High Plains Patriot

Send Obama "Fishy" Information

2009-08-07T07:00:00.002-05:00

I sent this e-mail to the flag@whitehouse.gov address last night. I encourage all of you to do the same!

Barack Obama,
As your administration requested, I need to report that everything coming out of your mouth is "fishy" with regard to healthcare reform. Given your positions from 2003 and 2007 and the inconsistencies with your statements now, it is readily apparent that you're trying to perpetrate a complete snow-job on the American people in order to implement socialized health care. I must therefore acquiesce to your request and report you to your own administration for lying to the American people and spreading "fishy" information.
Brian Bresnahan
Benedict, NE

An Already Failed Experiment

2009-04-08T18:28:00.000-05:00

The kid told his father what his intentions were. The father told his son not to do it, it’s been tried, it’s failed every time, and it wouldn’t work this time either.

But the dad’s cousin, who also lived with them, had been more encouraging. He told the kid the plan would work and the father to “be more supportive.” “You want him to succeed don’t you?” he asked of the father.

The father had disagreed, even taken the time to show his son all the YouTube videos of others who’d made their own wings and then crashed painfully, even mortally into the ground.

But the kid ignored the advice of his father. Instead he devised a plan to go ahead with his own wings. He’d even convinced his younger brother he could fly with him.

So the two boys, at the urging of the cousin, used dad’s best tools, some of dad’s new lumber and some of the old hard wood dad said wasn’t to be touched. Some of the screws were new and shiny, some were old and rusty, but the wings took shape.

Next he raided his mother’s closet and took her best bed sheets, wrapping the wood on both sides to convince his little brother it was safe. He then plundered her craft cabinet, took her fabric paints and painted the wings to look like eagle’s wings. Surely if they looked like eagle’s wings the plan would work.

Next he used mom’s Velcro and some of dad’s wire and string to tie the wings to his arms, and then the younger boy tied himself to big brother’s back. Strapped together they’d fly to glory.

Now they stood a few steps from the edge of the roof. It was a good thing dad worked so hard because they had the tallest, best house in town. As big as it was, it would be the best place to fly off of.

The father heard the commotion on the roof. He’d been in his office paying the bills and doing the extra work that had provided so much for his family. But a bad feeling came over him when he heard the shuffling up above. He knew what his son was up to.

He raced outside, along with his cousin who’d heard the same.

The father’s heart dropped when he saw the two boys perched a few feet from the edge of the high peak. He immediately shouted for the boys to stop and come down. He kept yelling. However, his cousin, whom he tolerated because he was family and he loved him, yelled good luck to the kids, “you can do it!”

In lock step, just as big brother had taught the younger, they took the three steps toward the edge of the roof to build up speed, and jumped.

For a brief moment in time it looked as if they would fly. And then reality and gravity kicked in and the boys plummeted to the ground.

The father stood bewildered, the horrific outcome flashing through his mind right before it actually happened. Everything that meant anything was about to be lost.

His cousin, now faced with the same reality instantly changed heart, but it was too late. What had he done?

Terror raced through the younger brother, but it was too late for him too. He’d tied himself to big brother and the doomed plan.

Now ask yourself, when it comes to Obama’s plans, “are you most like the little brother, the cousin, or the father?”

Obama's Budget Hurts All of Us

2009-04-08T18:26:00.002-05:00

Originally Published 24 March 2009

After Obama repeatedly bashed George Bush about the deficit Bush ran up, the Congressional Budget Office now says Obama’s budget will launch our deficit to 9.3 trillion dollars over the next ten years.

More disturbing than Obama’s hypocrisy on the subject are all of the negative consequences of his budget to our country. Those consequences often seem “far from home” for most people. Talking in trillions of dollars and getting our heads around the long-term implications of record deficits is hard to fathom.

But when the impact can be directly related to our lives, it puts a sense of perspective to the detrimental path Obama is pursuing.

Senator Johanns and his staff have been putting the direct affect of Obama’s budget in perspective. The Congressional Budget Office, much to the Administration’s chagrin, has been doing the same. Recent press releases and floor speeches have highlighted the very specific facts and figures about how the budget will affect each of us.

Although Obama promised to only raise taxes on those who make over $250,000 (or wherever that number ended up), it turns out his budget will impact everyone, including those of us who don’t make near that much.

Obama, like others who put the emotion of global warming ahead of common sense, wants to create a series of taxes for current energy sources that will cost everyone who use energy; pretty much all of us.

That alone will increase the tax burden on every family by about $2,300. So much for only raising taxes on those making over $250,000.

On top of that, it appears Obama’s plan will impose approximately 13% more in taxes on small and medium sized businesses. Because those businesses employ 74% of Nebraskans, it would be a far stretch to believe that his plan will not cost those of us who do business with them, or affect how many people they’re able to employ, or both.

I visited with two small business owners in central Nebraska before the budget plan was announced concerning their feelings about Obama’s fiscal philosophy and how it might affect them.

Both, one in the service sector and one in the retail sector, had seen this coming and were concerned. Rightfully so it turns out.

The retail business owner had actually started cutting back on expenses after the election, saving money, figuring that any Obama plan would cost him more in taxes. He cut back on his advertising budget, inventory on hand, and several other areas. The current economic times had not affected his business, but all pre-election indications were that Obama’s likely plans would be harmful. It now appears that the pre-election analysis was correct, and that he made a smart business decision.

Yes, we will all pay more taxes under the Obama plan. We will directly pay more for our own energy use. We will pay for the increased cost of everything we buy; all goods and services will be affected by the tax increases. It may cost more Nebraskans their jobs as small and medium size businesses cut back to cover the 13% greater tax burden.

Obama’s budget is estimated to increase taxes by $1.9 trillion. Every single one of us will get caught in that dragnet, not just the “rich.”

Congress Needs To Get Its Act Together

2009-04-08T18:24:00.000-05:00

Although Barack Obama is performing as poorly as expected, the equally poor performance of Congress is beyond expectations. It’s time for smarter, cooler heads to prevail and for Congress to start acting in accordance with the sensibilities and grounded realities of those they represent.

It was foreseen that Barack Obama’s lack of leadership experience and flaccid positions made him completely unprepared to be President. He now looks like a kindergartner thrown into a PhD program.

We fully expected him to jerk the steering wheel of America as hard and far to the left as humanly possible. We knew he would run to the tax and spend basket. We also knew he’d go after the 2nd Amendment, do a full frontal assault on the unborn, tear down national security protections, and generally pursue a socialist agenda. Well, almost half of us knew he would.

And we knew Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would be his willing accomplices.

But what has been quite disappointing is the performance of Congress as a whole.

It should have been a safe assumption that at least enough fiscally responsible individuals and smart people inhabited both Houses that sensible policies would have been generated, but it wasn’t.

First they passed a nearly trillion dollar “stimulus” bill that was 2/3 pork, ignoring an option that spent half as much but produced twice as much. Instead, hundreds of billions of dollars for pet projects were forced through Congress and signed without even being read.

One of the things blindly shoved through with that stimulus, and a good example of our Keystone Congress, was the permission for AIG to provide those ridiculous bonuses.

First Congress gave AIG the money for the bonuses in the bank bailout, and then the green-light to pay the bonuses (at the urging of the White House) in the stimulus bill they didn’t read.

But even more outrageous than the bonuses is the hypocritical indignation of the Senators and Representatives who made the bonuses quite possible. While throwing tantrums they look as petty as the parent who gives his kids finger-paints, shows them how to use it on the walls, and then explodes in anger when he comes home to a rainbow mosaic on the walls. Give us a break!

Then a $400 billion “Omnibus” spending bill was rammed through. There was almost a glimmer of sanity as some members of the Senate tried to slow it down, but alas, it went through pork and all.

Now Obama’s trying to push a $3.5 trillion budget, and to use Ben Nelson’s term, it is a complete “fudget” that plays hide and seek with a record amount of our money.

The Congressional Budget Office is predicting trillions of dollars in deficits that are dangerously high for the next ten years with Obama’s plan. They obviously aren’t putting much stock in Obama’s so called reduction plan. They’re not fooled by his parlor tricks.

Running up record deficits in just the first sixty days and forcing our country to hemorrhage money at an exponential rate via Congress and the Fed, some economists and lawmakers are now flat-out predicting Obama will bankrupt our nation.

It’s time for Congressmen and Senators alike to change course, quit talking about being concerned about deficits and out of control spending, and actually do something about it. Start voting “no,” and start supporting those pieces of legislation that resemble the sane and responsible policies and actions individual Americans, successful businesses, and fiscally sound States live and succeed with.

Obama Plans to Bill Wounded Vets for Health Care

2009-04-08T18:22:00.002-05:00

Originally Published 17 March 2009

Among the many things that Obama cleverly tried to disguise during his campaign was that he didn’t “get it” when it came to our military and veterans. However, he’s revealing his incompetence with his plan for veteran’s health care.

A recent press release from the American Legion described the National Commander of the Legion as being “deeply disappointed, concerned, and clearly angered” after meeting with Barack Obama.

The Obama Administration is moving forward with a plan to have the VA charge veterans for their service related VA provided care, if they happen to also have private health insurance. Veterans would have to submit these VA charges to their own insurance company (or have the VA bill their insurance company) for reimbursement of the costs back to the VA. This includes expenses related to treatment of service-related injuries, illnesses, and disabilities.

Under Obama’s plan, a vet with a disability comes home from war, and lands a good job which provides health insurance benefits. He then seeks treatment for his service-related disability at the VA. The VA treats the vet, but then charges the vet for the treatment because he has private insurance. The vet is forced to submit the charges to his private insurance so they can reimburse the VA. The vet bears the costs of co-pays and deductibles, incurs the hit against his lifetime maximum benefit, and the government shifts financial responsibility for veterans care from the VA to the insurance company.

According to the Legion Commander, Obama’s intention is to use this process as a revenue generating enterprise for the government, with a goal of raising $540 million by shifting the costs of veterans’ health care from the VA to private insurers.

And in true Obama fashion, he ignored the arguments against such a proposal. According to Commander Rehbein, Obama is “acting inconsistently with the mandate” to care for those who fought as ordered by their country. Additionally, Obama “refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it."

The plan is “inconsistent with the mandate that VA treat service-connected injuries and disabilities given that the United States government sends members of the armed forces into harm's way.”

Charging for treatment of a service-related injury or illness through a private insurance company could “max out” the veteran’s insurance benefits. That would leave him or her uninsured for any other needs. It could also leave the vet’s family uninsured when the coverage reaches its maximum.

Additionally, veterans would now have to bear the costs of insurance deductibles, elevated costs for insurance premiums charged to those with a known illness or disability, and face reluctance to be hired by a company that may have trouble acquiring and funding health care for a veteran’s situation; all unprecedented moves against veterans by any administration.

(For the record, this wouldn’t affect me personally, but would certainly be detrimental to other vets.)

Of the very few things our government should have its hands in, caring for veterans who need it after fighting for our country is one of them. Obama’s plan is thus, outright unacceptable.

Ironically, this story is emerging at the same time as Obama’s plan to move toward socialized medicine with a down payment that alone costs $640 billion. While planning to absolve the government of its financial responsibility for veterans care, Obama is planning to burden taxpayers for provision of free health care to others who are uninsured.

Our veterans deserve better, and our elected representatives deserve a phone call on this one.

HBO Film Inspires

2009-04-08T18:18:00.002-05:00

Originally Published Around 10 March

Though many of my Marine friends and I were rightfully skeptical of HBO’s original movie “Taking Chance” before it aired, (Hollywood’s not been friendly toward the military for many years now) after seeing it, we’ve all been quite impressed.

“Taking Chance” is based on the true story of Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel Mike Strobl’s journey while escorting home another Marine, Lance Corporal Chance Phelps, who was killed in Iraq during April of 2004.

The film doesn’t reveal an agenda, it only shares Strobl’s story, and Chance’s, and it does so superbly.

We’ve all reported cases of the television set becoming blurry while we watched.

HBO beautifully captures the story, the emotion, and the moment. The film reminds us of why war is so difficult, whether you’ve been there or not, even long after the fact.

In Lieutenant Colonel Strobl’s case, it shows the emotional struggle and guilt of many who don’t feel like they’ve done their part.

It shares a quite poignant moment with a Sergeant who was right there with Chance when he was killed; quite representative of the challenges faced by those who were there.

“Taking Chance” does more than share a piece of history and a story of sacrifice. It reveals the personal cost of war amongst those who fight them. And for all, the cost is different.

Though the story stays true to itself, it really does give important glimpses into how and why veterans and their families endure what they do.

As such, maybe it will help someone understand why their Marine or soldier “just had to go” over there.

There may be an answer about why their soldier who did go can’t seem to forgive him or herself for things that happened.

There are burdens that never seem to fall and can’t ever seem to be shared.

It can help us understand those who visit the grave of a buddy and cry until they can’t cry anymore. For some it’s therapeutic, not so much for others.

Even when you’ve been there, it helps you grasp why some you know crawl in a bottle afterward, while others try to hide from the memories. They make themselves scarce and the last citing is of them looking rather Bohemian before they’re simply gone.

Others bottle it all up and either cope or do not. Emotions on the extremes are not uncommon. Nor are sudden revelations years after the fact.

The movie may help others gain some empathy for the families of those who serve. They deal with the nightmare of the white buses taking their loved ones to war, the white car bringing Marines in dress uniforms with awful news, and everything in between.

It may help us understand why some soldiers have to keep going back into the battle, while others battle ghosts and sleeplessness at home.

We can also watch “Chance” and understand the infinite pride for our Marine Corps. It shows why the brotherhood established in war is a lifelong bond and commitment amongst those who’ve shared it.

And yet for others, it was all really no big deal, which is awesome for them, but keeps friends and family on edge as they “wait for the other shoe to drop.”

Yes, a well done HBO movie about a Marine and all the lives he touched can uncover that much, reveal that many answers, and inspire that much emotion. Well done, HBO.

Second Amendment Attacked From Two Directions

2009-04-08T18:13:00.001-05:00

Originally Published in Early March

While perpetually in the cross-hairs of those groups trying to destroy the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms has recently come under direct attack from both the White House and Congress.

The attacks from both fronts weren’t unexpected though.

Last week the Attorney General announced he will seek a ban on “assault weapons,” which has always been the broad reaching term used by gun-ban advocates designating any semi-automatic weapon and/or weapon with a detachable magazine as an assault weapon. Their target usually includes most standard hunting rifles, shotguns, and handguns.

Those who studied Barack Obama’s legislative history understood long before the November election that he was a gun grabber from way back. His record of attacking the 2nd Amendment is atrocious.

The nomination of Eric Holder as Attorney General with his abysmal record of assaulting gun ownership and gun owner’s rights was congruent with Obama’s philosophy.

So the actions of this dynamic duo come as no surprise, and demonstrate why the two of them have been the best thing for ammunition and gun sales in a long time.

Record sales of arms and ammunition have been reported across the nation for several months now. An educated public, informed about Obama’s legislative record and true intent, didn’t buy his empty rhetoric. Despite his pleas to the contrary, Americans knew he stood against the 2nd Amendment and have been arming themselves anyway; and rightfully so.

Nor have freedom loving Americans been swayed by those who’ve criticized their purchases, belittling their gun and ammo buying decisions as unfounded hysteria. It’s now proven that their decisions were quite grounded in reality.

Supporters of the Second Amendment knew what was coming. Obama and Holder have proven them right.

The attack from Congress was also expected. It seems to be a yearly tradition.

Congressman Bobby Rush, Democrat-Illinois, has introduced HR 45, the Blair Holt’s Firearms Licensing and Record of Sales Act.

This piece of legislation requires mandatory written firearms testing, licenses for all gun owners, and government access to gun owners’ mental health records. It includes restrictions on who can own a firearm, and places restrictions on sales and storage of weapons. Additionally, it empowers the government to track the ownership and whereabouts of all guns (a sure path to widespread confiscation).

It requires background checks for purchases, forces an individual to submit to inspections of records, and empowers government authorities to inspect the manner in which weapons are stored in the home. It criminalizes gun owners moving without informing authorities or reporting loss or theft of a firearm. Not surprisingly, it places an intrusive, oppressive amount of power with the Attorney General to judge and enforce the legislation.

Though the attack itself is not a surprise, its wide-sweeping nature is. Typically attacks against the Second Amendment have come incrementally. A ban here and a restriction there on the way to the ultimate goal of tearing down our rights has been the modus operandi.

But this bill goes for the whole nine yards at once. Though it doesn’t request an all-out ban on guns, it throws nearly every obstacle imaginable in the way of gun ownership.

While many liberties are at risk with the current gluttonous rate of government growth and those risks are clouded by the fog of size and rapidity of said growth, make no mistake, this is one area where the risk to your liberties is crystal clear.

Big Government Philosophy Erodes Freedom

2009-02-10T18:58:00.000-06:00

President Ford once said that “a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”

It then follows that as we stand ready to witness a catastrophic explosion in the size of our government with this “spendulus” bill that we are also about to experience government taking more from us. And what does it take from us? Liberty.

Freedom dies at the same rate and in equal proportion to the expansion of government.

The more the federal government controls the purse strings of States, businesses, and individuals, the more compliance it can and will demand from them. When we allow the government to hold our purse strings, we find our selves as puppets controlled by those same strings.

With growth in the federal largess, Americans are increasingly encumbered with burdensome taxes, regulations, and nanny-state laws. The more government grows, the more it tells us exactly what we can and can not do.

And now with this President, Congress and stimulus bill, we’re about to exacerbate the infringements upon freedom with government growth at an unprecedented level. Just a few examples:

The legislation targets our freedom of religion by disqualifying educational institutions that allow any religious function to take place on its campus from receiving any stimulus funds, whether that function is school sponsored or not. By use of federal funds, liberals in Washington are trying to scare universities into banning all student participation in religious activities.

The stimulus bill provides additional funding to those government environmental agencies which already place ridiculous restrictions on the lives of individuals, producers, and businesses. It can be expected that the level of intrusion will increase proportionally to the level of their increased funding.

The bill provides heavy doses of funding to secondary schools. As history has proven, this will decrease the freedom we have to determine how our schools will operate and the curriculum that will be taught. The government will be more inclined and more empowered to dictate the terms of our children’s education.

We’re already seeing the federal government dictate to recipients of previous bailout funds how they will and will not conduct business. The precedent is set.

What’s additionally troubling is the manner in which this legislation is being forced upon us.

It was written in the House behind closed doors by a few leftists. It was rushed to the Senate and Obama demanded an immediate vote. He has chastised and belittled all who wanted a responsible review of the bill. He has demeaned everyone who has questioned the bill and his haste to have it passed.

Additionally, Obama trying to dictate who we should and should not listen to with regard to political commentary and Senator Stabenow’s recent comments that she’s sure the Fairness Doctrine will be imposed to squash dissenting viewpoints are both troubling events.

A triad of unprecedented government expansion and intervention, bullying demands by a few leaders, and silencing of dissent are not the foundational principles of this country. They are foundational principles of socialist and even communist governments. The similarities being seen in Washington right now are eerie.

For those who are cheering Obama and the leftists in Congress, be careful what you wish for. One morning you’ll wake up to find your liberties have also disappeared. The scythe of tyranny is not selective.

Questions and Concerns About the Stimulus

2009-02-10T18:22:00.004-06:00

Concerning What the Senate Passed Today:

Analysis using the President's own financial model has shown that more tax cuts with less spending and a smaller price tag will yield more dividends, and sooner.

Is it partisanship that is ignoring the Republican plan that does that? I don't think Republicans are worked against this bill because of partisanship. They're working against this bill because most of it doesn't match the intended outcome and their alternative using the same economic models showed they'd yield better results, faster, and with less money.

If given the choice between two options, why not choose the one predicted to work better and for less money?

The CBO has shown that the long term effects of this legislation will be detrimental. It seems to me that we still ended up with way too much spending and not enough tax cuts.

I also noticed in reading through the elements of the bill that so much of it is spread out over 10 years. While many of those items (spending and tax cuts) are noble causes, does a 10 year plan actually belong in a bill that is intended to stimulate the economy now? Though I'll take tax cuts of any kind at any time, why not do things that truly make some immediate impacts like reductions to payroll taxes?

I still have trouble understanding why my tax dollars should go to propping up states who've been irresponsible with their finances. Maybe they should all be required to take lessons from Nebraska?

Also, much of the bill falls under the classic definition of "welfare." Is there a cease and desist date for this welfare? One thing we learned during the 90's from welfare reform that programs with a deadline get people working again and the economy churning much faster than an endless supply of welfare.

Through all of this, no one has yet answered, or asked that I'm aware of, how are we going to pay for this?

And what about the impact of the inflation that's sure to follow?

Lastly, I think the vote on any conference agreement should be delayed so that we all have time to comb through the bill and find the hidden little agenda items, such as the one which denied funding to educational institutions if they allowed any religious organization use of facilities. What others may lie in the bill?

I've had several calls from those concerned that there's some item that will limit conservative or religious talk radio, though I can't find it. Page 164 has been mentioned as the source???? Either way, I think that we should have the time to scrutinize all the devils in the details instead of having this rushed through.

More of What's in the Stimulus

2009-02-10T18:15:00.004-06:00

Although this catastrophic stimulus bill has passed both houses of Congress it will still need to go through conference and another vote. Call Senators Nelson and Johanns and tell them to eliminate these types of things in the bills or vote against them altogether after the conference.

Senator Nelson's Office: (202) 224-6551
Senator Johanns' Office: (202) 224-4224

Hidden Health Care Provisions
If you're a senior citizen, concerned about health care, or in the medical profession, this legislation will be devasating.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

"If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later. The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181)."

Stimulus is Anti-Religion
If you're concerned about provisions in the stimulus which are clearly targeted at forcing religion out of our lives and society, check out Mike Huckabee's column here:http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18668.html
And call our Senators and tell them to stop this.

Stimulus Reverses Gains Made in 1996 Welfare Reform
Through expansion of welfare programs, the Reform from 1996, which reduced welfare rolls and was so successful will be turned back. A permanent expense for all taxpayers. Read the Minority Leader's report here:
http://republicanleader.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=110504
This report by The Heritage Foundation lays out nicely the expense of welfare for us in the coming years. The dollars are staggering.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2276.cfm

Find the Pork in the Stimulus
Fox News has posted a link on their website and sent out a challenge to the nation to find the waste in the stimulus bills, both House and Senate versions. In less than 1 minute I found $3 million for studying the effect of the minimum wage in American Samoa in the Senate bill. What can you find?
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/02/09/youdecide_stimulus_bacon/

What's in the Stimulus Compromise?

