate for immediate service over a print job that could take days or even longer to complete.

Again I acknowledge that one was settled by the parties without going all the way with the commission and one was decided by it but I think the law should take notice of reality instead of ignoring it.

And the commission is a bunch of pooty-heads.

Oh no, did I type that out loud?

John, NO! Ouch! Stop that! Arrgghhh! (Now I now where that comes from!)

posted by NevadaDailySteve on August 17, 2007 11:53 AM

And the commission is a bunch of pooty-heads.

Oh no, did I type that out loud?

John, NO! Ouch! Stop that! Arrgghhh! (Now I now where that comes from!)

*choking with laughter*

Great. Now I've got coffee on the keyboard. Again.

posted by Damian on August 17, 2007 12:07 PM

[Good job with the Masonic secrecy obligations, brother NDS]

I would just say that the settlement would not have been the result of the parties canvassing other rulings as much reflecting what the parties themselves thought was practical. The same goes in a sense for comparing criminal code sentences from one place or another with difference facts. The courts and tribunals only deal with the cases before them as do the parties in their settlements.

posted by Alan on August 17, 2007 12:14 PM

Alan - Now explain what my despising the legal profession has to do with separation of powers; especially in light that the US constitution does not require that a judge be a lawyer. In fact, even as we argue these little points, somewhere in the US there are sitting magistrates that have no law degree, are elected by popular vote and often re-elected by an appreciative citizenry. I admit that in my 51 years I have met maybe 3 lawyers who I didn't think were wasting oxygen so I can't really say I despise them all collectively, but I do despise what they, as a group, have done to the Constitution while John and I and a good many others were busy defending that same document. To say that despising lawyer shows disrespect for the separation of powers, therefore, doesn't make any sense. In fact, it's the over-reach of activist judges in this country that have showed a disrespect for the aforementioned doctrine.

posted by Oldloadr on August 17, 2007 12:43 PM

You can lead a horse to water...

posted by Alan on August 17, 2007 12:53 PM

kat: Geneva III (the one about the EPWs) has provision for the state of armed conflict. the underlying problem is that the nation-state of Iran is not officially a party to that conflict. if uniformed members of that nation enter into the battle in Iraq, that is a national thing. if they come out of uniform (for plausible deniability), and fight, that's an instant war crime, by being unlawful combatants w/o national coverage.

in the first case (in uniform), the presumption is that they are entitled to EPW status, handled under Geneva III (even though State Dept has a good strong set of words with the Iranian diplomatic corps).

in the second case (out of uniform) the presumption is that they are unlawful combatants, handled under Geneva IV. so then the IRGC member in custody produces some kind (any kind) of documentation that purports to establish identity as a military member of Iran. so when status is in doubt, Geneva says to convene a tribunal. and that's where all the muckety-mucks get wrapped around the axle and don't let us do the tasks we know how to do and that internation law calls for (see also Gitmo). so if we can't do a tribunal to determine if he is eligible for EPW status, we're stuck with someone who appears to be an unlawful combatant (eligible for a war crimes trial), or he appears to be a saboteur or spy (eligible for an execution), but we all know damn well that he's actually a soldier in the service of his own sovereign nation.

...and no soldier deserves to be yanked around like that, even if he is a soldier from a country that my country happens to be having a wee disagreement with. if he is a uniformed, card carrying member of his own nation's military, abiding by the Laws of Land Warfare, he DESERVES the privileged treatment as an EPW.

posted by MajMike on August 17, 2007 12:54 PM

Alan - OK, I admit that I'm just a dumb old bomb loader, but I'm obviously missing the nuance of your explanation I requested... ;)

posted by Oldloadr on August 17, 2007 1:04 PM

Well, what I mean is that your Republic's government has three general areas all of which run on law. You can't just abandon one third, the courts, and expect to be on top of it. You also have to engage with it or the whole of society gets beyond you and you are left vulnerable to newspaper columnists and the bias (an vested interests) of talk show hosts. Law is not complex but it is awfully complicated - basically it is a set of a million small questions to be asked in response to the full fluidity of the community. And sure lawyers are asses. I can't stand them for the most part either. But that doesn't mean you hand a thrid of your government over to them.

posted by Alan on August 17, 2007 1:52 PM

You lost me now, you seem to be arguing with yourself, or agreeing with me or a little of both. I'm the one that said I'm not happy with the state of the legal profession which, in this country actually controls 2/3 of the federal government (judicial and legislative); at least W has an MBA... but I'm sure he's surrounded by lawyers.

Anyway, you said, "Law is not complex but it is awfully complicated - basically it is a set of a million small questions to be asked in response to the full fluidity of the community." This is where I think the argument hinges. Your philosophy is that the law should be akin to laser surgery and used the way people vote in Chicago, early & often; whereas I am quite happy with the sledgehammer approach and then only if it is used very seldom. Of course, if it were up to me, dueling would have never been outlawed...

posted by Oldloadr on August 17, 2007 2:13 PM

Law is a zillion piece zigsaw puzzle with 17% missing and a picture that keep changing. It attracts money and that attracts arseholes.

posted by Alan on August 17, 2007 2:17 PM

Well, I can't argue with that (LOL)!!!!!!!!!!!!!

posted by Oldloadr on August 17, 2007 2:24 PM

Law is a zillion piece zigsaw puzzle with 17% missing and a picture that keep changing. It attracts money and that attracts arseholes.

That needs to go in a dictionary of pithy quotes! I *will* add it to the sidebar...

posted by John of Argghhh! on August 17, 2007 2:33 PM

Alan,

I visit this blog regularly since Jonah over at NRO linked here a few years ago, but have not yet commented because I have never served in the military and I follow my grandfather's favorite saying - its better to be quiet and let people think you are a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. So while I can never name the Whatzis, I do receive a great education about a lot of things.

I am a lawyer and the contemptuous and condensending attitude shown in comments like:

"No, John, Damian is circling smaller and smaller circles to get to the nub. It takes time to learn."

is just too much for me not to comment. I guess some of us just need time to catch up with a great mind like yours. So please allow me a couple of days to read and digest your comments so I may understand the profound statements contained therein.

I agree with John - "It has *everything* to do with it - the legal niceties of each separate incident notwithstanding."

Now on to more interesting topics - where is the Octagon?

posted by Padraig on August 17, 2007 3:31 PM

Padraig - this *is* the Octagon...

posted by John of Argghhh! on August 17, 2007 3:45 PM

Padraig, I am a lawyer, holding a masters of law, who may well have changed the constitution of a nation, who has almost twenty years in, who actually knows Damian...and I do not give a rat's ass. Back to your smug silence. My grandfather taught me to make a place for myself in the world. Damian and John know exactly what I mean and accept what I write and what I try to do. A shoot and run hand-puppet comment like that is less than zero.

posted by Alan on August 17, 2007 7:13 PM

Let's get back to this 'competing good' and judicial activism thing, Al. There's some insults and cursewords that havent't been used in conjunction with the topic yet. ;)

Really, I still have a hard time with the KofC thing. Much like the Catholic Charities being essentially forced out of the adoption business in MA it doesn't make sense to me. Down here in the lower 48 it amounts to, imo, abriging freedom of religion. YOu must rent to someone, giving tacit approval of something in direct competition to the practice of their religion, or get out of your building. I don't follow how you(general you, not specificaly Al) get there. It seems rather selective(as the taxi case, where the blind man was selective in who he brought the suit against) as there were others who offered the service desired. I understand why this had a different outcome(settlement vs a rendering) but not how the weighing of led to the decision in the lezbos favor.

