Argghhh! The Home Of Two Of Jonah's Military Guys..: October 14, 2007

Every one of the derelict flyboys/girls involved from tippy top down the to most junior should have their career isntantly and permanently ended. No excuses, no appeals, no leniency, no nothing but a big hammer. Every single one had the obligation to do it right the first time, and to halt everything if they even thought there was something going on contrary to prescribed (in teeny tiny detail) practices.
I am sure that there are always billets available with Army units in the sandbox needing IMA personnel assigned, and these clowns might learn somthing with boots on the ground in a hostile environment. Too many homesteaders in cushy jobs working 9 to 5 hours in the flyboy fraternity.
"What would Curtis [Lemay] do?"

posted by John S. on October 20, 2007 12:05 PM

I didn't get near nukes, but was in Strategic Air Command units twice in the 20 yr AF career and I too was flabbergasted that something like that happened. No way would that have occurred in SAC. Heads would roll, careers would end and any NCOs involved would be starting over again as E-1.

posted by Gun Trash on October 20, 2007 3:55 PM

I'll sign up for that. That's how it was in my world. You get decertified as an officer, you'd seen your last promotion, and were simply a "Dead Man Walking..."

posted by John of Argghhh! on October 20, 2007 5:05 PM

I loaded or supervised the loading of nukes for most of my 24 years in the AF and I can't comprehend this much stupidity distilled down on one base. One base because all the screwing up occurred at Minot. It doesn’t surprise me that Barksdale personnel didn’t catch the mistake right away since they were told they had received conventional missiles; therefore no special security would have been required. I’m sure it was the Barksdale loaders who caught the screw-up when they went out to down-load the jet. The number of rules that would have to be violated and the number of airmen violating them in order to screw up on this magnitude is truly mind-boggling. When I first heard the news and that 4 officers had been relieved, I said there should be at least 20 more careers terminated and now I see the AF is looking at 70, which is probably a good number.

posted by Oldloadr on October 20, 2007 6:15 PM

Exactly right about the AF. Moving to Congress, I'm reminded of the difference between Congress and the Boy and Girl Scouts; being the Scouts have adult supervision. It's long past time for someone to use the paddle my 5th grade teacher had on ALL the behinds of the members of Congress, and most have at least two.

Walter M. Clark, SFC, USAR, Ret.

posted by Walter M. Clark on October 20, 2007 10:09 PM

I was once in a similar position. My ship had two capable systems and we were in a security alert drill. I had the quarterdeck watch, was cocked and locked and the Admiral waited on the brow. No trouble.

In another incident the weapons officer came off the beach, three sheets to the wind, and decided to do a security drill. It is rather scary to see a bunch of drunks (they had just came back too) running around in their skivvies with 1911s. The officer wound up against a bulkhead with a .45 screwed into his ear. I'm sure the skipper explained why it is not a good idea to rattle a security control room door at 2:30 in the morning.

posted by bc on October 21, 2007 12:47 AM

Jotm,

I, too, am surpised that this entire event happened. The Navy uses Marines to secure their special weapons, and havinf been certified to load and deliver these, it is unimaginable how such a thing could occur.

There is an awful lot I can forgive, but not this. This is absolutley unforgiveable, and I am happy to see so many heads rolling.

This nation is at war. there is no excuse for such sloppy procedures.

posted by AW1 Tim on October 21, 2007 6:46 PM

SO IT IS THAT "I" THE DRUNK DUDE IS OFF THE ISO.
I WILL JUST POINT ME WINKIE-PUFF-GROMET AT THE SIR ARGGHHH AND FAIR THEE MAIDEN PULL THE CORD BORED GRAPE-SHOT, NO QUARTER YE,NO QUARTER YE,
FOR FUN YA.......TURKEY?....SIMO...IRAN?

WHERE ARE THE SUBS??

posted by Richard (Removed from isolation) on October 22, 2007 1:25 AM

And Richard perplexes us all until you realize his comment is intended for the post *above* this one...

Then it's slightly less scary. Pirates and cannon, vice a pirate commenting thusly on nukes.

posted by John of Argghhh! on October 22, 2007 4:48 AM

Newton acknowledged that the Air Force needs to "restore the confidence" lost among the American people after the August incident, which raised questions about the safety of the country's nuclear arsenal.

Didn't raise the question of safety of the country's nuclear arsenal in *my* mind (especially since I grew up knowing about with these incidents) -- the question I thought about was "How often did they almost load a nuke for a live-fire exercise?"

posted by BillT on October 22, 2007 7:56 AM

Turret appliqué armour as used on a Leopard C2.

Cheers

posted by J.M. Heinrichs on October 22, 2007 1:18 PM

by Denizens on Oct 20, 2007 | General Commentary

More military justice news.

Legal affairs seem to be the order of the day around here of late.

Lance Corporal Tatum and Lieutenant Colonel Chessani are going to stand trial over Haditha.

Lance Cpl. Stephen B. Tatum, was ordered to face a court-martial on charges of involuntary manslaughter, reckless endangerment and aggravated assault. He is one of four Marines originally charged with murder in the killings.
The decision by Lt. Gen. James Mattis to send Tatum to court-martial comes after the investigating officer said last month that the evidence was too weak to prosecute him. But Tatum will not be tried on the murder count he originally faced.

Tatum, of Edmond, Okla., shot and killed civilians, but "he did so because of his training and the circumstances he was placed in, not to exact revenge and commit murder," Lt. Col. Paul Ware wrote last month in recommending he not face court-martial.

Lieutenant Colonel Chessani is facing the charges for Haditha that I think Colonel Karpinski should have faced for Abu Ghraib:

Lt. Col. Jeffrey R. Chessani faces charges of dereliction of duty and violation of a lawful order on allegations that he mishandled the aftermath of the Nov. 19, 2005, shootings, which followed a roadside bombing that killed a Marine driver.

Not surprisingly, Chessani's defense attorney is not happy:

Chessani's civilian defense attorney, Brian Rooney, told The Associated Press he was disappointed with the general's recommendation.
"I can tell you this decision by Gen. Mattis today is going to have a negative affect on all officers, including battalion commanders," he said, adding it would undermine the trust between commanders and their troops. "Are they going to be able to trust the word of their junior officers, senior enlisted and junior enlisted?"

I disagree with him, but admittedly from the safety of knowing I'm never going to be in the position Chessani found himself in. I think the net effect will at most be that commanders are more careful in that type of investigation - if for no other reason than because their JAGs will pressure them to be. That said, what a different story has emerged in the time since Representative Murtha used the event to slag his Corps. First Rule of Combat: The First Report Is Always Wrong. One reason (after having been burned myself in my blogging) that I don't always jump right on to something when it occurs. Part and parcel of why I won't be a Big Pundit, either. Because no one pays for sober analysis two weeks after the fact, they pay for Screaming Headline and Moralistic Posturing Right Now. Okay, I can sometime get caught up in the whole moralistic posturing thing.

There is an error in the article, since we're here. Chelsea Carter asserts...

He is the second colonel to be court-martialed over actions in Iraq. Army Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan of Fredericksburg, Va., was convicted of abusing detainees at Abu Ghraib prison, said Tom Umberg, a retired Army colonel and former military prosecutor

That would be the third. As mentioned in this space yesterday, there is the case of LTC Steele and what MajMike terms, the 'ham sandwich."

Moving on to the other bit of legal news... there is the courtsmartial of Staff Sergeant Alberto Martinez for the 2005 fragging of Captain Philip Esposito and 1st Lieutenant Louis Allen.

The first and last paragraphs of the article frame things nicely.

FORT BRAGG, N.C. - Before leaving for Iraq, an Army supply sergeant charged with killing two of his superior officers had a heated argument with his company commander, a West Point graduate who brought an active duty sense to urgency to their relaxed National Guard unit, colleagues of both men said Friday.
....

"There were soldiers who weren't happy with the command at all, a lot," Rodriguez testified. "He was your typical active duty captain. When he spoke, he expected it to be done."

There is a *lot* of unit culture wrapped up in that statement.

H/t, NetBrad.

By the time things have passed the gauntlet of ego, fear, law and media I don't hold out much hope for any truth at all no matter where the coin falls. My policy is to accept the judgment pronounced at court as good enough for me. Perhaps if i had investigative experience I would view things differently. Does this mean 2 years in a military or civilian slammer?

In this guy's case sloppiness certainly is something that seems to resonate of lot.

posted by Trias on October 20, 2007 10:06 AM

I expect I'll get covered in abuse for saying this, but let's not forget that going to trial does *not* mean Chessani's guilt is a foregone conclusion. It simply means the Article 32 investigation raised enough questions that a trial needed to be held to *establish* his guilt or innocence.

That is, after all, the purpose of a court martial.

He is not being persecuted or turned into a martyr. A trial can clear the accused as well as convict. One of the virtues of an open legal process is that everyone sees the Marine Corps is serious about upholding the rule of law and prefers to hold senior officers accountable rather than taking the easy path and frying junior enlisted when something goes wrong (unlike certain other scandals that have occurred). This is placing the onus and the burden of leadership where it belongs.

*cough*

The wisdom (or unwisdom) of the charging statute is another business entirely and beyond the purview of the commanding officer. Rules are rules. If Marines fry because of an unwise rule, that becomes an object lesson in why it never made sense, as well as a compelling argument for changing it. Sadly, that is the way we humans learn...

...more often than not, after the fact: by dint of that all important 20/20 hindsight.

/ducking to avoid the hail of cabbages, rotten tomatoes and other vegatables coming her way

posted by Cassandra on October 20, 2007 12:21 PM

"March in the guilty bastard!" Thing were formerly less esoteric.

Cheers

posted by J.M. Heinrichs on October 20, 2007 1:46 PM

Hey - I *never* said the man was guilty. That's for the panel to decide.

I *said* my, how the story has changed.

And that Karpinski should have faced (and defended against - because in her book she condemns herself) the same charges Chessani faces.

I have long said around here - you think you got a case, let's take it to trial, and see what the panel thinks.

And why would you get covered in abuse 'round here, Cassie?

posted by John of Argghhh! on October 20, 2007 4:59 PM

I have long said around here - you think you got a case, let's take it to trial, and see what the panel thinks.

That was my point, John. And I didn't expect any argument at all from you; in fact I took that to be your default position. You and I (and Beth, for that matter) tend to see things from about the same perspective.

I may have been oversensitive. I've just gotten pounded on other forums for saying I don't think the Haditha Marines were being intentionally persecuted by the Marine Corps, just as I didn't think Pantano was intentionally targeted. The Corps is a trusted institution precisely BECAUSE it doesn't say (when it is accused) "Talk to the hand - we are the Marines - just trust us, we don't need no stinking investigations!".

If they ever get to the point where they start stonewalling when allegations are made, I will lose confidence in them as an institution. Yes, some unfairness to individuals results when charges are made against people. Yes, it sucks when rules or laws appear to be unwise and charges appear to be politically motivated. But this is how people and societies learn - by experience and object lessons. I wish we were smarter, but we're not. And the purpose of the trial is to LEARN the truth. Trials and investigations are not perfect vehicles either, but they are the best we can do and there does need to be some transparency. I don't like one bit what these Marines and families were subjected to. It is heart wrenching.

I also don't like that the Marine Corps was accused of murdering women and children in cold blood. That kind of accusation can and must not go unanswered.

posted by Cassandra on October 21, 2007 3:09 PM

This is a dangerous precedent. Marines exist to close with the enemy and destroy them. They have to make split decisions.

As Gen Sherman said, "War is Hell". I will not judge them, I was not there. I respect and trust that my leadership will provide me with clear Rules of Engagement and will back me when I am forced at the squad level to make a decision. This does not appear to be the case.

If we are "placed" on admin leave for shooting our guns at the bad guys, we will be no different than police officers worried about the bad press, we will lose our effectivness as Warriors.

posted by MR T's Haircut on October 22, 2007 1:48 AM

I opined then that it was most likely a "small brain" issue.

by John on Oct 20, 2007 | Observations on things Military

October 19, 2007

H&I* Fires, 19 OCT 2007

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

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

Remember LTC Steele? The commander of Camp Cropper, who was busted for aiding the enemy, mishandling classified documents, and an "improper relationship with an Iraqi interpreter?"

His trial is over, and he was convicted on three of the four charges. He was not convicted of aiding the enemy. Good. The rest appears to be bad judgement and sloppiness, but the way the article is written, it's not definitive about the small brain - but it certainly leads one down that path. Anybody with more info, do please offer it up! -the Armorer

********************************
Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Passes Away, Admiral William Crowe.....Maggie
********************************

BCR and Jeff both sent links to this story about a violation of the First Law of Robotics. Since I'm currently doing some work with armed robots... I have an interest, but no opinions. -the Armorer

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

Canadian news organizations and academic institutions just teamed up with a polling firm to conduct an opinion survey in Afghanistan. Not on Afghanistan, but in Afghanistan, which provides us with a fairly decent measure of how the hearts & minds campaign is going. I've parsed it at The Torch.

The first thing I realized is that Afghans are far more positive about our chances for success there than Canadians are! And Americans too, come to think of it...

You'll also note I've linked to a 2006 survey of Afghan opinion by the Asia Foundation that shows we're making modest progress in the forum of public opinion in the country. - Damian

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

Interesting tidbit about Admiral Crowe. He had a 'cover' collection. Military caps. He donated it to the Omniplex Science Museum in Oklahoma City (a museum well worth the visit, btw).

posted by John of Argghhh! on October 19, 2007 11:47 AM

Saw the bit about the malfunction robo-gun elsewhere. Sounded like it (or that type of gun) has had a history of getting out of control and that it was just a matter of time until one decided to start firing too.

posted by KCSteve on October 19, 2007 12:45 PM

Looks like the rise of the BOLOS.

posted by Eric on October 19, 2007 2:34 PM

indicted for a ham sandwich; convicted on the mustard and stale bread crusts.

as for the robot, could it instead have been adhering to the zeroeth law, what with a female artiller officer in the vicinity as a target?

posted by MajMike on October 19, 2007 4:42 PM

I'm currently doing some work with armed robots...

Geez, it's taking *forever* to get the "auto-engage the testers" bug worked out of those things. Grumman was working on a tracked M-60-on-a-pedestal back in the late '60s, which was essentially an armed, mobile LLTV camera, ostensibly for perimeter security on fixed installations; one man was supposed to be able to run three of them simultaneously.

They did the firing trial in the Machinegun Room at Picatinny Arsenal. As soon as the tech powered it up, the little beastie jitterbugged off the test stand, spun in place, went cyclic rate, ventilated three walls and opened a Jeep-sized hole in number four before the ammo ran out.

Which was the deciding factor in Grumman's decision to stick with making things designed to operate *above* the earth's surface.

posted by BillT on October 19, 2007 6:23 PM

Was the charge upon which Steele was found not guilty a death penalty offense?

posted by Chuck Simmins on October 19, 2007 8:25 PM

Chuck, yes, though I doubt it would have been applied in this circumstance.

904. ART. 104. AIDING THE ENEMY
Any person who--
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or

(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or [protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;

shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.

posted by John of Argghhh! on October 20, 2007 8:37 AM

re Afghan survey.

While the results are encouraging, the margin for error could be considerable. The poll consisted of "1,578 adult Afghans (18 years and older) across all 34 of the country's provinces"

That's a decent sample - but not exactly a huge one in a country that has a population of 32 million. It works out as less than 50 people per province, for example.

As to why Germany gets more recognition than Canada.... That's possibly because Germany is the lead nation in the training of the Afghan Police.

posted by Matt W on October 22, 2007 1:11 PM

by Denizens on Oct 19, 2007 | General Commentary

Boyda's letter for constituents regarding the Armenian Genocide Resolution.

