Argghhh! The Home Of Two Of Jonah's Military Guys..: March 30, 2008

I was drafted to be a judge at a regional chili cook-off once, at Red River down in New Mexico... they made you cleanse your palate with crusty French bread and ice cold beer between each hot, meaty, well-spiced bowl.
And then they thanked me profusely for helping them out- as I staggered away...
I shoot you not ;)

posted by Neffi on April 5, 2008 4:48 PM

BuuuuuuuuuuuuuRRRPPPPPPPPP!!!

Yay! You got the minigun!!!

(Pssssst! That explains why he wants us all there, gang -- reloading / relinking ten thousand rounds of 7.62 is a team effort. BTW, I've got dibs on the Tracer Quality Control Inspector task)

posted by BillT on April 6, 2008 2:25 AM

Poor kid has 10 seconds of fame not attributed to his kill but the method of the killing. I wonder if he likes curry.

Judging a BBQ? How unusual. The best judges are your mates once they are so sloshed they can't tell your carbonated chop probably best used to fuel the fire, isn't quite Haute.

BBQS are a masculine icon here. A merging of the elements of fire, beer, metal, meat and the outdoors. It's one of the few times men eagerly cook. Perfectionism implicit in judging is a bit of a faux pas.

Still a steak done right is worth it's weight in gold and you never want to let my cousin cook the chicken. Noooo 1 minute isn't enough. My doctor said so.

Actually that old 'chuck a shrimp on the barbie' supposed aussie slang is so odd I wish i knew where it came from. We call shrimp prawns for one thing. Shrimp are those awful little American things you hide in a salad. I've only seen prawns on a BBQ once. My dear sweet ex sister in law insisted on prawns on the bbq for her engagement. It was clear quite rapidly why we never do it they stunk to high heaven, probably because they were unshelled.

posted by Trias on April 6, 2008 7:50 AM

I've heard of someone having a case of the beer $#its, but this is the first time I've heard of the deer $#its...

posted by SFC D on April 6, 2008 8:18 AM

Trias -- Southeast Asian fishermen cook prawns on a BBQ grill. And prawns *ain't shrimp -- I've seen some longer than my forearm, including hand.

BTW, cook 'em *with* shell and legs and de-vein 'em when you peel 'em.

posted by BillT on April 6, 2008 9:53 AM

Those are much larger than ours then. Ours tend to be more hand sized. Though smaller and larger can be found. With the head I assume? It's highly unlikely I'll ever cook another prawn that way. But thanks for letting me know why.

posted by Trias on April 6, 2008 6:41 PM

This is a response to Cricket's comment, on the 3rd. (What, we don't even get three days before you close 'em?)

That's the weird Glazer (Blazer?) brothers' grocery store, right? Their is no real farmers' market in DeKalb, as I recall. There's one (an official State of GA one) near the airport, I think.

posted by Justthisguy on April 6, 2008 11:37 PM

"There", dammit. Argghhh!

posted by Justthisguy on April 6, 2008 11:42 PM

Yeah, the comment locker goes ker-flooey sometimes, Jtg. Cricket may have access to a decent loin de chèvre at the Farmer's Market (or Glazer/Brazer Bros.), but the same item in Pakistan -- free-range, naturally -- required considerable marination to render its texture more like lamb and less like critter-flavored bubble gum.

And *yes* -- refrigeration is a *good* thing...

posted by BillT on April 7, 2008 1:09 AM

And the comments on the 3rd work just fine for me, JTG. Perhaps you've not paid your double-secret comment-posting fees?

Otherwise known as the Compost Fee?

posted by John of Argghhh! on April 7, 2008 6:44 AM

by Denizens on Apr 05, 2008 | General Commentary

April 4, 2008

H&I Fires* 4 April 2008

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

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

First up: Awwwwwwwwww! [FbL sez: via comments, Wolfwalker points us more on the owl.]

F-18 FOD - U.S. airmen aboard the aircraft carrier USS Truman discovered a screech owl in the left-main wheel well of an F/A 18 Hornet during a pre-flight inspection, March 17, 2008. Nicknamed 'Fod,' short for foreign object debris, the bird was nursed back to health by an airmen who is a licensed U.S. falconer, then transported to land and safely released. U.S. Navy photo by Seaman Matthew Bookwalter

Second up: Gimme summoradat!

A Paladin fires its 155mm Howitzer from Badoush Prison near Mosul to expose enemy movement, March 29, 2008. The Howitzer belongs to Howitzer Battery, 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment from Fort Hood, Texas. U.S. Army Spc. John Crosby

A Paladin fires its 155mm Howitzer from Badoush Prison near Mosul to expose enemy movement, March 29, 2008. The Howitzer belongs to Howitzer Battery, 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment from Fort Hood, Texas. U.S. Army Spc. John Crosby

-the Armorer

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

Heh. Heard about Randi Rhodes getting suspended for potty-mouthing Ms' Ferraro and Clinton?
You can catch that here, at Wake Up America, if you'd like (NSFW language warning). Along with some links to things she's said about Republicans that apparently aren't worthy of getting Ms. Rhodes, as Susan puts it, "Kicked to the curb." Indeed. -the Armorer

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

Heh. *Everybody* is sending me links to this story - about a PIAT that was seized in a bust of a criminal enterprise.

Even without a live round, deputies showed off the power of a WWII-era grenade launcher Thursday (weapon details). It was one of more than 20 weapons seized in an eight-month investigation into an organized crime ring dealing in drugs, guns and stolen property in places like Polk, Osceola and Orange counties.

Heh. What they showed off, perhaps, was the power of the recoil spring. Which is pretty powerful (but does not, as many people think, have anything to do with the *launching* of a projectile, except to initiate the cartridge and absorb the recoil). You have to be powerful to absorb the recoil of a 3 pound projo being launched 150 meters or so without breaking the operator's shoulder. Before anyone gets too excited - the PIAT was removed from the NFA list... because ammunition for them isn't available. They're legal to own Federally, without restriction. I just love this kind of breathless reportage.

Not.

The Sheriff says they were told it was test-fired into a lake. If it was in that configuration - I have no idea what they might have been launching - but I bet they were just letting the spring-loaded spigot go forward, which wouldn't have launched much very far. This is truly a "stupid criminal tricks" episode. I do like that dangerous "bandanna" (hey, that's what the Sheriff called it) on the end of that Yugo SKS. No doubt there's been a lot of drive-by bayonetings and rifle grenadings, a virtual epidemic. As for the "full-auto" weapons, I would note that private ownership of those is legal in Florida - and would really like to know if those were legally held... I'm betting they were not NFA-registered weapons. I am also, honestly, bemused and amused by law enforcement agencies who have their CLEO wear 4-star rank. It seems kinda, pretentious all things considered. I'm not slamming the Sheriff here - if that's the uniform, that's the uniform, he probably didn't have anything to do with it - it was some predecessor of his.

Nice example of the PIAT, though. Late model, and they have the sub-caliber training round tray in it. 'Bout $1-1.5K worth of PIAT. And not illegal, however much I'm sure they want it to be.

Yes, the Castle owns a PIAT. We've even got inert rounds. Heck, we've got something else the bad guys didn't have - a (expended) launching cartridge. All the loaded guns - that's a story. The breathless concern about the PIAT? Misplaced. Bozos didn't even have the butt pad for it - if they'd ever *really* fired it, they'd have been *really* unhappy. H/t, Too Numerous to Mention! -the Armorer

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

by Denizens on Apr 04, 2008 | General Commentary

Burning Down the House

[Kat]

Normally, I wouldn't link to any inflammatory stories of Qu'ran abuse that was not something I had to refute (such as the infamous Qu'ran in the Guantanamo toilet: impossible to do). I have never linked to and would not link to any real, purposeful and malicious acts of desecration against anyone's holy book. Except this link: Burning the Qu'ran.

A young Iranian Muslim has decided to burn the Qu'ran as a sign of protest against the Iranian regime:

I have decided to set Quran on fire as long as Islamic dictatorship of Iran:

(continued in flash traffic0

1. doesn't commit to Universal Declaration of Human Rights rules; 2. doesn't stop executions; 3. doesn't free students and opposition from prison; 4. doesn't bring justice in Judiciary system and society.
I believe religious disobedience is the key to save Iranian people from ruling mullahs. They preach that Islam is religion of peace and freedom which is a hypocrisy in reality.

He urges others to do the same and leave the books throughout the Iranian cities as a sign. This reminded me of a post I read yesterday: Muslims leaving Islam in Droves

I don't know how true it is or not, but apropos my review of Zawahiri's townhall, in case you haven't figured it out yet, the entire Wahabi/fundamentalist situation isn't exactly "spreading" like they would like you to believe. Neither is a similar fundamentalist "twelver Shia" politico-religio idea. The fact is, they were losing ground and they feared the encroaching "westernization" of Arab Muslims. Televisions, cars, blue tooth phones, MTV, Pepsi, jeans, Britney Spears, educated women, women in the work place, women driving cars: everything that we take for granted was coming to pass in the Persian and Arab Muslim lands.

They, the wahabi/fundamentalist were dying long before they attacked us on 9/11 and, in many ways, this war is their last "hurrah". They either become relevant again or they go the way of the do-do bird.

The Iranian Mullah led regime are in the same boat. It is why the IRGC has been able to grab so much power from the Mullahs. People no longer believe, as one girl said, "the religion men". The IRGC knows they have to preserve "the Islamic revolution" in order for them to continue to have a reason to exist. They are able because they do have economic and military power. They have slowly filtered into politics and now have that as well.

The Iranians are in a proxy war with us in Ira[q], not just to "expand" their influence, which is far to positive a way of looking at their real situation and purpose. They do fear that the United States will attack them next and they should. They do not want to change their over all practices of using proxies and terrorists as a tool of achieving their state interests. They do want to protect themselves from possible future attack due to their continuing support and use of terrorists. Iraq they need as a buffer, both in land mass and politically, to stave off the possibility.

In the mean time, inside their nation, the seeds of their distruction exist.

by Denizens on Apr 04, 2008 | ~~GWOT~~ Whatever it is...

Princess Crabby Demands it.

Really. She did. In the comments of yesterday's H&I Fires.

Therefore, we must comply, right?

Well, in her multiverse, anyway.

A new whatziss.

Not a component. Complete. Not a demurely applied pasty or blur in sight (except for jpg artifacts, tough noogies). Okay - it *isn't* in its storage box, but hey, *that* has a pretty revealing label which would take away the fun. Well, my fun, anyway.

C'mon, somone knows what this gizmo is!

Just a Whatzis for your Friday-no-doubt-sequing-into-the-weekend pleasure.

Go for it. A~~muse~~maze me!

Oh, if you think it will help - larger pic available here.

by John on Apr 04, 2008 | Gun Pr0n - A Naughty Expose' of the fiddly bits

Things You Used To See In The MSM

Such as this one:

February 8, 2007 • In Iraq, improvised explosive devices pose a constant threat to security forces. The makeshift bombs are stashed on the sides of roads, buried in trash or hidden just about anywhere. The U.S. military has sought to train Iraqi security forces to handle them on their own.
But things don't always go as planned.

U.S. Army Sgt. Ryan Lord hadn't driven his Humvee more than 50 yards out of Forward Operating Base Warrior when he came upon Iraqi police standing in the middle of the road. An IED had been spotted up ahead, they told the Americans.

In most cases, that means a U.S. explosives ordnance team comes in to defuse the bomb. But in this case, an Iraqi explosives team is on the case.

The Iraqi police start shooting at the potential bomb, hoping to set it off. But to no avail. The convoy continues to sit and wait. An hour passes. As Sgt. Lord watches, the Iraqi police move closer to the suspected bomb.

The first IED turns out to be a fake. To the surprise of the American soldiers, this emboldens the Iraqi police, who are now focusing on the second suspected bomb.

"Oh, he kicked it," says an American soldier watching.

"The second one must have been safe," Lord says, "because they went over to it, kicked it over, and then threw it across the road."

An hour and a half after first stopping, the convoy moves on.

That was newsworthy-by-MSM-definition because it showcases the US *failure* to

a. instill a healthy respect for IEDs in the local Iraqi cops *and*

b. teach them the proper method of IED neutralization.

However, take note of the glossed-over facts that

a. Iraqi police have taken on the task that *used* to be reserved for US EOD folks *and*

b. shooting an IED (from a distance, naturally) is an accepted field-expedient method of dealing with one of the beasts.

And now, I'll bet a two-liter plastic bottle of generic agua caliente that you won't see this one:

Kirkuk, Mar 12, [2008] (VOI) - Police forces on Wednesday defused a roadside bomb placed near a bridge in central Kirkuk, north Iraq, a security source said.
Kirkuk police forces on Wednesday evening discovered a rocket tied to wires near the directorate of Accounting at a bridge in central Kirkuk,” a security source, who requested anonymity, told Aswat al-Iraq - Voices of Iraq - (VOI)

The source added “the explosives expert defused the rocket.”

Kirkuk lies 250 km north-east of Baghdad.

Heh. Same area, same local cops. But *not* newsworthy, because it shows they've learned the *professional* way to deal with IEDs. They're not still in the learning stage -- now they *know* and they're applying that knowledge.

"B-b-b-but Bill, they're still planting IEDs -- that means The Surge Isn't Working!"

That's like saying NYC's Rodent Control program isn't working because there are still rats in the sewers. I've got cop buddies who remember when they *used* to promenade down Broadway, following the trash trucks...

The MSM's motto:

If the story doesn't meet the spin, don't put it in.

At times, when I'm more positive, I have hopes that the influence of new media and history will prove just how much bias we've had pushed down our throats by the MSM.

And then I remember what a stranglehold liberals still maintain within journalism, broadcast media, academia, and Hollyweird.

Until that changes, they will continue to spin the historical narrative according to their liberal bias to advance their own agendas.

All while gullible Obamaniacs accept it as the complete truth.

TGIF. LOL

posted by fdcol63 on April 4, 2008 7:03 AM

If it doesn't bleed, vomit, spew, or otherwise meet a certain level of negativity they are not "informing" us.

posted by kat-missouri on April 4, 2008 8:09 AM

but what about the mutiny of shiite troops who were supposed to attack positions of the Sadr Army? Do I read about it here? If not, was there a good reason for that? I like to know, because I try to read info from both camps and make up my mind myself.

posted by eric on April 4, 2008 12:06 PM

eric: mutiny and desertion are practiced as a fine art in Iraqi military culture (see Desert Storm and OIF battle reports for quantification). "going over to the other side" has varying degrees of "gone" to it, and i wouldn't put overly much stock in any report that breathless exclaims that "all" the members of a unit "mutinied".

my brief assessment of the sparse reports i had seen would be thus: "guys who never could have passed a decent background check" may have walked off their current job in order to report back in to whomever their real allegiance was due. such is life.

posted by MajMike on April 4, 2008 12:48 PM

Eric...there are multiple reports that say different things. According to Kaboomjournal.blogspot.com (I can't link right this second), there were reports that police and others "defected" and handed over their weapons, but LT G said he made the rounds of the check points in his sector and they were all covered.

He notes that, if any did, they did not effect his over all area and may have been very limited.

The alleged mutiny as reported by "police and army officials in Basra"

I say alleged because many of the "officials" in Basra are also Sadr mahdi army or have sympathies to that cause. Noting that an alleged battalion refused to fight is pretty big not to be also validated by the American military. I would look there first before I accept that it was an entire battalion of the army. The police, on the otherhand, I would believe.

In 2005, Steven Vincent, author of In the Red Zone, was murdered in Basra and his interpreter critically wounded because his daily dispatches noted the "criminals", the corruption, and, most importantly, the police being infiltrated by Mahdi militia who posted signs of Sadr and were going around at night kidnapping and killing people for their "un-Islamic" behavior, dress, etc.

Does the possibility of the Basra police "mutinying" against attacking Sadr bother me or portend something that we didn't know already? Nope.

however, I would look to Centcom to see if they have any confirmation of the number, size and organizatoin within the Iraqi army that did or did not "mutiny" before I would accept Basra/Mahdi propaganda that is basically trying to portray even the Iraqi Army under Sadr's control.

Best article I've seen today about the Basra affair is right here: Planning Gaps for Assault on Basra

posted by kat-missouri on April 4, 2008 12:52 PM

Maj Mike...guess we had the same thoughts on that subject. "reports of large scale mutiny are highly questionable".

posted by kat-missouri on April 4, 2008 12:57 PM

And..a little more explanation and comparison of what allegedly happened in Basra to the alleged "mutiny"

A British military official said that Mr. Maliki had brought 6,600 reinforcements to Basra to join the 30,000 security personnel already stationed there, and a senior American military official said that he understood that 1,000 to 1,500 Iraqi forces had deserted or underperformed. That would represent a little over 4 percent of the total.

Context. and even then there is the qualifier of "he understood" which means he is getting his information from a secondary source as well.

posted by kat-missouri on April 4, 2008 1:57 PM

thank you all and long live the internet!

posted by eric on April 4, 2008 3:01 PM

thx for the numbers kat...

now to apply the "Iraqi fudge factor" calculation to it.. "about 4% loss" = "bodaciously fantastic attendance today" = "slightly less than a recruiting drive" all in all i would say that was a great show of force.

posted by MajMike on April 4, 2008 3:41 PM

by CW4BillT on Apr 04, 2008 | ~~GWOT~~ Whatever it is... | Bill's Excellent Adventure | Bill's Excellent Adventure | Postcards from the Edgy

Zawahiri's Town Hall

[Kat]

I'd really like to spend some time reviewing this, but I want to get it up ASAP. Several months ago, Zawahiri put out a call for people to ask questions of him about al Qaida and their operations. He answered back recently with an audio that the Jawa Report has translated. I'll post a few highlights, but, if you have the time, you should read it.

