Christian Carnival #85 is now ready for your pleasure and inspection, up at Crossroads: Where Faith and Inquiry Meet.

I recommend you stop by the Carnival, where I enjoyed the following:

A Penitent Blogger reflects on the fragility of life and the security of Christ in I thought it was safe.

Donna-Jean at LibertyandLily has some thoughts on forgiveness - and unforgiveness - and how vital it is that we get it all right. This topic is a hard one for me so I really appreciated this post:
Something to Think About.

Lots more, but that's all I have time for tonight, I am overdue for bed!

Captain Ed at Captain's Quarters posts on the historic 25th Anniversary of the successful conclusion of the Gdansk Shipyard strikes in Poland. Poland’s trade unions spent the month of August 1980 launching a wave of strikes throughout Poland, at the forefront of which was Lech Walesa and Solidarity.

August 31, 1980, twenty-five years ago, was the day Lech Walesa declared victory over Poland’s Communist Masters, in announcing, "We have free, independent trade unions." Unlike the bitterly disappointing Prague Spring in Czechoslovakia, this spontaneous rising of the people represented the first large crack in the Iron Curtain, and would foretell the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, and ultimately doom the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) itself.

As Captain Ed recounts:

Walesa showed the world that the Soviet hegemony could be challenged, a particularly poignant demonstration given the track record not only of earlier attempts such as Prague Spring in 1968 but the track record of the United States in recent years prior to Walesa's challenge. Jimmy Carter's kiss still remained fresh on Leonid Brezhnev's cheek when Walesa stood up to the Polish Communists, bolstered by Pope John Paul the Great and a sense that justice eventually prevails against tyranny.

Walesa touched off a series of events that took time to for their momentum to build into a movement. Americans rejected the defeatism of Carter and instead looked to Ronald Reagan for the same moral clarity in the war against Communist oppression that the Gdansk dock workers showed. His success and avoidance of imprisonment emboldened others to dissent. Within a decade, the superpower status of the Soviet state had crumbled into dust, and communism as a political philosophy got consigned to the ash heap of history -- in other words, limited to Western academia.

If you have an opportunity today to take a look at a map of Europe, draw a line through Germany and then look between that line to the edge of Russia. One man led a small movement at a Polish dock that eventually freed all of that territory without a shot being fired -- one of the truly remarkable events in human history, and an anniversary well worth celebrating.

I share Captain Ed’s belief that this was an event of tremendous significance to the world, to the quest for freedom, for inspiration for “we happy few” who have the privilege to serve on the front lines of freedom.

It is unfortunate, but no less true, that Western academia remains a mausoleum, holding out more stubbornly than the Tomb of Lenin, and enshrining the hopelessly utopian mirage of “might have been,” in the face of decades and decades of bitterness and death. The shrines of Socialism are still tended, and its acolytes have mustered in defense of they know and care not what, as long as the battle forms against the old enemy of the West.

I don’t hear it remarked on enough, but there are many parallels between the Cold War fight against Communism, and our current struggle against radical Islamic Terrorism. We must fight our elites, and political opposition, as fiercely in rhetoric and debate, as we likewise fight our Al Qaeda opponents and other forces of tyranny. War makes strange bedfellows, and Ideology is the lust that passes between them. The philosophical and spiritual underpinnings of the current lust for the greater Caliphate are the same old, tired and empty Marxist and anti-Capitalist slogans that motivated Wobblies, fellow travelers, and, in later generations, the eco-terrorists, pan-globalists and neo-isolationists (like I said, strange bedfellows), and of course, the anti-establishment press.

Europe, most all of Europe, now breathes free. Thanks in large part to Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party, some pro-Defense Democrats, Pope John Paul, internal contradictions and economic fault lines of the Eastern Bloc itself, and Solidarity in Poland.

I was part of our Intelligence effort against the USSR and Warsaw Pact in the mid ‘80s. I remember the sense, often bitterly described, of the brinksmanship we played with the failing Soviet Masters. I remember the intense importance of medium range nuclear weapons in Europe and the Near East. I remember the raging debates about whether a tough approach, or détente was best suited to keeping the world from total destruction yet containing Soviet aggression. I remember thinking Reagan a wild man, a puppet of hidden masters, and the great likelihood of needing to have an escape plan to Switzerland. (Not seriously, but the thought of it.)

The longer I studied the threat, the more immersed I grew with the subject of our scrutiny, the less certain I was in my own preconceptions. Yes, the USSR was greatly weakened economically, and even military (that was clear to anyone watching well), but the threat was still great, and the evil was real and largely underappreciated.

I remember the nervous years between 1980 and 1989, not knowing how the winds would blow, how the edifice might crumble, and how fiercely they would fight if collapse was to come. It was perhaps too much to hope that all of Eastern Europe would be free, that the USSR itself would fragment into near constituencies.

I remember August 1980 well, a time of truly remarkable events.

Links: Mudville Gazette (Backup Site), Outside the Beltway, Basil's Blog

Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette weighs in on the Schoomaker OPSEC memo, and his reference to blogs. Greyhawk notes a UPI Story out today, as it appeared in The Washington Times.

Greyhawk makes some corrections of misstatements in the UPI report, and offers the following assessment:

Just putting things in perspective here - the "Army declares war on blogs" theme is perhaps interesting fodder for bloggers (and apparently UPI reporters) - but it doesn't approach the reality of the situation, and from reading the actual memo "the Army" knows it. The problem is most likely too large for any but two possible solutions. One: deny internet access to deployed troops (major morale blast there) or two: train, educate and insist on strict adherence to security standards. Looks like which option is implemented is in the hands of lower level commanders. As noted here before, their responses may vary.

I would certainly agree with Greyhawk's assessment. My freedom to blog is constrained by my Commander's assessment of how well I practice OPSEC. So far, so good. (And writing nice things about him has nothing to do with it.) My intent is indicated in my initial post on this issue. Each local Commander will have wide discretion in monitoring, censoring, or even shutting down blogs of Soldiers under their command. And some will no doubt be overcautious, timid, or reluctant to take any heat for a would-be journalist "embedded" in their unit.

Furthermore, I take to heart Blackfive's observation that many things about our war in Iraq are experimental. The US Army is trying out a lot of new doctrine, new techniques, new warfighting capabilities, and new services important to Soldier care.

The amount of connectedness in this battlespace is unparalleled in history, any Army, any war. It brings immediate and spectacular advantages. And it likewise delivers results home so rapidly that innocents are being harmed by premature revelations, or mistaken identities resulting from a too rapid, non-validated rumor-mongering, or even an unsympathetic press that uses real-time snippets of news as lure to prey upon vulnerable family members.

Things may very well change in the future. Soldiers may not have unlimited internet access. Mail access. The freedom to blog. Perhaps the Army will try to control information too tightly. Perhaps they'll implement a kind of military-sponsored "syndicate," where unit members can sign on to "self-embed" with their units. Such a process might grant freedom to blog with self-censorship, provided the Soldier blogger agree to various rules or policies. Like a online journalistic code of ethics, a Hippocratic Oath of blogging.

As Blackfive also suggested, if there is to be some solution found that preserves the critical value of the MILBLOG, yet maintains meaningful OPSEC, the solution will have to come from within the community of military bloggers.

Links: Basil's Blog, Dawn Patrol at Mudville Gazette

We rolled on to the compound, and initially started to go through the normal stand down procedures for coming onto one of our FOBs. We were interrupted before we could complete these procedures, as our training team came out to meet our vehicles, and told us that we could and should stay in a “red” status. Gunners went to Amber, and remained with the vehicles along with most of the crews.

Our Officer in Charge (OIC) started our visit with a Commander’s slide presentation of his training of the IA unit. Following the slide presentation, we were joined by Deputy Commanding General (DCG), along with an IA LTC, who acted as an personal Interpreter for the DCG, in addition to a US Contractor, who attended our entire visit and otherwise translated for other IA officers as required.

The DCG spoke generally of the training needs of the IA. (We were to discover and explain to the DCG later in our visit that we were not, in fact, US Army trainers who would be working for him, as he thought, but rather guests of our team, simply visiting the facilities.)

The DCG explained that the IA was most in need of trust and discipline, and that this applied at all levels of society. He described that the IA were learning from the Americans a kind of openness and a form of equality, but that these new “freedoms” needed to be offset or balanced by a high amount of discipline, trust and self-less service. Under Saddam, the Army was politicized, and sections and people in positions of power looked for what they could gain, personally. Corruption and selfishness was still a big problem.

The DCG specifically mentioned his G2 element, Intelligence and Security. (This was to be a recurring theme with the Deputy Commander, who quite explicitly said he needed our trainers’ help in making the Intelligence Department “get with the program,” like the G1, G3, G4 sections.

Under Saddam, The DCG explained, the Intelligence components of IA were a part of the security and (secret) police apparatus. They were how power was consolidated, held, and expanded. Now, under the new model, the G2 was a necessary component of the Command, but it was still acting independently, interfering with the other G elements, and not sharing (intelligence) information with the Commanders. The DCG explained that he needed Intelligence to “work straightly” (honestly and without subterfuge). They need to serve the people, and be the guide, the Commander’s eyes. They need to embrace ideas of equality and democracy, and not look for ways to benefit themselves. He described his mission as looking after Soldiers, making sure they were paid, but encourage them to focus on their work.

The DCG said, their work is “right.” He implored we Americans to give the Iraqi a chance, to treat them kindly and attract them to us. He said not to believe reports about breaking into houses to take Iraqis. (I believe he was saying, he does not believe that we are doing this.) Arab peoples have different traditions, we need to respect them. When the Americans first came, The DCG described, we taught them how to obey(?); now, we need to treat our Soldiers how to respect and treat people well, not harm or hurt them. He gave an example of crushing a vehicle in our way, a vehicle that turns out to be the only means of support for a family. (I believe at this point the General was describing points of possible friction and misunderstanding between IA and US forces.)

The DCG explained that his family was from Baghdad, and as much as they suffered during the years of Saddam, they didn’t really know what was going one elsewhere in the country.

He spoke of his hope of making Iraqis “one team,” that we teach Iraq what democracy can be, not discord and chaos, but can include discipline. Iraq, he said, had not been Islamic only, there were other principles, there were the “actions of Islam,” but not in a religious way. (I think he was speaking here of a kind of surface Islamism, either referring to Saddam’s transparent posturing, or perhaps of a societal “culture” not matched by religious fervor.)

Most Iraqis, The DCG explained, don’t have Islamic backgrounds, and many do not know their own history. The DCG identified his own family intermixing of Kurds and Sunni and Shia, that this is very common. Saddam created and sustained and left as a legacy distrust, but reading and learning can dispel that distrust. Uneducated people shed blood, they don’t know any better.

We then were treated to Chai (tea), soda, and water, in the large banquet room.

At the end of our initial meeting with The DCG, he escorted us around the facilities, taking great pains to show us all of the renovations they had completed in just one week’s time. (He frequently commented on what terrible shape the buildings had been left in. He showed us a big white board at the entrance to the HQ, which listed in detail all pay and allowances for the different ranks of IA Soldiers, and identified what withholdings came out for taxes, etc. The DCG explained that this was to ensure that all Soldiers knew what they were supposed to and would receive, and prevent any of the paymasters or leaders from stealing some of their pay due. (This had been a problem.)

Likewise, The DCG identified large placards in the parking lot that were to hold unit status and readiness information, number of Soldiers, number on leave, etc. He explained that they were all serving 3 weeks on, 1 week off, that many Soldiers were from quite some distance away, and were given the extra time to be able to commute to their families when off duty.

He also pointed out equipment that they had salvaged that had been discarded by departing American forces. The DCG made heavy use of inventories, vehicle and equipment counts featured prominently throughout the HQ.

The DCG also introduced us to the HHC CPT, a young man who explained a normal duty day, beginning with PT at 0630, training after, a quick breakfast at around 1000, lunch around 1300, and then training in the afternoon. They train 5 days a week, with Fridays and Saturdays off, during which time the Soldiers could clean, do laundry. Play sports, and relax.

We then were introduced to the Commanding General (CG). The CG likewise gave a very general talk about the IA and treated all of us with great courtesy and respect, as had the DCG. (Both Generals wear the red stripe on their shoulder boards, signifying Officers trained at War College.)

The CG introduced his talk with us by stating that the IA “would not be here” without the help of the Americans. He spoke poetically of two hands, the American unit and IA unit, that both hands are needed to clap. And when we will clap, he said, “the world will hear us.”

The CG spoke proudly and eloquently of the dramatic change in the mission of the new Iraqi Army. He spoke of a history, beginning in 1921, when the British Army first helped them organize, and upon whom they modeled their forces, units, and organization. He pointed to a stack of manuals, and said the IA had learned how to fight from the British, that they had a long and proud history, but that these manuals and knowledge had fallen into disuse and forgotten, during the long years under Saddam, when Officers advanced due to politics and tribe connections.

The CG explained that he had had a comfortable life with the Peshmurga in the North, but had accepted his current command because they needed his help and he wanted to help the Iraqi Army rediscover its proud history. He spoke several times of needing to prepare his unit for their next Commander.

The CG described an IA whose morale Saddam had destroyed. He also mentioned the role of Intelligence, how they needed to “go look for the enemy.” Saddam used Intelligence to use fight each against the other. Intelligence forces were “brainwashed,” trained full of suspicion and distrust. The General’s G2 element wouldn’t move into the HQ, they resisted cooperating, they were not focused on their mission, they were busy worrying about the work of the other G elements. They were used to power, being involved in everything, involved in patronage. The CG asked our OIC if he was related to any of us. He compared that to the IA, where the G2 is staffed by a group of people of shared tribal connections. These are the only people they feel they can trust.

The CG interrupted his remarks to escort us to a luncheon. He and his staff officers (CPT and above) sat around a very long banquet table, and our party joined them in no particular seating order, although the two Generals appeared to gesture for our female officers to sit near them. Our CSM sat between two LTCs, with whom he discussed the role of the NCO Corps, especially the roles of CSM and 1SG in assisting Company and Battalion Commanders. While our enlisted Soldiers were invited to the table and not refused, no IA enlisted Soldiers shared our meal, and IA Lieutenants were seated at tables below us on a lower portion of the room.

The meal was described as pretty typical for the Officers. Roasted chicken, a soup of roasted lamb shank in some type of beet soup, savory rice with some seasoned carrots on top, various fresh vegetables, peppers and cucumbers, a relish mix of some kind, and nan-type bread in a very long jumbo cigar shape. We were also served Chai after our meal. When the CG was done, he rose, and we all at that point got up with him, and followed him back to his office, where our audience with him resumed.

The CG suggested it will take 10-15-20 years to change attitudes. It was always a Regional Army, based on tribal associations. If the IA stays that way, it will drain energy needed elsewhere.He notes a big gap between civilizations, between the Americans and the Iraqis. They learn from us the ways in which we treat each other. He described how Iraqis would eat with their hands; they watch us with silverware, now they are learning too. He mentioned enlisted Soldiers, how they were from lower classes, not educated, while Officers were more educated. How the enlisted needed to be checked, how their hygiene and sanitation was poor, now they are better, the officers don’t need to “check their feet.” The IA has no experience with either the concept nor practical application of a Non-commissioned Officer (NCO) as the primary trainer and leader of Soldiers.

The CG said they were learning mutual respect as well. When the Americans first came, Officers and superiors, if someone stepped in the room, might yell at them harshly. They see the American Officers and Enlisted treat each other without yelling, or rudeness. The CG identified this change as an example of learning democracy. The General said he still can’t accept that he should consider a Command Sergeant Major the equal of Officers, and our CSM assured him that whoever told him he needed to was not telling him the truth. (Some of us weren’t so sure how he meant that.)

The CG concluded his remarks with an observation. He said that Iraq had been in captivity, imprisoned in a Dictatorship. Now, they were free, suddenly out in the open, and Iraqis don’t know what to do exactly with their freedom.

Our visit with the General concluded with him giving our group a box of confections, crushed cocoanut wrapped in log shapes around pistachios, which our Senior Officer accepted for our group.

The DCG escorted us back to his office, spoke for a short time, then presented us each, one by one, with a pair of Nike sneakers and a pair of socks, shook our hands, and thanked us for the honor of our visit. We pledged to return the generosity of his gift with some soccer equipment for his Soldiers.

Links: Basil's Blog, Major K, Mudville Gazette, Good News from Iraq (Winds of Change), Blogotional

Kirk at Recovery Vehicle was kind enough to post a very gracious (and to use his words, thoughtful) reply to my post. I had reacted to his response to the excellent post at The Makaha Surf Report, and promptly fisked his post. I had made mention of Caelestis's fine post just a short while earlier.

Kirk demonstrates qualities noticeably absent from the vast majority of discussion (both lefrt and right, pro-war and anti-war). He is able to acknowledge other points of view without rancor, he accepts disagreement as inevitable and not the result of ignorance, and he maintains a polite and civil discourse despite disagreement.

As such, I want to thank him for the time, thought, and effort that has prompted him to both seek other points of view and engage in debate.

My long time readers know that I appreciate civil debate, and have tried to promote this very ideal at Debate Space, the now dormant debate blog I have shared with the Liberal Avenger.

Kirk, if you wish to stop by and post a question, I'd like to invite you to a continued discussion, on this or any other topic you'd like to suggest.

Links: Mudville Gazette

“Top, if I hadn’t been here, your head would have fallen off a long time ago!”

We have a Lieutenant (LT) who serves as our Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC) Executive Officer (XO) – don’t you just love the way we military types make everything an acronym? And our LT is a character.

He jokes all the time. He especially likes to point out to others that he’s had to “dummy cord” my head to my shoulders, so in case it does fall off, we don’t lose track of it. Dummy cord is what the old time Army NCOs will use sometimes to help junior soldiers not lose important things, such as their weapon. We use a lot of a strong but light and slender cord, known as 550, and we use it to tie down items to our gear, or, as suggested, to keep a certain First Sergeant’s head from rolling off his shoulders in a fit of “Command” anger.

And where does that come from? From the many boneheaded, foolish and even outrageous things soldiers sometimes do, getting in hot water with Top. I sure have a temper, and those who have seen it tend not to want to see it again. With the initial stresses of mobilization training and deployment, I had a harder time controlling my anger, and the required command and control environment for Active Duty units, especially one such as ours, deploying into a combat zone, tends to favor more directive forms of leadership, and yes, a certain harshness. If Soldiers can’t handle anger and very sudden orders in the train-up environment, how on earth would they handle similar treatment under combat conditions?

Still, it’s a delicate balance sometimes between the hardness sometime required, and that which can stray into abuse. Early on, I needed to come to grips with the fact that my anger was sometimes getting the better of my judgment.

I remember the first day I met LT. I had only recently been promoted First Sergeant for HHC, following many years working strictly as an Intelligence Analyst or an Army Instructor of various Intelligence courses. They introduced me to this Staff Sergeant, and mentioned he was an Electronic Warfare (EW) Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) Analyst, Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) 98C. We don’t come across too many of those in the New York Army National Guard, so I took a special interest. At the time, I was running a SIGINT team on a Contributory Intelligence mission for a customer Agency, and immediately I thought, “I can use this guy.” At least I did at first, until he told me he was leaving shortly for Officer Candidate School (OCS). Drat.

And then I didn’t see him again, except as phantom, whose name would drift across our manning rosters. One of the many Soldiers attached to other units or away at schools. Besides, if we ever saw him again – and that was a less than 50% probability, the way people go away and then find new units – he’d come back an officer, and that would have meant he might still be useful to someone, but not to me. Little did I know.

The next time I saw LT was after we had mobilized and gone through all of our required training and were in a seemingly endless holding pattern at the Mobilization Site. A newly minted Second Lieutenant (2LT), the LT was assigned to the lair of he who would become his nemesis, the S3 shop (Plans and Training) of the Battalion.

Now I would be willing to bet that LT remembers our next encounter of significance, rather than the first I recounted above. I don’t even remember what it was about, but something the Battalion had initiated or ordered, instigated by the S3, was threatening to impact my Soldiers in various unpleasant ways for what I perceived as no good reason. This is uncommon neither for S3 shops, nor by reaction for First Sergeants who go to battle against them on behalf of those Soldiers. And it must have been, either that the LT was the minion charged with whatever plan it was, or just happened to be the only staff in the immediate vicinity when I let loose. (I think I’m beginning to see where this whole, “Your head’s gonna fall off” stuff started.)

I wasn’t happy about it at the time, but unusually for one of our staff officers, the LT went toe-to-toe with me and didn’t budge, didn’t flinch, didn’t back down. (He had to have still been wrong, but not remembering what the issue was, I can’t confirm particulars.) He is one stubborn Soldier when he thinks it’s important enough. And if it has to do with readiness, preparations, training or accountability, it will be important enough. Except when there’s a joke or gag involved, then that’s always important, too.

I think the command elements found him useful, intelligent, and highly capable, especially for a junior officer. That reflected his NCO experience. I think they also enjoyed his very boisterous sense of humor, at least they did until it took a critical turn. He’s quite a mimic, picks up the most telling mannerisms, and combines that with a tracker’s eye for the pathways of the foolish. In short, they may not have liked the way his sense of humor "turned inward." They found it too often disrespectful. Or too accurate. Both.

Somewhere along the line, the LT pushed an envelop a little farther than the seams allowed, and he ended up as our Company XO.

Our previous XO was quite remarkable in his own right, so much so that he was yanked away to do a mission in Baghdad, and we only see him now and again for visits. Also remarkably, he is an Orthodox Jew, who manages to maintain his faith traditions and Sabbath Ordinances while in a combat zone. He also manages to survive on Kosher meals-ready-to-eat (MREs), which I think would have killed any of the rest of us. Or at least caused us to go hungry, or violate the Ordinances. Anyway, I couldn’t have done it.

Right away, the LT seemed to take particular delight in poking fun at my “extremes” of behavior or character. He still tells the story of the day I was particularly frustrated with a certain obstinate (however skilled) Motor Sergeant. Mac was objecting to one of any number of Staff or Company requests that tried his patience, and gave me a Mac lecture (a rant in itself) about how they have the “best motor pool in Iraq,” and “they don’t realize what we have here,” and “where are you going to find a motor pool like this? Nowhere, that’s where!”

That’s the point at which I threw up my hands, stormed back into the HHC in a rant, “How many times do we have to tell them, they’re the best d**ned motor pool in all of Iraq!” I should note that, prior to the LT, whenever I would lose my temper like that, the CO, really pretty much everyone, would just raise their eyebrows and murmur, “What was all that about?”

This quickly became applied to anyone and anything I would get angry at. The S6 would fix one of our computers, but only halfway or forget a final, necessary step (Don’t get me started.) “How many times do we have to tell the S6, they’re the best d**ned S6 in all of Iraq?!” Or when the S3 (yet again) did something that “inconvenienced” the Companies, “How many times do we have to tell them, they’re the best d**ned S3 in all of Iraq?!”

It reached the point of absurdity when I started hearing, “How many times do I have to tell that coffee maker, that it’s the best d**ned coffee maker in all of Iraq?!” But it always makes me smile, now.

LT’s sarcasm is legendary. Perhaps you know the type, the guy who can make the simplest silliness seem the height of moronity. “What makes you think that?” Always with the most deadpan of expressions. And I’m gullible, I tend to (at first) believe pretty much anything anyone tells me. And he’s got me going so many times, I should always expect a joke or gag, but somehow I don’t.

We have a young woman helping us out as a clerk. She’s a fantastic clerk, very organized, a hard worker, raised on Long Island, a city girl. She’s rather small, and we in the HHC at first took a fairly protective stance, making sure she doesn’t run afoul of any of our more “obnoxious” characters. We needn’t have worried. She interacts easily with the Motor Pool mechanics. Her S1 colleagues ask her, “Aren’t you afraid of Mac?” “No way,” she says,” He’d do anything for you. He’s just like my father, always walking around cursing.”

The LT got her good one day. She was having trouble with her camera, she asked the LT if he could fix it, and while he was looking at it, she looked away while working on something else. At that moment, the LT licks up a hole punch and slams it really hard on the desk, saying “Hmmm, I wonder what’s wrong?” Our clerk whipped her head around like she was going to start screaming, only then realizing her camera was safe in his other hand.