And we haven't had any curse words yet, or anyone storming off angry at Al. Geez, I go on the road and you all become softies.;)

posted by ry on August 17, 2007 9:07 PM

And we haven't had any curse words yet...

Completely missed guys calling each other *l@wyer*, didja?

Geez, ry, wipe the coffee off your screen once in a while...

posted by BillT on August 18, 2007 5:07 AM

I think the difference between the Church and the KoC is important. The hall was rented out publicly. Once you do that you are subject to the public law. A church, by comparison, is a private matter between its adherents. Switch around the ground for discrimination and consider. Could you refuse to sell a cup of coffee to a guy who was gay, Buddhist or blind because you were religiously anti-gay, anti Buddhist or anti-blind? Could you refuse to rent an office to someone who was Jewish, in a wheelchair or from New Zealand due to your personal political beliefs?

The rule in Canada is that you have to "accommodate to the point of undue hardship" when providing a publicly offered service. Though I have not read the ruling as closely as I might, I understand that the KoC just flat out rejected the reception even after the contract was signed. They did not meaningfully engage with the balancing of their rights with the rights of the renters.

So you may disagree with the rule but that is the rule the HRC had to deal with. It can't reformulate the rule as it is one established by the courts above it. Christians do not get any more of a free ride than anyone else in the system so if they do not want to engage with providing services to a certain group, don't provide services to the public generally. In for a penny in for a pound.

posted by Alan on August 18, 2007 8:23 AM

Coffee? We don't drink no stinkin' coffee in CA(nobody walks in LA---either). It's Lattes(sp?) here. Every drinks something with a special name and have to tell the person making the coffee for them how to do it or they complain all frickin' day about how the person f'd up their coffee---even after getting a 4th coffee for the day.

I just stick with Coke-a-Cola, or Code Red(Mountain Dew). Stay away from that Jolt Cola(shudder).

Al, I do disagree with the ruling. Probably because I don't agree with the definition of 'undue hardship' in realation to religion. Let us say, just for argument, that the RCC tossed ecumenacism out the window(B16 is coming close to that you know) and only allowed Catholics to use the hall for a 'donation'. Why or how does this change anything? Why or how would that make a difference? Would someone still come in and complain about it and would they, in your lay opinion(since giving legal advice is a bad idea, nobody wants to hold you to it, but just looking out for you), and would they have grounds. They defined it as being for Catholic use for a donation. Would a Presbyterian then have the grounds to scream discrimination?

If the point of the law, or maybe more appropriately the spirit, is to prevent groups from stepping all over each other how did it do that in this case of the KofC? It seems like it said the basic assumption is that religion must be private and only private. That sounds like a serious abrogation of the right to practice to me, particularly when you have sects that hold as a bit of dogma that one must be rather open and public about their stuff. It's not like saying that there's a health risk in practicing vodou, which has been done.

posted by ry on August 18, 2007 6:59 PM

To preface my comments, I am not a lawyer but my brother is.

I have listen to his legal arguments for 25 years and I can tell when he on the losing end of an argument. As the saw goes:

“If you don’t have the facts on your side, pound the law. If you don’t have the law on your side pound the facts. If you have neither on you side pound the table."

Judging from the amount verbiage Alan is pounding the table.

I do agree with Damian, Oldloadr and John on the fairness issue of the Blind man’s case. That is to say that although the blind man got some compensation the out come was unjust.

Looking at the issue from “30,000 feet” it certainly does appear that the Islamic cab drivers are exerting a disproportional amount of influence in this case.

Further, it looks like a few legal men are aiding and abetting this disproportional influence. Some would say this is jihad one inch at a time.

Many people have examined the methods of Islamic warfare and it is all encompassing and never ending.

The use of any/all tools including taqiyya, infiltration and barristers to wage war is acceptable under the Quranic concept of war.

Quranic Concept of war:

“The universalism of Islam, in its all-embracing creed, is imposed on the believers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political, if not strictly military. . . . The Jihad, accordingly, may be stated as a doctrine of a permanent state of war, not continuous fighting.” -Majid Khadduri

It’s a must read. Myers articulates the concept of total Quranic war well.

posted by Ledger on August 18, 2007 10:28 PM

It might be worthwhile to note that both Alan and another lawyer friend of mine agree that this settlement (between North Shore Taxi and Gilmour - the blind guy) doesn't preclude another blind fellow with a guide-dog filing a complaint if he feels discriminated against by a Muslim driver refusing service because of the guide-dog. And the other blind fellow could file that complaint, even if the taxi company abided by the terms of the Gilmour settlement - because the settlement doesn't circumscribe anyone else's rights under the law, as I've been made to understand it.

So, personally, I'm now interested to see if any of the other sightless folks in the fine city of Vancouver feel it's right to have to wait for another cab if the first one has a problem with dogs. Because I'm curious how the BCHRC would rule if forced to actually make a decision where a Muslim's religious right conflicts with a disabled person's right to non-discriminatory service.

posted by Damian on August 20, 2007 9:46 AM

by Denizens on Aug 16, 2007 | General Commentary

On the importance of Roll Call.

As reported yesterday, Permanent Private Houdini was dropped from the rolls of the Castle Argghhh! Guard Force, with his status changed to Missing, Presumed Lost, though the SAR effort continues. Right after I posted that bit, I went downstairs to let Sergeant Kiki and Recruit Gunner back in before I headed off to soul-crushing meetings. It's waaaay too hot to leave 'em out - and they don't want to stay out. Like any good turnkey, I count 'em out and I count 'em in - to make sure the Interior Guard doesn't sneak out for some AWOL time on their own, and to make sure all the Exterior Guard are accounted for upon re-entry.

Imagine my bemusement when, in a blurry rush of canine fur, they came galloping in, black, russet, black.

Waidaminnit. There shoulda only been one black. I whirled around, thinking that Permanent Private Houdini had self-recovered! But the blur of excited canines had swarmed up the steps to steal some cat-food prior to being forced into their less-interesting demesne.

Up the stairs I go.

I was right. Much looting of cat breakfast was being done.

And there *were* three canines being scolded by the felines for their audacity and loutish behavior.

Sadly, the second flash of black was not Permanent Private Houdini.

Say 'Hi!' to Harley.

Meet Harley. He was AWOL from his own guardmount from the demesne kitty-corner to the left rear of the Castle.

I'd not met Harley before, but he had tags, so he was apprehended, put in irons, and returned to his Commander. Who was *very* annoyed, though happy to have Permanent Private Harley back under military control, so to speak.

While we're at it - you might as well meet the Keets of Argghhh! as well. 19 of them survived being shipped in the mail as eggs, 3 weeks in the incubator and hatching process.

by John on Aug 16, 2007 | I think it's funny!

Representative Boyda's letter explaining the "Storming Out" incident.

Essentially, she says it's not what it was reported to be. Rather than summarize it - you can read it here.

If you can't read it - drop me a note and I'll send you a .pdf copy of the letter.

This letter is being sent to everyone in the District who sent in letters, etc, to complain about this event. I gather there were, um, well, several.

I have one question: when she mentions Keane's reluctance to discuss deployments and readiness, was there or should there have been concerns that this was an open meeting and they were asking him to divulge possible OPSEC info?

Wouldn't it have been appropriate to direct or ask for information to be provided in a closed session?