It's starts out with Zawahiri trying to justify the attacks on Muslims:
(continued in flash traffic)

My reply to Mudarris Jughrafiya is that we haven’t killed the innocents, not in Baghdad, nor in Morocco, nor in Algeria, nor anywhere else. And if there is any innocent who was killed in the Mujahideen’s operations, then it was either an unintentional error, or out of necessity as in cases of al-Tatarrus [taking of human shields by the enemy]. I explained in detail the ruling concerning al-Tatarrus in the book The Healing of the Believers’ Chests and in the eighth chapter of the book The Exoneration, and the brother Abu Yahya al-Libi has a book called Al-Tatarrus in Contemporary Jihad.
I would like to clarify to the brother questioner that we don’t kill innocents: in fact, we fight those who kill innocents. Those who kill innocents are the Americans, the Jews, the Russians and the French and their agents. Were we insane killers of innocents as the questioner claims, it would be possible for us to kill thousands of them in the crowded markets,

Right about now, you should be choking because that is exactly what these alleged "defenders of the innocent" have done over the last five years. But he justifies this by saying that:

...but we are confronting the enemies of the Muslim Ummah and targeting them, and it may be the case that during this, an innocent might fall unintentionally or unavoidably, and the Mujahideen have warned repeatedly the Muslims in general that they are in a war with the senior criminals – the Americans and Jews and their allies and agents – and that they must keep away from the places where these enemies gather.

As a reminder, no American or Jew or any other "crusader", man, woman or child is an "innocent" because we all take part in this horrendous thing called "democracy". Surprisingly, al Qaida gets that our government acts on behalf of our nation which is a representative government, so we are all responsible for the alleged war against the Muslims. As opposed to those who want to claim that the presence or lack of certain political parties in the white house or voting means they are not responsible;

AQ doesn't buy that and no amount of appeals to that idea will save you from attack. Refreshing your memory: 9/11, 3/11 Spain, 7/7 London and various other attacks. They also believe that we are not "innocent" because we choose to live in a democracy where man made laws are held above and separate from the laws of God (actually, Allah and Sharia, but why get technical). So all those atheist, anti-war folks that thinks some more "separation of church and state" will somehow end our status as "crusaders" should think again. Or, keep hiding their heads in the sand,

Finally, if you haven't been around or listened to any AQ propaganda such as Zawahiri or Bin Laden (or any other extremists), our children are equally not "innocent", regardless of their age or religion because, as noted above, they aren't the right religion, they live under man made laws and, finally, the same excuse that is given to killing Jewish children with Iranian made rockets launched from Gaza, our children will one day grow up to be, well, American "crusaders and Jews". Thus, our children are just little murderers who have to be killed before they can grow up and murder some poor, innocent Wahabi, terrorist.

People, that is not polemics. That is directly paraphrasing the great Zawahiri: justifier of everything atrocious and horrendous in humanity.

Also, apparently, we hang out at the Baghdad pet market at least three times a year along with the Baghdad book market among the various places that are allegedly full of the "enemy", making the attacks legitimate and the deaths of these Muslims "martyrs for Allah". They may indeed be "martyrs", but Al Qaida is hardly the defenders of innocents or the protectors of the Ummah.

The Crusader-Jewish propaganda claims that the Mujahideen kill the innocent, but the Muslim Ummah knows who its enemy is and who defends it.

Which is why support for Al Qaida is down across the ME and the Sunnis in al Anbar want to kill them if they see them. Check out what JD at Outside the Wire was told by the local Iraqis.

While reading Zawhiri's rationalizations I was reminded of what I heard over and over again while filming Iraqi Tribesmen who joined the Anbar Awakening .
All al Qaida offers is death and violence.

JD also noted that Zawahiri has to claim that the Americans are there and taking the Muslims hostage because he has no other defense.

“It is not hidden from you that the enemy intentionally takes up positions in the midst of the Muslims, for them to be human shields for him. And here I emphasize to my brothers the Mujahideen to beware of expanding the issue of al-Tatarrus, and to make sure that their operations targeting the enemies are regulated by the regulations of the Shari’ah and as far as possible from the Muslims.

Two really interesting concepts. Apparently, because we pursue these nasty, murderous S.O.B.s into the population that they hide in, when they decide to attack us from behind these civilians, we are taking the civilians as "human shields". Of course, I do not see Zawahiri condemning any mujihadeen for grabbing up children and old ladies, holding them in front of them or holding them hostage in the houses they are in, hoping to avoid attack. Who is the cowardly criminal in Allah's eyes?

Then Zawahiri vaguely recognizes the possibility that, yes, indeed, the "mujihadeen" might have expanded the definition of "human shields" (al Tattarus) too far. Say, like, every civilian within a 10,000 mile radius of "the Americans and Jews"? He admonishes them to attack us as far away from the Muslims as possible (is this a hidden message for future operations?).

His other justification is that any Muslims living peacefully within or cooperating with the "occupation" are no longer Muslims, but traitors and worthy of death (among the other apparent 900 million Muslims that don't agree with them).

There is a lot more of that at the Jawa Report.

I recall a recent discussion that Al Qaida's movement isn't just about its fight with the US nor even simply with the "apostate rulers" of Muslim nations, but a real argument between the multiple schools of Islamic thought. There are four in Sunni Islam and twelve in Shia Islam. Largely, al Qaida's fight is with the Sunni school's of thought because they already consider Shias heretics and apostates.

Al Qaida wants their sect or rules to be the single, over arching interpretation of Shariah, including the laws under which all Islamic states and people are ruled. They figure that they have a good chance of doing this if they separate the West (the far enemy) from the Middle East and Islamic nations and leaders (the near enemy).

Al Qaida itself continues to suffer an internal struggle over multiple aspects of their own war including whether they should fight the "far enemy" or the "near enemy" first. Zawahiri is in favor of the "far enemy" in so far as he perceives the Egyptian government only standing because of our continued support. Yet, wherever al Qaida goes and attempts to set up shop, integrating the local problems and complaints of the people into their over all mission to take over the Islamic world, they are exorbitantly drawn into the fight with the "near enemy" as in Pakistan, the struggle in Lebanon, attacks in Saudi Arabia.

Another argument that they have between themselves is what the strategic targets should be and in what order. Zawahiri, being from Egypt and a member of the Al Qaida co-opted "Islamic Jihad in Egypt", has continuously advocated for the take down of the Egyptian government and setting up the first "Islamic State" in Egypt. He stated that in his "Knights Under the Prophet's Banner", "Bitter Harvest", multiple other tracks and speeches and does so even in this statement at the end:

First: yes, I undertook reviews which I mentioned in the first printing of Knights Under the Banner of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) as well as in the second printing, which I ask Allah to help me to release soon, but my reviews were not in the context of the investigation department’s reviews, but were in the context of developing and activating the Jihadi work in Egypt and all over the Muslim Ummah.
Second: yes, I continue to hold to my stance towards the Brothers, although I went back on some of the terms I used about them in the second printing of The Bitter Harvest. And the strongest force opposing the regime in Egypt is the Islamic movement in general and the Jihad movement in particular upon which the regime imposes the severest types of constriction and repression, while it allows others expansive freedoms because they don’t represent the biggest threat to it, and moreover, it uses them to give vent to popular Islamic pressure.

The "brothers" that he is referring to is the Muslim Brotherhood which he believes turned traitors to the cause by accepting a truce with the Egyptian government and joining in the political process. He did relent somewhat, but that is largely tactical because the Brotherhood is the biggest Islamic movement in Egypt and they have connections everywhere. They would know if Al Qaida came and started setting up shop. If Zawahiri continued to be harsh on them, they would consider him and al Qaida a threat, probably moving to interdict them and turn them into the Egyptian government. Which brings us to his attempt to mollify the brothers and those that follow them that likely asked the question:

Third: the issue of bequeathal in Egypt is under way by American decree, and the alternative is the setting up of the Islamic state. What is important isn’t to ask about stopping the bequeathal or not stopping it, but rather, is to liberate the countries from the America

Well, now it doesn't matter who or why, only that Egypt is "liberated". At least, until Al Qaida can claim responsibility, set up shop and take over the effort. See the Sunni Insurgency in Iraq and AQ's take over of that movement before subsequently being ejected.

There is much more, that's just a taste.

I might have to start agreeing with the Jawa that Adnan Gadahn is dead. Lately, all of the video releases have been extremely poor and rarely translated with subtitles while this is not even a video, but an audio recording. Zawahiri says that his security detail refuses anything else and kept him from responding more quickly. Probably because he was running around Pakistan trying to get away from the intel and tracking equipment that has helped take down so many of their leaders with pinpoint precision over the last year.

The only other complaint I have about this is how it will be reported. Frankly, Zawahiri gets a good deal from the media because he can simply release statements and never have to answer questions about them directly. Rumsfield would never have been afforded the same protections. Neither is Petraeus. Does make you go, "hmmmm."

Stop The ACLU has a new look - drop in and give them your opinion.

by Kat on Apr 04, 2008 | Global War on Terror (GWOT)

April 3, 2008

H&I Fires* 3 April 2008

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

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

The Castle is getting very close to going live with our redesign, which is intended to upgrade the back-office, which should improve things for posters and commenters, and clean things out that have accumulated over time - and to give us a cleaner look that will hopefully make things easier on people with slower connections. Additionally, we're adding all those buttons for the post-sharing services. Take a look here - it currently functions best in Firefox, but the other implementations are being worked, too. Let us know what you think. -the Armorer

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

CJ, writing over at A Soldier's Perspective, reminds us that Staff Sergeant Maupin is not the only missing soldier from the war:

As you hail and celebrate the recovery of Matthew Maupin, please remember those who are still missing:
Sgt. Ahmed Altaie, also an Army Reserve soldier, was forcibly taken by masked gunmen in a Baghdad neighborhood Oct. 23, 2006, while visiting family. The Army said Altaie had gone on his own outside the fortified Green Zone to see his Iraqi wife, whom he had married before deploying to Iraq, when he disappeared. Altaie, 41, is an Iraqi-born resident of Ann Arbor, Mich.

Spc. Alex Jimenez, 25, and Pvt. Byron Fouty, 19, disappeared after a May 12, 2007, ambush south of Baghdad that also took the lives of seven fellow soldiers and an Iraqi interpreter.

Six of the soldiers were killed at the scene, and the body of a seventh soldier who had been missing since the attack was found May 23 in the Euphrates River.

Jimenez and Fouty are assigned to 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment at Fort Drum, N.Y.

Until they *all* come home. -the Armorer

**********************************
The Department of Defense blogs... the America Supports You blog debuts. My fave of the current front page is "Last Wish." As this effort on the part of DoD develops, those of you who have been fighting the Good Info Fight - here and in your own blogs, or just as readers... this new site on the part of DoD exists because we all, in a sense, *willed* it into existence. You can take some pride in that. And here's hoping DoD can make a success of it... 'cuz remember, there are billions and billions of blogs in the blogiverse... and most are dead spaces. It's not easy getting noticed and staying that way in this biz! -the Armorer

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

While I'm pretty sure she's only going to let us own machineguns over her dead veto, the Governor of Kansas did sign this one today:

Sebelius signs bill banning funeral picketing
To ensure the privacy of Kansas families as they mourn the loss of their loved ones, Governor Kathleen Sebelius has signed a bill banning funeral picketing.

“I appreciate the legislature moving swiftly on this issue so we can protect the privacy of families in their time of mourning,” Sebelius said. “As we honor the memories of those Kansans who we’ve lost, we wish to shield their families from the despicable and disgraceful displays of those seeking publicity.”

SB 226 prohibits protests from being within 150 feet of a funeral for one hour before, during and two hours after the service. It will also be unlawful to block a public street or sidewalk. Violators will be subject to fines and six months in jail.

Similar legislation was passed and signed last year, but was struck down by the Kansas Supreme Court. The aspect of the legislation identified by the Court in its rejection has been removed from this version of bill.

This bill goes into effect upon its publication in the Kansas Register. Governor Sebelius has signed 37 bills and vetoed one during the 2008 Legislative Session.

Take that, Phelps' Ugly Whelps! Hey! P-UW! -the Armorer

**********************************
Don't forget, Gen. Petraeus is in town next week

a little something, something on the proxy war with Iran (I am continuously amused by people who scream about the potential of "escalating the war" by attacking Iran which is either extremely naive to imagine we aren't in a proxy war with Iran or a rather backhanded and slimy way of saying that it's okay if the Iranians kill our men and women in a slow drip drip in Iraq if it means we don't have to cross the borders to put boots and crosshairs on the ground.)

For those who have spoke here about illegal aliens and the necessity of the wall down south, some info from NRO: 40% of "illegal aliens" arrived here first through either temporary worker, educational or tourist visas. Where do we build a wall to stop that? -Kat
*************

Canada to stay in Afghanistan, France is sending a battalion to the "eastern" provinces (ie, Helmand) and the US marines have landed. -Kat

Soldiers can't access blogspot on many DoD websites. What's their plan? How are we supposed to be telling the troops they have more support than they are told about?

posted by kat-missouri on April 3, 2008 1:39 PM

Heh. But we still do something about a significant fraction of that remaining 60% though, huh?

And how's that internal policing element that someone around here is *so* keen about doing if we're still facing 40% from visa overstays, hmmm? Careful, I may have to bust out my never ending pencil, Kat. That won't be pretty(I look so terrible with bruises after you return fire).

posted by ry on April 3, 2008 1:43 PM

Actually, here at Fort Leavenworth, anyway, the Blogspot interdict has been lifted.

I got emails from guys on post yesterday that all of a sudden people could get to blogspot.

Might be related, might not. Dunno.

posted by John of Argghhh! on April 3, 2008 1:49 PM

Ooo! Ooo! Ry and Kat, fighting, er, comment-blogging! Wheeeee!

posted by John of Argghhh! on April 3, 2008 1:50 PM

Social security
Aging population
Labor pool
Change in emphasis from manual skills to technology and service fields

We don't need to stop people. We need to get people in, just do a better and faster job of evaluating, security checks, etc. Build/improve paths to naturalization.

Let the INS or ICE or whatever they are these days focus on criminal and terrorist related problems.

posted by kat-missouri on April 3, 2008 5:00 PM

Damn you Armorer! I am supposed to be at the gym, not sitting in front of my computer crying!
Get back to Whatiz!

posted by Maggie on April 3, 2008 8:59 PM

John ~ so what? Today you're the "Amorer"??? Isn't "amore" Latin for "love"? Are you going soft on us???

posted by HomefrontSix on April 4, 2008 5:13 AM

Kat,
Pelosi doesn't want us to forget the General's upcoming appearance!
http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2008/04/nancy-pelosi-prepares-battlespace.html

posted by Mike on April 4, 2008 9:20 PM

by Denizens on Apr 03, 2008 | General Commentary

Hussan's Story

Net connectivity has been a bit hinky the past week, but I've been able to pop in often enough to read what's been going on -- although my comments usually earn a "Gee, IE can't display that page, and it's really, really sorry about that. Try again next month" message.

So, I have a bit of time after work to yak with the Junior Birdmen. The following came out in a one-on-one that took place a couple of days ago, and I think it ties in nicely with what Kat's been saying, particularly in her Global Jihad All Star Team and FuzzyBee's
Disturbing. BTW, I *had* comments, but I see the Regulars did their usual sterling job of covering for me...

* * * * * * * * * * * *
Hussan (not his real name, for a very good reason) had just finished a couple of bumpy trips around the traffic pattern (okay, they call it a “circuit” -- ‘nother Brit legacy) and I was quizzing him about what the winds were doing at 2,000 feet. After about five minutes, the topic shifted to flying in general, then to combat flying in particular. Then it took a turn I hadn’t expected.

“There is a mosque in [town name redacted], the mosque is Wahabi. One day, there is a sniper in the minaret with a Dragunov -- you know this rifle?”

“Yeah -- Russian sniper rifle. The VC had Sov advisors and they used it on us in Vietnam.”

“Yes, the Russian rifle. The sniper in the minaret, he is a good shot, a very good shot with the Dragunov. He begins shooting at people in the street, not hitting, just shooting. A police car drives up in front of the mosque and the two policemen get out. The sniper shoots the driver *bip* in the head, and the driver falls down. The other policeman goes to his friend to pull him behind the car and the sniper shoots him *bip* in the head also. So two policemen are dead in the street.

“The people run to the policemen and the sniper shoots *bip*--*bip* and the people run to the doorways. He does not shoot the people, just shoots so more policemen come so he can shoot them when they get there. Soon some more cars with policemen come and the sniper shoots one *bip* and the other policemen shoot back and take cover, they do not run away like they do in the time of Saddam. The sniper hides and the policemen stop shooting. The sniper looks up over the balcony and all the policemen shoot. They stop shooting when the sniper hides, then all shoot when he looks up over the balcony, then they stop when he hides again. All at once, all the policemen come out from cover and shoot. They move into the street and keep shooting up at where the sniper is, they keep him from looking up.