Recently, I asked one of our guys to pick up some wings for me for dinner. I kept working, was hungry, and looking forward to the wings. A lot of our guys don’t go to the dining facility (DFAC), and for a time I had difficulty finding anyone to drive with me for dinner. The LT, famously, eats oatmeal (watery gruel he calls it), it seems like three times a day.

When the food was brought in, it was set over by the Charge of Quarters (CQ) desk. I couldn’t see it, my back was to the desk as I worked, and I could hear the LT, “Hmmmm, what have we here? Wings!”

I turn and see him eyeing a plate over by the side of our office, and I say, “Hands off, Lieutenant, that’s my dinner!” I see him reach down and pick up a wing, saying “You’re not going to want these.” As I jump up out of my chair, the LT starts to lick one wing after another, going through the entire plate as I get to him. “You SOB! I can’t believe you did that!” And then I look over to the CQ desk, and there’s another plate. My plate. He’s licked a plate full of wings alright, but they’re his. "The last XO wouldn't done that to you," he observes, "heck, he wouldn't have been able to touch them, let alone lick them!"

Now in case, as you’re reading this, you may think the good LT isn’t serious about anything, you’d be mistaken. He’s serious about a hundred things. Anything to do with NCOs, and how they should be, but often aren’t. He’s our Movement Officer, our Battalion Motor Officer, a Platoon Leader for Maintenance Platoon, a stand-in for the CO or HHC staff on dozens of different missions. He is a Convoy Commander, with as many Combat Logistic Patrols (CLP) as just about anybody. And he cares about his family, his wife and kids. He hates liars, dishonesty, immorality. He has a strong work ethic, and he makes sure the Soldiers come first.

Sure, he can be a little extreme sometimes. Like when he refers to his niece as a leading character in Revelations (not Jesus or God). Like when he explains that he had his three year old son hauling tree cuttings. “He needed to get to work.” Like when he takes on one of our most challenged NCOs as a personal project, and hounds him until he sees a step towards improvement in caring for Soldiers or completing a job to standard.

But he is 100% for his friends, for his Soldiers, for the unit, for our mission. He’s courageous, and forthright, honest and dedicated. He cares about all of our Soldiers, even the knuckleheads. (They’re his knuckleheads after all.) He admires and respects people most that really most deserve that respect. And he has more patience than you might guess, for either the knuckleheads, or for a certain First Sergeant who started out this deployment not knowing an air filter from a manifold, nor even the most rudimentary knowledge of anything related to electricity, mechanics, or construction.

I don’t know how I’ll manage without him, after this. That dummy cord better be strong, I have a feeling I’m gonna need it without him.

EPILOG

When I published this piece, he and the CO were very eager to read it. The LT pointed out two technical errors, said that was 5 points a piece, and wrote an "A" on the top of the printout, along with "Good but not your best work."

What were the errors? The LT points out that 550 cord (not 5/50 as I had originally rendered it. The 550 refers to the test of the cord, which is held to be able to sustain 550 pounds of pressure. The LT tells me that you should be able to rappelle with this cord, it's that strong.

The other error was rendering Soldier's instead of Soldiers when pluralizing the noun. (We have an NCO that uses 's every time he means more than one of anything, it drives the LT nuts.)

Leave it to the LT to have the last word.

Other Profiles in the Series:
The NCOIC
The CSM
The Motor Sergeant
The CO

Links: Basil's Blog, Outside the Beltway, Mudville Gazette, Dawn Patrol

Kirk at Songs from the Emperor’s Tailor puts out some tired refrains in response to Caelestis's fine post, which I linked to here after seeing it posted prominently at Mudville Gazette.

(That's a bit link-rich, but fully attributed.)

Why remark on the staleness of Kirk's rhetoric? I guess because of how rudely he responded to a very poetic post of a fine MILBLOGGER, the fact that he linked it back to Mudville, and well, because I'm tired of hearing the same old tripe. So here we go, a-fiskin':

Tired old tune number one:

But - he isn't in the military. He is a mercenary. Oops, I mean a contractor. So he's making, what? 20 or 30 times as much as a GI? Oh, and he can leave whenever he wants.

Kirk, in the 30 some years since Vietnam, pay and benefits for Soldiers have improved considerably. Base pay is very much higher, housing allowances usually exceed total cost of housing (except in the most expensive Metropolitan areas, and who can afford to live in Manhattan, anyway?). For Soldiers in Iraq, they also earn additional combat, hazardous duty pays, and all income is tax free.

From what I am able to discern about Caelestis, he may indeed be one of the better compensated contractors here -- he has an area of expertise highly technical and involving a security clearance, so he may make as much as two to three times what a Soldier of equivalent experience makes. Of course, he's prior service, so he left the military, and decided to pursue a military related career as a civilian. Many Soldiers do, many will, and the compensation reflects that not many people choose to put themselves in harm's way, if not compelled by a service obligation.

America is in Iraq because of the oil and for revenge following a plan based on faulty intelligence, myopic analysis and planning by yes-men who have never been to war.

For supposedly well-educated Americans, this creaky old melody is just plain dumb. We deposed Saddam Hussein, we are helping to create Democracy in Iraq, we have no control over oil, American oil companies have no great advantage in seeking oil contracts, the profits remain with the Iraqis, and there is no cost benefit analysis that can demonstrate that this financially benefits our government or American Corporations.

The benefits of toppling a brutal, terrorist supporting and sponsoring hater of America are almost entirely related to National Security in the face of global terror networks seeking ever greater levels of destruction and death.

The faulty intelligence so frequently cited was acknowledged and accepted by an overwhelming majority of western governments, the UN Security Council, and our own Congressmen and women. Links between Saddam and Al Qaeda are numerous and substantial. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, and has either hid them, sold them, moved them, or perhaps even destroyed them in the months we allowed him while we patiently worked through the lethargic (and we now know, also corrupt) UN sanction and monitoring processes.

Think about that - none of those guys has actually been to war. Except for Colin Powell. The man who had been to war, the person on the Bush team who actually wore a uniform in the field, was marginalized and ignored while spin doctors and autocrats assured us of what would and wouldn't happen. And those guys were wrong. I mean, up and down wrong. Not a little wrong. They fucking blew it.

Colin Powell served the military with distinction. And he is widely regarded in military circles as overly cautious, a very reluctant warrior, a General who promoted the idea that you should never engage unless you were virtually certain of overwhelming victory. By such standards, we would have sued for peace or walked away from every major war we have fought in our history, save perhaps the actions in Panama or Grenada. Measured use of force, and all that.

We have had astounding victories in the field. We took out the Taliban and Saddam Hussein in time frames and with so few losses and collateral damage as to be unparalleled in history, by any Army in the world. It is true that building a democracy in a basket case such as Iraq has not been easy, there have been setbacks, but no one who watched history unfold on 30 January of this year could think that this effort has been anything but an outstanding achievement. The Soldiers who are fighting this war are re-enlisted in record numbers, and helping the military exceed re-enlistment quotas. Does this sound like the poor, misguided minions who have so spectacularly failed in their objectives, in Kirk’s view?

George Bush needs to leave. His administration needs to leave. Because they have failed miserably. They have failed the Nation and they were unacceptably slow to support the troops when they needed it.

You will not find a significant number of Soldiers on the ground who will agree with this assessment. Something close to 75% of Soldiers supported President Bush in the last election. They may not all agree with the war, or how we're fighting it.

(Many want us to be tougher, meaner, and less careful about civilian casualties, I might add. America has always had a "Nuke the Bastards" attitude about our enemies, and Soldiers reflect these views no less than their civilian counterparts in the heartland.)

But there is one thing a huge majority of Soldiers know in their hearts. This President is proud of them, cares for them, fights for them, and tremendously respects their service, and sacrifice. Those that hate him will never see it, for their own antipathy blinds them.

Were Bush capable of actual leadership a meeting between him and Cindy Sheehan early on at Crawford could, could have been a moment for actual healing and unifying much of the divide in the country.

This is really offensive, completely false, and based on the ignorance that Sheehanoia and the Moveon.Org manipulators are spreading. President Bush did meet with Cindy, and the people behind her efforts now want nothing less than complete surrender. They have not had any interest in a serious discussion of National Security, nor any kind of realistic discussion about preventing or protecting ourselves against 9/11 style terrorism, or even worse, Nuclear terrorism (that comes next).

Those of us who support our efforts in Iraq would love to come together for healing. The problem is, the only condition these people will accept is total surrender, pulling out, removing our President, and admitting that 9/11 and anything bad that ever happens to us is our own fault, not the fault of the terrorists.

Links: Right Face!

(Via Mudville Gazette)

You must read this post from the Makaha Surf Report. One, it describes the heat here better than I've ever heard expressed. And two, he describes the American Soldier in terms every American should hear. An excerpt:

They go out everyday and face mortal peril, they go out and have to confront the evil of our time, they go out and see friends killed or maimed for life. They do that and still they smile much more than they scowl, they show love and compassion to the Iraqi people instead of fear and hatred. They still believe in the mission even after nearly 1900 of them have been cut down in the sands of Mesopotamia. Being here with them reinforces my beliefs in humanity and my idealism, with brave and selfless men and women such as these, anything is possible. The fires of human passions are often at their hottest in war, the fires of evil seek to scorch and destroy all that is good, in our men and women I see the fires of righteousness in action.

Go. Read. Now.

Links: Mudville Gazette, Blogotional

I'll be flap doodled.

I was searching for an old post I remember from early on, and it turns out yesterday was the One Year Anniversary of my very first post on my blog.

I feel like I just graduated from blogfancy to blogolescence.

(And it coincides with a move this week from Marauding Marsupial to Large Mammal on the The Truth Laid Bare ecosystem. So I'm feeling decidedly all teenage bear cub frisky.)

Blogger shows me with 298 posts on Dadmanly; my companion site Gladmanly shows 64 posts, and Debate Space, the now dormant debate blog I share with the Liberal Avenger, shows 18 posts. So I have an average output for this past year of about 1 post per day, with an average of about 100 hits per day for the year. (Thanks Mom, but you can stop now.)

I have just over 35,000 visits, and over 50,000 page views in the portion of that year I had Site Meter installed.

As to my objectives, I'd say I met them, and then some. I've "met" some great MILBLOGGERS, such as Greyhawk (and Mrs. Greyhawk) and Mudville Gazette, Blackfive and Mustang 23, some fellow Christian Bloggers such as John at Blogotional and Ella's Dad at Ragged Edges, and even some new friends who have encouraged, such as Arthur Chrenkoff, Bill Roggio at Fourth Rail and Joe Katzman at Winds of Change. I'v even had some great, regular commenters such as Retread, RT, Kat, Papa Ray, and many others.

I'm sure as I think about it, I'll think of more, so friends, please don't feel left out.

I've written just about as much as I did as an Analyst and Reporter during my three years Active Duty in Germany, and this time, it's all unclassified. A lot more fun to write. And (hopefully), more enjoyable to read.

Here's how I introduced myself a year ago:

As if there aren't enough voices out here in the wilderness, I thought I'd try this whole blogging thing out. I don't have anything to say just now -- nor a lot of time to spend coming up with anything clever.

My intent is to weigh in from time to time on various matters military and politic, and invite response from any interested party who can abide by these simple rules:
1. Interpersonal public communication is best conducted with intelligence, rationality, and humor. (Although any one of these qualities goes a long way.)
2. Juvenile name calling and insults are immediate grounds for ignoring you altogether.
3. It's my blog, if you don't like it start your own.
4. Technology is a terrific thing, but good literature (and great writing) is eternal, regardless of the media. Try to contribute (positively).
5. I can't think of anything else. Let me know if you think of anything.

Dadmanly, New Blogger

Thanks so much to all my readers, long standing and newly arrived. I have very much enjoyed the dialogs -- even the aggravating ones -- and been very much humbled by all the terrific support and encouragement.

Links: Basil's Blog, Indepundit, Mudville Gazette, Dawn Patrol, Northern 'burbs blog

Matthew Heidt at Froggy Ruminations has a fine rant, The V-Word, focused on Chuck Hagel and his shameless posturing on how Iraq is “the same as Vietnam.”

Matthew captures the essence of the Rant, and makes the best first choice of any good Rant: he picks a subject that really deserves one.

In the immortal words of Tony Montana in Scarface, Hagel is “a pig that don’t fly straight.” But a pig that should know better.

The implication in making the Vietnam analogy is that the United States should somehow follow a similar path that failed completely in Southeast Asia… pull our troops out now. Not only did we shamefully and unnecessarily lose a war, we subjected millions to torture, re-education camps, and genocide. But hey, so what, right?

A really good Rant includes a very strong comparison – sometimes overdone but always compelling. For weaker arguments, this is where one inserts the infamous Strawman. (A strawman, favored device of lightweights like Paul Krugman or Juan Cole, is where you create a false representation of your target’s point of view, made weak and frail enough for your to pummel into oblivion.) In better cases, such as here, the comparison fully exposes the basic fallacies of the object of your scorn.

Matthew concludes this Week’s Best Rant with the best of all best rants: a zinger ending:

By the way Chuck, if the Kos Kidz successfully enact the Final Solution to the moderate Democrat problem, then there are only going to be two places to find votes. The Republican party or the seething pool of cowardice that remains after the moonbats are done. I don’t think they’ll like you anyway.

UPDATE:Froggy alerts me to another one of his Rants, a really fine one. If I had seen this one, Froggy's post on the protest outside Walter Reed would have been a runaway. (Ed. went to the right blog, in any case.)

Honorable mentions:

Mark A.R. Kleiman writes a Note to Juan Cole. An excerpt:

10. If the case had involved a male Nigerian anthropologist studying the culture of the Mississippi Delta and a white female Mississipian acting as his guide and informant, would you similarly blame the Nigerian if her relatives, or the remnants of the local Klan, had decided to string him up? Would he, too, have been culpably "naive," "foolish," and "ignorant"? If not, what makes the morally significant difference between the two cases?

It seems to me, Professor Cole, that you have allowed your contempt for someone infringing on your scholarly turf without appropriate credentials to combine with your hatred of those who support current Administration policies in Iraq in a way that has blinded you to the ordinary human decencies. And it seems to me that you owe Ms. Ramaci-Vincent an apology, and your readers a more accurate statement of the facts.

However enjoyable, this piece of comeuppance pie for Professor Juan Cole is not a rant, and therefore, can’t be the week’s best. Way too constrained, polite, measured, sober, and was updated with a potential near-apology. Not at all unhinged. Disqualified on that basis.

Via MurdocOnline, this piece of first-person comeuppance is better. Digs into Professor Cole with alacrity, with the added significance of being penned by Steven Vincent’s widow, Lisa Ramaci-Vincent.

Well-deserved, well written, and withering critically, this falls short of the typical rant by being an entirely justified piece of self-defense for a man no longer able to defend himself. Worthy of mention and appreciation, but not really wild or mean enough tpo qualify as “rant.”

Linked to by one of my posts, this piece by Jason Van Steenwyk has a lot of the ingredients of classic rant.

Strong and emotional compare and contrast. Reference to Hitler. Trivialization of the views of one’s opponent. Graphic evidence in opposition to the subject of the rant. A tone of moral superiority. Excellent train of argument. Best concluding line:

And any veneer of occidentalism with regard to the status of women in Iraqi society is nothing more than a ring in the snout of a pig.

Vodkapundit, the source of many good rants, starts out with a real contender.

Good premise, “Pat Robertson is an idiot.” Better, point out obvious hypocrisy:

As if you didn't already know, Pat Robertson is an idiot. Not only that, but he's a hypocritical idiot. If we were so hot for toppling dictators, he really ought to stop making millions of dollars off them.

Links point to numerous stories of shady businesses seemingly designed to take maximum advantage of financial exploitation possible through African dictatorship. (Colonialism, anyone?)

Insult is always a key component of a type of rant, generally compelling. Good dose of sarcasm, “Now, if Chávez were sitting on a pile of war diamonds rather than oil, that might be a different story.”

James Lileks wins an honorable mention for providing what amounts to, “How not to write a rant” when sending email. My suggestion, think about breaking one or more of these rules, and you're on your way to Rantsville. An example:

The term “wingnut” is not as harsh and cutting as you might expect. Personally, I don’t like any of these terms – moonbats, repugs, democraps, etc. (Except for “idiotarian.” I like it because it’s ecumenical.) They’re usually shorthand for broad concepts held by people whose views on other matters may be divergent. Not very helpful. In any case, have you tried to use a wingnut? They’re quite handy if you want to tighten something and you don’t have a wrench. I assume it’s short for “right wing nut,” but if you look at a wingnut, it has two wings. Left and right. You could say it understands both wings, even though it prefers to turn in a clockwise direction.

Violate some or most or even all of Lilek’s rules here, and you’ll have one really fine rant. Consider those guidelines for next week.

Links: Basil's Blog, Mudville Gazette, Outside the Beltway, Indepundit, Wizbang

Mustang 23 over at Assumption of Command was recently contacted by the U.S. Army Central Command (CENTCOM). They asked him to get some of the stories out that are happening in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Horn of Africa, which are in the CENTCOM area of responsibility.

Poked around the site a bit, and it looks like a great resource for news, images, and official Army information.

Just a few days ago, we were visited by CENTCOM's equivalent of the Command Sergeant Major of all of CENTCOM, Air Force Command Chief Master Sergeant Brownhill. As Acting Command Sergeant Major at the time, I had a chance to sit in on a briefing given to CMS Brownhill, and a follow-up visit with several of my soldiers at our Battalion Headquarters.

CMS Brownhill is a very intelligent, clued in, and attentive (very) Senior NCO, and it was readily apparent to all that he is very knowledgeable about our Theater of Operation, the capabilities of the forces within his command, and the superior capabilities of CENTCOM'S outstanding Soldiers and Airmen, Sailors and Marines.

CMS Brownhill stressed that other Nations in the region had long viewed Saddam and Iraq as a major problem in the region, and silently relieved when we took out Saddam. We have opened up a new world of possibilities in the Middle East and the wider Arab world, countries that are anxiously watching events unfold and starting to speak out in their own countries and press for change (in the direction of real democracy).

He suggested that we, those National Guard and Reserve Soldiers serving in our Task Force and our Area of Operations (AO), have brought unique qualities and characteristics to the fight from our civilian jobs back home. These have proven their worth time and again in the new and unique challenges posed by Nation building.

Check out the CENTCOM site, and if you find a story to write about, post a link back with Mustang 23. I know he'll be glad to hear from you!

Links: Blogotional

Operations Security (OPSEC) is a critical concept in warfare, and vital in our efforts against a well organized, patient, and secret enemy that can take maximum advantage of our transparency and press freedoms while easily denying us an equivalent advantage against them.

I have just received through multiple official channels a warning from the highest military officials, which should have received the widest dissemination possible. I would be virtually certain that any active duty, reserve or guard military member in a leadership position has received it as well.

This communication essentially reminds the Chain of Command of their OPSEC responsibilities, alerts them to the very active enemy exploitation of our open sources, and informs leaders that many soldiers are violating OPSEC via their blogs. The official reaction to these OPSEC concerns will include a rewrite to applicable Army Regulations (AR).

(UPDATE: For more information on the communication, see Blackfive's post.)

It wasn’t the primary point of the post, but in one of my recent profiles I warned:

They were on such a mission recently when Insurgents carried out a deadly complex attack against U.S. forces. I can’t share details about this attack, because to do so would:

• Aid an enemy making a Battle Damage Assessment (BDA) of the success of their attack;
• Spread knowledge of the tactics, techniques and procedures (TTP) to other cells that otherwise might not learn of new methods;
• Jeopardize operations security (OPSEC) for the Scouts, Quick Reaction Force (QRF) and other first responders to Jihadist attacks; and
• Open up specific unit and leader decision-making to inappropriate public scrutiny. This can create situations where information necessarily incomplete due to immediacy, preservation of individual Soldier rights, and classification, would otherwise distort how the overall information might be received and interpreted.

These are not trivial concerns. I cast no aspersions against my fellow MILBLOGGERS, in no way should this be interpreted as criticism of those whose very graphic and exciting stories provide vivid detail to an information starved public.

In an even earlier post, I explained why I thought this issue was so important:

OPSEC is an important concept in modern military operations, one easily misunderstood and often underestimated. All reconnaissance efforts, if successful, exploit weak or failed OPSEC of the other side. Good OPSEC means denying your enemies an opportunity to gather all the small bits of information that eventually leads to a partial but highly suggestive picture of overall plans and operations.

In Iraq, that might mean force disposition, capabilities, weaknesses and targets of opportunity. We greatly underestimate our enemy's capabilities to exploit essential elements of friendly information (EEFI).

Americans as a rule are terrible at keeping secrets, we love to talk, we like to connect with those around us, and we love to tell stories. When soldiers are entirely segregated from civilian populations (loved ones, family or otherwise), they are clearly unhappy, but they are unable to violate OPSEC with as much ease or regularity.

The greatest difference in lifestyle and living conditions between today's soldier in Iraq and any in previous conflicts, is also one of our greatest vulnerabilities in terms of OPSEC. Soldiers have ready and immediate access to the Internet and cheap telephone service to their friends and families back home. When anything happens on the Forward Operating Base (FOB), chances are, linked in families back home hear all the details within hours, if not minutes. (Local commanders in many cases wisely invoke Internet and telephone blackouts for short periods in the event of significant injuries or deaths.)

Frankly, much of the most popular ("live action") combat reporting on the web makes me nervous. Many of these young men (and women) are not at all careful or discrete about their identities, unit compositions, and even very minute operational details. All of us understand how popular such accounts are, people back home and even fellow soldiers are really hungry for knowledgeable front line reporting. But this same accuracy and realism may be providing our enemies -- who gain some advantage they wouldn't otherwise have if we ignore their collection or reconnaissance capabilities -- with useful information for planning more effective attacks (and by the way, allowing them at least some useful battle damage assessment (BDA) information).

I would hate to think that good OPSEC might interfere with what is some of the best reporting available on our great efforts in Iraq. But I likewise think that MILBLOGGERS need to carefully (and prayerfully) consider if, in the interest of feeding a hungry audience, we likewise satisfy an avaricious enemy. This is an enemy who knows how and where to get information vital to making his efforts against us more deadly and effective, and knows how and where and to whom to get this information into the hands of those who would harm us.

If we ignore this responsibility, aren’t we doing the same as the big media we so frequently criticize? In the interest of “hits” and traffic (equivalent after all to ratings or circulation), we go for the gritty detail, and disregard real and significant concerns about whether this in some way increases the danger to our soldiers?

Sure, most of the more biased media pander to an anti-war agenda, and that’s destructive too, but any reporter or editor will tell you, “If it bleeds it leads.” There is a very strong profit motive to everything they do. If we broaden the meaning of profit to include that which benefits us or end results that we desire, if we seek that at the exclusion of any threat or risk considerations, we have put our own benefit above the soldiers we would claim to support.

Among the many freedoms we give our lives to defend are the freedoms of speech and the press. There will be no point to our sacrifices if we must deny these freedoms.

But I for one know how critically important it is for us to win this war. As a result, I remain committed to taking every step necessary that nothing I write will damage troop morale, nor provide our enemies even the slightest advantage they would not have had otherwise. I can do no other, and that is the least I can do.

Links: Blackfive, Castle Argghhh!, Chromed Curses, Dawn Patrol at Mudville Gazette, Assumption of Command

(A belated announcement)

Christian Carnival is up over at Wallo World. A few highlights:

Northern ‘burbs blog presents A Modern Babel, which “discusses similarities between our pride in our scientific achievements in matters of life & death and the Tower of Babel story in Gen. 11.”

Another Man’s Meat presents Pickin’ a Fight, in which the author says “a trip to the mall is all it takes to have your eyes opened to the realities of contemporary American culture.”

Ella's Dad at Ragged Edges presents Where’s The Meat? Ella's Dad writes, “As my Wife and I begin searching for a new church home here in our new locale, we’ve started noticing the messages on church marquee signs more and more.”

There's also a link to Part Two of my Eulogy For Lincoln.

Take a ride at the Carnival and be blessed!