And, I understand that the media can distort things (don't we know it), but, she might be aware that the timing was questionable.

In terms of "dangerously thin", I have two comments:

1) I don't see anything valuable in making those statements public as it confirms certain suspected notions of our enemies and general military rivals if it is true. I wonder if Rep. Boyda understands why that would be a concern while she is simultaneously concerned about the status of our military.

2) Instead of a draft, instead of the political fight we've had to date, why hasn't anyone, including Boyda made a call to the nation to defend it? I mean, I know why Boyda doesn't because it would break the Democrats stance of not supporting the "wrong war". However, I have said for a long time, even if we weren't in Iraq, Afghanistan would be a major battle front requiring even more forces than are imagined now if we were fighting the alleged "real war". We're talking hundreds of thousands rotating as we do in Iraq. If that is the "real war", why isn't there a call to the nation for people to serve and defend?

In my mind, that is what needs to happen long before anyone imagines a draft or complete withdrawal to lick wounds.

posted by kat-missouri on August 16, 2007 9:53 AM

I believe that the only thing that Miss Nancy is passionate about is protecting her backside.

Readiness of the Armed Forces is indeed very important. But, readiness for what? Should we surrender and admit defeat because we don't want to reduce our readiness? If we are in Iraq to win, then we use the very best military in the history of the planet to achieve that important national objective. Too many of our political leaders have forgotten that and believe that the purpose of the military is to provide pandering opportunities for the political class.

posted by leavenworth centurion on August 16, 2007 9:54 AM

Isn't it intresting that all these Congress Critters, who have absolutely NO military experience, are willing to dismiss the views of a highly qualified General who is universally respected within the military community? After all, if his testimony doesn't agree with the Democratic orthodoxy that this war is "unwinable" or if he doesn't repudiate the current policy, then he is obviously an idiot and should be ignored.

After all, we are Congress Critters, and, as such, we know more than the military, and the Commander in Chief, about operational tempo, deployment cycles, and tactics and "strategery."

They remind me of the old lawyer's story. When the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. When the law is on your side, pound on the law. And when neither the law, nor the facts, are on your side, then pound on the table.

There seems to be an unseemly amount of table pounding going on in the Cave of the Winds these days.

Marine6 Sends

posted by Marine6 on August 16, 2007 10:12 AM

I *wondered* what the Centurion might have to say on the subject.

You should be getting a letter too, if you gave them an address.

I've also sent her District Director, Jason Fizell, a note explaining forms of address for military types for use in correspondence, etc.

It's the little things that people remember, for good or ill.

posted by John of Argghhh! on August 16, 2007 10:24 AM

from what i understand most of Boyda's correspondence about this event was positive, or, at least, people telling her they thought she did nothing wrong.

posted by jason on August 16, 2007 10:55 AM

Jason, I haven't gotten the numbers from the staff - but I'll ask 'em.

I know there was a lot of positive feedback as well as negative feedback - but I'd suggest that if it was overwhelmingly positive, this letter wouldn't have been put out, or would have been put out with a different tone to it.

posted by John of Argghhh! on August 16, 2007 11:13 AM

ah yes.

the right of the citizenry to petition the gov't for a redress of their grievances.

truly i do love this so.

posted by MajMike on August 16, 2007 12:36 PM

Your Rep. Boyda seems to have promoted herself to Damage Controlwomyn First. From what I read of her inane "explanation", on my crew she would still be a SeaWomyn Recruit, and in severe danger of staying that way for her full enlistment.

Keep up the harassing fires, Major, they are having good effect.

posted by Rivrdog on August 16, 2007 1:13 PM

You really haven't arrived till you get multiple sets of duplicate letters saying the same thing.

I have 2 so far.

I also have a multipager from Moore on tax on cigarettes.

I never wrote to him about that. Now the only thing that confuses me is ......

Does that make him a Putz? or a Schmuck?

posted by jim b on August 16, 2007 4:57 PM

Geez, Jim - howcum every post about Boyda, good or bad, becomes a post about Moore?

8^D

posted by John of Argghhh! on August 16, 2007 7:21 PM

Because I believe they are the same.

However I may be wrong, so I will in the future refrain.

posted by jim b on August 16, 2007 10:20 PM

Jim - I'm just amused. That's why I stuck the smiley in.

I do think there is difference between the two. Moore sounds very much like a Democrat Yin to Ryun's Yang.

Boyda has some significant differences from Moore - on the issue of firearms, for example.

I'll just put it this way - Boyda seems far more genuinely intersted in working on the common areas of our interests, and is not dismissive of the viewpoints of those who's views differ from hers.

The question is - can she keep it up as she matures in office (assuming the Leavenworth Centurion fails to find enough peasants with pitchforks to put her on the congressional pension) or does she morph into what Ryun was and Moore appears to be?

We'll see.

posted by John of Argghhh! on August 17, 2007 6:25 AM

Jason - As I said, I queried a member of Nancy's staff (Jason Fizell, her District Director) who said the response was about 50/50 - which is about what I would have guessed, given the results of the election.

posted by John of Argghhh! on August 17, 2007 7:28 AM

by John on Aug 16, 2007 | Politics

August 15, 2007

H&I Fires* 15 AUG 2007

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

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

Ah, the ides of August. My muse has fled. Too many brain-cramping meetings for course-of-action development, scenario development, and the thrice-dammed data collection management plan that underpins it all...

As if Mr. Vick doesn't have enough problems...

Embattled NFL quarterback Michael Vick, facing federal charges related to his alleged participation in dogfighting, has been hit with a "$63,000,000,000 billion dollar" lawsuit filed by a South Carolina inmate who alleges the Atlanta Falcons star stole his pit bulls and sold them on eBay to buy "missiles from Iran," FOX News has learned.
Jonathan Lee Riches filed the handwritten complaint over "theft and abuse of my animals" on July 23 in the U.S. District Court in Richmond, Va.

Ya can't make this stuff up. H/t, Toluca Nole.

For those of you who don't follow this stuff... the Brit Ministry of Defense is trumping the US Department of Defense in it's muzzling of the troops. Go visit The Remittance Man and read, Save Your Arrse. H/t, CAPT H.

I'm having a chat with an anti over at his place. I invite you to join - just remember, if you're going over and representin' da Castle - take the Rulez with you. He seems to run a clean joint in that regard. H/t, myself!

Mike D pointed me to this website - Aircommando.org - where there is a great collection of TINS. How can you *not* want to read a story titled, "The Night the Frog Ate the Moon?"

On a bittersweet note, Permanent Private Houdini, of the Exterior Guard, went AWOL and his status has been changed to Missing, Presumed Lost, and he's been DFR'd (Dropped From the Rolls). There is a chance, based on some things happening around town, that he might have fallen victim to some foul play. We're hoping he just found himself a new family. Sergeant Kiki, beside herself over the loss of her minion, got into a pretty deep funk, so the Castle Guard Force has a new recruit - Gunner. He's a shepherd/lab mix - and since Sergeant Kiki is a Bloodhound/lab mix, that gives us a blab and a slab. You can meet them both over at SWWBO's place.