“Suddenly, there are some American soldiers running around the corner toward the mosque. They run to the door with a shotgun, they shoot the hinges and kick the door in, then they run inside, then some of the policemen stop shooting and run inside with them. The other policemen stop shooting at where the sniper hides in the minaret, but they keep aiming up there. Then one gets a call on his cell phone, and he tells the others to stop aiming, and some go over to the dead policemen and some go into the mosque.

“I saw this, it was in my town. My little brother -- not *smaller-than-I-am* little, *younger-than-I-am* little -- he was with me and saw this, too. I am already in the Army, on leave from Army cadet school. My little brother now joins the police.

“When the soldiers and the police go into the mosque, there is a fight. When it is over, they search the mosque and find IEDs, mortars, RPGs. The Wahabis are two Afghans, one Syrian, three Saudis. No Iraqis.

“So, why do the CNN reporters say this is *Iraqi* insurgency?”

Interesting and a good point. Prolly a good point about discipline too to be made in there.

posted by Trias on April 3, 2008 5:29 AM

Chris Muir has the answer...just review his last couple of strips.

Heh.

posted by Instapilot on April 3, 2008 6:00 AM

Additional food for thought: Hussan's family is Shi'a and (what's left of them) still lives in eastern Diyala.

That's like being Second Amendment advocates at the Democrats' National Convention...

posted by BillT on April 3, 2008 6:18 AM

Right to the point, as always, UnkaBill.

posted by Boquisucio on April 3, 2008 7:22 AM

Sign me up with Trias - there are two stories here... the one you emphasize with the closer, and the one you notice, if you're of the bent to - about the performance of the Iraqi police - a good performance.

posted by John of Argghhh! on April 3, 2008 7:29 AM

I was just thinking that about the police action. Really interesting to see them acting in unison and not getting crazy.

On the "global all star team" that the media seems to miss routinely, I can't fully answer that but don't miss the link to bad voodoo's story. another instance of what the media don't get.

posted by kat-missouri on April 3, 2008 7:56 AM

I wondered how long it would take somebody to twig to the cops. Two items struck me when Hussan was talking about them:

1. These weren't National Police, they were locals -- in "the time of Saddam" they'd have been Ba'athist flunkies gathering an easy paycheck and augmenting it by shaking down the locals. Note the local folks ran to help the first cops who went down? That's a *huge* change.

2. The cops moved into the open and oriented their weapons on the sniper as the US troops moved up, which said to them "We're friendlies and we've got yer six."

posted by BillT on April 3, 2008 8:18 AM

Linked! Thanks, guys - excellent post.

posted by Cassandra on April 3, 2008 8:20 AM

“So, why do the CNN reporters say this is *Iraqi* insurgency?”

Good fraggin' question!!!

With time passing by quickly, I'm trying to gather up as much information on our destination as possible. Our home base over there is by no means a fighting hole half filled with water in the middle of Hades, which comforts these old bones... But all of the pertinant questions are more along the lines of what's going on outside of the wire...

And, ya know, it's not as scary as I had first thought it to be. There are more and more stories about the Iraqis coming together. Signs that the infrastructure is jelling, that old ideas are taking a step aside in favor of new ones.

We'll have to stay frosty, of course, but it doesn't look like we'll be facing anything even close to the combat seen in the past.

Makes me feel a whole lot better, even if the prospect of earning that CIB starts diminishing.

I'm hoping that this will be one long and boring year... I'm counting on increasing a majority of my skills set, and doing a lot of self improvement. I'm taking it as a good sign that my mind is thinking beyond this deployment (that hadn't always been the case)...

In an absolutely positive spin, I might be able to link up with the Chief, and I'm sure that the Denizennes will keep me on my toes...

posted by Sgt. B. on April 3, 2008 9:53 AM

You'll *love* the MRAPs, Sarge. Stay tuned...

posted by BillT on April 3, 2008 9:58 AM

Bill, you are a good man.

You are certainly pulling your weight. There are not too many of you out there.

Keep up the good work.

Carry on.

posted by Ledger on April 3, 2008 10:21 AM

Nice to see you, Oh Trivety One. Tell Hussan we are axing the same question too...and we are proud of you both!

Gots me an Afghan cookbook and have been skewering Many Things. The back deck is off the house, making that first step out the back door a doozy...

thinking of y'all...

posted by Cricket on April 3, 2008 11:07 AM

Excellent reporting Bill!

If Saddam’s family still has power – let them be rooted out.

If the MSM has slanted reporting – let them be rooted out.

Keep the information flowing.

Btw, it will be argued in the military if you could have destroyed Saddam with proper ammo in the first strike (incendiary bombs, or cluster bombs, mines or small nukes).

Certainly, it would have been best to destroy Saddam and his daughters in the first strike – but it’s unsure whether it could have been done.

Bush hit them with only 4 penetrator bombs, and rest of the air package was cruise missiles – it only damaged Saddam’s arm.

As I recall, Clinton hit that target with over 70 tons of explosive and Saddam got away. I don’t know if Bush's Air Force could have done better than Clinton.

Q: Would it have been best to destroy Dora’s Ranch with any/all ammo?

A: Unknown to the average citizen.

Keep up the great reporting.

posted by Ledger on April 3, 2008 11:10 AM

Sgt B. Get "Outside the Wire" ASAP and take a look at Bad Voodoo's PBS Frontline Special. So far, those are the two best videos I've seen showing multiple aspects of the different objectives (ie, three block war, convoy duty).

As you are a marine, Outside the Wire is probably the best considering the area you are likely going to.

See my post below for ordering information.

I don't know when you are going, but I hear that Michael Yon's "Moment of Truth" is an excellent book as well. It's not out for another week or so but you can pre-order it.

posted by kat-missouri on April 3, 2008 11:19 AM

Good story, Bill. Tell Hussan he's one of the good guys, and we're proud of him!
I noticed the good work of the cops as well, very good to see how professional they have become.

And I'm not sure Iraq will survive having Unka Bill and Godzilla ranging together - but the Denizennes will surely love it !!!

posted by Barb on April 3, 2008 2:18 PM

Sarge B -- Your future home just upgraded the hospital from semi-temporary (aka "Big Tent Over Aluminum Framework") to semi-permanent (aka "Aluminum Skin Over Aluminum Framework") -- not to handle a huge increase in casualties, but as a base for the increased number of MEDCAPs going on the road to organize civilian clinics.

Cricket -- Keep the Engineer and the CLUs happy; marinate goat for at least 36 hours.

kat -- Sarge B's wearing a *different* set of cammies these days, but OTW's a good suggestion. BTW, I'll be his forward LP/speedbump if al-Q-I goes all blitzkrieg 'n' stuff.

Bill, you are a good man. -- Dagnabbit, Ledger, I've got a *curmudgeon* rep to maintain!

Brab! You survived the puppy onslaught!

posted by BillT on April 4, 2008 2:57 AM

Seriously? Why marinate goat for 36 hours? Won't it spoil? I have refrigeration to do it, but 36 hours?

I can ask the halal meat department at the DeKalb Farmer's Market about it...they get goat, lamb, Rocky Mountain Oysters..

posted by Cricket on April 4, 2008 11:35 AM

by CW4BillT on Apr 03, 2008 | Bill's Excellent Adventure | Global War on Terror (GWOT) | Postcards from the Edgy

Outside the Wire 2007: First Hand Look at the New War

[Kat]

While at the VFF event on March 26, I noticed a man with a camera, filming and then later interviewing Hegseth and Bellavia. I thought he was with VFF. Later, as I was speaking to someone else, Hegseth interrupted and said, "this man has been to Doura". The man slid a DVD across the table and said it was a film about his time there. I had to go on, so I thanked him, put the DVD in my folder and left to meet with some others. Later, as I looked at the DVD, I realized that I had just missed personally speaking with JD Johannes. The DVD he had given me was his latest "Outside the Wire" documentary.

I watched it last weekend. I think it is better than his first documentary. In fact, it was much better than some documentary type programs I had seen on The Military Channel, The History Channel, HBO and Showtime. The narration was well done, the interviews, interspersed with actual events, were excellent and highly educational. This would also be appropriate to show in any class room, at least high school and college. Frankly, they should be watching this instead of reading the papers or watching news because they are not getting the whole story nor the right story. Read Toby Nunn from Bad Voodoo. The WAPO took unverified, insurgent propaganda and turned it into a story about US forces attacking a bus. Bad Voodoo was there. You can see a good documentary about another side of the war with Bad Voodoo's convoy War.

This is one reason why JD's Outside the Wire is so important. This "Bad Voodoo" experience is the news that people get. This is the story that is being fed to the American people. This is what is being used to create Hollywood movies like "redacted" or "stop loss". This is why I am telling you that you should get this movie, "Outside the Wire", watch it and spread it around or recommend it to others.

The documentary is in three parts. Each could stand on its own as a thirty to forty minute segment. Together, they help pull together the disparate aspects of a "three block war" and really give a great understanding of the battle for Iraq today.

This is what you'll find in this documentary:
(continued in flash traffic)

The first segment, Danger Close showed a combat out post (COP) under attack. This segment was the heart stopping "battle" against suicide bombers and multiple elements of Al Qaida trying to over run the COP and take out a small patrol outside of the base.

JD asks one soldier there, "What do you tell your wife about being over here?" The response was interesting. I couldn't tell if he believed she didn't know, based on the media coverage, or, if he just did not want to think about what she might know because his life there was separate. In another section, as they were under attack, some soldiers are trading quips, alternately relishing the fight and deriding the fact that they are there when they could be at home with their wives. It's the real dichotomy of war. You are left somewhat wondering which they favor most at that moment: being in the fight or being at home?

What was really interesting was the difference in how the battle was reported by the media and what JD recorded while he was there and then documented from information and interviews. The press played the event as a near defeat for the Americans. An attempt to over run the base a la Khe Sahn. The advantage was to the insurgents. In the film and the later information, you realize that there was an element, a moment when the follow on second suicide bomber could have taken out most of the base. Except, he couldn't because the defenders took him out immediately as he sped up. After that and a few more tense moments of fire fighting, the "bad guys" faded away. The day went to the Americans. The media gave it to the insurgents and painted the men as "sitting ducks" when they were bristling with arms and defenses though taking an aggressive, offensive approach to patrolling and controlling the area.

The second and third segments of this film are just as good, if not better, though focused on the Anbar Awakening and the Baghdad Surge.

The Awakening was great because it gave you a first hand account of what exactly caused Al Anbar to turn from the Iraqis who were there, who formed the CLC (concerned local citizens) and who had an extremely malovent view of Al Qaida. In context, a local shiehk had basically been trying to stay outside of the conflict. He did not support the American occupation, but he did not want the "insurgents" to bring attention to his town. He had also heard that Al Qaida had been taking over towns, destroying property and killing people. So he had decided to keep them out. Al Qaida was not happy about that and sent an envoy to speak with the Shiehk. When the shiehk still refused, Al Qaida sent back a message saying they were going to destroy the entire village, behead the local police, kill their families, kill the shiehk and his family, too.

That is when the shiehk came to the Americans. They might have feared our military and political power, but they never feared us as a people.

Again, this is a first hand account from the shiehk who was speaking through an interpreter. Other Iraqis in the area also told their part of the story that confirmed the events and other events surrounding that which turned the local population. Al Qaida had made a new enemy.

The Baghdad Surge is a first hand look at "counter-insurgency" on the ground, in the soldiers' boots. It shows how a US commanding officer spends his day trying to tamp down the flames of sectarianism, get services to a local area, get the locals to work together, stomp out insurgents, protect the population, teach basic governance and basic "rule of law" and, in general, make Iraq work. JD followed this commander around to the different situations that occured. This final segment was the best for me. It really made the concept of "counter-insurgency" (COIN) come alive for me. As military history and the various theories at work here are a serious interest, this segment pulled it all together.

At one point, the commander is hearing a complaint from the head of a sunni neighborhood in West Rashid (bad side of town in Baghdad). Iraqi police had shot up the houses of the people. When the commander catches up with the IP, they are trying to clean up the blood from the bed of their vehicles because someone in that neighborhood threw a grenade into the truck, killing or wounding several police officers. That attack came because the Jaish al Mahdi had mortared the Sunni neighborhood the day before. The people think that the police are complicit (some might be).

The US commander tries to reason with the IP who are very angry about the attack, telling them that he was sorry for their loss, but trying to remind them that not everyone in that neighborhood is "Al Qaida" just like not everyone in the IP is Jaish al Mahdi (JAM). Later, a man in the neighborhood is found shot to death by a 9mm. The US commander said they were going to use forensics to track down the weapons' system it belonged to and go from there.

This is, as JD says several times, a blood vendetta and it is very strong in Iraq.

That is just one event. During another, the commander uses the Iraqi's fear of American satellites to convince some men that he already knows something that he doesn't in order to get them to cooperate. He calls a meeting and expresses his concerns that the city councils from the north and south cannot make an accomodation for moving food and other goods. Then he says he knows that some people have been interfering and possibly hi-jacking the goods. Suddenly, it is all about cooperation.

This entire segment is much longer and shows a very wide array of situations confronting commanders in Iraq as they attempt to put together a nation. I highly recommend this documentary to civilians who want to know what our soldiers are doing and what the war is all about, military theoriticians who want to see COIN in action and any officer, NCO or soldier who might be getting ready for his/her first deployment to Iraq or under the new "surge/COIN" doctrine.

Over all, I thought Outside the Wire was one of the best films I've seen about Iraq to date. It puts you there and goes well past the "black and white" of "sectarian violence" or "suicide bombings" or the daily attacks.

You can buy the DVD on line at Outside the Wire: buy the movie

As a side note, if for no other reason, you should buy this video to make sure that it beats the sales of the rest of the extremely poor, angst ridden and insulting films about Iraq and that JD makes exactly what he wants from it: the cost, so he can return to tell the stories of our men and women in uniform.

by Kat on Apr 03, 2008 | Global War on Terror (GWOT)

April 2, 2008

Regarding some of today's young officers.

The Courtney Massengale types, vice the Sam Damons.

An auld soldier offered up his opinion in email:

I almost posted a comment on your blog regarding all the whining coming from the troops in Iraq. They are the best paid, best supported (including by the public at large), least uncomfortable; and at least statistically for combat arms folks, at the lowest risk of death of any wartime army in US history. Not that I am unappreciative of what they are doing, but danger & discomfort are relative & it would help if they had a better sense of what troops endured at places like Gettysburg, Meuse-Argonne, The Ardennes & Okinawa, the first six months in Korea, Ia Drang Valley & War Zone D in the 60's.

This Auld Soldier is a veteran of both the mostly un-noticed war of the last century and of the most contentious war of the last century - who has more stitches for one of his seven Purple Hearts than a Certain Politician required for all three of his, along with a Silver Star and just under three years of combat exposure...

You should read the whole thing, over at Small Wars Journal.

by John on Apr 02, 2008 | Observations on things Military

Small Wars Journal - Today's Junior Army Officers.

Over at Small Wars Journal, a good, toothsome bit gets tossed up by Captain Hsia.

When I read it, I thought to myself, Captain Donovan could have written this. Major Donovan would not.

Today’s Junior Army Officers
By Captain Tim Hsia, U.S. Army

Debating retention of junior officers is a perilous matter but there are just too many vital issues currently concerning the future of the officer corps that it is necessary to inject some realism within the debate. Junior officers are leaving the army at an alarming rate and not simply because of continuous deployments and the state of affairs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Lieutenants and Captains, although focused at the tactical level, still ponder what exactly senior officers and politicians have in mind in regards to the plan and endstate for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and how it will affect the Army as an institution. These important questions are debated by junior officers on a daily basis. Nonetheless, these questions at a personal level are subordinate to an even more vital question which junior officers contemplate, and that is whether to leave the military for the corporate sector.

So, I pushed it around to some serving officers I know. The best response I got is posted below.

John,

Prepare for rant. 5...4...3...2...1....

Given the constraints of printed word, I will give CPT Hsia the benefit of the doubt and say that I think his perspective, experience and subsequent analysis are too narrow in focus. Part of what is driving the high promotion rates, and accentuating the issue of captain attrition, is both an overall increase in Army requirements and an overall increase in authorizations. Since the no-money early 90s, promotion rates have gone up for MAJ and LTC. This trend started before 9/11 and even before transformation. Why? We weren't authorizing retention of enough officers. Result: many functional areas (FAO being my direct, transitory experience) were drastically short handed. Transformation only made the problem worse by not only adding units, but adding more authorizations to BCT and DIV staffs. I don't know how the current retention rates measure up against the 90s. But here are a few challenges we faced back then that are gone now.

The rest is in the Flash Traffic/Extended Entry. Whatcha all think?

YG89 had a selection rate to CPT of less than 90%. This was with selection happening just before the four year mark, pin on close to five. This was also after DA allowed early voluntary separations and took the last month of YG89 and deferred their board to YG90 (my YG). The selection process was so difficult, that even having a still authorized B&W photo was considered a discriminator (advice from branch managers). Next year, the selection rate was just over 90%...still traumatic. Promotion rates to MAJ were around 60-65%, LTC around 50%. Selection rate to CGSC was around 50%. Worse, because the primary zone for LTC was at the 16 year mark, getting passed over twice meant that you were out of the Army at 18 years. Period. No retirement.