Thank you for contacting me regarding H. Res. 106, the Armenian Genocide Resolution. I appreciate hearing from you on this matter.
The thought of purposely killing others on a mass scale because of their race, religion or ethnicity is simply horrific. We’ve seen the worst of humanity in World War II, in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s and today in Darfur.

The resolution requests the President to “accurately characterize the systematic and deliberate annihilation of 1,500,000 Armenians as genocide and to recall the proud history of United States intervention in opposition to the Armenian Genocide.” However, Turks strongly reject the genocide label, insisting there was no organized campaign against the Armenians and that many Turks also died in the chaos and violence of the period.

Both Armenia and Turkey have a dialogue to establish a joint commission to examine the events of the time and possibly other issues. This resolution could result in this dialogue ending.

Turkey is an important ally for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. uses Incirlik Air Base for operations to deliver over half of the cargo flown into Iraq and Afghanistan. Additionally, Turkey’s diplomatic future is at an unprecedented crossroad. Turkey is the only majority-Islamic country in the Middle East that is a democracy. It is in our best interests to continue to support the democratic ideals that have been a hallmark of modern Turkey.

While the resolution is well-intentioned, the recent actions by the House Foreign Affairs Committee are counterproductive to relations between the United States and Turkey. The Turkish government has temporarily recalled its Ambassador to the United States. While not directly related, the Turkish government has indicated that it may take military action against ethnic Kurds inside northern Iraq, potentially fracturing a relatively peaceful area in Iraq.

I sent a letter to the Speaker that bringing H. Res. 106 to the floor would be a step in the wrong direction for our national security. I will encourage my colleagues to do the same and to vote against the resolution should it come for a vote before the House of Representatives.

Thank you again for contacting me on this important issue. As your representative, I truly value your input and I hope you will continue to keep in touch in the future.

Oddly enough, I *didn't* get a copy of the letter Representative Boyda sent to Madame Speaker.

I think my Representative is representative of my views on this subject, if we still have some substantial disagreements on some issues surrounding the war.

Bravo to Rep. Boyda for standing up for what is right, even though it's against her Congressional Leaders!

posted by FbL on October 19, 2007 11:03 PM

I hope Turkey has the fortitude to come up with their own resolution with the Armenians of their own free will.

I'm of mixed mind about this. Consider the idea of glossing over a genocide a poor one. One I see some Jews being understandably uncomfortable about. Why now though? Why has there been such a long delay? And there are deeper moral issues too. Perhaps messy ones. Would such a formality actually help the Armenians or foment more trouble? Would Turkey's reaction encourage the death of the last and only real Islamic Democracy? Would perhaps the fear of Turkey's antagonism be a yet darker path to follow? Would Turkey even react much?

I'm not sure why Turkey's threats to attack the Kurds in Iraq is acceptable though. That's where the real resolution should be in my view.

posted by Trias on October 20, 2007 10:42 AM

Don't forget Boyda and Moore's dark side:

There's legislation currently circling the House that focuses on the extension of equal rights to homosexual members of the workforce. H.R. 2015, also known as 'ENDA' or the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, has found a divided Democratic Caucus and a highly skeptical Democratic leadership, which has thusfar neglected to formally introduce the legislation, fearing that it is simply too liberal for mainstream America.

That's right, Nancy Boyda and Dennis Moore - two of the bill's most fervent supporters and co-sponsors - are pushing legislation so progressive that even Nancy Pelosi, the Queen Lefty of California, won't touch it. Sadly, it gets worse.

In May, both Boyda and Moore voted against the Republican Hate Crimes Motion to Recommit. Additionally, both Boyda and Moore voted against special legal protections for Senior Citizens and members of the Military.

posted by jim b on October 22, 2007 8:54 PM

Ahh yes, a reason I'll never be a conservative to a conservative and probably not a conservative at all.

posted by Trias on October 23, 2007 12:54 AM

Just be conservative issue by issue, Trias. I know, it still makes it a challenge when election time comes up and it's hard not to be a single issue voter when the single issue is a paramount one in your life.

You don't have to be conservative on all of them.

Just as I work on Nancy not to be liberal on all of them.

Heh. I work hard to keep Nancy pulled as far to the right as I can - and get sniped at from the right for doing it.

No, I don't mean Jim. You should read my emails.

posted by John of Argghhh! on October 23, 2007 6:25 PM

by John on Oct 19, 2007 | Politics

Yanno, when I travel...

I miss my babies.

Webley .25 auto, captured from a German in Normandy, who captured it from a Brit Royal Marine at Dieppe

Like this Webley .25 auto, captured from a German in Normandy, who captured it from a Brit Royal Marine at Dieppe.

I miss SWWBO and the critters too, mind you.

by John on Oct 19, 2007 | Pistols

A public demo of someone who has completely lost his mind...

Off to DEN tonight, but I couldn't resist posting the gem linked below.

This one takes the cake (for today at least)...

Holy Moly. Does the legal term, "fighting words" mean anything to the Left anymore? And then there's the comments section...

Sheesh. -Instapilot

H/T to El Rushbo

[Armorer's note: Dusty originally put this up late last night. Since most readers have hit the page by the time he put it up, and when they come back they start at the bottom of the new day, I decided to move this up so it would get a more fulsome exposure. ]

That's pretty bizarre, all right. I wonder if he was just so wrapped up in himself that he didn't even hear what he was saying. It's pretty hard not to attack the messenger along with the message on that one.

posted by Barb on October 19, 2007 12:08 AM

My, that was an interesting display.

S'okay, though, Barb - he was only speaking Truth To Power, and that's okay rhetoric for that.

And while many of Representative Stark's constituents may cringe at the words, there are certainly enough people across the nation who pumped their fists in the air at his brave stand against the man that the Founders managed to get *everybody* a representative voice in the Congress, eh?

Heh.

I would note that I *should* delete Representative (or at least edit the audio) Stark's tantrum, since it is a Rulez violation for this space.

But, since Congress exempts themselves from libel suits for their words while in debate on the floor, I suppose a good tricksy lawyer would argue it applies here, too.

posted by John of Argghhh! on October 19, 2007 8:25 AM

By God .... don't question their patriotism!

But they can accuse a sitting president of murdering American soldiers and Iraqi civilians for nothing more than his own amusement.

BDS is a mental illness, and these people need help.

Unfortunately, as one who works in the MH biz, I can attest that most of them suffer from the same affliction and are in denial.

posted by fdcol63 on October 19, 2007 11:12 AM

...Congress exempts themselves from libel suits for their words while in debate on the floor...

Hence, legally untouchable. Bravery, thy name is Congress.

However, if I were to characterize Mr. Stark's words as the desperate ranting of an over-emoting, venal panderer playing to his financial contributors, his lawyers would try to hang my hide on a bramble.

*If* I were to so characterize his words.

And *if* they even noticed...

posted by BillT on October 19, 2007 12:49 PM

I was listening to Mr. Boortz's radio program today. Neal offered the question, "Do y'all think that Congressman Stark is sober at 0530, or not?"

Not that *I* am against anybody stating opinions after drinking too much, I just think that that guy should declare his degree, and kind, of impairment that he had when he made that speech!

posted by Justthisguy on October 19, 2007 2:55 PM

Starke is an idiot and a buffoon, but he undoubgtedly accurately represents the liberal wing of the Democratic Party these days. And, since he represents a district in the San Francisco Bay area he is also probably fairly representative of the people who keep reelecting him.

Just as a point of information, Congress does NOT exempt itself from the laws of liebel and slander. That is in the Constitution.

posted by Marine6 on October 19, 2007 4:50 PM

Marine6 brings up an interesting point.

More discussion of that here.

posted by John of Argghhh! on October 19, 2007 5:04 PM

Ah, yes. And it's quite specific about it's being limited to legislative actions.

Which raises some interesting questions...

posted by BillT on October 19, 2007 6:57 PM

He is from Alameda, CA. Therefore, he is a lost cause. And we were surprised that the BDS sufferers could stoop to a new level in low.

I sit corrected.

posted by Cricket on October 19, 2007 10:30 PM

The first time I watched the video the speakers were on the blink. Well actually they were unpowered but to turn them on you have to crawl under the desk, bump your head plugging it in, find hearing aids, turn them on and reply the video. Just another American politician spouting some rubbish. Can't possibly be important (and maybe this first assessment was the one best to run with). I am fundamentally lazy on some issues so glossed over it. ...*some* issues. You don't have to get all generalist with me.

Finally got around to listening to it today though. I expected him to say something rude or stupid and certainly he did admirably there. Really rather incendiary words all the more remarkable because most lefties and righties are so dulled after hearing them oft repeated with no real change of heart in the listeners or consequence for the speaker at all. In a more widely recognised and supported war such words would be far more risky to spout out spittle and all.

Listening to him tho reminded me of that other clip. The one with the US American of the USA teen beauty Queen talking rubbish. Yes i know the gender is different (well one presumes anyway). Yes she's younger and quite a bit better looking, even to me.

But it was the same pattern. Public speaking attempting to link key words and phrases and failing for the most part. They just really wanted to get the keywords across and seemed flustered, nervous and/or well.. drunk.

'Speaking truth to power' is a Noble concept IMO. There are plenty of instances where this was a good thing to do.

But in the cases I've seen it done nobly there have always been risks and more often than not consequences, sometimes quite serious.

'Speaking truth to power' has it's other darker side. This man is a good example of that. The courage replaced by cowardice, hiding behind legal protections and popular support. The truth and understanding replaced by catch phrases and opportunism.

posted by Trias on October 22, 2007 8:54 AM

by Dusty on Oct 19, 2007 | Politicians Hit Bottom, Dig...

At least they have separate mascots…

The commandant of the Marine Corps stated the Marine Corps right now cannot do the things they are asked of to support expeditionary warfare because they are tasked elsewhere in Global War on Terror, but they will when they can.

Additionally, General Conway stated that the Marine Corps is becoming “Too Heavy” during the Sea Power Symposium at the Naval War College. He stated the Service is becoming like the Army.

"We have been operating along side them, intertwined with them, really over the last four, arguably, the last five years. That is a good thing, but in some regards it also has its negatives because we have grown heavier than ever before," he said.

Conway delivered his remarks during the roll-out of the much anticipated maritime strategy, the Navy, Marine Corps' and Coast Guard's vision for how the three services will operate in the changing global environment, interact with each other and with allies.

"We are an expeditionary force by our nature. We go down to the sea in ships. But right now we are very much taking on the profile of a second land Army," Conway said. "We have to go through what I call an expeditionary filter, when we come out of there, to get back to a lighter, faster more hard-hitting kind of capability that is deployable aboard our nation's ships. That is a necessary filter I think we will have to endure."

I think he is dead on. If everyone is super, than no one is! The Army and the Marines are and should be two distinct services with distinct missions.

MTH

by Mr. T's Haircut on Oct 19, 2007 | Observations on things Military

October 18, 2007

This time, we lose a thread in the woof of the fabric of the Greatest Generation.

Lightning rarely strikes twice in the same place this close together.

Two weeks ago, longtime buddy, regular reader, and frequent commenter Mike Lehnherr lost his father.

Today, he lost his mother, who just needed to be with her Elden and her God.

The music may be a little different, but now is the time at Castle Argghhh! when we dance: In Memoriam, for Miriam Lehnherr, Mike's mom

As Mike is wont to say, Kyrie Eleison.

Ohhhhh Mike.
I am so, so sorry to hear about this. Soulmate couples sometimes die close together like this. Losing your better half can cause unimaginable sorrow, resolved only in death. I'm sure they're both holding hands, giggling like children, and enjoying their renewed angelic bodies.
Those left on earth have so much grief to deal with though. I am just heartbroken over your loss, Mike.

posted by AFSister on October 18, 2007 8:39 PM

"Tha mi bron ach" (The sadness is upon me)[Irish]

posted by Jack Hammell on October 18, 2007 8:42 PM

Mike & family,

I am very sorry to hear of your loss. Your family will be in our thoughts and prayers.

April & Doug Rollison

posted by April Rollison on October 18, 2007 9:20 PM

....and the grief and tears of the evening continue.
I can't believe it. LTC Brian Delaplane, of "Firepower Forward", passed away last week of a pulmonary embolism.

It's been a bad night... and tornados are on the way. I think I'll cover my head now, and cry myself to sleep.

posted by AFSister on October 18, 2007 10:03 PM

A very sad day across the board. I like your idea AFS. Seems like the right thing to do at the moment. First, prayers on the way for all of the families.

posted by HomefrontSix on October 18, 2007 10:10 PM

Fac me tecum plangere...

posted by BillT on October 18, 2007 10:46 PM

Mike - I'm so sorry! My thoughts are with you and all your family at this sad time. AFSis said it well, they are together in peace.

posted by Barb on October 19, 2007 12:27 AM

Mike,

I am saddened at the loss of your Mom and Dad so close together (but, you knew this would happen - you called it a few weeks ago). It is evident, as with many of our greatest generation, that their love was so strong, that as lifelong partners, they simply wanted to remain together. Mom just wanted to join Dad. You and your family are in my prayers.

God Bless,

Matt

posted by Matt DeMaria on October 19, 2007 7:01 AM

Mike - Our sympathy and prayers go out to you, and we know that your Mom is back with Elden, and they are taking that long ride into the sunset together. What a great thought! Chris

posted by Chris Foley on October 19, 2007 7:37 AM

..nunc, et in hora mortis nostrae. amen.

posted by MajMike on October 19, 2007 8:04 AM

My dear brother, my deepest sympathies at this time of loss, but rest assured, as I know you do, there is rejoicing in heaven this day for a lamb returned to the fold, and Eldin being the loudest voice upon her entry at the gates...if there is anything we can do, do not hesitate...Blessings, Mel & Donna

posted by Mel Cape on October 19, 2007 8:30 AM

V. Requiem aeternum dona eis Domine.
R. Et lux perpetua luceat in eis.
V. Requiescant in pace.
R. Amen.

posted by JimC on October 19, 2007 8:45 AM

There is no loss more personal and heartfelt than the death of those we love. I pray that God maintains your strength and comforts you and your sister as you all say your final goodbyes. God bless you all.

posted by Eric Franzen on October 19, 2007 9:18 AM

There is no death above.
You will see them again, whole, happy and able to embrace you. Prayers and peace be with you...the peace of the Comforter.

posted by Cricket on October 19, 2007 10:34 PM

As many here have expressed, what a love they must have held. Know you are in my thoughts and those of so many and find comfort in their nearness, however far.

posted by lona on October 22, 2007 12:48 PM

by John on Oct 18, 2007 | Something for the Soul

H&I* Fires, 18 OCT 2007

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

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

Oy - On The Unbearable Lightness Of.... Clueless.

JTG Sends:

"Ma'am, please get out of the vehicle."
"Do you mind? I'm on the phone."

God bless the police officer with the patience to carry on that conversation for 90 seconds without tazing the individual in question and dragging her out of the car in a semi-conscious state.

Not only do you want to click *this link* you want to click the link in the linked post. And watch the video. Be careful with them cell phones, kiddles. They do *baaaaaad things* to your attention span. I feel most sorry for the Engineer, all things considered.

****

Kevin sends:

Damned surge is putting these folks outa work! Where is the compassion? The job training? Heck, what about job security? What's Pelosi gonna do about this outrage?! I'm sure there is an aid bill being crafted somewhere...

Darn those unintended consequences, anyway. There is no news from Iraq that cannot be twisted negatively, if you try hard enough. This one is worthy of the NYT, though it's from McClatchy.

****

I first saw this video last week, when Mike D sent it along. Being focused on the targets - I missed the aspect of "The Luckiest Dog In Iraq." I guess from puppykind's POV, al-Qaeda dislike of dogs (resulting in dogs not rushing up to say hello and get in a little friendly sniffing) has a definite upside. Situation Awareness Warning - while it's black and white thermal imaging, it's combat video and not for the squeamish, or places where there are people who might be offended. Turn your volume down, too. H/t, Military.com so that I didn't have to host the video, too.