(Via Dawn Patrol)

Blue at DSS Hubris discovers a journalistic non-sequiter in a news article by Reuters. I've highlighted the non-sequiter in bold below:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has approved full-rate production of a new Hellfire missile variant, touted by President George W. Bush for its ability to kill guerrillas in urban settings, the missile's manufacturer said on Wednesday. U.S. commanders in Iraq have asked for more of the rounds, said Lt. Col. Kevin Curry, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon, who added that early versions had already been used there in 'limited numbers.' More than 1,870 Americans have been killed in Iraq since the war began in March 2003. The 'thermobaric' Hellfire AGM-114N warhead creates an intense, sustained pressure wave that can strike around corners in 'caves, bunkers and hardened multi-room complexes,' the manufacturer, Lockheed Martin Corp., said.

I write a lot of documents, I reuse a lot of older files, and having a "template" handy is a real time saver.

For those of you who don't use them or don't mass produce documents regularly, a template is a form or outline or an example document you can open, modify as needed, and then complete, submit, send, etc.

In our Headquarters, we have templates for all of our standard reports, memoranda, forms, and so forth.

Now, we may all think that these editors sit around, sending their reporters off to go get the "bad news of the day," and every article on Iraq they make sure they slip in the obligatory "X,XXX troops have been killed since the U.S. invaded Iraq in March 2003." And maybe that's a lot of the time how it happens.

But for about 18 months, say from about May 2003 and November 2004, there was another stock sentence in all the stories. Do you remember?

"X,XXX soldiers have been killed since President Bush declared an end of major combat in Iraq."

Funny, that editorial constant pretty much vanished with the failed candidacy of John Kerry. (Is there a correlation there?)

I suggest another explanation, both for the election-era "since Bush declared major combat over" snippet and the "X,XXX troops have been killed" snippet.

Anti-war media aren't just using a "figurative" template for their negative war reporting, they're using an actual one! Here's what the file looks like.

DATELINE: (Insert place and time)
(Insert news item here) More than (insert number) Americans have been killed in Iraq since the war began in March 2003. (Insert editorial comment, especially any conceivable reference to Vietnam, quagmire, increasing difficulty, failures, etc. If space permits)

Normally, this template is a real time saver for the news editor, and he can even throw the Iraq update to his most junior reporters, and they'll get it right. Of course, every now and then, an oddball story with a lot of technical jargon or really hard to understand military mumbo-jumbo comes around, and it's hard to know how to add the facts in and around the stock sentence in the middle. God knows they can't do without their statement of the context for the war news.

In this case, it looks like the snippet was the "odd meme out," and hung around until the final edit. That's when (I'd guess) the copy editor was supposed to either finesse it to fit, or cut it altogether. "The Bush Lied People Died" side of him probably just wouldn't let him delete it.

You know, like those slip ups when something like "UGH" or "Insert negative quote here" gets left in the final copy.

Link: Mudville Gazette, Basil's Blog, Outside the Beltway, Dawn Patrol at Mudville Gazette

Were you dismayed by a recent report in the NY Times that the military was upgrading Body Armor, still working at this late date to replace current body armor that leaves soldiers vulnerable?

It turns out, not to worry. This was a classic example of either willful deceit or blind ignorance on the part of a NY Times Reporter. (Imagine that.)

Jack Kelly, writing at Jewish World Review, took the novel step of following up with a Times source, in this case Colonel Thomas Spoehr, director of materiel for the Army staff. COL Spoehr explained to Times reporter Michael Moss that the Army was proactively improving body armor to protect against potential threats of advanced ammunition that are not (yet anyway) in use in Iraq. As COL Spoehr explained to Kelly:

There are some special types of ammunition that can penetrate the boronic carbide plates. Last year Army leaders became aware of improvements that could be made to the SAPI plates that would protect against most (though not all) of these special types of ammunition.

There is little evidence insurgents in Iraq are using the special types of ammunition that can defeat the "Interceptor." But the Army wanted to be proactive, to defeat a potential threat before it emerged.

"We're taking what we think is a prudent step to guard against a step (the insurgents) could take, but that's a step that really hasn't developed yet," Spoehr said.

Now that's quite a story to tell, isn't it? After all the negative press about the lack of Up Armored Humvees early on in the war, reports of troops being inadequately prepared or protected, the Army goes out of its way to anticipate a potential threat, and take steps to mediate risks ahead of time.

You'd think that would be man bites dog news, no?

For the NY Times, that would be no, actually no, not part of the "all the news fit to print," which I believe can be rephrased, "all the news that fits our prejudices."

As Kelly states, "[COL Spoehr] had a good news story to tell Moss, which Moss converted into a bad news story."

COL Spoehr, the actual source for NY Times Reporter Michael Moss, says the reader is left with the impression that soldiers were at risk, which in fact they were not. And he told Moss everything he told Kelly, yet Moss used not a single positive quote, and spun the story like an "expose."

Kelly concludes:

Americans are becoming increasingly pessimistic about the war in Iraq, because all news about Iraq is presented as bad news, even when it isn't.

(Hat tip: Instapundit)

Links: Mudville Gazette, Basil's Blog, Mudville's Dawn Patrol

"Good for what ails ya."

Max Borders writing at Tech Central Station has an excellent post about the distortions in media reporting in Iraq that have again led to widespread outbreaks of the Vietnam Syndrome, even among "former supporters of the war."

For the uninformed -- or any of you Rip Van Winkles -- the Vietnam Syndrome can mean that an enemy can lose overwhelmingly on the battlefield, yet defeat us by waiting for our own impatience, lack of information, or manipulation by enemy "newsmakers" to bring on the onset of the syndrome. Borders presents this thesis:

American foreign policy still suffers from what some have called the "Vietnam Syndrome." First, US "public opinion" can be myopic, especially if an Administration panders to it. Second, when public opinion (or concerns about public opinion) has guided our military efforts, they have either petered out or failed. Third, it is critical that our long-term strategic objectives are protected against the fickleness of popular opinion -- especially when such works against our national interests.

My worry is that the objectives of Iraq -- as well as our strategy for the larger Middle East -- may not fall within a time horizon that can outlast the inflammation of public outcry due to Vietnam Syndrome. Tremendous political pressures reinforced by negative perceptions are building against the Administration. We should wonder whether these are the symptoms of a US public that receives a steady diet of colored information and news of dead soldiers; but gets less information about military and political gains. For example, the fruits of democratization are routinely downplayed. Good news is attenuated, or buried on page 15.

Not to worry, America. There's a cure for the Vietnam Syndrome. That's the good news.

The bad news is, according to Borders, there are three groups of people that are essential to battling the illness. I will present his prescription for each, then explain what steps are to be taken:

First, the Administration needs constantly to remind Americans of the vision, not just the discreet goals. The war is no longer just about quelling the insurgency, if it ever was. The war has always been about transforming Iraq into an example of peace, prosperity and successful liberal institutions in a dangerous part of the world. No one believes Iraq can be an oasis. It is enough that the Iraqi people have a hand in their own destiny and that they are prepared to accept the transformative power of the rule of law. Such transformations may have short-term costs. But in the longer term, Iraq can be a catalyst for change that makes us all more secure.

This starts with the President. He needs to keep stating the vision and objectives of our War against terror. More speeches like his Second Inaugural, reminding us of the stakes. Forget the Press Conferences unless he has something important to press. And then he needs to be supported 100% by the Secretaries of Defense and State and the departments they manage. They need to back up what the President says with policy and execution. If the can’t, won’t, or are more interested in fighting turf battles via anonymous press leaks, fire them, kick their butts back to the think tanks or corporate board rooms or party offices. Somewhere where their disloyalty and skullduggery won’t get the rest of us killed due to their inattention. We are at war, and our cabinet departments of the Executive need to start acting like it, even if we can’t get a large number of our congressmen and women to do so.

Second, we the people need to think longer term. Our obsession with quick victories and homeward-bound troops should be tempered by the knowledge of what is at stake. Our all-volunteer forces are professional fighters who understand that they have been called to serve in real conflict. If we accept the neoconservative vision of the United States' role in the world, we should be prepared for the possibility of other, future engagements as we project our power globally for the sake of a comprehensive liberal order. Minimally, we are in a strategic position in the Middle East. With troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US is geographically poised to deal with Iran as an emerging nuclear threat. For that reason alone, we should not be so eager to pull out.

Okay folks, this one’s for us. The little people, the Silent Majority, Mom and Dad and Sis and Bud back home. We need to find some resolve, and some patience. We can’t let small setbacks and dedicated enemy propaganda – parroted by major news outlets or not – dictate how long we will stay resolved to fight the evils we confront. Our enemies are not likely to surrender, they will keep killing, finding softer and softer civilian targets in a desperate attempt to cause us to lose heart. So unless we somehow can kill every single nut case who thinks this is the way to immortality. We will suffer more violence at their hands. But the more we press the fight to them, the less they are able to plot and plan and build international networks of nut cases to come after us at home.

I recommend the following entertainments: John Wayne, anything World War Two, Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan, Civil War, a dash of Frank Capra for Idealism. Books, again anything World War Two, the Holocaust, Soviet Union and the horrific brutality of the Gulags, Founders, Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence, Lincoln. Stay away from the jaded elite. It’s not a time to rediscover anything from the sixties or seventies, drugs, hippiedom, sensitivity to foreign cultures (who want to kill Americans), etc. That’s a start.

Finally, the media will have to understand that, while they can never be "objective," they have a responsibility fairly to address many facets of an event. Criticism, debate and even dissent are healthy elements of a free society. But the media should be aware of its responsibility to provide the broadest range of relevant facts and perspectives so readers can shape more informed opinions. That means, when it comes to Iraq we need the bad news and the good. Instead of journalistic integrity we get a competition among spin doctors who selectively include or omit at will. We get Cindy Sheehan ad nauseum. We get Abu Ghraib and daily death tolls. And we get those who use their editorial powers to further their own agendas. To treat Vietnam Syndrome, this will have to change.

Members of the Fourth Estate, listen up. You have a responsibility to the societies in which you make your living, earn your keep, enjoy your press and personal freedoms, and pursue life, liberty, and happiness (or grouchiness, that’s your choice). You are not citizens of the world. If you were, you would probably run afoul of the World Police, and need government controlled press credentials, and your works would be screened for suitability, and many of you would be in jail, dead, or in flight.

You cannot retreat to some Ivory Bunker, and wait for all the shooting to stop and then come up for air. When the terrorists go nuclear, which they almost certainly will, many many many of your fellow reporters and editors will be incinerated in an instant. The rest will be in shock. No small number will immediately write angry editorials about that da**ed George W. Bush, about how he made the whole world hate us.

But they’ll be wrong, because this is where these madmen, these psychopaths have always wanted to go. If we are all willing to surrender to the Global Caliphate, well fine, but I don’t think we’d like their version of “multiculturalism.” (Monoculturalism for them, we become their slaves or guest workers, but we have no rights, we are Kafir.)

We are at war. It isn’t going to go away. Our enemies believe they can get us to quit by making it too hard for us, because we are soft. We are weak. We lack moral fiber. I few give in to them, if we turn away, they will be right.

Pacifism isn’t a viable option, it’s surrender, and it won’t be pretty. We can negotiate, but pretty much only about the details and fittings we’ll be allowed to keep in captivity.

Links: Mudville Gazette, Outside the Beltway, Blogotional, NYGirl

For any of those moonbats who think that any form of Islamic Republic in Iraq (or even one just friendly to Islam) means Iraqi women end up "worse off than under Saddam, follow the link to Jason Van Steenwyk's Iraq Now (Countercolumn) blog.

Read the whole thing; its horrifying, but important in reminding us just how brutal this regime was, and how fortunate the Iraqi people (minus the mugs thugs and wackos) are to be rid of him and his sons.

As Jason follows up in a subsequent post:

It is not neccessary for me to advance anything more than the fact that Saddam was a brutal, sadistic, murderous, totalitarian dictator, in order to falsify the ridiculous notion that Iraqi women had enjoyed anything like western style equality under Saddam. Really, this argument reminds me of the old saws about Hitler not being so bad -- at least he made the trains run on time.

Don't tell me that in a world in which a woman would be targeted for gang rape for the actions of a relative, or that in a world where a woman could be beheaded on the whim of a Ba'athist with no due process that this idea of the rights and the affirmation of the dignity of Iraqi women have any meaning whatsoever.

Don't you dare.

Was Iraq the worst possible, most brutal regime on the face of the earth in 2003, when we invaded to topple him? Arguably, yes.

Could we have weighed all the reasons he was a threat, and in consideration of risks or self-interest, said, "Not now. It's not worth it"?

Sure, we could have. Would that have been more moral than acting militarily? Only if you would be willing to have many thousands more dead, many thousands more raped, many thousands more tortured, many thousands more ethnically cleansed, and quite possibly many many more thousands of innocent civilians killed in terrorist attacks by the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, and God knows how many other shadowy terrorist groups Saddam was supporting, training, paying, and with whom he was plotting.

Please, if you want to answer, "none of that was proven," or there's no evidence of that, you need to slap yourself silly. Really.

Links: Outside the Beltway, Wizbang

Note: Mrs. Dadmanly sent this letter to some close friends and family who would know how to best support and encourage her. I asked if she would be willing to share it with our readers, and she agreed if I thought other military families would appreciate the message. I do, and here is is.

This is a prayer request and a sharing of sorts. I was going to just "keep it to myself," but as I sit here, I felt it was a good time to reach out. There is a part of me that feels I should be so happy and excited that we are on the other side of this deployment, that we are more then half over, that it could be less then a few months till Dadmanly comes home.

It’s harder, the truth is, it’s harder...my heart is heavy and to others it may seem that I should be rejoicing.

I guess it really hit me this a.m., when my son began to sob, not cry, sob. My heart broke for this little guy, who keeps waiting to see his Dad again and spend time with him. He laid on the bed and kept sobbing, "Mom, I miss my Dad." "Mom, it’s sooo much harder since Dad visited," and "Why did my Dad have to go?"

It was then that I was able to be totally honest with myself. Part of me has been keeping it in, because I think thoughts that are ridiculous, "He’s almost home, you can't be whining and crying, people are going to think you’re nuts. Be grateful, you got to see your husband." "Be strong, trust in the Lord," or even, "Suck it up!"

It took my child to bring me back to reality. I'm in pain. I can go through each day and push through, and rely on the Lord, and be grateful that so many months have passed. But that does not take away the longing, the hoping, and still "the worry." Not a constant worry or an overwhelming worry, but a moment at a time worry.

"What if something happens now to Dadmanly after we have been through all this?” “What will I do, what will life be like when he comes back?" "We have all changed, will it be for the better?"

And...the anger. I cannot tell you a thing I'm angry about, I'm just angry. It’s so hard to explain in words but my heart feels heavier now then when he first left. I spoke to another soldier’s wife the other night for well over an hour, and we shared all the same things.

I mentioned to a few others at a picnic on Saturday, and they feel the same. It’s almost like we are this separate group of people, that we are walking around acting normal (so-to-speak, lol), and no one truly knows what any of us are dealing with in our hearts.

I remember this feeling clearly when my sister died, it felt the same. Life goes on, no one knows how you feel at that moment in time, yet it has been almost six years and I can still feel that loss. Through all this I know God loves me, I know He is in charge/control, I know He will take care of us. No matter what, I've read it, I know it, I believe it, but as Little Manly cried and we just hugged each other, I was able to let go of my wall, the strength "I" was possessing and just cried with my son. Me, Little Manly, and God…

I'm not sure where all of this is going, it’s just on my heart. It was like a breakthrough this a.m., because Little Manly and I had this moment in time, like we both let go.

As I was talking to my son the other day, I was explaining about God’s word, the Bible, and explaining to him that God has plans for each of us. We need to follow His word, everything He tells us is for our good. To allow us to have what He has for us, we need to do as He tells us, and the Bible has great instructions for that.

Little Manly interrupted me and said, “You’re right, Mom. It is a LOVE book, not about rules, but Love...”

WOW! That blew me away, I have not been reading the love book lately or resting in the Lord, or as my good friend pointed out, to dance with Jesus is so intimate and comforting, I have not danced either. God wants me to be connected to Him, through His word, prayer, fellowship, being honest.

I've done the fellowship part but I have been lacking in all other areas, and even with the fellowship part, I have been "being tough" and "standing strong."

I know this time will pass. I know my husband will be home again. Part of me is afraid that when Dadmanly comes home the anger will be greater, resentment will set in. I keep hearing over and over from the Army meetings, where we are being forewarned what to expect when our soldiers come home, life will be different, does that mean better? Does that mean harder? Is it positive, is it negative, more work to do? Too much to think about.

I know many have prayed, I've been asked what I need... I really need prayer for me, Dadmanly, Little Manly, Spud, and Jilly Beans for this next phase, to get Dad home. To work through and reconnect and be able to build our marriage and our ministries together, not to let the enemy get a foothold in any area. For now, to be able to Let Go AGAIN and truly Let God work in my life, get back to prayer, the Bible, trust...

My church is starting a study on Experiencing God. (Course online.) I did the study with Dadmanly 11 years ago in Atlanta and it changed my life. I'm looking forward to starting this in a few short weeks, and looking forward to what God is waiting to reveal to me this time. His timing is perfect. Thanks for reading...there is nothing to fix, take away, or do for me.

Just please, if you fell led to do so, say a prayer for us.

Links: Mudville Gazette

When last I wrote, in my mind I was standing on the edge of a moment in history, sharing in the grief of mournful passing of the Lincoln sepulcher upon its rail-borne hearse. Thinking, rolling over in my mind the shock of the Great Man, taken so quickly, only days from a sudden sigh of peace.

I remember a few days after September 11th, several of our employees chose to gather for an observance, and in search of meaning, and the struggle to understand what we had lost, I reached for a an old Readings from Lincoln, by Alfred A. Wright of the Hartford Public High School, first published in 1927.

May I pause for a moment to reflect on this? My guess is, Mr. Wright was an amateur Historian, in the sense of not giving up his day job as a teacher, and his intent was to create a study for students at his school, and others like it. Can you imagine such an act of scholarship in a public school today? I know we still have required readings, but is it even remotely possible that a serious study of Lincoln would make the list? Jefferson, or the Federalist Papers? Not to take anything away from writers such as Maya Angelou or Joseph Heller or Philip Roth, but once upon a time we had an American Canon of works every good and serious student of history, nay, every diligent citizen was encouraged to learn. Lincoln, formerly, found preeminence in such a Canon.

In the days after 9/11, many of us would read the Gettysburg Address with a new appreciation, being some of us freshly acquainted with a punishing grief. For Lincoln, at Gettysburg, charges us, in generations to come, with a perpetual obligation:

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

When Lincoln finally arrived in Springfield, Illinois, and his final rest, as had taken place at many of his earlier stops, mourners read his Second Inaugural Address aloud.

I have a close affection for Lincoln’s Second Inaugural.

When employees gathered for a remembrance of September 11th in 2002, I was led to reach for Lincoln again. In the quickening of the storm clouds of war, and rumors of war, I sought solace in Lincoln’s Second Inaugural. Back to 2002, I felt the certainty that the struggles we faced were only the beginning of a long and difficult clash of civilizations. The struggle may not be against Slavery, but it serves in the name of Freedom against forces of oppression.

Lincoln in his Second Inaugural Address acknowledges that there is One whose judgments are true and righteous, and that further bloodshed and violence might yet be required. We have played a part in turning away from the kinds of tyranny and religious oppression that germinate, grow weed-like, and then choke entire civilizations as if sprung up fully-formed only in the latest spree of carnage. Lincoln knew, that as we share the common failings of mankind, self-interest and self-absorption, so we must be prepared to pay the price when payment for our negligence comes due:

Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether"

And yet, Lincoln offer hope as well, and places a specific charge that we might read today as “support our troops,” and the families who sacrifice so much in giving up their sons and daughter, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers for this war.

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.

As a people, we need to dwell for a time, and time again, upon the brutal milestones that are these phantom towers. Along the canals, along the railroads, mile markers were the reassurance of progress made in the days of sedate and time-abiding travel. These stones still stand, although the travellers of old have moved on to other modes of transport. They still stand, and they still measure true.

Mile markers along our journey as a Democracy. Gettysburg. The end of the Civil War. The Assassination of Lincoln. Normandy and D Day. VE Day and VJ Day. And all those hallowed white markers at Arlington.

In our long march of war – and war it is, whether we see it so or not – are many mile markers, most prominent are the two towers that once stood as One and Two World Trade Center.

Bishop Matthew Simpson spoke an oration as Lincoln was finally upon his final rest in Springfield:

“There are moments which involve in themselves eternities. There are instants which seem to contain germs which shall develop and bloom forever. Such a moment came in the tide of time to our land when a question must be settled, affecting all the powers of the earth. The contest was for human freedom. Not for this republic merely, not for the Union simply, but to decide whether the people, as a people, in their entire majesty, were destined to be the Governments, or whether they were to be subject to tyrants or aristocrats, or to class rule of any kind. This is the great question for which we have been fighting, and its decision is at hand, and the result of this contest will affect the ages to come. If successful, republics will spread in spite of monarchs all over this earth”

And Sandburg utters a final epitaph:

Evergreen carpeted the stone floor of the vault. On the coffin set in a receptacle of black walnut they arranged flowers carefully and precisely, they poured flowers as symbols, they lavished heaps of fresh flowers as though there could never be enough to tell either their hearts or his.
And the night came with great quiet.
And there was rest.
The prairie years, the war years, were over.

We here in our humble condition cannot hope to know even a sliver of the full purpose of God. Have we lived our lives for nothing? Have we thrived in the heart of liberty for our own comfort and security merely?

How, in the petty events of man as they unfold, can we fail to see the Hand of Providence in giving us such men as these?

Sometimes when I stood on the towpath, I have cried. There is so much that has been lost. When I finished Sandberg's Lincoln, and stood outside that tomb, I cried. Not for myself, but for all of God's creation.

He lavishes His love upon us with such abandon, with such Mercy and Generosity of His eternal Spirit. And how, so often, do we respond? With many a cry, not in humble gratitude, or with grumbles, whining, an inconsolable desire for more?

He lived for a time among us, and we knew him not.

A Eulogy for Lincoln (Part One)

Links: Mudville Gazette, Outside the Beltway, Basil's Blog

I finished Carl Sandburg’s Abraham Lincoln this weekend. I had been reluctant to do so, from the moment I could discern in the flow of pages that I had come upon the eve of his death by assassination. It was – it is – a powerful testament to a giant figure in the history of our Nation, of the world itself.

Carl Sandburg may have been a fine historian, but he was first and foremost a poet from the Midwest. There was no finer craftsman of prose to so properly render tribute to this American.

I think about Lincoln and his words a lot here in Iraq. I started my journey to Iraq with, among other works, and after my Bible of course, Benjamin Franklin: An American Life, by Walter Isaacson, The Case for Democracy by Natan Sharansky. Mrs. Dadmanly soon sent me Os Guinness’ The Great Experiment: Faith and Freedom in America. I was delighted when she also passed along a request for Sandberg’s Abraham Lincoln, which one of our church friends sent me shortly thereafter.

I used to read great quantities of books growing up, somewhat reclusive, shy and lonely for a variety of reasons, and books were the great escape. My parents owned thousands of books – no doubt thousands more now – and my Great Grandfather collected important works, sets, and great literature, much of which we were fortunate to receive. I must have read all the standard classics by the time I hit High School.

At some point, I came out of my shell (some would say I exploded out of it and never looked back), and in the course of starting adult life, time in the Army, family life, raising children, I got out of the habit of reading for its own sake.

So thinking about reading books in Iraq was as much a hope, or as if a promise made to an old friend. Now that I am 8 months in, I confess I’ve read some (more while traveling to and from Leave than before or since), but not as much as I had hoped. I’ve written; I spend my time writing or thinking about writing, and the words pour forth, I’m never at a lack for them. (LT, stop laughing. Really, it wasn’t that funny.)

So I suppose it is best that I read what seemed best. Franklin is next and I hope that his adventurous life in the emergence of Democracy will bring forth some new perspective on our efforts here. God knows, Lincoln spoke to my soul.