I gotta head out to the farm and make sure the flock of 19 keets have water sufficient to their needs. Cheers! -the Armorer

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

Featured YouTube Smackdown video for August 15:
IED attacks in Iraq - gcbirzan

Note: If you aren't familiar with the YouTube Smackdown, please visit the first link above before taking a look at the second. Thanks. - Rickbert

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

Not that most American readers would particularly care, since your nation doesn't engage in the political version of musical chairs known as the parliamentary "cabinet shuffle," but Canada has a new Minister of National Defence (MND): the Honourable Peter MacKay. He moved over from Foreign Affairs (like going from SecState to SecDef), so he knows the Afghan file from the civvie side. No military experience, but not many pols in Canada have time in uniform. Good communicator, and photogenic (according to my wife, he's a looker). And he'll be getting good advice from the soldiers in charge - our Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) is General Rick Hillier (who previously had an exchange stint as 2IC of III Armoured Corps in Ft. Hood) and he's the best CDS we've had in at least my lifetime.

The outgoing MND was a retired Brigadier General who wasn't a stellar politician, which is why he's now the Minister of Revenue (in charge of tax collection, not economic policy - a big step down from Defence). He's living proof of the argument against mixing uniforms and power suits: a good and decent man entirely unsuited to the thrust and parry of politics and the media. He appeared out of his league, even though he successfully wrangled a multi-billion dollar aircraft procurement from blue-sky conceptual to first tail delivery in eighteen months. Life ain't fair.

The incoming MND's biggest issue now is communicating the Afghan mission, because public support is extremely low (mid-thirties, last I checked), and at some point in the near future, we're going to have to decide if we're extending Canada's commitment beyond February 2009. Without public support, that extension would be political suicide for our minority government, and they just won't do that. So they've put someone in charge of Defence who is there specifically to sell the Afghan mission to the Canadian public. We'll see how it turns out in a few months. - Damian

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

$63,000,000,000 billion dollars

So thats $63,000,000,000 followed by 9 zeros? :-)

posted by Yu-ain Gonnano on August 15, 2007 8:55 AM

Who in the hell could possibly believe that Vick is even smart enough to come up with a "dogs for missles" scheme???

posted by AFSister on August 15, 2007 1:09 PM

Just for the record, I overlapped school with the new Minister of Defense and hung out at a cottage next to his out east at some point I can't fix. I say this for no real reason other than through my knowing where he came from as an intelligent and decent guy with decent values he is as close a call I might have to voting Conservative in a Federal election. He is also as good a person as is available to turn the public perception of the Afghan mission around.

Maybe he can also finally get those ice-troopers for the Arctic that we apparently also need.

posted by Alan on August 15, 2007 1:42 PM

But the arctic is American, Alan! We sent the Nautilus there first. It's ours!

Sigh. This whole 'who controls the arctic gas pockets and SLOC' has to be one of the sillier territorial brouhahas I've ever seen. I blame the Russians.

posted by ry on August 15, 2007 11:35 PM

And in 1954, HMCS Labrador circumnavigated North America.

Cheers

posted by J.M. Heinrichs on August 15, 2007 11:50 PM

So, if this Global Warming thing is actually true, the Northwest Passage will be an easy voyage for yachts, and Canada can avoid having to buy nuc subs?

posted by Justthisguy on August 16, 2007 7:46 AM

To get serious: I dunno if the Gerbil Swarming thing is gonna happen, or not. We might be better off if it does happen, because there's one thing that is certainly happening, and that is Peak Oil. Whether or not one believes in the (I think it's crazy, but will listen to arguments) abiogenesis theory of the happening of petroleum, we are most definitely using up the stuff faster than we can find more of it.

Western modern technical civilization was built on lots of cheap energy. When we run out of that we are gonna be in a world of hurt.

posted by Justthisguy on August 16, 2007 8:12 AM

I have read that 90% of the American Meteorological Society doesn't believe that Global Warming is man-made but the inevitable warming and cooling the Earth has always experienced.
I also read that the end result will be some deserts will become jungles and some jungles will become deserts; some coastal cities will disappear, but some inland cities will become tourists havens. In other words a zero sum for humanity as a whole. Maybe Alaska wins and Florida looses; hey, sometimes you're the windshield and sometimes your the bug...

posted by Oldloadr on August 16, 2007 9:12 AM

Yeah, Oldloadr, but as I wrote above, that's beside the point. The point is, I think, that we have been using frozen sunshine in the form of petroleum for a while now, and we *are* going to run out of the stuff. Maybe not in my lifetime (I live an unhealthily dissipated lifestyle) but pretty surely in the lifetimes of the grandchildren of people of our age.

What will they do without chemical fertilizers to grow their food? And Diesel fuel to transport it? And electricity to run air conditioners in places like Florida and Arizona which would be otherwise uninhabitable?

I think we should build more nuclear-electric power plants, to include breeder reactors, to use thorium, and also send up some solar-power satellites to beam some power down.

Save the remaining petroleum for chemical feedstocks; it's too valuable to burn, as much fun as that is.

Yah, I'm not-quite-quoting Jerry Pournelle here, but I do believe he's right about this

posted by Justthisguy on August 16, 2007 10:33 AM

JTG - I agree that we are wasting petroleum products, especially when it comes to stationary power production facilities. These could be run on nuke, hydroelectric, garbage or even coal (with smokestack scrubbers). However, there is a vocal interest group out there that is opposed to any one of these. There are politicians that tell lies and half-truths about energy and the environment to pander to voters' fears. There is also a lot of domestic crude that was locked away (ANWR) by liberals that used the environment as an excuse but really want to force a foreign dependence crisis. Their goal is to abolish personal transportation as we know it and force us all into mass-transit (no, I can’t prove that, but it’s the only cynical answer that makes sense and I’m a cynic [LOL]).

posted by Oldloadr on August 16, 2007 11:34 AM

by Denizens on Aug 15, 2007 | General Commentary

August 14, 2007

H&I Fires* 14 AUG 2007

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

***********************************
From David's Medienkritik:

This is a shocking about-face in one of the German media's harshest Iraq war critics. Now Der Spiegel declares:
"The US Military is more successful in Iraq than the world wants to believe."

What is behind this sudden and radical change in attitude? More here.

Jules Crittenden elaborates on the subject: Sprechen Sie Deutsches Mit Einer Tauben Welt - Speaking German to a deaf world.

Chuck Simmins on one of those US Military Myrmidons:

A two year old falls into a well. His father runs to the local outpost and begs the Americans for help.
We help. And when the dangerous part comes up, the officer leading the
unit does the digging himself.

Tell me again how it's all about the oil.

My response to Chuck was -

Well, false comparison, Chuck. It's *never* been about the oil for the troops. That's *Cheney's* thing.
8^ D

Lastly - go here, right now - and demand that Murray make some Castle Exclusives!

Okay, it's your turn - the Armorer

********************************
Some interesting finds the last few days. For instance, last month the DoD announced a contest to build a better, lighter battery pack for troops to use in the field. During evening perusal of the news, I discovered this interesting invention: Flexible Battery.

When they say "flexible" they literally mean paper thin and bendable. The applications could be infinite, on or off the battle field. I keep thinking of the computer screens and keyboards that literally roll up or fold away to pocket size. Now there is a battery that does the same. In the field, beyond the computer, this little beauty could literally be rolled in sheets and used to line back packs or any other equipment to reduce bulk and provide huge amounts of resources on the field. One problem: possible cost issues. But, hey! When has that ever stopped the DoD? Might even be worth it.

My perrenial pet peeve about conservative views on women in combat comes alive as Elizabeth Donnelly at NRO lets loose with half true/half bunk complaint about the recent RAND report that she thinks the Army is trying to push quietly in the background so it can go on doing dastardly things like "forcing" women to serve in combat or combat related roles at the "mercy" of their commanders. In a strange twist, she d*mns these women with faint praise, calling them "brave" while making them into victims of a big bad army just like the left likes to do to our serving men and women in general. That is just bunk.