UPDATE: The truth will out --

Now I can haz cookie?

Heh. --Bill
******

The Navy published the new Maritime Strategy this week. Ustabe I'd slap that thing up here and bloviate in an uninformed-but-interested way. When I realized that was equivalent to the NYT editorial approach, I decided I'd let experts do it and just link to them. Now that we have a resident sailor on staff, and we're buds with CDR Salamander, we'll let them take it away... The Haircut sez...

Phib,
Concur exactly. Read it last night with a single malt and a stogie.

I am not impressed. Lots of happy talk and references to transnationalists and stateless actors. (Sounds like an episode of "24")

Not worthy of our nation. Not worthy indeed. No recognition of a threat only "oppportunity". Worthless drivel. No direction and more with less.

Got to the meat at the end. NECC, Brownwater Navy, MCAG and ASW was my take away.

Will direct fire on the blog next week.

Thanks for the peek up the dress.

Haircut

Get the 'Phibian's take here - and perhaps the Haircut will share views with us, and not just fiddle around at 'Phibian's place...

*******

Ah, being in a TOC again, spider in the web, playing Battle Captain and Effects Guy. Of course, blogging suffers. I've had to forgo a bunch of conference calls on veteran's issues. But then there is some compensation, like driving back to the hotel, motoring past the range where the Strykers are sending rounds downrange with a mortar carrier right next to them hanging and dropping. All that was missing was some popcorn! Speaking of TOCs, I'd better head that way. -the Armorer

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

by Denizens on Oct 18, 2007 | General Commentary

Promotions and Awards.

From the DoD email bag today:

First up - the story that wasn't fit for the NYT:

Navy Seal, Medal of Honor Recipient, to be Inducted Into the Hall of Heroes
The White House announced Thursday that Navy Lt. Michael P. Murphy will be posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions in combat June 27 to 28, 2005, while leading a special reconnaissance mission deep behind enemy lines in the Hindu Kush of Afghanistan.

President Bush is expected to present the Medal of Honor to Lt. Murphy's parents at a ceremony at the White House on Oct. 22, 2007. Media interested in covering this event should contact the White House Office of Media Affairs at (202) 456-5238.

Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England will induct Murphy into the Hall of Heroes at the Pentagon in a ceremony Oct. 23 at 11 a.m. EDT. The Pentagon ceremony will add his name to the roster in the Hall of Heroes, the Defense Department's permanent display of record for all recipients of the Medal of Honor. Media representatives who want to cover the Hall of Heroes induction ceremony on Oct. 23 may contact Navy public affairs at (703) 697-5342.

At 6 p.m. on the same day, Adm. Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations, will present the Medal of Honor flag to the parents of Lt. Murphy in a ceremony at the Navy Memorial. Congress ordered the creation of the Medal of Honor flag commemorating the sacrifice and blood shed for freedom. Media interested in attending this ceremony please call the Navy Memorial at (202) 380-0718.

Murphy is the first armed forces service member to receive the Medal of Honor for combat in Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. He is also the first Navy service member to receive the Medal of Honor for actions in the Global War on Terror and the third armed forces service member to receive the Medal of Honor since the beginning of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom.

More information about Murphy's life and career can be found at http://www.navy.mil/moh/mmurphy/index.html .

On to living heroes.

1st Engineer Battalion's Staff Sergeant Gene Deleon (Bronze Star w/V) and Sergeant Norman Inch (Silver Star).

1st Engineer Battalion's Staff Sergeant Gene Deleon (Bronze Star w/V) and Sergeant Norman Inch (Silver Star).

How 'bout these hard chargers?

'DIEHARD' SOLDIERS RECEIVE SILVER, BRONZE STAR MEDALS
By Capt. Rebecca Walsh
1st Eng. Bn.

At a ceremony on Forward Operating Base Q West in Iraq, Sgt. Norman Inch was awarded a Silver Star for his actions while serving in Northern Iraq with the 1st Engineer Battalion "Diehards." The Silver Star is awarded for gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States.

Inch, a combat engineer, was conducting a routine route clearance mission when an improvised explosive device struck another vehicle in his patrol wounding four of his comrades and leaving them trapped inside the vehicle. Without hesitation, Inch and his team dismounted from their
vehicle, exposing themselves to enemy fire, as they moved to the disabled vehicle to provide aid to the wounded Soldiers. Faced with continuous small arms fire and the threat of around 30 armed insurgents approaching their location, Inch instructed his team to return fire at the approaching enemy, killing several of them. Upon arriving at the destroyed vehicle, Inch used his back to hold the heavily-armored, 300-pound door open for nearly 20 minutes as the four
wounded Soldiers were removed and carried to a protected area. Inch remained vigilant and continued to fire his weapon against approaching enemy forces despite the precarious position of the destroyed vehicle, continual exposure to enemy fire and his own physical efforts to keep
the door open.

Inch's squad leader, Staff Sgt. Gene Deleon was awarded a Bronze Star Medal with Valor Device for his actions during the same patrol. Deleon instantly began making complex tactical decisions once he learned the patrol leader had been wounded. He assessed the situation and maneuvered vehicles in his patrol to shield Inch's team from enemy fire as they extracted their comrades. Deleon coordinated air support and reinforcements, which allowed the patrol the ability to focus on caring for the wounded.

The actions of Inch and Deleon were admirable, but both noncommissioned officers said there were several heroes on patrol day and the combined efforts of each Soldier helped save the lives of four of their brothers.

Hooah!

Lastly, a promotion.

Army Col. Rhonda L. S. Cornum has been nominated for promotion to the grade of brigadier general. Cornum is currently serving as chief, Department of Surgery, Ireland Army Community Hospital, Fort Knox, Ky.

Congrats, Colonel. Name sound familiar? It should.

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

October 17, 2007

OPSEC: Obviously Nobody Knows What It Is

[Denizen Opinion - Kat]

Okay. Not really opinion, but apropos the Armorer's ongoing wry (not ry) humor over having his blog on the "examples" of op sec violators, I caught this little blog from Mudville's infamous Dawn Patrol: Nancy in Iraq.

No, she didn't violate op sec as far as I could tell (I'm a civilian, what do I know), but someone came along and said she did after she talked rather vaguely about getting mortared and how she would rather be laughed at by some folks for zealously putting her Kevlar helmet and "flak" jacket on than to be one of those people who doesn't and bites the big one.

Anony Mouse comes along in comments and says that she gave out too much info. A little commenting goes back and forth.

The long and short of it is that it is clear no one really understands what is or isn't "op sec" and how much the enemy knows, has had confirmed physically or can easily obtain through other open sources.

Check the blog and the comments.

What's Op Sec?

Does anyone actually know?

Then there is the NYT version of Op Sec. Op Sec? Screw'em.

Which sometimes makes you think Op Sec is a word we like to throw around so we can sound all James Bondish.

http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/07/ied-success-rates.html

I think OPSEC is not giving the enemy, or potential enemies, or even nosy friends any information that can be used against us. Even if something is "public knowledge", we certainly shouldn't make it easier on our enemies. The other thing is, most people don't understand that vague or incomplete information can be used to generate really good intelligence... so as a general rule, you have to give 'em less, not more.

posted by Greg Morris on October 17, 2007 7:48 AM

i could tell you what it means, but then i would have to kill you.

here's a link to a cheap quick definition:
http://jproc.ca/crypto/terms.html

posted by MajMike on October 17, 2007 8:15 AM

As far as I can tell, nothing in the blog OR comments would violate OpSec. There were no pictures or video posted that isn't available elsewhere. First names are mentioned, but not last. Location is mentioned "generally", but no coordinates were given. Reaction to the attack is discussed, but who would be surprised about a soldier under attack putting on protective gear, getting to a bunker and checking on teammates?

Op Sec doesn't mean "close your mouth"... it means "watch your mouth". As far as I can tell, she's watching it.

posted by AFSister on October 17, 2007 9:03 AM

I tend to be with Kat on this one: OPSEC is a moving target, ill-defined and all too often used as a feeble excuse for not making a real effort on the important information war being waged for domestic and foreign hearts and minds in this Long War.

I wrote about one particular Canadian example of that phenomenon here:

I'd suggest the enemy in Iraq, for example, gets more information from the public testimony of General Petraeus on Capitol Hill, than it does from Nancy In Iraq. EVERYTHING we say in public about our military efforts violates OPSEC to some degree or another, whether it's American forces tipping their hand about the surge strategy they'll be employing, or Canadian forces advising the number of troops we have on the ground in Kandahar province in Afghanistan.

Balanced against the need for OPSEC is the need to educate our respective populations about the true nature of the conflict, so that they can make informed democratic decisions. Without that public support, the medium-to-long-term war effort is doomed no matter what the troops on the ground do or don't do.

To me, the real question is about balance, about the optimal compromise between OPSEC and critical information for the voting public.

posted by Damian on October 17, 2007 9:23 AM

Totally concur, Damian.

posted by AFSister on October 17, 2007 10:50 AM

The issue that Nancy was first attacked on in her blog had to do with knowing when the attack was over. That is not an OPSEC thing. You always know when the indirect fire is going to stop because the bad guys already know how long they have until the AH-64s/A-10s/F-16s show up and "light up their night." Shoot & Scoot is the only survivable TTP for insurgents to attack CV. We didn't tell them that; they figured it out on their own after a few of their buddies got down range of 20mm, 30mm, Hellfires, GBU-12s etc. (LOL).

posted by Oldloadr on October 17, 2007 11:12 AM

Yeah...Oldldr...I think that was my point. The enemy has had our response time figured out for a couple of years. They know how long it takes to spin up. They either figured it out in the way that you mention or because they have guys watching our posts with cell phones that were willing to do that.

Of course, I just saw an interesting report over Jawa about satellite images with our bases outlined on a Jihadi forum.

Yep. Op Sec in this day and age is interesting to say the least.

posted by kat-missouri on October 17, 2007 1:42 PM

Of course, I just saw an interesting report over Jawa about satellite images with our bases outlined on a Jihadi forum.

Outlines added, obviously, by the bad guys. The fact that pix of bases are there isn't worth getting huffy over -- individual unit locations and individual building IDs *would*. For all the flap over GoogleEarth, the satellite pix there have minimal military value unless you want to see what an area looked like, say, in 2003 and then compare it with a current aerial photo to see what's changed...

posted by BillT on October 17, 2007 4:13 PM

What I find interesting is given the size of the base in question some personnel on base never even heard the attack. From some media reports about the recent attack it appears the targeting has improved as of late and some believe that there is a spy on base helping the shooters improve thier aim.

Given the crude methods use to launch the rockets how consistant can they be with thier targeting now that they seem to have it improved toa degree?

posted by dave on October 17, 2007 4:53 PM

I remember a TINS from Bill that talked about indigenous workers who worked for the bad guys and would pace off the area or give rough estimates as to the locations of things on the bases for targeting.

Odds are, that was and is happening on our bases. However, for these kinds of attacks and their actual purposes, which is media driven and whose purpose is basically to harass and keep people from relaxing on these bases, indirect fire, gun and run, etc is effective without much risk to their personnel. They can't really afford that risk because they really don't have that many personnel.

Unlike the Vietnamese who not only wanted to harass, but were attempting to destroy large portions of the base, its supplies and personnel so took the risk of not only sustained indirect fire but direct artillery that could be counter targeted. they had hundreds of thousands of more fighters to replace their losses.

These AQ and Iraqi insurgent force do not have that luxury. So, for their purposes, they don't necessarily need exact measurements, just the general location of the base.

posted by kat-missouri on October 17, 2007 5:03 PM

Odds are, that was and is happening on our bases.

Odds are, you're right. Odds are, you're also right about the nature of the attacks -- you only have to scatter a few rounds into a central area and you'll disturb *something*, and you may even get lucky and hit something of value.

We solved a lot of quick-reaction problems by having crews nap in the helicopters, with the pilots staying awake in shifts and switches and throttle set for "combat crank" -- hit the igniters and about 45 seconds later, you were in the air and ready to hit the bad guys' firing position (btw, kat, the NVA and VC were just as antsy as the jihadis about beating feet outta there).

That won't work with the hi-tech, overly-sophisticated helicopters we have today -- takes too long to start each engine and then get the 'lectrical stuff online. I've preflighted an OH-6 (eight minutes), strapped in (less than a minute), cranked the engine and gone to full throttle (three minutes), repositioned for takeoff, launched and been a mile away (three minutes) in the time it took two of my buddies to go from before-start to engine-runup in a Black Hawk. And it's about the same for an Apache, if not a bit longer -- all those weapons checks gulp time like me with a six-pack of Belgian ale...

Did any of that violate OPSEC? Nope. I guarantee you the bad guys know *to the second* the minimum time they have from the initial turbine whine to the Apache leaving the pad.

posted by BillT on October 17, 2007 5:39 PM

Funny, we were talking about this today at lunch. One of my buddies is a cop, Infantry and MI officer. He was complaining about getting dinged for confirming open-source info. And YES, there are bad guys working for us.

posted by Captain Tony on October 20, 2007 9:23 PM

by Denizens on Oct 17, 2007 | Observations on things Military

IPB*, 17 OCT 2007

Turkish-US relations have been a bit strained the last few years. Here’s Juan Cole’s take on the matter, with a bit of a very condensed history of the importance of Turkey to the US. Seeing as how there’s the whole Armenian Holocaust vote, with attendant strategic concerns, it might be good to try and look at the whole picture before making up one's mind.
--
This article about the Joint Urban Operations conference is a bit uneven at times, paranoid in some others, but it is showing that thought on how to fight effectively (which doesn’t just mean accruing body counts) in urban areas is being given serious thought. More importantly it points out exactly what portions of the political left fears the US will be doing in the future(more Iraqis rather than more Somalia’s or JTF-HOA, when both is the most likely answer, and more bloody images showing up on CNN proving to them that Imperialism and war are evil, evil, evil).

It might be worth explaining to the American public what the purpose of something like the JUO con is really about and why we should be spending time on this issue. Like, how do they think we should handle things, effectively and decisively, in Sudan or Myanmar without giving GEN Krulak’s Strategic Corporal all the mechanical tools he needs to make the right decision, at the right place, at the right moment in real time?

This flows out of interventionist policy(which means peacekeeping in Sudan and Myanmar as much as kicking in doors like Iraq and Afghanistan does) quite naturally, but I’m not sure people understand that.
--
While ‘reconciliation’ seems a remote possibility according reportage in Iraq it seems possible in Afghanistan, and though it is would we want it anyway?
--
It seems all the rage the last couple of years has been ‘metrics’, but is caution needed here with the issue of metrics and the meaning of numbers? Are we plunging head long into the old Twain saying, ‘There’s lies, damn lies, and then there’s statistics?’ Maybe there’s a sickness that continues to plaque us from the time when the military was made over in the mold of businesses with a bias toward quantitative thinking instead of qualitative?

Napoleon once said a man would gladly die for a fancy bit of ribbon, or words to that affect, but has the US Mil gone over board?

Somehow the two concepts tie together in this piece but you’ll have to read the whole thing to find out how. Take your tums first though.
--ry

Oy... I find I have common ground with Juan Cole. That's an unusual situation!

posted by John of Argghhh! on October 17, 2007 6:30 AM

I am trying to decide if Juan Cole actually said one other thing that was true about Sadr being a "nationalist", but I don't think I can actually know it until the political situation clears out.

posted by kat-missouri on October 17, 2007 1:51 PM

I counted nine rows on Petraeus' left breast during his Congressional hearings. If they were a valid metric across time, he would be roughly thrice as capable and valorous as George C. Marshall, perhaps America's greatest soldier-statesman, who somehow ran and won a world war while wearing only three rows of ribbons.