I love to wander in the long abandoned byways of the Erie Canal near where I live. We are fortunate to have preserved a stretch of the Erie, coincident with and often overlapping the Mohawk River, in a very old community known as Vischers Ferry. We have many other remnants of the multiple iterations of the Erie nearby (four major series of construction), old locks long abandoned, many isolated strands of canal and towpath, and the train tracks, when they were put in, often running along or on top of the towpaths of the earlier vestiges of the canals.

Lincoln’s funeral procession traveled along the very train tracks Mrs. Dadmanly, Little Manly and I love so dearly.

I can’t explain how we came upon this love, or how it gained our affection so completely, but it did. We would ride our bikes (quite some ways, to think on it) down to an old abandoned auto bridge over the railroad that runs East-West between Albany and Schenectady and beyond towards Buffalo. This same path that earlier ran the Erie Canal. We would wait, usually not long, until one of the many freight trains, often over a hundred cars, would rumble under us. Engineers giving us a friendly toot when we waved. Many times getting there just in time to have trains going in both directions under us. We loved our trains, we loved our bridge, we loved sharing a love in common. We know the lure of the rails.

It saddens me to think on it now, but our “Old Bridge” as well call it was sealed off a couple of years ago, finally putting big “No Trespassing” signs, warnings of how unsafe and unstable the bridge was. (We know something about Bridges and Bridge safety too, as a family member works in the section of Department of Transportation (DOT) that checks on bridges.) Which still seems unfair, as this “unsafe” bridge still dangles over a very active set of railroad tracks, and no one seems in a hurry to knock it down.

So we no longer take our idyllic retreat to the Old Bridge, and I guess that’s in the way of things.

But I read that in 1865, Lincoln in repose traveled back home along that route, stopped for a viewing in Albany, rode slowly up the route of the old Erie Canal, the Canal still in business in those days, too, but under competition from the train Lincoln rode. At every town and whistle stop, black bunting and sashes, flags and hushed mourners lined the route. Sandberg describes that, “The endless multitudinous effect became colossal.” Young women in white gowns and black shoulder scarves and U.S. Flags, in town after town, “they took on a ritualist solemnity smoldering and portentous.”

I imagine standing beside the tracks, within a small settlement now completely disappeared from history, save for a few foundations, an open cistern, and a weedy dry dock. A simple but industrious people, no doubt bereft and grieving not just this President who was one of them, but in all likelihood family or friends or neighbors who would never be coming home, unless likewise by train in a wooden coffin.

What would it have been like to have a struggle so long and bloody, so drawn out and costly, and have that struggle at its end, only to have the one man as responsible as anyone alive for right, in the end victorious, now struck down and taken, never to be heard except in the many tributes and remembrances of, who once was a Great Man.

A Eulogy for Lincoln (Part Two)

Links: Basil's Blog, Mudville Gazette, Outside the Beltway

Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette links to the blog of Soldiers' Angel Holly Aho, who tells a funny story of her experience with a wounded soldier at Walter Reed. (Full story in the Washington Post.)

If you don't yet know the Soldiers' Angels organization, you need to follow the link and become introduced.

The men and women in this organization really know how to support the troops. (I guess that's what makes them angels.)

Jeffrey Bell and Frank Cannon take stock of the War on Terror in this, the fifth year of America's active response to the threat of radical Islamic terrorism (which itself is far older than our response to its aggression against us).

In The War on Terror: Year Five in the Weekly Standard, Bell and Gannon rightly point out that:

Osama bin Laden conceived his attack on the Twin Towers as a masterstroke of psychological warfare. If America could be driven out of Somalia in 1993 by mere dozens of casualties, he is known to have believed, the sudden, unexpected murder of thousands would compel us to wash our hands not just of Saudi Arabia but of the entire Arab world, the greater Middle East, and ultimately of the world of Islam altogether.

Bin Laden was very wrong, but only proven so by the decisive response of the United States, its President, and the rest of the Coalition.

We put pressure on Pakistan's Musharraf, and forced him to choose sides. We deposed the repressive and state-sponsor-of-terror Taliban. We pressed for regime change in Iraq and refused to deal with the PLO's Arafat. Many attack these decisions as a distraction from the Global War on Terror.

Bell and Gannon give the best reason possible for believing our success in Iraq is critical to the War on Terror: the leading General of Al Qaeda, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi believes this, too.

If he did not, why would he bother to expend critical Al Qaeda resources and "prestige" in throwing all his ogranization's effort into trying to strangle the infant Iraqi democracy in its cradle?

Bell and Gannon declare:

But there is one person who has never had any doubt that Bush is right, and therefore has moved heaven and earth to try to prevent democracy from getting an Iraqi foothold: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and the most effective general al Qaeda has found in the four years of this world war. Zarqawi's certainty on this point--the devastating effect democratization would have on the cause of Islamist terrorism--is undoubtedly a big reason al Qaeda has put so many chips--not just in Iraq itself, but in Madrid and London--on demoralizing supporters of the Bush-Blair-Sharansky strategy of promoting Arab democracy.

If our enemies think George Bush is right, if our enemy intensely seeks to fight us in Iraq, and we can acknowledge he is in fact our enemy, then why would we want to turn and run, and say the really important battle is somewhere, anywhere else?

We need to take our enemies at their word. They know, as we should know, that Iraq is key to whatever will happen next.

No Exit Strategy, please, just victory against terrorism and anti-democratic forces.

Links: Mudville Gazette, Basil's Blog

If you aren't already aware, a pack of self-serving, anti-war, politically correct jackals have taken over the 9/11 Memorial to be built at Ground Zero.

Scott Johnson at Powerline provides links to an article and editorial in the New York Daily News, as well as a link to Take Back the Memorial. This effort is being sprearheaded by Debra Burlingame and 9/11 families who will most suffer with the indignity that current plans for the Memorial, if unchanged, will inflict.

Follow the link to Take Back the Memorial and sign the online petition. It's not yet too late.

Noemie Emery, writing in the Weekly Standard, launches a grief-seeking missive for those who would exploit grief for political gain.

As Emery explains,

IN THE FOUR YEARS OR so since September 11, liberals have found a new weapon of preference, and that weapon is martyrdom. They have discovered grief as a tactical weapon. They tend to like grief they can use. They use it to arouse guilt and sympathy to cover a highly partisan message, in the hope that while the message may be controversial, the messenger will be sacrosanct and above reproach. Since 9/11, they have embraced this tactic repeatedly, and each time with a common objective: to cripple the war, to denounce the country, to swing an election, but mainly to embarrass and undermine the president.

The strategy has its advantages. Primarily, it gains intense media attention. It frequently enlists unwitting accomplices, the ill-informed or uninformed who rally in sympathy before they find their tender mercies channeled for purposes beyond their intent. They end up suckered, as well demonstrated in Emery’s example of the “memorial service” for Senator Paul Wellstone. This turned into a crassly partisan campaign rally for Walter Mondale, the Democratic contender for Wellsone’s seat, in which Republican mourners were actually told that the best way to honor the death of Wellstone was to ensure the Mondale’s victory.

Note to Grief Activists: your “absolute moral authority” evaporates when you try to use it to force political concessions from your opponents, who may have an equally compelling basis for moral authority of their own. Grief is apolitical, and carries no moral compulsion when cynically tied to a political objective. The horror of 9/11 galvanized Americans of all political walks to rise up and call for Federal action to be taken against Terrorism. Only when political parties then start bickering over the proper response, do political concerns fracture consensus. And that’s when grief becomes irrelevant, and not uniquely in service to any one side or another.

Emery sums up what must be our response to Grief Activists:

Here is a message for our friends in the grief-based community: Really, you must cut this out. We are tired of having our emotions worked on and worked over; tired of the matched sets of dueling relatives, tired of all of these claims on our sympathy, that at the same time defy common sense. The heart breaks for everyone who lost relatives and friends on September 11, as it does for the relatives of the war dead and wounded, as it does for the sons of Paul Wellstone. It does not break for MoveOn.org, Maureen Dowd, and Gail Sheehy, who have not been heartbroken, except by a string of election reverses, and are using the anguish of other people in an effort to turn them around. Especially, it does not break for George Soros, who, after squandering millions on the Kerry campaign, is now using poor Cindy Sheehan to get back in the action, and it does not break for political operative Joe Trippi, late of the Howard Dean meltdown, who is trying to do the same thing. She is now the vehicle for a collection of losers, who will use her, and then toss her over and out once she has served their purposes, or more likely failed to do so. Her family has broken up under the effects of this circus; she has now lost her husband, as well as her son. Please, send her back to her therapist, and what is now left of her broken-up family. And please--do not try this again.

(Via Powerline)

Links: Basil's Blog, Mudville Gazette

COL Austin Bay is making quite a name for himself. His analysis is first rate, his writing crisp, and he brings a depth of experience to matters military and political.

In a post up at both Tech Central Station and Strategy Page (and his own blog as well), COL Bay reports that he’s reading Paul Woodruff's book, "First Democracy: The Challenge of an Ancient Idea" (Oxford Press). COL Bay summarizes the premise of Woodruff’s book, that “controversy and danger are innate characteristics of democracy.”

Woodruff makes some pretty remarkable statements that at first read sound almost heretical. "If it is not controversial, it is not about democracy," Woodruff writes. "If it is not dangerous, if it does not ask us to consider changes that frighten the establishment, it is not about democracy.”

Much has been made by opponents to the War in Iraq about whether we can help create democracy in Iraq (some might argue that’s already been achieved), and if achieved, what kind of democracy we think we’ll end up with.

First off, we won’t end up with whatever gets created there, Iraqis will. The world may experience the after-effects, but as we’ve already seen in Lebanon, there is much reason to remain optimistic that the effects can be positive. A more important point is that democracy, true democracy, has certain qualities that almost inevitably improve the chances a country will be a good world citizen and regional neighbor.

As related by COL Bay, Woodruff posits "seven ideas" that a Democracy will try to express:

-- freedom from tyranny;
-- "harmony";
-- the rule of law;
-- natural equality;
-- citizen wisdom;
-- "reasoning without knowledge";
-- general education.

Woodruff’s book contains a chapter each to these ideas. When Woodruff uses the term “harmony,” he means to suggest “wanting together” or sharing common desires. “Natural equality relates to the idea that all citizens share governance regardless of status or stature. As COL Bay relates, Woodruff says Athenians taught that "reasoning without knowledge depends on working out what is most reasonable to believe. What is most reasonable to believe is the view which best survives adversary debate ..."

COL Bay properly highlights the important insights contained in this book, and upon his recommendation I intend to read it.

Needless to say, there isn’t much of a basis for ideas 2 through 7 if you can’t achieve idea number one: Freedom from Tyranny.

If the new government in Iraq exhibits and celebrates these ideas, then regardless of the level of residual violence, we will have achieved some very important goals for Iraq, and by so doing, further advance the cause of Democracy and “democratic ideas” in a world desperately seeking them.

Links: Basil's Blog

Jay Rosen at PressThink shares a conversation he initiated with COL Austin Bay (Retired). As most readers of MILBLOGS – and no small number of other members of the Blogosphere – COL Bay is an outstanding commentator on matters military, diplomatic, and political. He runs a fine blog as well, and has been a regular contributer to fine sites such as Tech Central Station and Mudville Gazette.

Rosen runs a fine blog himself. I always find him thoughtful, for the most part moderate. Rosen has always seemed to me more interested in a meaningful dialog on matters critical for an effective fourth estate, if it is to remain at all relevant to society, rather than any partisan position or political advantage. For Rosen and COL Bay to initiate a dialog of matters involving media, the military, and our Global War on Terror represents a milestone in the as yet adolescent history of blogging.

Rosen introduces his idea that the Bush Administration has been engaging in a dedicated press strategy Rosen refers to as “Rollback,” and pressed COL Bay for his opinion on the source and import of the apparent antagonism between the Bush Administration and the press.

COL Bay (who also posts this discussion on his blog) begins the substance of his response by acknowledging points of agreement between himself and Rosen:

Jay and I agree that the Bush Administration and what (for the moment) I’ll call “the national press” are locked in a figurative war. Let’s stipulate that this figurative war occurs in the midst of a real (non-figurative) and ever active global conflict—both hot and cold—that is first and foremost an information war waged by an enemy that is itself a strategic information power. I speak of course of Al Qaeda. The “press conflict” and US domestic political clashes cannot be isolated from this multi-dimensional war and its harsh historical circumstances. Those who think it can deceive themselves.

COL Bay goes on to describe the very real propaganda and information warfare objectives of Al Qaeda. For Al Qaeda, 9/11 was highly effective advertising and recruitment material. And while (relatively) weaker militarily, Al Qaeda retains significant information warfare capability, according to COL Bay, because of how rapidly individuals and organizations transmit information, and the degree of technological compression pervasive in the modern world. (Technological compression is the concept that technology advances have greatly shrunk the world and degrees of separation. We each of us live “just next door” technologically speaking.)

COL Bay makes the important point that, contrasted with public health officials and business leaders, politicians (and journalists who are their symbiotic parasites), have yet to acclimatize, writing in a July 22 Weekly Standard article:

Unfortunately, many politicians and journalists still habitually live by 20th-century templates. Newsweek certainly thought [they’re] there and we’re here” when it ran its notorious “Koran flushing” anecdote, sparking deadly riots in Pakistan. Two other templates were also in play then: the Vietnam and the Watergate templates. Vietnam and Watergate for three decades have provided the New York-Washington-L.A. media axis with convenient—if reductive—headlines. The Vietnam and Watergate rules are simple and cynical. Rule One: Presume the U.S. government is lying—especially when the president is a Republican. Rule Two: Presume the worst about the U.S. military—even when the president is a Democrat. Rule Three: Allegations by “Third World victims” are presumptively true, while U.S. statements are met with arrogant contempt.

That’s COL Bay’s assessment of groupthink on the press side of the conflict. From the Administration’s point of view, again according to COL Bay:

Key members of the Bush Administration believe they have been the victims of lies or victims of a relentless, decades-long selective reporting and commentary by members of the big media axis. Are Republicans ticked at Ambassador Joe Wilson’s truth challenged New York Times essay? One reason they are ticked is because they have seen this same kind of canard before. Recall Gary Sick and his nut-case story that George H W Bush flew to Paris on an SR-71 to negotiate with Iran? (See this, and Daniel Pipes with his Wall St Journal response; this link shows the conspiracy theory Sick pushed was first “reported” by Lyndon Larouche.)

The 1983 “Euro-Missile Crisis” is another bitter memory: the rhetorical hokum that Bush is “more dangerous than bin Laden” is 1983 recast. Oh, the accusations of 1983! Ronald Reagan was stupid. Reagan was a dangerous cowboy, a warmonger seeking the nuclear destruction of the USSR. Reagan was — good heavens — a unilateralist. In 2003 the Mayor of London called Bush “the greatest threat to life on the planet,” but then Ken Livingstone isn’t called “Red” because of his hair color. Hollywood also repeated a refrain. In 1983 ABC TV produced “The Day After,” a lousy piece of video propaganda that basically argued US nuclear forces would inevitably destroy the planet. In 2004 Michael Moore produced “Fahrenheit 911,” an even more explicitly anti-American film asserting Bush conspired to launch the 9/11 attacks.

Along the same lines, PressThink Commenter Tom Grey (http://tomgrey.motime.com/) points to another source of friction between the press and the Bush Administration, namely the total lack of a reasonable frame of reference (perspective?) on the part of the media:

Similarly I read a lot of junk about Bush incompetence in Iraq – but never see a standard by which to compare. Kosovo? Rwanda? Or Cambodia & Vietnam? The UN child-rapists in the Congo? It is not “truth” that is missing, but honesty about “incompetence” as a judgment, and a standard of comparison.

These kind of rhetorical flourishes make reasonable policy debates impossible. But beyond that, it poisons any possible common ground before diplomatic efforts are even underway. And COL Bay, interestingly, thinks both sides of the divide need to marshall their forces, their will, and their common interests and meet each other at the negotiating table. According to COL bay, the stakes could not be higher:

America must win the War On Terror, and the poisoned White House—national press relationship harms that effort. History will judge the Bush Administration’s prosecution of the War On Terror. A key strategic issue for the current White House—perhaps a determinative issue for historians—will be its success or failure in getting subsequent administrations to sustain the political and economic development policies that truly winning the War On Terror will entail.

The Bush Administration needs the dying, withering, but still powerful press axis to do this.

COL Bay goes on to make some specific suggestions for the press that would go a long way towards bridging the gulf that now separates the Bush Administration and the news media whose help our country so desperately needs. In doing so, COL Bay identifies many of the most strident (and at times irrational) voices in media, whose criticisms of the current administration certainly justify a certain skepticism that they might be meaningful partners in the war effort:

First off, Fire Paul Krugman and replace him with a real economist like Arnold Kling or Walter Williams. Krugman’s been predicting economic doom for four years. He needs to get a sign and walk the streets, not write a newspaper column. Turn Maureen Dowd into a gossip columnist. Replace Dowd with someone like Froma Harrop (a New Yorker who has moved to Providence). The Times could also fire the op-ed editor who inserted Bush Hate into Phil Carter’s column. (See my post for the details.)

COL Bay’s remaining suggestions include action items relating to Dan Rather, Eason Jordan, Linda Foley, George Stephanopoulos, Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, and Bill Moyers. Need the specific suggestions even need to be mentioned?

Jay Rosen received COL Bay’s posting well, I thought, and as a gracious host responded politely enough. But Rosen did, not unexpectedly, make the most of COL Bay’s proferred points of agreement. In doing so, however, I think he overshoots his target, and in doing so certainly exaggerates COL Bay’s criticisms with the current war policy in Iraq. Nevertheless, his points are important. Note too, the manner in which he chooses toi frame COL Bay’s response to his questions:

The headline for me is that Austin Bay, proud Republican, friend of the Administration’s project in Iraq and a veteran of the war, believes the clever people in the White House are making a mistake in their policy of rolling back the press, which he prefers to call “containment.” He does not deny that the push back happened, and he says it made a certain sense to Republicans tired of the gotcha games and 70s frames.

Still, it’s dumb policy, he says.

Why is it dumb? According to Austin, it’s dumb because if you’re serious about a war on terror you know that it will have to be fought consistently and well across Administrations. This means that several waves of “players,” who are likely to be from both parties, will come in and out of policy-making before the war can in any sense be put to rest, or won. Each new generation has to understand what United States policy is, and continue on the path Bush the Younger set. This is a path Bay himself supports.

How is the strategy going to work if it shifts with each new cast of players? Austin says it can’t. Al Qaeda, a global information power, will be waiting on any wavering American governments show. Thus a key factor in winning the Big One is the Bush Administration’s “success or failure in getting subsequent administrations to sustain the political and economic development policies that truly winning the War On Terror will entail.”

For this, he says, the Bush team “needs the dying, withering, but still powerful press axis.” As far as I know, this has never occurred to anyone in the White House.

I might only pick two nits: nowhere does COL Bay say or suggest that any explicit or implicit administration policy towards the press is “stupid;” and I would argue that U.S. Army doctrine itself calls for making use of and maintaining good relations with the press, so surely this has in fact occurred to someone in the White House. As a matter of fact, the very policy of embedded reporters at the start of the War is reflective of the value and importance the Administration places on press relations. Rather, I would argue that far more often, that particular door is slammed in the face of key figures of the Administration (unless they want to plant a negative “leak”), long before they might contemplate stepping through.

Yet, I praise Rosen for opening up his blog to COL Bay; I give him high credit for initiating the discussion. I applaud both Rosen and Bay for “appearing” together on a common podium, and generating much substantive and important dialog, together. As many of my readers know, I have had some success in engaging in civil discussion with those in political opposition over at Debate Space, the joint blog I share with the Liberal Avenger. Though dormant for the time being due to the non-availability of a co-debater, I still have much faith in the concept.

I look forward to any further cooperation or discussion between these two fine writers.

(Via Instapundit.)

Links: Basil's Blog, Wizbang

(Via Instapundit)

Scott Randolph reports on the moment when this former Democrat realized he became a Republican. Consider it a runner-up for the Week's Best Rant, scored as an Honorable Mention in the Unintended Consequences Department (as in, unintended consequences of Moonbats on Parade down in Texas with Mother Sheehan).

Robin Burk at Winds of Change reports on a very worthy, military related foundation:

Friends 4 Michael has a new blog up and running. Check it out and consider donating directly or joining them as they run to raise funds for research and to help families dealing with this devastating illness. They've already awarded one scholarship and can do a whole lot more with some help from us here in the blogosphere.

Mike and Brigit Kwinn, both LTCs in the Army, suffered through the devastating loss of their son Michael to Brain Cancer.

They have set up the foundation described above. Please check it out and consider supporting their efforts.

The jury came back in the first Vioxx lawsuit, awarding a widow $253 million for the "wrongful death" of her husband. I am sorry for her loss. Some would look upon a corporation such as Merck as having earned an obscene amount of money from the drugs they produce, and such a punitive finding will prevent these greedy pharmaceutical companies from making their lucre at the expense of their customer's health, and perhaps lives.

I say, that's a load of garbage.

First, with thousands of suits pending, does it make any sense to award an obscene amount of money to a single party, grossly in excess and any sensible calculation of damages? At this rate, the first dozen or so parties will bankrupt the company, the rest will get squat.

Secondly, can there even be the remotest possibility of proving that Vioxx actually caused this man's death? (The answer for the scientifically challenged, is a resounding no.) The very likely possibility is that this man's lifestyle choices, health, eating habits, and family history predestined him for a heart attack.

Any "science" involved relied on a correlation between those who take Vioxx and those who have heart attacks, and the correlation was suggested, but probably weak. Could a study account for every possible variable in both the Vioxx and non-Vioxx populations? Highly unlikely, as there is probably more we don't know about heart disease than what we do.

So one grieving widow hits the lottery, it won;t replace her husband, who might very well have died even if he had never taken Vioxx. And is there a refund for any amount of relief he might have found for whatever arthritus or chronic pain that led to his taking the drug in the first place? Lady justice stands mute.

Why does this incence me?

Because I am one of the millions who derived real benefit from this drug, only to have it yanked from the market pre-emptively in anticipation of lawsuits such as these. Does it mean the drug isn't safe? Who knows, certainly not science.

I would have signed a waiver to continue to receive this drug, which was the first and only medication (after years and many frustrating alternatives) that relieved my pain and the swelling that made it difficult for me to function. But I was deprived of that choice.

Bad science makes worse law. Life happens. There are no guarantees. We as a people need to stop looking for blame, and a big payout when bad things happen. Not every instance of cancer or heart attack or ailment or condition is necessarily caused by anything. The most notorious example of environmental pollution causing cancer, Love Canal, was later re-evaluated to find that cancer rates were no higher than in any average population. (See an excellent summary in Reason.) But you can be certain, if someone in the neighborhood got cancer, it was automatically Hooker Chemical's fault.

Praise God, my arthritic condition has somewhat abated, and I can get by with Ibuprofen (after trying Bextra and watching that too get yanked off the market).

But I deeply resent having possible medical advances held hostage to bad science and grasping attorneys. (Don't even bother to suggest any altruistic motives; they wouldn;t have needed to resort to the advertising storm encouraging every possible lawsuit to step forward. That, and you better believe they'll be settlements based on the possibility of someone having a heart attack.

Certainly, sometimes the willful disregard of human life and health, and avarice, will cause a company or individuals to prey upon vulnerable populations.

But now we are prey to trial lawyers, does that make us any less vulnerable?

(Not really a rant at all, but a concise answer to the “Oh yeah, well what about Haliburton?” Boobs)

I want to try out a new feature on my blog: The Week’s Best Rant. To inaugurate this feature, I want to introduce my inspiration, a wonderful piece of commentary by “Next93,” who posted a comment in response to a post on the Riding Sun blog.

By way on introduction, many in the liberal media (to differentiate from media of other political persuasions) have been hyping the Cindy Sheehan story. This coverage almost without exception leaves out important details or explanation of what is really going on, which I’ve reinserted in parentheses for clarity.

These reports emphasize that the President will not meet with her (again), so she can explain to him her grief (publicly harangue him with media present), and he can explain why her son’s death was necessary (hang his head in complete submission to her absolute moral authority), so that she can make peace with her loss. (Sign book and movie deals and parlay this gig into a permanent money-maker as chief PR Rep for radical isolationists, the ones who see no evil unless it’s Jewish).