2009-02-07T15:30:00.009-06:00

From what I've found so far, it certainly doesn't look like the compromise stimulus legislation has enough tax cuts in it, won't make an immediate impact, and is still too much wasteful spending. While I applaud those Senators who have worked to cut spending from the catastrophic House bill they were sent, they still have not cut enough spending or provided near enough tax relief.

The Congressional Budget Office has cast serious doubts on the original legislation from the House. At this time, the compromise doesn't appear to be much different (just a slightly smaller price tag) and should raise similar concerns.

Too much of this (spending and tax cuts) is still spread over too long a period of time to be considered stimulus. There are plenty of sacred cows, pork, and fat, remaining that need cleaved.

"The tax provisions included in 'The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan' will provide $275 billion of tax relief for individuals, businesses, and State and local governments" according to the Senate Finance Committee website.

Spending and a couple tax cut highlights From Senator Ben Nelson's website:

Some highlights of the Nelson-Collins agreement include:
$7 billion in rural broadband infrastructure
$1.87 billion for Community Health Center infrastructure
$64.4 billion for our nation’s K-12 educational system
$19 billion for a 10% non-refundable tax credit (capped at $15,000) for any home purchase
$6.4 billion for a down payment on the Energy Superhighway and a Smart Grid
$9.6 billion renewable energy investments
$250 million in rural renewable energy Investments
$42 billion in transportation infrastructure investments
$6.4 billion for environmental infrastructure including water and sewer infrastructure
$87 billion in temporary and targeted Medicaid relief to states
$70 billion for a one year fix for the Alternative Minimum Tax
$13.9 billion more for Pell Grants to help thousands of college students pay for increases in college costs.
$13 billion more for Special Education/IDEA to improve education for disabled children
$3.5 billion for law enforcement, including $1.2 billion for popular Byrne grants for drug task forces.

From Glenn Thrushes blog at the Politico, a list of what was reduced, not necessarily cut:

$40 billion State Fiscal Stabilization

$16 billion School Construction

$1.25 billion project-based rental

$2.25 Neighborhood Stabilization (Eliminate)

$1.2 billion in Retrofiting Project 8 Housing

$7.5 billion of State Incentive Grants $3.5 billion Higher Ed Construction

(Eliminated)$100 million FSA modernization

$50 million CSERES Research

$65 million Watershed Rehab

$30 million SD Salaries

$100 million Distance Learning

$98 million School Nutrition

$50 million aquaculture

$2 billion broadband

$1 billion Head Start/Early Start

$5.8 billion Health Prevention Activity

.$2 billion HIT Grants

$1 billion Energy Loan Guarantees

$4.5 billion GSA

$3.5 billion Federal Bldgs Greening

He has more.

Real Change and No Change

2009-02-03T23:06:00.002-06:00

These last couple weeks have been a wonderful illustration of what real change looks like, but it hasn’t happened here at home. It’s happened in Iraq. Here at home it’s been the same old thing with a lot of flowery rhetoric dressing it up.

The Iraqi’s have once again defied all the critics and ignored all the skeptics by participating in another round of voting. They held provincial elections with national implications and pursued freedom’s promise and democracies future, again.

(FOX NEWS picture Jan. 28: Iraqi policewoman Hoda Salam holds up an ink-stained finger after casting her vote in the country's provincial elections in Baghdad.)

They did so with their own administrative apparatus leading the way. They did so with their security personnel leading protective services; both of which are testaments to the hard work and sacrifice of our troops.

For now, the people of Iraq have a hopeful future. They have done what so many around the world and so very many in this country said could not be done. While Harry Reid was telling the world that the war was lost, and by default so was Iraq’s future, they were doing the hard work necessary for real change. They have proven that a Middle Eastern, Islamic nation could actually function as a democracy.

They broke free from the shackles of radical fundamentalists. They learned to cooperate and work together at local and eventually higher and higher levels. Though all may not yet be fully invested in others outside their sect, they are at least functionally tolerant of one another. They have learned to work together at all levels to make real change.

While here at home, we got the same old thing with a lot of fancy words. I’m beginning to think that the only qualification for President is excellent reviews in the local Toastmasters club.

The Democrats in the House unleashed 8 years of pent up spending frustration on the American people with over a trillion dollar “stimulus” bill written behind closed doors by three of the most liberal members of Congress, ever. Believing that government spending is the answer to the worlds woes, is not change, it’s the liberal status quo.

Barack Obama endorsed the bill, went to the Hill, and tried to strong-arm House Republicans into voting for a bill they had no input on and contained very little they could believe in. Republicans walked away with the bi-partisan vote, but lost to a partisan group of Democrats, and in so doing were chastised for being the partisans. This obtuse perspective on reality by liberals and their cohorts in the national media is not change.

Obama, when confronted before the vote by Republicans who objected to the bill and demanded he fulfill a campaign promise to be inclusive, responded that it would be done his way, “he won.” That’s not change. In fact, it’s exactly what the Dems complained Bush did. The status quo has been maintained.

Not until now, after being confronted by Senators in his own party (led by a Nebraskan) and others who followed suit is he reconsidering his position.

Barack Obama has not filled his administration with those who inspire change. Many are Clinton-era retreads. One tax cheat has been approved and Obama’s trying to push a second one through.

His attorney general is weak on national security, a solid advocate for terrorist’s rights, but stands for denying citizens the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms; typical for a liberal administration.

If that weren’t same old same old enough, Obama campaigned vigorously against lobbyists, created a rule to ban lobbyists from his administration, and in nearly the same breath broke his own rule to bring two lobbyists into his administration. That’s change?

In the middle of November I predicted the military’s budget would be in danger with a liberal Congress and administration. I was right. This week Obama told the Pentagon chiefs to cut their budget by 10% for 2010. That weak national security position is normal for the left and certainly isn’t a change we can believe in while we’re trying to fight a war.

Obama’s rhetoric does not match his actions, and his actions do not reflect any change to American politics.

While the Iraqi people have shown the world the paradigm shift and the hard work necessary to implement real change, Obama and friends have shown us what a dusty old play book looks like.

What Do We Get From the Stimulus Bill?

2009-01-28T15:08:00.008-06:00

At this point, the Wall Street Journal quotes: "The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said government borrowing prompted by enactment of the plan would add another $347 billion, pushing the estimated cost of the stimulus plan to more than $1 trillion, including interest.

So what do we get for over a trillion dollars?

According to NewsMax, possibly up to $5.2 billion for ACORN and ACORN-like groups.

The International Herald Tribune is reporting that illegal immigrants will be eligible for the $500 and $1000 rebate checks; I guess we're going to have to include them on the list of people who get a check from the government but don't pay taxes. Please quit insulting us and calling that a tax cut.

The Opinion Journal notes:

$1 billion for AMTRAK
$2 billion for childcare subsidies
$50 million for the National Endowment of the Arts
$400 million for global-warming research
$2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects
$650 million for digital TV conversion
$8 billion for renewable energy funding
$6 billion for mass transit
$600 million for the government to purchase new cars, because $3 billion a year just isn't enough $7 billion to modernize federal buildings
$252 billion in income-transfer payments ( including: Medicaid $81B, $36B unemployment, $20B food stamps, $83B earned income credit to those who don't even pay taxes)
$54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as "ineffective" or unable to pass basic financial audits
$66 billion toward "education" including $6 billion toward university building projects with the caveat that "No recipient . . . shall use such funds to provide financial assistance to students to attend private elementary or secondary schools."

And Drudge is breaking

$335 million for STD prevention and education

This from House Republicans, POC Congressman Mike Pence

􀂾 $87 billion for Medicaid spending for states and $79 billion for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund. According to the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the total budget deficit for the states collectively for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2009 is $43 billion. Given that the federal government’s Fiscal Year 2009 deficit is already projected at $1.2 trillion—or 27.5 times greater than the total State shortfall—it is hard to understand why the Democrats would choose to further exacerbate the federal deficit, especially since most states are subject to balanced budget requirements whereas the federal government is not.

􀂾 $80 billion for refundable tax-credits. Unlike across the board tax cuts, these temporary tax credits send refund payments directly to individuals, even if they pay no taxes. These refunds do little to spur growth, create more jobs, or stimulate the economy and are more similar to new spending through tax policy than actual tax cuts.

􀂾 $30 billion—only 3.6% of the total spending—for highway construction. Despite calls by Democrats for increased infrastructure spending to create jobs, a relatively small share of the total $816 billion package is devoted to highway and transportation infrastructure.

􀂾 $13 billion in spending that could be construed as corporate welfare, which distorts the free market as private firms attempt to align their business models with the availability of government subsidies.

􀂾 $50 million in new funds for the Student Aid Administration to increase staff.

􀂾 $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts to fund projects and activities which preserve jobs in the non-profit arts sector.

􀂾 $350 million to identify and track the availability and adoption of broadband services.

􀂾 $1 billion for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).

􀂾 $1 billion for expenses in conjunction to the 2010 decennial census.

􀂾 $200 million for Americorps and other paid volunteerism programs.

􀂾 $800 million for Amtrak—the federal subsidized rail carrier which consistently losses money—for the purpose of reducing Amtrak’s $10 billion capital backlog.

􀂾 $200 million for turf replacements and other construction projects on the National Mall.

􀂾 $400 million for NASA climate change research.

􀂾 $150 million for building repairs at the Smithsonian.
.
􀂾 $10 million for the Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership and Opportunity Program, which provides funds for non-profits like ACORN, an organization that has been accused of practicing unlawful voter registration and intimidation techniques in the past.

􀂾 $253 million for repairing Department of Agriculture (USDA) facilities.

􀂾 $650 million for Digital-to-Analog Converter Box Coupons and related activities surrounding the ongoing transition to digital television.

􀂾 $300 million to construct research science buildings at colleges and universities, many of which have billion dollar endowments.

􀂾 $1 billion to conduct "comparative effectiveness research" to evaluate the effectiveness of different preventative healthcare interventions.

􀂾 $88 million for the cost of leasing a new facility and moving the headquarters of the Public Health Service, which houses 2,500 federal employees.

􀂾 $245 million to modernize the computer systems at the Farm Service Agency.

􀂾 $150 million for the Coast Guard to alter or remove 12 obstructive bridges across the country.

􀂾 According to CBO, under current law, the federal deficit will rise to a record $1.2 trillion, or 8.3% of GDP, in 2009. Even without this massive spending bill, the deficit will be by far the highest on record nominally and as a percentage of GDP during peacetime, easily exceeding the previous record of 6% in 1983 and the highest New Deal level of 5.9% in 1934.
􀂾 CBO estimates that H.R. 1 would cost $816 billion, which does not include debt service for the interest created by the legislation over the 2009-2019 period. When the $347 billion in debt service is included, the total ten year cost of the bill increases to $1.16 trillion.
􀂾 The cost of the stimulus, combined with the current deficit estimates, would raise the staggering 2009 deficit to roughly $1.36 trillion.
􀂾 CBO reports that $526 billion (65%) of the bill will be spent by 2011. However, the vast majority of that money ($382 billion) would be spent on expanded federal assistance programs and tax credit refunds. Only $144 billion would be spent on infrastructure spending to create jobs and stimulate the economy in 2009 and 2010.

Do You Want Obama to Succeed?

2009-01-28T07:15:00.003-06:00

That question misses the mark and the point of the argument.

If my 8 year old son is on the roof with wings he's made out of 2x2s and bed sheets, the question isn't whether or not I want him to succeed, it's how fast can I get on the roof and stop him?

I know he's not going to succeed, so I have to act. I'm not going to stand in the yard and cheer for him. I'm screaming for him to stop. I'm headed to the roof.

So it goes with Obama. The plan he's embarking upon won't succeed. His plan heads us toward the same disaster my 8 year old would encounter. Any success would come at the expense of why our country was established, what makes us great, and our freedoms. And still eventually leads us to failure, as we've seen with so many other nations that have pursued such a leftist path.

They all fail, as would my son, as will Obama's plan.

So when asked the question, "do you want Obama to succeed?" Simply reply, "he won't."

It's time to act!

Step Up to the Plate

2009-01-28T06:55:00.001-06:00

I tried to take a break from writing, but events and encouragement have pulled me back in.

I was overwhelmed by so many of you who asked me to keep going; even more so by those who told me it was necessary. The paradigm shift came from the person who told me it’s my responsibility. I couldn’t find a way to disagree.

Many, many people over the last couple months, especially when I tried to stop writing, most of them older than I, have all shared the same story with me. They couldn’t believe they were living to see the day that our country was going to “heck in a hand-basket.” Not because of where we’re at, but because of the direction we’re heading.

Their stories have all been the same. They’ve lived long enough to know what works and doesn’t work. They lived through Johnson and Carter. They’ve watched socialist and communist states rise and fall. They’ve seen liberal ideas and populist plans not work and even cause great hardship despite the noblest of intentions. They know what works and doesn’t work from a lifetime of lessons learned. But they see us heading straight down those failed paths at break-neck speed.

They understand the prosperity of America ebbs and flows, they’ve seen it. They knew that some day it might suffer greatly. But they never thought they’d see a catastrophe in their lifetime. But they see us racing toward that condition now, and they ask who is willing to act?

Well I am.

So let’s start by addressing the most pressing of issues, the economy and this “stimulus” plan, or better termed, the liberal grand scheme.

Let’s face it. This whole trillion dollar venture is nothing but one big pork barrel project. The more we find out about it, the more we realize it’s nothing but a spending spree on the many projects and ideological fantasies of liberals.

At the end of the day, most all of this money will go to those the government picks just the same as if it were ear-marked like so many pork barrel projects. The contraception’s out, but insulating houses, putting turf on the national mall, and bailing out irresponsible state governments is just the tip of the iceberg. No wonder Nancy Pelosi wrote this thing behind closed doors and Obama wants to shove it through without interruption, trying to bully opposition under the guise of bipartisanship.

It’s a plan that won’t work and analysis by the Congressional Budget Office is beginning to show us why, as if common sense and intelligence weren’t already screaming the reasons why it won’t work.

But what will?

Dramatically cut corporate and business tax rates right now. Businesses have a credit crisis, but letting them keep their own cash pulls them away from as much dependency on credit, and it lets them keep their workers on staff, stopping the slide of unemployment.

Make big cuts in payroll taxes immediately. If we get to keep more of our own money, we’re going to save some which props up banks that might be suffering, but mostly we’re going to spend our money on goods and services. This puts the people who manufacture, retail, and provide those goods and services back to work. It also increases local tax revenues which props up suffering states and municipalities.

Cut our social security tax in half, now. We will invest that money as we see fit, infusing it back into a struggling economy, helping small and large companies, and even municipalities (via bond investments) with their cash flow and credit problems.

I trust people to do what’s right. I trust that we ourselves can decide much better how to spend over a trillion dollars of our own money than the government could ever do for us. Barack Obama’s wrong. The federal government isn’t the only entity that can fix this. In fact, government’s the only entity that’s sure to screw this up. But we, we can get it right.

The very same people who so boisterously and viciously attacked President Bush and opposed every Republican idea tooth and nail for the last 6 and 8 years now demand that everyone else act in a bipartisan and cooperative spirit. Well too bad! Their version of bipartisanship means that we’re supposed to be quiet and eat the crud they’re dishing out. Well I refuse to!

So now is the time, more than ever, to step up and fight against this nonsense!

We all have to work at this, so I strongly encourage you to get on the phone and demand our elected officials in D.C. stop this nonsense, demand some common sense, and demand that the trust and answers be placed with us, not the government.

I’m willing to step up to the plate. Are you?

Fair Winds and Following Seas

2009-01-26T09:18:00.000-06:00

Published around 3 Jan 09
This didn't mean I was out of the game!!!!!

Three years ago my first column supporting victory in Iraq and the reasons success was attainable appeared in one of Nebraska’s newspapers. Now that our troops have forged the way, the Iraqi people (as I knew they could) have acted on the desires for freedom they shared with me in 2004, and Al Qaeda is in its death throes there, it’s time to move on. Family, time demands of a new job, graduate school, and a host of other reasons are prodding me to set down the pen, at least for now.

I started writing to share news and a perspective that was obviously not being given here at home when I returned from Iraq. Although there were plenty of the other stories to be told, they were not making the news. Explanations of the complexities on the ground were absent.

I tried to fill that void best I could, although 750 words once per week seemed like working against the tide at times.

But through it all, enough of you encouraged our lawmakers to stand strong in the face of terrorists, especially when it became clear that Al Qaeda had made Iraq their central front and standing for victory here at home became unpopular. Thank you for your perseverance.

Many Nebraskans and other patriots like you across the nation were resolute in the face of terror, even when many of our elected officials flagged. On behalf of those of us who fought in Iraq, who believe in the mission, who understand the danger of what we face in the world and the complexities of the situation, “Thank You” for your resolve. You succeeded.

Your insistence upon doing the right thing and pursuing victory for America, regardless of political popularity, is a reminder that strength in America lies with the people, not in those we send to Washington.

During the last 3 years I felt compelled to also cover other aspects of politics in America.

Through daily research on the war and all the issues that surrounded it, it became apparent that while there were many fighting for America, there were also many fighting to reshape America to fit their flagellating desires. Within the cabal against victory over terrorists I found those groups who also had other agendas. It was necessary to opine against groups like the ACLU, MoveOn, and politicians who subscribe to those liberal ideologies because either their purpose or the outcome of their actions would undermine the foundations of this country.

Sharing the good news, rallying for victory, and railing against these groups garnered me some interesting mail, most of it anonymous regurgitated liberal rants, all of it circular filed with a short prayer for the condition of those consuming the Kool-Aid. However, I did appreciate those who disagreed and took the time to make well written, thoughtful, intelligent arguments. Thank you. Your comments were truly welcomed and considered.

My heart-felt thanks go out to those of you who have supported me over the last three years. All of your kind words and correspondence have meant so much and been quite motivating. They’ve also been a source of firepower when the staff’s of politicians with whom I disagreed called to blast me for critiquing their bosses. You provided the ammunition to shoot right back because I knew my opinions were shared by so many of you.

Please continue to stay strong in the war against terrorists and be active citizens. Let our elected officials know what you think and where you stand. All appreciate it. Some need reminded why they were elected. Others need reminded that we’re watching and holding them accountable.

In closing, I must say that my hope for the New Year and the future of America does not lie with a politician who emerged from a Chicago cesspool. To do so defies reason and reality.

No, my hope for the future and America lays with you, those of you who understand the value of individual hard work and responsibility; those who choose to care for yourselves and each other instead of looking to government for the answers. My hope lies with what our nation’s founders intended for America. It lies with our Constitution and those who support it, not those who want to reshape it. My hope lies with those who are willing to sacrifice everything to defend it.

Most importantly, my hope lies with Jesus. Pursuing Him is pursuing hope.

Semper Fidelis. Major Brian, out.

Shoe Thrower Highlights Left’s Disdain, Iraq’s Freedom

2009-01-26T09:17:00.000-06:00

Published around 16 December 08

Not surprisingly, the Iraqi shoe thrower is being hailed as a hero by some on the left in this country. Their hatred of George Bush submerses them in ignorance to the reality of the shoe tosser’s background, prevents clarity of a bigger perspective on the subject other than their own juvenile giddiness, and blinds them to the truth.

Lost to the left and the mainstream media’s coverage of the event is the fact that we now know the shoe thrower was rabidly anti-American, very much pro-Saddam, and worked for an organization that was pro-Saddam. That puts things in perspective.

We’ve also learned from his peers and colleagues that he “detested George Bush,” but that he also “detested the U.S. soldiers” and “detested America.” There you go leftists, he also detests you, if you consider yourselves Americans. He wasn’t just throwing his shoes at a man you hate he was throwing his shoes at the leader of our country, your country, the nation he hates very much. The reality is that he hates you as much as he hates George Bush.

But because of George Bush, and in spite of you, he and other Iraqi journalists now have the freedom to publish what they will.

And that’s the bigger picture some in Iraq, the Arab world, and here in America forget: that reporter now has the right to express himself without fear of death for doing so.

Ironically, under Saddam Hussein, if this reporter, or any other Iraqi, had committed this type of offense, he would have probably spent the first 48 hours of his captivity enduring some of the most unimaginable torture (real physical torture not Guantanamo discomfort), been decapitated or slaughtered as my Iraqi friends described it, and may have had his corpse just disappear. If his family were lucky they would have found his mutilated body laying in a field or street with his head resting nicely on his torso.

I realize that’s a graphic trip down memory lane, but that’s the sad reality of life under Saddam, and sadly, that history is sometimes forgotten.

But try as they may, those who hate Bush and the Iraq war won’t make all of us forget what life was like under Saddam and what it’s like now. They aren’t Houdini and can’t make the truthful annals of history disappear. Iraq, the middle-East and the world are much better off without that demon.

Don’t forget that freedom of the press did not exist under Saddam. Only the state run and controlled media was allowed.

Lost in this story are the thousands and thousands of grateful Iraqi’s who no longer have to live in fear or oppression simply because of their ethnicity or religion.

We won’t forget Saddam’s use of chemical weapons on whole cities of Kurds which killed thousands, or the Kurds who were forced out of their homes and relocated to squalid refugee camps.

We won’t forget the Shiites who were oppressed, abused, and killed by the thousands. Four years of recovering Shiite remains from mass graves should be burned into the collective memory of the world, but sadly some have already forgotten. I won’t forget. I still have the pictures.

I won’t forget my impression of how terrible life under Saddam must have been talking to one of our interpreters. He was Shia. His punishment for being Shia and unwillingly serving in the army was having every other tooth tortuously pulled from his mouth.

I won’t forget my impression of how terrible life under Saddam must have been the first time we tried to detain someone for questioning. The women of his family screamed, wailed, pulled out their own hair, and beat themselves in the face with rocks. Their paradigm was that when someone was detained under Saddam, they were never seen or heard from again.

We won’t forget that Saddam Hussein used to jail children for years and years as the means to force their fathers into military service.

We won’t forget about all the rape rooms and torture chambers filled with electrocution beds, meat hooks, and blood covered floors and walls.

Think what you will of George Bush, but by him, Saddam’s reign of terror ended. Though it’s been a long, hard, costly fight, the Iraqi people now possess more freedom than they’ve had for a generation, and more freedom than almost all others in the middle-East. Their democracy is functioning. Throw shoes if you want, but freedom has come to Iraq because of George Bush, who also happens to be pretty good at ducking the insults.