Wrong metric. Although there are now several more IBB-type awards ("I've Been to Basic") in the inventory, there have also been several more conflicts in the past thirty years than there were in the years spanning Marshall's career.

BTW, Marshall's official, full-length DA photo shows him wearing five rows of four ribbons each -- and he obviously wasn't wearing them all:

U. S. military honors
Distinguished Service Medal with one Oak leaf cluster
Silver Star
Philippine Campaign Medal
World War I Victory Medal with four battle clasps
Army of Occupation of Germany Medal
American Defense Service Medal
American Campaign Medal
World War II Victory Medal
National Defense Service Medal

Foreign military honors
British Order of the Bath
French Legion of Honor
French Croix de Guerre
Soviet Order of Suvorov
Soviet Grand Cross Order of Military Merit
Moroccan Grand Cross of Ouissam Alaouite
Cuban Order of Military Merit, First Class
Liberian Centennial Medal
Greek Grand Cross Order of George I with swords
Order of the Crown of Italy
Order of Saints Maurice and Lazarus (Italy)
Netherlands Grand Cross with Swords in the Order of Orange Nassau
Montenegro Silver Medal for Bravery
Panamanian Medal of La Solidaridad, Second Class
Peruvian Gran Official del Sol del Peru
Brazilian Order of Military Merit
Chilean Order del Merito
Ecuadorian Star of Abdon Calderon, First Class
Colombian Grand Cross of the Order of Boyaco Cherifien

posted by BillT on October 17, 2007 4:46 PM

by Ryan on Oct 17, 2007 | General Commentary

Oh, Goody! Look what our government hath given us...

Lessee, we've got a resolution working to condemn the Armenian Genocide and coincidentally really piss off an admittedly inconstant ally who controls a major logistic path into Iraq, and who is contemplating... invading Iraq for their own purposes, which I'm sure General Petraeus is just thrilled about.

We've got Representative Waxman introducing H.Res. 734: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the withholding of information relating to corruption in Iraq.

We've got the Dole-Shalala Commissioners doing a press conference where the President observed:

Today, President Bush discussed legislation Congress should pass and actions the Administration is taking to implement recommendations of the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors. In March, President Bush signed an Executive Order creating this bipartisan commission to conduct a comprehensive review of the services America is providing our returning wounded warriors. The Commission released its findings on July 25, 2007, and the President immediately instructed the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs to implement its recommendations.

Okey-dokey!

What we *don't* have?

From the Administration - a nominee to lead the VA through this revamping of the benefits system.

From the Congress: Any authorization to spend any new money - GET SOME SPENDING BILLS DONE! Then get to work on the enabling legislation to implement those aspects of the Commission findings that will require a legislative remedy.

But don't be sloppy and rush through it, either. So we get the hash we already have in veterans benefits and entitlements because of the way we've bandaided our way through things.

Just sayin'.

by John on Oct 17, 2007 | Politics

Earned Income Tax Credit and the Services.

The title of the bill seems a bit awkward... but I can support the thrust of the bill.

I'm still thinking a thorough revamp of the military compensation system and it's premises are probably in order - given how it's been tweaked and poked and prodded over the decades in response to changing military, political, economic and demographic realities.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – “It’s about time”, said Congresswoman Nancy Boyda (Kansas Second District) in a Tuesday morning press conference, when it comes to making permanent a tax relief for our military families. Boyda said eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit should NOT be temporary and has introduced a bill which will benefit thousands of military families, by expanding their eligibility for the tax relief.
Boyda has introduced the Tax Relief for Armed Combat Families Act of 2007, which will permanently expand the eligibility of military families to receive the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The legislation will cut the taxes of over 150,000 military families across the United States, in some cases by thousands of dollars.

Congresswoman Boyda said, "Our military continues to serve with honor and distinction. Thousands of Kansas soldiers currently serve in the face of danger and under the burden of combat. They have done everything we have asked them to do. The last thing they need is to worry about paying higher taxes next year. Our country needs to put our arms around these soldiers and remove that concern. Congress should pass immediate, permanent tax relief for military families.”

The EITC was first enacted by Congress in 1975 to provide tax relief and supplemental income to low- and moderate-income families. Taxpayers whose earned income is less than an amount set by an eligibility formula – currently $36,348 for a married couple with two children – may receive tax credit or refund. Credits vary based on income and family size, ranging from less than $100 up to $4,536.

According to a 2005 Bell Policy Center study, at least 150,000 military families nationwide earn base incomes that qualify for the EITC, but their base wages are often supplemented by combat pay or certain other allowances or incentives. These special pays are generally not subject to taxation but do count as income for determining eligibility for programs like the EITC. As a result, many military families have, in the past, seen their EITC tax credit reduced or eliminated.

In 2001, Congress expanded EITC eligibility by permitting taxpayers to elect whether or not to include combat and other special pays in their earned income. The provision offered critical tax relief and support to military families, but under current law, it is set to expire on December 31, 2007.

“It’s time to stop temporary fixes”, said Congresswoman Boyda. “While I don’t understand the lack of previous, permanent action”, Boyda said, “ I am proud to be the one to say ‘thank you’ to our soldiers for their immense dedication, by introducing the Tax Relief for Armed Combat Families Act of 2007. This legislation will eliminate the sunset date and, finally, make permanent the expanded EITC eligibility.”

by John on Oct 17, 2007 | Observations on things Military | Politics

October 16, 2007

H&I* Fires, 16 OCT 2007

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

*********************************
Denizen on Denizen conflict! Okay, more like playing field goal kicker at a business meeting with a paper triangle.

I’m probably losing, but it is an interesting argument ‘tween Alan (maple syrup swilling…) and I. Is Canada freer than the city of Syracuse, NY? If it is that Canada is freer than Syracuse why is that? Show your work for full credit (wait, am I using GenX40 humo(u)r at Castle Argghhh!? Is that allowed?).
--
Does anyone remember Josh Rushing? Seems he’s doing fine working for al-Jazeera, and has produced a documentary about the AK-47 that’s caught the attention of the boys over at DefenseTech.
--
Another one from D-Tech that should make more than a few around here happy: is the Army planning on a modern .45 cal sub-machine gun?
--
Silly String for Soldiers. It has finally happened. Good for her. Marcelle Shriver, you rock.
--ry
*********************************

Heh. Gotta love them "I gotta be free to be me!" Baby Boomers. I disassociate myself from the label - I think the upper bound should be drawn with a bright line between those in the group that came of age with the draft - and put the rest of us who were not subject to the draft back with the Gen Xer's. Because in my personal experience, we're very different, politically. Oh, don't gimme those weak arguments about how the demographers make their choices.

Yet that is what Sacramento lawmakers -- the macho Schwarzenegger even -- have decided they have the right to do. My generation thought we'd be so tolerant and open to the different drummer. Yet we keep electing politicians who believe they have a right to dictate how other adults live. Busybody granny politicians treat adults -- whether they're 20 or 50 -- like children. Maybe they're right, because California voters let them do it.

Read Debbie Saunders here.

~~Bill~~ JTG left this comment on a previous post:

I just did a Rule 34 search on Google and got 323 hits for the string,
Lanchester Operational Research porn.

Lanchester SMG pr0n - exposing the fiddly bits!

Heh. 'Round here, *this* is Lanchester pr0n. An expose' of the fiddly bits! -the Armorer

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

Now hear this! Ry can have 120 experience points. That is all. -the Armorer

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

Inexplicable political decisions... explained. I despair. -the Armorer

********************************
Back from a short hiatus while I worked on things that will surely irritate the Code Pink lady from my local school district (project going along swimmingly with official announcements to come), I jump in full force with a "I told you so"...Monsieur Putin warns against any military action "in the Caspian region" as well as airs his displeasure at a possible oil pipeline from the "Caspian" region to the west, circumventing Russian control of energy resources to Europe.

Puty-Poot is concerned over the loss of revenues that war and a pipeline could inflict on his largely oil based economy. Not to mention the political pull he had over the Euros in Eur-Asian affairs and fun times in the Security Council over Iranian sanctions.

During his visit to Tehran Monday, Putin was quoted as saying about the Iranians:

"Threatening someone, in this case the Iranian leadership and Iranian people, will lead nowhere," Putin said Monday during his trip to Germany. "They are not afraid, believe me."

Which, of course, leads you to believe that everyone is afraid of what the crazy Americans will do. While Ahmadinejad has been trying to play the "I'm crazier than you" card and making threats about using his proxies to cause unrest, they know that the Americans will go war on a pretext. Just ask Saddam Hussein. Oh. You can't. He's dead.

In another laughable moment, the Iranians and Marxist try to get together to present a world wide Revolution against the Imperialist West and end up looking like idiots when Che's daughter, a devout Marxist, contradicts the Iranian line that Che was a man of God (like we didn't know he was a murdering, atheist, anarchist, but the Iranians failed to do their homework).

Aside from trying to remake Fidel and Che into God fearing men, the whole idea that these nations whose economies are based on a failed economic system, are going to overthrow the "world order" is pretty funny. This is based on the new leftist idea that Socialism (communism by another name in the south and with an Islamic twist in Iran) will work. It's just that the Russians didn't do it right. My favorite is the outright plagiarism of a known Reaganism:

"Today, communism has been consigned to the garbage can of history as foreseen by Imam Khomeini," Qassemi said

You know you want to laugh. If it wasn't for the Iranians and their nuclear plans, possibly creating a second "Cuban Missile Crisis" all over parts of South America (something Puty-Poot has to be thinking about while he delays the Bushehr plant completion indefinitely), these folks would just be laughable. Kind of reminds you of Baghdad Bob. Though I do wonder what Putin thought about all the Anti-USSR rhetoric prior to his arrival.

Moving on...

They caught Chester Stiles (Chester the Molester). That's great. And it appears he has a long rap sheet of criminal offenses, including known and alleged other assaults on little girls. Sadly, though, the AP continues to report that, according to the Ad, Chester has a Navy Seal background. I think this has been busted already. He's not and never has been a "Navy Seal".

Criminals are routinely claiming to have been one or the other of the biggest, baddest butt kickers in the military. It's how they impress or intimidate other weaker criminals or victims to shut up and go along with their crimes. When they are booked for other crimes, they often also give those fake details to the police. Commonly because they are afraid for their lives when they go into jail or prison. Police and prosecutors rarely check this information with the DoD or other resources because it is not pertinent to their case. Unfortunately, like this prosecutor, they also release that info to the press and end up smearing some good people.

Career criminals know that "trustees" (other criminals who are trusted to work in different areas) get that info reading their intake paperwork and spread it around to the general population. Child molesters would be high on the list of people needing some sort of rumor that they can kill with their bare hands in order to save themselves the inevitable assaults and possible murder by other inmates that are common for men of Chester's ilk in prison settings.

Anyone with the links or info on the "Chester not a Navy Seal" situation, leave it in comments and we'll pick it up.

Back to inter-national news, the press is finally reporting "Al Qaida in Iraq is Crippled", but don't count them out yet. They are still fighting off final destruction in the last remaining districts they can find sympathy (or, at least, fear) in. That and they are funneling people and money (what they can get) into Waziristan for attacks in Afghanistan and trying to whittle out a more secure enclave in what may be their final host nation.

These guys are like the guests you can never get to leave the party, drinks all the liquor, breaks your stuff, pees on your carpet, vomits in your washer machine and then passes out on your $3000 leather couch. The British apparently are insisting on bringing the party to an end.

You should also be reading the Tank for a good insight into the Lebanon/Syrian/Hezbollah situation. But also because of little gems like this one, if you missed it: Abdul Sattar's killer, lately captured, confesses to killing the Sunni Sheik heading up the Anbar Awakening. The best part that literally tells AQ's story in Iraq:

At the time al-Jumayli was apprehended, I pointed out that he was captured in Balad, near Diyala, and stated that he may have traveled there to celebrate. My source confirmed that this was indeed the purpose of his trip, but said that al-Qaeda's local emir was in far less of a celebratory mood: He feared the probable retaliation.

And he should because the Shi'ites and Sunni in Diyala have been banding together in their own version of the Awakening while Sadr's SCIRI rival, al Hakim, made a recent visit to al Anbar to promote reconciliation with the Sunni. Not to mention, since Sadr went rogue from the UIA alliance in parliament and the Sunni in Anbar are becoming politically important, everyone is chatting about possible new political alliances that will reshape Iraqi politics.

Sadr was reported as late last week making overtures to the Sunni Accord Front (largely related to the remaining Ba'athist insurgents) who are also disenchanted with Maliki's government and share Sadr's view that the Americans should "get out ASAP".

Which makes them Iraqi Democrats (in the party sense, not the politics) since the democrats over here keep insisting that the war is lost and we should withdraw immediately. Last week, Nancy Pelosi, who doesn't really like the nasty hippies camping out in her upscale neighborhood and freaking out the grand kids, was still trying to turn the anti-war folks off of their cannibalistic attacks on their favored party by telling them to work on GOP congress people to get them to "end the war".

Apparently, Nancy hasn't gotten the message that we are, in fact, ending the war in Iraq as quickly as possible. AQ's on the ropes and the Sunni/Shia civil war is just about nil. Of course, if it ends with "victory", Nancy and crew are going to have some "'splaining to do" come next elections.

Or not. Hillary is apparently becoming more hawkish than hawks on certain subjects. At least over seas where it matters less to her constituents who are about as divided as South Africa in the 80's. One thing about schizophrenic, two party politics, it keeps your enemies guessing. As noted above, only completely stupid Iranians would not be afraid of crazy Americans who talk rather loudly and tend to hit people with their big stick a lot more in the last two decades.

Speaking of possible hard nosed, sometimes irrational, always dangerous dictators, a book was recently released called "Letters to Hitler". I want to read it as many of the letters are here to unseen straight from the KGB archives and range from the gamut of adoring fans to official letters on the internal operations of the Nazi political and war machines. Of course, get it while its hot because it will probably sell like hotcakes in the middle east where Hitler is on par with such notables as Sayeed Qutb.
-Kat

by Denizens on Oct 16, 2007 | General Commentary

Welcome Home, Sergeant Major

Retired U.S. Army Sgt. Maj. Brian Waters, formerly assigned to the 101st Airborne Division, is overcome with emotion as he visits The Moving Wall at Fort Concho National Historic Landmark in San Angelo, Texas, Oct. 12, 2007. The traveling, half-size replica of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was built by veterans to bring the experience of the memorial to those who cannot travel to Washington, D.C., and has been touring the country for more than twenty years. DoD photo by Staff Sgt. Angela B. Malek, U.S.Air Force. (Released)

by John on Oct 16, 2007 | Something for the Soul

Gun Control By the Numbers

[Denizen Opinion -Kat Updated: how criminals get their guns]

The Armorer set off a "perfect blog storm" by posting about the updated bill that will, allegedly, "close a loop hole" in existing legislature that will stop mentally incompetent people from legally purchasing a gun. Someone in the comments section said that we would be better off shooting for a repeal of the original law than arguing about this little "fix" in the loop holes. A very good point.

It's unlikely the Brady Bill will ever be repealed. However, what is likely, as we have seen over the last two decades, is that additional legislation, ostensibly to tighten loopholes (the latest reflected by the Armorer's post) continues to be implemented when, in fact, the statistics do not actually support them. Including ban's on "assault rifles" (which was suitably vague enough in certain descriptions to effect many rifles that were not "assault" and was fortunately no re-newed), bans on magazines carrying more than 10 bullets or effect other aspects such as the attempt requiring trigger locks on weapons in homes with children (when, in fact, child mortality rates show death by firearms is as low as 2 in 100,000; the lowest of all causes of child mortality causes).

Why do we fight all of these small, individual acts tooth and nail even if they seem to be rational in conjunction to existing laws? Because each one is an erosion of rights that, even in the attempt to effect only those it would seem necessary, it invariably effects someone that it shouldn't. Worse, the legislation is also and often backed up with data taken out of context or, in the case of 1993 Brady Bill, inaccurate data coupled with a "fear mongering" media campaign.