In ongoing commentary at Riding Sun, several commenters remained true to form, snidely dismissing President Bush’s response to families who have lost Soliders in Iraq, his lack of compassion specifically for Sheehan and others like her, his August vacation, etc. In response to replies that the President makes a regular (non-publicized) habit of seeing grieving families, these too are dismissed as “production line” events. Here’s where we pick up a response by Next93:

“…You have a man who goes out of his way (production-line or not) to meet with bereaved families and look them in the eye, knowing that it was his decision that put their loved ones into harm's way.

“You can try to glibly toss this off with another tired reference to Haliburton, or you can try to think like a parent for a moment and consider how hard it must be on him as a father himself. Three minutes in this situation probably feels like five-to-life. Yet it's something that he does because (and only because) he feels that he owes it to these families.

“The amazing thing to me is that you "nuanced" people just can't see past your own anger about the last two elections long enough to see what's at stake. You're so caught up in not loosing an argument that you refuse to see what you're arguing FOR. So you raise an endless stream of red herrings like Haliburton (yes, dammit, they’re making a profit! Get over it!), so that you don't have to address whether it's right to fight and die to prevent 1/4 of the world's population from falling into the hands of a movement that wants to turn its back on the last 700 years of human progress. You complain about human rights abuses in Abu Graib and refuse to consider whether it's an improvement over the 184,000 (and I did get THAT statistic right!) Kurds who went "missing" under the former regime. “

And Next93 is just warming up. Because of their irrational hatred of the President, and in their eyes, his reverse Midas touch, they can’t even see that the moral grounds of their dissent have shifted 180 degrees, and they’re actually fighting on behalf of dictators and terrorists the world over. No matter, those things are all Bush’s fault too!

Next93’s rant ends with a stunning takeaway:

As long as I can remember, people like you have been bitching about the dictators the US propped up during the cold war. Now we've taken out one of the worst, and your primary concern seems to be that the wrong party will get credit for doing it. You've fought for the last 50 years for civil rights for people of color, and 30 years for women's rights, and now you're siding with people who are supporting genocide in Africa, consider Hindus a waste of skin, and view women as property. You claim to be a progressive, but you think that the Iraqis should be abandoned to a legal system that makes Nazi show-trials look like the Hague. You claim to be grieving over the loss of American soldiers, but you cynically trade on the loss of one woman’s son in order to advocate a cut-and-run policy that will make his death and all the other deaths completely meaningless. You claim to be a patriot, but you advance a policy that you know will only enable further terrorists attacks on an America viewed as too timid to defend itself.

Next93, proud recipient of Dadmanly’s First Ever Rant of the Week.

Links: Dawn Patrol at Mudville Gazette, Basil's Blog, Liberty Call at the Indepundit, Northern 'burbs Blog

We have a remarkable young man who leads one of our teams out at a remote site. They serve alongside some Scouts, and jointly participate with them on actual reconnaissance and what pass for search and destroy missions in the relatively hostile area they patrol.

They were on such a mission recently when Insurgents carried out a deadly complex attack against U.S. forces. I can’t share details about this attack, because to do so would:

* Aid an enemy making a Battle Damage Assessment (BDA) of the success of their attack;
* Spread knowledge of the tactics, techniques and procedures (TTP) to other cells that otherwise might not learn of new methods;
* Jeopardize operations security (OPSEC) for the Scouts, Quick Reaction Force (QRF) and other first responders to Jihadist attacks; and
* Open up specific unit and leader decision-making to inappropriate public scrutiny. This can create situations where information necessarily incomplete due to immediacy, preservation of individual Soldier rights, and classification, would otherwise distort how the overall information might be received and interpreted.

These are not trivial concerns. I cast no aspersions against my fellow MILBLOGGERS, in no way should this be interpreted as criticism of those whose very graphic and exciting stories provide vivid detail to an information starved public.

But as I stated in a post here:

[Some bloggers] are not at all careful or discrete about their identities, unit compositions, and even very minute operational details...this same accuracy and realism may be providing our enemies -- who gain some advantage they wouldn't otherwise have if we ignore their collection or reconnaissance capabilities -- with useful information for planning more effective attacks (and by the way, allowing them at least some useful battle damage assessment (BDA) information).

But I do hope that, sometime after we’re all safely home and the war has transitioned sufficiently that our stories will not compromise the safety of troops on the ground, our team will have a chance to tell their many stories. They promise me they will. But in the meantime, there was one story of theirs that I can share.

Now our young man who serves his men out in this “Wild West” environment is a Sergeant First Class. He’d been one of our Platoon Sergeants when our S-3 threw a fit and succeeded in having him yanked back to his paragraph and line (which refers to a published Unit Manning Roster or UMR) in the “Three” Shop (Plans, Training, and Operations).

So he spent the remainder of our mobilization training tracking Battalion training. He generated Operations Orders, completed a lot of the planning that ordinarily an Officer would do, unless as in this case, they’ve got a sharp, well trained NCO who can do all of it for them.

But shortly after we arrived in country, an opportunity presented itself for our Ground Surveillance Radar (GSR, nicknamed “Romeos”) to be attached to the Long Range Surveillance unit or other Scouts, conducting some real world on-the-ground surveillance and other efforts to interdict ongoing terrorist cell activities in what is still pretty hostile territory. They needed a mature NCOIC, one who could also handle OIC responsibilities, as there were no officers the unit was prepared or willing to give up. So our man (I’ll call him Hawkeye) got the job.

These are the soldiers, by the way, that I wrote about here and here.

Now Hawkeye’s been on the job now some 4-5 months, and in that time, they’ve had quite a few moments of excitement. They’ve been part of operations that have identified, located, captured and disrupted terrorists in the midst of planning and conducting attacks. And now, their guys have seen violence, death and destruction up way too close.

Hawkeye lives with the knowledge that only by the narrowest of possibilities did his team escape injury or death in that recent tragic attack. The complex attack had been staged in just such a fashion as to lure an unsuspecting QRF or other response team to then stage an ambush.

Our guys were first up and out to respond. Right place, right time, closest to the bait and ready for action. As they took after their intended target – and thus approaching unseen crosshairs – they witnessed what might have been a sign of even bigger trouble, and took the time to stop and investigate. False alarm, but it ate up a minute or two. On their way again, another group of responders got in front of them, and ended up the first on scene at the precise moment and place of the attack. They were slammed hard, and our guys were directly behind them.

Hawkeye relates that all hell broke lose on the scene. His team performed terrifically under fire. First thing, they didn’t immediately start firing into an already chaotic situation, knowing there were friendlies in between them and the attackers, who in the dark would likely mistake their fire for the enemy. They jumped into pulling security, assisting the combat medics, helping with IVs, assisting casualty evacuation (CASEVAC) and recovery efforts.

Everybody did their job. With a sense of urgency, but no panic. Hawkeye admits, there’s not a lot for you to do. If you are right security, that’s your 100% focus. If you’re left security, you cover the left. If you’re a medic or a Combat Lifesaver helping out, you are zeroed in on those casualties who desperately need your help.

Had there not been another team there – ours – the losses, already tragic, might have been much worse, if the attackers had exploited their initial success with a follow-up attack. So both teams were able to work together, secure the area, recover their Soldiers, and initiate an evacuation. Well executed. Orderly. With determination and purpose.

Sure, everyone finds it difficult sometimes. And for some, there are moments when it’s too much to bear. Like the Officer in Charge (OIC), confronted with mass casualties affecting half his troops, who needs to be told he’s out of the fight, led to the (non-contact side of the) truck, set down, and told to monitor the radio. Like the young troop who sees more carnage than young eyes should ever see, his pulse racing, who passes out. Like the leader who runs at 100 miles an hour through house-to-house searches, but towards the end of the day can’t keep anything in his stomach. It’s shock, and shock all by itself can kill a troop, or at least leave him vulnerable when he’s already vulnerable enough.

Hawkeye has changed in the course of his mission. As eager and aggressive as any of his young troops at the start, he’s changed. He is still determined, but there’s a different perspective tempering his rash exuberance from when they started.

He’s had to make decisions. Assigned men to tasks. Placed his soldiers in harm’s way, and made sure they were trained, equipped, prepped and ready. He’s seen death close up, and known that the next time it could be one of his.

I remember one of the episodes in Band of Brothers where the veterans, survivors, grow cautious in the waning days of the war they know will soon be over. No one wants to go on that Last Patrol, each day they want to think that they’ve already pulled it.

Hawkeye expresses some of that reluctance. We are getting short, too. As he put it, his excitement meter has maxed out already, he’s ready for the missions to be over. They’re still ready, they’re still psyched about what they do, but Hawkeye, responsible for them all, would find immense relief in the end of their adventures. They have enough stories to last the rest of their lives. (Secret for longer shelf life: tell the same stories often, especially the really good ones. They become legends, and then people want to hear your “classics.” Or at least you’ll think they will.)

But for now, the missions keep coming. Hawkeye remains careful, weighs the pros and cons of each mission decision. Keeps a very alert eye on his troops, looking for strain or fatigue. He knows his guys well. He knows who handles what best. He knows when they’ve had enough, or when they need encouragement.

As he leads his teams out into the night, he is ever on watch. Vigilant against the many threats, active in his mind, ready to take decisions instantly, courses of action clear.

If they get in the s***, they’ll get busy with everything they’ve got. Every man on his weapon, each team in their place. And right in the thick of it, their NCOIC will be there, making quick decisions, shouting out orders, and keeping the chaos at bay. Just long enough for them to get the job done, and get the boys back home in one piece.

Because that’s what Romeos do. They get ‘er done.

Other Profiles in the Series:
The CSM
The Motor Sergeant
The CO

Links: Mudville Gazette, Indepundit, Basil's Blog, Jack Army

This week's Christian Carnival is up over at All Kinds of Time.

My friend Lance at Ragged Edges has a heartfelt tribite to the church he's had to leave with his move, and some important information about the situation in the Sudan.

Robin Lee at Write Thinking has a wonderful and very timely piece on the Potter's Hands. I happened to be in an IM with Mrs. Dadmanly, she was sharing our uncertainties to what to do next, and I read Robin's piece. Sent it along, the Mrs. and I were both blessed tonight!

John Bambenek explains in a very thoughtful post why morality and a community-minded population is needed to maintain a free society.

And last but not least, there's a post each from Gladmanly and Dadmanly.

Stop by the Carnival, and be blessed!

Joe Katzman, writing at Winds of Change, links to an excellent article by Chief Petty Officer (CPO) Jeff Edwards (Retired), that stands as a must-read for all those who even use the words, "exit strategy."

Edwards notes the rapid introduction of the word "quagmire" from the Vietnam era lexicon almost immediately at the start of military action in March 2003. Not long after, there were the hardly unexpected calls for an "exit strategy." Edwards neatly sums up both the underlying meaning behind those calls, and the naivete such thinking reveals:

The implication attached to those words is clear. No government should ever enter a military conflict without a comprehensive blueprint for getting out. Buried in that idea lies the assumption that the master plan ought to include a detailed timeline. The sheer orderliness of the concept is so seductive that Senators, journalists, and private citizens are drawn to it in droves.

If we were talking about an undertaking with a high degree of predictability, that might be a reasonable demand. But fighting a war is not like building a house. You can not plan for every contingency, for the simple reason that you can't even identify every contingency. In any competition, your adversary will do his or her best to hit you from an entirely unexpected angle. This is a truism in everything from chess to tennis, but it's doubly true in warfare.

And even assuming perfect omniscience to create one, why would we ever communicate such a plan to our enemies? To do so would cause calamity, and hand our enemies the very key to our defeat. As Edwards explains:

Even if we could create a comprehensive Exit Strategy and timeline, we could never make them public. As soon as we set an ironclad date for withdrawal of forces, we have communicated the limits of our endurance to our enemies. We've given them a date to mark on their calendar -- hold out until this date, and you win.

However naive or misbegotten the desire, it is nonetheless understandable that even supporters of this war grow frustrated with the seeming slow pace of progress towards ending it. No one wants an unnecessary war. But war against unrelenting, unforgiving evil is a war of self defense.

We must beware -- and make every effort to educate the public -- that ending a war is a really bad idea if by ending it we surrender to forces of evil, and forces that will take our surrender, not as the final act of war, but the beginning of a wholly new and savage campaign to exploit our weakness and lack of resolve.

What do we need now in Iraq? Edwards has the answer:

We need a plan of action, not an Exit Strategy. We need a strategy for achieving the objective. Luckily, we've got one. We've had it since March 19, 2003. Assist the Iraqi people in forming stable and secure self-government.

Joe Katzman confronts those opposed to the war in Iraq, those calling for an exit strategy, those clamoring for us to withdraw, to admit defeat. He challenges all these to consider their motivations, their intent, their desired end state. For Katzman, and for all of us who have a primary goal of winning the war, we're left with not much more than, "You're either with us, or against us." I recall President Bush declaring a similar truth in confronting state sponsors of terrorism. Because the stakes really are that high, the enemy is really that ruthless, and the cost of defeat really is too great a cost to bear.

Katzman boils it down to its essence:

Nothing wrong with being a critic in a time of military conflict. The question is, are you offering alternative plans of action and critique, combined with a clear and shared commitment to victory as the goal? Are you asking for a plan of action and the terms of victory? Is victory your starting point, and your first demand?

Or are you simply offering defeatism by focusing on a foolish "exit strategy" whose only effect will be to encourage the nation's enemies and up the odds that your country will lose?

Some would look at the very public spectacle of Mother Sheehan and say, "This is what each death can teach us." I would like to suggest something else the dead can teach us.

In Carl Sandburg's Lincoln, Sandberg described a vivid encounter during the bloodiest, costliest days of the Civil War:

In a little wilderness clearing at Chancellorsville, a living soldier came upon a dead one sitting with his back to a tree, looking at first sight almost alive enough to hold a conversation. He had sat there for months, since the battle the year before that gave him his long rest. He seemed to have a story and philosophy to tell if the correct approach were made and he could be led into a quiet discussion. The living soldier, however, stood frozen in his foot tracks for a few moments, gazing at the ashen face and the sockets where the eyes had withered -- then picked up his feet, let out a cry and ran. He had interrupted a silence where the slants of silver moons and the music of varying rains kept company with the one against the tree who sat so speechless, though having much to say.

Exit strategies are tangents to avoid the obligation to the dead. They render hollow any devotion to their cause. These dead in Iraq, such as Casey Sheehan, who died a hero for a cause he believed in, no less than the dead of battles past, deserve our attention. They do have much to say.

Abraham Lincoln knew that the struggle he would undertake, that he would play so prominent a role in marshalling our will and resolve as a nation, was much bigger than any one man, and far more than the work for any one generation. So is our Global War on Terror. Lincoln, writing at a low point for him politically in 1858, foretold the struggle that began in earnest in 1861, ended a phase in 1865, yet continued to progress even into the historic struggles for civil rights in our 20th century:

I have not allowed myself to forget that the abolition of the slave-trade by Great Britain was agitated for a hundred years before it was a final success; that the measure [abolition] had its open fire-eating opponents; its stealthy "don't care" opponents; its dollar and cent opponents; its inferior race opponents; its negro equality opponents; and its religion and good order opponents; that all these opponents got [elected] offices, and their adversaries got none. But I have also remembered that though they blazed, like tallow-candles for a century, at last they flickered in the socket, died out, stank in the dark for a brief season, and were remembered no more, even by the smell ... I am proud, in my passing speech of time, to contribute an humble mite to that glorious consummation, which my own poor eyes may not last to see.

Would that we muster that resolve. For we must.

Links: Mudville Gazette, Wayne's World, Cafe Oregano

Get it while you can!

Arthur Chrenkoff, who will very shortly retire his blog and its excellent b-weekly "Good News From Iraq" series, has posted his latest. (Also available from The Opinion Journal and Winds of Change.

This summary of good news seems to grow with each issue; compare the volume and breadth of all the good that's being done, against the drum beat defeatism from the mainstream media (MSM). How can these things be? How come we never hear any of this?

It's a head scratcher. Could it be ... Media Bias? (Scrunch face to the side ala Dana Carvey)

Well, if you follow the MILBLOGS, helpfully concentrated by first rate sites like Mudville Gazette and Blackfive, you probably see a lot of good news, a lot of heroic effort. If you read Iraqi Blogs such as Iraq The Model, you mgith see more encouragement that our efforts are not in vain.

But if you make a point of reading Chrenkoff, you no doubt will have the best sense possible of the "big picture" in Iraq.

UPDATE: In a welcome development, Chrenkoff today also reports on some surprising news from over at the Associated Press. As Chrenkoff reports:

It all started when Rosemary Goudreau, the editorial page editor of "The Tampa Tribune", received an email that many of you would be familiar with, listing in a "Did you know?" format all the underreported achievement in Iraq and ending with this sentence: "Of course we didn't know! Our media doesn't tell us!"

This prompted Ms. Goudreau to ask some questions of the AP, which supplies most of the international news for her's and many other newspapers.

And as it happens, Ms. Goudreau's questions resulted in some internal soul-searching over at AP.

And it sounds like the AP will take some action. They want to encourage editors to get their reporters out of the Palestine Hotel. They want to make better use of the few remaining embedded reporters, one more idea that will strike our readers as long overdue, if not original:

The A.P. had already decided... that it would have Robert H. Reid, an A.P. correspondent at large who has reported frequently from Iraq, write an overview every 10 days. Mr. Silverman also said the wire service would make more effort to flag articles that look beyond the breaking news.

As Chrenkoff concludes his outstanding series, and retires for a time from his service, he should feel gratified that his efforts may now be emulated. But his request of AP is somewhat more humble:

Indeed - we're not asking for the AP to publish their own regular "Good news from Iraq" round-up, but please stop treating any general news from Iraq as a paragraph nine filler in the terrorist-attack-of-the-day regular feature.

Upon first hearing news that Arthur Chrenkoff would retire, I posted a tribute that to me, says what I need to declare about his work:

With his efforts, Arthur demonstrated hope and perseverance. He role modelled much of character and determination for his friends and admirers in the blogosphere. In a very real sense, Arthur could not have done more for the troops than if he had formed his own brigade, acquired the latest armaments, and arrived like the cavalry in the combat zone. He was truly a force multiplier.

I thought this would be one of the harder profiles to write, but my Commander (CO), who I wrote about here, reminded me of a story from early on in our mobilization. You could say that it helped “frame” the story I wanted to tell about the Command Sergeant Major (CSM).

But first, a little background.

We started our mobilization training with quite a bit of ground to cover to make us ready for deployment to Iraq. One, we were National Guard. Two, most of our guys had never done Active Duty, and a very few had ever been in anything like a war zone. Lastly, and hardest perhaps to explain, we are a Combat Services Support unit subordinate to a Division, and a good third of our soldiers hold Military Intelligence (MI) Military Occupational Specialties (MOS).

When our CSM was first assigned to our Battalion, we all had to go through a learning period. We had to learn what it meant to have a CSM with combat arms experience, a former Marine at that. And the CSM had to learn what it meant to be the Senior NCO and Senior Advisor to a Battalion full of MI officers, NCOs and lower enlistees.

We had an easier time getting used to him than he had getting used to us.

I mean, for us, we just had to harken back to basic training or prior Active Duty and remember that Big Army has this thing about Regulations and Obedience and following orders when given by the Chain of Command or NCOs within the NCO Support Channel. Pretty “basic” stuff, really. That, and don’t use humor to disarm or smooth over conflict, at least not when the CSM was trying to make a point of discipline. (Some of our wise guys found that out the hard way.)

For the CSM, he entered an alternate universe. Strange characters unknown to the Marines, or the line units the CSM was used to: full time Active Guard and Reserve clerks who told the Commanders what to do. Troops who’d been around since the Guard started who could go get rolls for breakfast at drill, but little else. No show soldiers who were “on the books” for a slot, but did their actual drills near their homes, in another unit altogether. (The unit was close by, but didn’t have a slot with the right MOS, and units would make “arrangements.” Worked okay enough, until the Guard units started getting mobilized and found they all of a sudden needed all those absentee soldiers.)

And hardest of all, the unit was replete with officers who seemed to know everybody’s first names yet consistently confuse ranks. (“I mean, how hard is it to see the rank and the name? It’s on the g-d uniform!”)

Well, another one of those strange characters was a certain, newly minted First Sergeant with a career strictly limited to strategic Intel or classroom assignments, with the sole exception as a Platoon Sergeant for a tactical control and analysis element (TCAE). An Intel weenie of the first order. One heck of an analyst and reporter (if I do say so), but about as far away from tactical as you get in a senior NCO.

Now our training ran through a series of increasingly more coordinated tasks, from confirming what are called “common tasks” all the way through to squad, platoon and company defensive operations. Convoy, urban operations. The works.

One of the specialized training event senior NCOs and officers needed to go through was a session on setting up a squad in the defense.

So here’s the story about the CSM my CO reminded me of. We were going through the steps of setting up a defense, and then the instructor wanted a back brief from one of us, and the CSM volunteered me to give it. I didn’t want that, but I knew why I needed to do it. And I listened. To the instructor. To the CSM, to the other NCOs who seemed to have experience or just knew this shared language that was still new to me.

I ran through the placement of primary weapons, in our case a M2 (“Ma Deuce”) .50 cal machine gun and a M240B light machine gun. I described where we’d lay in the fighting positions, and control ingress and egress from our position. Then the instructor asked if we had anything else, someone suggested six M249 squad automatic weapons. They turned to me.

“Well, we should put one to cover the rear of the position, and then sprinkle the rest throughout the fighting positions.”

“Sprinkle?! What, like pixie dust?” bellowed the Sergeant Major. “This is g** d*** combat, Top, we don’t ‘sprinkle’ anything!” Then I think the CSM muttered something like, “I can’t believe I’m going to Iraq with an MI Battalion!” It wasn’t the first time he’s said something like that, and it wouldn’t be the last.

I didn’t hear the end of that one for at least a month. The CSM took it on as a special assignment to make sure I knew how to speak as tactically as I was training to act.

I’ve either learned my lessons well or he’s too tired to teach me anymore. That, or he’s giving me a break because of my son, who is a very good friend of the Sergeant Major.

They talk weaponry. Little Manly is quite the expert, having watched everything the History Channel has to offer about 20th Century wars, armaments, guns, you name it. One of our evenings out during training, Mrs. Dadmanly and Little Manly and I, and we ran into the CSM at dinner. Little Manly wanted to ask the CSM about the M14 (and M24 variant) sniper rifle. Well, the two of them talked it up for quite a while, talking characteristics, countries which used them, comparisons to other rifles. A little talking over WW II. Soldier stuff. But since then, I think a get a little special treatment because I’m Little Manly’s Dad.

So he had a lot to do, remaking us, conforming us, preparing us for whatever might be thrown at us. There were a lot of uncertainties, a lot of areas where we might be asked to take on more than just an Intel job: detainee operations, convoys, and force protection. The battle space isn’t linear anymore, as they say, which really means anyone and anything is a potential target, and as firefights and attacks can happen anywhere (front, rear, MSRs or cities, on the FOB or off), so too must we be alert and prepared everywhere.

Wherever we were at the start of this odyssey, I know where we ended up: the best prepared unit within the Division Headquarters and subordinate (non-combat arms) commands. Top performers, exceeding expectations. “Who are you guys? The MI Battalion?!” And the CSM was a very big part of that success.

We were the first mobilizing unit to receive some new training. We aggressively worked it, ran after action reviews (AAR), innovated. We forced our staffs to go the extra mile, opting for Operations Orders, organic resources, and self-supported operations in lieu of the sometimes off-the-shelf cookie-cutter exercise training set up for combat services support. We often took over our own training events, convincing our mobilization trainers we knew our stuff. We ran our own ranges, other units looked to us to take the lead. We did.

In doing so, we continually surprised the senior leadership with what we were capable of. We were more than just “those Intel guys.”

But of course, everything comes at a price. For us, the price has always been, “You guys are good at this, we need you to do it.” (I feel like we were the “Easy Company” of Division elements, I think the Division staff enjoyed tasking us with a “So you think you’re hot stuff” pay back for making others look like pikers. (Of course, that’s how we saw it.)