Someone I Wish I’d Have Met

2009-01-26T09:16:00.000-06:00

Published around 9 December 08

As I sat there before his funeral service, watching the pictures of Captain Robert Yllescas’ life roll through the presentation in the auditorium and then listened to the words shared about him from those who served with him, I couldn’t help but wish that I would have met him.

His service and sacrifice to our nation are enough to set him apart for all of us. On a personal level, his interests in the outdoors, Husker football, or agronomy might have captured the attention of others. So would his love of life and family.

There were a few comments and one picture that stood out amongst all; the ones that spoke volumes to me.

Rob was described by his commander as “a force to be reckoned with.” That’s not a phrase that gets used often and is not thrown around much as a descriptor of a soldier’s capabilities. I don’t know if you’ve ever met someone you considered “a force to be reckoned with,” but I’ve met, literally, just a few.

They are exceptional individuals who stand out amongst all. They command, not by dictating but by earning, the respect of subordinates, peers, and superiors. They make things happen. They get things done. They are the difference makers.

From all I could gather, Rob made a huge difference in his short life.

His commander went on to describe Rob’s abilities in the arena of counter-insurgency warfare. Balancing the variables of this type of warfare is by far one of the most challenging endeavors we ask our soldiers to embark upon. But Rob’s commander let us know that he was executing the elements of security operations, developing local relationships, and providing the community stability necessary to winning a difficult conflict.

He was praised for his excellence in one of the most demanding types of warfare. Yes, that’s a guy anyone who’s interested in military operations should like to have met.

Captain Yllescas’ ferocity in battle and skill level to which he had trained his soldiers were exemplified in the fact that his troop was not engaged by the enemy for a full 60 days after Rob defeated them so soundly in one particular engagement. Not only did the enemy think twice about attacking them, knowing full well the consequences, for two months they simply wouldn’t think of it at all.

I couldn’t help but believe that Rob Yllescas could have easily worn General Mattis’ motto of “No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy” right on his shirt sleeve.

A story shared from a superior went to the heart of what kind of leader Captain Yllescas was. Given the opportunity to choose between a command or Ranger School first, Rob chose Ranger school, knowing that doing so would delay his opportunity to command. Along the military path to career advancement, having a command or multiple commands is the ticket puncher, but Rob chose to become a better warrior and leader over having his ticket punched early.

The man who chooses to perfect his skills as a combat leader (as Ranger school most certainly does) ahead of personal advancement is exactly the kind of selfless man we need to have leading our sons and daughters into combat.

Lastly, and maybe most importantly, in addition to the descriptions of Rob’s love for life and his devotion as a husband and father, one picture that stood out amongst all was a picture of him hula-hooping in front of what I assume was his house.

It portrayed a fun loving guy who I suspect was humbling himself for the entertainment of family. Somehow I could see his wife and older daughter laughing as Rob attempted the hula-hoop, especially if he was as unskilled and painful to watch as the average male when doing so. There’s a saying that “real men aren’t afraid to wear pink,” but it should be “a real man isn’t afraid to hula-hoop for his family.”

Pictures are worth a thousand words and that picture may have well described the family man Rob must have been: fun, humble, loving, and yes, even self-deprecating. Selfless we know for sure.

He gave his life for his country. And he also hula-hooped for his family.

Yes, it would have been nice to have known Rob.

God bless you Yllescas family. Godspeed Captain Yllescas.

Nelson’s Critique, Hagel’s Spat, No Change With Obama

2009-01-26T09:13:00.000-06:00

Published around 1 December 2009

Senator Nelson has recently taken exception with President Bush’s use of “Signing Statements” which allow the President to sign but ignore certain parts of legislation as deemed necessary for national security. Nelson has argued these statements override the will of Congress and the checks and balances of power among three equal branches of government.

While I agree with Senator Nelson that Iraq should be paying the way for their security (the subject of the Signing Statement that prompted his outcry) I find it interesting that we haven’t heard the same concern from him about a balance of power with a liberal led Congress, a leftist President, and a Supreme Court that usually breaks left. More over, it will be interesting to watch if Nelson turns the same critical eye to Obama’s judicial nominees which are all but guaranteed to be liberal activist judges who make up laws from the bench, usurp the Constitution, and override the will of Congress, the people, and the States. Will he be as concerned then? We’ll be watching.

What of that Hagel-Limbaugh spat? Was that someone masquerading as a conservative trying to pick a fight over ideology with someone who is a conservative? Hagel’s provocation reminded me of a kid who’s excellent at the Guitar Hero video game challenging Eddie Van Halen to a real guitar playing contest.

I thought the world was going to be in harmony and at peace now that Obama was elected President. Wasn’t his election going to save America and the world? It seems that someone forgot to tell the Islamic terrorists who conducted the attacks in India targeting Americans, other westerners, and Jews.

The reality is that Islamic militants don’t give a rip who the President is or is going to be. Their agenda and ideology of hatred for everyone who’s not like them remains the same. Convert or die is still the rule, even when Obama’s President.

But again, given the impression that Obama was going to save us and that all would be right with the world, I’m struggling to understand Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and Al Qaeda.

Russia is now threatening to aim missiles at Europe (or worse) and they’re conducting show-of-force military exercises with Venezuela specifically aimed at us. Chavez is talking as tough as ever. Iran has increased their centrifuges to 5000 en route to making nuclear bomb fuel and is testing new long range missiles. Al Qaeda’s number two man is personally insulting Obama with old racial slurs, running with the same “burn America burn” mentality he’s always had. Maybe Al Qaeda didn’t get the memo about Obama being the savior? So much for world peace and love under Obama.

With the exception of National Security Advisor and SECDEF, Obama has been recycling many old Clinton club members and some of the most liberal and partisan Democrats he can find to fill his Administration, including Rahm Emanuel, Tom Daschle, Eric Holder, and Hillary herself. So much for “change.”

He has nominated retired General Jim Jones to be his National Security Advisor. Jones is more than qualified, but why would Obama choose him? Obama’s already said he doesn’t plan to listen to those with knowledge of how to provide security, even someone as successful as General Petraeus, when they hold contradictory views. There’s no reason to believe he’ll listen to Jones. As with the entirety of his campaign, this move looks to be symbolic, not substantive. He won’t listen to Jones, but it looks good to have him there.

He’s also nominated Robert Gates to stay on as SECDEF. He’s proven he can lead the Pentagon to win a war under Bush, but can he prove to lose one when forced to do so under Obama? Is Gates’ retention simply symbolic, like with Jones, or a venue to continue blaming things on Bush? After all, if Obama’s policies fail and Iraq erupts into a cauldron of Islamic militants, Obama can simply blame it on “Bush’s guy.”

The Iraqi’s have given us through 2011 to help them rebuild, but Obama is set to throw in the towel in 16 months. But does it really matter what happens in Iraq when Obama raises the white flag? Have our troops and the Iraqi people built a solid enough foundation for the country to stand on, despite the detrimental Obama factor? I’ve previously argued that the Surge has gone so well and Iraq appears more and more solid, that it may not matter what the liberals force upon them. That may still be the case.

Marine Corps Expansion Ahead of Schedule, At Risk

2009-01-26T09:07:00.003-06:00

Published around 16 November 2009

The San Diego Union-Tribune reported this week that the Marine Corps is on pace to expand to its new authorized strength of 202,000 Marines from 175,000 two years ahead of time. It looks as if the growth will be completed in September or sooner. The Corps is already at 198,000.

The Marine Corps was able to accomplish the rapid rate of increase through 500 additional recruiters meeting goals, higher than expected rates of reenlistment among combat veterans, and first-termers reenlisting at the highest rates ever.

The Corps’ expansion has all been accomplished with recruiting and reenlistment bonuses that are dwarfed by those given from other services. There has been no increase in waivers among new recruits for prior records that might otherwise preclude enlistment. Standards have not been lowered.

Military experts and analysts see another reason for the Marine Corps pushing the pace of growth.

The Corps was betting on a change in Presidency less friendly to the military and, more importantly, one less apt to fight. Under an Obama Presidency the Corps calculated that an immediate pull out of Iraq would come. The expansion was contingent upon having to fight terrorists everywhere including Iraq. Without that fight, the Corps knew that the growth would be cancelled.

There are several points to glean from this news.

One of the biggest lessons of the war on terrorists has been the revelation that we simply don’t have a military large enough to fight a war on multiple fronts and we certainly don’t have the troops and equipment to fight anything more than a couple counter-insurgencies.

Should a larger conflict erupt in the world, we would find ourselves woefully undermanned and under-equipped for such a situation.

With or without an open front in Iraq, national security demands the expansion of the military.

That’s a tough position against a soon to be expanded liberal House and Senate which has members of the Democratic Party already calling for a 25% reduction in the military.

Reality and liberalism are once again at odds.

Second, we’ve heard for the last 5 years that we’re crushing our military by using them.

Has anyone else ever understood this anorexic argument that by using our troops for what they signed on for (to fight) and what America expects them to do (fight) we crush our military? That’s up there with the illogical “support our troops, bring them home” slogan of the Code Pinkers.

Someone please explain to the left that no matter how hard they try to make it, the military is not, nor was it, or will it ever be a social and welfare program whose participants need or want our pity. They have a job to do, and they do it well.

Those who serve us honorably deserve to be used in honorable service to our nation. The numbers bear out the truth of what those fighting the war against terrorists believe; regardless of the front, they believe it is honorable service worthy of their sacrifice. The left needs to quit casting disgrace upon the service of those who are fighting the war against terrorists simply because they themselves don’t have the stomach or heart for the fight.

Reenlistments of combat veterans at much higher than expected rates and similar numbers with reenlistments of first-termers pretty well kicks the chair out from underneath the debate on the left about the war driving everyone out of the military. If their view of the world were reality, there wouldn’t be a single sole left in the Corps.

Fighting a war so many of our troops believe in is not crushing our military.

Lastly, the Corps learns its lessons, and they learned a good one in the ‘90’s. When a Democrat is in charge there are more important things than national defense, prepare to slash and burn your budget.

The Clinton years crippled our military, forced out plenty of good Marines, and cut back equipment and supplies. Nothing like sending good Marines out the door with their walking papers in the morning, and then running around the woods in the afternoon shouting “bang, bang” making machine gun noises; true story. The Administration cut us to bare bones.

As the analysts put it, the Corps was expecting the same if Obama gained power and is trying to stay ahead of the decimation curve. We’ll see if they succeed, though they have a tougher fight on their hands with a Democrat controlled Hill which is decidedly much, much farther to the left than was experienced in the ‘90’s.

Near and Long-Term Terrorism Threats

2009-01-10T15:44:00.001-06:00

Written 9 November 08

There is much talk of a terrorist attack during the transition time from the Bush Presidency to Obama’s. An attack during that time would make sense. Such transition times or areas whether administrative, procedural or physical in nature are considered “gaps” by militarily astute minds who understand that success comes with exploiting gaps.

Al Qaeda and other terrorist networks are not made up of dummies. They recognize and understand the opportunities available with gaps. They exploited gaps in our system to pull off the attacks of 9/11.

If they’re as patient as they claim to be, and as they’ve previously demonstrated, yet another likely time for a major attack would be in about a year and a half when new and reopened gaps in our system and momentum for them (another militarily critical variable) may likely converge.

Gaps are likely to appear in our intelligence systems, homeland security, and military.

The Patriot Act covered the many gaps we discovered following 9/11. Those gaps were exploited by Al Qaeda and allowed them the terrible success they achieved, but liberals have repeatedly tried to kill The Patriot Act.

The Act tore down walls between intelligence and law enforcement agencies that prevented the sharing of information. It allowed us to listen to terrorists calling into and out of the country. It enacted protections that had previously not existed. It filled in the gaps.

But persistent liberal disdain for such measures will place the Acts death near the top of their legislative agenda. More Democrats in the Senate led by Harry Reid (who bragged when he thought he’d previously killed the Patriot Act) and a liberal President are likely do away with those protections and reopen the door for another attack along proven pathways.

It will take part of 2009 for those measures to be done away with, and then another amount of time for Islamofascists to exploit the gaps, but once the obstacles are removed, an attack simply makes sense.

President-elect Obama has stated his desire to create an internal national security force. Enactment of such a force would undoubtedly create gaps in the current security processes and protections between existing law enforcement agencies and this new force as it comes into being.

Liberals have always held our military in low regard, despite their flowery rhetoric, some for its very existence and others for it as a budget item.

They, led by Barnie Frank, have already stated a desire to reduce the size of the military by 25%. Because they’ve demonstrated through both the Cold War and now the War on Terrorism they don’t understand the threat or significance of that which we face, they will likely endeavor to and probably succeed in dismantling parts of our military, much as they did during the Clinton years. That will open up gaps in our defenses.

Obama’s intention to differentiate himself from Bush by not listening to military commanders will also open gaps in our national security posture.

Al Qaeda, other Islamic terrorist groups, their nation and non-government supporters will likely gain a huge propaganda win in about a year and a half which will contribute greatly to their momentum.

Obama has demonstrated neither the courage nor the wisdom necessary for a tough fight, promising to set a date certain for withdrawal from Iraq regardless of conditions on the ground. When he does, Islamic terror groups will rightly claim victory and experience the valuable influx of manpower and funding that comes with such victories, adding to their momentum.

Though Al Qaeda will have very limited in power in Iraq because of Coalition and Iraqi efforts via the Surge, there is still a possibility, as our commanders have stated, that Iraq could fall into chaos and allow them a base of operations. That would also create momentum.

Al Qaeda will most probably still be operating in the tribal areas of Pakistan, maybe even Afghanistan by then, enabling them to better train for attacks. President-elect Obama will find that Afghanistan is as difficult a fight as Iraq but for different reasons, and then reminiscent of his lack of tenacity for Iraq not have the perseverance for a similarly difficult fight in Afghanistan either and begin to back peddle, generating momentum for Al Qaeda.

Yes, a threat does exist in the near term during the administrative transition, but a threat most certainly exists in the near long-term as liberal national security policies are enacted, gaps are created in our defenses, and momentum is generated for the enemy.

The Year Our National Media Died

2009-01-10T15:42:00.000-06:00

Published circa Election Day 08

The sun rises on Election Day ’08, this column is written, and the Lord only knows what the day will bring.

One thing is for certain though on the morning of November 4, 2008, this is the year our national media died.

The reporting of this election cycle by our national media has been atrociously biased and partisan, completely outside the intent of the First Amendment.

Our Founding Fathers gave great power to the press in the First Amendment. With this mandate came much responsibility for the media to the people of this nation.

That responsibility was based on objective reporting about the world around us with particular emphasis and importance given to service as the overseer of our government. Though they had constructed a government of, by, and for the people, our Founders knew that weaknesses lay within its architecture. Granting freedom to the press could stand as a “fourth pillar” to the three designated branches of government, keeping the three in check, and preventing them from usurping the rights and freedoms they believed were bestowed upon every American.

Whether simply recapping an event or investigating the actions of government our press was given authority to operate freely and independently for the betterment of America’s citizens.

But now, we have a national media dominated by a political ideology and no longer responsible or concerned with the mandate given them to protect the people from government.

Because we elect those who represent and govern us, our national press should investigate the history, positions, plans, and intentions of anyone and everyone who seeks those offices.

However, they failed to do so in 2008, because they clearly chose a side.

This isn’t a “don’t like the message so shoot the messenger” scenario, because in this case, the messenger has grossly failed and should be fired.

They ignored Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers as long as they could, but immediately descended upon Alaska in droves and crawled through dumpsters to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin.

They ignored Obama’s relationships with Marxists and PLO terrorists, and even protected his involvement with them, yet crawled up “Joe the Plumber’s” life with a microscope for simply asking a question and stating opinions.

Plans for a socialist style redistribution of wealth, a dubious tax scheme, plans to “necessarily” sky-rocket electricity costs, and bankrupt the coal industry all went untouched, barely received mention, or waited until the last minute so as to give the impression that investigative journalism was taking place.

All the while they attacked John McCain incessantly.

The lopsided coverage showed in the Pew Research study of McCain receiving 3:1 unfavorable to favorable coverage while Obama had slightly more favorable coverage than not (not withstanding all the potentially damaging stories that were ignored).

Nearly 6 in 10 stories about McCain were decidedly negative with less than 2 in 10 being positive.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs shows that Obama received 65% positive press, while McCain only received 31%.

Our press failed to objectively investigate and accurately report on those who sought power, thus they have failed the American people.

Because our national media is not held to account, they have become unaccountable, and as such have violated the trust granted to them.

Without a dependable, unbiased federal government watchdog, who do Americans now turn to for the information and investigations to keep their government responsible?

Some one or some group is needed to step in and fill that role. Somebody must fill this void of power given by our Constitution. But from who or where will that void be filled?

Our national media must be rebuilt from local journalists, small town and small city reporters who are still held to account for their reporting, those who still understand the role and duty of the press. They work in markets too small to be biased. Too many others know the same facts and any deviations from objectivity spark an outcry and a sacking. Journalistic integrity still exists within this group.

Our national media may have died this year, but journalism has not. It still exists in our home towns, and from them we can rebuild a national media which is grounded in the original commission of the First Amendment and can serve as an unbiased news source and a check upon our federal government.

We must, because our representative democracy can not stand without a strong fourth pillar.

Second Amendment Rights in More Danger

2009-01-10T15:40:00.000-06:00

Written Pre-Election 08

Of the rights I fought for as a Marine, the freedom granted by the Second Amendment of our Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms holds special meaning. However, this right, the one intended to preserve all others, is itself in danger.

Although it’s often thought of as a means for self-defense or the foundation of States’ Guard forces, our Founding Fathers knew it to be much more powerful than the preservation of one American or one State alone. That amendment was indeed meant for those critical defenses, but our Founding Fathers’ intentions for the Second Amendment went much deeper than that.

They knew the right to keep and bear arms possessed the power necessary to safeguard Americans against threats from within.

Executed and drawn out to its logical and ultimate conclusion, the right to keep and bear arms was foreseen as necessary to dissuading and preventing a run away government from usurping all rights.

They foresaw that it alone might some day have to stand as the cornerstone of defense against a government which no longer respected the freedom of its citizens; a government which no longer felt compelled to follow the tenets of The Constitution over which they had so carefully labored.

Because of the fallibility of man, it was possible the day might come, either by ignorance or design, when the government no longer granted its citizens the rights our Founders believed to be endowed upon us by the Creator. At that point the Second Amendment would have to serve as the bulwark against the onslaught of a tyrannical government.

Yet such an important right has been under assault for some years. By ignorance or design, precisely as the Founders predicted, rights they enumerated, the freedoms granted by the Second Amendment, have been slowly chipped away by those who pursue its destruction.

Liberal/progressive individuals who typically seek more government power, more intrusions upon our lives, and thus less personal freedom for others somehow believe that this perspicuous right, the only one that was specifically delineated as to “not be infringed” upon, should and could be.

Though these same individuals clamor and protest with much gnashing of teeth following perceived assaults on the First Amendment when child pornographers are arrested, religion is openly practiced, or demands for objectivity by our media are made, they vivaciously attack the Second Amendment.

They do so again this election cycle with more verve than ever, led by a Presidential candidate who only views the Second Amendment as a refuge for hicks displeased with their current economic situation.

Barack Obama has voted, acted, and spoken out against the Second Amendment as much or more than anyone in my lifetime. Though he says he “won’t take folks guns away,” his record clearly proves that our right to keep and bear arms is one he chooses to infringe upon.

According to a well documented history of Obama’s statements, votes, and positions chronicled and referenced by the National Rifle Association, he supports bans on hundreds of shotguns and rifles often used for sport shooting and hunting, lawsuits intended to put gun manufacturers out of business, and increasing taxes on ammunition and firearms to unaffordable levels. He has voted to prosecute those who use a firearm in their own home for self defense and voted to ban nearly all rifle ammunition used in hunting and sport shooting.

He has supported a complete ban on handguns, opposes right-to-carry laws, supported local and state gun bans, supports bans on standard capacity magazines, and has served on the board of directors of The Joyce Foundation, one of the most rabid anti-gun organizations in America.

In a day and age when, for some reason, we increasingly but incorrectly and dangerously turn to the judicial system to determine laws, Obama has voted against Supreme Court Justices who would strictly interpret the Constitution, including the Second Amendment.

This record of attacking our Second Amendment rights is consistent with his other positions, as chronicled in this column, which would increase the influence of government in our lives, thus eroding our rights.

Given the current political climate and our country poised to step off the precipice of reason in November, we must marvel at the foresight of our Founders. They knew the possibility existed that some day their fantastic experiment could be damaged to the point of incompetence led by equally deficient men. A failing government and inept men would endanger and seek to limit or eliminate our inalienable rights, including that right which is meant to protect us from such a government.

Iraq is Much more Than a Fight

2009-01-10T15:39:00.000-06:00

Written 7 October 2008

The other day someone asked me about Iraq, about my experiences, so I shared a little. I received a surprised look in return.

They then asked if I had kept track of friends I served with. I replied that I had and told them what a couple friends had done on return tours.

Again came the surprised look, and then a very matter of fact, “I had no idea we were doing all of that over there.”

Their lack of knowledge about what’s been taking place did not surprise me. Not many are fully aware of the road we’ve travelled toward success in Iraq.

Our success has not come via the stereotypical high intensity combat many people think of when it comes to war. We haven’t succeeded because we’ve had an endless string of Marines and soldiers shooting it up day in and day out, or planes and tanks turning every house into a pile of rubble.

That’s what some would like you to believe. That’s the only picture they’ve painted for you. It makes it easier for them to cry “foul” and scream for the dogs of war to be chained if they make you believe the dogs are on an endless killing spree.

Actually, that picture is exactly the opposite of what it takes to win a counter-insurgency like in Iraq, exactly the opposite of what most of our actions have been.

Sure, we’ve removed a good number of terrorists from the face of the earth, but we are succeeding not because we’re the best at killing people, but because with The Surge we became the best at providing the first key to counter-insurgency: protecting the people.

Many believed The Surge was simply adding more troops to the mix. Senator Hagel and so many others came up with dry holes on their predictions of The Surge because we didn’t “escalate” as they lamented we were. We truly did change tactics and strategy, moved troops into neighborhoods to live and provided security for the people.

Additionally, we established over time, even before The Surge, that we were willing to help people rebuild their lives.

Although progress was slow through ’06 because we weren’t getting the “security for the people” right, we were still building relationships and demonstrating we offered much more for the average Iraqi than the alternatives Al Qaeda or the Mahdi Army were offering.

Those relationship building activities are the ones that really surprise people when they learn of them.