(continued in flash traffic)

Millions of uninsured children without health care!

Instapundit linked to a story over the Washington DC gun battle that discusses the statistics of crime rates even as the law abiding citizens were prohibited from owning a gun.

What an excellent example of unintended humor — the District’s government is a national leader in standing by while its citizens die. Our homicide rate hit a 20-year low in 2005 — just 29 victims per 100,000 residents. That is slightly better than New York City’s rate (30.7) under Mayor David Dinkins in 1990, when the Big Apple suffered 2,250 homicides.
In 1991, the D.C. murder rate reached an astounding 81 per 100,000 — that was two years after Mayor Marion Barry famously told the Washington Press Club, “Except for the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country.”

I was reminded by the statistics about a post I wrote two years ago regarding the crime statistics that were used to ramrod gun control through congress. As many who actually watch any politics and listen to the rhetoric from either side, it is often amusing to hear Democrats accuse Republicans of using "fear mongering" to shore up support for the war when both sides have a tendency to do so.

Strangely, child mortality continues to decrease in the United States. Even taking into consideration that "child" is expanded to include anyone up to and including the age of 19. Most deaths are caused, not by poor maintenance health care, but by car accidents. Amazingly, even including 18 and 19 year olds, deaths by fire arms is the least likely cause of death.

Global warming? Nasa's data methodology was flawed.

In 2005, when I wrote the post on the second amendment, it started out as a a philosophical discussion about the right to bare arms. It turned out to be an eye opening experience in reviewing data on crime statistics and their use to fraudulently enforce waiting periods and other gun control efforts.

The first thing that you learn as a financial analyst is that, if your numbers are too good to be true, they probably are. The second thing you learn is if you see a drastic and sudden change in the numbers you are trending, it might be because something very drastic happened, but was more likely because your mathematical formulas did not get entered completely across the spread sheet or your data collection was flawed.

In which case, the two appropriate actions are to either re-evaluate methods and data collection or to throw out the aberration and base actual "trends" on the remaining data. The changes in trending for gun crimes was so drastic from 1988 to 1993 and back again over such a short period of time, it seemed clear that there was a problem.

According to trending in gun crimes, in 1973 (when data was very first collected) , crimes involving fire arms was at 370 k in a population of 212 million. This involved .0017 (less than 1%) of the population..

Starting in 1988, crimes involving fire arms rose at a phenomenal rate over a five year period to 1993 and an all time high of 590k crimes in a population of 257 million. This involved .002 (less than 1%) of the population. That is a 290k peak increase in violent crimes involving fire arms after a stead and decidedly alarming increase over the previous five years.

In 1993, this trend reversed itself sharply until 1998, again, five years later, when it reached slightly below the 1973 starting number of 350k in a population of 270 million or .0012 (less than 1%) of the population. That number remained steady with only slight fluctuations (less than 20k) over the last 10 years despite population growth to over 311 million people in the United States today.

Naturally, I became interested in what could cause such a sharp spike and decrease in these numbers over such a short period of time. Based on the previous fifteen years of data, it did not seem natural to experience that large of a spike and decline. In the political and news world, this is where the "narrative" kicks in and good analysis is thrown under the bus in support of a cause or view.

In fact, if these numbers were actually true numbers, the narrative would be fairly compelling. It begins in 1981 when John Hinkley, a mentally disturbed man who had been in and out of treatment for years, attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. Then Press Secretary Jim Brady was shot in the head and suffered debilitating effects. Brady and his wife went on to join Handgun Control Inc in 1989. It was also known as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

The Brady's had been lobbying congress hard to get restrictions on hand guns. While there is much focus these days on assault weapons that are increasingly used in crimes and have a tendency to kill or wound more people in a single event, it was and is hand guns that are most often used in crimes because they are easily obtainable, easily concealed and easily dumped.

It was during the 80's that the "Cocaine Wars" were heating up. The US had declared a war on drugs and was going after the South American drug lords and smugglers. In the US, the gangs and the mafia were fighting over territory and distribution. It was also during this period that previously low level gangs like the Bloods and the Crips began to take over large parts of LA and run them like their own petty fiefdoms. Drive by shootings were becoming a key weapon of the gangs to carve out their territory and inflict revenge on their rivals and enemies.

This was also the beginning of the end for some of the larger mafia families in Philadelphia and New York. The Scarfos , the Gambinos and men like John Gotti were hunted, not just by the feds, but by each other as they experienced turf wars and attempts to silence possible snitches. It was these stories that made the headlines and it was these stories that captivated the American public with what seemed like an ever increasing and unprecedented rise in violence. This included, not only LA and New York, but Houston and Washington DC where gang violence was (and still is) prevalent.

It was on this narrative and on the numbers being reported by the DOJ that the Brady Bill finally saw it's day in congress in 1993, becoming effective in 1994. The bill outlined five day waiting periods and back ground checks to try to prevent criminals from obtaining the weapons among other safe guards. However, the waits were often longer because background checks were not computerized as they are today through NCIS.

The bill was passed with an overwhelming 90% support from across the nation after a very effective media campaign to highlight the reported rise in violent crimes by almost 50% in 1993. Support for the bill included numerous city, county and state police agencies. After the bill was passed, statistics began to show an almost miraculous decrease in violent crimes and was hailed by gun control advocates as a victory.

City, country and state police agencies also rode the waves of the new anti-crime legislation. In 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act created billions of dollars in federal grants to local police departments.

While the narrative of the time may still be relatively true, there was a problem with the numbers. A caveat on this data from the Bureau of Justice reads:

Ongoing since 1972 with a redesign in 1993, this survey of households interviews about 134,000 persons age 12 and older in 77,200 households twice each year about their victimizations from crime.

The redesign of the system was not just to computerized systems. The way in which the data was collected had its own inherent problems.

NCVS surveys households randomly selected from a stratified multistage cluster sample, with the interviews administered by the United States Census Bureau.[2] This methodology has some disadvantages for surveying domestic violence crimes, since the entire selected household (above age 12) is interviewed instead of just one member selected.[2] The selected household remains in the survey sample for three years, with interviews conducted every six months.[3] Critics also argue that there is no way to verify much of the information gathered.
NCVS also includes supplemental questions, which allow periodic questions to be asked regarding such topics as school violence or attitudes toward crime or police.[4]

In resposne to criticism of the survey design, the NCVS was redesigned in the late 1980s. The survey redesign also incorporated improved survey methodology and asks more direct questions. The redesign went through testing and evaluation before being fully implemented in the 1992-1993 survey.[5]

The original intent of this survey was to capture information on crimes that were not being reported to the police whether through fear of the police, because it involved other criminals or through direct intimidation of the victims.

But, as the information regarding methodology indicates, the real problems were in the data collection. For instance, if a family of four was held up at gun point in their home, it was not counted as one crime, but four. The question sets from the survey was also ambiguous enough that, in cases where one member of the family had been a victim of a crime, it was reported as the entire family. Some crimes were being reported as involving a gun when they involved other weapons or none at all. It also found that the "randomly selected" households were not as "random" nor wide as they should have been in order to obtain accurate data.

These problems, among several, are what prompted the DOJ to re-formulate their survey and ask "more direct questions" beginning in the "mid 80's", but more precisely in 1988, the year that violent crime statistics, particularly those involving a fire arm, began the now noted unprecedented rise. They included more households in their survey in order to insure they were capturing a more accurate view of the over 230 million in the US population at that time. Unfortunately, that expansion began using the now defunct survey questions and methodology accounting for part of the unprecedented rise in the statistics.

In 1980, the Regulatory Flexibility Act was passed. It's original intent was to evaluate the financial and physical effects of federal regulations on businesses and other non-federal government entities. Many federal agencies were tasked with providing additional data to support and account for the funding they received to monitor implement and enforce these regulations. The over all purpose was to evaluate efficiency and attempt to have improved accountability. In 1988, after the GAO provided a report on unfunded mandates and their cost (Legislative Mandates: State Experiences Offer Insights for Federal Action (1988) the Regulatory Flexibility Act was updated to include more definitive demands and specific deadlines for data and accounting on these programs.

One of the agencies effected by the Regulatory Flexibility Act was the Department of Justice. It was under the RFA that these agencies were tasked the most stringently to justify their spending on specific programs that had previously been funded under general line items with no demands for accounting either on spending or outcomes. It was under the RFA that the DOJ began to seriously evaluate its data collection including that on violent and non-violent crimes that included a firearm.

The proposed change in data collection was implemented in 1993 and continued through 1997. All through the period where violent crime with a fire arm showed ever decreasing rates until it reached below the beginning 1973 statistics to 350,000 in a population of over 300 million. Where it remained with small fluctuations including a recent increase from 2005 to 2006 to around 370,000. In a population that has grown by 30% since 1973, not only have the numbers remained relatively stable and minimal, by percent of the population, it has actually decreased to barely one tenth of one percent.

Other statistics provided go even further towards undermining the idea that society as a whole is more violent or that fire arms are a significant part of that violence. According to Crimes Committed with Fire Arms, 57% of the deaths incurred with a fire arm, reported as crimes, were suicides (16,869). 39% of deaths are homicides committed with a fire arm (11,671). Less than 10% of non-fatal injuries were committed with fire arms. According to the Heritage Foundation, COPS grants have been abused and have not contributed greatly to the reduction of crimes.

(Update) Finally, interviews with prisoners incarcerated for crimes involving a fire arm indicate that only 12% had obtained their weapons "legally" through a gun shop and another 2% from "gun shows". Over 80% of these criminals indicate they got their fire arm from family, friends and "other" illegal sources without ever going through a background check or waiting period.

In conclusion, the "narrative" of violent crime in the United States that led to the enactment of gun control laws and ever increasing limitations are not supported by the statistics. Further, the statistics themselves were highly questionable.

� Secure this line!

by Denizens on Oct 16, 2007 | Gun Rights

H Res 106, the Armenian Genocide resolution.

When I first heard about this I immediately contacted Representative Boyda's staff with a "WTH, over?" And a list of possible consequences based on the Turkish response. When I found Ralph Peter's screed on the issue, I sent that along too.

This is fun.

Apparently a *lot* of Congresspeople signed on as co-sponsors without thinking it through - and some are now rushing to un-sponsor. The list of co-sponsors includes 61 Republicans.

Here's a link to Thomas, where you can take a look at the co-sponsors (to include the ones that are withdrawing their sponsorship).

I would note that Representative Boyda (D-KS2), my Representative, did *not* sign up for this. I don't claim that I got to her in time to stop her, for all I know (and it's completely possible, despite you doubters) that she had the good common sense to see it for the mistake it was back when it first came around.

I would note that Representative Moore (D-K3), Jim B's favorite villain, signed on as a co-sponsor but has since pulled his sponsorship. But, I will give him credit that he withdrew his co-sponsorship back in March, and not in reaction to the current events.

Nancy's staff called me (given my interest) to tell me about the people fleeing the resolution. Just to make sure everybody gets credit where it's due, I've included the list below the fold in the Flash Traffic/Extended Entry.

This is a nice little object lesson in how Congress works, with our Representatives signing on to things that sound nice without necessarily thinking through the consequences of the action. And there have been consequences already, just with the resolution clearing the committee, even though it's not yet come up for a vote.

And yes, I think guys like Ralph Peters, and the blogs, have had an impact on this.

Anyway - click the Flash Traffic button and see if your Representative is on the list - and if they are, they've had a change of heart.

Don't get me wrong - I firmly believe the Armenian Genocide happened (and the Kurds got screwed, too) and the pictures, taken by Armin Wegener, a German soldier stationed with the Turks at the time of event, eerily presage similar pictures coming from the Nazis and the Holocaust. It's been alleged that Hitler saw the world's reaction to the Armenian Genocide as instructive for his plans.

The time to condemn (and act, if we choose) is before, during or shortly after the event, not nearly a century later, and certainly not with the current geopolitical realities that beset us in the region. The Turks are clearly not ready to acknowledge anything, and have signaled their intent to react in ways that will make an already unstable situation even less stable.

Like it or not - this is simply not the time for this.

And no, I don't know when the time will be. But I do know that General Petraeus does not need to be dealing with a Turkish incursion into Iraq at the moment if he can avoid it, and he'd sure like to keep Turkish airspace open for logistical purposes. That's life in the real world.

Now to see how Madame Speaker deals with it. There is talk among the Democrats about sending her a letter asking her to not bring it to the floor. We'll see if that comes to fruition, should it be needful and Congresswoman Pelosi doesn't just decide that on her own, so to speak.

One can only hope.

Update: As Mr. T's Haircut noted in the comments (and I should have in the post) rather than fiddling with things like this... how 'bout a spending bill or two, or three, or so. The Power of the Purse - IIRC, that was to be the Congress' major tool...

Another thought. As Rich Lowry notes - perhaps this isn't just local politics (the large Armenian-American populations in Speaker Pelosi's district, for example) - perhaps this is just posing and posturing to set the example that by golly, the US Congress is serious about this stuff! And 85 years from now, already on the legislative docket, is the resolution condemning the Sudan for Darfur. Or something. Oh, wait - they already passed a resolution about Darfur, this year even, on June 6th, of all days. *That* has certainly helped the tens of thousands of people currently dying in Darfur. The Chinese just rushed in to help. So, I'm sure that passing this resolution, now, which could close the pipeline through which 95% of the MRAP vehicles pass to get to Iraq, will help all those dead Armenians, by making their children and grandchildren feel better about it all, and piss off an admittedly unsavory ally who has us by the short-hairs. We'll show them, by golly!

There is a reason, perhaps, the founders didn't put responsibility for foreign policy in the hands of the House, as it was the arm of government that was to represent the passions of the people, which aren't always a good basis for foreign policy.

The list reads, Name, District, Date They Signed On to Co-sponsor - this thing has been sitting in committee for a while... but clearly, many of these people's geopolitical sensor was broken.

I'm guessing that the list of withdrawals will increase.

Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 1/31/2007
Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5] - 1/31/2007
Rep Allen, Thomas H. [ME-1] - 1/31/2007
Rep Andrews, Robert E. [NJ-1] - 1/31/2007
Rep Arcuri, Michael A. [NY-24] - 7/18/2007
Rep Baca, Joe [CA-43] - 1/31/2007
Rep Bachmann, Michele [MN-6] - 3/1/2007
Rep Baird, Brian [WA-3] - 3/12/2007
Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 1/31/2007
Rep Barrow, John [GA-12] - 6/20/2007
Rep Bean, Melissa L. [IL-8] - 1/31/2007
Rep Becerra, Xavier [CA-31] - 1/31/2007
Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1] - 1/31/2007
Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28] - 1/31/2007
Rep Berry, Marion [AR-1] - 1/31/2007
Rep Bilbray, Brian P. [CA-50] - 3/12/2007
Rep Bilirakis, Gus M. [FL-9] - 1/31/2007
Rep Bishop, Sanford D., Jr. [GA-2] - 1/31/2007
Rep Bishop, Timothy H. [NY-1] - 4/19/2007
Rep Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3] - 1/31/2007
Rep Bono, Mary [CA-45] - 1/31/2007
Rep Bordallo, Madeleine Z. [GU] - 6/21/2007
Rep Boyd, Allen [FL-2] - 6/28/2007
Rep Brady, Robert A. [PA-1] - 3/12/2007
Rep Braley, Bruce L. [IA-1] - 4/19/2007
Rep Butterfield, G. K. [NC-1] - 6/28/2007
Rep Calvert, Ken [CA-44] - 1/31/2007
Rep Camp, Dave [MI-4] - 6/7/2007
Rep Campbell, John [CA-48] - 1/31/2007
Rep Cantor, Eric [VA-7] - 1/31/2007
Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23] - 1/31/2007
Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] - 1/31/2007
Rep Cardoza, Dennis A. [CA-18] - 1/31/2007
Rep Carson, Julia [IN-7] - 6/28/2007
Rep Christensen, Donna M. [VI] - 7/10/2007
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] - 4/16/2007
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 1/31/2007
Rep Cleaver, Emanuel [MO-5] - 1/31/2007
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 1/31/2007
Rep Costa, Jim [CA-20] - 1/31/2007
Rep Costello, Jerry F. [IL-12] - 1/31/2007
Rep Courtney, Joe [CT-2] - 5/14/2007
Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7] - 1/31/2007
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] - 6/28/2007
Rep Davis, Artur [AL-7] - 6/26/2007
Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] - 1/31/2007
Rep Davis, Lincoln [TN-4] - 1/31/2007
Rep Davis, Susan A. [CA-53] - 1/31/2007
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] - 1/31/2007
Rep DeGette, Diana [CO-1] - 2/5/2007
Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10] - 1/31/2007
Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. [CT-3] - 1/31/2007
Rep Dent, Charles W. [PA-15] - 1/31/2007
Rep Diaz-Balart, Lincoln [FL-21] - 1/31/2007
Rep Diaz-Balart, Mario [FL-25] - 1/31/2007
Rep Dingell, John D. [MI-15] - 1/31/2007
Rep Doggett, Lloyd [TX-25] - 1/31/2007
Rep Doolittle, John T. [CA-4] - 1/31/2007
Rep Doyle, Michael F. [PA-14] - 1/31/2007
Rep Dreier, David [CA-26] - 1/31/2007
Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] - 2/5/2007
Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17] - 1/31/2007
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. [CA-14] - 1/31/2007
Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - 1/31/2007
Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA-2] - 1/31/2007
Rep Ferguson, Mike [NJ-7] - 1/31/2007
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 1/31/2007
Rep Fortuno, Luis G. [PR] - 10/4/2007
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] - 1/31/2007
Rep Frelinghuysen, Rodney P. [NJ-11] - 1/31/2007
Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] - 1/31/2007
Rep Gerlach, Jim [PA-6] - 1/31/2007
Rep Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [NY-20] - 7/18/2007
Rep Gonzalez, Charles A. [TX-20] - 1/31/2007
Rep Green, Al [TX-9] - 3/1/2007
Rep Green, Gene [TX-29] - 2/5/2007
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 1/31/2007
Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4] - 1/31/2007
Rep Hall, John J. [NY-19] - 8/2/2007
Rep Hare, Phil [IL-17] - 1/31/2007
Rep Harman, Jane [CA-36] - 2/8/2007
Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] - 7/18/2007
Rep Herseth, Stephanie [SD] - 1/31/2007
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] - 1/31/2007
Rep Hinojosa, Ruben [TX-15] - 1/31/2007
Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2] - 6/20/2007
Rep Hodes, Paul W. [NH-2] - 5/9/2007
Rep Holden, Tim [PA-17] - 1/31/2007
Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] - 1/31/2007
Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] - 1/31/2007
Rep Hunter, Duncan [CA-52] - 4/16/2007
Rep Israel, Steve [NY-2] - 1/31/2007
Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49] - 1/31/2007
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] - 1/31/2007
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 1/31/2007
Rep Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [GA-4] - 2/8/2007
Rep Jones, Stephanie Tubbs [OH-11] - 1/31/2007
Rep Kagen, Steve [WI-8] - 6/28/2007
Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. [RI-1] - 1/31/2007
Rep Kildee, Dale E. [MI-5] - 1/31/2007
Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. [MI-13] - 1/31/2007
Rep Kind, Ron [WI-3] - 1/31/2007
Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] - 6/26/2007
Rep Kirk, Mark Steven [IL-10] - 1/31/2007
Rep Knollenberg, Joe [MI-9] - 1/30/2007
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] - 1/31/2007
Rep Kuhl, John R. "Randy", Jr. [NY-29] - 6/20/2007
Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18] - 8/2/2007
Rep Lamborn, Doug [CO-5] - 2/8/2007
Rep Langevin, James R. [RI-2] - 1/31/2007
Rep Larsen, Rick [WA-2] - 6/28/2007
Rep Larson, John B. [CT-1] - 5/24/2007
Rep LaTourette, Steven C. [OH-14] - 3/1/2007
Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 1/31/2007
Rep Levin, Sander M. [MI-12] - 1/31/2007
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] - 1/31/2007
Rep Lipinski, Daniel [IL-3] - 1/31/2007
Rep LoBiondo, Frank A. [NJ-2] - 1/31/2007
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] - 1/31/2007
Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY-18] - 1/31/2007
Rep Lungren, Daniel E. [CA-3] - 1/31/2007
Rep Lynch, Stephen F. [MA-9] - 1/31/2007
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] - 1/31/2007
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] - 2/8/2007
Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-7] - 1/31/2007
Rep Marshall, Jim [GA-8] - 6/26/2007
Rep Matheson, Jim [UT-2] - 1/31/2007
Rep Matsui, Doris O. [CA-5] - 1/31/2007
Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] - 1/31/2007
Rep McCarthy, Kevin [CA-22] - 2/5/2007
Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] - 1/31/2007
Rep McCollum, Betty [MN-4] - 1/31/2007
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] - 1/30/2007
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 1/31/2007
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 1/31/2007
Rep McHugh, John M. [NY-23] - 8/2/2007
Rep McKeon, Howard P. "Buck" [CA-25] - 1/31/2007
Rep McMorris Rodgers, Cathy [WA-5] - 1/31/2007
Rep McNerney, Jerry [CA-11] - 2/5/2007
Rep McNulty, Michael R. [NY-21] - 1/31/2007
Rep Meehan, Martin T. [MA-5] - 1/31/2007
Rep Meek, Kendrick B. [FL-17] - 6/21/2007
Rep Melancon, Charlie [LA-3] - 1/31/2007
Rep Michaud, Michael H. [ME-2] - 2/8/2007
Rep Millender-McDonald, Juanita [CA-37] - 1/31/2007
Rep Miller, Candice S. [MI-10] - 1/31/2007
Rep Miller, Gary G. [CA-42] - 3/29/2007
Rep Miller, George [CA-7] - 1/31/2007
Rep Mitchell, Harry E. [AZ-5] - 6/21/2007
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 1/31/2007
Rep Murphy, Christopher S. [CT-5] - 5/21/2007
Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. [CO-4] - 1/31/2007
Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] - 1/31/2007
Rep Napolitano, Grace F. [CA-38] - 1/31/2007
Rep Neal, Richard E. [MA-2] - 1/31/2007
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC] - 1/31/2007
Rep Nunes, Devin [CA-21] - 1/31/2007
Rep Olver, John W. [MA-1] - 1/31/2007
Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. [NJ-6] - 1/30/2007
Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ-4] - 1/31/2007
Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] - 1/31/2007
Rep Perlmutter, Ed [CO-7] - 3/29/2007
Rep Peterson, Collin C. [MN-7] - 1/31/2007
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] - 6/7/2007
Rep Porter, Jon C. [NV-3] - 1/31/2007
Rep Radanovich, George [CA-19] - 1/30/2007
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] - 1/31/2007
Rep Reichert, David G. [WA-8] - 4/16/2007
Rep Renzi, Rick [AZ-1] - 1/31/2007
Rep Richardson, Laura [CA-37] - 10/4/2007
Rep Rodriguez, Ciro D. [TX-23] - 6/26/2007
Rep Rogers, Mike J. [MI-8] - 1/31/2007
Rep Rohrabacher, Dana [CA-46] - 1/31/2007
Rep Roskam, Peter J. [IL-6] - 5/21/2007
Rep Ross, Mike [AR-4] - 1/31/2007
Rep Rothman, Steven R. [NJ-9] - 1/31/2007
Rep Roybal-Allard, Lucille [CA-34] - 1/31/2007
Rep Royce, Edward R. [CA-40] - 1/31/2007
Rep Rush, Bobby L. [IL-1] - 1/31/2007
Rep Ryan, Paul [WI-1] - 1/31/2007
Rep Ryan, Tim [OH-17] - 1/31/2007
Rep Salazar, John T. [CO-3] - 4/16/2007
Rep Sanchez, Linda T. [CA-39] - 1/31/2007
Rep Sanchez, Loretta [CA-47] - 1/31/2007
Rep Sarbanes, John P. [MD-3] - 1/31/2007
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 1/31/2007
Rep Schwartz, Allyson Y. [PA-13] - 1/31/2007
Rep Scott, Robert C. "Bobby" [VA-3] - 6/28/2007
Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [WI-5] - 1/31/2007
Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-16] - 6/26/2007
Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4] - 1/31/2007
Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27] - 1/30/2007
Rep Sires, Albio [NJ-13] - 1/31/2007
Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4] - 1/31/2007
Rep Solis, Hilda L. [CA-32] - 1/31/2007
Rep Souder, Mark E. [IN-3] - 1/31/2007
Rep Space, Zachary T. [OH-18] - 3/12/2007
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 1/31/2007
Rep Sutton, Betty [OH-13] - 3/29/2007
Rep Tauscher, Ellen O. [CA-10] - 1/31/2007
Rep Thompson, Bennie G. [MS-2] - 6/20/2007
Rep Thompson, Mike [CA-1] - 1/31/2007
Rep Tierney, John F. [MA-6] - 1/31/2007
Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] - 1/31/2007
Rep Udall, Mark [CO-2] - 1/31/2007
Rep Udall, Tom [NM-3] - 5/14/2007
Rep Van Hollen, Chris [MD-8] - 1/31/2007
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] - 2/5/2007
Rep Visclosky, Peter J. [IN-1] - 1/31/2007
Rep Walberg, Timothy [MI-7] - 6/7/2007
Rep Walsh, James T. [NY-25] - 2/8/2007
Rep Walz, Timothy J. [MN-1] - 1/31/2007
Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] - 1/31/2007
Rep Waters, Maxine [CA-35] - 1/31/2007
Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] - 1/31/2007
Rep Watt, Melvin L. [NC-12] - 6/28/2007
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30] - 1/31/2007
Rep Weiner, Anthony D. [NY-9] - 1/31/2007
Rep Weller, Jerry [IL-11] - 1/31/2007
Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] - 1/31/2007
Rep Wolf, Frank R. [VA-10] - 1/31/2007
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 1/31/2007
Rep Wu, David [OR-1] - 2/8/2007
Rep Wynn, Albert Russell [MD-4] - 1/31/2007
Rep Yarmuth, John A. [KY-3] - 7/10/2007

Representatives withdrawing their co-sponsorship.

Rep English, Phil [PA-3] - 1/31/2007(withdrawn - 3/15/2007)
Rep Jindal, Bobby [LA-1] - 1/31/2007(withdrawn - 1/31/2007)
Rep Carnahan, Russ [MO-3] - 1/31/2007(withdrawn - 10/2/2007)
Rep Shimkus, John [IL-19] - 1/31/2007(withdrawn - 10/4/2007)
Rep Boren, Dan [OK-2] - 1/31/2007(withdrawn - 5/2/2007)
Rep Moore, Dennis [KS-3] - 1/31/2007(withdrawn - 3/13/2007)
Rep Scott, David [GA-13] - 1/31/2007(withdrawn - 4/18/2007)
Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. [CO-6] - 4/19/2007(withdrawn - 6/27/2007)
Rep Cuellar, Henry [TX-28] - 6/26/2007(withdrawn - 10/9/2007)
Rep Wicker, Roger F. [MS-1] - 6/26/2007(withdrawn - 6/28/2007)

� Secure this line!

I don't know why, but Pelosi's cluelessness continues to amaze me.

posted by fdcol63 on October 15, 2007 7:58 PM

Some thoughts on this:
1) The Turks' sensitivity to this leads me to believe they aren't exactly proud of that moment...that's good...and, yes, I'm giving then the benefit of the doubt here.
1a) We LOOOOOVE rubbing our own noses in our own poo when it comes to past history...too bad our Representatives can't grasp the fact that this is not a universal trait.
2) There are plenty of Republicans on that co-sponsor list (stupid is an equal opportunity characteristic).
3) "Political leadership" is too often these days an oxymoron...
4) I know Bill Clinton found himself trying to squelch a similar situation during his tenure. The then-Speaker, Denny Hastert made sure it never got to the floor. Methinks Pelosi is not cut from that same cloth, but we'll see.

posted by Instapilot on October 15, 2007 8:01 PM

Hey Morons,

First you acknowledge that there was a genocide and in the same breath you advocate and make excuses for its deniers. I wonder if you have the balls to deny the holocauset had Iran been a US ally?

posted by Justice on October 15, 2007 8:39 PM

First you acknowledge that there was a genocide and in the same breath you advocate and make excuses for its deniers. I wonder if you have the balls to deny the holocauset had Iran been a US ally? what's with the double standards? I guess I shouldnt be to suprised because if you were in the military they brainwashed you to never question your commanders and to just follow orders.

posted by Justice on October 15, 2007 8:42 PM

Justice - if this is the best you've got, don't bother coming back.

If Iran was a US ally, no, I would *not* deny the Holocaust.

This isn't about denying the Armenian Genocide. If you read carefully, I said the time to act is before, during, or shortly after.

Nearly a century later is simply feel-good politics, not a serious statement of policy.

And since it's nothing more than feel-good bloviation, with no teeth behind it, and is simply poking someone in the eye who can play real mischief to us in return, and almost with impunity, yet do *absolutely nothing* for the Armenians.... well, if that's your idea of rational politics, you aren't going to have much fun here.

This is about what is the point of sticking it, at this point in history, in Turkey's eye, when they are in a real position to react to it, in very real, and meaningful, not just rhetorical ways.

Like I said, if the best you have to offer is to call me a moron, you're in violation of the rules of the commenting section. Which is attack the message, not the messenger.

If you can't play by those rules, don't waste our time.

Thank you for your interest in National Defense.

As to your knowledge of the military, those who served, and in particular, me, you clearly aren't a regular reader around here. If this is the best you have to offer, kindly revert to lurking, sir.

posted by John of Argghhh! on October 15, 2007 9:11 PM

Muslims Against Sharia commend House Democrats and Speaker Pelosi for pressing ahead with an Armenian genocide bill. Republican opposition to the bill is pure manifestation of moral relativism.
Muslims Against Sharia condemn Turkish government for refusing to acknowledge Armenian genocide and recalling its US ambassador in response to the bill.

Source: AFP
Post

posted by Muslims Against Sharia on October 15, 2007 11:27 PM

Can we please pass some legislation... like a defense bill....

posted by MR T's Haircut on October 16, 2007 3:15 AM

Mr. Haircut - geez, aren't you the silly naif?

posted by John of Argghhh! on October 16, 2007 4:10 AM

My main concern is that they continue to threaten to invade Kurdish Iraq. Over, I might add, less violent acts than has occurred in the past by the KDP and other organizations.

Although, I comprehend that this is basically a political move to force the Kurds to act more definitively to reel in their own.

On the other hand, Iran is threatening them on the eastern border for the same reasons and I don't feel nearly as bad about Kurdish rebels picking at Iran as the possible problems with Turkey.

Iran could give us a nice excuse to act. On the other hand, as I predicted was the issue, Putin is highly sensitive to any military actions that might effect their energy resources in the Caspian region.

posted by kat-missouri on October 16, 2007 5:10 AM

Tis like all the "Holocuast" resolutions in Congress. You can see the reps who support those all have Jews in their districts. Not our business.

We even pushed a Holocaust resoluton in th UN. This just upsets people. It is from 60 years ago and we introduced a Holocaust resolutuon in the UN last year?

The Jewish lobby does the same thing and hurts us even more.

posted by SS E on October 16, 2007 5:39 AM

At least we *did* something about The Holocaust, with the expenditure of blood and treasure. Certainly, it was by-product of otherwise acting in our self-interest, but still, we did something.