So, what happened was that many who stayed in faced a very early, and obvious, defining moment as captains: company command. If your OERs didn't have you walking on water by the time you finished command, you were 'defined', in a bad way. You were at risk for promotion to MAJ and probably were not getting CGSC. This meant you were, if promoted, starting your MAJ window in the bottom half of your YG. Looking ahead to the LTC board, what were your odds? Many captains figured that out. My class, according to our class registrar, shows that there were two distinct waves of exodus: immediately after Desert Storm, and in the middle of the captain's window (i.e., right after command). There were exceptions, but not many.

So, if you were a young captain, and didn't walk on water for your last command OER, what were your options? Seek refuge in a functional area? Their promotion rates were no better (if not worse) than DA averages. And all of us were in one central selection board (minus medical, JAG, Chaplains and maybe some other specialty that escapes me at the moment). The point is, you had poor job security. Why risk getting booted as a passed over captain or major?

What drove the rates so low was simply a lack of personnel dollars to fill all the authorizations. When I dabbled in FAO, I quickly discovered that the promotion rates were actually slightly lower than my basic branch, but the shortages in MAJ and LTC were huge. There simply was no money to retain the required end strength.

That all started to change in the mid to late 90s. Promotion rates went up. Selection board for MAJ moved up to the ten year mark. Pin on time for 1LT to CPT cut down to the 4 year mark. DA made the decision to remove CGSC as a discriminator by mandating 100% attendance (still working on that one...). Does that mean the Army was retaining mediocrity?

How do you define mediocrity? OERs were so inflated that they were almost worthless. The new OER only achieved one thing: senior rater accountability. Not everyone could be a top-block anymore. However, CPTs currently don't get a senior rater block check. So their verbiage is what matters. No quality control equals generally the same problem: the OER is still a poor tool for measuring quality control (unless you get the 'velvet hammer' OER...damnation by faint praise).

This is where the young captain conflates promotion rates with quality. Quality is more a function of how the OERs are written, if the senior rater and rater took the time to craft their OERs and were being honest. Promotion rates are high because the requirements have gone up AND we have the money to retain end strength (the latter being more important). I don't know how the captain's attrition rate of today compares to the late 90s, when things were looking up. The real issue of identifying and retaining quality in the officer corps has little to do with promotion rates. The requirements are driving rates up, and since we're still stuck with a promotion system tied to time in service, promotion rates really don't serve as an indicator of quality.

Also, being passed over twice is no longer a career ending affair. Does that mean that an officer passed over twice is automatically a dud? Not necessarily. They may still have all the patriotism and desire to serve, but it just didn't work out. However, there are still nearly automatic things that will get you drummed out. That's what the SELCON board is for. This is a big deal if you are a MAJ. Now you can at least stay in until 20 if you've already served 16+ years and were passed over. I think that's a significant improvement for retention.

I interpret CPT Hsia's real issue with quality control in the officer corps to be an issue of a lack of rewards for above average or excellent performance. I doubt CPT Hsia has been able to read his peers' OERs and compare them to his (one way a rater/senior rater rewards top performers). So what does he expect? You won't see a real divergence in perceived quality (I use the term with tongue in cheek because of the OER still is not a comprehensive evaluation) until battalion command selection. What does he want? Higher ascensions which will drive promotion rates down? That's an expensive solution, especially if there are no requirements to justify an increase in LTs. Oh, and the Army isn't letting LTs out before their commitments are up, like they did in the early 90s. That means that you will just about automatically stay in for the captain's board (which is at the three year mark, I think). With such a high demand for captains, of course promotion to CPT is almost automatic. As I recall, it was that way in the 80s as well.

So when does the first real screening occur whereby lower performing officers either get weeded out, or transfer to another specialty where they may be more suitable? I would offer that this first occurs at the career field designation (used to be at the end of the CPT window, I think it is now mid CPT window). This is where the functional areas and branches that don't need LTs, but do need CPTs, get healthy. This doesn't mean that functional areas or these other branches are made up of second rate officers. Many basic branches, such as mine, seriously neck down at the MAJ and LTC level. If we all stayed in our basic branch, the Army would either have to lower promotion rates, or force officers into other career fields. The point is, due to high promotion rates brought on by high retention dollars, you now have options.

This is especially important for rewarding risk takers. Junior officers now can take risk and not have it automatically equate to separation if you fail (unless you fail big time, such as UCMJ). That wasn't the case in the 90s...

I could go on, but it's getting late. I agree that the Army doesn't have enough branch managers to provide the quality of support as other services. His comment on having to manage his own career = whining. I sure as hell am not going to abdicate complete responsibility for my career to someone else. CPT Hsia doesn't delineate what he thinks his responsibilities should be.

Sponsorship/mentoring = unit problem. However, has he reached out to the MAJ in his SQDN? Junior officer clique = it happens anyway. Lots of highly suspect generalizations such as the retention bonus only appealing to those who want to stay in, junior officers deciding to get out because they don't know what their options are (ever go on line to your branch page?), 'brain drain among officers' (I thought that didn't happen until your mandatory lobotomy when you made MAJ). As to his statement that the promotion system needs to be better explained, I agree. Try asking the MAJ in your SQDN. If they don't take the time, ask the CDR. As to not knowing how the selection process works, why worry about a process you can only influence by keeping your records straight?

I will give him the benefit of the doubt in the next to last para with the line "these problems are acutely highlighted for junior officers..." to also include all junior Soldiers. I don't agree and think this is more a reflection of his perceptions than an accurate generalization.

Same para, up a few lines: "For high achieving officers there is little financial incentive to outperform their peers...". Hm...are you saying you are in it for the money? Or are you insinuating that 'somebody' have a bag of cash they can hand out (with some type of governance process?) as arbitrary awards? Not sure I like the idea of how this would look in execution. It doesn't work to well in the DA civilian side (everyone tends to get the same, or very similar, award). The DAC side does have some supervisor controlled things like quality step increases. Maybe de-link pay from time in grade? That could get ugly if not tightly controlled.

The last para just flat out confuses me. After reading all this, this is all just a 'cyclical evolution of the historical norm'? I haven't read Kitfield, so I'm not sure what CPT Hsia's point is. Maybe later.

Ranting complete...for now.

LTC Marty

Well...my brother is air force and a Captain. A lifer as it were, since he started out enlisted. I don't think he would agree with this whiney individual about lack of opportunities, lack information, lack of rewards not keeping people in the service.

In fact, we recently had a discussion about whether he was going to stay in the military or get out (since this year constitutes year "20", including enlisted and officer time). He was telling me about several people that he knew who had "gotten out" and joined some corporate firms who had a rude awakening when the alleged "higher pay" suddenly had giant chunks taken out for insurance (especially family coverage), taxes, etc; there was no BAQ, hazard pay or other additional pay that is typically added.

There were so many "real world" expenses that several people discovered they were not making the money they thought they should.

posted by kat-missouri on April 2, 2008 9:20 AM

Er...and, my brother is not leaving. He knows several of these folks who have left and severely regret it.

posted by kat-missouri on April 2, 2008 9:23 AM

SWJ should learn to distinguish between a martyr who was at "Calvary" from someone who is trying to sound like a martyr while serving in the Cavalry...

little whining puss.

off topic: John, check your yahoo inbox

posted by MajMike on April 2, 2008 9:44 AM

All those great "demonstrated leadership" command gigs and umpty-zillion service schools don't always translate into *marketability* with the Fortune 500 set. I know HROs who have instructed their recruiters to concentrate on the tabulae rasae just out of grad school because they consider vets multitalented individuals who are -- alas! -- psychologically incapable of adhering to the Company Way.

That said, there are still boatloads of good, vet-friendly companies out there, but a newly-on-the-street JO had better be prepared for a severe salary-shock...

posted by BillT on April 3, 2008 5:50 AM

So, Senator Clinton, in Philadelphia yesterday, compared herself to... Rocky.

by John on Apr 02, 2008 | Observations on things Military

I've been pretty resistant...

...about getting all snarkily political this silly season.

But sometimes, you just can't resist, and I *do* have Photoshop®. There *is* this thing called the Internet...

I had a very strong mental image of Senator Clinton's arrival at the Democratic National Convention this summer...

Rocky VII - The Horror...

by John on Apr 02, 2008 | I think it's funny! | Politics

The Pacifist and The Warmongerer

[Kat]

It was interesting to read FbL's post Monday and the responses. While you might be tired of hearing about the Vets for Freedom stop in Kansas City, for me, it gave me several experiences to draw from and an opportunity to expand my own education on things military and war.

One of those experiences was meeting a pacifist. No, he wasn't there to protest. In truth, the meeting was extremely ironic because he was a local book seller who was providing the books, House to House, for Bellavia to sign. The book is subtitled as "an epic memoir of war" and the book itself is hardly a denigration of war or in the terribleness of its destruction.

(continued in flash traffic)

So, I was standing outside the auditorium waiting for the event to start when the woman with the man setting up the book seller's table approached me. I was wearing a business suit since I arrived from work near by. She asked me if I could arrange another table for Bellavia to sit at and sign books. I told her that I could not, but knew who she should talk to; the event manager was standing in the hall.

After directing her to the right person, I went back and continued to wait. The book seller noted that I was holding Bellavia's book and he asked if I had read it. After a few shared comments on the book, which told me he had not actually read it, he said, "These young men go to war, go through so much, and come back terribly wounded physically and mentally."

Well, what was there to say to that? "Yes," I replied, "sometimes they do." I was thinking about the young men who I had met who had, indeed, come back from war, wounded physically and mentally. I thought how different, though, my perspective was from his. I was willing to bet that he had never actually met or spoke to, for any length of time, a young man returning from war. He felt pity. I felt respect.

The young men I had met, even those whose lives had changed profoundly, were, for the most part, filled with determination. If they had moments of self-pity, it did not define them or their service. They would rather be spit on than to be offered pity. Pity only re-enforced their "otherness". These men struggle to bring the three worlds that they live in into alignment. They are injured and/or psychically wounded which places them in that world, a world of uncertainty, when, not long ago, they had been confident and capable. They are torn from the life of service that they had dedicated many years to and the family they had made with the men and women they served with. The third world, our world, they are the furthest from because we do not know what they know. We have never been where they have been. But, they are coming back to our world.

That was not the end of our conversation. The worst I could say about this gentleman was that he was well meaning though disconnected. A conscious and purposeful decision, to distance himself from violence. The world needs men like him to keep it from sliding into the Hobbesian wilderness, but he will never understand that the world needs men like Bellavia, too, to keep back the jungle.

He could not know, a few moments later, I would feel utter revulsion, rejection, for him and his words. He said that he was too young for Viet Nam (I placed him in his very early fifties), but his brothers were old enough. His father was in the military and did not want them to go so he arranged for one son to go into the navy while the other, as he said, was lucky to be stationed state side as an adjutant in the army. As if it was something to feel pride in or relief. I felt a hot rush of something go to my face. It was anger, but more akin to contempt for something vile. How could he know?

I looked away for a moment. I wondered what I had said or done that made this man believe I was like him. "My uncle served a tour, '70-'71. He enlisted so my dad would have his draft number pushed back. My mom was pregnant with me. He died two years ago from diseases related to exposure to agent orange." I ground my teeth together to say nothing else. Later, I thought how his story of his brothers avoiding combat somehow dishonored that service.

"Oh," he looked down at the floor somewhat sheepishly, not knowing what to reply or searching for the words. "Men did many brave things then." I felt sure that he included evading the draft as one of these "brave acts".

I wanted to walk away then, but not seem rude. I looked towards the doors to the auditorium for escape. I felt that my next words would be angry words. I was not there for that. I was there to listen to the veterans, their experiences and what information was available.

Then I went from anger to bemusement. In the pause, he had obviously thought that we still had something in common. That my words were a lament for his service as well as his death. The tears I felt behind my eyes were for neither. They were for the man I missed who taught me to ride a motorcycle and shared my interest in history during long talks over a coke and bologna sandwiches.

Out of the blue, "We have war because people make money off of it." Again, that's true, but to leave it there as the only cause or effect is not really the truth nor any real, mature evaluation of the human experience: the capacity to love or hate or desire something so much that men are willing to kill or die for it.

I was surprised by that even more than his original comment. "We have war because people decide that is the way they will settle their problems. When one side wants war, you either give them what they want or you fight for it." Profiteering is a symptom, not the cause, of war.

Still, he didn't buy that. "Eisenhower warned us about the dangers of the military-industrial complex."

I know, some must be thinking as I did at that moment. Nobody ever says that anymore, do they? Apparently, they do. I know, at this point, he took my stunned, silent bemusement as a prompt to continue his erstwhile, yet friendly, discussion, "If we stopped making weapons, the world would be much more peaceful."

Those were not angry words, only very earnest. As I searched for words that would bring a polite close to the conversation, I realized I was experiencing my first, true moment of no longer being "one of them." We live in two different worlds. I can't say which of us lives in the better world.

The one where I accept that violence is a part of the nature of man, but we hold it back as best as we can; holding it back, occasionally living in peace, while we watch the jungle outside our windows. The other, where peace is possible if we but try harder, work harder, accept that violence is the nature of others, but not necessarily our end condition. He sees soldiers and war as a symptom or victim of our worse nature. I see soldiers as an honorable and necessary occupation, keeping the violence of others away from us, they are the best of us.

It was strange that in the beginning he had expressed pity for our soldiers, then I had been angry for a moment and, now, it was I who felt pity for him. He would never understand that these men and women are us; the best of us, not the least or worst, not a victim.

Finally, I realized I was holding Bellavia's book in my hand. One of the many reasons I was there to hear these men and hear what they had to say was because I disagreed with the notion of soldiers as victims of anything, any "machine", other than our needs as a nation to defend and their need to prove something, to become something else than what they were. Even if they thought it was a good way to get college money or get out of a bad economic situation or develop skills for future work. Even if these things, it showed a particular drive that served them well in serving our nation and did not bring dishonor on them or the idea of national service.

If we did not produce another weapon..."Well, sir, if we didn't do it, someone else would. And, they do."

He was silent for a moment, then agreed, nodding his head, "That's true." Then, silence. He might be thinking now.

"I've read a lot of history." I continued, "As far as I can tell, men have been at war for more centuries than we could write about it. I believe that, if no one made another gun, plane or bomb, men would pick up rocks and sharpen sticks to either get what they want or defend what they had." I'm also sure, somewhere along the way, someone would figure out how to make money supplying the rocks and sharpening the sticks. A symptom, not the cause.

I wonder if anyone ever considered the armorers and fletchers of ancient and medieval warfare "war profiteers"? I wonder if a pacifist bookseller had ever read about the medieval "military-industrial complex" that is often looked back upon as both the height of brutality and the creator of such ideas as honor and chivalry? Or, ever imagined that the "military industrial complex" was present at large and small communities throughout history: Rome, Greece, viking settlements on Iceland, the American Revolution, the Civil War, the entire 19th century long before Eisenhower was even a twinkle in someone's eye?

Right then, a young man came out and announced we would be going to another location in the building for the conference. I thanked the bookseller politely and walked to the conference room where I spent two hours listening and asking questions.

For several days I pondered the irony of meeting a pacifist at a "pro-mission" (ie, support the war) event, hawking a book about war, written by a man who believes that war is necessary. More irony that he had somehow pegged me as a potential fellow pacifist.

Then again, we weren't that far off in what we wanted for the world: peace. We just have different ideas on how we're going to get there.

Then again, we weren't that far off in what we wanted for the world: peace. We just have different ideas on how we're going to get there.

Indeed.

We believe in the concept that "Peace Through Strength" will deter those who wish us harm or will allow us to end the conflict if deterrence fails.

They believe that we can always talk through our problems if only we understood each other better, never grasping that conflict often occurs when we do, in fact, understand the other side's intent to harm us all too well.

posted by fdcol63 on April 2, 2008 7:14 AM

sounds to me as if this book seller will be profiting quite well from this war...

mayhap he should stop selling books..

posted by MajMike on April 2, 2008 7:39 AM

Maj Mike. hahaha. You know, I didn't even think about it until you wrote that comment. So true. I'm sure he doesn't see himself as part of the "military-industrial complex", but how ironic that he actually was, at least, "profiting".

posted by kat-missouri on April 2, 2008 7:53 AM

I'm sure that when this guy, and others like him, say "Military-Industrial Complex", they're specifically talking about large contractors who make weapons systems like Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Hughes, Sikorsky, etc. etc.

They never think about all the other smaller, often "Mom & Pop" businesses that are subcontracted by these larger corporations: the farmers, textile workers, metalsmiths, mill workers, factory employees, etc etc etc, and the impact they have on the economy as a whole and to our tax base.

posted by fdcol63 on April 2, 2008 8:53 AM

don't forget food, construction, etc

posted by kat-missouri on April 2, 2008 9:07 AM

And don't forget me. I'm one of those mercenary bastids, too.

posted by John of Argghhh! on April 2, 2008 10:08 AM

Yes. My favorite mercenary. ;)

posted by kat-missouri on April 2, 2008 11:26 AM

I have a couple of clients who are military contractors. Business has been VERY good these past few years...

posted by AFSister on April 2, 2008 12:20 PM

Yes, Kat, the Left is still all about the valiant struggle of the people against the vile "military-industrial complex." They love that term, and "progressive" as they are, they'll never give it up. Never!