Finally, as an editorial comment, I've seen a lot being made about the "attacks on US forces down 50%" report. People, it is high summer. Almost too hot for us to operate. It affects the insurgents, too. Further, we've seen these trends before as we press forward operationally, the insurgents go to ground or run to the next place which looks like Ninevah and Salahdin provinces. Do not get excited by statistics. General increases or decreases mean nothing unless they are sustained. For four years now, we've been getting such thrilling reports only to see the insurgency turn back around and be worse than it was. What we need is sustained reduction in attacks over months, not a quick thirty day view.

In this war, statistics mean little until the trend line shows the minimum amount of combat effort coupled with the minimum amount of attacks. (note, I do not say "no attacks" or "no combat"; that's not how a multi-factional insurgency works). Don't get me wrong because the Anbar situation coupled with this report makes me pretty optimistic, but I am not going to declare the war won until it is and that includes many more "statistics" beyond how many mortars are lobbed, IEDs taken or casualties. That seems like a recipe for setting up early withdrawal.

Something I was thinking about when I read the Der Spiegel "Pigs Are Flying Over Germany" article coupled with some interesting back pedaling by the Dems and our press. Are the Dems now going to use a favorable report to "Declare Victory" and bring our troops home "with honor" tact? [yes, yes...I am alluding to Vietnam pre-fall of Saigon and the Paris Treaty] If I've learned anything from our friends on the left, it is cynicism.
-Kat
********************************
Featured YouTube Smackdown video for August 14:
islamic state in iraq : TOTAL DESTRUCTION humer ied's - nitcharizdoing

[Armorer's note - these are graphic combat videos - be aware of that.]

We're noticing a big increase in the number of flagged video's that YouTube is keeping online but putting behind the meaningless 'Click if you're over 18' button. This may be connected to the suspension of huz999's account. He was one of the big digital jihadi uploaders, and he may have raised enough of a stink that YouTube thinks this is a 'compromise' gesture. As they say, developing... - Rickbert

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

Obama steps in it again. And wait'll you hear his ideas on who should be occupying Iraq. Unbelievable (and frankly dangerous) ignorance on display. - FbL

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

by Denizens on Aug 14, 2007 | General Commentary

News from the 'Stan.

Update 3 from our Fobbit out in the Misty Mountains Old... a Sailor serving in a land-locked war.

It’s been a little over a week and it already seems like Groundhog Day. Things are progressing rather well, job wise we are still trying to come to grips with where in this staff we should be. The tools we brought have some benefit, and we are trying to figure out where best they can be applied. It’s a slow process; we’re trying to integrate with a staff that’s very busy and constantly on the move.
Still plugging along. I know I got some chuckles over the Army chow, but hey Steak and Seafood day on Fridays sometimes has fried shrimp instead of lobster. The food here is actually pretty good. There is an Arab company doing our messhall, and they keep it pretty diverse. Being NATO you also have the occasional sauerbraten and Marmite is always available for the Brits. No Pirogues yet. I usually stick with Raisin Bran and bacon for breakfast; kabob for lunch (basically a gyro without the bread: meat, lettuce, cucumber and yogurt sauce); and curry and rice for dinner. Tried the pizza last night, not enough sauce and the bread was NOT pizza dough. Some things are better left to the experts.

Schedule here is I get up about 5 or 5:30 and head for the gym (I know, I’m just as surprised as you are.) Shower, eat, work, eat, work, have a team meeting to discuss the work we did, eat, and then watch a movie on the laptop or read until about 9pm. Not such a bad schedule, it’s a little screwy because we deal with the staff here and with our rear team analysts back in Norfolk. We get pretty busy with Norfolk right around the time we stop working with the staff. Time change means they are getting to work in Norfolk when we are stopping work here. (Kabul is 8.5 hours ahead of Norfolk.)

Want to talk about the mission. Overall we are here to support the Afghan government get on its feet. There are three main problems we face: insurgents, drugs and corruption.

Insurgency is not just the Taliban, you have some related Islamic warlord types such as Ghulbbudin and Haqqani, some numbers of Al Qaeda and related foreigners here to fight the Great Satan, and local thugs trying to carve out sections of the country. They have been taking a real kick in the pants lately. The fighting season starts in spring, when the mountain passes clear of snow and the ground thaws enough to plant IEDs. This year when the insurgents came out of their holes they found NATO waiting. They have been off balance ever since, and we intend to keep them off balance all the time. No rest for Mullah Omar this winter. They are getting desperate, we are killing or capturing their best, and they can feel it all slipping away.

Growing poppy for heroin is fairly common, especially in the south. The money helps the insurgency, and causes a lot of corruption. The problem with eradication is giving farmers alternatives. Opium is labor intensive and easy to transport and store. The farmer hires lots of locals to score the poppy and collect the sap. Any replacement crops will have to support these people. Other problem is roads, it takes a lot of time to get crops out to market, and fruit and vegetables would probably rot before they got there. We can take the crops away, but we have to give them something back. My hope is cotton.

Third, and in my opinion the most important is corruption. Lots of people are making a buck off the drugs, and from graft. Its not just Chicago style “donate to the selectman and get a job as a fireman” type stuff (known as “Backsheesh”) but Afghan Policemen getting their entire paycheck stolen. Even when they do get pay, its not enough to live on. Its hard to fault them for being paid to look the other way. While I would like to have some high ranking scalps, the best way to attack that is probably direct deposit. Fix the banking system, and no one gets their hands on these guys pay.

by John on Aug 14, 2007 | Global War on Terror (GWOT)

On Watching Grass Not Wilt

It's the monsoon season in this portion of SWA; I believe the travel guides employ the understatement "hot and wet" to describe it. However, there *are* exceptions: just north of Shangri-La, it's hot and it floods; just to the west, it's hot and it floods; just to the south, it's *really* hot and it floods; just to the east is the biggest %$#@ing desert on the subcontinent, and Shangri-La's perched on an arm of it.

The temps here have been running in the mid-forties (okay, that’s Celsius, but it *feels* cooler saying it that way -- and it's a bit chillier than the low-fifties of the last two weeks) and the grass -- in those spots where it *does* grow -- is doing fine, thenkew veddy much, unlike the fescue fringing the Castle. Zero rain, but the humidity runs about 78%, so it (and the mold) gets all the moisture it needs right from the air.

Ummmm, leastways, I *think* it’s grass -- it could be a species of exceptionally thin, nano-saguaro…

Results from Talking the Talk: I’m not sure what the coverage has been in MSM-Land, but the four-day Afghani-Pak jirga produced some interesting results. The closest suitable English translation I can conjure for jirga is “a summit conference incorporating national and trans-national entities” -- the trans-national entities being seven hundred Pashtun tribal delegates. And every tribe was *not* represented.

Next time you want to get a glazed look from your confreres in the conference room, ask them, “Did you know that there are sixty distinct Pashtun tribes in Pakistan?”