Symbolic gestures are fine. Symbolic gestures with teeth are more useful.

Empty symbolic gestures on the behalf of dead people that in fact advance little and can do actual harm to living people - that's not useful.

posted by John of Argghhh! on October 16, 2007 6:04 AM

It is from 60 years ago and we introduced a Holocaust resolutuon in the UN last year?
The Jewish lobby does the same thing and hurts us even more.

Whenever I hear the words "Jewish Lobby" I get this very bad taste in my mouth. Not because of the "Jewish Lobby", but because, invariably, those who make such statements are routinely outed as anti-semitists or Buchanan Natavist isolationists (or anti-semites).

Besides, the Holocaust resolution in the UN last year is because there are so many members of that august, dottering body that routinely attempt to mitigate the holocaust, along with in ordinate numbers of "human rights" resolutions against Israel, in order to try to pry protection away from them to annihilate them.

Pardon me if I see the situation as clearly something different. No one is planning to annihilate the remaining Armenians to my knowledge, thus they no longer require protection.

If I'm wrong, please point to the pertinent information.

posted by kat-missouri on October 16, 2007 6:56 AM

I am lucky enough to have both Armenians and Turks in my extended families, though I am not as familiar personally with the Turks given that the events of the early 20th century was what caused we Highland Scots to marry into a great family of Armenians. At the top of that family tree is the sole survivor of the genocide, a grand lady who has the fitness of someone thirty years her junior. The reason why now is a good time for this is because she should hear this done in her lifetime.

It is also to confirm that repetitions of such actions are to be condemned now. She may not be at risk again but others are and, as we come to celebrate the commemmoration of the end of WWI with our Remembrance Day, we have to remember that "never again" is exactly about the events of the Armenian Genocide and the other mass killings by nationalists of all stripes (as well as other forms of tyranny) which continued right through the century and affect us still.

posted by Alan on October 16, 2007 10:55 AM

I guess I shouldnt be to suprised because if you were in the military they brainwashed you to never question your commanders and to just follow orders.

*grinnnnn*

I'm gonna print that out -- unedited -- and frame it.

posted by BillT on October 16, 2007 11:03 AM

Yeah, we both achieved our exalted ranks due to excessive sycophancy...

posted by John of Argghhh! on October 16, 2007 12:17 PM

Sycophancy in pursuit of personal promotion is never excessive.

Cheers

posted by J.M. Heinrichs on October 16, 2007 1:41 PM

Coming from you, John...

posted by John of Argghhh! on October 16, 2007 3:44 PM

"if you were in the military they brainwashed you to never question your commanders and to just follow orders."

To quote the Honorable B. Bunny; "He don't know me very well, do he?"

Methinks there is a bridge somewhere that is missing its nether dweller. But, at least the Three Billy Goats Gruff are safe.

posted by Kevin on October 16, 2007 5:38 PM

Methinks there is a bridge somewhere that is missing its nether dweller. But, at least the Three Billy Goats Gruff are safe.

In the original tale, the elder, fire-breathing, multi-fanged, Khyber knife-toting Gruff bro turned the troll into chum and then plunked down on the bridge and went fishing.

Some gink in Fresno claimed that version was too violent for kids -- even though two of the characters in the story were, in fact, kids...

posted by BillT on October 16, 2007 10:41 PM

[Jason's comment deleted as having null value, being nothing more than a mass ad-hominem attack with no information content whatsoever. He did sign his name, even if he left a bogus email - characteristic of that style of commenter.

Jason - if you have something to say that bears on the topic, please feel free to add it. Such as an explanation of why you think the Genocide resolution is a wonderful idea whose time has come, and that all will be sweetness and light when it's passed, or whatever it is you believe about it.

And then, try to offer up some explanation as to why our concerns are baseless, wrongheaded, underinformed, etc.

Othewise, don't waste your time and my bandwidth.

Thanks. -the Armorer]

posted by Jason Hutchings III on October 17, 2007 10:56 PM

And you justify the use of that sobriquet -- how?

Because you disagree with the assessment that the Dems are cynically using the Armenian-American community at this point in time?

Or because you disagree that the term "genocide" is appropriate?

Or because you dislike the fact that we didn't play the other troll's game?

Hmmmmmm?

posted by BillT on October 17, 2007 11:51 PM

by John on Oct 16, 2007 | Politics

October 15, 2007

H&I* Fires, 15 OCT 2007

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

*********************************
This is a fairly interesting blog fight between Mark Steyn, conservative blog The Brothers Judd, and Peter Robinson.

What I find truly odd is that their saying nobody has presented an equivalent to George Keenan’s ‘Containment Theory’ put forth in the ‘X-Article’. I've heard the evils of not immediately going after the Soviets many, many, many times before and I don't find it that interesting anymore.

I can think of two such strategic visions put forward: that of TPM Barnett in his book The Pentagon’s New Map and his blog; and that of John Robb at his blogs and in his book Brave New War.

To me, Barnett’s theory corresponds to Containment talking about winning thru growth and support of the nation state structure. JRobb pushes for a microstate solution that does not correspond well to the alternative to Containment, Rollback, but it is an alternative vision of how to proceed to victory in this Long War we’re currently in. But, then again, Armorer pays me in stale cheetos (You’re late on this month’s payment too!) so give my opinion whatever merit you think it is worth.
--
It looks like someone caught FuzzyB out on the town the other night.
--ry
************************************

If you haven't read Hitchen's bit on his unease about unknowingly inspiring Lieutenant Mark Daily (KIA) to join the Army, you should. Not so much because of Hitch, but because of the picture gives us of Lieutenant Daily. Lieutenant Daily speaks to us from beyond the grave:

Anyone who knew me before I joined knows that I am quite aware and at times sympathetic to the arguments against the war in Iraq. If you think the only way a person could bring themselves to volunteer for this war is through sheer desperation or blind obedience then consider me the exception (though there are countless like me).… Consider that there are 19 year old soldiers from the Midwest who have never touched a college campus or a protest who have done more to uphold the universal legitimacy of representative government and individual rights by placing themselves between Iraqi voting lines and homicidal religious fanatics.

I was having a conversation with a Kurdish man in the city of Dahok (by myself and completely safe) discussing whether or not the insurgents could be viewed as "freedom fighters" or "misguided anti-capitalists." Shaking his head as I attempted to articulate what can only be described as pathetic apologetics, he cut me off and said "the difference between insurgents and American soldiers is that they get paid to take life—to murder, and you get paid to save lives." He looked at me in such a way that made me feel like he was looking through me, into all the moral insecurity that living in a free nation will instill in you. He "oversimplified" the issue, or at least that is what college professors would accuse him of doing.

And you should read it for what Hitch has to say:

...I became a trifle choked up after that, but everybody else also managed to speak, often reading poems of their own composition, and as the day ebbed in a blaze of glory over the ocean, I thought, Well, here we are to perform the last honors for a warrior and hero, and there are no hysterical ululations, no shrieks for revenge, no insults hurled at the enemy, no firing into the air or bogus hysterics. Instead, an honest, brave, modest family is doing its private best. I hope no fanatical fool could ever mistake this for weakness. It is, instead, a very particular kind of strength. If America can spontaneously produce young men like Mark, and occasions like this one, it has a real homeland security instead of a bureaucratic one. To borrow some words of George Orwell's when he first saw revolutionary Barcelona, "I recognized it immediately as a state of affairs worth fighting for."

Go. Read. Ponder.

Now is the time at Castle Argghhh! when we dance: In Memoriam. -the Armorer

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

CAPT H sends his this obit of an extraordinary man, Flight Lieutenant Bill Goldfinch.

Flight Lieutenant Bill Goldfinch, who died on October 2 aged 91, designed the glider built in the eaves of Colditz Castle, as part of the most audacious of all the projected escapes from the Second World War's most famous prison camp.

Indeed.

Now is the time at Castle Argghhh! when we dance, in Commonwealth style: In Memoriam. -the Armorer

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

Canada is taking a "slow and steady wins the race" sort of approach to development in Afghanistan, focusing on capacity-building rather than quick-impact projects. I wonder if the balance we've struck is the right one, and whether we need to start putting out shiny reconstruction baubles for the masses to oooh and ahhh at, so that the populations of both Afghanistan and Canada are distracted enough to give the capacity-building effort the time it will require to succeed. - Damian

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

by Denizens on Oct 15, 2007 | General Commentary

Lanchester, use and abuse thereof.

Wiggins dropped by, to see what we were chatting about in the 12 October H&I post where Ry linked to Opposed Systems Design.

He left this comment.

Thanks much for the link.
I was being a bit harsh, so let me clarify myself.

Mathematical laws of chemistry describe immutable dynamics of the physical world. I question whether combat has any similar immutable dynamics that are waiting to be mathematically modeled. The difference lies in the thinking adversary inherent in war, as opposed to the stable relationships of chemistry.

Maybe the mathematics of dynamical systems offers a way to account for this - I think this is why chaos and complexity theory get folks so excited - but I haven't encountered it yet.

My second post didn't claim Lanchester wasn't useful; it argued that it was being used in situations where it wasn't appropriate. The question wasn't 'is Lanchester useful,' it was how often is it useful and in what cases? I was voicing my concern that Lanchester is rarely useful and sometimes used inappropriately. Not because it helps, but
because it's something concrete we can work with.

... of course it would have helped my argument if I had, I dunno, had an actual example to back that up...

I started to answer in email, then decided - "Hey! I've not done a geeky wargaming post for a while! No time like the present..."

I was voicing my concern that Lanchester is rarely useful and sometimes used inappropriately. Not because it helps, but because it's something concrete we can work with.

... of course it would have helped my argument if I had, I dunno, had an actual example to back that up...

I can help, and give you an example.

I didn't weigh in too much on this discussion, as it cuts to the heart of what I do for a living, and there are issues of classification, employment, and intellectual property rights that make me stand mostly mute.

But I will say that Lanchester can be useful, at it's most macro and most micro levels, when you are comparing forces which can be generally assumed to be at parity on the issues in contention. Oddly enough, that's pretty much all that Lanchester was proposing.

Such as modeling force-on-force from a hardware perspective, to examine the effects of the hardware. It can also be useful for examining organizational structure and doctrine - again, essentially positing a peer opponent. If your hardware wins, and your doctrine wins, and your hardware *and* doctrine wins in a Lanchester world, you are going to probably fare well, within the confines of entropic events and effects.

Of course, that's a very narrow set of bounds. And the consequences of bad assumptions about parity (and *your* basic competence and morale) are huge.

So, when the Army designed it's first sims for that kind of thing, it used Lanchester because we were assuming that at most levels, the Soviets, from a morale and basic professionalism level, were peers. So, we wanted to know if our tanks, tied to our doctrine, would prevail on the North German Plain (i.e., Fulda Gap). And if they didn't, what tweaks or wholesale changes would make a difference? And that sort of thing was generally confined to analytical work on those levels. Examples are VIC at the macro level, and Janus at the micro.

Of course, problems surfaced. Trainers wanted sims too. And if you've ever sat down at a Janus workstation, it looks (especially back in the day) pretty clunky, and the graphics are nothing to write home about, but it sucks you in almost immediately, if you're a trainer or wargamer.

I was in on the leading wave (heck, I helped lead it, at my level) on integrating those sims into training.

And, of course, one of the first things we did was try to build scenarios of historic battles. And found you had to tweak the crap out of things (something that board game designers like Dunnigan and crowd have know for decades) to generate historical outcomes. Not only because two regiments of muskets is *not* the same thing as Chamberlain's 20th Maine and Oate's 15th Alabama, but the digital terrain is not the same as the historic terrain. The man matters, and terrain representation is critical.

It's *not* when you're trying to compare tank vs tank, doctrine vs doctrine, on common terrain (the digital battlefield).

Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!

So Wiggins is correct - you have to understand your tool. One of the things I did as the Chief of a simcenter was sell my facility as a C2 trainer. Because you can use a Lanchester sim to drive training where the focus of training is the military decision making process. But quickly, commanders seized on it as a wargaming tool for things like NTC rotations, and it was a never-ending fight to get them to understand that the digital terrain does not exactly match the NTC dirt, and micro environment matters in fights at that level. That a plan that works in sim at Fort Sill, or Fort Hood, or Fort Riley, isn't guaranteed to work at Fort Irwin, on the real dirt, against the real OPFOR. But that the practice of your staff planning processes would pay off. You'd still need to make your plan based on the actual ground when you got there.

I promised an example of using Lanchester inaptly.

Desert Storm. Remember the predictions of 10K casualties? Say hello to my little friend, Janus. The modeled Iraqi Army was using soviet-derived equipment, with a modified 1950's British doctrine, fighting a defense from prepared positions where they'd had time to really dig in. And they were being commanded by a competent Red force team. Against a competent Blue team. And while we won, we got hammered doing it, because Lanchester is a bloody algorithm. And it makes a huge difference, when your data for your tanks is conservative - and you can actually kill a couple hundred meters farther out than you were able to in sim (as we found out when they modeled the Battle of 73 Easting and had to tweak things to match the historical record).

If you're going to err, err on the side of caution, I say. But you have to understand the limits of your hardware, architecture, design intent, and algorithms as you make choices.

There is much work that has gone on since then in building the mission planning and rehearsal tools, and they're pretty mature and robust for naval purposes and for aviation, both of which can largely ignore the effects of micro-terrain, because the ocean is flat, and the ground is effectively flat to fast movers and many helo missions, and is platform-based, which is much easier to model from an AI perspective.

Ground combat, with micro terrain and micro people, is still an on-going and evolving challenge.

And when you try to model the Current Operating Environment, boy-o-boy is Lanchester not your friend. But it was never meant to be, either.

So yes, I agree with Wiggins - people with the best of intentions, especially under a "I have to have it now" imperative, can badly mis-use Lanchester-based models, to their grief.

Okay, time to put this to bed and head for the BDE TOC. Have fun chewing on this, I probably won't be able to respond to anything until tonight.

Say hello to my little friend, Janus.

Our then-Battalion CO gave ten of us Fulltimers a briefing on the horrendously horrendous, triangular forts within triangular forts the Iraqis had built and the layered minefields and AT ditches protecting them before he came out with the infamous 10K casualty estimate. He looked totally dumbfounded when I raised my hand and said, "Arc Light. The only casualties you'll have will be from guys falling into the bomb craters."

"They won't use B-52s. They can't survive in the High-Threat Environment of missiles and MiGs."

"They did pretty well over North Vietnam."

He finished the briefing and spent the next half hour on the phone -- "Well, plug it in as a DivArty linear target!"

posted by BillT on October 15, 2007 7:36 AM

While I was an O/C at the NTC during Desert Shield we built the Iraqi obstacle belts, manned 'em with OPFOR, and then attacked 'em again and again, until we developed ways to reduce them with literally no casualties.

We made a movie about it.

And the guys who would actually have to do it watched our movie, and threw up, because it involved a *lot* of getting to within hand-grenade range.

They promptly went and developed ways to do it that allowed for much more stand-off, and utilized weapons in way we didn't think of, because the safety considerations of doing it live, force-on-force kind of turned off that part of our brains.

So, while I stand by the approach we took and the solution we came up with - it's most salutary was to keenly focus the minds of the guys who were going to have to do it for real on the fact that "There's no way in hell we're going to do it that way!" and they developed the TTPs they did which were, I freely admit, much better than ours.

I learned more about training to fight in that event and it's aftermath than the entire rest of my career.

posted by John of Argghhh! on October 15, 2007 9:40 AM

And I wonder how many people get past the first paragraph of this post without going into MEGO* status.

Heh. This is what this place would be like if I hadn't hired Tuttle.

Oh, yeah - yer check's in the mail, dude. ;^)

*My Eyes Glaze Over

posted by John of Argghhh! on October 15, 2007 9:42 AM

Yo, John -- you sent me ry's stale cheez curls.