I don't really have a big problem with people being pacifists. That's their prerogative, and I think true pacifists are rare. Problem is, too many self-proclaimed pacifists are really just itching for a violent anti-war protest. I think they really don't see themselves for what they are.

posted by April on April 2, 2008 12:36 PM

Interesting post.

The uncle and the father should have opened your eyes a little. You saw there some who don't fit 'hero' for you yet were in the military. While more are of the kind you appreciate not all are.

I think disconnection is one of the things that makes it hard for the soldier to return to civilian life and also one of the things spawning these anti war movements. The US seems more connected but here the disconnect is near absolute. It's also mostly driven not by citizens but by the military. The few physical locations (which most don't even know about) are off limits. The official word form the military is rare curt press releases and personal contact is rare because there are few in the military here and they don't talk to civilians. And how many civilians would bother to hear them anyway?

So it's hardly surprising no one has a clue about them. Indeed my father was in the military but I've learnt more about what goes on from this blog than my sum total in Australia. So what do you have then? A bunch of men with guns that are apparently trained to kill people because the government said so. You know of the ones who i identified as having been in the military here my whole life it is a sum total of 4 people and every single one was a dubious character. If i hadn't braved this blog world I've prolly still think as shallowly and negatively as I used to about the soldier, much like many over here do if they think about them at all.

It's not hard to see where the mistrust comes from. Nor is it hard to see why the appreciation isn't there. You can't appreciate things you don't know.

Maybe the disconnect is good. After all we here don't really get very excited when one of our Soldiers die. Sadly it's because few care. But politically it might be a winner hmm?

There is a lot of talk of military partners being family. I can understand the closeness that can result from living together esp under high stress and keeping each other alive would make for strong bonds.

But I don't feel comfortable with the family word. I admit I'm not real keen on mine for reasons one should use one's brains for but to me a family that isn't there when you need them isn't worth very much. And really these wounded how many of them have had this kind of family there for them? And if family left their brother/son etc to a support system like yours? Well not a very nice family if you ask me.

I could be wrong there of course. I sure hope so but it doesn't appear to gel. Perhaps you all help each other and visit etc. I just hear of too many of them adrift to feel comfortable with this 'family' concept.

Your kind of 'pacifists' are better read to mean anti-war not anti-violence. And most aren't even that, they are more reasonably said to be anti establishment. Which means anti-war because the establishment wants the war. Given the right circumstances violence and war will pop right out of them. Of course real pacifists do exist too. personally I think they are closer to apathists. or however you would spell it.

Ok I will shuddup now.

posted by Trias on April 2, 2008 3:24 PM

Actually, Trias, I think you did it rather well.

posted by John of Argghhh! on April 2, 2008 3:31 PM

by Kat on Apr 02, 2008 | Global War on Terror (GWOT)

April 1, 2008

H&I Fires* 1 April 2008

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

Get your "Hillary Bosnia Tour '96" t-shirts here.

The only thing better than Brit Obits are the people who are the subject of them. Meet Sergeant Dougie Wright:

Sergeant Dougie Wright, who has died aged 88, earned a Military Medal and a legendary reputation as a fighting soldier with Lord Jellicoe's 1st Special Boat Squadron in the Greek islands.

In April 1944 he distinguished himself in a close-quarter attack on an enemy post on Ios, which resulted in no SBS losses but five enemy casualties. He was also involved in two dramatic attacks on a radio station on Amorgos. In the first he found himself under the command of Anders Lassen, a Dane (later to win a posthumous VC) who hated Germans and usually killed them; but on this occasion Lassen did a deal with a captured wireless operator by which he took the man's dog as well as the station's code books, while Wright took the German's Greek mistress.

Catch the rest of Sergeant Wright's exploits in the Telegraph. H/t, CAPT H.

63 years ago today:

The Tenth Army goes ashore at Okinawa. As our buddies at Global Security note:

Okinawa was the largest amphibious invasion of the Pacific campaign and the last major campaign of the Pacific War. More ships were used, more troops put ashore, more supplies transported, more bombs dropped, more naval guns fired against shore targets than any other operation in the Pacific. More people died during the Battle of Okinawa than all those killed during the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Casualties totaled more than 38,000 Americans wounded and 12,000 killed or missing, more than 107,000 Japanese and Okinawan conscripts killed, and perhaps 100,000 Okinawan civilians who perished in the battle.
The battle of Okinawa proved to be the bloodiest battle of the Pacific War. Thirty-four allied ships and craft of all types had been sunk, mostly by kamikazes, and 368 ships and craft damaged. The fleet had lost 763 aircraft. Total American casualties in the operation numbered over 12,000 killed [including nearly 5,000 Navy dead and almost 8,000 Marine and Army dead] and 36,000 wounded. Navy casualties were tremendous, with a ratio of one killed for one wounded as compared to a one to five ratio for the Marine Corps. Combat stress also caused large numbers of psychiatric casualties, a terrible hemorrhage of front-line strength. There were more than 26,000 non-battle casualties. In the battle of Okinawa, the rate of combat losses due to battle stress, expressed as a percentage of those caused by combat wounds, was 48% [in the Korean War the overall rate was about 20-25%, and in the Yom Kippur War it was about 30%]. American losses at Okinawa were so heavy as to illicite [sic] Congressional calls for an investigation into the conduct of the military commanders. Not surprisingly, the cost of this battle, in terms of lives, time, and material, weighed heavily in the decision to use the atomic bomb against Japan just six weeks later.

-the Armorer

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

As a whole, major media's coverage of the Iraqi-led military action in Basra continues to be appallingly bad. Honestly, I think this may be the absolute nadir of major media's incompetence, laziness, ignorance and ideology-driven reporting/analysis (at least we can hope it's the nadir, but they may be beyond recovery).

This piece from the AP fits the pattern. If anybody can read it and tell me what actually happened, please do. It's incomprehensible, though the final paragraph seems to at least clarify who the Iraqi army was fighting--and surprise, surprise, it seems it's exactly who the U.S. and Iraqis said they were fighting. - FbL

**********************************
Schatman says US Army (or military in general) might be trying to buy bloggers. If so, John, you're gonna owe me and Kat mega if you start getting paid for this place, and I bet Dusty and Bill would write more regularly too.
--ry
**********************************

Exploring the "Black Budget" by the shoulder/chest insignia of the participants... H/t, The Flea. -the Armorer

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

Cheyenne, Wyoming, bans new pets or other animals within the city limits. Zip, nada, zilch. Once existing pets die off or run away - no replacements. They are making an exception for the rodeo... -the Armorer

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

Do read the *whole* article. -the Armorer

***********************************
Really. I mean it. Read the *whole* thing. All the way to the end. Honest. -the Armorer

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

No, not this post - the Cheyenne, Wyoming story. -the Armorer

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

Oh, sure, blame todays header graphic on Dusty. Silly Hanoi Jane.

posted by ry on April 1, 2008 7:58 AM

John Kerry, first thing in the morning, ugh!

I hate April Fool's Day!

posted by Maggie on April 1, 2008 8:08 AM

Would you rather have that body-building psycho woman first thing in the morning. Now, that was a nasty way to start my day!

posted by FbL on April 1, 2008 8:11 AM

Ahhhhhhh- that's really tough. However, I am going to come down on that side. She was not elected by the morons in my state to go to the Senate, so I don't LOATHE her.

Anyway, I am stripping down to get in the shower so I will just keep my eyes open under the water and wash my eyeballs out. I'm good.

posted by Maggie on April 1, 2008 8:37 AM

My grandfather was at the battle of Okinawa.

posted by kat-missouri on April 1, 2008 8:50 AM

Heh. Kat's comment just kinda slaps it all down, doesn't it?

posted by John of Argghhh! on April 1, 2008 9:14 AM

Ry, we pay for quality, not quantity. This isn't the government. Tuttle and Dusty hardly post, and I pay them 3 times what I pay you.

Of course, you haven't been posting much, either... so I think I'll dock your pay.

Do note the date on the document - 2006.

And I (and others) have been fighting this bad idea when it pops up in our contacts with the IO and StratComms folks for quite a while now.

It's an idea that hasn't had much traction, once we pointed out the really significant downside of getting caught at it. Which they would. Because, as they constantly tell us - we can't keep a secret!

posted by John of Argghhh! on April 1, 2008 9:39 AM

Ry, I'm no expert, but that sounds to me more like a "thought exercise" than anything else.

And good to see you 'round again, ry!

posted by FbL on April 1, 2008 11:02 AM

Oh, come on, you didn't see the humor there? You're going to pay us? As if.

I almost laughed when I saw it. Not that the gov't wouldn't like to try in times of crisis, but it wouldn't work. Not with the likes of TPMuckraker and Noah out there chomping at the bit to expose even the slightest hint or imagining of impropriety. It's funny.

I'm around. Just trying to keep my head on straight. Do you have any idea how hard it is to keep your favorites if you've only ever used the ISP provided browser? Ai yah. Couple of hundred sites you have to save by hand. And they lie about how easy it is to transfer your address book too. BUt, at half the price of the old ISP, I can't complain too much. (Just means I can't put 'brevity is for the weak' into practice.).

Oh, and has anyone else noticed a renewed fervor for a takedown of DPRK lately? Scary.

posted by ry on April 1, 2008 11:10 AM

Having read William Manchester's book GOODBYE DARKNESS, one passage in the work seemed to describe the battle for Okinawa rather succinctly. Manchester's Marine unit had been assigned to clear the north end of the island and, as the fighting in the south intensified, they were trucked south to re-enforce the line.
After de-trucking Manchester(out of curiousity) climbed a small hill to see what lay ahead. It so happened that it gave him a panoramic view of the Shuri line which he described as a series of gray hills denuded of all greenry, like rows of rotting teeth. Looking out over it he was struck by the revelation that "The worse thing in the world that could happen to me was about to".

posted by Tbird on April 1, 2008 11:18 AM

Going back up to your (current) lead item, I believe Sgt. Wright got the better part of the deal.

posted by KCSteve on April 1, 2008 12:22 PM

"I think this is an historic vote," Mayor Jack Spiker. "Not only is the city treating all pet owners the same, but this is a unanimous decision on the part of the council -- the first in a long time."

Yeah, historically stupid. Their concern was dog feces at the park? In Cheyenne, WY where, I know for a fact, the antelope really do play in every open field, on the air port strip and other public places? Where bears and coyotes and horses and cattle leave their feces all over the place?

And they are worried about their kids getting dog feces on them from a few dogs?

You know what the problem is? The Kevin Costner crowd moved out west and took over these little towns. Now all the yuppie "look at me I'm living in the wide open, but I don't want to see, smell or touch any animals" have taken over the town councils.

Seriously, none of these people must leave the confines of their homes or businesses or else they would be trying to figure out how to make the feed lots stop stinking things up with the 9 billion tons of cow manure it collects.

That is some seriously farcical feces.

posted by kat-missouri on April 1, 2008 12:50 PM

the media doesn't know how to treat the whole Sadr/Iraqi government conflict because they still don't know what it was about. They are still trying to peg Iraq as within our greater war against al qaida. They claim we are fixated on that and it is the reason we have declared war wherever, but truly, that is the prism through which they want to judge everything.

If they can't peg it as "al qaida" related, then it is the Iraqi "civil war".

Somebody must lose or win in a war, right?

They don't comprehend that sometimes, battles are really "armed negotiation" where one side doesn't necessarily "win" the entire prize because both sides actually come out with something they want.

posted by kat-missouri on April 1, 2008 1:03 PM

Kat - someone didn't read the *whole* article...

8^ )

posted by John of Argghhh! on April 1, 2008 1:14 PM

So would that make one a "SPLOGGER" who was working for "BLOPS" (Blog Ops)?

posted by HomefrontSix on April 1, 2008 1:17 PM

John,

Here's a little known fact for you. Okinawa was the only time (so far) in history that a Marine has commanded a U.S. Army in combat. Upon the death of LGEN Simon Bolivar Buckner USA, command was trasfered to LGEN Roy Geiger USMC. Geiger is also uniqued in that, I believe, he is the only aviator to command an army in the field.

posted by Marine6 on April 1, 2008 1:38 PM

Tropical fish will be allowed as long as they stay in their tanks.

I did, but for some reason that one escaped me. So, April fools?

posted by kat-missouri on April 1, 2008 2:16 PM

From the absolute end of the article:

But they would not, he said, be allowed to bring their pets into the city.
"We will let the county deal with all those extra animals," he said.

Laramie County Commission Jeff Ketcham has hailed the measure, calling it a form of "reverse annexation."

He welcomed all pet owners to move outside city limits after he had an angry exchange with Spiker at a recent public meeting on the matter.

APRIL FOOLS!

The comments are hilarious!

posted by John of Argghhh! on April 1, 2008 2:26 PM

I got the girls in the office with the Cheyenne pet story. Good one!

But you know what's not an April Fool's Day joke?
This delicious story!
http://bostonmaggie.blogspot.com/2008/04/no-its-not-april-fools-day-joke.html

posted by Maggie on April 1, 2008 3:55 PM

Now let me see if I have this straight. If you have U.A.S's to get in the air, you have to lower UAS so the one on the ground can be uppa UAS and get off? oooookaaay. got it.

posted by JoeC on April 1, 2008 7:37 PM

John,
It's just hugely humorous as to how many people can get sucked in just because its April 1!
It'd be believable if the city were San Francisco or Seattle, but, Cheney country Cheyenne?
LoL.

posted by Mike on April 1, 2008 9:57 PM

by Denizens on Apr 01, 2008 | General Commentary

Carl William Martin, 1926-2008

Carl William Martin, 1926-2008. US Navy, Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa, 1942-45

Since today is the anniversary of the landings on Okinawa, this is apt.

They paid for this: Red Beach 2, Tarawa, 20 november, 1943...

Red Beach 2, Tarawa, 20 november, 1943

John,

Your blog name is how I feel today. Here’s why.

Carl William Martin was born in March 1926 in Cumberland, Maryland. When we entered World War II, his father was given a choice: join the service or relocate to Pittsburgh (alone) to continue his work in the steel mills as an essential war industry; he relocated to stay close to his family of small children.

Carl, the oldest child, waited until his 17th birthday and then took his father’s place. He joined the Navy but was sent to boot camp at Parris Island and assigned to the Marine Corps' Second Assault Amphibian Battalion. The "Second Amphibian Tractor Battalion" was an organic unit of the 2nd Marine Division, composed of a Headquarters and Service Company and three letter companies, all equipped with the Landing Vehicle Tracked-1 (LVT-1). In 1942, the Battalion set sail from San Diego, CA with the First Marine Division and participated in assaults on Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa. Carl was seriously wounded, but stayed with it until the Battalion was deactivated in November 1945 and he was discharged.

Carl came home, married his sweetheart, Margaret, and started a heating oil business. He was a bright guy and invented some controls for heating units that were patented and sold worldwide. He and his skills remained in high demand from businesses and residence owners for the rest of his life.

In 2001, Margaret contracted Alzheimer’s and quickly became totally uncommunicative. Carl moved her to a nursing home. For the next five years, until Margaret passed away, Carl went to the nursing home every single day, seven days a week and 52 weeks out of the year, to have lunch with Margaret and talk to her. He left her voice on the answering machine for his heating oil business, so whenever we called we heard her first. He would let her entire greeting play before he would pick up the phone.

Two years almost to the day after Margaret died, Carl passed away last Friday in Cumberland. He paid his dues to the nation and to his wife and family. Now he is back with Margaret in heaven – and probably wishing that he had gone to hell so that he could handle the heating controls down there. But in spite of his experience in the Pacific, he didn’t qualify for deployment to that hot spot.

Rest in Peace, Carl. I have lost a really great pal.

Jack

The sheepdogs walk among us all our lives, and we never notice them, until we need them. A whole generation of them are slipping by us now, even as you read this.

...so we could have this - Red Beach 2, Tarawa, today.

Fair winds and a following sea, sailor.

Now is the time at Castle Argghhh! when we dance: In Memoriam, for Carl Martin, US Navy, WWII, a friend of a friend of the Castle.

Semper Fi, Marine. It was upon the shoulders of men such as you and your comrades that the legends of the Marine Corps were built.

When I get to Heaven, Saint Peter I will tell: "Another Marine reporting, sir I've spent my time in Hell."

(USMC running cadence attributed to the ferocity of the Marine's fight at Tarawa.)

posted by Sgt. B. on April 1, 2008 10:27 AM

Two Giants have passed and I believe they would be proud of the tribute paid them on this blog. Great work by everyone involved. Thank you.

posted by JimC on April 1, 2008 10:29 AM

Thanks for posting this.

I'm sorry for your loss Jack, but thank you for writing.

posted by Maggie on April 1, 2008 12:18 PM

I was already reverent as I read this post, but when I saw that unexpected picture of the old sherman sitting at Tarawa, .... THAT really hit me. Today, I remember Okinawa and the bloody battles for the islands of the Pacific. Salute.

posted by RobM on April 1, 2008 1:51 PM

Carl Martin was, indeed, a member of the greatest generation. He may have intended to enlist in the Navy, but he WAS a Marine. He did his boot camp at Parris Island, and served with the 2d Amphibian Tractor Battalion (LCol Henry G. Lawrence, Jr. Commanding)

posted by Marine6 on April 1, 2008 1:56 PM

According to his buddy Jack, he was a sailor serving with the Marines, like a Corpsman.

posted by John of Argghhh! on April 1, 2008 2:41 PM

He went through MCRD Parris Island...