Soldiers grumble all the time. If we’re complaining, it means we’re alive. Morale has to be measured in less tangible terms than the level of bitching. And as Senior Enlisted Advisor and number one NCO in the Battalion, all that bitching coalesces in one top at the top of the NCO Support Channel: at the CSM.

Some may want to envy the CSM his position, but I have seen first hand – if not before, now that I’m filling in for him while he’s away on R&R – the job looks a lot more appealing from the outside than it does when you sit in the seat.

During our mobilization training, one of our “flamboyant” officers volunteered to lead Arabic classes for the Battalion. The BC loved the idea, made it mandatory “evening hours” training. Some of our soldiers were eager students, most ambivalent, many down right hostile. Even the Intel guys didn’t like the idea of group classes on their own (otherwise free) time.

For this officer, language class was yet another “on stage” opportunity, and he tried to liven up the training by writing skits. Never mind the professional training aids we had available from the Defense Language Institute (DLI), ignore the many DLI grads within our midst trying to suggest that there were more effective methods of training. We were going to do his “skits,” and the BC was his method of enforcement.

We hated those evening classes, held out on the grass in front of the BN HQ. Next to the BC’s and CSM’s windows.

The CSM attended the first few, supported his Commander’s intent. But he knows as well or better than all of us what Army training looks like, how it’s prepared, and the standards that need to be met. And these drama classes didn’t even come close.

When the CSM finally lost patience with this over-eager young Lieutenant, during the course of one class he asked the LT if he had a lesson plan, if they could stick to teaching, that he didn’t think we needed to run through anymore of these little skits.

That started an argument. The LT didn’t respond, nor realize this was a polite invitation to move on. The LT tried to dismiss the CSM’s suggestion, the CSM got a bit hot reiterating what he meant, next the LT says, “At ease, Sergeant Major!”

That stopped everybody in their tracks. You could have driven Lady Godiva through on the top of a Humvee, she wouldn’t have received as rapt the attention. The CSM at that point folded up his chair and walked away. Immediately, several of the officers present pulled the Lieutenant aside, and explained what he had done.

For those outside the military, this may be difficult to understand. Even though technically, all officers, even Lieutenants, outrank all enlisted soldiers and NCOs, even the 1SG and CSM. But the Army reposes a very special trust in NCOs in Command Positions, such as the 1SG for a Company and a CSM for a Battalions and above. As the LTC told his staff officers in the movie “We Were Soldiers,” the Command Sergeant Major “Answers only me.” He made clear, the CSM spoke with his authority. That’s pretty much how it works; I work for my Captain as 1SG, staff officers, Lieutenants and Junior Captains try to be deferential, for me are in positions of command and authority. For the CSM, the same goes for Majors. And aside from tradition, the CSM is probably the most experienced Soldier in your unit. You’d be a fool to ignore his advice.

That Lieutenant made a bee line for the CSM’s office, and very humbly asked his forgiveness for being rude and disrespecting his authority. And that’s the CSM’s job, too, mentoring and teaching and guiding and sometimes battling with the Staff Officers both on matters of Army regulation and policy, but Soldier concerns as well.

Everybody wants you to change the world. You intercede with the Battalion Commander (BC) on behalf of troop welfare and morale, and when you can influence things, that’s just your job. No thanks due from the troops. When it goes the other way, and a Commander needs the CSM to impose discipline, or implement a decision, or bring the troops up another level, then he’s “gone native,” and a lapdog to his officers. It’s never true of course. But he’s plugged in enough to command philosophy, the current situation, what’s ahead, that he knows why the nits he picks today may be the force multipliers of tomorrow. Or that the order he supports today may become the routine that avoids unnecessary injury or loss of life. That’s his job. It ain’t easy, he asked for it, no feeling sorry for yourself here. You get the job done.

And that’s the CSM all over. He runs as many convoys as any of our guys, did the regular runs to all the hot spots. He has to deal with and train all the Staff officers, those with the same pedigree as the troops (MI, Guard), but with rank enough to be able to skirt and shirk the hard or unpleasant duties, were there not the Sergeant Major there to hold their feet to the fire. You see, he knows them, and he knows their world.

Our CSM was not just a Marine. He was a Marine Captain. Somewhere along the way, he must have stepped away from service, and when he came back in he went enlisted. He’s been CSM for combat soldiers, prior to him joining our Battalion. I am pretty sure the powers that be thought we could benefit from a hard nosed, combat arms CSM who maybe could whip us into some kind of shape. He did.

And while our troops may never appreciate how much effort he put into getting us where we needed to go, he was a big and critical part of us being ready for this job, doing it well, and all getting back in one piece, should we remain under God’s protection.

The CSM wouldn’t have it any other way. He doesn’t want thanks. He wants his soldiers to make it home alive. Kick ass while we’re at it. Always meet the highest standard, because he knows (and we know) we can. And besides, he’s already got the best reward a Sergeant Major could ever get.

He leads the finest bunch of enlisted soldiers he’s ever had the honor of serving. And that, in the end, is a job well done.

Other Profiles in the Series:
The Motor Sergeant
The CO

(Linked at Mudville Gazette's Open Post, and stuck in traffic Outside the Beltway.)

UPDATE: Posted as a Covered Dish special at Basil's Blog, linked at Mistakes Were Made

There have been many gentle yet firm responses to Cindy Sheehan (see here, here and here), and the very public way in which she is sharing her grief over the death of her son in Iraq.

Perhaps the most moving has been posted by Mohammed at Iraq The Model:

Ma'am, we asked for your nation's help and we asked you to stand with us in our war and your nation's act was (and still is) an act of ultimate courage and unmatched sense of humanity.

Our request is justified, death was our daily bread and a million Iraqi mothers were expecting death to knock on their doors at any second to claim someone from their families.

Your face doesn't look strange to me at all; I see it everyday on endless numbers of Iraqi women who were struck by losses like yours.

Mohammed makes the plea of a small voice in the face of evil, injustice, and violence against basic human rights. Ones we in America can easily take for granted.

Mohammed speaks to all the Cindy Sheehans of our nation, his nation, of the world. He speaks the hope, irrepressible but too often discouraged, of humanity.

What will we be motivated by? Our own comfort and safety? Merely our own concerns, and those not inconsequential but ultimately less urgent appeals of natural habitats, wage conditions, universal health care, more money for an education of already questionable value? Haven't we in the generations since WW II been looking for a heroic cause, for a noble purpose greater than ourselves?

Why not liberty and freedom? Why not the one thing from which those many other good things can flow? Freedom is never free. As Greyhawk says, "Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Mohammed also declares the gratitude of all those who yearn to breathe free but as yet must struggle with every breath:

Your son sacrificed his life for a very noble cause…No, he sacrificed himself for the most precious value in this existence; that is freedom. His blood didn't go in vain; your son and our brethren are drawing a great example of selflessness.

God bless his free soul and God bless the souls of his comrades who are fighting evil. God bless the souls of Iraqis who suffered and died for the sake of freedom. God bless all the freedom lovers on earth.

(Greyhawk has set up a post to capture ongoing MILBLOG reaction to Cindy Sheehan. Check back through the day for links to more MILBLOG commentary.)

UPDATE: After posting, I came across extended posting on Cindy Sheehan over at Blackfive. It includes a link the Iraq The Model, as well as excellent quotes and discussion in comments. Also linked to Assumption of Command, who had the same idea I did but quite a bit earlier.

ANOTHER UPDATE:

Via Dawn Patrol at the Mudville Gazette, see also a comparison of Mother Sheehan to a family that suffered catastrophic loss in WW II, over at Mike’s Noise.

(Linked as Covered Dish over at Basil's Blog.)

(A more expanded commentary on Frederick Turner's article can be found over at Gladmanly, our companion blog.)

Frederick Turner is on a mission, and he thinks he’s reached a point of transformation in his ongoing debate. I’m not sure the folks most heatedly in conversation with him agree, but I find his approach a refreshing one to consider.

In his continuing series of articles on Evolution, Turner has now hypothesized a synthetic framework (as in “synthesized,” rather than “ersatz”) for reconciling Evolution and Intelligence Design in Divine Evolution, up at Tech Central Station.

Turner catalogs some areas in which some Intelligent Design proponents are willing to more or less accept some (theoretical) aspects of Evolution, as well as other, broader conceptions found in current astrophysical research.

Turner is hopeful that these developments in the debate may signal the readiness for a conversation, “a fruitful inquiry that includes good biological science but does not exclude the insights of other disciplines.”

Turner suggests an analogy, given the state of today’s science, that is compelling in suggesting design:

But if the true analogy of the watch is not the eye or the flagellum, but the initial parameters of the universe itself, all packed into the atom-sized singularity of the first moment of the Big Bang, perfectly and uniquely fitted to produce orchids and finches and sperm whales and human beings after 13 billion years, one begins to wonder. Doesn't that look a heck of a lot like design?

But Turner doesn’t let the Creationist off the hook either:

What would we say about a creator who started a universe with the evident intention of producing life and intelligence, but who needed to step in every few billion years, or every few seconds, to fix the process, rewrite the program, give the actors new lines, touch up the brushstrokes of the painting, seize the conductor's baton and introduce a new melody?

Turner resolves the dilemma he poses -- but you'll have to follow the link to the Turner piece (or excerpts over at Gladmanly.)

Illumination from Joe Katzman

Joe Katzman, responded to the Turner piece with a post at Winds of Change.

Spiritual progress can be made very complicated, but at its core it's very simple: "be and become more like G-d."

While Joe comes from a different faith tradition than I, what he shares about cultivating a direct relationship with God, and that we must assume responsibility for advancing spiritually, are entirely consistent with the imperatives of my faith as a Christian.

Joe asserts that love and responsibility are a pair of wings we need to fly:

For G-d is not just ultimate love. G-d is also ultimate responsibility. Responsibility requires knowledge, even experience. You know how your parents' decisions start to look smarter as you get older?

So connection with love, removal of ego, humility, clear perception, giving... these are all aspects of the divine.

Understanding, responsibility, learning about creation and what it means to be a creator - these, too, are aspects of the divine.

We are learning that we need both wings to fly.

Joe makes an excellent point on the critical importance of valuing and pursuing spiritual growth and observance. What takes its place if we don’t?

If we renounce the spiritual side or pledge worship to our fellow man, we get hell on earth. The 20th century was one long, eloquent demonstration. As one Jewish scholar put it "The Holocaust may make faith in G-d difficult, but it makes faith in man impossible."

Which, I think, brings us back to the limitations of a purely Scientific Man, who cannot accept the conception of an Intelligent Designer. Faith in God may be difficult, but Faith in Man (alone) is indeed impossible.

(Posted concurrently at Gladmanly and Dadmanly)

I wrote the following in response to a friend, and thought I would share it with my readers.

I have learned, much of it the hard way, that all organizations have dynamics, and that people's motivations are never as clear cut as they seem to me. Everyone, myself included, can experience bouts of selfishness and complete self-interest, but many times, we are in a mix of emotions and motivations about just about anything.

Sometimes people mean us harm personally. Often, hurts are unintended. Most usually, even when we mean to hurt someone spitefully, we may not have a full or even good understanding of how hurtful our actions or words are.

I went through the twelve steps, I made up about three different moral inventories, a lot of the contents were the same, but each time there were new things to ask God forgiveness for, and new things I needed to prayerfully consider whether and how to make amends.

I have had bosses I despised, some I hated, some I did not respect, and some that I knew in my heart they were either venal, corrupt, or incapable of doing their job as well as I thought they should have. I sat in judgment, and I grew angrier and angrier, full of righteous indignation. Some of these situations were military, some involved either my employer managers or client managers or customers. (I'm a salaried employee who earns my company money through consulting assignments with other corporations or governmental agencies.)

I was on a track (it wasn't fast, but by sheer determination and assertiveness, I was on it) for senior management, and I started down a road that involved longer hours, harder trade-offs, complexity, uncertainty, greater ego battles, more competition, and LOTS more judgment of others.

Thank God, with the help of Him and the good counsel of Mrs. Dadmanly, I stepped off that track. I regret it at times -- I still don't like the decisions that are made -- but I am more rested, calmer, less stressed, I enjoy my status and stature as a subject matter expert and veteran consultant -- they defer to me a lot more now that I am not actively competing against them -- and I have to say I've found more joy and contentment, and found a manner of work and "doing my job" that allows my family time and interests to stay Number 1, 40 hours a week job and that's all.

In the Army, it's been somewhat different. I am in a leadership position, but I have superiors, and there are many situations where I must obey, and I must expect and direct my subordinates to do likewise, even if I would do differently or disagree. I mediate where I can, I soften, I try to lessen impacts of bad decisions, I will even keep up (some) resistance or at least continue to advise against courses of action where I can without jeopardizing good military order.

But I have come to realize even there, that you can allow your subordinates too much latitude, you can lose their respect, you can degrade motivation and performance, and you can sometimes even jeopardize your authority by not running a tight enough ship. I am most often the Good Cop to my CSMs Bad Cop, but I often pay the price of not having immediate obedience when I need it. Thank goodness, we haven't been in life or death situations yet, but that could happen, and the Drill Sergeant leadership model makes certain you have it when you need it, while it is sometimes forced or grudging; whereas the friendlier, more accommodating style I usually adopt can sometimes leave me vulnerable or not having full control when I need it.

Scripture makes frequent mention of slaves and masters, authority, and how we as Christians are to render proper obedience to our Masters. The modern equivalent of the Master Servant relationship is the employer and employee.

I had a Commander once who was amazingly selfish, self-centered, prideful, arrogant, hurtful, spiteful, vengeful... I could go on. But my point is, even though I felt he was totally unsuited to Command, unless and until he issued an unlawful order or crossed a line where obeying his order harmed our soldiers unnecessarily, I had to obey. It was wrong when I talked about him behind his back. It was wrong when we traded stories about what a Jack a** he was. (All human, all understandable, but as a Christian, I'm convicted that I often need to ask forgiveness for the many times I condemned him with judgment. I think I even said once, "G - D him straight to hell," God forgive me.) He was chosen and placed in that position to make those decisions, and it was not my place or job or duty to make sure his decisions were best or even advisable.

It wasn't about him, he was beset by evil, enmeshed, he dwelt in sin. It was about me. By yielding to that anger and judgment, I allowed the devil a foothold.

I need to be able to forgive even my enemies. And that helps me be the Christian witness God wants me to be.

I have found that there are those I have hurt, whose feelings I have hurt, even though I meant no harm. I have sometimes hurt people in ways I didn't know about. In the same way that I may have history that makes me very susceptible or vulnerable to certain patterns of behavior, or awakening of deeper hurts, it may be that those with whom we are in conflict with likewise have secrets or hidden scars or other circumstances or dynamics we don't know about. Doesn't make them right, but it may explain why they act or react the way they do.

I know what I know about my first wife and our failed marriage and divorce. I became a born again Christian after that, and am in a committed Christian Marriage before God with another Christian that had a similar situation, and was likewise redeemed and renewed and given a second chance on the way God intended husband and wife to bond -- not to fill the empty parts or fix what's broke -- but to be co-equals, partners, and draw closer to each other as we each draw closer to God.

I know the scars I carry from my failed marriage. I know the sins committed against me. But I also know that, because of her scars, her terrible experiences, there were ways that without meaning to I hurt her deeply in ways that I wasn't able to see at first. I needed to do what I could to make amends unless to do so would hurt that person or others. And it didn't matter that she could not come to a place to forgive me, I needed to forgive her.

I've had to do the same with family. I can't say I'm 100% all the way there yet, but I know making amends is not going to always work reconciliation, nor should it, nor can we expect forgiveness, and may even receive hostility. But we step forward in faith, we do what He would have us do, we do what we need to do for ourselves, and then turn the hurt, the wrong, the working out of our salvation over to Him.

(Linked at Mudville Gazette's Open Post)

Terry Teachout offers what has to be the best of all possible Mission Statements for a critic. Well might all of us who render commentary consider these words:

More and more I question the ultimate value of any criticism whose immediate purpose is not to bring its readers into direct contact with beauty (or shorten the amount of time they spend in contact with ugliness). The purpose of my professional life is to make people happier, and I try not to let myself forget that my way of bringing it about can never be anything more than an imperfect means to a blessed end. C.S. Lewis said it better than I can: “If we have to choose, it is always better to read Chaucer again than to read a new criticism of him.”

An Arts Critic who quotes C.S. Lewis, strives for humility, and would rather spread happiness than cynicism.

Writes for the Wall Street Journal? Okay, now it makes sense.

(Via Instapundit. Thanks, Ann, that was an unexpected treat!)

Monday's Best of the Web Today provides a humorous highlight to the ongoing Valerie Plame Kerfuffle.

This week's hijinks:

How the very media organization most aggressive in calling for a special prosecutor, the NY Times, is the same organization bewailing the jailing of their reporter. Said reporter, Judith Miller, we can rightly assume, is in jail for refusing to testify in the matter for which the NY Times (previously) felt was so deeply in the public interest to completely investigate.

The Journal editors, while they no doubt regret that Ms. Miller must languish in jail, surely must have enjoyed tweaking the Times with these paragraphs:

Even more risible is the way the Times ducks responsibility for its reporter's current predicament. Miller would be walking the streets today but for John Ashcroft's decision to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Valerie Plame kerfuffle. As we noted in February, in 2003 the Times' editorialists and op-ed columnists led the charge for the appointment of such a prosecutor to investigate the "leak" and subsequent publication of the information that Joe Wilson's wife, who worked for the CIA, had recommended him for his junket to Niger.

That is, for its own partisan purposes, the Times advocated an aggressive government investigation into how a journalist came to publish accurate information about the government. That's not a good message to send.

So let me see if I can understand this: the Times wanted to get to the bottom of the "Plame Scandal," but only if Karl Rove was the evil genius behind it?

Emily Litella of the Times calling for US Special Prosecutor: "Never mind."

I read with great interest the post, Cornered by a Cornerstone, by Callimachus over at Winds of Change, and readers’ commentary in response. Callimachus relates that Dinesh D’Souza has written a column praising Abraham Lincoln's leadership.

In responding to D’Souza’s column, Callimachus essentially accuses D’Souza of creating a strawman argument against viewing slavery as the (sole) cause of the Civil War, with which D’Souza can then easily dispense. What follows in this debate, then, swirls back and forth over causation for the war, and the motivations of those on both sides. (Read through the post and comments here if you’re inclined.)

Glen Wishard in comments summed up the debate, conclusively, in my view:

But I think we're arguing past each other here, when you say I'm claiming slavery was the sole cause. There is no such thing in all of history as a sole cause, but some causes are more important than others. And the bloody incidents leading up to the war - John Brown and the Kansas-Missouri war, etc. - had more to do with slavery than anything else.

The first states seceded because of Republican opposition to slavery - not their views on tariffs or anything else. If subsequent states seceded because of Lincoln's response to this, the cause remains slavery.

I think Glen Wishard has it exactly right. Both sides are arguing past each other.

Prior to secession, Lincoln insisted over and over that preserving the Union intact was of paramount importance. He argued early for a compensation of slave-holders loss of property in any gradual or eventual abolition of slavery.

Once states seceeded, Lincoln maintained what amounted to a compromise position for quite some time, and was pilloried for it by both extremes.

Only when the survival of the Union was in grave doubt, when military victory was far from certain, when losses had climbed to almost unbelievable levels, did Lincoln grudgingly conclude that slavery must be abolished through outright (Federal) emancipation.

Southern secessionists can claim all they want that it "was not about slavery," but rather that an overreaching excess of Federal Authority drove them to seceed.

This is disingenuous on two levels. One, the sole issue upon which the Federal Authority was interfering with States Rights was on slavery and issues related therefrom: return of fugitive slaves, prosecution of those who aid and abet runaways, the persistent rights of slaveholders in non-slave states and terroritories, and so forth.

Without slavery, there was no overreach of Federal Authority.

The second basis for holding these arguments fallacious relates to the very issues being argued by Abolitionists and Secessionists. If it seems that there were only two sides to this issue and no middle ground, it is perhaps because some issues are so binary in possibility as to warrant no middle ground or that a compromise makes no logical sense. There is no way you can compromise on a person's freedom, they are either free or slave.

Once you can negate the rights of a human being (on any basis, color, or some other), you cannot logically (or constitutionally) hold that this individual can retain rights in one state but be deprived of them in another. If the Southern States had won their argument, the Union might have been preserved (for a time), but it would have been all slave.

Lincoln's words will stand for time immemorial:

"I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free...It will become all one thing, or all the other." And he was right, morally, ethically, and logically.

The argument, as Sandberg describes, "was so plain that two farmers fixing fences on a rainy morning could talk it over."

(Linked over at Mudville Gazette)

Cathy, the sister of Day by Day cartoonist Chris Muir, is being treated at the Cancer Ablation Center in Gulf Shores, Alabama.

The Cancer Ablation Center in Gulf Shores, Alabama. will have an ad to be aired on CNN cancer special on August 14th and 20th, but Chris is asking for our help in doing more.

For the next TEN DAYS, click on the banner (or links) as often as you can and boost their visibility in search engines.

And if you can, please pray for God to give Cathy a full recovery, and for peace and comfort for Chris and his family.

The Bloke in the Outer hosts this week's Christinan Carnival.

The Bloke organized the Carnival in a very unusual and creative way, and one that will teach most of us something we did not know. I'll let the Bloke describe it:

As we begin this week’s showcase of posts, I would like to introduce to you an ancient Chinese Christian text. It was found among scrolls discovered hidden in the caves of Dunhuang and were subsequently known as the Jesus Sutras. Very little is known about their origins, but the stories that have come to us from those who have researched them are facinating. At the very least, it has confirmed how seriously the early church took Jesus’ words to take the gospel to the ends of the earth, and it sheds light in how they have interacted with peoples of remote areas and distant cultures. It also gives us hope of reaching the world with the gospel of the peace that passes all understanding. And it provides us with a glimpse of the gospel through different perspectives, thus hopefully helping us to fresher insights to the meaning of following our Lord in this world.

Within these texts is this passage which begins with the question: “What are the Four Essential Laws of Dharma?” Dharma literally means “what holds together” and can refer to teachings, principles, or precepts. The Jesus Sutras answers the question with the following four dharmas: “no wanting” (or “no desire”), “no doing” (or “no action” or “no effort”), “no piousness” (or “no virtue”), and “no truth”. As you read this week’s Christican Carnival, I invite you to do so with an attitude of learning with a view of catching a fresh glimpse of your life in the Spirit as a Christ follower.

As for the links, there are many fine entries to visit and enjoy, among them:

Ron Stewart of Northern ‘burbs blog continuing his series on marriage in The purposes of Marriage: Part III - Completion writes about how spouses complete and complement each other.

James Jordan of Points of Light provides us with some stunning visual reminders that “God does some of His best work in the early part of the day” in Up Early, comparing these images to the many Scriptural references about meeting God in the morning.

Robin of Write Thinking: Miscellaneous Musings of a Christian Novelist has provides us with a personal reflection on the question of who or what we rely upon as the source for our sense of security, intertwining her own thoughts Biblical references and themes from her own writing.

From a Penitent Blogger we have a lesson from Moses’ experience of facing the uncertainties of life and death with calm faith and trust in God’s grace and mercy in Helplessness and Anxiety.

Mark Olson at Psuedo-Polymath offers some thoughts on the struggle between modesty, spirituality, art and worship in A Good Beginning.

And of course, I have a post at the Carnival as well. Starting with a personal reflection on my own journey of faith, I examine the second part of Romans chapter 2, focusing on the initiative and priority of God’s rich love and mercy when He wrote His law onto our hearts.

Enjoy the Carnival!

I have been watching events unfold with our British Allies. Adrian Warnock, posting at his UK Evangelical Blog, summed up what seems to be widespread British reaction. I do not mean to underestimate the British or their determination in this struggle our two countries share, but I have been surprised by the magnitude of the British response to recent Al Qaeda attacks and intended targeting. As many commentators have pointed out, Britain has been as enmeshed in a distorted multicultural ethic as much as any nation in Europe. And yet the recent attacks and attempts appear to have woken them from slumber. Warnock describes the “awakening”:

Perhaps the most interesting part of the news that I read is that Blair is considering altering the UK's bill of Human Rights to accommodate this if judges get squeamish about sending people who want to harm us to parts of the world where they themselves might be harmed.