We have had agricultural experts in the military and other government organizations working with Iraqi farmers. Yield improvements, fertilizers, crop breeding, soil sampling and laboratory facilities, irrigation management, and crop protection are all areas we have labored in.

Engineers of various backgrounds, both in and outside of the military, have been working endlessly with them on their infrastructure. The electrical grid, water and sewer systems, roads, and garbage collection have all been areas of focus and transformed entire neighborhoods from terrorist strongholds to coalition partners. It’s amazing how clean streets can change the attitudes of people.

We have had major efforts for at least three years training the Iraqi army and police forces. The army came around first, and the police have slowly followed after much of the country calmed. Team after team of American soldiers, Marines, and government contractors have been working with Iraqi recruits, army, and police units to improve their capabilities.

For a while, defeatists were trying to paint a picture that we weren’t doing this; just another of their tactics. In reality we had many boots on the ground working to train the Iraqi forces. It takes time to make good troops, and our perseverance, not our impatience and partisanship, has paid off.

We’ve had folks helping them learn how to run a government of the people, the art of compromise in a democracy (as shown in the latest election bill), start and run small businesses, communications and oil industries, and so many other areas. At local levels our troops have been awesome facilitators of neighborhood watch programs and councils which helped Iraqi’s of all backgrounds reconcile differences and find ways to move forward together, often long before it was occurring at higher levels, forcing those above them to act with the same maturity.

We’re protecting, teaching, helping, training, building relationships and rebuilding lives with success being built upon the wonderful Iraqi people’s desire for a better life. Yes, much more than shooting and fighting is taking place in Iraq, and that’s why we’re succeeding.

Iraq Elections, Tourism, and Fine Arts

2009-01-10T15:37:00.002-06:00

Written 30 September 2008

Although the progress in Iraq continues to be blacked-out by the national media, and Barack Obama would like all of us to think it’s still a lost cause, (he is proving to be locked in the stubborn bubble of denial liberals always believed President Bush lived in) normal life continues to return to Iraq.

This month the Iraqi parliament passed updated election laws. The many different groups within Iraq once again demonstrated their ability to reconcile differences and find compromise in legislation, as they’ve been doing from the lowest to the highest levels of government for the last two years. They will hold elections early this winter. One quarter of the seats have been reserved for women, strong election laws to prevent voting fraud were enacted, and an electoral set up was established which allows strong voices for most of the minority groups, including the Sunni’s.

Dexter Filkins of the New York Times recently provided us with a detailed look at the peaceful streets of Iraq. His report about the conditions in Iraq was stunning, not only because it was positive news from a New York Times columnist, but because of the turn-around he’s seen since his last visit in 2006 and the depth of surprise captured in his column.

Restaurants and wine shops had not only been repaired and reopened, but were crammed with customers. Many places he’d seen before that had been “shuttered, shattered, broken, and dead” were now alive and active. On several occasions he didn’t recognize places he’d been before because their transformation was so dramatic. A two mile long riverside park in Baghdad that had been a no-man’s land was filled with thousands of people enjoying themselves, even after sundown.

Violence is down by as much as 90%. Wanted posters, or even whole billboards, encouraging citizens to turn in Mahdi Army and Al Qaeda militants or warning those same terrorists they have nowhere to hide have become part of the landscape. Civil infrastructure projects including sewer systems in once filthy ghettos have turned life on its head, for the better. The Iraqi Army is clearly taking the lead and American forces have moved into the background. Although he did speak to the fragility of the peace, there are still occasional suicide bombings; it is clearly a country prospering, as reflected in the tens of billions of excess dollars being generated by Iraq’s economy.

The conditions in Iraq have become so peaceful that it is once again open for tourism. Amir Taheri reported on companies which are making Iraq a tourist destination. Tours through Iraq’s holy sites, Christmas pilgrimages through historic Biblical locations, and a tour titled “Forgotten History” which visits places relevant to Iraq’s role in the development of civilization the last 2000 years are garnering more and more customers. Tours through Iraq’s ecological jewel, the marshes of the southeast, are also in play now that 60% of the marshes have been restored after Saddam Hussein tried to drain them while attempting to rid Iraq of the Shiites living there.

Arabs, Turks, and Iranians are now heading to Iraq for holidays and Europeans are just starting to make the country a tourist destination. Iraq is also reemerging as a cultural center with a recent festival featuring new Iraqi films, poetry, plays, concerts, paintings, comedy, and lectures drawing hundreds of artists from across the Arab world, including one poet who read some of his latest work to a full hall and “was surprised by the contrast between the reality in Iraq and images broadcast in the West.”

For those who refused to stick their head in the sands of defeat, those who continue to throw off the cloak of deceit placed on Iraq by liberal politicians and national media types, none of this comes as a surprise.

Those of us who have had the privilege of getting to know the Iraqi’s aren’t surprised by this either. We know them to be wonderful people determined to have a normal life. Mr. Filkins captured that sentiment simply but beautifully in his column when he quoted an Iraqi man who told him, “We are normal people, ordinary people, like people everywhere. We want what everyone else wants in this world.”

What everyone else in this world wants is freedom, something that must be fought for and nurtured at times, like in Iraq, but a force strong and motivating enough to drive an entire people to a new way of life; we should know.

Honestly Supporting Strong Women

2009-01-10T15:37:00.001-06:00

Written 23 September 2008

Even though she’s nearly the epitome of what they’ve always said women should be, Sarah Palin has learned that she can’t count on feminists to have her back in this election.

She is a woman of strong character and possesses a force of will that is well balanced with astute leadership skills. She is confident in herself and in her decisions. By all accounts, she tolerates no nonsense and demonstrates the courage to take on tough problems.

Strength, force, leadership, confidence, courage; all qualities feminists advocate for women.

These are also the same qualities I try to instill and develop in my own daughter. I’m always reminding her that she can be whatever she wants to be. The only limits she encounters will be those she places on herself.

Not only do I try to nurture these characteristics in her, she also participates in a program called Girls on the Run. Completely apolitical, Girls on the Run teaches young girls many of these same things at an age when they can be quite vulnerable to the negative messages society sends about “a girl’s place” in the world.

As the name implies, Girls on the Run coaches physical health (the girls work up to a 5K run), but it also does much more. Through several months of a structured course, it trains young girls to be confident in themselves, to be happy with themselves, and most importantly to not let the world pigeon-hole or stereotype them.

The program is designed to help them resist the attempts by others to shove them into the small box of physical appearances and “acceptable” behavior of girls when they’re in the 3rd through the 5th grades. They learn to define and choose who they are and who they will become, not letting societal influences dictate who they should be.

It’s an incredible program that has garnered much confidence and an unexpected, but wonderful growth of personality in my daughter.

Guiding my daughter and watching her mature, it makes sense that someone like Sarah Palin, someone who has succeeded in becoming her own woman, would be a role model for my daughter.

And, having successfully utilized all these skills feminists admire, I thought Palin would garner at least some support among leading feminists. There were probably going to be some who disagreed with her political views and others who might simply ignore her; both fair positions. But some would surely support her, right?

Wrong. I misunderstood feminism. I thought feminists were for women. Turns out they’re not for women, they’re just for liberalism.

Not only have they not supported Palin, they have been the most vicious in the attacks against her. They have tried harder than most to push Sarah back into the little box the world likely tried to squeeze her into when she was 10. Suddenly, a woman’s place was not in a position of power or utilizing all of her God-given talents as they’ve espoused and as I’ve taught my daughter.

They have questioned whether or not she could be a mother and Vice President. Quite hypocritical since they’ve always been admirable proponents of women being able to work and be mothers.

They have attacked her ability to lead because she’s a woman. Could she actually handle the job? Suddenly they were the chauvinists asking whether or not a woman could handle any job.

They have attacked her mercilessly on a personal level because of her political views.

Their overall attitudes were captured in a New York Sun story reporting feminists who describe themselves as “flipping out, in fits of rage, experiencing all consuming panic, beside themselves with terror, freaking out, and feeling violent murderous rage, visceral hostility, incandescent anger boiling in the skull, wanting to vomit with rage, and surprised by the depths of their own anger” about Palin.

Their problem with her is she refuses to toe their line. She is pro-life, evidently a mortal sin among feminists. She is an advocate of gun ownership, another sacrilege. She is a practicing Christian, how dare she? And she has succeeded without them.

Ironically, a group that claims to have fought so hard against society’s attempts to stereotype women is now attacking a woman who has become almost everything they advocate because she refuses to fall in line with their stereotype of a woman.

If they won’t support her, plenty of us who truly believe a woman can become whatever she wants will support her, especially since she’s a conservative, a Christian, and a role model for young girls.

Anbar, Georgia, Energy, and Palin

2009-01-10T15:34:00.001-06:00

Written 1 September 2008

Security for the once troublesome Anbar Province was turned over to the Iraqi’s from our Marines this week. At one point an intelligence analysis of the province deemed it a lost cause. However, the counter-insurgency led by our Marines which opened the door to the Anbar Awakening and the Iraqi’s fighting back against Al Qaeda proved successful. Maybe it’s time to follow up on the Marines’ desire to head to Afghanistan?

We learned this week that 3500 terrorists were “taken off the streets of Baghdad” during the last 18 months by the British SAS. Most of the 3500 were members of Al Qaeda and involved in suicide bombings. What’s that argument from the left about Al Qaeda not being in Iraq?

The Georgia-Russia conflict continues to be tense, not only between those two countries, but between Russia and the west as well. Russia continues to threaten while the west scrambles for diplomacy. If this is the start of another cold war, we must be wary of an advantage the Russians have this time that they lacked before, a tremendous stream of income from petroleum exports. They are in a much better place financially than they were before, especially compared to our unwillingness to use our own energy resources.

On the energy front, T. Boone Pickens has been criss-crossing America sharing his plan for energy independence. Congratulations to him for having a plan, especially one that has a use for many available energy sources. We do need to be cautious of one part of his plan, using natural gas so heavily. Because our agricultural nitrogen fertilizers are based on natural gas, we need to know the impact such a dramatic increase in its demand would have on the agricultural economy and food prices before proceeding.

Does anyone else find it humorous during an election year that Presidential (and VP) candidates who are very far removed from our daily lives try so hard to relate to the struggles of jobs, family, and the economy? Although McCain’s ideas in these areas are much preferred to Obama’s, neither they nor Biden really have a clue what it’s like to try and make it as a middle class family. They’ve been pretty far removed from every day America for quite some time. Governor Sarah Palin being selected by John McCain as his running mate is an exciting turn of events though.

How many of us have often wondered at the possibilities of having someone in the White House who actually understood our lives and governed accordingly? Well, it looks like we have that with Palin. The hockey-mom who spends time hunting and fishing, has very recently lived a blue collar life (her husband still is), has some tough roots, and is working through many of the same family challenges you and I are doesn’t have to go through seven degrees of separation to relate to us, she’s living it.

McCain’s choice of Palin was an unconventional move and solidified his position as a maverick, which brings up a point for us to ponder about the left and his maverick status. They used to applaud his willingness to go against President Bush and other Republicans. The very public differences McCain had with his own party were praised by the left and earned him a maverick reputation and that title from them. I find it curious they are now trying so hard to say he’s the same as Bush, when not so long ago they hailed him as a hero for being very different.

What will be the far left’s next attack? McCain and Palin have taken away at least one of their assaults. A mantra from them was that neither Bush nor Cheney were volunteering their children to go fight the war against terrorists, how dare they ask anyone else to? McCain and Palin both have children serving in the military. What next lefties?

The radical, kooky far left did answer that question in one way this week with their smear against Governor Palin’s family, her infant son, and pregnant daughter via the radical Daily Kos website. That attack had to be about as low as politics have ever gotten.

Speaking of the Daily Kos, after that despicable attack on the Palin family, is U.S. Senate Candidate Scott Kleeb regretting his associations with them?

Lastly, based on the response to hurricane Gustav, it appears that many lessons were learned with Katrina. Initial indications are that individuals and government at all levels responded much better this time, “kudos” to all.

Obama Sees America Wrong

2009-01-10T15:33:00.001-06:00

Written 26 August 2008

Without the lines of his teleprompter, we often get to see the real Barack Obama. We get insight into the guy who usually finds some way slip in a negative comment about America. Sometimes it even happens with the teleprompter, but there is a pattern of skewed condemnation from him.

At one campaign stop, in response to a seven year old girl’s question about our nation, he replied, “America’s no longer what it could be, what it once was.”

Interesting perspective since it’s the very same liberal mentality and policies he espouses which have and continue to try and pull America away from the founding principles and beliefs which made it great.

If America is less than it once was, it’s because of the policies of his liberal predecessors which act as a political meat axe, cleaving away at the conservative Constitutional principles that ushered America to greatness.

If this country isn’t what it once was, it’s because of those who believe themselves to be “progressives,” progressively trying to drag America down.

In a way though, I agree with Barack Obama. This nation isn’t what it once was.

We used to value life in this country.

Americans used to actually care about the unborn and newborn infants. There was a time when we would have found reprehensible the practice of allowing them to die slowly in a cold, stainless steel surgical pan after being born as a result of a botched partial birth abortion. At the Saddleback Forum Obama said that America’s greatest moral failure was caring “for the least of these.” If a newborn baby struggling for life after being tossed aside isn’t “the least of these,” then who among us is? If he really lamented how America used to be, why does he support the death of infants in such a manner?

We used to value hard work in this country.

Weren’t we a better nation when it was okay to pursue the American dream, instead of demonizing those who have? Political rhetoric and public condemnation of those who have been successful coupled with a punishing progressive tax system that confiscates the fruits of ones labor are quite contrary to the American dream. If Obama really lamented how America used to be, why does he not only engage in this type of rhetoric, why does he also support punishing anyone who succeeds?

We used to want our troops engaged in a foreign conflict to win.

Remember World Wars I and II? America supported the troops by supporting the cause to which they had been committed. Whether we were driven by patriotism, nationalism, national security, or the cause, Americans rallied to victory. Now we have a group of people on the left who have advocated for America’s defeat through two major conflicts. If Obama really cared how America used to be, why did he vote for defeat and why does he belong to the crowd who believes it’s now okay to want our troops and our nation to lose?

It used to be okay to be religious in America.

Freedom of religion is one of the foundational principles of our nation. Judeo-Christian beliefs were woven into the very fabric of our society and done so in a skillful manner that also encouraged and protected the freedom of everyone to worship as they chose. It had been the glue that held us together and the moral compass that pointed us toward doing what’s right. But the liberal mentality has systematically attacked and condemned religion, pushing it out of people’s lives and certainly out of any public place. If Obama really cared about what made America great, why does he believe that Americans only “cling” to religion out of economic frustration?

There are pages that could be written with specific examples of the founding principles that made America great, where we’ve “progressed” to, and how Obama possesses the liberal position which is contrary to those founding principles.

At the end of those pages one would easily see where Obama is doubly wrong.

First, he is wrong with his policies. What he advocates are the very things which take away from America’s greatness.

Second, he is wrong about our country. It is still the greatest nation on earth, and most of us don’t need a teleprompter to say so.

Russian Conflict Highlights Our Need for Energy Independence

2009-01-10T15:32:00.001-06:00

Written 19 August 2008

Russia’s invasion of Georgia highlights the strategic importance of energy independence. Their aggression demonstrates several areas of weakness where other forces can easily influence and affect our energy situation and national security.

First, an antagonist can directly limit or impair the supply and movement of oil in the world. In the case of Russia and Georgia, a major oil pipeline runs through Georgia. By their actions, the Russians could have taken control of that line. They still could.

Similar risks to the free movement of petroleum exist in the Straits of Hormuz where Iran threatens to disrupt the movement of oil if “provoked.” It’s a point of leverage they have, and would willingly use.

Second, when nations are beholden to others for energy needs, the suppliers hold great sway. In this case, much of Europe depends very heavily on the Russians for their petroleum energy needs.

This puts Russia in the driver’s seat for negotiations about their involvement in the conflict. Europe must tip-toe gingerly around Russia with their disapproval, and is limited in how much and what it can say because of their dependence upon Russia for fossil fuels. If angered or offended, the Russians have simply to close the spigot in order to affect a change in attitude amongst the Europeans.

We run into the same potential problems with the many nations who supply us petroleum. Although we have fairly friendly relationships with Canada and Mexico, we understand the limits of friendship with some nations who send us oil from the Middle East and South America. Billions of dollars go to Middle Eastern nations who tolerate Islamic terrorists. Hugo Chavez is constantly threatening to cut off the supply of oil to our country from Venezuela.

Third, is the direct ability to supply our own energy needs during a time of crisis. Beyond the strategic petroleum reserve (which will only last a relatively short duration in an extended conflict) our unwillingness to use domestic petroleum resources puts us in a weak strategic position because it fuels our military and runs the infrastructure that feeds our nation.

By contrast, Russia’s willingness to utilize her own energy sources has created a strong national security position.

Lastly, not as direct a threat but none the less a consideration in being dependent upon other nations for energy, is the fact that international diplomacy and influence are either enhanced or limited, depending upon a nation’s place on the spectrum of energy dependence.

Beyond affecting outcomes of direct conflict as seen with Russia and Europe, is the capacity to persuade actions elsewhere in the world.

For example, Iran is unquestionably a troublesome child on the world’s playground. We, along with Europe, depend heavily upon Russian influence to diplomatically reach solutions and win over the Iranians to a less disastrous course.

In this international diplomatic arena, Russia has most certainly gained a very powerful seat at the table. She can use her own energy sources, as shown above, to dictate to both east and west the terms of negotiations. She can allow Iran’s threats in the Straits to affect the negotiations or not, without any potential harm to herself.

Russia can simply choose to affect the situation or not, because it holds so many of the cards, based on its domestic and international energy position.

Once financially broke and searching for direction after the collapse of the U.S.S.R., Russia now enjoys a multi-faceted position of strategic power because she was willing to use all of the resources available to her.

Returning to the thuggish ways of the old socialist/communist mentality is not admirable, but we do have to acknowledge the powerful position they’ve craftily obtained.

By contrast, our unwillingness to use our own petroleum and other energy assets hurts our financial security and is a strategic vulnerability.

The situation in Russia should be a wake up call to all of our elected officials, especially those many Democrats who won’t even discuss the energy issue and are out on vacation. Necessity dictates that it be addressed sooner rather than later. Necessity also dictates we pursue all sources of energy to the maximum extent including fossil fuels everywhere and in every form available, unless and until our entire nation is realigned away from them

Continued Progress in Iraq

2009-01-10T15:30:00.000-06:00

Written 11 August 08

Although the improvements in Iraq have caused the war to slip from news prominence right past news worthy to downright ignored, it’s still necessary to remind ourselves of the progress being made by our troops and the Iraqi’s.

The Brookings Institute recently provided a good source of information on the long-term trends in Iraq.

July saw the lowest number of civilian fatalities since May of ’03 and the lowest number of attacks since the spring of ’04.

Multiple fatality bombings have dropped from about 69 with 1600 killed or injured in January, 2007 to 18 last month with about 600 killed or injured.

Indicative of the trend we’ve seen with Iraqi’s of all backgrounds stepping to the plate to take charge of their own future, 103,000 Sons of Iraq and Concerned Local Citizens are currently active in the sanctioned protection of their neighborhoods.

The uncovering of weapons caches typically depends upon the sense of security civilians feel and their willingness to then report suspicious activity and associated caches. The number of weapons caches we’ve exploited increased from 1,711 in 2004 to 6,969 in 2007, and is already at 5,667 for 2008.

U.S. casualties which were more than 80 in January of ’07 were down to 12 last month; wounded in action dropped from 700 to 140 in that same time.

There has been a steady trend for several months of just one attack per month against Iraq’s oil and gas infrastructure and personnel, down from more than a dozen per month through much of the preceding years.

There are now 496,000 Iraqi Security Forces. As of March, 112 of the 171 battalions were taking the lead in security operations, requiring little or no assistance, as we saw in Basra and Mosul.

There were also 8,500 Iraqi Security Forces casualties from June, 2003 to July, 2008; noted for those who don’t think the Iraqi’s are sacrificing.

The Institute has rated Iraq ahead of all but 3 other Middle East nations on their Index of Political Freedoms, for those who see no political progress.

Crude oil production is back at pre-war levels with revenue increasing by 5 billion dollars since then. Electrical output has increased from pre-war levels of 3,958 megawatts to 4,570 now. Megawatt hours increased from 95,000 to 109,000 with the nation-wide average of available electricity improving from 4-8 hours pre-war to 11.3 hours per day now.

Iraq’s Gross Domestic Product has increased from $20.5 billion (USD) in 2002 to $48.5 billion in 2006, and is projected at $60.9 billion for 2008. Yes, they should pay more of their own way.

There were 175 trained judges in Iraq in June, 2004. As of this June there were 1,180. Harry Reid could take a lesson from them.

There were an estimated 833,000 pre-war phone and 4,500 internet subscribers. There are now 9.8 million with phones and 261,000 hooked to the web.

There were no commercial TV or radio stations under Saddam, nor were there any independent newspapers or magazines. As of March, 2006 there were already 54 TV stations, 114 radio stations, and 268 independent newspapers and magazines.

Apart from the Brookings report, which only discussed 11 benchmarks, we know the Iraqi’s are up to satisfactory progress or success with 15 of 18 benchmarks, and see political progress from the lowest to highest levels. They’re still finalizing this fall’s election processes and the hydrocarbon laws. But who are we to point the finger, given that all but a very few Democrats in our own country are willing to even debate hydrocarbons as part of our own energy policy?

We’re in the process of a large offensive against Al Qaeda remnants in the Diyala province, and Muqtada al Sadr’s influence continues to dwindle. He’s lost much popular support. His militia became as ferocious against civilians as Al Qaeda and thus became as hated. He and his Mahdi Army have suffered defeat after defeat at the hands of the coalition, putting him in a very weak position. So he continues to capitulate. Sorry, Nancy and Barack, we’re not buying your version of history which credits Sadr for the progress noted above.

Conditions in Iraq have now improved so much that the Administration has been in discussions with the Maliki government about a time horizon for our departure.

Of course though, these time horizons are conditions based, meaning we’re planning to win and as such, negotiating from the position of strength gained by the Surge as measured by some of the metrics noted above. These are conditions based time horizons, not the unconditional surrender liberals continue to advocate for, in spite of these same successes.

ACLU Takes Aim at USNA

2009-01-10T15:29:00.000-06:00

Written 5 August 08

The American Civil Liberties Union is at it again, trying to deny a group of Americans their freedom of religion.