Technically, he may have been in the Navy, but there ain't a Marine alive or dead who would deny him the right to be called a Marine:

For he who sheds his blood with me shall be my brother...

Not the first or last time we Jarheads have ignored convention and granted the title 'MARINE' to somebody who bled with us, regardless of which lash-up they started out in...

posted by Sgt. B. on April 1, 2008 3:48 PM

I realize that his friend thought Carl was in the Navy, but the specifics he provides indicate that Carl was a Marine. His battalion, 2d Amphibian Tracs, were the cutting edge of amphibious technology. They had 75 of the slightly older the LVT-1, and 50 of the brand new armored LVT-2 model. In fact, they were so new that they weren’t even delivered to the battalion until after the invasion practice had been conducted. Of 150 LVTs at Tarawa 90 were sunk, destroyed by gunfire or otherwise disabled during the battle.

There were many sailors involved in the battle. In fact, two doctors, 26 corpsmen, and about 100-150 other naval personnel (Naval Gunfire Observers, boat crews) were killed in action. And Third Battalion, 18th Marines, was a U.S. Navy Seabee Construction Battalion providing engineer support.

Every man who served there deserves all the respect that they earned.

posted by Marine6 on April 1, 2008 6:32 PM

I realize that his friend thought Carl was in the Navy, but the specifics he provides indicate that Carl was a Marine. His battalion, 2d Amphibian Tracs, were the cutting edge of amphibious technology. They had 75 of the slightly older the LVT-1, and 50 of the brand new armored LVT-2 model. In fact, they were so new that they weren’t even delivered to the battalion until after the invasion practice had been conducted. Of 125 LVTs at Tarawa 90 were sunk, destroyed by gunfire or otherwise disabled during the battle.

Every man who served there deserves all the respect that they earned.

posted by Marine6 on April 1, 2008 6:33 PM

by John on Apr 01, 2008 | Something for the Soul

March 31, 2008

H&I Fires* 31 March 2008

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

In an astonishing act of self sacrifice he FLUNG himself at the grenade, FLIPPED on his side next to it and lay there with only his backpack for protection as he prepared to SAVE his pals by SMOTHERING the blast with his body.
Matt, 24, recalled: "I thought, ‘I've set this bloody thing off and I'm going to do whatever it takes to protect the others'.

This young Brit warrior is up for the Victoria Cross, the British equivalent of the Medal of Honor. H/t, Jim C. -the Armorer

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

Heh. I wonder how I missed this? Kansas House Approves Machine Gun Bill

TOPEKA, Kan. -- Individuals could own machine guns, other fully automatic firearms, sawed-off shotguns and silencers under a bill the Kansas House has passed.

I was aware of the Senate version of the bill, which was in response to an Attorney General opinion concerning Class III dealers in the state (the Atty Gen'l suddenly discovered, after all these years, that the wording of the law would, in his opinion, prevent Class III dealers "in-state" from handling or possessing even dealer sample weapons - or, actually handling transactions of sales to LEO's... Amazing what we can find in a law 74 years after its passage that no one noticed before.

Kansas' current ban on possession dates from 1934, when it was passed in response to the Union Station Massacre in Kansas City, Missouri. Every state that borders Kansas allows it's citizens to own machine guns (I don't know about silencers), and, just like with the "streets running red with blood" fears of concealed carry that never materialize, neither have there been pitched gun battles involving legally owned machine guns in Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado, or Oklahoma. It won't change the Arsenal that much - the guns the Amorer likes sell in the $20K range (another reason you won't find gang-bangers rushing out to acquire them) though there are some in the low thousands that I might get SWWBO to spring for one. I'd actually rather have access to silencers - I don't bother my neighbors much with my shooting - but I'd bother them even less if I could have a silencer... -the Armorer

**********************************
Asperger's: My Life as an Earthbound Alien.

The LA Times has put out some real stinkers recently, but this one is pretty good. You mean Iraqis and Americans are forming personal bonds as they together work to protect and build Iraq??! In Iraq: Bonding over Tea and Disco.

Hard to know if it's truth or PSYOP, as it's all based on Iraqi officials' statements, but it's certainly interesting. My reason for hesitating to believe it is that today's Day by Day describes media coverage of the topic to a tee.

Okay, gentlemen. What's your opinion? I've long seen the mentions/comparisons of modern sex symbols and Marilyn Monroe, but this one threw me for a loop.

Whatever you think of his politics, McCain obviously has a clue when it comes to bloggers. And the media is noticing. Wonder if Obama/Clinton will try to court the disaffected in their party this way, too... - FbL

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

Fuzzy - I married two skinny chicks, and that didn't last. I'm still married to my average sized chick.

Case closed.

Doesn't mean I won't ogle the skinny chicks...

posted by John of Argghhh! on March 31, 2008 10:40 AM

JTG - you should feel right at home with today's H&I. I saw you all through that Aspie link Fuzzybee put up!

posted by John of Argghhh! on March 31, 2008 10:43 AM

I'll take Catherine Zeta Jones over Paris Hilton anyday...except I'm not old enough for her! Real women have curves!

posted by SFC D on March 31, 2008 10:55 AM

Hmm... if it's fully automatic, it's a machine gun by definition,right? (redundancy alert)

and, Missouri doesn't allow silencers... boo!

posted by PeterT on March 31, 2008 11:14 AM

Doesn't the definition of machine gun (vs. assault weapon or automatic rifle for infantry) also involve caliber? But then the SAW 249 is considered alternatively a machine gun or automatic rifle, while it uses 5.56 ammo. Hmmm.

I found Miss England rather attractive, although I might pick a nit and disagree with Ms. Lucas that she's "perfectly" average. This reminds me of the flap a few months ago when the ankle-biting idiots published unflattering (AKA normal) photos of Jennifer Love Hewitt at the beach. According to the real world, she's very attractive. According to Hollyweird-world, she's fat and ugly.

...Which reminds me how many anti-Hillary types harp on how fat her legs and/or butt is. Kind of a cheap shot, considering how we don't normally focus that much on male politician's appearance, John Edwards excepted. ;)

posted by Casey Tompkins on March 31, 2008 11:56 AM

The distinction of automatic rifle and machine gun has become blurred from when they were first used, with the Garand, BAR, and M1919-series MG's...

posted by John of Argghhh! on March 31, 2008 12:03 PM

Generally, if it has 3 selector positions, e.g. safe/semi/auto, that would be an AR, as opposed to an LMG having only 2 positions, safe or auto. The rifle must also be magazine fed rather than belt fed. That's my view, anyway.

Pat

posted by Pat on March 31, 2008 1:26 PM

That's a pretty good taxonomy for how things work now, Pat.

posted by John of Argghhh! on March 31, 2008 1:31 PM

Actually late comers the MOH is the American equivalent of the VC which pre-dates the MOH by five years.

But you do beat the New Zealand Cross by 7 years. Although that meadal was instituted for a civil war that pre-dates yours by 20 years.

Belt fed, a real mg is BELT fed. If the barrel aint glowing it aint working hard enough.

posted by Murray on March 31, 2008 3:14 PM

Heh. There's always someone with a knot in their knickers...

posted by John of Argghhh! on March 31, 2008 3:25 PM

Someone has to keep reminding you that the Empire got along fine both before and after you lot got all huffy and took your ball home thanks.

posted by Murray on March 31, 2008 4:03 PM

Thanx, John! That link was purple; I had already read it, by a link from the Autistic Bitch from Hell.

(That's autisticbfh.blogspot.com.)

Hey, I'm "mostly" normal. Honest. No kiddin. Really. You believe me, right?

posted by Justthisguy on March 31, 2008 4:22 PM

What the hell has been going on here? I pay attention at work for once and by the time I get here.....you're talking about Murray's knickers. Murray's talking about your ball. I thought this sort of stuff only happened when WK and I started it.

posted by Maggie on March 31, 2008 7:51 PM

Yeah, and as a result, we don't have a Helen... an when we get one, they're easier to get rid of.

Your point is?

posted by John of Argghhh! on March 31, 2008 8:32 PM

Checkmate

posted by Trias on March 31, 2008 8:44 PM

JTG - Of *course* we believe you, sir. Now please, back slowly away from the rifle rack plz...

;^ )

posted by John of Argghhh! on March 31, 2008 8:45 PM

I just want to complain about that Soldiers' Angels challenge coin I got, and its deficiency as a stim toy. I keep it in my watch pocket, and want to take it out and rub it, but it just feels wrong. Was that thing laser-cut, or what? Real coins, stamped in dies, have rounded edges on the relief. This thing has, like, miniature sharp-edged mesas on it. I ain't never gonna wear those sharp edges down, just rubbing it with my fingers.

I want a pair of Queeg balls.

posted by Justthisguy on March 31, 2008 8:54 PM

Um, JTG - re: Queeg's balls... we aren't that kind of site.

And we apologize to the shade of Wouk.

posted by John of Argghhh! on March 31, 2008 9:06 PM

Trias - muchas gracias for the props, amigo!

posted by John of Argghhh! on March 31, 2008 9:09 PM

Hey!, last I read, Wouk is still alive!

Clean living and righteous thoughts, ya know.

I'm afeared Maggie and I are doomed, though.

posted by Justthisguy on March 31, 2008 9:23 PM

No check mate, cash only.

President Obama?

posted by Murray on March 31, 2008 11:44 PM

Hey, Justthisguy, I'll take it off you. After all you outbid me so you get pride of place. Only fair after all. Next hurricane, fire, flood, whatever I'm on that some very proud louie very proudly flashes a coin for general consumption will be mighty jawdropped when I respond with that one. Of course, I will be forthcoming how I got it should anyone ask.

posted by Rod Thorsen on April 1, 2008 12:37 AM

The skinny chick thing. I agree with one of the commentors over at Lucas'. Ms. Surrey doesn't look like Marilyn Monroe. She looks kinda 'sloppy'. Of course, wearing all black and baggy like she did dinna help. It's not that she's hippy or curvey, but that she doesn't look toned much that turns me off from an aesthetic perspective. SFW. If you ladies would take not there's magazines dedicated to men who like *exactly* that kind of thing. Not everyone goes for it.

Personally, I think women the world over would be doing themselves a big ol' favor if they learned to just say STFU to the fashion industry. Best not go looking for validation externally on this, you aren't always likely to get it in the form you want---having two older sisters I knows allllllll about this(what do you mean you don't like this dress on me?!!!!!!)

posted by ry on April 1, 2008 2:36 AM

Murray - he's not in yet... and it's a minimum of 4, a maximum of 8... no matter how much people love him... and he's a better speaker than Ms. Clark, anyway...

But hey, in one way or another, they all suck, because they're drawn to the concept of taking Peter's money and giving it to Paul, especially if Paul will let 'em keep the job.

posted by John of Argghhh! on April 1, 2008 6:44 AM

JtG - Don't worry, it's true Wouk is still alive but you and I will be fine. Remember, only the good die young. BTW, would you settle for strawberries?

On the size debate - It's silly because every size/shape has it's own demographic. Princess Crabby will never be mistaken for Twiggy yet does quite well.

On a serious note the link brings up young girls and "body image" issues. There is one vote that has incredible impact on that - a girl's father. I have friends who will do stupid and dangerous things to achieve an ideal weight and I have friends who are happy to eat well, go to the gym and be healthy. The difference? Their fathers. One of my friends is a very good singer, wins prizes in local contests, but never pursued a real career. Why? Her father told her she'd never make it because she was like Crisco - fat in the can. Horrified does not begin to describe my feelings. Any success I have in life I attribute directly to my parents telling me that I was smart and capable and my father telling me that I was beautiful. Thats the vote that counted for me! If Frank (the first and most important Navy man in my life) thinks I am beautiful who is Vogue magazine to say different.

So all you guys out there with daughters - the ball's in your court. Say it early, say it often and pair it with smart.

posted by Maggie on April 1, 2008 8:28 AM

Yes but John we aren't the only thing between anyone and anyone else.

Our capacity to screw things up is REALLY limited.

posted by Murray on April 1, 2008 5:42 PM

by Denizens on Mar 31, 2008 | General Commentary

Patti and the Angels Receive More Kudos

Patti Bader, leader, motivator and facilitator of literally hundreds of thousands of "troop support" volunteers has again received national attention. Her husband writes:

For founding Soldiers Angels and other exemplary work that she does to make the world a better place, Patti has just been notified that she is the recipient of the VFW 2008 James E. Van Zandt Citizenship Award.

From the VFW web site: James E. "Jimmy" Van Zandt was Commander-in-Chief of the VFW three times, and a veteran of three wars (World War I, World War II, and the Korean War). He served as an enlisted man in World War I and retired as an admiral following the Korean War. Descended from a pioneer family in Blair County, Pennsylvania, Jimmy worked his way from newsboy to United States Congressman. Recipients of the award named in Van Zandt's honor exemplify his dedication to public service, citizenship, and other admirable qualities.

Press release here.

[Denizens know, but newer visitors may not: besides sending hundred of thousands of care packages, ministering to the wounded, comforting families of the fallen, sewing blankets for hospitalized veterans, and caring for those on the front lines and their families on the homefront in myriad other ways, Soldiers' Angels is the organization that facilitates a program especially near and dear to the hearts of Castle Denizens--Project Valour-IT.]

I think she's done GREAT work. I do, however, believe she could make better use of the money by not mailing out all the crap thaht she does. Of late, I've just taken the free stamp and thrown the other stuff away. As a rule, I don't give money to charities thaht ask for it. I pretty much know who I want to support and why. I'll continue to support VALOUR-IT, because I see the immediate result AND trust the blog sponsors who're pushing it. Truly, my best wishes to Patti - but I'm tired of the mail. Just sayin'. ML

posted by MikeL on March 31, 2008 11:20 AM

I hear you, Mike--I'm not crazy about it, either. It apparently brings in a lot of money, though. If you want to support one of the great things Soldiers' Angels is doing, my suggestion is that you choose a project that you can donate to directly, and do it through either a Paypal button specifically for the project (on the project/team page on the their website), or with a check (and a note saying it goes to a particular project) to one of the addresses on their donation page.

That way your money will go only to what you want it to.

posted by FbL on March 31, 2008 11:57 AM

Mike is a pretty constant PV-IT giver, Fuzzy.

posted by John of Argghhh! on March 31, 2008 12:00 PM

I'd like to point out what Fuzzy was trying to say but didn't explicitly - if you give money to Project Valour-IT for example, or any other specific project, that money goes to the project and not into the funds that SA uses for overhead, mailings, etc.

You give to PV-IT, it gets spent on PV-IT.

posted by John of Argghhh! on March 31, 2008 12:13 PM

100% SPOT ON, MIKE.
V-IT is as far as I will go with SA anymore. It's unique, and it works, but I'm sick and tired of being hounded for money that I just don't have. It makes me more likely to *NOT* donate. And I'm sick and tired of hearing about how Patti's the most wonderful mother in the world for starting SA- she's not. I know plenty of other mothers (and fathers) who are just as deserving of that title who will never receive even a fraction of the attention she gets.

My .02.
Let the Sis-Bashing begin.

posted by AFSister on March 31, 2008 12:29 PM

Sorry about that Mike (and John). I thought I had a sentence at the end of that comment that thank him for continuing to support Valour-IT.

AFSis, I remember our conversation on the subject, and I hope you remember my reaction. :) Regarding "wonderful mother, I agree that there are many unsung parental heroes out there (I'd put my own mother near the top of the list, and there are many I know who would join her there). I was contacted by someone outside Soldiers' Angels regarding the "America's Favorite Mom" contest, and was asked to go behind her back to ask her son to nominate her (which I successfully did) with the idea that it would boost the visibility of Soldiers' Angels. As far as I understand things, that's exactly what SA hopes to do with Patti's participation.

posted by FbL on March 31, 2008 12:50 PM

Fuzzy... that's EXACTLY the kind of thing I'm talking about. I've received countless requests to "go vote for Patti! The most wonderful mother in the world!!" And I've done so exactly ZERO times.
If you read the stories of the other mothers, you'll see that they were nominated for far less glamorous reasons than the national accolades Patti has received.

This whole "promote Patti to promote SA" is getting REALLY out of hand. The soldiers aren't the ones getting the attention; she is. And isn't the whole idea behind SA is to focus on the SOLDIERS???

(and yes, I do remember our conversation)

posted by AFSister on March 31, 2008 1:17 PM

I won't speak to the appropriateness of the current overall level of promotion of Patti, but since I did encourage this latest escapade, I feel the need to speak in my defense. Here's why I thought the attention was a good thing for the troops (and you know, I'm ALL about supporting our servicemembers in word and deed): attention to Patti means attention to SA, which means attention to the reasons for SA's existence--the troops and their families--and an opportunity to encourage people to join/donate/create, resulting in greater capacity to meet the needs of troops and their families.

Maybe I'm being too idealistic, but that's my take on things.

posted by FbL on March 31, 2008 4:14 PM

This is not an attack on you, nor is it an attack on Patti.
I just want the focus to get back to the soldiers and away from the self-promotion.

posted by AFSister on March 31, 2008 9:53 PM

by Denizens on Mar 31, 2008 | Citizenship | Project Valour-IT | Something for the Soul

Disturbing

[by FbL]

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed. - Colonel David Grossman.