The jirga began with the usual Inter-Stan “You’re the reason we have the Taliban problem because you can’t control your own borders” cross-accusations, progressed to the Intra-Stan “We’re never going to be able to control our joint border unless we both cooperate” and finished with the Trans-Stan “None of us will tolerate terrorist sanctuaries or training centers in our territories.” Now it’s time to see how the pro-Talib tribes -- who boycotted the jirga because the Taliban was *not* invited -- will react. The jirga closed on Sunday after

1. establishing a fifty-member joint council to promote Afghani-Pak GWOT cooperation,

2. issuing a statement calling for a push to “reconcile the opposition (i.e., clansmen with Taliban relatives who support them solely because of family ties) with the rule of law” and

3. calling for both governments to “wage an all-out war” on the “nexus between narcotics and terrorism.”

Left undetermined: who will enforce the decisions and who will monitor the effectiveness of the enforcement.

Results from Walking the Walk: Pak Army Air and Frontier Forces have been lumping those members of the opposition who have previously (and vehemently) declined to reconcile with the rule of law – and every couple of days, a few Cobra crews return here to change boots and grab fresh note pads. NAI for the Cobras last week were several valleys near Datta Khel, where “militants tied to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban” have arms caches, training camps and staging areas. The “militants” have been taking casualties and losing turf and responded by murdering several tribesmen and two Afghans they accused of being “American spies.” Earlier this year, they killed three Chinese engineers on a border survey in Kashmir and claimed that they, too, had been American spies.

Ground actions included a VBIED which killed four villagers in Swat and an assault on a security post in Tanai, in South Waziristan, which left the troops unscathed and four attackers deceased. Firefights erupted in Darghai, Mana and along the Bannu-Miranshah Road -- no Army or paramilitary scout casualties; the attackers retreated. The spate of activity in Tanai and Darghai may be an indication that the terrs are being pressured from the Afghan side; most of the "opposition" in that area are Uzbeks -- they're AQ, not Taliban, and when the Pak Army cleaned their clocks in a series of fights earlier, they retreated across the border.

Note to the DNC: there are now 90,000 Pak troops deployed and fighting religious extremists on their own turf and neither the media nor the political opposition are squeaking "sectarian strife" or "civil war" because they know they'd be pilloried as fools. What they *do* call it is -- GWOT...

Meanwhile, the fire blazing in one of India’s largest ammo depots continues into its third day, with debris from explosions – including live rounds – impacting two klicks away. Two dead, thirty injured and 20,000 people evacuated from the villages surrounding Khandroo, in Indian Kashmir. Two separate Kashmiri “liberation” groups immediately claimed responsibility for the fire, but Indian authorities state “the cause is still under investigation.”

One of the customs India and Pakistan observe during their respective Independence Day celebrations is a prisoner exchange. Both sides routinely patrol (and sometimes probe) along the ill-defined Cease-Fire Line splitting Kashmir, and sometimes those patrols are discovered in the wrong place at the wrong time. When the troops know they'll be spending less than a year behind wire if they're captured, they're less likely to resist-by-fire, which helps keep the tension up there at Moderate-Extreme High rather than Critical-Extreme High.

Among those released yesterday were one hundred Indian and forty-eight Pakistani fishermen who are going to have a rough time explaining where they’ve been to their wives…

by CW4BillT on Aug 14, 2007 | Postcards from the Edgy

Fort Riley Heroes. Real heroes.

Ones that would be acceptable to Rosa Brooks, even.

'Raider' medics recognized for skill, bravery under fire

By Pfc. Nathaniel Smith
4th IBCT, 1st Inf. Div. PAO

BAGHDAD - They often are the first people who arrive to render aid when Soldiers are wounded in combat. They are combat medics and have saved numerous lives while serving in Iraq.

Spc. Nicholas Roden, a medic with Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 1st Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division from Moline, Ill., and Spc. Nicholas Bryant, a medic with Troop B, 1-4 Cav. from Baltimore, are two such professionals whose skill was recognized at an award ceremony July 20 at Forward Operating Base Falcon.

The two received the Army Commendation Medal with Valor device for their actions with their respective units while on patrol in southern Baghdad's Rashid District.

Roden, who works with the 1-4 Cav. personal security detachment, and his convoy were exiting a hostile area when he got word over the radio someone had been hit. The moment he heard, he said there was only one thing on his mind.

"Get to my casualty and take care of him," he said.Roden did get to the wounded Soldier, despite having to cross an intersection that still was taking fire. For Bryant, the method of attack was different, but his reactions were no less impressive.

When his convoy was hit by an improvised explosive device, he immediately grabbed his aid bag and rushed to the stricken vehicle. After assessing the situation, he realized what he had to do. He removed his protective gear and crawled under the truck only to find his comrade was beyond help. Upon treating a casualty inside the truck who had his leg broken in three places, Bryant remained inside the vehicle as it was being lifted by a crane to stabilize his wounded patient, preventing further injuries.

"I just got a surge of adrenaline when I saw somebody hurt," Bryant said. "You don't think about yourself, you just worry about them. I just wanted to get them out as fast as I could."

Staff Sgt. Grant Pratt, the medical treatment noncommissioned officer for 1-4 Cav. from Dillon, Mont., said it was nice to see the medics recognized. "It makes me feel good because usually medics don't always get honored for the job that they do," he said. "For our medics to be the only guys (being recognized) right now in the squadron, it makes me feel good for our guys."

Staff Sgt. Jacob Perez, the medical evacuation noncommissioned officer for 1-4 Cav. from Corpus Christi, Texas, said Bryant's and Roden's recognition reflects highly on his unit. "I think it makes us look great," Perez said. "We pretty much are the best medical platoon within the entire brigade, and everybody knows that."

The Raiders' medical platoon put in a lot of hours prior to deploying, and Bryant and Roden's actions are reflective of that, their NCOs said. "We trained almost on a daily basis. Instead of sending these guys home, we were doing classes, we were training," Pratt said. "We knew we were coming here. We trained hours and hours and hours every day." "We know what to expect and what's going to happen. There's a bunch of guys fresh out of basic and advanced individual training," he added. "We weren't going to let them be focused on the basic book knowledge of a medic. We knew that it's far more advanced than that."

Bryant and Roden have been honored for their hard work and uncommon actions under fire, but if you ask them, modesty is all you'll get. "I appreciate it, but I was just doing my job," Bryant said. Roden added, "I appreciate it, but I'd rather have my friend back." Such humility is expected from the two medics, Pratt said. "It's a testament to their character. They are very humble guys," he said.

"We've made our guys understand that their job is more important than patches or awards and all that stuff, and they understand that more than a lot of people out here who can't wait to get a combat patch or who are chasing a combat medical badge or combat action badge or infantry badge," Perez added. "They just go out there looking for stuff. Our guys do their job, and they're good at their job.

"If somebody wants to recognize them for valor, that's great, but it's not going to go to their head and they're not going to change their job in any way."

Well done, soldiers!

"We've made our guys understand that their job is more important than patches or awards and all that stuff, and they understand that more than a lot of people out here who can't wait to get a combat patch or who are chasing a combat medical badge or combat action badge or infantry badge," Perez added. "They just go out there looking for stuff. Our guys do their job, and they're good at their job.

More importantly, I think - well done, Staff Sergeant Perez. Getting the job done and coming home is more important than merit badges, however deserved they may be.

by John on Aug 14, 2007 | Observations on things Military

August 13, 2007

H&I Fires* 13 AUG 2007

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

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

Proof of what we always knew about the East German border guards.