Perhaps we are finally realizing that we can’t base our morality purely on a "rights" approach. The biblical way is instead to base our morality on responsibility. What business do we have in tolerating in our country those who openly advocate violence against it and call for its destruction in public.

Until I read Warnock’s piece, I had been “gathering on my desktop” quotes and pieces from several recent posts of commentary on multiculturalism, and thoughts from Western Jihadis and those who monitor them closely. What emerged, illuminated by Warnock, was of a country perhaps too long obsessed with political and diplomatic niceties despite it’s now 2 year war effort in Iraq, and considerable evidence that nation states (including one leg of the Axis of Evil triad) and non-state actors in our midst continue to actively plot further carnage.

Facts on the ground have clearly shifted. Europeans are studying carefully the American Patriot Act for suitable translation for continental use, this despite what should be known in legal circles, but I never see expressed (in the press), that British and European legal systems and laws are already far more intrusive and draconian in such matters than our quite modest efforts with the Patriot Act. Think Red Brigades, and of course, the Irish Republican Army, and rational observers might see the causation of a tougher European legal approach.

Now Blair quite boldly – has there been a British leader since Churchill with as much raw political courage as our man Tony (yes, yes I know some will say Thatcher) makes an aggressive play towards harnessing public outrage at the attacks, and channeling it towards support for a fundamental shift in the British basis for immigration.

The blog Protein Wisdom neatly summarized:

Make no mistake: this is not an example of legislating against “thought crimes”; this is a pragmatic attempt, on the part of a concerned government who is starting to realize the danger their country is in, to begin addressing the horrific damage done by an extended milieu of multicultural permissiveness that has in fact resulted in enclaves of British “citizens,” grouped into self-protecting communities, who openly swear allegiance to the destruction of the West. (Tip of the hat to Hugh Hewitt)

Multicultural permissiveness. This captures the danger exactly. Tolerance can be exalted above all reason, and elevated as a higher virtue than all others creates many unwarranted and unwanted distortions. The British example (and French and Dutch for that matter) should present in stark relief what can become of such misguided resistance to (and an active offense against) the previously enshrined principle of assimilation so long represented in America’s Melting Pot mythology.

An unadulterated Multiculturalism, in its place, takes away essential moral, ethical and critical components vital to the survival of democracy and freedom.

Norm Geras, posting at his excellent Normblog, describes the philosophical quicksand upon which the orthodoxy of multiculturalism has been (tenuously) built upon:

The ideology of multiculturalism, after a long period of widespread acceptance, is currently coming under attack: its claim that all cultures must be given equal respect, and that any deviation from this amounts to victimization, may have led us seriously to underestimate the need for social cohesion. In any case, whether or not our present lethal lack of cohesion can be attributed to the rise of multiculturalism, the moral relativism implicit in that view always made it a dubious position to hold. But the discourse of human rights is far better founded, and provides us, partly because it is so deeply anti-relativist, with the moral apparatus for protecting everyone from oppression, no matter what culture they are part of or what polity they live under. It can do this because the very idea of individual human rights is the idea of a block on the demands of the general good; an insistence that individuals have claims and interests that mustn't be overridden by the needs of society.

Geras makes a strong argument that multiculturalism, its vague premises and core illogic, are antithetical to the desire to uphold the primacy of human rights. Geras expands this point, and tethers to it what would have been obvious only two generation ago: the absolute need for broad moral constraints within a framework of (some) moral absolutes:

Human rights are an indispensable part of a morally decent society (though the eager embracing of victimhood is not, and there's no doubt that the discourse of human rights has, along with multiculturalism, encouraged many to regard the status of victim of rights-violation as the most attractive one going, and hence to reach for it at the slightest provocation). But protection from those whose direct intention is to kill the innocent is also indispensable. Such protection may require us to be more ready to accept defensive policies which constrain, or in emergency infringe, individual rights than we've hitherto been accustomed to. In the issues raised by Alibhai-Brown's insistence that Muslim worry about the danger from the police to young Muslim men must take precedence over worries about the danger to all of us from suicide bombers, we can see the moral substratum supporting our ways of thinking about social relations beginning to shift. The demand that we reject policies which might disadvantage members of one group more than another is coming up against the requirement that within broad moral constraints we should do what is most effective in preventing murderous attacks on all of us. (Hat Tip: Instapundit)

Switching gears somewhat, Geras also posted excerpts from an interview of Hassan Butt by Aatish Taseer in Prospect Magazine. There is much cause for concern and outrage in this interview, which you would do well to read. It highlights and exemplifies much of what alerts Geras, what concerns Warnock, and evidently what motivates Blair.

Those of us in America might do well to learn well the British examples in this case. Our own forays into multiculturalism may not quite have the same bite and gravity as that ongoing and pending within the European experience, but it might not take much to bring the same state of affairs to pass. (Particularly if some in American Politics achieve electorally what they would perceive as vindication of their view of terror as predominantly a law enforcement issue.)

Taseer describes Hassan Butt as “a 25 year old from Manchester, [who] helped recruit Muslims to fight in Afghanistan. Like most of the London bombers, he is a British Pakistani who journeyed from rootlessness to radical Islam.” Taseer introduces his interview thus:

Britishness is the most nominal aspect of identity to many young British Pakistanis. The thinking in Britain's political class has at last begun to move on this front, but when our tube bombers were growing up, any notion that an idea of Britishness should be imposed on minorities was seen as offensive. Britons themselves were having a hard time believing in Britishness. If you denigrate your own culture you face the risk of your newer arrivals looking for one elsewhere.

Among the many astonishing and disturbing things said in the interview, Butt refers to a concept with some resonance within Western Muslims, that of a “covenant of security.” Conceptually, that refers to an unacknowledged consensus not to undertake any military action in the nation of which you have gained citizenship. For the Pakistani Briton, that would preclude him or her from initiating Jihad against (his or her fellow) British citizens.

In relating this concept, Butt offers that he disagrees with it, which caused his parting from more moderate Muslims. If a Muslim were to initiate an attack against his host country, “Islamically, it would be my duty to support and praise their action. It wouldn’t necessarily be the wisest thing to do, but it wouldn't be un-Islamic.”

In justifying his disloyalty to his host country – of which he claims citizenship – Butt distinguishes between those refugees from the Middle East who ran from persecution and sought protection from Western countries like Britain – and those who he feels “owe nothing to the government.” In the case he presents, a father has entered a covenant of security for him and his family, and owes Britain his loyalty. His sons, so protected, brought west as infants or born since arrival, “did not ask to be born here; neither did they ask to be protected by Britain.” And thus have entered no such covenant, and according to Butt, they owe no allegiance whatsoever, not to the government, nor the generosity of the British people.

It should come as no surprise whatever that such attitudes, widespread among Muslim populations in the West, are raising the ire and ill-will of their neighbors in their host nations. And are they wrong to worry about a potential enemy in their midst?

Butt goes out to speak longingly for a greater Islamic Caliphate, ”A central Islamic authority,” in which “Whether the people are Muslim or not is irrelevant.”

Butt uses several self-serving and post-facto assertions about the triumph of Islam in the countries in which he thrives, making the argument that “both the conquered and the conqueror embraced” the Islamic way of life. That should give pause to any progressive thinkers that perceive any room for discussion with these young firebrands or their ideological sources of inspiration.

The ever-on-point Jonah Goldberg, in I Have Rights; You’re in with the wrong crowd, Mohammed, writing in National Review Online, chides such deluded would-be revolutionaries in the West even as, apprehended in their schemes of glory, they “drop their guns” and cry, “Mercy!” Goldberg rightly traces the ancestry of such hollow revolutionary rhetoric to the old, tired Marxism of generations passed:

To a certain extent, radical Islam in Europe has taken the place of third-world Marxism — hardly a big leap when you think about how many Vietnamese "revolutionaries" were trained in Parisian salons. It's all about fighting capitalism, American "imperialism," modernism, etc. Marxism no longer provides a workable model, but the Islamists think sharia might. At the same time, like fascism and Communism before it, radical Islam provides a sense of purpose and meaning for losers and misfits who blame their misfortunes on "the system" (variously defined as the ruling class, the Jews, the capitalists, Col. Sanders, etc.). In this sense, Islamism is less about religion than ideology, and less about ideology than it is about alienation and low self-esteem.

Exactly right in the cases of Jihadi Joes and Janes, as likewise uncovered in the investigations in London. Those apologists for Terror, who insist on maintaining Western offense or aggression as the cause of emergent Terrorism, are chasing a snake down what they think is a rabbit hole. The new devotees of the cause will no doubt adopt and parrot the slogans of their revered ideology, no less than the Marxists of yesteryear could chant chapter and verse from their sacred texts. But the idea that poverty and oppression is what motivates these pampered thugs is ridiculous, and wrong on its face. Again, Goldberg:

This is just one reason why poverty is such a silly explanation for terrorism. Most of the 9/11 attackers, like the London bombers, were squarely middle class, and the leadership of al Qaeda is downright wealthy. My guess is that most of these losers would be miserable living in the utopia they're fighting for. And should it ever arrive, they shouldn't bother replying to the knock on their door by yelling, "I have rights!" Their kind of people don't bother knocking.

Muslim commentators are sounding similar warnings. Their fears are different; they grow concerned (one might say, finally) that the actions of a few will cause a backlash against all Muslims. And well it might, if a minimal degree of loyalty and allegiance, expected of the Native Born, is in question with self-segregated émigré populations.

Youssef M. Ibrahim, writing The Muslim Mind is on Fire, Middle East Times International Edition, is gravely concerned with the potential enormous might and cold resolve the West might demonstrate in this, the latest War of Civilizations:

What is more important to remember is this: When the West did unite after World War II to beat communism, the long Cold War began without pity. They took no prisoners. They all stood together, from the United States to Norway, from Britain to Spain, from Belgium to Switzerland. And they did bring down the biggest empire. Communism collapsed.

I fear those naïve Muslims who think that they are beating the West have now achieved their worst crime of all. The West is now going to war against not only Muslims, but also, sadly, Islam as a religion.

Yet Ibrahim, in contrast to our Western “loyal” opposition and the apologist left, would not blame the threatened Nations of the West for the outcome he envisions. Rather, he blames those who would ignite such a war for no good end:

In this new cold and hot war, car bombs and suicide bombers here and there will be no match for the arsenal that those Westerners are putting together - an arsenal of laws, intelligence pooling, surveillance by satellites, armies of special forces and indeed, allies inside the Arab world who are tired of having their lives disrupted by demented so-called jihadis or those bearded preachers who, under the guise of preaching, do little to teach and much to ignite the fire, those who know little about Islam and nothing about humanity. (Hat tip: Hugh Hewitt)

What’s to be done about Islam, and what responsibilities rightly can Western societies impose on the native or assimilated Muslims in their midst? Is there in fact a deeper ill, an entrenched sickness throughout the Islamic world, long in need of cure?

Salman Rushdie suggests it is The Right Time for An Islamic Reformation, writing in The Washington Post. He looks at the seedbeds of closed communities, of isolated and unassimilated expatriates, protected from exploding violence in the Middle East, yet protected in their enclaves in the West. His bold call – how many fatwas can a single man have issued against him? – is not so much for a change in response to Terrorism in their midst, as much as a change in their response to their God:

The deeper alienations that lead to terrorism may have their roots in these young men's objections to events in Iraq or elsewhere, but the closed communities of some traditional Western Muslims are places in which young men's alienations can easily deepen. What is needed is a move beyond tradition -- nothing less than a reform movement to bring the core concepts of Islam into the modern age, a Muslim Reformation to combat not only the jihadist ideologues but also the dusty, stifling seminaries of the traditionalists, throwing open the windows to let in much-needed fresh air.

Rushdie goes on to call for a reform movement that would include “a new scholarship to replace the literalist diktats and narrow dogmatisms that plague present-day Muslim thinking.”

A fire has been started, and it rages throughout the world. Surprise may be in store for many of those who sought narrow gain in making sparks, or kindling flames, only to find themselves consumed. Perhaps not yet, but perhaps sometime soon.

As Warnock quoted Prime Minister Tony Blair:

Let no one be in any doubt, the rules of the game are changing.......Coming to Britain is not a right and, even when people have come here, staying here carries with it a duty. That duty is to share and support the values that sustain the British way of life. Those who break that duty and try and incite or engage in violence against our country or our people have no place here.

(See also Multiculturalism's Reality Check 101, by Trent Telenko, at Winds of Change.)

(Linked at Basil's Blog, for whom Beth is guest blogging. Also linked at The Counterterrorism Blog.)

UPDATE: Picked up by the Dawn Patrol at the Mudville Gazette. Thanks, Mrs. G!)

(Also posted as a question for my debating partner over at Debate Space, my joint blog with the Liberal Avenger.)

Bear with me. Indulge a short reading from the Torah (Old Testament).

In the book of Genesis, the story is told of Isaac's two sons, Jacob and Esau. Jacob, second born son, at the prompting of his mother, exploits his father's failing eyesight to trick his father into giving him the blessing of the first born. Isaac does so richly, even so far as asking God to bestow upon Jacob rule over his siblings, "Let peoples serve you, and nations bow down to you. Be master over your brethren, and let your mother's sons bow down to you." (Genesis 27:29)

Esau, discovering his brother's deceit, in despair goes to his father, and asks, "Have you only one blessing, my father? Bless me, even me also, my father!" And Esau lifted up his voice and wept. (Genesis 27:38)

In Slate, Christopher Hitchens writes piercingly of a challenge he poses to those opposed to the war in Iraq:

How can so many people watch this as if they were spectators, handicapping and rating the successes and failures from some imagined position of neutrality? Do they suppose that a defeat in Iraq would be a defeat only for the Bush administration? The United States is awash in human rights groups, feminist organizations, ecological foundations, and committees for the rights of minorities. How come there is not a huge voluntary effort to help and to publicize the efforts to find the hundreds of thousands of "missing" Iraqis, to support Iraqi women's battle against fundamentalists, to assist in the recuperation of the marsh Arab wetlands, and to underwrite the struggle of the Kurds, the largest stateless people in the Middle East? Is Abu Ghraib really the only subject that interests our humanitarians?

These questions damn those who can criticize and complain only, and secretly (and not so secretly) hope deeply for catastrophe if only to feel some smug self-satisfaction that after all their political defeats, "they were right all along."

That cynical view of the world is callous beyond description. It ignores the complexity of history. It is the preference of the ostrich to keep its head in the sand as the only defense it has the heart to offer.

If Hitchens is wrong, if I am wrong, where is the compassion and humanity to help a people with some of the most bona fide credentials in all victim-hood?

Why is the left incapable of saying, "how we got here is wrong, we disagree with the policies that led us here, but there is grave human need, and we will respond?"

For they do this everywhere else in the world. They surely disagree with the brutality of African States that result in widespread famine; they are strenuously opposed to ethnic cleansing in Europe, Asia and Africa that causes millions of displaced persons and genocide. There is not a place in the world today where human rights, other non-profit and aid groups are working today, that do not share the exact same causations and state-decision-making so appalling to those on the left.

So where are they for the oppressed people of Iraq? Where are they in trying to build democratic institutions? Where is there outreach to support and sustain native peoples trying to build a renewed civilization from decades of destruction and ruin (caused first by Saddam, and then by their lights, our Coalition)?

Hitchens conclusion:

Isn't there a single drop of solidarity and compassion left over for the people of Iraq, after three decades of tyranny, war, and sanctions and now an assault from the vilest movement on the face of the planet? Unless someone gives me a persuasive reason to think otherwise, my provisional conclusion is that the human rights and charitable "communities" have taken a pass on Iraq for political reasons that are not very creditable. And so we watch with detached curiosity, from dry land, to see whether the Iraqis will sink or swim. For shame.

"Have you only one blessing, my father?"

I was delighted to read Scott Johnson's post at Powerline, Apartheid, Hawaiian Style.

Okay, I don't mean delighted exactly. Appalled by what he's reporting, which links to a John Fund column in Opinion Journal, Aloha Apartheid.

As Johnson describes a bill pending in Hawaii:

The bill would create a race-based government for Native Hawaiians, creating something like the tribal system that has done so much for American Indians. Fund notes: "Just 5,000 or so--less than 0.5% of the state's population--are of pure native blood. Over 90% of self-described natives are more than half some other ethnicity." Like all fans of race based programs, the old slave code's "one drop of blood" rule is an important element of the program.

What a boon for Hawaii's grievance industry. I can only imagine the extremes taken by those with opporunity and avarice enough to milk this island cow!

What I was so pleased about, was to find a major blogger quoting Lincoln! Johnson quotes from an 1855 letter from Lincoln to his friend Joshua Speed:

Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy [sic].

Johnson suggests that alert readers will be able to glean the modern inheritors of both sides of the great contention Lincoln described here, and led our Nation in battle to resolve some 6 to 10 years hence.

(We might speculate if Lincoln might have really considered emigration to Russia if the Union and slavery had both remained intact, or had the Union dissolved. I would think not. After all, even the most fervent Bush haters have decided against a move to Canada.)

My long-time readers will no doubt remember that I am a devoted fan of Lincoln, with recent posts here and here. I also have a backlog of about 6 more, all tieing elements of Lincoln's speeches or Civil War travails to our modern era, and our Global War on Terror.

Time, I need time, there is so much writing left to do ...

I've been pondering something for many weeks now. I don't even know how this will read when I get done, but it's been weighing on me. If you think you can explain to me why, and what it means, please do.

NOTE: It occurs to me to offer a warning that any of my readers with tender sensibilities or an aversion to things that sound threatening or scary might want to skip this post. I don't get graphic or gory, but some might be disturbed by the description of munitions and their effects.

Many weeks ago now, we had a vehicle borne improvised explosive device (VBIED) detonate just on the other side of our compound wall (outside the FOB). The blast was loud, and did the usual shake-up and shake-off of any plaster remotely loose. The doors flew open, but other than another (boarded up) window breaking into pieces and falling behind the plywood, we suffered no physical damage. Thankfully, no one was outside in the vicinity when it hit.

We've become quite adept at identifying explosive types and locations by the sound, and more importantly, by the accoustic, blast wave, and air compression that accompanies the explosions. (I think some of us harbor secret desires to be on some Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) team, and not just to be part of the beautiful people (who happen to look at a lot of dead guys).

Most of us can distinguish rocket from mortar (rockets whistle through the air, the mortar makes less noise after the "Poof" at launch; mortars usually come in groups of 2-4, rockets are usually solo). We can tell both from VBIED (VBIEDs are usually much bigger explosions, and carry all the after-effects of large artillery shells, of which most of them consist.) For all explosions, we can generally tell if on or off the FOB (which is not small), and where in the city (Iraqi Police, Iraqi Army, US Special Forces, government, or against one of the gates or against a convoy somewhere on the main supply route (MSR).

Well this VBIED in our neighborhood, even if outside the FOB proper, impacted us in a way we hadn't quite expected.

It rained car parts all over our building and front, rear and side areas. Bits of hose, pipe, frame, rubber, plastic, most pieces not much bigger than your hand. Thankfully, we weren't subjected to any pieces of the other type of (organic) matter that usually accompanies such detonations. (It may have been remotely detonated, or we were just spared the forensics.) The specialists who deal with such things came and scooped most everything up.

They were especially interested in the other pieces of debris from the explosion that fell around our building: shrapnel. Now as I've mentioned from time to time, being in military intelligence (MI), I have never had any opportunity to see what might otherwise be commonplace (or at least experienced from time to time) in combat arms units. I really did not expect what we found.

When a high explosive (HE) artillery round explodes, there are multiple effects that are designed to be triggered by the explosion. There is the blast itself and its force, there are combustion effects, especially if there are any fire accelerants or other combustibles in the vicinity, and there is shrapnel. Shrapnel is intentionally caused by the projectile itself (and other metal packaging or metal objects pulverized nearby) exploding on impact or detonation.

Okay, okay, all of that I expect. But this was the surprise part. Projectiles are designed to fragment in specific ways to maximize the effect of the shrapnel. This in effect means that this rather large blob of metal is of a particular metallurgy and machined in such a way as to produce shards (almost flakes) of very sharp edged metal.

What we found could almost be compared to knife blades. One piece we passed around (before it was collected) was about the size of a Bowie knife blade, just about as sharp around all of its edges, with a somewhat denser fatness in the center of the piece. (My guess is that's not an accident either, to give the piece a weight of density to carry it further with greater velocity. Kind of how a well made knife is machined for balance and heft.)

Which is what first got me to thinking. Technological advances have provided us with an incredible capacity for destruction and mayhem. We just spent a couple of days on the range which I posted here. We experienced in some small way the power and destructive capability of our M240B 7.62mm machine guns (mid size), our M2 .50 caliber machine guns (bigger), and the AT4, an anti-tank rocket designed to penetrate and cause a detonation inside a vehicle.

Anyone who watches modern action flicks sees (simulated) versions of terrible destruction, and maybe it's true that Americans today have grown increasingly desensitized to scenes of carnage and destruction.

But I have to say, standing next to these powerful weapons when they discharge, or picking up a fragment that was intended to tear through both metal and flesh, might give anyone pause. Like I said, it made me think.

Listen, I know we are at war, I know we are at war even if we don't think so. I know there are states, and non-state groups, individuals, and all manner of people driven by ideology and simple hate who will continue to try to destroy our nation, our citizens, our friends, and our very way of life. I believe strongly in the concept of a "Just War," and I am certain we are in the middle of one. So don't misunderstand what I'm going to say next.

War and violence have always been a part of our fallen natures. In the way animals may seem remorseless in the killing of prey, somehow we as humans are capable of the same detachment and apparent unconcern when inflicting harm upon each other.

Sure, we first seek food and survival. In prehistory, that no doubt took place on the scale of clans and tribes, eventually to the point of kingdoms and states. Even with the advent of philosophies and religious observance, wars did not end. "There shall be wars and rumors of wars," foretold Jesus, as he ended His earthly ministry as Man.

Once fed and secure, it seems the hands and minds of the clever will earn their due, and work their destruction. Something about idle minds I suppose. At first for self, then for kin and clan, eventually for country. I can appreciate how one might fervently desire to be a pacifist, even if I could never be one myself.

That is why the concept of Just War is so important. The impulses for violence and destruction will always be with us. Evil and hate will often be its motive, and initiator. But unless we surrender to evil, or try to appease those who threaten to destroy us; unless we offer tribute in gold or the human sacrifice of willing bondage or self-genocide; we must harness those impulses of our lesser selves in channeling that violence on behalf of good.

We need desperately to control our lesser selves, but we need to overcome these clear and present dangers to the very survival of our civilization.

Seek all great wisdom of the Ages, the words revealed of God, the great utterances of men and women faced with the challenge of death or victory. Society desperately needs the old moral and spiritual frameworks that faddish modernity discarded as so much old fogginess and cant.

We idle upon the crossroads of a critical time in our history, with technological power and capabilities perhaps beyond our capacity to control them. We try to see down the road, see how it all turns out, what way we must turn.

Whatever happens next, whatever path we take, the potential cost of error may be greater than we can bear. And we're running out of time.

If reasonable men and women can agree that the next catastrophic terrorist act -- carried out by terrorists but surely funded and sponsored by nation states -- may very well involve nuclear weapons, then I would ask:

Will we be safer the longer we wait to deal with the real sources of the threat?

And if the answer is no, then like Michael Ledeen I would say, "Faster Please!"

(Linked as a Covered Dish lunch special at Basil's Blog. Also linked at Monday Winds of War at Winds of Change.)

Gladmanly has a post up, based on the second chapter of Paul's letter to the early Christian fellowship in Rome (Romans 2:17-29).

An excerpt:

I’ve paused for a period of reflection in my walk through Paul’s letter to the Romans. I’d like to make it sound like this was my idea, like I devoted the past week and more to reflecting on what it means for the “law to be written on our hearts.”

But that would be false. I have spent the better part of two weeks struggling against God.