This time they’ve targeted the United States Naval Academy, specifically their noon-time prayer, claiming it violates the First Amendment.

The prayer, a tradition, since 1845, is completely voluntary and non-sectarian, usually led by chaplains from all denominations. Academy Midshipmen can choose not to pray if they like.

But ironically, the ACLU is trying to deny the very men and women who will one day fight for the First Amendment the right to exercise that Amendment themselves.

Because nine current and former agnostic/atheist Midshipmen complained that the prayer made them uncomfortable, the ACLU has threatened a lawsuit against the Academy.

So here we are again with the ACLU and a handful of people ready to strip freedom of religion from thousands of others. They will claim to do so in the name of defending the rights of the nine, denying the same right to the thousands.

That in itself exposes the mission of the ACLU, to abolish religion from America. Their aim is not freedom of religion, it is freedom from religion.

So what’s next? No crosses, crescents, or stars as headstones at military cemeteries? Those are religious symbols on federal ground, that’s not separation of church and state. No praying during funerals at national cemeteries? That’s practicing religion on federal ground. No chaplains in the military? How can we use federal funds to pay a religious man?

All sarcasm aside, these become quite plausible if the attack on a meal-time prayer becomes the legal precedent by which all other assaults against religious freedom can be furthered. After all, given the ACLU’s reasoning and their goal, religion can not happen among government workers or aboard government property of any kind for any reason, as it intertwines the two. Thus, any presence or practice of religion involving the military will likely be targeted.

Taken to its ultimate, logical conclusion, the ACLU would probably prefer to ban all military personnel from practicing religion at all.

Undoubtedly, the time was coming for us to draw the line in the sand and collectively tell the ACLU, “No More!” This is the time and place where we need to make that stand.

Prayer is far too important for those of all religions to have it stripped away. It is a cornerstone of one’s faith. It’s particularly significant for those who choose to stand and fight for our country.

From experience, I know it can lead their daily lives, provide guidance and protection, help them find solace in loss, and peace in troubled times.

Especially necessary is prayer for dealing with death and being in the business of performing deadly acts.

Prayer can be the only thing that gets one through the rigors of military training (especially at some place as strenuous as the Naval Academy).

Prayer is what carries you through the arduous days of stress, grief, intensity, and danger of a combat zone. As someone once said, “There are no fox-hole atheists.”

It’s too important to let prayer be taken from us, even when taken in small pieces, and to let the rights of so many be eroded as they are.

Along with any action we can take against the ACLU in support of our rights (praying, calling elected officials, public commentary, letting the Academy know you support their decision to ignore the ACLU, etc) there is also a legal group taking up the fight against the ACLU and defending the First Amendment this time.

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) is working to counter the ACLU. They were critical to the case in which a cross was allowed to stand as part of the Veteran’s Memorial at Mount Soledad near San Diego. Now they’re mobilizing to defend the right of our future military leaders to pray.

The ACLU’s attacks against the Naval Academy have crossed the line, and maybe the ACLJ will be successful in turning the tide of the ACLU’s onslaughts. But the most power for preserving freedom will come from the prayers and actions of those to whom freedom has been given.

Questions for the Left

2009-01-10T15:27:00.000-06:00

Written 28 July 08

There are many things those of you on the far left need to clarify, questions that need answered.

One of your most vicious attacks on George Bush is that you believe he’s a liar. Well we know that Barack Obama has lied to you about his position on FISA. Additionally, he now says that he’s consistently claimed more troops in Iraq would reduce the violence. However, his recorded statements in opposition of The Surge prove he insisted it would increase violence, not reduce it. By your criteria, he’s lying. Why aren’t you mercilessly attacking him, consistent with your attacks on the President?

You’ve been quite critical of the President for being bullheaded, “in a bubble,” and controlling the information flow in and the message out. The last couple weeks have revealed some journalists quite frustrated with the Obama camp for doing the exact same thing. Why aren’t you criticizing him?

Aside from all the problems with wanting to federalize healthcare, why should we trust the government, as you ask of us, to control a mandated national healthcare system when the same government has failed so miserably at managing Social Security?

You showed neither the wisdom nor the courage to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq. Why should we believe you’ll demonstrate either attribute in a tough fight against them in Afghanistan? Shouldn’t we expect the same white flag parade?

My heart goes out to those who’ve fallen on hard times and are having mortgage difficulties because of it. I have sympathy for those taken by less than reputable mortgage companies. I refinanced my house several years ago, avoided the pitfalls, but saw where their tricks could lie. But tell all of us again why we, out of our own pockets via your tax and spend policies, need to bail out the others who made poor choices and got in over their own heads.

You always claimed to “support the troops” by demanding they come home. Why are you so quiet now that Obama wants to send more of them to Afghanistan? Why aren’t you “supporting the troops” now?

One of your most vile, and incredibly petty, attacks against the President is his struggling to put words together at times. Relentless personal attacks on his intelligence have followed. But we’ve learned over the last couple months that listening to Barack Obama without his teleprompter can be as riveting as listening to Mel Tillis teach sentence structure to a remedial English class. To be consistent, shouldn’t you be insulting Obama for the same thing?

Why do you demand action against genocide in Darfur, but were so willing to accept genocide in Iraq?

You oppose nuclear energy, clean coal, oil shale, ethanol, hydro, wind, and solar power for a variety of reasons. You also oppose drilling for more oil, primarily because of your claims that new drilling won’t bring results for 1 to 10 years. This stand against all sources of energy begs a couple questions. First, if you oppose every available energy source, what is your solution? Second, why does it make any sense for us to sit around going broke waiting for a fantasy renewable energy source that hasn’t been invented or brought to fruition, and isn’t capable of affecting our lives for an infinite amount of time when we can be utilizing more of a sure thing in the next few years?

You criticize the President for what you believe is his “go it alone” attitude in the world, yet you attack international agreements like NAFTA, wanted him to thumb his nose at China, kill joint ventures like the Columbia free trade agreement, threaten to invade Pakistan unilaterally, and insist on unilateral talks with Iran. You’re definitely not practicing what you preach here. At every turn you demand internationalism, but advocate and practice individualism and isolationism. Given such a schizophrenic stand on world affairs, why should anyone trust you to be any better at international relations?

One last thing for this short list which only scratches the surface of your hypocrisy: when trying to win a Congressional majority in 2006 you made a whole lot of promises about how much better all of our lives would be. Now you’re running a national campaign about the need to change because all of our lives are so miserable. Shouldn’t that mean we need to change away from you, those who have been in power over the last two years during which our lives, according to your measurements, have become so miserable?

Recent Examples of the Terrorist Mentality, Obama’s Trip

2009-01-10T15:26:00.000-06:00

Written 15 July 08

Several recent events have illustrated the difference in the Islamic terrorist mindset and that of civilized society.

Last week, Israel conducted a prisoner swap with Hezbollah. In exchange for two of their soldiers who had been kidnapped, sparking the 2006 war with Hezbollah, Israel agreed to release several Hezbollah militants who had been tried and jailed for crimes against the Israeli’s.

Symbolic of the differences between civilized societies and Islamic terrorists is the fact that the terrorists were returned alive by the Israeli’s to Hezbollah, while the remains of the Israeli’s were returned in coffins.

One group exhibits human decency in the treatment of prisoners, one does not.

Another difference was revealed in the reception of the terrorists at home, especially the most despicable among them, Samir Kuntar.

Kuntar had been tried and convicted of infiltrating Israel in 1979 and killing several people, including a 4 year old girl. He killed her by bashing her head against a rock, and then with the butt of his rifle.

Kuntar received a red carpet hero’s welcome upon his return.

Compare that with the treatment of our own Marines who were simply suspected of criminal wrongdoing at Haditha, including the deaths of children.

The Marines were tried and convicted in the court of public opinion by our national news media, many liberals, and at least one Congressman long before actual charges were brought against them, simply for being suspected of offenses.

The terrorists celebrate the murder of small children, recognizing those who are guilty of such crimes as heroes. By comparison, we publicly humiliate, imprison, and send to trial those among us who are even suspected of such. We would rightly punish those who are guilty of murdering children, not treat them as heroes.

Yet another comparison comes with the discovery and identification of remains of the last two American soldiers captured in a May 2007 ambush in an Al Qaeda infested area of Iraq, while this week we started the war crimes trial of an Al Qaeda member.

When captured, our soldiers are summarily killed by terrorists, while we wrestle with the question of how to best and fairly proceed with the trials of suspected terrorists.

There is clearly a discrepancy between the value placed on human life by terrorists and the civilized world. Distinctions about basic human dignity and decency also exist. The disparities should remind us all of the mentality we face among those we oppose in this war against terrorism.

The vast divergence is also central to the left’s inability to grasp any meaningful way to combat the threat, which leads us to Barack Obama finally traveling to Iraq.

Since he had already proclaimed his plan for retreat regardless of conditions on the ground even before departing, the outing was purely symbolic in nature.

This was reaffirmed by the very little time he spent in country and the fact that he took Senator Hagel with him, both moves that were not going to open his eyes to a realistic assessment of the situation.

What’s ironic is the fact that had we followed Obama’s advice on the Surge, he would not have been able to go to Iraq or meet with its leaders.

Had we believed his arguments that the Surge wouldn’t work, proclamations that it wasn’t working when it clearly was, and continuing to deny the facts on the ground when it has, it’s quite likely that Al Qaeda would control much of the country, and Iran the rest.

Even the Washington Post editorial board (not known for its conservative nature) recently called him on the carpet for his inaccurate view of the present situation.

Had we followed his lead, we would probably be sitting around wondering what to do about the genocide and humanitarian crisis in Iraq, and doing so with all the ineptitude of our Democrat led Congress and its 9% approval rating.

The pronouncements and plans made for Iraq before getting any facts, the unwillingness to fight a tough fight, and inability to see a winning strategy when it’s staring him in the face are revelations not to be taken lightly about someone seeking to be our Commander in Chief.

Couple those attributes with the revelations this week about his immediate post 9/11 view of Islamic terrorists acting out because of ignorance and poverty, rather than religious zealotry and hatred (completely contrary to the true terrorist mindset as briefly illustrated above) show a complete lack of aptitude for the office.

Defeating Al Qaeda Everywhere

2009-01-10T15:20:00.000-06:00

It is critical to defeat Al Qaeda, wherever they may be.

Not just in Afghanistan. Not just in Iraq. Not just in southeast Asia. Not just in Somalia. Not just here at home, but everywhere.

To allow them safe haven is dangerous. To let them operate freely is foolish. To allow them an attack without rebuttal or to engage and then shrink from them is both.

History has shown time and again that those who possess the jihadist mentality will gather, train, plot, and attack when allowed to do so. She has also shown that success begets their success, increases recruiting into their ranks, and emboldens them for future actions.

The benefits they reaped from our weak or even lack of response to past attacks prove as much. Whether allowing them safe haven in Afghanistan through the 90’s, or responding poorly to attacks such as those against the embassies in Africa, not being equal to the threat has cost us.

The current battles in Iraq and Afghanistan further illustrate the point.

After the fall of Hussein, an opening was made for Al Qaeda to enter Iraq, cause instability, and try to create a safe haven of their own from which they would spread. It had worked for them in Afghanistan and it is well documented they saw an opportunity to do so again in Iraq.

An inadequate counterinsurgency plan on our part allowed Al Qaeda some success. When other jihadists from around the world saw this, they became emboldened to fight and flocked to Iraq. Any small victory encouraged them to attack further, as did the defeatist rhetoric coming from liberals within the U.S.

That piece of history is critical to understanding why defeating them at every turn is important. Even the perceived success they were having was enough to encourage others of a like-mind to join the fray, increasing the difficulties in Iraq. The same would be (and has been) true wherever they may be found.

The Surge proves what happens when you target and crush them.

We’ve been relentless against them for a year and a half. The word is out; Iraq is a losing fight for the Jihadists. As a result, the influx of jihadists is minimal, even negligible. The cycle has been broken. They have lost the edge, and with it the courage to fight.

However, freedom to operate in the Afghan-Pakistan border region has allowed them a safe haven to gather, train, and attack from. At one point we most certainly had them on the run. But as they do, Al Qaeda found and exploited a niche in the unmonitored areas of the border.

We’ve followed reports for some time of their gaining numbers in that lawless, inaccessible area. Once again, allowing them to operate unchecked has enticed others to join.

The Pentagon has been right in planning additional troops for Afghanistan. Remember the stories starting last October about the Marines shifting focus from Iraq to Afghanistan? The additional Marines sent in earlier this summer have shown the effectiveness of reinvigorating the fight on our behalf.

More troops are needed, but what’s needed more is a solution to the safe haven Al Qaeda has just inside the Pakistani border. Without it, they will be bolstered because they can act with impunity.

Here again is the critical point. Allowing them to operate freely and fight without responding adequately (as perceived by Al Qaeda because we can’t fully pursue) builds their confidence and has created a recruiting opportunity.

Now here’s where liberals get it wrong, including their poster boy, Obama.

They clamor for more troops in Afghanistan, but they do so only to disguise the call for defeat in Iraq, not necessarily to fight Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

It is likely they lack both the intestinal fortitude and wherewithal for this kind of fight in either place, because if defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq isn’t important, why is it important in Afghanistan, or anywhere else in the world for that matter? It’s not, nor can it be under their partisan, political logic.

Shrinking from a fight against Al Qaeda anywhere will only repeat history and embolden them for more attacks. Liberals can try to ignore them in selected places where it’s politically expedient to do so, but that won’t make Al Qaeda go away.

Reality lies with defeating Al Qaeda wherever they may be, not just where it’s politically correct to act like you want to.

Those Who Haven't Wavered

2008-07-11T22:38:00.001-05:00

Written 7 July

Through all the difficulties and achievements in Iraq, there have been those who never wavered in their resolve for a successful outcome. Victory may not yet be in hand, but you can see it from here.

Iraq is now a much different country because some Americans held firmly to accomplishing what others said could not be done.

The conditions are now indisputably better, and have remained so as the “Surge” troops come home.

Progressing from Anbar province through the rest of the country, with consecutive operations and triumphs, most recently in Mosul, coalition and Iraqi forces have implemented a successful counterinsurgency strategy.

Reports of violence are down by 80%. Civilian and military deaths are at all time lows. All reports are that Al Qaeda is decimated. Bottom up reconciliation and cooperation at higher and higher levels continues to occur. Iraqi forces and government agencies are continuously more effective. 15 of 18 benchmarks are met. There are consistent reports of life being or returning to normal.

Iraq is on its way to peace, and hopefully our troops are on their way home soon.

Many of the surge forces have already been withdrawn, and all indications are that more are likely on the way out. The progress and positive trends have continued while we’ve reduced forces indicating lasting conditions suitable for further reductions.

Many Democrats no longer demand cutting and running as they once did. The latest Iraq war spending bill passed through Congress nearly unopposed.

Most American press organizations have pulled their bureaus and many of their reporters from Iraq. Good news is not news. Most of the news from Iraq now comes via military and foreign, especially British, sources.

Liberals are increasingly quiet on the subject. It’s hard to scream for defeat when likely victory is blatantly staring America right smack in the face.

We’ve reached a point where the bloviating by politicians about Iraq through this election cycle may be pointless. If conditions continue to improve as they have, our troops will be proudly returning home because they’ve succeeded, regardless of what happens in November.

And through it all, there have been those who have stood firm in a commitment to victory.

Why?

First is an unwavering belief in our troops.

They truly are incredible and unflappable. There has never been a reason to lose hope in their ability to implement the tactics necessary to one of the most difficult strategies known in warfare (counterinsurgency), as we asked them to do. Their enlisted leadership is outstanding, capable of carrying them through even the most daunting challenges. Our career officer corps has committed themselves to the art of warfare. It is the profession for which they study, train, and execute remarkably well. I’ve seen all three groups in action first-hand and thus never doubted their capacity for developing a winning plan and employing it.

There was an inherent trust that senior military members would develop a sound strategy and lead our troops through it. There was confidence that the troops would get the job done.

Some have never lost faith in our troops’ ability to win.

Second is a belief in the Iraqi people. Having had the opportunity to work with them and get to personally know so many, I grasped that they longed for a better life than had been offered by Saddam and was being presented by Al Qaeda. They understood freedom, but achieving it through a democratic state was not a clear path. After a generation of brutality and oppression they’d had no experience in self rule. But they never lacked the capacity for success, or the dreams to realize it.

Enough Americans never lost the intuitive concept of people’s desire to live free from the oppression of a tyrant or the brutality of terrorists, nor the suffering they would endure to achieve such a state.

Some doubted the Iraqi people. Some did not.

Lastly is the American penchant for victory and the leadership possessed within our society to achieve it. From small town America to Washington D.C., ordinary citizens to soldiers to political leaders, enough Americans understand and embrace the bounty of success, are repulsed by the consequences of defeat, and optimistically hold fast to that which brings the positive outcome.

Still alive in America today are the unconquerable souls General Patton once said were necessary to insuring victory, as are the echoes of his words, “America loves a winner…”

Wesley Clark Wrong About McCain's Service

2008-07-11T22:36:00.002-05:00

Written 1 July

On Sunday, retired General Wesley Clark demeaned and dismissed John McCain’s service to our nation. He threw out the far, far left’s talking point about McCain’s military service not being relevant to his run for the Presidency.

He couldn’t be more wrong.

In trying to make the absurd connection/description, Clark said McCain hadn’t “held executive responsibility,” was “untested and untried,” and fell short “because in the matters of national security policy-making, it’s a matter of understanding risk. It’s a matter of gauging your opponents and it’s a matter of being held accountable. John McCain’s never done any of that in his official positions.” He went on to say that McCain “hasn’t made the calls.”

General Clark seems to have already forgotten the high standards of responsibility to which we have always held military officers.

There is very little or no room for error or tolerance for mistakes with multi-million dollar aircraft, or any other equipment. The same holds true with an officer’s actions and employment of the resources at his or her disposal. 100% accountability is demanded.

As an officer in combat, on the ground or in the air, you have to be cognizant of risk. One makes innumerable, often rapid-fire decisions, each one gauging risks and the likely outcomes.

You also have to consider your opponent with every decision. The enemy’s capabilities and tactics are a required part of every operations order and the execution of those operations. You don’t step off without knowing them.

Therefore, to say McCain wouldn’t understand risk, gauging the opponent, or accountability is absolutely ludicrous.

Senator McCain experienced those very things each and every second of his Navy life.

On those criteria Clark isn’t just off base, he’s in deep left field.

But the worst of Clark’s statements is that McCain “hasn’t made the calls” or “held executive responsibility.”

He has forgotten that McCain flew an aircraft that was designed to destroy things and worst of all, kill people. Before being shot down, McCain did those very things.

Each and every time he got in the cockpit, he had to bear that burden to his soul.

He, like so many that serve, had to make the decision each and every day to not only go into harms way, but to decide that by his actions people would not live to see another day.

It’s not an easy thing to deal with, knowing full well that by your hand, by your deeds, by your endeavors, people will die.

It’s even harder to live with.

Even though you face an enemy that must be killed for various reasons, as Clint Eastwood’s character in “Unforgiven” poignantly observed, “It’s a hell of a thing killing a man. You take away all he’s got and all he’s ever gonna have.”

Thus, those decisions to “pull the trigger” during the course of legal warfare in service to your nation are very much executive decisions and making the call.

In fact, it epitomizes having to make the call, and it absolutely does count as a criterion toward being President.

Although the impact upon ones self may vary with dropping bombs from far off, exposing terrorists for termination, calling in air strikes, or fighting hand to hand in a dark room, the decisions and actions have the same result: people die.

Having experienced and gained full comprehension of the consequences of your decisions and your actions (for your own troops, the enemy, and the unfortunates caught in the middle) certainly qualifies a candidate who has over one who has not.

It’s also a leadership skill for the nation’s Commander-in-Chief.

So those experiences do give McCain much more real world leadership experience than Obama. For that matter, most commissioned, non-commissioned, and staff non-commissioned officers with a combat tour have more leadership skills than Obama. I know some Corporals that would put him to shame when it comes to leadership experience.

General Clark needs to clear his mind of the far left smoke and spend some time remembering what it is we ask of our service men and women. He himself had to make those decisions, but so did many others who worked for him, including, and especially the pilots who fought the air war under his command.

He needs to remember the skill sets that arise from the high standards of accountability, risk assessment, opponent awareness, and decision making that have always been asked of our military leaders, even in John McCain’s day.

Congressman Murtha Needs to Apologize

2008-07-11T22:34:00.000-05:00

Written June 24

It’s time for John Murtha to make a very public apology.

In May of 2006, Congressman Murtha, Democrat from Pennsylvania, accused Marines operating in Haditha, Iraq of killing innocent civilians in cold blood.

Murtha, a whole gang of liberals, lawmakers, and many news agencies rushed to judgment against our Marines, publicly held their own kangaroo courts, tried, and convicted them of murder.

Murtha’s public rant and press conference on the subject were held to mark the six month anniversary of his very first call to surrender in Iraq. As if that in itself wasn’t a despicable enough event for a Marine Corps combat veteran, he had to “one up” himself by publicly convicting our Marines of atrocities long before the facts of the investigation were even known. Heck, the investigation had barely gotten started.

But Murtha didn’t care because this fit nicely into his template for surrender. For that matter, it fit perfectly in the puzzle for the whole gang of defeatists in Washington. A chorus of liberal lawmakers and much of the national press echoed his words and cheered him on.

The whole group took as gospel the word of a few questionable Iraqis and press stringers. They took their side and ran with the story. It turned out they were running with scissors.

It was a sad time when so many Americans were willing to unjustly treat the best among us as the worst.

The event was (and still is) representative of much of the war in Iraq. Liberals grasping at anything which might finally sink our chances for victory, including the public humiliation and conviction of our troops for crimes they hadn’t yet been fully investigated, charged with, or convicted of.

Murtha tried to disguise his motives, our forced withdrawal, as concern for our troops. He acted as if he cared about the pressure put on them from months of combat. But he had already played his cut and run cards, so we knew his game. This was just another part of it.

Sadly he was convicting fellow Marines without a trial as the means by which he could demand our defeat.

Two years later the facts have proven Murtha wrong.

None of the Marines involved were charged with murder, as he, and so many others, insisted they were guilty of.

Of the seven charged with crimes at Haditha, only one remains, and he is not on trial for murder.

Six of the Marines have had their cases dismissed or been acquitted, the sixth just last week. It turns out none of them were guilty of cold blooded murder or anything else.

So now it is time for Congressman Murtha to apologize.