More good news from Iraq, though probably not new to anyone who has been following things closely. - FbL

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

Rove resigns! To work for Clinton Campaign! -the Armorer

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

The Farm of Argghhh! has produced it's first livestock - keets. -the Armorer

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

Ah, yes. Bush=Hitler. To those small minds with no sense of scale, I suppose this action - as documented by Jackalope Pursuivant - planting fake bombs at an Army recruiting station, and equating it to the efforts of the White Rose, seems proportional. I wonder if they expect to run the same risks and pay the same price as Sophie Scholl, her brother Hans Scholl, Alex Schmorell, Willi Graf, Christoph Probst, and Kurt Huber. Heh. -the Armorer

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

Greyhawk has a Snark Attack over at Milblogs. And Soldier's Mom has some thoughts on the proposed bill to commemorate military spouses... I'm with her - I don't think it was any less tough on Mom when I went to dangerous place than it was on her when Dad went to dangerous places. How about just *military families* - because, especially in the era of the draft - I rather suspect more parents got "the knock" than did spouses. -the Armorer

*********************************
Featured YouTube Smackdown video for August 13:
العجز الأمريكي : الأمريكان عجزوا عن إزالة عبوة ناسفة - muslmon

You don't need to know Arabic to understand what this video is about... - Rickbert
*********************************

Being a Soldier's Angel is all about being for the soldier, sailor, airman, Marine, coastie. But sometimes, even Angel's get a pat on the back, in a big way. -the Armorer

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

Bemusing comment on the state of politics in America, when Karl Rove - the Spawn of Satan Himself (as labeled by Kossacks), has a higher approval rating than Congress. -the Armorer

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

by Denizens on Aug 13, 2007 | General Commentary

A thought for the Copperheads...

"Experience proves that the man who obstructs a war in which his nation is engaged, no matter whether right or wrong, occupies no enviable place in life or history. Better for him, individually, to advocate 'war, pestilence, and famine' than to act as obstructionist to a war already begun.... The most favorable posthumous history the stay-at-home traitor can hope for is -- oblivion."

~~ Ulysses S. Grant, Personal Memoirs

I wonder how General Petraeus' memoirs will read...

Confused by the term "Copperhead?" Click here. There's room for argument all around the war. There are plenty of people making the case for principled opposition (though I believe a good chunk of the political opposition to be opportunist) and I recently ran into someone who is war-weary and casualty-conscious in a way that surprised me.

One problem for the conduct of this war is that we've not actually declared it a war (for good reasons and bad) and the administration is painted into the corner of what would traditionally be considered campaigns of an overall war have been mounted as separately authorized undertakings - kind of like WWII being conducted with Congress authorizing the separate Army and Navy campaigns in the Pacific, and each invasion in Europe, North Africa, Sicily, Italy, and finally, France - with a re-authorization needed to take the war into Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Germany.

But, since we've decided to do this without a draft, and don't consider the individual fights to be true battles for survival - that may be apt, I suppose...

Whatcha think?

Yes. I believe that is our current situation. When we chose the misnomer of "pre-emption" in Iraq, that is how people decided it was a "war of choice" rather than necessity.

I think it will be interesting to read Petraeus' memoirs particularly how he reacts to now being labeled Bush's political hack instead of being given his due as a commander who, through trial and error during his first mission as a field commander in Northern Iraq, developed an idea for counter-insurgency that actually worked and then presented it as n option for the entire nation which the president bought into and which meets the president's goals.

arguably, it is the political goals of the civilian controlled government that the military must plan to meet. It is an instrument to enforce those political goals, not the instrument which makes it. while it can shape the final goals through advice and reporting of the ground situation, it never, ever sets them.

I was just reading this op-ed from Real Clear politics: Salute and Disobey Hat tip SWJ; which basically approaches this subject from three points of views, mostly refuting Desch's arguments regarding what the generals should have or would have done for planning of Iraq and what the civilian administration should have done in re-action. Basically, he advocates that the administration and Rumsfeld should have provided over all objectives and gotten the hell out of the way. Richard Meyers, former Chief of Staff, totally disagreed.

Desch went on to reply with a total dress down of Petreaus as mentioned earlier: a political general.

an interesting read and goes along with your post.

If more time later, I plan to address this op-ed because it basically represents the difficulty of balancing civilian goals, civilian control and military operations.

posted by kat-missouri on August 13, 2007 10:00 AM

General Grant's statements might have been true, once; they haven't since Vietnam, and possibly Korea.

Now it's seen as a feature.

I don't know how to persuade that significant proportion of our population that there really is a valid threat. But days after 9/11, there were teach ins being organized at my university to agitate against "bombing Afghanistan," as they put it. Some people refuse to be convinced.

As far as our armed forces' size and strength, is a draft really necessary? We had larger active-suty, reserve, and national guard forces in the 80s & early 90s, and did it with volunteers.

I don't know if it's possible to do that now - the resident brain trust could do that much better than I - but it is an option that doesn't seem to be discussed much. But then I've been away for a while.

posted by UtahMan on August 13, 2007 10:25 AM

Actually, U-M, the "why is recruiting hard now when it wasn't in the 80's" question is being bruited about at the watercolor.

On offer as contributing circumstances...

1. There *is* a shooting war on. This tends to discourage the "but I only did it for the GI Bill" types.

2. The economy, as a whole, is in pretty good shape, reducing that incentive, despite the Democrat's and Anti's use of that shibboleth in terms of who serves.

3. The available prime demographic is smaller.

posted by John of Argghhh! on August 13, 2007 11:58 AM

Dunnigan & company over at Strategypage have also claimed that our smaller forces are better, man for man (and woman for woman {g}) than those 80s or 90s forces.

If I read their logic correctly, it goes back to quality over quantity. I'm sure the regulars here would agree that literally quadrupling special forces slots would result in an overall less-capable force. D & Co. argue something similar would occur if we greatly increased conventional forces.

John: you've probably already seen this, but just in case: Why Congress Has Not Declared War Since World War II.

posted by Casey Tompkins on August 13, 2007 2:38 PM

Casey - clearly the current forces are better, soldier for soldier, and unit for unit, than the units I served in in the 80's (which, on balance compared to most militaries I partnered with over the years - were at least as good, and oft times better).

The question still remains, are they sufficient to the task?

My answer - if we're going to do major combat operations or smash-and-grab punitive actions, they probably are.

If we're going to do things like Iraq again, absent a large multi-national contingent with serious numbers and capabilities - they are not.

However, as I've oft-times stated, I'm not all that keen on what we chose to do in Iraq, and was not from before the time it became apparent that it wasn't going our way - so I think our forces are about the right size for what we need - and that we've let our wants, vice our needs, put us in this corner... kinda like living on credit, except there are lives at stake.

That said - we did it, we need to give it an honest shot and try to clean it up.

But I hope the lesson is taken to heart - it's just a hell of a lot harder to knock a society onto a different path than we accepted.

And I lay that lesson at the doorstep of President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld, and their advisors who championed the idea.

This does not mean I'm going to vote for any of the Democrat candidates currently running... just in case someone was running out to check my registration (which is *undeclared* - I still haven't picked a party...)

posted by John of Argghhh! on August 13, 2007 3:35 PM

This is so frustrating. It seemed to me to be the right thing to do at the time. Saddam was thumbing his nose at the U.N. sanctions. He was shooting at our planes. Terrorists were using Iraq as a way station on their path to jihad. His actions made it appear as if he were trying to hide evidence of a significant WMD ability, if not actual program.

Four years in I'm wondering. I discounted the usual suspects; the peace-at-all-cost crowd, the bomb-them-back-to-the-stone-age group and nutcases on both the right and left. I tried to evaluate the evidence we were presented before deciding to support Bush's decision.