J.D. Johannes has created an excellent short film on the Vets for Freedom visit to Kansas City, contrasting how military heroes are received today versus years past.

The part of the film that stuck with me was David Bellavia talking about the response he received from parents of the children's soccer team he was coaching when his book about the first Battle of Fallujah came out. The parents were horrified to discover the violent things Bellavia had done while fighting in Fallujah; they acted as if they expected his capacity for lethal violence would burst out again at any moment.

As Bellavia points out, the parents' responses are indicative of the discomfort many civilians feel with what warriors do in wartime, and how that affects their interactions with and opinion of veterans. The sheep - sheepdog - wolf allegory addresses this: the sheepdog, though protective of the sheep, is a little too much like the wolf for some sheep's taste. We sheep can't imagine ourselves having to kill someone, or finding satisfaction in physically destroying an enemy. We don't think we have in us the same spirit that causes an old war dog to strain against his age when he hears and smells the distant battle. Thinking on such things confounds us, makes us a little uncomfortable, makes us wonder... reminds us of what we don't understand.

But frankly, we don't have to understand in order to appreciate the service the sheepdogs render. The problem is, the self-centered, weak and morally arrogant among us tackle that sense of discomfort and ignorance by deciding that if the sheepdogs are different than us in some way and we can't integrate their battlefield experience into our life experience, then there must be something wrong with them; we're "normal/good/sane," so they must be "abnormal/evil/insane." Like the protesters who recoil at the idea that others are killing on their behalf, such people calm their fears of the unknown and incomprehensible by reassuring themselves of that unknown's "separateness" from them.

I don't know how it feels to have to kill someone, to watch them die, or to know that my decisions and actions resulted in the death of some faceless person I will never meet. And because of those who serve in our armed forces, I fortunately, most-likely never will.

Neither do I pretend to fully understand how having to do such a thing changes a person--changes how he sees the world, how he sees himself, what he thinks about in the predawn hours before he (hopefully) finally lays the battlefield ghosts to rest. But I do know some people who have experienced those changes. Arms that wrestled with and dispatched a man on the battlefield have enveloped me in tender affection; powerful hands trained to kill even when empty have gently "spoken" to me with a touch when words were inadequate; minds that planned and executed actions that ended the lives of people simply unlucky enough to be forced into military service under the wrong country's flag have formed words to me reflecting the best of humanity--kindness, perceptiveness, inspiration, and wisdom. Bodies trained for war have been put to the business of cooking my food, protecting me as I walk down the street, making me laugh, and holding me close.

To me it sometimes seems a conundrum that people of great gentleness and goodness can also accomplish feats of ferocity and violence; but they do. I don't pretend to understand how the sheepdogs harness any wolfish tendencies to the protective ends of the sheepdog's calling rather than the wolf's predations. But having had the opportunity to know some sheepdogs, I know that's exactly what they do.

They've told me how their training made them master the human tendency to violence rather than let it restlessly lurk in the unacknowledged shadows of their psyche, like the rest of us who would rather play the odds that the beast in us will never be activated by random experience. They've taught me that being face-to-face with what humanity is capable of can shatter some people, and that it takes time for many warriors to find their equilibrium again. But they have also been the proof that the majority of those who go face-to-face with the darkness come back more self-aware and more wedded to the good in their world--with fierce tenderness for the naturally weaker or defenseless, joy in the blessings of a loving family, and a level-headed knowledge that the "big issues" aren't really that big after all.

Hearing Bellavia talk about those parents made my heart hurt, made me angry. Kudos to him for obviously having the sense and the support system to not let such treatment get him down. But shame on those who use a misplaced sense of moral superiority to mask their own weakness, ignorance and fundamental lack of humanity.

[cross-posted at Fuzzilicious Thinking; h/t to Uncle Jimbo of Blackfive for the video.]

IMHO, the "confused" reactions that Bellavia and other warrior sheepdogs experience from "normal" citizens is caused by "moral equivalence".

They equate the capacity for violence that warriors have with the violent natures of the wolves, never understanding or accepting the differences in intent and purpose.

posted by fdcol63 on March 31, 2008 8:00 AM

They equate the capacity for violence that warriors have with the violent natures of the wolves...

Wow. Well-said, fdcol63.

posted by FbL on March 31, 2008 8:06 AM

It's all about the *discipline* - moral, mental, and physical.

Thugs lack the moral discipline.

Sheepdogs don't.

The dichotomy for us is we have to remember, when armies clash, *both* sides are perceived by someone as their sheepdog, the other as the wolves, just to complicate Frank's moral equivalence argument.

But there are good armies, and bad armies. Just as there are good cops, and bad cops, or wolves in sheepdog's clothing.

posted by John of Argghhh! on March 31, 2008 8:36 AM

Ooh, and John says it even better. Heh. I should just take down that post and let you two discuss amongst yourselves. :P

posted by FbL on March 31, 2008 8:58 AM

" ... *both* sides are perceived by someone as their sheepdog, the other as the wolves ..."

Sounds like the liberally-scoffed simplisme argument: Us or Them. LOL

Often, though, it really is that simple, despite the nuances du jour.

posted by fdcol63 on March 31, 2008 9:23 AM

One of the main questions for me, though, is this:

At what point can, or will, our "superior" discipline actually become a weakness that can be exploited by an enemy who may seem inferior due to a limited ability to look beyond our traditional, primarily Western, warrior code?

posted by fdcol63 on March 31, 2008 9:46 AM

It already has been a weakness, tactically, in this war and in Somalia, where our opponents use our sensitivities against us by hiding behind women and children or in culturally significant places.

But our discipline serves us well in the long run, and I believe it will continue to do so.

posted by John of Argghhh! on March 31, 2008 11:01 AM

I'm not certain about the word "unscathed" used. Perhaps some are but not all from what I have seen. But I understand the sentiment.

We all have the capacity for violence. If you look within you can see your own 'wolf'. Not the word I would use. It's rooted very close to our survival mechanisms. And you could use it too indeed let it out to play if you desired. Quite a few rather nasty people do that. Sometimes it can come out instinctively, and then there are the warriors and others that use it well. It can be used without letting it out too you know.

Sometimes I think it is this aspect of themselves those who pretend to higher morals fear. Because then they would have their judgments about violence reflected back to them. They would *be* all those things. So they project the fear against those they feel are that wolf. Denial is very dangerous stuff. And ignorance isn't much better.

Guess the warriors channel it into focus and control and hopefully good purpose. Though it is true that that is the hardest thing to do of all. Doing good i mean. No it sounds easy but actually it's harder than pulling hen's teeth. Us and Them indeed.

I also respect that self control and focus because I know what it takes.

fdcol never underestimate an opponent. You can be realistic about their weaknesses but don't generalise it into inferiority. How long ago did Rumsfield talk about dead enders? The never ending dead enders. Never underestimate and opponents never 'seem' inferior. For discipline to become a weakness there has to be reason chaos is better than order. Chaos too is powerful but for chaos to be better then the goals of the Disciplined have to be worse than what randomness would provide.

I'm off the garden path again. What I am getting at is that it is the quality of your orders that matter. The arrangement of your discipline not the discipline itself.

posted by Trias on March 31, 2008 11:41 AM

I have nothing to add, but great post, and I totally agree.

posted by AFSister on March 31, 2008 1:20 PM

John and Trias,

I think I was alluding to both of your points. I was trying to highlight that I think we'd be making a huge strategic mistake if

we got so mired in our traditional, Western notion of what we consider to be "disciplined" (and "good") that we failed to consider the cultural differences between Us and Them.

I have no doubt that the other side also believes that their side is good, and that they think they're fighting a "just" war to preserve and expand their own culture and influence as we are. Just as the Germans, Japanese, and every other enemy does and has done.

Their people thus view them as the good sheepdogs, as John mentioned.

This opinion is often based largely on whatever propaganda or (mis)information/psyops is fed to the populations on both sides in the period immediately prior to and during conflict. As in cases of "projection" where a regime attempts to divert attention away from domestic or internal issues by creating an external boogey-man or conflict to rally its population against.

However, it is also based on firm, solid, and concrete awarenesses of the differences between the combatants - in all facets of life: culture, religion, political views and goals, as well as economic and financial factors. War usually results when adversaries have reached a point where further diplomatic efforts at a peaceful resolution to conflict have reached an impasse.

Getting back to John's point about "good" and "bad" armies, I think we can get into a cyclical and never-ending "moral equivalence" debate about how exactly those terms are defined - especially that word "moral".

Whose morals? Ours ..... which are largely shaped by our Western, European, and New World experiences? Or (in the context of our current conflict) Theirs .... shaped by a much different culture that is still mired in a 13th century perspective that has not experienced its own forms of Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment, Colonialism, World Wars, etc.?

I agree, John, we've already seen examples of where the "noble", "chivalrous", and Western warrior code of our own sheepdogs has led to temporary tactical victories by our enemies, who don't have to worry about obeying the constraints of the

Marquess of Queensbury Rules or the Geneva Conventions. It's hard to always fight with one-hand tied behind your back by things like Rules of Engagement, when your enemy can find sanctuary in mosques and among the sheep in the battle space. It's a great hat they continue to exhibit the morality we see from them, even as they suffer the consequences and continue to pursue their mission.

We hope that someday, by this persistance - by continuing to exhibit the moral, mental, and physical discipline you mentioned, John - we can prevail in this struggle, that we can convince the Iraqis and others in the Muslim world that our system and lifestyle is better than the alternative that our enemies are trying to establish.

Our discipline has served us well in the past, John. And it will continue to do so as long as we, as Americans, continue to share the same goals and ideals. The same "morals".

But what happens when that "commonality" is undermined? What happens when we allow ourselves to become so "diverse" and "tolerant" that we become sold on the Salad Bowl Theory, and fragment and balkanize ourselves along cultural, ethnic, class, and religious divisions? Will our sheepdogs still exhibit the same discipline?

America's military is a microcosm of the larger America. What happens to it when the rest of America buys into Reverend Wright's "God Damn America!" mentality, or when it eventually succumbs to the liberal notion that there's nothing inherently better about America that's even worth fighting for?

We'll always have a fringe of society that believes this. We can only hope that it remains on the fringes!

Our enemies are far from inferior or stupid. Sure, we've had great successes against thousands of poorly organized and poorly trained, drug-addled and naive, undisciplined jihadis. What happens, though, when Islamist leaders decide that, strategically, they should avoid the flytrap of direct conflict in Iraq or Afghanistan, and demonstrate their renowned patience while we rot from within?

Our Islamist enemies come from a very patient culture that still fosters grievances from the Crusades, and is not bothered by 2-4 year election cycles, 24-hour news channels, and instant gratification. They're not focused on whether or not everyone else in the world likes them, and they are very determined to achieve their goals. What if their long-term strategy shifts to use these very Western weaknesses against us, while we lose the "commonality" and "good morality" that binds us?

Perhaps their strategy will become to simply stoke enough chaos within our own borders, with low level terrorist attacks, that this process is accelerated as we turn on each other in our attempts to address the security threats? They've already seen how divided we've become over post-9/11 attempts to do so, with our divisions over the Patriot Act, leaks from the CIA/FBI/State Dept/etc., and the hyper-political partisanship that no longer ends "at the water's edge".

They're basically colonizing Europe and Canada, settling into unassimilated, semi-autonomous conclaves where "oh-so-sophisticated" and nuanced pacifists are afraid to confront their demands for Sharia and are too willing to allow their own civil liberties to be whittled away in the name of "tolerance". At current rates of Muslim immigration and birthrates, combined with declining native European birthrates, Europe will not be European in a generation or two. And whatever "traditional" alliances may have existed between the US and Europe will be forever altered as a Muslim-majority Europe tilts more and more towards our Islamic, Russian, and Chinese adversaries, while also thus becoming increasingly more anti-Semitic.

My fear is that we'll become complacent in the smugness of our "moral discipline", never believing that we can actually become TOO much of a balkanized plurality while the majority of Americans come to accept the Leftist rejection of American exceptionalism, all at the same time that Europe becomes a Muslim-majority annex of the Middle East.

Sorry this became such a rambling, pessimistic mess.

posted by fdcol63 on March 31, 2008 2:02 PM

The parents were horrified to discover the violent things Bellavia had done while fighting in Fallujah; they acted as if they expected his capacity for lethal violence would burst out again at any moment.

If I had a child under his care I would hope that it would be 'bursting out again' should it prove necessary.

But then again, I understand the difference between 'violent and predatory' and 'violent and protective'.

The sheep say "Oh my goodness, how can they let this happen!".

The sheepdog says "This will not happen."

posted by KCSteve on March 31, 2008 2:14 PM

Awesome comment, KCSteve! Thanks.

Btw, as I read these comments here, I keep thinking how I'd rewrite parts of this to shade it a bit more strongly toward what I was trying to communicate. For example, rewrite the part Steve quotes to more clearly say that it seemed the parents thought he would turn needlessly/senselessly violent at any moment.

posted by FbL on March 31, 2008 2:23 PM

Hey, Fuzzy, you leave our dialectic 'lone!

Frank - thanks, now this blog is more verbose than 92% of other blogs...

;^ )

posted by John of Argghhh! on March 31, 2008 3:28 PM

Although I never had the privilege of serving in the 27th Infantry, I prefer to think of myself as a wolfhound, not a wolf.

My role is to hunt down and kill the wolves that would like to prey upon the sheep.

Of course I have to admit to prejudice here, as the wife and I used to raise Irish Wolfhounds.

posted by Blake Kirk on March 31, 2008 3:45 PM

Hey, Fuzzy, you leave our dialectic 'lone!

Ah, I see, now... you didn't encourage me to post this because the content was insightful or persuasive or well-written; you just thought it would provoke discussion. :P

*flounce*

posted by FbL on March 31, 2008 3:59 PM

I think Col. Grossman has it wrong there, in theory, if not in practice.

A healthy productive citizen is not a sheep, but an earnest amateur soldier, according to classical republican theory. An un-armed peasant is a sheep.

The Founders intended that none of us be sheep, and thus would have not need for sheepdogs.

Humans at their best, I think, are more like wolves, except for some of us, who are more like cats.

Yes, humans at their worst are like sheep, and sheep-like behavior is not a good thing among voters in a republic.

There is a lot of sheep-like behavior among the voters in our republic.

(Why I drink too much, reason #493)

posted by Justthisguy on March 31, 2008 4:51 PM

JTG, as I understand from what I've read, the emphasis in using the metaphor of sheep is not on their stupidity or group-think, but on their gentleness/harmlessness and their need of a sheepdog to protect them. As he says, "If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep." He's not defining sheep in the pejorative sense that is most common when that metaphor is used.

posted by FbL on March 31, 2008 5:02 PM

(Why I drink too much, reason #493)

Oh. We need reasons? LOL

posted by fdcol63 on March 31, 2008 5:12 PM

Fuzzy, if one has no capacity for violence he is not fit to be a citizen, to exercise the franchise, to take part in the affairs of the Republic.

I think there is, or was until a few years ago, still one Swiss canton (Appenzell-Inner Rhoden?) in which voters are not admitted to the polling place, unless armed.

posted by Justthisguy on March 31, 2008 7:19 PM

I see what you mean, now. I think you make a good point. I believe all people have a theoretical capacity for violence, it's just more deeply buried in some than others--the meekest mother can be motivated to deadly force if it involves protection of her child, to give just one example).

Perhaps Grossman has simplified things a little too much... I remember a discussion (here?) that concluded that even those in the role of sheep can be roused to violence when necessary, but that their function and tendencies are much more toward non-violence. Hence, they are firmly sheep, but capable of acting like a sheepdog under unexpected or extreme circumstances

Not all soldiers are sheepdogs, either. I think Grossman's sheepdogs--by definition--come through killing and other violence without as much trauma as many others do (not to say they are not traumatized at some level, but that it's not as severe). Whenever talk turns to a person like that, I think of the milblogger Lt. Prakash, who seemed born to the life of a combat soldier, unfazed by any of his combat experiences. This seems to be the iconic version of a sheepdog that Grossman is talking about when he says "undamaged."

Hmm... that comment wandered a little...

posted by FbL on March 31, 2008 7:36 PM

Fuzzy, I was without Internet access for all of the weekend, and looked around on my hard drive for stuff to read.

I found Michael Z. Williamson's novel, "Freehold", and read it all the way through about three times. That may have colored my thinking, but just made the colors more saturated and primary-like, as I tend to think that way anyway.

Now, the ways I think I ought to act, and the ways I habitually act, are not always the same, but that's why we go to church etc.

posted by Justthisguy on March 31, 2008 7:51 PM

FbL - The favorite Naval Consort has spotty access. He could read this, but was unable to comment. He requested that I convey his appreciation to you for the post.

posted by Maggie on March 31, 2008 8:03 PM

Fuzzy - you know me better'n that.

I just like to watch young chicas *flounce*.

;^ )

posted by John of Argghhh! on March 31, 2008 9:16 PM

I posted this comment over to Fbl's place. Figured I might as well post it here.
-----------------
Fuzzy,

Even God saw fit to post angels with flaming swords to guard the perimeter of Eden.....

There is always darkness in some folk's soul, a darkness that can never be pierced by the light of civilization, of education or of simple kindesses. It is because of that flaw that we need our own angels, angels of our better nature who also understand that the darkness never dies, but simply fades away, always waiting to envelop the light and extinguish it.