He was wrong about the actions of the Marines in Haditha that day. He was wrong on what he thought the facts of the case were. He was wrong to jump to the worst conclusion about our Marines. He was wrong to publicly pronounce them guilty of “cold blooded murder.” He was wrong to let himself be used as such a willing pawn of the worst among us. He was wrong to forsake his fellow Marines.

For all those things, he needs to publicly apologize, and to do so with all the passion he displayed during that press conference two years ago. He needs to rant on and on as he did that day, about what an idiot he was, and how sorry he is.

In addition, all the others who used Murtha as their reason, as their cover, for doing likewise, also need to make similar apologies. They’re no better than he.

Lastly, Murtha’s retention of the title “Marine” has come into question during the public discussion among those infuriated with him. There has been no absence of those insisting he be stripped of the honor for attacking fellow Marines the way he did.

I disagree with them, as that is a title hard earned. A title not stripped away because of disagreements or because of astonishingly foolish behavior, no matter how disgusting we might find it.

A public apology from Murtha to those seven, their families, and then to all Marines will suffice. And now is the time for that apology.

Energy Security Impacts National Security

2008-07-11T22:30:00.002-05:00

Written 17 June

Energy security is part of our national security posture. It has direct ties to our nation’s capacity to fight an expanded conflict should the need arise. If petroleum is going to be held hostage, it is in our national security interests to develop alternative sources of energy with which we can power the machine that defends us.

There are also security consequences to the billions of oil dollars pouring out of our nation to strengthen the economies of others, some of whom work actively against us.

Additionally, if the economy falters or fails as part of a domino chain started with our being held financially hostage by those who control the world’s energy and because we refused to develop our own, we could become incapable of funding our military.

It may be hard to imagine, but it could get much worse if we continue to wander aimlessly down the energy policy road and allow ourselves to be turned away by the many obstacles artificially placed in our path that prevent us from utilizing every source of available energy.

The current “pain at the pump” we feel, the shock we endure when opening our electric bills, and the blast received with the propane bill could realistically just be the tip of the iceberg.

But we have only ourselves to blame. We’ve painted ourselves into this corner.

So how do we find our way out?

We have to develop a comprehensive, common sense energy policy which removes the obstacles to energy production. We also need to sweep away those who imagine every reason to block potential energy sources, such as:

We can’t develop wind energy because some people don’t want industrial windmills in their area. Evidently, they’re unsightly. Besides, bird enthusiasts are concerned they might kill birds.

We can’t develop hydro-electric power because fish might suffer, as would other species dependent upon specific flows within a waterway.

We can’t drill off our own coasts because we’re worried about beaches, fish, and seals. But of course, China can drill off our shores.

We can’t extract shale oil from the Rocky Mountains because the machinery is inconsistent with the panoramic views.

We can’t convert coal to oil because of air quality and anti-mining advocates.

We can’t drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because those few acres would be missed by the caribou and polar bears.

We can’t use corn for ethanol because hunger advocates are concerned with its impact on the price of food. They’re probably also some of the same people crying the loudest about greenhouse gases from petroleum combustion. Ironic, isn’t it?

We can’t pursue large-scale solar power networks because they’re unsightly and they confuse birds.

We can’t pursue nuclear energy because at least a hundred different groups stand frothing at the mouth to attack and block it for an endless list of reasons.

If we pursue wood chips for ethanol, tree-huggers will cry out for the trees, switch grass will be demonized for animals harmed when it’s cut, and oil from bacterial excretions is already being assaulted for creating huge reservoirs of bacteria which might contaminate everything under the sun.

Thousands of people stand in the way of progress for the millions, telling them “why not,” yet none of them offers a single “here’s how” solution.

And the best solution Congress can come up with is to propose more pain by taking more out of our pockets through raising taxes on currently available energy, and to charge windfall profit taxes on those companies which supply our energy. It is a plan that failed when implemented under President Carter, one that financially harmed Americans and accelerated an energy shortage, one that will fail again if tried.

Something’s got to give. Something will give, but the longer we delay the more catastrophic the result may be.

Common sense and prioritizing people ahead of special interests need injected into how we function as a nation in this arena, and many others for that matter.

Sure, I too dream of an energy panacea with a clean, renewable, unobtrusive form of energy upon which we can all depend one day. But that’s the dream.

In the mean time, the dream will not fill my tank, light, heat, or cool my house, decrease my bills, or fuel the machines which help preserve our freedom.

It is a perfect example of what my Grandpa Sharp always said, "You can dream in one hand and crap in another. See which one fills up first."

Although significant effort should be made to achieve the dream, until then, we need to be able to pursue and develop every currently available source of energy for personal use, public consumption, and national security.

Fighting For Freedom With Our Choices

2008-07-11T22:25:00.001-05:00

Written June 10

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that “nothing is more fertile in wondrous effect than the art of being free but nothing is harder than freedom’s apprenticeship. The same is not true of tyranny, which often advertises itself as the cure of all sufferings, the supporter of just rights, the upholder of the oppressed and the founder of order.”

As Americans, we regularly face choices about our government, its reach, and its effect upon our lives. No more so than during election years.

Through those we elect, we ultimately choose how much power our government will have over our lives, and in doing so, we decide how much more freedom we aspire to or how much less freedom we are willing to accept. We decide how much freedom we will or will not let the government take from us.

Only by our choices can we let the hard work of freedom be replaced by what superficially appears to be the easy route of government caring for our needs. In reality, that choice is government controlling our lives and requires surrendering the power of individual freedom to empower government instead.

Each time we opt for the government over our own hard work, we lose yet another degree of freedom. A choice to let the size and reach of government grow so that it can care for us is choosing freedom to be taken from us. We have chosen to let government, with its inevitable quagmire of regulations and bureaucracy, make another set of decisions for us. We have elected to let the behemoth dictate to us the parameters within which we will live.

With each allowance we make to government for controlling yet another aspect of our lives, we scurry away from the difficulties Tocqueville saw in “freedom’s apprenticeship.” Instead we select what appears to be the easy route of letting someone else become responsible for us, rather than being responsible for ourselves, our families, and our neighbors.

At best and at minimum that someone else is a benevolent democracy representative of the people with powers checked by the people. At worst it’s a tyrannical leader or group who promises all that Tocqueville said they would, but who in fact have taken power from the people in order to gain the power necessary to appear as the provider of all needs.

Between those two rests a government which is designed to empower the people, but through concessions by the people of their power, grows and grows until it takes on a power of its own. This government becomes increasingly difficult and finally impossible for the people to keep in check.

It gains strength enough to dictate to the people the parameters of their freedom rather than having free people decide the parameters of institutional power.

In today’s context such a government would determine the limits of, or simply eliminate, free speech or freedom of religion, and make its own interpretations of rights. It might use as its basis for doing so allowances of the people in one area to intrude upon others.

Such a government would control commerce more than less, view the fruits of individual’s hard work as its own to take at any percentage deemed necessary for redistribution or its own devices. It views all solutions as needing produced from within rather than by those who must live with the solutions.

Such governments eventually encompass enough power to even dictate where you live, the temperature of your home, what you will or won’t drive, how much food you’re allowed, and rations out substandard mandatory government health services. It may even decide what job is best for you and how you will educate or raise your own children.

Getting to such a cataclysmic point does not happen by accident. It happens by the design of some to garner power unto themselves, their affiliates, others unwilling to work hard for freedom, and gains momentum through those whose daily lives are so difficult or busy they unwittingly follow the path being lit. Eventually, enough people have to choose to shift their own power to the government.

As Americans we constantly have to be aware of the likely consequences of our choices. Do we opt for the path of hard work and maintenance or reacquisition of freedoms, or do we surrender them to those who, as Tocqueville warned they would, advertise themselves “as the cure of all sufferings, the supporter of just rights, the upholder of the oppressed and the founder of order?”

New G.I. Bill, War Success, Military Snubs

2008-07-11T22:21:00.001-05:00

Written June 3rd

There are several “can’t miss” items which need attention this week.

The “G.I. Bill for the 21st Century” advocated by Senator Hagel is worthy of applause. It does modernize the post-service benefits for our current group of veterans, and has been endorsed by most military organizations, including those both for and against the war on terrorism.

It is being criticized in some quarters, but at worst it should be seen as a “wash” for those with concerns about political posturing or a back door attempt to harm retention en route to diminishing staffing levels for the current war.

Ultimately, the young enlisted men and women who step up to fight this war deserve these improved benefits, which may also be a positive for recruitment.

This legislation and that which improves veterans’ health care (championed by Senator Nelson) are both excellent steps toward taking care of our troops when they come home.

Those troops are accomplishing much right now, both in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A Marine Expeditionary Unit was recently added to the fight in Afghanistan as part of renewed offenses there. These 2200 Marines did not hesitate to make a dent in the cause against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Within days they were heavily engaged, fighting and driving them from an area that had been a safe haven for far too long.

Both British and American commanders have reported big gains against the enemy in Afghanistan over the last couple weeks. Intelligence is confirming substantial disruptions to the Taliban’s leadership structure.

Additionally, the British Telegraph has reported the killing of over 7,000 Taliban members the last two years as well as the removal of “several echelons of commanders.” Also, the Observer chronicled that British commanders assess the Taliban as “on the back foot and licking their wounds” after a series of defeats.

On the Iraq Front, The Strategy Page is noting that Al Qaeda websites are becoming increasingly trafficked with discussions among their members about “why we lost in Iraq.” It appears the information coming from Iraq about having them on the run is not lost to either our commanders or theirs.

Their confession would be consistent with the success we’ve reported for more than a year now. We’ve relentlessly targeted Al Qaeda through a series of consecutive operations in Anbar, the areas south of Baghdad, in Baghdad, and now through Baqubah north to Mosul. Reports from Mosul, arguably their last stand, look good for our troops and the fighting capabilities of the Iraqi’s.

USA Today reports that May was the least violent month in Iraq since the spring of 2004. Thomas Ricks reported numbers provided to him by the Army which show that attacks on our convoys have dropped from 1 in 5 during January, 2007 to 1 in 100 for April, 2008.

In a Washington Post interview, CIA director Michael Hayden gave a very positive report for the overall war on terrorism. Although he and others cautioned that the fight is far from over, he specifically noted we’ve accomplished a “Near strategic defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq. Near strategic defeat for al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. Significant setbacks for al-Qaeda globally -- and here I'm going to use the word 'ideologically' -- as a lot of the Islamic world pushes back on their form of Islam."

But in a recent San Francisco interview, Nancy Pelosi credited the success in Iraq not to the hard work of our troops, but to the good will of the Iranians. I guess our guys haven’t done much lately. Nancy, to what Tehranian address should I send the “thank you” note?

Her view of U.S. troops being ineffective may be the same reason why Senator Obama recently chose not to recognize military service as valuable public service.

In a commencement address at Wesleyan college, he encouraged graduates not to pursue the American dream, but to opt instead for pursuing the less lucrative route of public service. He then went on to list a number of public service avenues they could take, but glaringly and insultingly left out military service as an option. I guess the military doesn’t count to the ultra liberal.

His view of the military is consistent with his refusals to meet with General Petraeus, pro-victory veterans from Illinois, or our troops in the fight for over two years now.

However, he is willing to meet unconditionally with the Iranian sponsors of terrorism. Maybe he’ll thank them for Nancy Pelosi while he’s there.

Success in Iraq Negates Dem Bluster

2008-07-11T22:19:00.001-05:00

Written 27 May

To appease their rabid far-left base, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton use every opportunity on the campaign trail to let voters know they will yank our troops from Iraq as fast as possible.

The competition between the two for the white flag quick draw contest has been somewhat humorous, except that it is serious business being played by two who shouldn’t be allowed anything more than cap guns.

With steady, significant, conflict ending progress having been made in Iraq over the course of the last year, are we already well on our way to the conditions which have our troops on the way home anyway?

If either Clinton or Obama assume office in January ’09 it is possible that any gradual troop reductions will be the result of a successful U.S. strategy and the hard work and sacrifice of our troops, not the fulfillment of ignorant campaign promises. A precipitous withdrawal would be another story.

The Anbar Awakening in which Sunnis rejected, en masse, the vicious ideology of Al Qaeda accelerated the conditions for a stable Iraq in areas that had once been a safe haven for terrorists.

A relentless assault on Al Qaeda through multiple successive operations has them, as Rear Admiral Driscoll stated this week, off balance and on the run. Al Qaeda may still be able to stage a spectacular lethal attack, but we do have “our teeth on their jugular.”

Decreasing Al Qaeda’s negative influence segued into peace and cooperation among Sunni and Shiite Iraqis in mixed neighborhoods and villages. The reconciliation between the different sects in Iraq on a very large scale was undeniable starting last fall and chronicled well in this column. While critics here ignored it or were so blinded by their quest for top down reconciliation that they missed the bottom up reconciliation taking place, those on the ground in Iraq, and those here who followed the details of events saw the significance of what was taking place.

All the criteria for success have been positive the last year: violence of all kinds down (by every measurable metric), infrastructure improvements, markets reopening and life going back to normal, continued cooperation and reconciliation, economy rebounding, and benchmarks being met.

We have seen steady, consistent progress within the Iraqi government. Just as local leaders have come to cooperate with one another for neighborhood and city governance, so have those elected to the national level. Although progress has been slow, it is without question taking place. Each day they gain experience and those who had previously walked away from the system have now returned to participate.

The Iraqi Army continues to improve and has done so to the point where they’ve now fought two major campaigns as the lead forces. They took and are holding Basra, and then led and entirely on their own, hold Sadr City. As key signals for future success, Shiite leadership cracked down on Shiite militants, and Iraqi troops followed the lead of their civilian leadership, not the leadership of clans, tribes, or sects.

Prime Minister Al Maliki has also shown skills not previously seen during both of those battles. He personally took the lead in Basra, and successfully used a position of strength to find political solutions for Basra and Sadr City.

It appears that he and the Iraqi government are finding the political solutions afforded them by their own and coalition military efforts.

With benchmarks being met, all measurable metrics improving, reconciliation taking place, and Iraq racing to a new set of elections this fall, is it any wonder that General Petraeus has twice testified he is likely to resume drawing down troops in September?

If these trends continue in Iraq, it seems quite likely that continued troop reductions because of this success would also make sense.

So if we’re well on our way to victory because of the strategy implemented over the last year and a half, and already in a troop reduction mode because of that success, does it really matter what any of our Presidential candidates say about “pulling troops out of Iraq?”

Not really, but it makes for good political red meat.

Prayers For Memorial Day

2008-07-11T22:17:00.000-05:00

Written 19 May

I am ready.
Dear Lord, I wanted to tell you…
I once was a meek boy with a coward’s heart.
Not here. Not anymore.
Now I am a lost soul with hell on his shoulders.
And I am coming.

A prayer by David Bellavia upon learning he would be fighting in Fallujah.

David was not alone in his fears or his prayers when heading into battle, or even during the heat of battle. Many young Americans have shared similar moments in their endeavors to defend our nation.

Common among them were self-doubt, questions about how they’d respond, feeling lost, knowing that hell on earth may await them, but not really sure what hell would be like, only knowing they would bear its burden.

Yet they went anyway, and prayer carried them into battle.

Prayer sheltered some of them. It sped others to the Lord when the time came.

And prayer should lead us this Memorial Day.

Pray for those who passed on while fighting for us and for those who passed on later after living out full lives as veterans and citizens.

Pray for those who still struggle with the stress and trauma from life in a combat zone. For them we should pray because personal battles may haunt their lives and eventually lead them to be among those we remember instead of keeping them in fellowship with us.

Pray for them. Pray we find every way to help them cope. Pray the effects of battle do not linger. Pray they are not added to the roll call for Memorial Day sooner than they ought to be.

Pray for the families of those we’ve lost.

They’ve also sacrificed and endured hardships for our country. They also bear the burden that comes with the cost of freedom.

Their grief is unimaginable.

I know my wife’s worst fear was that the white government sedan would turn into our driveway one morning. Knowing that was enough pain for me.

Reality must be horrifically worse.

We should also pray for ourselves.

We should pray that the conduct of our lives is worthy of the sacrifice made by so many for us. We may never be equal to the gift they’ve given, but we should at least endeavor to be so.

This Memorial Day remind yourself of the prayer Eleanor Roosevelt carried with her:

Dear Lord
Lest I continue
My complacent way
Help me to remember
Somewhere out there
A man died for me today
-As long as there be war
I then must
Ask and answer
Am I worth dying for?

Recent History in Stores

2008-07-11T22:15:00.002-05:00

Written 13 May
I had the honor of doing some technical editing for "Heroes Among Us."

There are several outstanding books on the war against terrorists I would highly recommend, Heroes Among Us by Major Chuck Larson, Moment of Truth in Iraq by Michael Yon, and House to House by Staff Sergeant David Bellavia.

I had previously written a column about Lone Survivor by Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell and still have that near the top of the “must read” list.

Heroes Among Us is a collection of “firsthand accounts of combat from Iraq and Afghanistan” as told by troops who have won some of our nation’s highest awards for courage under fire.

The book is a collection of windows from history into some of the toughest fights in the war. Each chapter is the personal retelling, by each service member, of the events during combat that earned them a Silver Star or higher, and will fill you with emotion as you recognize the personal hardship of combat, but also with pride having just seen heroes in action through their own humble words.

Michael Yon, a former Green Beret, and author of Moment of Truth in Iraq, has been an embedded reporter in Iraq longer than anyone else, spending most of the last two years there.

In Moment of Truth in Iraq, Yon shares some of the individual stories he’s personally witnessed, but also shows how those stories reflect the bigger scheme of things, and gives us a comprehensive look at our forces and the situation in Iraq.

Through months and months of extensive patrolling on Iraqi streets, in villages, and through the countryside with front line units, Yon has lived the fight more than any other reporter and developed a leading sense of our troop’s success from the ground up.

You can see the life of a soldier from his perspective.

By developing relationships with our military commanders, Yon has also garnered a realistic sense of what’s happening throughout Iraq.

He gives a “no holds barred” account of battles, assessment of our media’s coverage of the war, capabilities of our troops, Al Qaeda, the Iraqis, and our chances for victory. He especially focuses on how success has come with the Surge.

Yon’s independence and objectivity as a journalist and author show throughout the book. The only side he takes is that of the soldier.

Moment of Truth will help you understand what’s really happening in Iraq at both the street level and “the big picture” level.

House to House by Congressional Medal of Honor nominee Staff Sergeant David Bellavia is truly unique with its insight into the life of an infantryman. It is a raw, but very well written account of combat and those who go to war on the front lines for us.

If you’ve ever served with the infantry you’ll find yourself laughing, nodding, and solemnly remembering those you served with. If you’ve not served with the infantry, he will help you understand them and what we ask of them. Bellavia nails the life and those who endure it.

He provides a graphic squad and platoon level description of the fight in Fallujah during the fall of ’04, and perfectly captures the innumerable difficulties of fighting in an urban environment. The content is worthy of the title.

I wouldn’t say House to House is unglossed, the writing and editing are done very well and it’s an easy read, but it is unglossed in that all the rough edges of a soldier and combat are left bare in the book.

Bellavia’s close quarters and hand to hand fight alone at night with terrorists in a dark Fallujah house is riveting, as are his emotions in the time afterward, and his coming to terms with being a husband and father first, instead of a soldier.

The reality of combat and life afterward captured in House to House is too much to let my fourteen year old read right now, but some day he must read it, because it answers all the “why” and “what was it like” questions.

Al Qaeda in Iraq

2008-07-11T22:13:00.001-05:00

Written 7 May

During just the first five days of May, Multi-National Forces Iraq reported the following:

May 5 – Iraqi Security Forces and coalition forces conducted joint operations and captured 3 terrorists near Mosul, degrading Al Qaeda’s capabilities in the neighborhood in which they were operating.

May 5 – In two separate operations, Iraqi Security Forces advised by U.S. Special Forces captured two suspected leaders of Al Qaeda IED cells.

May 5 – During multiple operations in Baghdad, Balad, and Mosul, coalition forces detained eleven Al Qaeda suspects involved with car bombings, bank-rolling the terrorist network, providing safe havens, and high level liaisons.

May 4 – Coalition forces killed 11 and detained 23 other suspects while targeting the Al Qaeda in Iraq network in central and northern Iraq.

May 3 – During operations targeting Al Qaeda in central Iraq, six suspected terrorists were detained.

May 3- While targeting the Al Qaeda network in northern Iraq, coalition forces detained 14 terrorist suspects involved in a bombing network.

May 3 – In a separate operation 200 miles north of Baghdad, Iraqi Security Forces and U.S. Special Forced captured two mid-level leaders of the Al Qaeda front organization, Islamic State of Iraq. The men were involved with weapons smuggling, bombing networks, and IED making.

May 3 – Iraqi Security Forces detained a mid-level Al Qaeda leader as well as 6 other terrorists in operations northeast of Baghdad.

May 3 – CNN reported that 35 people were killed in Diyala Province during a wedding parade after a woman, an Al Qaeda terrorist, imitating pregnancy detonated the bomb she was carrying. When rescue workers arrived, a male member of Al Qaeda detonated his suicide bomb when rescue workers arrived.

May 2 – During operations targeting the Al Qaeda in Iraq network around Mosul, 4 terrorists were killed and 10 other suspected terrorists detained.

May 2 – During several different operations including near Iskandariyah, the northern belt 15 miles northwest of Baghdad, and also 60 miles northeast of Baghdad, coalition forces detained 3 wanted terrorists, and 6 other suspected terrorists, including several in local leadership positions and others with ties to senior Al Qaeda leadership.

May 2 – Coalition forces seized Al Qaeda propaganda information during operations near Samarra as well as three weapons caches. Seized in the raids were Al Qaeda’s computers, information storage devices, weapons, and bomb-making materials.

May 1st showed no activity specific to operations against the Al Qaeda network in Iraq.

The list above included only those operations specifically targeting Al Qaeda. It did not include the many operations against those simply named as “terrorists, criminals, insurgents, militias” or the Iranian influenced “special groups.” Nor does it reflect the numerous successes of our troops in the rebuilding and reconciliation arenas.

In just those five days, over fifteen operations by our troops in Iraq put more than 100 Al Qaeda terrorists and suspects out of commission.

So we have to ask, why do liberals insist on using an argument about Al Qaeda not being in Iraq in 2003 as the evidence by which they deny their existence now, and as their justification for running from the fight against them?

Tell us again, please.