Not that I recognized it that way, but that’s what I was doing. I sought release and escape in my own pursuits. Under grace, I avoided any sense of responsibility or accountability for my walk, my prayer life, reading His word, honoring my commitments, or even in the things I find to distract me from the sometime loneliness and ever present ache for home.

Are the things I speak of the kind of things that would hurt or harm my family, or bring discredit to my unit or my soldiers? Not at all. In the world’s eyes, they might at best be considered sins of omission, things I might have done, no wrongs committed. But God wants us to see ourselves and our behaviors through His eyes, not the world’s.

To read more, follow the link to Gladmanly.

"What the f*** are you doing in my Motor Pool?!"

It may certainly be true that Mac's bark is worse than his bite. But given the sometime ferocity of his bark and the secret softness of his heart, as Herschel Bernardi said on that famous commercial for Tootsie, "The World May Never Know."

I know in my heart of hearts that Mac should be able to get a handle on his anger, that it gets in his way and someday could hurt him. I'm sure there are sensitive and thinner skinned co-workers and superiors who he has fully insulted or even hurt their feelings. God forgive us both, him for the habit and me for repeating it, but if the motor sergeant ever had a rap, "Jeeesuhs fookin chroyst" would be the chorus.

I've seen Mac lift and swing his M4 countless times and mock a homerun swing at the nearest tree or pole. He won't follow through, of course. He loves that M4 and refuses to put a sling on it. One, that's partly from his early days -- Mac's the latter half of 50 -- and the other is that he knows well the training that told us that slings can get in your way and kill you. So as he moves about on convoys, he cradles his weapon in the low ready, but somehow with a deep affection, he might as well be carrying one of his grandkids.

What gets Mac so hot? A number of things. Stupidity. Carelessness. "Do as I say not as I do" kinds of command hypocrisy. Anything that hurts his motor pool, his vehicles, his soldiers. He runs a tight ship, the motor pool passed its first monthly Health and Welfare Inspection with zero deficiencies, and has gotten more squared away every day since. It's immaculate. And this for a working motor pool that maintained over 70 organic vehicles, a couple dozen non-tactical vehicles (SUVs) for the FOB, and vehicles for a couple of the neighboring MP units.

He hates anything that takes away from (his) mission. Getting vehicles fully mission capable (FMC), and keeping them that way. Keeping his mechanics on the job and off of FOB details. Making sure these vehicles won't break down off the FOB and put soldiers at risk. He takes it deadly seriously. "Do you know what we do? Do you know what we have to put up with?!" It took a couple of "conversations" with Mac before I realized something important.

He blows up. Then he cools down. Before he's even fully cooled down, he's got his guys half way through whatever request was asked. He'll do whatever it takes, he'll do whatever he's asked. But if it impacts or hurts his guys and gals or his trucks, you're going to get the cream of his rage first.

I talk softly to Mac. I let him vent. I let him blow off steam. I hear his concern, I listen for anything new he's trying to tell me. And I make sure I tell him I understand, even when he says, "No you don't!" I think this is part of how Mac survives. I am certain it's part of how he keeps all of us alive.

The Battalion staff sections are terrified of Mac. "He'll chew my head off!" But then, they never show up on time for their weekly QA/QC, they pester with unknowledgable demands and questions, they expect the mechanics to perform the preventive maintenance checks and services (PMCS). Operator level maintenance, as they say. They're sometimes rude to his mechanics, they have often belittled the utterly critical role they serve, despite all the many convoys they both support and drive and ride and gun for themselves.

These same mechnics that, when the up-armoring team was backed up with work, got the up-armoring done for our ground assault convoy (GAC, or how we got from Kuwait to Iraq). The days grew short for our departure, we were still waiting for our vehicles to make it to the top of the list, so they jumped in with their civilian welding skills and the strength of their backs. They took up the kits with the 7.62mm (the size of an AK-47 round) resistant tempered steel, and spent the better part of our 2-3 week stay welding frames and swinging 100 pound doors into place.

I first met Mac as he was newly reassigned as a Motor Section NCOIC, following a stormy career as a Headquarters First Sergeant. His reputation preceeded him by a country mile. His tenure as 1SG was stormy, in a political environment that wanted nothing to do with his kind of candor.

Just as his division was to mobilize and deploy to Iraq, he was removed from his company and reassigned as our motor section Master Sergeant. There could be no harsher rebuke, than to call the unit to war but excuse Mac from leading the company. I don't know the reasons, but I can guess. I do know that it broke his heart.

I made it clear to Mac that as a new First Sergeant, I would absolutely need his help and mentorship, and he could count on my professional and personal respect. I had him fill in a couple of times as 1SG during a couple of pass periods, when he was agreeable; but he clearly wasn't often. Once spurned, I don't think he could return to his first love. We weren't his old unit, but some of his mechanics shared the same histories.

It takes a certain temperament to run a first class motor pool for the U.S. Army. It takes a tremendous amount of knowledge and grease and sweat experience, too and perhaps a few things more. Mac runs the finest motor section in Iraq, and Mac's got everything he needs. It starts with first class mechanics.

That was another thing Mac did. He canvassed the state, hooked up with and recruited the best full time technician and Guard M-day (one weekend a month) mechanics, generator men, and parts specialists. We had soldiers show up at our mobilization site weeks before we'd ever see transfer or mobilization orders on these guys. Mac would say, "They're assigned. The paper will catch up." I don't know how he did it, and maybe I don't want to know, but we left for Iraq at about 120% strength in the motor section. The best. Experts. Level Three (full rebuilds) experience with most of the major specialities (HVAC, generators, electrical, welding, transmissions, etc.) included.

Patience. He also has tremendous patience. That would no doubt sound incredible to the same staff who views him as a collosal nemesis, but he does. He has his share of "characters" and "knuckleheads" in the motor pool. But if anyone tries to mess with them, Mac will be the first one to run them down and back them off. He knows his people. He knows what they can do, and can't do. He knows their strengths and weaknesses -- professional and personal -- and tries to help his youngsters (and not a few oldsters too -- navigate the tricky waters of marriages, finances, careers, and personal discipline.

Mac is trying to convince as many of his guys and gals to do another turn in the box, just with different sand. He wants to come home, take 90 days to play with his grandkids, then pack it all up again and head to Afghanistan for his final year in service before retirement. "Where is the Army gonna find another motor pool like this," he asks with all of us knowing the answer, "Nowhere."

I will always remember something else about Mac that somehow wrapped up the parts of him in one common vignette. When we were first going on convoys, I went on a few, and once shared a vehicle with Mac in the Truck Commander (TC) seat. Mac had his beloved M4, which he kept cradled left to right, with the muzzle pessed up against the glass of his window. As we rolled past the berm and off the FOB, Mac would push out the heavy bullet proof glass just slightly. Not enough to push the muzzle out, but just enough to keep the window unlatched and out of the locked position. This was so he could push against the glass and pop the window open if he needed to engage the enemy.

I've not seen anyone else before or since do that. It wasn't taught, I'm not sure even if it should be. But it works for Mac. And it reminds me, when I think of it, that we none of us know when we'll get into the s*** as they say, and need to sping into action to defend ourselves and our friends.

And he'll be yelling all the way. And he'll be keeping us yelling, too. Because when we're full of that WTF anger, we'll be too busy sending rounds downrange to realize how scary that mess can be.

If it ever happens, I have no doubt that Mac will be just a second or two ahead of us, swinging around that M4, barking out orders to his team, doing everything in his human power to bring them all home safe. Every one. Even the knuckleheads he has to tell the same thing to time and time again. Because, we're all of us his guys.

NOTE: This is the second of a series of Profiles of some of the Patriots with whom I serve. For the previous profile, follow the link to Profiles: The CO.

(Linked for weekend Brunch over at Basil's Blog, and linked at Mudville Gazette.)

I just got back from two days at the range. Ten straight hours in the IBA, in and out of vehicles, big desert empty, no shade. Open gun turrets, already weak air conditioning totally overpowered by the heat of sun and running engines and pounding rounds downrange. Each of us an all purpose liquid recycling machine, 1.5 liter ice bottles, a 5 minute melt and just enough to start draining it, then sweat and more sweat, a good wick means uniforms soaked beneath the IBA.

It was great!

For many of our gunners -- and for the drivers and Truck Commanders -- this is the first time since our mobilization training that we did live fire from our vehicles. I'm filling in for my Command Sergeant Major (CSM) while he's on leave. While this has meant quite a few trips off the FOB the past week, it also meant I had the use of his gun truck and his regular driver and gunner (incidentally two of our best).

We set up multiple iterations for individual gun trucks and even a convoy scenario for both the M2 (.50 Caliber machine gun) and the M240B (7.62mm machine gun). Half the gunners hit their stride immediately, getting down pat the neat trick of aiming a roaring lion while riding a bucking bronco. (Okay, so the metaphor's a bit strained, but there's two big animals to the problem, and both of them have teeth that bite.)

Within one or two target sets, all the gunners were right on target. The M2 ("Ma Duece") is an excellent sector weapon that can quite literally tear things apart. The CSM (and Little Manly) can converse on the gun's specs (they're the experts). What I know is God help the terrorist vehicle born improvised explosive device (VBIED) bomber who tries to get close to one. The rate of fire is extraordinary, and the explosive force of the .50 caliber round can act almost as if tipped with a high explosive.

Prior to this deployment, and being an MI weenie after all, I've had no experience with weapons any larger than an M16 or an AK-47. Now we are conversant with, and some are expert at, weapons with tremendous power and lethality. I've been meaning to write a commentary on modern weapons systems, to try to convey the sheer potency of modern armaments, guns like the Ma Duece are a prime example. (Perhaps more on that later.)

My CO -- I wrote about him in this piece -- even had a little "job well done" thank you present: an AT4 to test fire for each gunner. You can get a small sense of what this weapon can do, viewing this picture of the high explosive (HE) round as it explodes against a rusted hulk out on the range. But there is no way I can capture for you the experience of standing near one of these rockets when it goes off. One of our instructors was an ex-Tanker; he covered his ears in addition to the earplugs we all had. ("I can't afford to lose anymore than I have already," said he.) In addition to the very loud boom, there is a percussive blast wave that shakes the ground and can actually knock things over. And that's just the ambient blast wave, the backblast can be lethal within any close proximity.

The range offered another interesting highlight, this one entirely divorced from the activities of men and women at war. Iraq is home to summer-borne "dust devils." These quite strange phenomenon are like little tornadoes that whip up in the desert, springing seemingly out of nothing. They appear to be 5-20 meters across, and retain a tight funnel cloud shape up to hundreds of feet in the air. They whirl around, sweeping up small and loose debris, and amble through the Iraqi desert like lonely nomads. I believe the meteorologic explanation is super heated air causing tornado like effects. Just another way in which dirt and silt gets spread around in Iraq; this method at least generates curiosity rather than irritation. There is no other weather pattern, event or anomaly when they appear; no sudden gusts of wind, no clouds, no sound. They show up, they swirl, they go off wherever they go, and they can just puff away.

One came close to us on the range. It retained a very pronounced appearance, moving slowly but steadily across the range area behind us. For 5 or 10 minutes we watched it wander quite close to our security element. We laughed and predicted that they ought to batten down their hatches, close their windows and doors or they'd be chewing on grit the rest of the day. (Of course, it's all fun and games until the dust devil is headed straight for you.)

It is all very curious. Comparable in latitude to Savannah, Iraq in this region gets a very small fraction of the precipitation, and sees average high temperatures at least 20 degrees hotter. Super dry. I keep remarking, it is amazing to me that native peoples ever settled in such places, or once settled, didn't wander off down the road to somewhere more, well, temperate. This is ancient country. After we are gone, will we leave anything of value behind, something we created, something that lasts?

Or will it all be swept up in one of the many dust devils, swirled around for a time, and buried in the shifting sands of history?

The answer to that question will probably depend on whether we have the fortitude to stay the course long enough to carve the future in the rock of democratic -- and Iraqi -- institutions, rather than leave our legacy to the mercy of the desert. And, as any Bedouin will tell you, the desert, she doesn't have any (mercy).

(Linked at Mudville Gazette. Also linked at Smash's Liberty Call Lots of MILBLOGGING at its finest at both these sites.)

Austin Bay has posted a very helpful piece, Advice For A Troop Deploying To Iraq, and our friend Mustang 23 encouraged those of us here already to drop by and add any comments we felt would be helpful.

I've had COL Bay's post up on my laptop for the past 24 hours or so. I just spent two days out on convoy to and from a M2 and M240B range, and was too beat to even finish posting comments over at COL Bay's. Now rested, and with Mustang's helpful prod, here's my take.

I echo Mustang, if you are being activated or mobilizing or deploying with a unit, find out what you'll get from them before you invest major funds for stuff you'll get anyway. We have a ground surveillance team that is really hardcore, combat ready for the s***, and they each put in $2-3,000 of their own money getting a bunch of stuff. We none of us knew for sure what we would get, but in the end they received about 75% issue for what they had already spent. Some works for backup and replacement, but some of those E4s could have saved that money for when they got home.

Goggles, camelback, nomex (aviator, summer and winter) gloves, a set of underarmor, some heavier (green) cotton socks that are too warm for summer but fine for winter months, all issued items. We got a fleece suit, which was very helpful for winter at Fort Drum (Adirondacks), and surprisingly, the top was great (and necessary) for winter evenings and mornings in Iraq and even Kuwait.

Your unit will specify what else of the CIF you need to bring and what can be stored along with your BDU and woodland stuff.

Like Mustang, I would recommend to forego the fancy Camelback accessories and expansion kits unless you are a scout or will do foot patrols. On top of the IBA, you might as well be standing in the vehicle you either won't be able to bend (or even fit through the door). Everybody carries and has at hand the 1.5 liter water bottles, into which you can pour the poweraid, gatorade, Crystal Light mixes for whatever you prefer.

We bring coolers (unit acquired, stored, shipped) along on convoys; our LSA has big freezers (left behind from OIF I and II), we keep 3-4 freezers full, they turn to block ice, we throw those in the cooler a few bottles of water poured in to help melt them. You pull a frozen one out, leave it on the dash or out in the sun, within 10 minutes it is starting to melt, and within 20 you can often have it half done. You have a few in rotation, you always have ice cold water. The coolers, with the frozen water, can hold gatorade, and sodas (not recommended in the heat).

For me, the underarmor feels too constricting somehow, the tight feel didn't suit me, but the wicking effect is definitely worth it. I find I am happier with the cheaper version that is issued (two sets I think we got), and I notice in the PX they are somewhat less than half the price of the underarmor, and they wick pretty well but without the spandex feel. May be personal preference, but try one of each type during trainup if you can and see which suits you before shelling out the Underarmor price.

Bring a digital camera, one with an automatic lens cover, maglite, and as one of the commenters on COL Bay's blog said, get a couple of carabiners for your IBA to hold helmet or whatever else when your hands are occupied -- our trainers advised putting some 5/50 cord on the bottom of magazines, and as you empty them, you can hook them on the carabiner. (If you put them back in your pouches, you may be fumbling with empties when you want one full.)

No doubt you will have some down time, and with current MNC policies and the isolation from any host nation opportunities, entertainments will be limited. DVD and or laptop is a must if you have any LSA beyond tents (and even most all of those will have power).

As all the commenters have noted, soldier care and R&R items have improved greatly, the PX has most everything, and local Bazaars on most of the FOBs will have additional items (and the latest bootleg DVDs). With FOB consolidation, this will improve even more. Speicher and Anaconda have great services, Internet Cafes, phones, PX, fast food, bazaars, gyms, even pools (Anaconda).

You will likely be inundated with care packages, both from families and friends but also from Family Readiness Groups (FRG), churches, service organizations and community groups (especially if you encourage them!).

Departing soldiers always want to unload the stuff they won't need back home: 220 volt appliances, transformers, furniture, and comfort items. You can probably risk waiting to you get in country and know your living arrangements, and get whatever you end up needing that wasn't left or available to you on arrival.

The point both COL Bay and Mustang make about getting in shape is very sound advice. Ignore at your peril. And when you get here, keep it up the whole time you're here. Use the gyms when it's too hot for running. Use early morning or late evening if you can. The DFACs know no portion control here, you need to police yourself. Watch your intact, eat lightly, limit ice cream and cakes and pies and cookies and pastries (you really have NO idea until you get here how crazy these DFACs get).

Lastly, set up a blog and join MILBLOGS before you go. Your voice is important, and there's an audience back home that needs to hear what you see and think and experience. Otherwise, they'd have no idea at all.

A week ago, Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit linked to a post by a Patri Friedman at Catallarchy, The Voice of Hedonism. Glenn capped his remarks by noting an “interesting discussion in the comments.”

Now I respect Glenn and his Instapundit tremendously, and along with Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette inspired me and informed me most about this strange new world of the Blog. But I have to say, The Catallarchy post and its comments was the most distressing threads of conversation I have ever come across. (Perhaps Glenn meant interesting in the sense that a train wreck can be morbidly interesting.)

----

For more of this post, and links to other commentary including Abortion and Justice, and Glenn's post Teen Sex and the Media Hype , follow this link to the entire post over at Gladmanly.

The 81st Edition of the Christian Carnival has been
successfully posted at href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/dunmoose/81688.html#cutid1">Dunmoose
the Ageless.

Featured at this week's Carnival:

Adrian Warnock has a post in which he explains why his nine year old daughter can define love better than the Oxford Dictionaries.

Apprehension giving us Part 3 of a series on C S Lewis' Mere Christianity. Lewis discusses whether "Right" and "Wrong" are mere impulses or social conventions or are as palpable a reality as mathematical truths.

And my recent post, We have the Poor With Us Always .

Enjoy, and God Bless!

LINK posted by Jeff @ 5:21 AM 0 Comments

Links to this post

I have been engaged in an extended discussion in comments with one of my readers. Replying to a post on the remarks of David Kennedy, Ed Darrell took me to task for my initial reaction to Kennedy's description of our military sharing many essential characteristics with mercenary forces. Ed made some good points, passed along some other articles on Kennedy's speech, and at last a link to the graduation speech in its entirety, from which an excerpt was published the NY Times.

I have compiled my responses in the remainder of this post, as I think it stands as a helpful rebuttal to Kennedy's thesis, as I perceived it.

This debate remained civil but somewhat frustrating, as Ed kept telling me that Kennedy was essentially saying exactly what me and other MILBLOGGER's were saying. In the end, he concluded that "the propaganda for the war has penetrated everyone," causing "the men on the front lines miss the point and take offense." Reading through the entire speech, which is very clever in the manner in which his criticism of the U.S. Military is masked, confirmed my belief that what he said was what I thought he said. Ed belabors the other things Kennedy said, about the "nobel profession of arms," and the need for all members of society to contribute (muscularly and meaningfully) to the common good, particularly our armed services.

In isolation, we MILBLOGGERS should be able to agree with those portions of Kennedy's sentiments. I won't dispute the nice sentiments that Kennedy expressed, but they struck me as paliatives to the much more bitter pill he was offering. The manner in which he framed his argument, his thesis itself, was what most of us reacted to, were offended by, and rightfully called false. The use of terms like mercenary, Hessian, and suggesting that soldiers serve primarily for financial reasons, so fraught with negative connotations, undercut and rendered faint his praise.

No, Kennedy's premise wasn't exactly that the U.S. military is doing something great and sacrificial for our nation, and that we all need to chip in with our support, and all citizens should consider military service an obligation.

He started his talk saying the military was out of touch and isolated from the rest of society, that its members were narrowly restricted to those who would put their lives at great risk for money. He further suggested that the military was so separated, that the society at large had little common interest and purpose.

My own experience gives lie to these assertions. I am part of a 200 soldier National Guard Battalion, part of a 4,000 soldier National Guard Division headquarters and support units, which commands 18,000 subordinate troops in Iraq. 75% of these soldiers are National Guard, augmented by U.S. Army Active Duty soldiers. We are not only not separated from civil society, we are of it. We were called out of it. We serve out of a sense of civic obligation and loyalty to our country in a time of grave need.

Kennedy is right in this, that we should continue to urge our fellow citizens to share that burden. But not because we are mercenary, isolated, killing professionals; but because it is a civic virtue. (Not that anyone speaks of such obligations anymore.) If even a small fraction of our elites approached the sustenance of democracy as a noble civic obligation, we could lighten the burden all the way 'round, and surely avoid any necessity for the draft.

Kennedy's initial premise was that the military's separation from society could make it too easy for us to lose political control and allow the U.S. to use military force in ways antithetical to our principles. He alluded to the perception around the world that we use power aggressively, we have a "coercive footprint" that are military power is "assymetrical" to both our own security needs and those of other countries. And he clearly stated that our military prowess will cause us to seek military solutions at the expense of diplomacy.

Ed wanted me to acknowledge the final point Kennedy makes in his address, that he calls these graduates to get dirty, to get into the struggle, to pitch in. I asked, "What would cause us to conclude that he means as a way of supporting current foreign policy?" That's not how I read the speech. It seemed to me that Kennedy hopes these young people help halt the military in what he views as a slide towards (further) military excess.

From the thrust of his opening comments, Kennedy suggests that the U.S. intelligentsia (as represented by the graduates of Standford) needs to start viewing the "noble profession of arms" as a worthy calling precisely so that the military doesn't end up as a "professional killing machine" of ruthless precision and amoral intent. And as those of us who currently serve clearly recognize the (unstated) Vietnam allusions, and know the culture and integrity of our service, that's offensive.

There is no doubt in my mind that Kennedy served up a warning to his audience that, if the military is left as is, "that power dynamic may be lethal to political accountability."

That is saying, Fascism, without uttering the words.

(Linked as a Covered Dish at Basil's Blog. Lots of yummy bloginations, check it out!)

(Also part of the Outside the Beltway traffic jam., and in Citizen Smash's Morning Quarters.)

I wrote the following some time ago, I don't think I ever posted it, and I thought it might be a pleasant break from all the War on Terror and political commentary. The Great Big Everybody, by the way, refers to the very large (mostly Polish) family of Mrs. Dadmanly who adopted my daughters and I when we wed some 13 years ago now.

When I was very young,
I loved big family gatherings in Michigan, country folk
Some farms and farmers, some cereal factory workers,
some both out on the plains
I hardly can remember faces anymore,
I remember more the fabrics and the smells,
The country air, the weathered hands,
the summer breeze and the corn sweep in July

Before the great big everybody,
it seems like at the start of time
We prairie souls tumbled from crossroad to field
to open gate to home
Some silent landscape, Van Gogh or Wyeth like,
a single beat rhythm
Horizons endless, wind blown refuse flits across
an empty, side-less street

Before the great big everybody,
I had a name but didn’t need it much.

Before the great big everybody,
heart beat was what I had to listen to
No competing clash of interest or emotional vitality,
quiet times these
Sit or stand, the measured distance of the clock tick,
dry release of air
Books and books and walks that wandered off,
more meandering alone

That was before the great big everybody,
before the great big welcome home.

Nothing starts like this, explosion of connection,
a hundred names that took me
Several years to learn, I still mix up Tess and Reggie’s kids,
now there’s more
At first I focused on the food,
exotic mix of beef and rice and onions and potatoes
Potato salad in ceramic bowls and ham, gwombki and pieroghi,
horseradish smiles
In rooms full of animated women, veteran men
and children all these children too

I’m in the great big everybody,
and I can’t be lonely even when I try and hide.

Does every family barbeque, do all our families squabble
and debate about who said what
And what to who, and what ever happened to that boyfriend of yours,
you red faced girl?
Quiet ma! How’s Dad where’s Dad, did Donna bring the éclairs
or peanut butter cookies
Like tethered sheep, even if you cut away the ropes,
we’d still stand still stock still here

This great big everybody the only everybody
gave me this great big welcome home.

So now me and Jilly Beans and Spud and Little Manly
find ourselves connected
To the great big everybody here. All hugs and kisses,
friends my tether now in hand
and now instead of being pulled I pull and like bobble dolls
I see the great big everybody
Draw close in heart and close at hand,
with arms that wrap full around us all

And make us one new great big everybody,
with everybody loved, and everybody safe,
And everybody knows this great big everybody
will always stay an everybody blessing.

© 2005, In Warm Remembrance to the Great Big Everybody