In truth, if you return to the original language(s) of the bible, the commandment does not read "Thou Shalt Not Kill". It reads:"Thou Shalt Not Murder".

When you hang around a young soldier and see the warface gentled by the laughter of a child, or the playfulness of an animal, it's easy to understand where God finds his angels. They live among us, some more polished than others, some with a bit of tatter to their wings or courseness to their voice, but angels all.

In that we are indeed as a nation blessed, sometimes more than we deserve.

Nice post.

posted by AW1 Tim on March 31, 2008 9:34 PM

I addressed a little of this here:
Maelstrom Chapter Five: Specialist Hawk.

Good post, FBL...

posted by Sgt. B. on April 1, 2008 10:51 AM

Fuzzy, I believe this has been a true watershed moment in our Great Nation's History. Don't you dare change anything! You have started a process, you've done the impossible. You have actually got us to start THINKING. Sometimes, I think there is some kind of health warning something like this, "WARNING: THINKING MAY BE INJURIOUS TO YOUR HEALTH." You have done it in such a way, that people will begin to actually put their thoughts into words and sentences which will help us to understand the VERY LARGE PICTURE. There was an old saying, "You want your friends close, but you want your enemies closer. You want them so close, that you are inside their heads." You want to be thinking their thoughts before they think them. But the only way for this to occur is for us to begin the process of understanding our adversary. This means we must LEARN. This learning is not an end unto itself. It is a never ending process. It is interesting, I hear the word "disciplined" versus "undisciplined" used in the discussion. But is our adversary undisciplined? First, let's look at the word, it is derived from the word "disciple" or follower. There are 2 aspects of being a follower, the first is intellectual or learner the second is experiential or behavior. They are taught to apply what they are taught. Yes, they are disciplined. They just march to different drummer.

But as we look at the whole subject, we will be asking some very tough questions not just to the Iraqis, but to ourselves. As the American people expect the Iraqis to grow up and take responsibilities and we should do the same.

Fuzzy, MANY THANKS, for your courage and insights.

Thank you,
Grumpy

posted by Grumpy on April 2, 2008 4:07 PM

Grumpy, that's quite a bit that you lay so kindly at my feet. I'm glad you appreciated it, but as to the "Watershed part," that area of discussion entirely due to the commenters here, who took my little essay in a direction I had not forseen when I wrote it.

Thank you for the compliment of having made you think. ;)

posted by FbL on April 2, 2008 5:35 PM

Fuzzy, No, I stand by the "Watershed part". I agree you have some GREAT commenters, but you are not exactly innocent. The reason for my comment is extremely important. Many people look at warfare as if it is only on one level or theatre of operations. The problem is most people, "just don't get it!" Warfare is multi-dimensional, it covers every sphere. This would include the blogs, it does many things. It gives the troops a place to "talk", but it also gives the vets a place to "talk." I believe many vets would say something like this, "Be creative, make your own mistakes, not ours!" But in my mind's eye, I can hear one of them saying, "Grumpy, you are not giving them any space. We've made all of the possible mistakes, plus every variant of each of them.

I was lucky, I had a brother who had been in the Military before me, the irony is we did the same job. I didn't find out for 20 years. When I came home, my brother took some vacation time and we spent a week in the woods camping on private property. The weather was relatively warm, but the night sometimes got chilly. We always had a campfire and a brewing coffee pot. He would often use the phrase "coffeepot and campfire discussions". This was a time to catch up and in a sense, let go of your mind and let it get lost in the fire. I relish those talks. I can not do those things physically, but I can still do them in my mind. This camping trip took place nearly 40 years ago. This is the importance of this place. You remind me of that camping trip and I'm never without my trusty cup of coffee.

Grumpy

posted by Grumpy on April 3, 2008 12:27 PM

by FbL on Mar 31, 2008 | Observations on things Military

Global Jihad All Star Team

Reading Bellavia's book, House to House, he talked about fighting the "global jihad all-star team". They were many men from all over the world that had traveled to Iraq specifically to kill Americans. Most of them were hardened fighters from Islamist battle fields around the world, many of them had been trained in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He (Bellavia) repeated this point during the Vets for Freedom event on Wednesday, March 26. He said he would go through the pockets of the dead (to gather "intel") and find wads of United States dollars and foreign passports from all over the world, including: Saudi Arabia, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Palestinian Authority, the Philippines, France and Germany (among many others not listed).

A report came out recently that a naturalized German citizen became a suicide bomber in Iraq: the first known and recognized German citizen. On March 19, 2008, seven men went on trial in France for recruiting foreign fighters to go to Iraq or having participated in the fighting. These men began sending fighters and recruiters to Iraq in 2005.

They are part of the recruiting system for what Bellavia calls: The Global Jihad All Star Team.

(continued in flash traffic)

One of the debates that continues to resonate around Iraq is that most people think this is a new phenomenon or is a small fraction of the fighters in Iraq therefore are not leading the fight. Ergo, its an Iraqi civil war and we should get out. Kind of like how people were ignoring the small, but important Chinese and Russian presence in North Viet Nam in favor of the narrative that Viet Nam was a civil war not a grand American fight to stop the spread of the "Red Menace" and a threat to our freedom. Communism was on the march and it took us another twenty years to push it back and defeat it. During that time, millions of people were killed, imprisoned, suffered persecutions, famine, political and economic instability. Those were rough years.

In Iraq, the common theme now to accept is that the Islamist Jihadists like Al Qaida were not in Iraq before we went there and that Saddam's ties to terrorism did not really threaten the United States. Thus, according to this narrative, the Iraq invasion was unnecessary and the inclusion of al Qaida and other terrorists was not the onous or impetuous for the terrible fighting we saw in Fallujah in 2004 or the later "civil war" in 2006 after the Samarra bombing.

What is difficult for most people to understand is that Al Qaida was in Iraq before the invasion, it simply was not organized nor called "Al Qaida in Iraq". In 2003, the Kurds took down Ansar al-Islam (Army of Islam) in the north. This group had been harassing the Kurds for many years. It occupied a "no man's land" between the Kurdish north and Saddam's Iraq. Saddam had no love for this organization, but he was not adverse to using it to his advantage when it suited him; alternately pushing them back with the military and offering them truces that included monetary and material support (ie, weapons) and training. If they would re-focus their efforts on the Kurdish, he left them to their small enclave.

During the lead up to the invasion of Afghanistan and after, Al Qaida and Taliban operatives would travel across Iran to Ansar al Islam's enclave and recruit fighters to return to Afghanistan to fight US forces. It was these connections that led to Zarqawi arriving in Iraq in 2002 to be treated for an injury he received in battle in Afghanistan. It was Ansar al Islam's connections with the regime that allowed Zarqawi to be admitted to and treated at the Ba'ath's premier hospital in Baghdad that routinely treated high ranking or important members of Saddam's Ba'athist regime.

It was probably during his time of recovery in Baghdad that allowed Zarqawi to make critical contacts with Sunni Ba'athists who would create the future insurgency. These contacts included people with money inside Iraq and outside in countries like Syria who financed the insurgency and helped create the "rat lines" through these areas to funnel foreign fighters into the country. Through these contacts he built the network that would later become "Al Qaida in the Land of Two Rivers", still later "Al Qaida in Iraq" and finally, "The Islamic State of Iraq".

In 1998, Bin Laden had sought common cause with Iraq by making the sanctions against Iraq one of the focal points and causes of his global Islamic declaration of war against "crusaders and Jews". In the lead up to the actual invasion of Iraq in 2002 and, specifically, February 2003, Zawahiri and Bin Laden had made crucial statements about the potential attack against Iraq. In 2003, just prior to the invasion, Bin Laden called on foreign fighters to take up the call of "holy war" in Iraq. He stated that there was nothing wrong with assisting the Ba'athists in defending Iraq. The Ba'athist's time was over, according to Bin Laden, so making common cause with them would not injure or destroy the Islamic Jihadist movement.

Many fighters had already been streaming into Iraq. Some joined Saddam's Fedeyeen (faithful or loyalists). Others found small enclaves or groups to hunker down with and try to organize. Some of the first men to later form "Al Qaida in Iraq" were already there, they just hadn't been firmly established or organized into anything resembling "Al Qaida" as most people see it or think about AQI (Al Qaida in Iraq) today.

Tom Parks, CWO (retired) from Veterans for Freedom, was on the march to Baghdad in 2003. He spoke about the three types of armed resistance he met: Saddam's army, Saddam's fedeyeen and "insurgents". Saddam's army and fedeyeen wore some type of uniform. The fedeyeen were organized with black shirts and provided Iraqi ordinance and weapons. Insurgents had no uniforms and used civilians to hide behind. Later, the army and fedeyeen disposed of their uniforms all together. Some to live and run away. Others to become "insurgents".

Among these "insurgents" already existed "foreign fighters" that had come, not for Saddam, but for jihad against America. The Americans encountered Somalis, Libyans, Palestinians and many others along with the Iraqi forces without uniforms on the march to Baghdad. They were no match against American tanks and close air support or the capabilities of a well trained American soldier. Yet, they did not simply fade away or return to their home nations once the United States reached Baghdad.

The Iraqis had their cities and towns, but where did these foreign fighters go? Some simply sought refuge among the people searching for connections to the insurgency to link up with and continue the fight. Others returned to al Anbar and stayed with the rural Arab tribes who believed in offering hospitality, food and shelter, to travelers, but particularly Arab men on their way to holy war. Here, they also found common cause with Sunni who rejected the "occupation" and their fall from power. Still others went to the cities such as Fallujah, Baghdad and Mosul where they had traveled through on their way to the first battles and knew of connections there that could help them with shelter and money to be able to continue the fight.

During that time, Zarqawi and others had also been strengthening their connections, establishing "rat routes" to filter fighters into Iraq, getting funding, weapons and general support. They still had not called themselves Al Qaida. In fact, that was the American word for these groups. They called themselves by various other names that each cadre had created for itself such as the Knights of the Sunna, Suna al Islam and many more. These groups were fairly autonomous, decentralized and capable of planning and carrying out their own attacks. Yet, they were not organized with any more strategic directive than to drive the Americans out of Iraq.

The Ba'athist ex-military had units that were tactically more capable than the newly organized jihadists. These groups had fire teams with discipline and manuevering skills. The jihadists were much better at spectacular and gruesome bombings or full frontal, suicidal attacks on bases meant to overcome with their pure shock factor.

These groups had not yet become fully integrated with each other in the early days. For the most part, they distrusted each other immensely. In 2003 and early 2004, the early signs of the fissure that would lead to Al Qaida's destruction in Anbar appeared on the streets of Baghdad when rival organizations such as the Ba'athist 1920's Brigade and the Suna al Islam would exchange fire as each tried to establish their control of an area. Yet, as each group began to consolidate power in certain areas and under specific leaders, they were able to gain more control of the disparate cells and begin to look for ways to cooperate in their one over-arching goal: to drive Americans out of Iraq.

One of the cities where these groups coalesced was Fallujah, about forty miles west of Baghdad. It's proximity to Baghdad made it an excellent strategic, centralized location. It also had highly protected routes that went from Baghdad to Fallujah and from cities like Haditha, Hit, Al Rutbah, Al Wasit and Al Qaim into Syria from where men, weapons and money could be quickly transported, protected by agreements from the local tribes who began to make considerable money from the smuggling.

In early 2004, four contract security personnel were ambushed, killed and their bodies burned. They were then hung from a bridge leading out of Fallujah. The spectacle caused a backlash in the United States. It looked like Somalia, where US helicopter pilots were shot down and their bodies desecrated and drug through the streets. It was Somalia where Al Qaida had first worked with locals, training them to use anti-aircraft weapons like MAN-PADS and RPGs to bring down the helicopters.

It was the subsequent withdrawal of US forces from Somalia, along with the images of "the last helicopter out of Saigon", that prompted bin Laden to claim the US was a "paper tiger" that could be defeated if engaged in guerrilla warfare. And, that, along with a weak response to attacks against US forces in Saudi Arabia at Khobar Towers, US embassies in Nairobi and Kenya and eventually the attack on the USS Cole that had convinced bin Laden to attack the US directly. Leading to September 11, 2001.

That knowledge and those images had the US spoiling for a fight in Fallujah. Many more foreign fighters began to pour into Fallujah and surrounding areas, building fortifications and tunnels to defend against a counter-attack and possibly defeat the American army in a large scale urban battle that had been feared, but had not occurred during the 2003 incursion in Baghdad.

The first attempt to pacify the city came with the Iraqi army. A local unit was quickly put together and marched into the city, only to fall apart with barely a shot fired. The insurgents, both Iraqi and foreign, owned the city. The men either left or joined the rebel forces inside. Prime Minister Alawi was trying to negotiate a deal to surrender the city and avoid a potential blood bath. That soon came to an end and the angry Alawi gave permission to take the city by force.

In the meantime, the horror that was inside Fallujah had been spilling out daily. First a trickle of bodies here and there that eventually grew to dozens daily as the Islamic Jihadists began to form a large and controlling influence in Fallujah. Men, women and children's bodies were found everyday on the roads, in the canals and floating in the rivers tortured, burned, cut to pieces, shot, drowned, hung and decapitated.

A marine captain, stationed outside of Fallujah, reported the daily horrors and noted that the insurgents were so brazen as to drive right to the outskirts of the city, within sight of their post, to dump the bodies in broad daylight. Citizens of Fallujah would escape the city, sometimes going to the marines and asking them to rescue their people, their families, from the horrific slaughter and oppression within. The marines were not allowed to do anything, but basic patrolling outside the city while the political process continued between the national government and Fallujan leaders to surrender the city.

When Alawi gave the go ahead to go in by force, a relatively small marine unit was tasked to recon and approach the city. They were quickly surrounded and pushed back, fighting every step of the way to get back out of the city without a massacre. The marines had discovered that the insurgents, foreign and domestic, inside the city were well entrenched and prepared. They had fortified the city during that time in a way that Baghdad had never been. The architecture of Fallujah, as noted by Bellavia in "House to House" were like miniature fortified compounds that lent to the overall capability of resisting an incursion.

Taking Fallujah was going to require many more troops, much more equipment and large scale planning. Most of all, it was going to take time. Time also worked for the insurgents and rebels inside of Fallujah. It gave them more time to booby trap houses and streets, knock out power poles, fortify houses, dig tunnels, barricade roads and bring in even more men and weapons: the "global jihadist all star team" that Bellavia confronts in his book. In short, they planned for and worked towards delivering "hell" to the Americans when they came.

Over in Najaf, Sadr was kicking up his own surprise. In an apparent coordination with or attempt to leverage the Fallujah uprising, the Sadr Mahdi Army had come into Najaf and took over the famous Imam Ali Mosque. The Mahdi Army began to confront US forces wherever they met. The start of "House to House" has Bellavia in Muqdadiya outside of Najaf in 2004, battling the Mahdi militia. It is there that his friend Fritts is shot three times and Bellavia is confronted with a close up view of their mortality.

In August 2004, the Mahdi Army is all but destroyed in Najaf, surrounded in the Imam Ali Mosque. Ali Sistani, grand Ayatollah of Iraq, fearing the destruction of the mosque and the Sadr movement might lead to a general Shia uprising, negotiated a deal to bring Sadr out. Thousands of Shia joined Sistani on a march to Najaf where they led Sadr's militia out, surrounded and protected by their own "civilian" forces.

The Battle for Fallujah was well on the way to being operationally ready for implementation. Bellavia's unit is pulled for the attack. Defensive berms are built around the city to control the flow of people into and out of Fallujah. Hundreds of thousands of Fallujah citizens stream out of the city to designated checkpoints and on into refugee camps where they waited the outcome of the battle.

That's where Bellavia finds the biggest test of his ideas, his strengths and his love for his men. This is where the book begins.

House to House
Veterans for Freedom

by Kat on Mar 31, 2008 | Global War on Terror (GWOT)

Bringing Matt Home

It's been confirmed: SSG Keith "Matt" Maupin's remains have been positively id'd through DNA evidence.

He's really gone. It's something I've always "known", but somehow, getting that confirmation tonight is just numbing.

I keep finding myself saying "He's really gone", and breaking out in tears again. His parents NEVER gave up believing that he would be found, alive, and brought home. They were partially right- he was found, and will be brought home.. but not alive.

He's really, truly, beyond doubt... gone. ~AFSister

Update: No point in setting a place down at Fiddler's Green, they already know, and have for some time. They've just been waiting for us to catch up.

So, let's catch up -

Now is the time at Castle Argghhh! when we dance: In Memoriam, for Staff Sergeant Keith "Matt" Maupin.

by Denizens on Mar 31, 2008 | Something for the Soul

March 30, 2008

Sunday Sun-Dried Sundries

Thanks for all the e-mails (mostly inquiries as to when I expected to regain my sanity and take up housekeeping *inside* a bunker) and comments expressing concern for my post-bottle rocket wellbeing, but geez, it's not like I'm doing rilly *dangerous* stuff anymore [note to Twin: Try a spoonful of Pepto before bedtime].

Besides, the dirtbags don't know me from any other grey-haired, mustachioed, devilishly handsome, shades-'n'-Paki-bush-hat-wearin' contractor over here -- it's not like it's personal or nuthin' this time around.

On *their* part, anyway.

Heh. More later...