Currently Relevant Lessons From World War II

2008-07-11T22:09:00.002-05:00

Written 29 April - Thanks to my friend, A Camel Named Clyde, for a copy of "Intrepid"

Sir William Stephenson led Britain’s intelligence and covert operations against the Nazi’s during WWII, and eventually brought his operations center to New York as a contingency should the United Kingdom fall to Nazi invasion. A secret war was waged against Germany from our shores even before our own entry into WWII.

He stood with Winston Churchill, as both recognized the growing threat from the Nazi’s, long before most of the civilized world believed what was taking place. They prepared for the inevitable before most others would even acknowledge the Third Reich was a menace.

When the appeasers in Europe and his own country had been proven wrong, Hitler’s machine had spread its virus through most of Europe, and England was finally in direct peril, her people finally looked to Winston Churchill. Churchill looked to William Stephenson to wage the secret war they both knew was necessary for survival.

Some years later, after much of the information was declassified and “A Man Called Intrepid” was written on the secret war and Stephenson, he remarked on the kind of leadership and what it would take to stand in defense of future threats to democracy.

His thoughts absolutely hold true today.

“We’re still evolving democratic societies,” he said. “If we want to continue this natural growth, we can’t ignore ideological enemies who want to stunt it – or destroy it. By working through our own democratic institutions, they can disarm us.”

His experience fighting the Nazi’s shaped his way of looking at the world. The struggle against Communism reinforced it. I don’t know if he foresaw the same perils from Islamofascism, but it is without question an ideology that wants to destroy democracy.

For democracies to survive, they require leaders who are willing to acknowledge and act against threats which seek to destroy freedom, leaders who can also bridge the philosophical gaps within a democracy its enemies seek to exploit, and leaders with the courage to do both.

Stephenson foresaw the challenges in democratic societies posed by balancing the secret intelligence services and covert operations necessary to guarding their freedom with protecting individual freedoms.

But, he also predicted the perils within a democracy from those who were power hungry and naïve, when he said, “The easy way out is to pretend there are no crises. That’s the easy way to win elections.”

Through willful ignorance, freedom and democracy are placed in a precarious position by those pretending dangers to it do not exist. Freedom is further jeopardized when courage to face those threats is absent.

In Stephenson’ day, the combination of naivety and appeasement led the world into a more brutal conflict than might have otherwise been necessary. As he reflected, “There were too many men in power who preferred to see no threat to freedom because to admit to such a threat implies a willingness to accept sacrifice to combat it.”

That potential for a delayed, yet larger conflict exists in our country today among those who ignore the threats to freedom and democracy posed by Islamofascism.

In many ways we stand at the same crossroads at which much of the western world stood 70 years ago. Will we be equal to the reality of the present danger and combat it, or will we choose to pretend it does not exist?

In an election year, one can’t help but directly apply Stephenson’s thoughts to our candidates and contemplate that very thing.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton seek to be leaders who are certainly not equal to the perils of the world. John McCain is.

At the local level, Scott Kleeb’s obfuscatory style and unwillingness to answer direct questions leaves far too much unanswered to decide whether or not he is. Tony Raimondo, who previously showed some promise in this area, has taken a decidedly sharp turn to the left. This column had previously seen him as possessing a reasonable stand on the war against terrorism. But his latest rhetoric and TV commercial which disregard Al Qaeda and Iran have lost him that confidence. Mike Johanns and Pat Flynn have shown they remain equal to the task.

For democracy to thrive we must be mindful, as citizens and in choosing those who lead us, of its defense. As Stephenson noted, “there’s a considerable difference between being high-minded and soft-headed” in these matters. When confronted with a very real threat to our freedom, we can’t afford high-minded, soft-headed leaders who pursue an easy way to win an election.

Citizens, Critics, Patriotism

2008-07-11T22:06:00.001-05:00

Written 22 April

Today, thousands of young men and women will raise their right hands and volunteer to serve their country. Some of them will do so to satisfy an indescribable patriotic desire to serve their country.

Today, someone else will feel it’s their patriotic duty to tell you about the problems among 1% of those who raised their right hands.

Today, over 140,000 troops will fight against terrorists in Iraq, and perform their duties expertly. A few of them will even perform feats of heroism so extraordinary that many of us will stand in awe when we hear of their service, and truly be thankful.

But today, someone else will tell you about the one troop who made a mistake and is rightfully being charged with a crime.

Today, while terrorists are plotting their next attack against us, hundreds of special operations forces and intelligence personnel are moving against them. The nature of their task means we will never know the safety they’ve brought all of us.

But today, someone else will try to convince us that aggressively eliminating those who are determined to kill all of us makes us less safe than we were before.

Today in America, 95% of the people have a job.

But today someone is going to portray the 5% who don’t as the majority, not the minority.

Today in America, millions of people will pursue the American dream, praying their hard work will earn them a better life for now and the future. All of them are more than capable of, and are making good decisions which will benefit them, their families, and their communities.

But today in America, an elitist who has made a fortune in our system of democracy and capitalism will attack that very system and work to change it. He will demand that the millions now surrender larger and larger portions of their earnings, thereby stopping them from succeeding as he did. He and his fellow elitists can then redistribute everyone else’s wealth via government programs which only they are smart enough to direct.

Today, some believe Americans don’t voluntarily donate enough and that the United States should be responsible for reducing world poverty. So they’re pushing legislation which requires redistribution of a portion of every American’s income as welfare to the rest of the world.

But today, others who understand the viability and valuable combination of democracy and capitalism are working for more of those ideas throughout the world as the means to fight poverty. The combination of the two worked for us, it’s working for others, and it can work for all.

Today, many Americans will buy a gun. They will buy a gun for hunting, for self defense, for recreational shooting, or because they understand that an armed citizenry is a check against ultimate government over-reach.

But today, others will criticize them, believing they buy guns because they’re economically frustrated and not smart enough to deal with or decipher their own feelings.

Today in America, many will surrender their life to the calling of God and embrace religion. They will do so because they understand their lives are controlled first and foremost by God and then by their own decisions.

But today, others who want to control their lives through government institutions will attack them, frustrated because the power of religion impedes their power to control through government, believing these people cling to religion out of economic frustration and incapacity to decipher their own feelings.

Today, millions of Americans will fly a flag at home, pray, volunteer to serve their local communities, give to charity organizations, serve in the military, or simply go to work and love their families fully living out their freedoms and exercising all the rights they’ve been given. Their actions may or may not be overt, but they will symbolize the greatness of this country. Some may even purposefully proclaim America’s greatness.

These millions will stand in stark contrast to those who can only find it in themselves to constantly attack and criticize America. Sure, the undying critics can claim the patriotic necessity to do so, but their brand of patriotism will contrast sharply to that of the millions which demonstrates the greatness of this country, not its flaws.

The incessant critics will demand others acknowledge their patriotic acts of criticism, yet will denounce the patriotic acts of others, proclaiming the old adage about patriotism being the last refuge of a tyrant. And in doing so, will demonstrate it is they themselves who possess the tyrannical attitudes, not the millions.

Petraeus on Capitol Hill

2008-07-11T22:04:00.000-05:00

Originally Written for 15 April

Last week’s testimony on Capitol Hill by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker did reveal a liberal bent toward highlighting what they felt was a negative, Basra. They also wanted to know when the end of the war in Iraq was going to be, and highlighted their ignorance of warfare.

A war, this war, or any other war, is not a football game with a set amount of time. You fight until you win, and you keep fighting when you are winning.

There were those who wanted to know what victory looks like, usually asking for partisan reasons. That has been answered a thousand times. It’s safe to say if they don’t know by now, they simply don’t care to know.

We did get to hear the use of the published Democratic talking points on a “responsible withdrawal” from Iraq. This, of course, is one of the two current tactics from the left to force our surrender without appearing to lack the will to fight.

Here’s the reality. It is not responsible to allow Al Qaeda a victory in Iraq. It is not responsible to allow Iran to gain more influence in the region. It is not responsible to show America as weak and undependable. It is not responsible to let Iraq fall into chaos.

About the only thing responsible that came from the left side of the aisle was from Senator Nelson who called for Iraq to pay more of the bill. It is interesting to note that Iraq is doing so well it now has a $60 billion budget surplus – must be that failing surge…

The other tactic is to blame our current economic situation on the war in Iraq. It doesn’t take an economist to figure out that oil prices, transportation costs, the housing market, and about a hundred other factors have the economy where it is, not the war.

What’s worse is the hypocrisy of such a notion coming from the party with two Presidential candidates who are each proposing additional yearly spending far in excess of the whole cost of the war in Iraq: over $800 billion in new spending EACH YEAR compared to $450 billion in 5 years. If $450 billion over 5 years has caused economic trouble, we’d surely plunge into a severe depression with the kind of spending Hillary and Obama are proposing, and Democrats are endorsing.

There were several good quotes from the week. Joe Lieberman admonished those members of Congress who “hear no progress in Iraq, see no progress in Iraq, and speak of no progress in Iraq.” After months and months of relentless operations specifically targeting Al Qaeda, General Petraeus noted, “We have our teeth into their jugular, and we need to keep it there.” The best came from Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, “You want to know who wants you to come home more than anybody?” he asked a group of war veterans, “Al Qaeda because you’re kicking their a**.”

Speaking of veterans, there were hundreds of pro-victory veterans on The Hill during the week sharing their experiences with our elected officials, letting them know why victory was important, and encouraging them to fight through to victory.

Among them were several from Nebraska. They spoke highly of their visits with Congressman Fortenberry and Smith, and with Lee Terry’s chief of staff.

Congressman Smith provided some additional insight.

“Some believe the consequences of an immediate withdrawal would be an acceptable alternative to continuing our efforts to fight against terrorists. I disagree.”

“As the situation changes on the ground in Iraq and their government is able to handle their security concerns, I fully expect our military leaders to continue troop draw-downs. Iraq has made tremendous strides since I visited last year – in large part thanks to General Petraeus and our troops.”

“We need to take care of our men and women in uniform, both on the field of battle and when they return. We must fight to ensure our soldiers receive every resource they need.”

“Because of the dedication and sacrifices of our soldiers and their families, a greater level of security has been brought to a country which has been racked by violence and brutality for decades.”

“Terrorist groups, like Al Qaeda, are on the defense thanks to joint action between allied soldiers and Iraqi security forces. There is still much to be done, but I have full confidence in our military leaders.”

The veterans agree.

General Petraeus on The Hill

2008-07-11T22:02:00.001-05:00

Originally Written 8 April

This week will have seen General Petraeus on Capitol Hill updating Congress on the totality of the situation in Iraq.

Liberals will have likely focused on what they believe was a defeat in Basra.

Regardless of the gains against Al Qaeda that have been achieved during the last year, they will have focused on Basra, as one of their last ditch efforts to force our defeat in this war.

Remember, things have been going so well in Iraq, that at the end of February when the Democrats in the Senate tried to push for debate and another vote to surrender, Republicans turned the table on them and voted for that motion to move forward. They wanted to have that debate. They wanted the news about Iraq’s incredible progress and the decimation of Al Qaeda in Iraq to receive the attention it deserved.

In response, Harry Reid changed the Senate’s agenda, dropping the debate and the vote. He couldn’t risk good news about Iraq being spread in the Senate or the national news.

So this week, liberals, like Reid did, will have continued to ignore the progress the Iraqi government made in the last year, the important legislation they passed, the continued reconciliation and cooperation, the growth and capabilities of Iraq’s military, and the dramatic drop in violence. They will have focused on what they believe is a negative, Basra.

So, let’s talk about Basra.

The British turned over this area of southern Iraq quite some time ago. It is an almost entirely Shiite area, which means it has been subjected to the ongoing feud between Muqtada al Sadr’s faction (JAM) and other Shiite factions, primarily the Badr organization, supported by Iran’s Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guard.

Basra became the central battleground in the power struggle between these factions and was becoming lawless. Therefore, the Iraqi government was proactively planning a major offensive against all extremist Shiite factions causing trouble there. For some reason, not yet revealed, the Prime Minister launched the offensive early. As such, the fight didn’t go off without a hitch, making it historically similar to other military operations launched without proper preparation. But it was Iraqi initiated, fought, and led, which is significant.

So, how’s it going?

Hundreds of Shiite insurgents have been killed, captured, surrendered, or fled.

A few Iraqi units didn’t perform well or quit, but most of Iraq’s forces are fighting well, some quite ferociously. Less than a thousand non-Iraqi forces were called in to support the fight.

Iraq’s forces fought well enough to bring the battle to a point liberals should have loved, a politically negotiated solution. Representatives from Iraq met with Sadr’s representatives and the Quds force. Sadr’s Mahdi Army and the Badr organization agreed to stop their fighting in Basra. Iraqi forces now control most of the city and are only fighting splinter elements of the Shiite factions and other fringe extremists.

So who’s wining? The Iraqi’s, that’s who.

Why? Because despite how the battle’s been reported, the Iraqi government forces actually have the upper hand, have cut off much of the insurgents’ supplies, and inflicted heavy casualties against both the Quds supported and Mahdi Army forces. The Iraqi’s kept fighting and winning, forcing both major insurgent groups to negotiate a settlement.

I know it comes as a surprise to those who believe we should surrender a fight when we’re winning, but this battle is how it’s supposed to work. When you’re winning you keep fighting (like the Iraqi’s did) and when you’re losing (like JAM and the Iranian backed Badr forces were) you quit the fight. The winner gets to stay, the loser goes home.

Not only that, but pressure is now being brought to bear by the majority of the groups in Iraq to have Sadr disband his militia, which he is now actually considering. He has sought the guidance of Iraq’s leading Shiite cleric on the matter.

This week liberals will likely have been focused on the negative aspects of Basra and anything else they could scrounge up. General Petraeus will likely have reported on all the facts about Iraq, the vast majority of which are positive, facts which won’t support the call for us to surrender.

General Petraeus will also have reported on Basra, the facts about which will also not support a liberal desire for our defeat.

And sadly, all the facts General Petraeus brought with him will have only served as a big bucket of desert sand that the defeatists will have once again stuck their heads in.

Harvard Study Links Anti-Resolve Rhetoric to Increased Violence

2008-03-30T20:01:00.002-05:00

I can tell from the response to this column that I really struck a nerve with liberals. Guess the truth hurts, especially when confronted with the consequences of action. Some edited and printed version varied from this one and gave the impression that I was trying to endorse squashing dissent on the war, which the column clearly does not do; I would never take such a position, I fought for freedom of speech.

I have been accused of talking over the heads of some at times and I appear to have done that here. So, I'll clarify the four main points on this column for those who had this zip over their heads:
1. Arguing that we should not have gone into Iraq is a valid argument, but it is pointless with regard to solving the current conflict. Making an argument about what we should not have done 5 years ago does not address what we should do now.
2. History and this Harvard study show that anti-resolve rhetoric encourages the enemy in the kind of fight the war on terrorism is. It's an argument I've been making for four years.
3. You are more than free to dissent and protest, but you must also be aware that there are consequences for doing so, those include increased violence.
4. The dissent encourages the enemy to keep fighting.

The criticism about the war in Iraq often crosses the line from pure debate into an unwarranted concession of will and a lack of resolve in the face of terrorists.

There are some whose positions so blatantly argue for defeat at the hands of terrorists that there is no need to even extend them the courtesy of a benefit of the doubt. They simply want us to lose this war. Their rhetoric matches that position.

A recently published study from Harvard points out the danger in such statements. This rhetoric is music to the ears of the terrorists in Iraq.

For those who deny terrorists are in Iraq, those who are still trying to argue 2003 all over again, and those who ignorantly believe it’s a myth that there could be any terrorists in Iraq, wake up to the current situation and quit trying to make the irrelevant five year old argument. If defeating Al Qaeda everywhere in the world actually matters, then it no longer matters if they were in Iraq in 2003 because they are, without doubt, there now. They, along with Iranian backed terrorists, need to be defeated in Iraq.

So why are these opposing positions and statements which demonstrate a lack of resolve music to the ears of terrorists?

Because the method by which lesser military powers (terrorists organizations included) defeat far greater powers is by employing the tactics of an insurgency, the aim of which is not to defeat the greater power militarily, but to crush the will and resolve of that nation’s people.

Statements which show a lack of resolve for our nation’s victory only serve to embolden the enemy during this kind of fight. It gives them exactly what they seek. The defeatist rhetoric from here gives the terrorists what they need because it can ultimately lead to their victory.

They are not trying to defeat our military. They are trying to defeat the will of the American people. Some people happily oblige them and capitulate, and in doing so encourage the terrorists to keep fighting.

I have had some heated exchanges on the subject with politicians, their staffs, and other anti-victory individuals. Others who understand the war against terrorists have also had those same debates.

Last week Harvard confirmed what we inherently knew from our fight against the terrorists in Iraq, the history of insurgencies, and understanding of those motivations which drive the terrorists.

As reported by the UPI, the Harvard research shows that the negative public debate about Iraq has “a measurable ‘emboldenment effect’ on insurgents there.”

The study tracked “anti-resolve” statements by politicians and reports about public opinion to test the belief that criticism of our policy in Iraq encourages the insurgents.

They found “in periods immediately after a spike in anti-resolve statements, the level of insurgent attacks increased between 7 percent and 10 percent.”

”The study also found that attacks increased more in parts of Iraq where there is greater access to international news media, which its authors say increases the credibility of their findings.”

The authors identify an “emboldenment effect by comparing whether anti-resolve statements … have differential impacts on the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S. news.”

They also believe their data tells them that “insurgents in Iraq are rational actors -- responding strategically to changing perceptions of their enemy's will to fight.”

In simple terms, the study shows that where insurgents have the capability to hear the anti-war rhetoric and anti-resolve statements from our country, they are emboldened to attack even more. They also adjust their strategy based on what they hear emanating from our country.

The study’s authors cite their concern that the data will affect the debate on the war, military strategy, and foreign policy. Rightfully so; criticism and debate should not be crushed and the military is always looking for better ways to fight.

But the study does illustrate the danger of crossing the line and demonstrating a lack of resolve, thereby giving the enemy the motivation they need to keep fighting, which is exactly what many of us have repeatedly argued the defeatist crowd is doing.

This study should also tell the defeatists that if they truly want the war in Iraq to end, instead of demanding that we surrender, they should stop emboldening the enemy to keep fighting.

National Security Drives Biofuel Production

2008-03-30T20:00:00.000-05:00

The national security need for developing biofuels outweighs what would otherwise be considered questionable government meddling in a free market.

Price supports and production requirements for biofuels bring the artificial influence of government into the realms of energy supply, demand, and pricing. Government price supports distort the monetary value of a product or service, and usually cause some sort of a chain reaction within the market. These chain reactions typically have unforeseen and often undesirable consequences.

Although the government’s influence on biofuel production is a blessing to our state, one that is sure to have a lasting impact on our rural communities, the effects in other markets are undeniable.

In Nebraska, we stand a good chance of having a pending recession buffered by the boost given to our agricultural economy by the production of biofuels. The biofuel industry is a positive development for our farmers, our communities, our state, and a necessity for our national security.

Yet the argument against government sponsored biofuels based on the disruption to free markets and the consequences of doing so has validity, but only if looked at through a free market prism alone.

But we can’t look at it through that single lens because doing so neglects the need and role of biofuels for our national security. This argument trumps free markets this time because it drives supply and innovation toward new sources and infrastructure for our energy needs which can sustain us in the event of national crisis.

The increasing dependence upon foreign sources of oil and an unwillingness to utilize our own sources demand that we fully explore all possible routes for alternative fuels and develop the best ones for our national security.

An argument can be made that tapping into our own oil reserves would rectify the situation for national security interests, but it does not fully reflect reality in our country.

The reality is that the far left is unnaturally forcing us away from petroleum, in a direction and at a pace inconsistent with supply and free markets. They have successfully impeded drilling, refining, and infrastructure expansion to the detriment of consumer needs and national security.

Because they’ve impeded the market, the government has to act quickly and outside the rules of free markets to overcome the obstacle placed in the way of their first role, the defense of the nation.

At some point we’ll run out of petroleum and would have to develop alternative sources anyway. But we’re not there yet, and the verdict is out on how long it would take us to get there without other meddling.

However, we have been forced there prematurely. The zealots of the church of global warming, the environmental lobby, and those who simply fight against capitalism at every turn have successfully blocked further development of the petroleum industry. We as a nation have been incapable of breaking the gridlock they’ve created.

Join that gridlock against domestic oil with the reality of the regimes which control much of the world’s oil, and you have a combination that demands alternative energy sources. When added to the unwillingness we’ve witnessed over the last 6 years by many Americans to sacrifice during a time of war, we end up with an alternative energy demand for both national security and national comfort.

Thus we’re forced to pursue alternatives for consumer needs and defending ourselves should a larger conflict arise than the one we’re presently involved in.

We must have alternatives. Our military is one of the biggest consumers of petroleum products in the world. Without petroleum our military doesn’t function.

Through the development of ethanol and biodiesel we are also developing the means by which our military can still fight without petroleum.

While much of the focus is often on the corn-food-fuel complex, we are also exploring and developing other sources and methods of biofuel production. Not only is the government, often the Defense Department specifically, pushing the move toward alternative sources of energy, but they are also catalyzing the research and development of new fuels for military use, as well as the means by which they can be easily produced and distributed.

Whether oil from algae, switchgrass for ethanol, or hydrogen fuel cells, and whether they’re distributed by nation-wide infrastructure systems or produced 500 gallons at a time by embedded military units, the Defense Department is exploring and driving its options for the future. These biofuel innovations are a security necessity for a nation whose political correctness is driving its energy and economic policies.

Change Based on Reality

2008-03-30T19:56:00.000-05:00

We all want change. Whether we simply accept its inevitability or seek resolution to those things which need fixed, we want change. But shouldn’t we pursue change for the better?

To change for the better we need forward thinking leadership that has learned from both the successes and failures of the past, not leadership which seeks a change back to the failed policies of the past.

You can’t hope for a better future if you ignore the lessons of the past.

Why then change back to those tax rates which failed us in the past? Why change back to a system which punishes ingenuity, hard work, risk taking, and accomplishment through confiscatory tax rates? We need change that does not punish us for moving ourselves up from lower incomes.

Everyone under the age of 45 needs change. Millions and millions of dollars have been taken from a lifetime of their paychecks for Social Security. Those workers are guaranteed to never see that money from this “sure to be bankrupt” system. We need someone with the courage to let us keep some of our own money for retirement or to fix the problem, not someone who demagogued the issue and refused to act when someone else tried to fix it.

We need our taxes lowered so that we can save more money for our children’s college education. We don’t want change which promises a government program or intervention on their behalf. We need change that allows personal hard work and achievement to pave the way, not the government.