From my admittedly civilian viewpoint we went about the business too tentatively. I think we should have surged sooner. I understand we were trying to bring the provisional Iraqi government into the process but at what price?

Despite any misgivings I might have about the conduct of the war I still support Bush's decision. At the time he made it what else should he have done?

I don't see how we can conduct successful law enforcement actions against the overall terrorist threat. While using the military might be a bad fit trying to use law enforcement is a worse one. We're in a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.

You're never going to convince certain segment of society of the need to use force, no matter how necessary it might be for survival. Their power to delude themselves is more powerful than anyone else's power to reason with them. I'm not saying they're stupid, just unwilling to see past their own prejudice.

What I fear most is some sort of meaningless "ceasefire" that politicians say is a way to achieve peace with honor that solves nothing and merely postpones the eventual escalation of terror.

I've managed to depress myself, if not anyone else so I'll stop here. Slog, slog, slog.

posted by NevadaDailySteve on August 13, 2007 4:27 PM

Steve - I'm just not a fan of pre-emptive war absent the kind of compelling case the Israelis had in 1967.

Doesn't mean I'm right.

I didn't like Kosovo, either, though that has thus far certainly worked out better, being a completely different case.

I can live with targeted smash and grabs, but I'm just not happy with being the guy who starts the war.

I understand that's surrendering the initiative. But the military is a pretty brute force approach to things.

Nothing is as simple when viewed from the past looking to the future as it is looking from the then-future to the past.

Which is one of those things I dislike about Monday Morning Quarterbacking historians and others.

I'm at least consistent - I don't like us starting things, absent a more compelling consensus or clear and present danger, whether they are going seemingly well (Bosnia/Kosovo) or not-so-well (Iraq, and to a lesser extent, Afghanistan) - if for no other reason than I don't see any reason to suspect the American people will support a long endeavor that carries with it dribbles of body bags stuff with Americans. They'll support a years long effort with lots of American body bags if they see a compelling danger (ala WWII) but we just don't have the stomach for a long-running war with casualties.

Oh, I know it would help if the press didn't portray seemingly nothing but the bad stuff, etc, leave aside their biases, but the reality is - the American people like relatively neat, somewhat tidy solutions.

They just don't like their wars like that. I don't think anybody planning the war thought that the people were going to be more supportive than they have been, either - Rumsfeld, et.al., just believed they had found a New Way that was going to get them around that problem - especially after the somewhat unique example of the Afghanistan campaign.

I think they were ambushed by the reality of it all, as well.

Just one guy's relative (around here, anyway) minority opinion...

posted by John of Argghhh! on August 13, 2007 4:49 PM

I guess, John, the question remains: If the American public doesn't see it as a compelling threat, will they be convinced at a point in time where it would require a massive campaign (WWII in scope and casualties, if not more) to put a stop to it, if at all.

Being on campus, many in my age group will be blind untill the last day, possibly even beyond that. Some will dhimmi right away, working against the 'freedoms' that they so cherish.

This is just the two cents of a college punk, however.

posted by GeoSTI on August 13, 2007 6:18 PM

Geo - *most* populations are like that, valuing life, however constrained, over strife.

Tyrants rely on it.

posted by John of Argghhh! on August 13, 2007 7:08 PM

Rumsfeld, et.al., just believed they had found a New Way that was going to get them around that problem - especially after the somewhat unique example of the Afghanistan campaign.

That New Way was, unfortunately, a rehash of MacNamara's failed ideas about Vietnam -- the Afghanistan campaign wasn't just unique, it was an anomaly. Carter stepped into the same hi-tech trap in the '70s when he appointed Stansfield Turned to "reform" the CIA by removing HUMINT and replacing it with ELINT.

I think there are a couple of us still around who remember how well *that* went, and not just in Iran...

Technology's a really handy tool in warfare, but never make the mistake of believing it can be the entire toolbox.

posted by BillT on August 13, 2007 10:08 PM

There was a book about the Viet Nam thing, written by a reluctant combatant. It was "If I Die in a Combat Zone", I think. The author was ready to split for Canada, had funny papers and false clothes and all that and was right on the border, when lying awake late at night his philosophy major and reading of Socrates came back to haunt him.

Socrates could easily have escaped; his friends had a ship waiting and were ready to bribe the jailors. Socrates considered that his polity had raised him, and protected him before, as he had protected it before as an infantryman, and that he had no right to go against its laws, though they did injustice to him in that instance.

The writer of the book changed his mind, showed up for his draft notice, and got to experience the absolute polar opposites of

1. A KewlManly&Wonderful officer to his being RTO to said officer, being Eagle-Scout-like in his virtues and also

2. A Despicable loathesome imitation of an officer who got one of his own men run over by one of his own tracks, and killed, because the doofus wasn't paying attention

posted by Justthisguy on August 13, 2007 11:58 PM

P.s. I don't think either of said officers got what they deserved, at least in this life.

posted by Justthisguy on August 14, 2007 12:03 AM

The author was ready to split for Canada, had funny papers and false clothes and all that and was right on the border, when lying awake late at night his philosophy major and reading of Socrates came back to haunt him.

And we'd be in a sorrier world without the full impact of Socrates' action. Plato would likely have viewed him as a hypocrite and opted to pursue a career as a math teacher.

posted by BillT on August 14, 2007 1:24 AM

Dang, Chief, I think there comes a time for every thoughtful guy who fancies himself to be a grownup, when he has to consider the question:

Just exactly what, would I rather die than put up with.

This might be an urgent question at times for those in the military trade.

It really is a very ancient philosophical question, though.

I'm afraid my answer might depend on my emotional state induced by whomever might be trying to make me consider the question.

(I mean, like, in the field, yaknow)

posted by Justthisguy on August 14, 2007 1:59 AM

by John on Aug 13, 2007 | Global War on Terror (GWOT) | Historical Stuff

Guns 'n Rosa's...

That's what CAPT H titled his email where he sent me this link to a photo essay on the Women's Village Defense Committee's in India. Imagine that - providing state-of-the-art weaponry to persons who are *not* full-time government employees (because, as we all know, being a government employee means you are by definition gifted with better judgement and superior intellect and impulse control - hey, just ask us!).

Indian women forming a militia - AP Photo.

Here's a better shot with fuller context. Yep, along with some AK's, those are home-built Indian INSAS'.

Gun Trash had the first correct answer - however, CAPT H, having pointed out the article in the first place, gets points for restraining himself as long as he did. Well, and for pointing out the article, too!

My first instinct when I saw the muzzle shot, which I knew to be wrong as I started looking closer, was MAS 49/56.

Examples of both are in the Holdings of the Arsenal of Argghhh!!!

by John on Aug 13, 2007 | Rifles

The Whatziss, enlarged.

Since *some* people were all whiney about it.

Try again. It's probably not your first guess.

I'll help a bit. *Not* Warsaw Pact. Nor from any of the nations which comprised the Pact at any time during their turbulent histories.

by John on Aug 13, 2007 | Gun Pr0n - A Naughty Expose' of the fiddly bits

August 12, 2007

It's still too hot to do anything except watch the grass wilt.

I'll get another picture of the whatziss for all you size mavens out there...

As a placeholder - how about you identify the weapon this woman is aiming in this AP photo?

What rifle is this woman aiming? AP photo.

My first instinct was incorrect.