I'm supposed to get the stale chex party mix...

posted by BillT on October 15, 2007 10:20 AM

Have fun chewing on this, I probably won't be able to respond to anything until tonight.

Wha' hoppen, the TOC Ticks toss you out early?

"Just put Extended Range Tanks on the Predator and cycle the B-2s in every fifteen minutes, then bring in a couple of MD500s with some MPs to corral the survivors. Tuttle sez that's how *he'd* do it."

"Get. Out. Now."

posted by BillT on October 15, 2007 10:33 AM

Actually, I'm pleased to find that the local installation no longer blocks the Castle.

I've won *some* fights.

And we're in a "Oh, gosh, the wrong software, the one with the reduced functionality, is what we loaded on your machines. Darn it!"

Our response in not printable, as it would violate the Rulez in several dimensions.

posted by John of Argghhh! on October 15, 2007 10:56 AM

...the one with the reduced functionality, is what we loaded on your machines.

Tell them to upgrade the 2.75 inchers on the MD530s to Hydra 70 (Mach 3+ and they're almost as accurate as gunfire) -- don't let 'em tell ya they can't.

posted by BillT on October 15, 2007 11:25 AM

My work is done. I have returned John to proper geeked out form without having to use a polymorph other spell. My EXP please.

Now if I could just get Armorer to give me a reading list on this field(sort of a beginners course) I might shut up for a few months, wouldn't that make you all happy?

posted by ry on October 15, 2007 11:45 AM

Chill -- I FedExed the cheez curls.

posted by BillT on October 15, 2007 12:08 PM

reinforcing (once again) the use of the proper tool for the proper job.

stack the forces down the alleys when you draw the COA cartoons and do the math for the comparison and the decision matrix, always realizing that the cartoon and the math and the matrix are the tools. it's soldiers and units that will do it for real, and the paper version is never as good as the real way it shall unfold.

ahh... Janus. and Artbass... the dank brink warrens of Leavenworth and the stuffy attic of the Abrams Bldg in Frankfurt. good times, good times.

posted by MajMike on October 15, 2007 1:19 PM

"Polymorph other spell"... Buahhawhawhaw... Good luck, it won't work and I know from personal experience. Now, while I won't say John 'cheated' as a DM, I will say that the results of certain encounters WERE predetermined. As the smoking ashes of a character of mine can attest. Oh, I'm sure there will be denials, but I know better. And as for EXP? Good luck, John was a miser.

posted by Kevin on October 15, 2007 1:31 PM

John was a miser.

Yeah, right. That's why Bruce had a Golf Bag of Holding. *I'm* a Monty Hall. Feh. Bob Barker was my role model, and you know it, hoser.

Yer still whining, 30 years later, about Bruce teleporting himself into a solid stone pillar in the caverns of the Frost Giant Jarl?

Or izzit the time that he just flamewalled everything, and you were invisible, slinking around like the thief you are, and got whacked?

Hmmmm. Methinks you should be annoyed with... Bruce.

8^ )

Even better - after 30 years, I remember all that, because watching you die was sooooooooooooooooo much fun!

posted by John of Argghhh! on October 15, 2007 1:54 PM

For what its worth, a noted School of Advanced Military Studies professor with a bent toward physics terms (like "poor dead" Karl had) told me that Lancester equations were OBE when they were devoloped. He thought they explained Napoleonic War and to a certain extent the American Civil War but they did not explain the Russo-Japanese War and certainly none since WWI.

posted by JimC on October 15, 2007 3:45 PM

I just did a Rule 34 search on Google and got 323 hits for the string,

Lanchester Operational Research porn.

posted by Justthisguy on October 16, 2007 2:52 AM

by John on Oct 15, 2007 | Observations on things Military

Things that make the frustrating moments worth it.

And this is going to be a month of frustration, with the slow access and long hours cramping my style, I assure you! But, that's the way it's goina be until I figure out a way to make this blog pay as much as being a Beltway Bandit (Midwestern Edition)!

From the email bag:

Sir,

I am currently at my folk's house for a few days and I just wanted to send you a private note thanking you. I am a rather recently commissioned 11A who will be deploying soon to the Box for a 2nd time. The 1st time was during the march up back in '03 when I was an E-3 11B with the 3-7 Cav. I left college in December of '01, halfway through my sophomore year, because I wanted to go to the 'Stan and fight those who attacked us on their turf. I left the Army after my enlistment was up and returned home to civilian life and to finish school.

My dad, who is so gifted with foresight, that my brothers and I call him "Elrond", told me back then that he thought I had done enough and that he had a feeling that the war would be waiting after I finished my degree. I have to tell you, having my dad say that he thought I "Had done enough" is like praise from Caesar. My dad was medically retired from the Army as an O-3(P) back in '71 after he was shot in the hip and leg by some AK-47 wielding NVA
(who had about 2 seconds to live after he fired, my Dad's Top lit that NVA up). He was on his third tour and was on one hand happy about his likely upcoming promotion and on the other dreading it. It ended up being a moot point. You were a Major, so I think you can relate on both the pros and cons.

So, being brainwashed by the Bushhitlerhalibutron types, poor deluded victim me actually wanted to go back to the Army and I was commissioned thru ROTC and I will be going back as a platoon leader instead of a PFC. The amount of sheer idiocy, ignorance and laziness present on a college campus is staggering. I must say, I thought my head was going to explode on more than one occasion from being in such close proximity to those dolts on a daily basis.

Well, enough about me and my Dad. I just wanted you to know that we really like your site and appreciate the effort you and the others put into it. Dad says he knew a bunch of Tuttle types back in 'Nam and to this day he still appreciates them. He loves the TINS stuff, as do I. By the way, he found your little corner of the web back on a July 1st, a year or two ago when he was looking for articles to pass on to me about my favorite Civil War General, John Buford. If I remember right, you titled it "General Buford has his day." I was glad to see it, he is a rather obscure and forgotten man who did his country a great service. My dad and I have been regular readers ever since.

Sincerely,

Mike

Yeah, that was worth another couple of months.

Maybe more, if LT Mike sends us OPSEC-free dispatches. It's been a while since we've had a Correspondent (literally) in Iraq.

I know it said private note - but I did a little tweaking and sterilizing to protect the innocent.

Because 'Muricans need to know there are families like that one, with multigenerational service, and still serving, even if *my* family has taken a break after three generations and a combined 3 wars, 52 years, and (in one generation-Dad!) 7 Purple Hearts. BTW, because I know you want to know, I believe the record for Purple Hearts is 8. But not all 'Hearts are created equal. The national cemeteries are full of wartime-dated headstones where the occupant has only one Purple Heart, those are the ones that mean the most.

by John on Oct 15, 2007 | Shameless Self-Promotion

October 14, 2007

H&I* Fires 14 OCT 2007

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

*********************************
Buddy Dan of tdaxp is doing another OODA loop theory bit which might become part of his Ph.D. thesis. Dan usually does stuff that at least makes you think, even if he’s got this strange predilection for college football.

I do recommend his previous works on the issue as well.
--
Continuing the religion and inserting foot into mouth disease series comes this story about complaints of the Empire State building. Look if they do stuff for Christmas and Hanukkah they more or less have to for Ramadan as well. Otherwise, well, they’re open to lawsuits for discrimination. Sorry, but I don’t buy the Islam=terrorism equation. All Islamic terrorists are Moslem, but not all Moslems are Islamic terrorists.
--
We do like gun right stories around here. Yes indeed we do. A little lady out in Oregon is fighting ‘city hall’ on the subject of her being able to carry. Good for her.
--ry
********************

George Will has an *excellent* piece today on indoctrination in higher education. Here's the opening graf to whet your appetite:

WASHINGTON -- In 1943, the Supreme Court, affirming the right of Jehovah's Witnesses children to refuse to pledge allegiance to the U.S. flag in schools, declared: "No official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." Today that principle is routinely traduced, coast to coast, by officials who are petty in several senses.

Now go on, read. -the Armorer

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

The Wall Street Journal has some suggestions for next year's Nobel Peace Prize candidates. Hmmm. Prolly not going to win. They aren't well received/known in the salons of the solons. -the Armorer

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

Gad, sophisticated anti-coalition info op - or simply the utterly predictable reality of paying ransoms? I dunno, but it works both ways, and either one sux. H/t, Kevin. -the Armorer

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

The Imp of the Perverse wonders why the House is doing this now? Because the word out of Iraq doesn't match the leadership's wants and needs, so they want to give General Petraeus something to distract him from what his forces are doing in Iraq? Probably not. So,they're just... really really obtuse? Stirring the fires in that region is useful exactly how? Please - someone enlighten me. -the Armorer

Update: I see that Ralph Peters went where I went, too. I hope we're wrong, and they're just bleeping obtuse, and not this venal. -the Armorer

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

Aieeeeee! Sometimes you really *don't* want to know what is in that concoction the Doc is giving you. Warning - high ick factor in that link. This makes sense, in a creepy way, but gad, the creepy factor is really up there. -the Armorer

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

Yo, John! If Peters' assumption is right about the Armenian Genocide Resolution, I'd like Nancy Boyda's position. Give her a shout. I'll wait... -Instapilot

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

I did. Before I posted. -the Armorer

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

I happen to agree with Mr. Peters.
Every time this resolution has come up for a vote, I was waiting for an overwhelming 'yes' vote, and every time it failed. So, what's so different now?? The timing, the timing... These treacherous bastrads, everything to make this administration lose in Iraq...
By the way, all this could have been avoided a long time ago if the Turkish government simply apologized for the deaths of the millions of Armenians, like the Vatican and Polish government finally did, to Jews... But no, these Turkish mofos will kill you first and destroy any face from any artifact they come across, just like Taliban did to the Buddahs...

posted by olga on October 14, 2007 4:39 PM

Well Ry, I'll haffta digress.

Though not all Germans were Nazis, we once waged war on all Germans, 'till all Germans cried uncle.

posted by Boquisucio on October 14, 2007 6:03 PM

Actually, the owner of the Empire State building has no obligation to do anything for Ramadan (or Christmas or Hanukkah for that matter). He has the right of association and the right to display what he wants on his property.

posted by Russ on October 14, 2007 6:21 PM

That was oogie. Stomach bugs can be cured by using friendly bacteria and staying away from antibiotics. How do they propose to do away with amoebic dysentery if feces are contaminated?

Friendly bacteria can be found in Greek yogurt, eaten plain (for those of you gagging at that, it tastes almost better than quark), or taking bovine colostrum or lactobacillus tablets.

I am not retching; the oogie is the treatment, not the source.

posted by Cricket on October 14, 2007 8:44 PM

Actually, the owner of the Empire State building has no obligation to do anything for Ramadan (or Christmas or Hanukkah for that matter). He has the right of association and the right to display what he wants on his property.

"
THen you didn't read what I said. IF you do something for one but not the other you're set up for costly lawsuits. End of story. How many times have we seen CAIR take people to court for trivial things? The Princess Crabby's favorite tv program('24') caved with only the hint of a lawsuit. ('Otherwise, well, they’re open to lawsuits for discrimination.' Which is what I said. We've seen this with city squares as well, not to mention rules about what employees can post in their cubicles---by federal fiat.). He makes a choice and he could pay for it heavily with a lawsuit. This is smart on his part, and very American. Once was a time when Protestants felt the same way about Catholics and Jews. This is a good thing.
And yes, despite many claims otherwise, it is grounds for a federal discrimination lawsuit.

Boq, sorry bro'. Different times, different enemy. 'Bomber' Harris was decried as a war criminal(and by the lights of the GC altered after ww2 he was) when his record was reviewed, and were it possible to win ww2 without such carnage it would've been fought thus. Nor is the 'enemy' so easily defined in physical location as were the Nazis. Different times. DO I need to post a link on the bombing survey to show how little effect this type of thinking had on the outcome of the war, again?

Doing Dresden and Tokyo (the fire bombings) once was enough for me, and in the case of firebombing Japan it didn't end civilian support for the war(no matter how many times they re-did the tactic) nor did it really end their industrial capacity(submarine warfare did that). I keep the really big hammer in the toolbox(The Tancredo option), just in case, but flushing a whole people down the drain just because of a few lunatics is immoral in my book. And I think you're very wrong in 'we took it to all Germans'. Last time I looked we didn't raze every single little village and hamlet, just 'cuz. We only went after industrial and strategically important targets, and those that were ravaged were ones we either had to fight thru or were mistakes(and I'll defend the decision to do Dresden 'til I'm blue in the face, I just don't like it and by modern standards it was illegal.). We didn't declare open season on all Germans. Believe me, being in the indoctrination filled academe I hear all the time how we 'made war on civilians' intentionally and by design but I also know that to be utter BS. I'm surprised to be hearing that come out of a Denizen's mouth seeing as how it's saying the Ivory Tower types like Chomsky are right, not to mention coming close to saying we should flush a whole people until they cry uncle(and which uncle would they cry for? Surely not Unka Bill.). Sorry Boq, we're definitely not on the same page on this one.

posted by ry on October 14, 2007 9:04 PM

I hope we're wrong, and they're just bleeping obtuse, and not this venal.

Bleeping venal. Pelosi invited the Patriarch of the Armenian Church to deliver the opening prayer to the House on the morning of the Foreign Affairs Committee's vote.

Embarassing a Republican President *and* putting a crimp in the logistics for a war they don't like is a win-win in the Dem playbook -- they pulled the same sh*t in 1975, for the same reason. Let's hope the results are different this time...

posted by BillT on October 14, 2007 10:35 PM

FLt Bill Goldfinch.

Cheers

posted by J.M. Heinrichs on October 15, 2007 4:40 AM

Bleeping venal. Pelosi invited the Patriarch of the Armenian Church to deliver the opening prayer to the House on the morning of the Foreign Affairs Committee's vote.

Well, if you're right, it defines a new low. At least back then, they just openly drove a stake through the heart of the effort - this time they've given themselves cover.

And that makes it cowardly.

posted by John of Argghhh! on October 15, 2007 5:23 AM

We are venal and obtuse. What was that quote: Those who don't learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them?

WE NEED TO KNOW. You bring obscure stuff out of the woodwork and connect the dots. So, what is the difference between genocide and mass murder?
Who does it or for what reasons?

The Turks are in denial that it happened and Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust denier. Match made in he**?

posted by Cricket on October 15, 2007 6:46 AM

Well, if you're right, it defines a new low.

New low defined.

The story's about Karekin II's tour of the US, visiting Armenian enclaves. Scroll down past "Pizza with the Pontiff" to "Prayer in the Capitol"...

posted by BillT on October 15, 2007 5:39 PM

by Denizens on Oct 14, 2007 | General Commentary

I challenge the Senators involved...

...to match the high bid. *Each of them.*

Then we'd see some support of the troops and law enforcers with the most important indicator of personal support - their own money, instead of just bloviating about their support of the troops... with my money. And yours. And you too - over there, yeah, you, over there in Pie Town, NM. I mean you - well, your money. Not to mention the closet liberal in Ann Arbor who reads this place because he was searching for pr0n, found Gun Pr0n and keeps coming back for more, even while his wife makes him write checks to the Brady Bunch.

How do you know you live in the post-industrial age? When the Senate had (and took) the time, theres a venue, and someone has the money, and you're reading about it here, there and everywhere...: For this.

Snerk.

I could get the money to bid on it at this time, but I *don't* have the cojones to ask SWWBO to do so. Because if I was gonna do that, I'd send it where most of my troop support money goes... Project Valour-IT.

That's not a slam on the Marine Corps - Law Enforcement Foundation, it just means this is The Castle, and that's our shtick - every warrior, every service, every day. Whether we like the mission they've been sent to do or not. Yeah, we'll snark the AF, Navy, and Marines, but hey, that's what families do, right?