We want leadership courageous and smart enough to understand that government-run health care does not work. Where it exists, it fails miserably in comparison to our system. We want change that fixes the problems in the system so all can afford it, not change that advocates a government take over of the system which will only lead to poorer health care, less access, and a crippling tax burden to pay for it.

We need change that is bright enough to understand, and courageous enough to fix the entitlement programs that are on the way to breaking our country. The addition of nearly 1 trillion dollars every year to those programs and other new entitlements is not change that is either bright or courageous.

We need someone who understands the challenges of the world, and among them is confronting the threats that exist. We can’t afford to change back to someone who believes they can simply talk, be nice, and all will be solved. We’ve seen where that approach fails. Why then change back to a bunker mentality which only hopes for the best? We want change, but not change that has already forgotten what led to WWII and 9/11.

We need leadership that understands the current oil situation, the goals for alternatives in the future, and the need to bridge the gap while in transition to them. We don’t need change which promises to throw us into the abyss while attempting to leap over the divide.

We need leadership that changes the paradigm on arguments about personal freedom back to our country’s origins. Instead of asking how far we can infringe on the 2nd Amendment, we should be figuring out which gun laws to cancel. We should be championing tolerance of everyone’s faith, not championing groups like the ACLU who are intent on destroying it. We should be discussing ways to remove the barriers to everyone’s success, not promising more regulation and bigger government.

We need leadership which understands that solutions have always been found in the American people, not the American government. Why then change back to leadership which advocates a “nanny state” to address our needs? Why change back to leadership which advocates a government program for everything rather than relying on the freedom and empowerment of people to solve problems?

We need leadership that remembers it’s our role to exercise our freedom, and that the government’s role isn’t to tell us how. We need change that reinvigorates freedom from government, not change that advocates bigger government consolidating power unto itself.

That’s the change we need. Not change whose primary hope is that people have forgotten the lessons of the past. Not change which ignores the successes while resurrecting the policies and philosophies which have previously failed and will surely fail again.

True hope and change for a better future can not ignore the reality of history’s lessons.

4 Senate Candidates Views on Iraq, the Broader War on Terror, and the Military

2008-03-30T19:51:00.002-05:00

Since originally having this column printed, it appears that Tony Raimondo's position has swung to the left and I would have to amend my closing comments. I now have serious doubts about his position on the war in Iraq.

Senate Candidates Answer Questions on Iraq, National Security, Military

I recently posed questions to four of our candidates running for U.S. Senate on the issues of Iraq, the broader war on terrorism, national security, and the military. Three of them provided enough detail to write entire columns about. I’ve provided the representative highlights.

Pat Flynn initially contacted me to discuss these issues. In Iraq, he believes in continuing to fight Al Qaeda and seeing “The Surge” through to completion, noting that “he’s always believed in it.” He added that we’ve failed in sending the message about the broader implications for winning in Iraq, and that we need to let the Generals fight the war, not the Senators. Too often politics is trumping national security.

He sees the war against Islamic extremists as a war in which America needs to have “resolve and perseverance,” one in which we must never be willing to give up, citing Churchill’s resolve during World War II. In that light, he notes this fight against terrorism as more than just a fight with Osama bin Laden.

Flynn sees China and illegal immigration as concerns for national security.

He also believes that our military is currently under-funded and that we must give them what they need to win, and then take care of them when they come home.

Via e-mail, Tony Raimondo provided detailed answers on these issues.

On Al Qaeda in Iraq, he expressed that “It is important that in the effort to defeat terrorism around the globe we must continue to fight Al Qaeda and other terrorists in Iraq.” He is “not for setting an arbitrary date for troop withdrawal,” prefers “transferring authority for security and military operations to the Iraqis as quickly as possible,” and focusing our efforts “on the missions that are in our national security interests.” He specifically noted that “we do not have an open-ended commitment there.”

Raimondo feels that “a strong partnership with NATO in Afghanistan will ease the burden on our own military and send a message to the world that defeating terrorism is a global initiative, not a U.S. unilateral endeavor.”

He says our military needs “The three R’s - recruitment, retention, replenishment” and that “The Pentagon and the Congress need to devise a plan to replenish our military, to ensure our soldiers are properly trained and equipped so they can meet the national security challenges of tomorrow.”

Mr. Raimondo also feels it’s important “to keep our promise as a nation to our returning soldiers and veterans. They have sacrificed much for our country…Our returning heroes shouldn’t be left to fend for themselves. We owe it to them to give them the care they need.”

In a phone call with Secretary Johanns, he provided comments which were quite thorough in each of these areas.

He’s been to Iraq and has no doubts that Al Qaeda is there. In Iraq and elsewhere, he believes Al Qaeda is “an enemy like none we’ve ever fought, intent on ending our role in the world. We can’t walk away from that.” He further believes there is no question that the war on terrorism is very real, not just a few isolated events of extremism we need to confront.

He says he would like to see the Iraqi government doing more and moving faster, but understands the challenges inherent to their country and the birth pains of a new democracy.

Johanns believes we need to send messages to both the Iraqis and our troops that we will stand behind them, especially given the success our troops have had with “The Surge” and the recent progress of the Iraqis, politically and militarily, under difficult circumstances.

He, as did Raimondo, noted several countries as ones to watch and others as allies to work with. He cited his experience as Secretary of Agriculture working with representatives from many of those countries as an opportunity to build upon.

“We need to stand behind our troops,” Johanns implored, noting his dismay over the mixed signals we send them with the politics surrounding the war. Not only was he adamant about equipping them to win any conflict, but to also care for a lifetime of needs when they return.

Scott Kleeb’s stand on these issues is not defined, or even outlined for that matter.

Ambiguous answers to previous questions by others showed through in the response to the same detailed questions I posed to all the candidates. The Kleeb camp simply replied that they were still building their campaign and not yet ready to answer detailed questions on these issues.

We’ll have to wait for his answers to one of the “biggest issues facing America,” and see how influential his contacts with the radical, far left, defeatists at the Daily Kos are to those answers.

It appears Nebraskans are fortunate to have three candidates who’ve taken solid positions on these issues which reflect the reality of the challenges in Iraq, the rest of the war on terrorism, national security, and our military.

More Comments on Senate Candidates

2008-03-06T04:40:00.003-06:00

Starting today, some Nebraska newspapers will be running my column on the views of our Senate candidates' stands on Iraq, the rest of the war on terrorism, national security, and our military. I won't post the column here for a while, so that it hits the papers first.

For my columns I have to target about 750 words, and ended up with 820 for this one. I did the best I could to provide the ideas and quotes which best reflected the views of three candidates on the subjects in question. In some ways it didn't do justice to the views of Johanns and Raimondo, or the information they provided. The fourth, Scott Kleeb, was not yet prepared to answer the detailed questions I was asking.

If more space would have been available, I would have added many quotes and ideas from both Mike Johanns and Tony Raimondo. (I would add them here, heck, I'd publish my notes if I could, but I did not ask any of the campaigns if I could do so in this forum. To do so now, without permission, would be somewhat of a breach of trust, so I won't, unless they consent to such.)

Both Johanns and Raimondo provided quite a bit of detailed information on the subject that was thorough, well thought out, consistent with, and applicable to actually confronting the challenges in these areas. Their knowledge and positions were most likely to help achieve positive outcomes.

Johanns had the benefit of actually being able to talk with me about the subjects, which always provides a clearer picture of where one stands. He was unhesitant in his description, analysis, and solutions. There was no pausing to choose the right words, they just came. We should feel quite comfortable with Mike Johanns in this arena.

Not to be dismissed was Raimondo's answers via e-mail. They reflected a good command of the subject, especially with regard to the effect of other countries on our economy and national security. I had a little difficulty reaching the right people to ask those questions, but when I did, the answers came very quickly in reply. That tells me he's been thinking about, paying attention to, and preparing solutions, as we should expect of someone who wants to be our U.S. Senator.

Pat Flynn has the right take on the situation in Iraq, national security, the war on terrorism, and our military, and is starting to look at other threats we face. His overall understanding and philosophy were good, he just didn't have the details the other two did yet.

Had I had more space in the column, I'd have made further analysis of Scott Kleeb's inability to answer the same questions I posed to the others. I'd have also reviewed some quotes from an Omaha World Herald article from the 25th or 28th of Feb. (I'd have to go back and look that up. It's the same one he has on his website.)

His answer about Iraq is one of the better "non-answer answers" I've seen on the subject, and I know this subject. I've watched, read, and listened to politicians talk about Iraq for four years now. These issues are a daily study for me. Comparatively, his statements in that article, were ambiguous at best. They reflect someone who doesn't know the issues or is trying to mask an unpopular position on them.

I'll go with the non-sinister version, and assume he doesn't know the issues. I think we should be uneasy with someone who ran for Congress two years ago, has obviously been leaning toward running for something, but doesn't have a good enough grasp of the situation to answer questions on what he himself admits is one of the two biggest issues we face. Did he have a position back then?

He's had plenty of time to prepare both himself and the answers to tough, detailed questions on these issues. He's campaigned for national office before. He no longer gets the new guy pass. After all, he and Raimondo jumped in at the same time, but Raimondo was more than capable of demonstrating a good grasp of these subjects and was able to provide very detailed answers. Answers that represent where I believe other Nebraskans stand.

Maybe he'll come up with answers. I hope they're good ones that reflect the reality of the challenges in the world. But right now, he doesn't pass the test.

We'll see where the next couple months take us with these four. (No, I haven't forgotten about the other Democrat running. I only get so much space, and these were the four of highest profile.)

Extremists and our Candidates' Web Site Comments on Them

2008-03-05T07:57:00.002-06:00

During the last month we were given several stark reminders about the nature of the extremist elements who threaten us.

The latest came Monday when a man in a wheelchair blew himself up at an Iraqi police station, killing several police officers as well.
Moroccan authorities arrested 32 members of an Al Qaeda linked terrorist network which was planning to assassinate cabinet ministers and members of the small Jewish community there.

We learned that a recent suicide bombing which claimed the lives of about 100 people in a Baghdad market was actually carried out by two mentally incompetent women from a mental health facility. They were unwittingly rigged with explosives, sent into the crowded market by terrorists, and then remotely detonated.

In a series of reports in February, we followed the attempts of jihadists to take over the country of Chad. Chad has been of assistance with aid to the victims of genocide in Darfur and is instrumental to new humanitarian initiatives in Sudan backed by the U.N., E.U., and the African Union. But in a pre-emptive strike, the armed opposition of Chad backed by the Sudanese government and Wahabi extremists attacked and nearly took down the Chadian government. The Janjaweed fundamentalists nearly consolidated a larger power base in the region from which they would surely continue to inflict their terrorism on any one not like them. As if the suffering in Sudan weren't enough, these belligerents thought it also necessary to prevent anyone from coming to their aid.

We were also treated to two Al Qaeda videos, one of which showed a training session for young boys being taught how to kill and kidnap, and another of the rescue of a young boy who had been kidnapped. He was being held for ransom, threatened with death if his family did not pay. Experience tells us the terrorist's beheading threat was not idle.

Using the mentally and physically handicapped as human bombs, kidnapping and killing children, teaching children to kill, engaging in the atrocities taking place in Darfur and attacking those who would assist the victims should remind all of us what it is we face in the world.

Given the nature and facts of this threat, it is imperative that we understand and analyze the positions of those who seek to represent us in D.C. on the issues of extremism, Iraq, the rest of the war on terrorism, national security, and the military.

In addition to our newspapers, one of the most public sources for a candidate's stand on the issues comes from their websites. As of Monday, the following information was found for our Senatorial candidates on the topic:

Tony Raimondo's lone reference was three sentences, "our national security demands a fresh approach. We face new challenges every day. These new challenges demand new leadership with new ideas."

Scott Kleeb's lone reference was listing as one of the challenges we face, "a global threat of extremism."

It's fair to assume that their very recent entry into the fray explained the lack of information about their positions and more could be expected in the future.

Pat Flynn's website provided more detailed information on the issue, everything from Iraq to illegal immigration, including: "One way we will guarantee the freedom and security of our country is through a strong National Defense." He states that "The war on terror is winnable, and that includes the current battlefront in Iraq. I believe Iraq is the center of the war against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the world today. It is clear that these groups are being funded and armed by terrorist stronghold countries, and their resolve to win is great. Our resolve must be greater!"

He further adds, "We need to support our military with renewed troop strength, hardware updates, and a missile defense shield."

Mike Johanns has a section on the War on Terror with the following, "Islamic terrorists, who have proven they hate America and have no regard for innocent human life, have declared war on the United States. It is a long-term threat that requires our constant vigilance and courageII do not agree with those who advocate surrender and retreat in Iraq. I believe we must support our military and work for a quick and victorious resolution to win the war against terrorists and extremists who threaten free people and seek to do our nation harm."

Analysis will be made of all the information available on these positions for the candidates in future columns. If anyone decides to run against Adrian Smith the same will be done for that race.

It should be an interesting run into May.

Lessons During Two Years of Writing

2008-03-05T07:43:00.002-06:00

When you write a column on a Sunday or Monday, but don’t have it printed until later in the week there’s always a chance the week’s events could change the impact of the column. After two years it finally happened.

Last week’s column calling for a Diplomatic Surge in Iraq was penned, but not printed before some outstanding news came from Iraq.

Iraqi lawmaker’s passed three long-awaited measures that bode well for the future of the country and the political process there. They passed a budget for 2008, a law which detailed provincial powers and prepared for provincial elections this fall, and approved amnesty for prisoners being held but not charged. The last measure met yet another of our “benchmarks” for success.

In combining the measures into one piece of legislation, the three major factions showed much reconciliation and cooperation, although the process was contentious at times. But the success of the process certainly gives hope to the likelihood of needed future legislation.

Although the reporting and analysis of the legislation, the events leading up to it, and its impact for the future varied from pessimistic to very optimistic, this legislation is yet another step forward for the country.

If the State Department was instrumental to assisting Iraq’s politicians with this legislation, I’ll reconsider my position, but they would need to keep up the good work. This could even be a point of hope in that the State Department has finally found a way to overcome their own bureaucracy to make something happen.

If the Iraqi’s acted of their own accord, then the Miranda memo cited here about the State Department’s ineptitude and the Iraqi’s capabilities was well timed.

Highlighting the change in the week’s events leads to one of the lessons learned during two years of daily research and weekly writing. It’s actually relearned after watching politicians and party officials be incorrect or on the wrong side of on an issue, but unwilling to change course when new facts highlight the need for change. Whether stuck in our own paradigm or adamantly following a party line without foundational principles, an unwillingness or incapacity for change is something we should avoid.

I’ve learned to look for the differences in positions and at different perspectives, regardless of an individual’s political affiliation or foundation, instead of assuming affiliation matched position. For example, Senator Nelson has a moderate stance on Iraq, contrary to many in his party, whereas Senator Hagel’s position is most likely to match what is often considered liberal. Both usually contradict their own party on the subject, and Senator Hagel’s position is contrary to his conservative ideals in other areas. I’ve learned, and am still learning when to agree or disagree with individuals and well-defined groups on specific issues, and when a broad-brush is appropriate.

I’ve also learned to give credit where credit is due. Although I adamantly disagree with Senator Hagel on the war in Iraq, he should be commended for his movement on what is being touted as a G.I. Bill for the 21st Century. The old G.I. Bill had done well in its time, but an update has been sorely needed. Senator Hagel, along with Senator Webb of Virginia, has introduced the “Post-9/11 Veterans’ Educational Assistance Act” to provide benefits that reflect current costs of education and living.

After spending some time in Washington D.C., I’ve learned just how busy our elected officials can be. They run rigorous, tight schedules both in D.C. and back home. Although I have disagreed with them on issues, I would never criticize or accuse them of neglect or laziness for missing a vote or declining attendance at an event. Anyone who would really needs to pay more attention to the demands on our elected officials in Washington.

I’ve learned to laugh at the contacts from those who anonymously disagree. Although their ramblings have been humorous, I’ve found the lack of courage to put a name on the criticism even funnier. While I respect those who have publicly disagreed with their names intact, the anonymous “hate-mail” ends up where it’s best suited, in the circular file.

Those who anonymously disagree have steeled my resolve to keep writing more than they know (until now), but not as much as those who’ve contacted me and asked me to keep writing. I’ve learned this perspective is in far more demand than I thought, so I will.

Diplomatic Surge in Iraq is Overdue

2008-03-05T07:41:00.000-06:00

I have argued with lawmakers since September, given the undeniable success of the military Surge in Iraq, that what was now needed was a Diplomatic Surge. The military had succeeded, but the Iraqi government was struggling to move forward at an acceptable pace.

It’s not that we’d left the Iraqi government all alone through the process of standing up their own democracy, or so it seemed. Our country had given them what was supposed to be the advantage of hundreds, if not thousands, of State Department officials and contractors to guide them through the process. Yet despite all the expertise in diplomacy and nuance of such delicate matters so many members of the State Department claim to have, it was apparent that they were failing to assist Iraq’s legislative efforts.

Their obvious lack of progress became the cornerstone to the calls for a Diplomatic Surge.

Now, a 10 page memo to Ambassador Crocker from a recently resigned contract employee, Manuel Miranda, would confirm the need for a Diplomatic Surge. Mr. Miranda served with the State Department as the Senior Advisor for Legislative Framework in the Iraq Reconstruction Management Office.

Mr. Miranda criticizes the State Department and Foreign Service throughout his memo, highlighting many areas where they are not only inefficient, but also completely ineffective, incapable of assisting the Iraqi’s with their government – the very mission which defines their presence and purpose in Iraq.

Mr. Miranda describes incredible shortcomings in several key areas and points out where the culture and incompetence of the State Department and Foreign Service are causing further failures. He provides detailed analysis of the State Department’s inadequate management profile, the false premises under which they operate, trouble with information flow and management, excuses on legislative benchmarks, and the rule of law. Most notable among his criticisms were:

“…we have brought to Iraq the worst of America – our bureaucrats…”

“…the State Department and the Foreign Service are not competent to do the job that they have undertaken in Iraq.”

“The State Department bureaucracy is not equipped to handle the urgency of America’s Iraq investment in blood and taxpayer funds.”

“Foreign Service Officers…are not equipped to manage programs, hundreds of millions in funds, and expert human capital assets…other than diplomacy, your only expertise is in your own bureaucracy…”

“…they do not have the leadership profiles or management experience called for by the nation’s high sacrifice of blood and treasure.”

“The embassy is also severely encumbered by the Foreign Service’s built-in attention deficit disorder…”

“At the keystone moment that America’s leaders and people were pained over the debate of our continued national sacrifice, the Baghdad Embassy was doing a bureaucratic imitation of the Keystone Cops…”

“Any American graduate school study group could do better.”

“…the State Department has been an albatross around the neck of the Coalition command...”

Mr. Miranda also provides his assessment of what he calls one of the State Department and Foreign Service’s mantras, “that political success in Iraq depends entirely on Iraqis.”

He says it “amounts to little more than excuse-making by people who cannot imagine alternative paths and who are limited by their own limited experience in government and economic development,” and “is over-used as an excuse by bureaucrats who simply do not have the ability of conceiving or executing scenarios of institution-building assistance that does not comport with their past experience and over-cautious diplomatic instincts.”

He adds that “the excuse-making tendency of the Foreign Service is most evident in the areas of meeting Legislative Benchmarks and Rule of Law objectives.”

Interestingly, those comments not only have implications for the State Department and Foreign Service, but also apply to the politicians here at home who are obsessed with the Legislative Benchmarks and use the same mantra about the Iraqis as an excuse when they try to justify a precipitous withdrawal or a change in mission.

Ultimately, our military has performed superbly, providing the necessary security conditions for Iraq to move forward. The Iraqis are competent to move their governmental affairs forward. But they need assistance. After a lifetime of dictatorial oppression by Saddam Hussein, they need someone to provide leadership in showing them the way to their own democracy. That leadership has obviously not come, nor is it likely to come from our State Department. It is past the time for a Diplomatic Surge in Iraq under and with plenty of new embedded leadership that comes from outside the State Department and Foreign Service.

Liberal Groups Protest the Marines

2008-03-05T07:39:00.000-06:00

Last week the city council of Berkeley, California informed the Marine Corps recruiting station in Berkeley, through a vote of 8-1, that they were “uninvited and unwelcome guests.”

They also voted to give the anti-war, anti-military, reality challenged group Code Pink use of the parking space in front of the Marine’s recruiting office and a sound permit once a week for the next six months so that the group can freely protest the Marine’s presence.

Berkeley’s mayor told the Marine’s they don’t belong there and they should leave.

My immediate reaction was to wish for a way that we could defend the nation, except for Berkeley.

At a minimum, maybe all of our munitions could now be manufactured and labeled with a disclaimer, “Not intended for use in defense of the citizens of Berkeley, California,” or an apology, “We regret the use of this ammunition against you and your terrorist organization if Berkeley, California was the target of your next attack.”

And then I wondered if the oath for commissioning could be changed to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States (except as it applies to the citizens of Berkeley)…

But alas, the munitions labeling is unrealistic and the oath is what it is, taken without hesitation, reservation, or purpose of evasion, sworn to in total. No part of it can be preferred or ignored. In swearing to it, one not only submits him or herself to the mandates of the oath, but also to the irony of defending the rights of those who hate you simply because you’ve chosen to defend their right to do so.

Just the same, one can’t help but ponder at what point those domestic groups who stand so adamantly opposed to the defenders of our nation’s freedom become indistinguishable from those foreign groups who do the same, and thus themselves become one of the domestic enemies one has sworn to defend our nation against?

The actions of the Berkeley city council (and Code Pink), no matter how disagreeable one finds them, do not qualify as such. Their actions simply fall under the First Amendment, even when the Amendment gives them “the right to be idiotic,” as Senator DeMint of South Carolina stated in this case. But neither should their actions go unchallenged.

Ultimately, the actions of Berkeley’s city council and Code Pink are maddening, disgusting, and sad. Both groups, by their actions, have demonstrated themselves to be “the sheep,” truly fitting the “sheep, wolves, and sheepdog” analogy often associated with Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman, author of several books, including “On Combat.” As he says it, “We know that the sheep live in denial, which is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world.” The sheep do not like the sheepdogs (the military) even though they protect them from those who mean them harm (the wolves). They don’t want the sheepdogs around. But when the wolves show up, they clamor for and try to hide behind the sheepdogs they loathe, demanding protection.

That’s exactly why the residents of Berkeley and Code Pink are sheep. They hate the military, and probably always will. But when the day comes that they’re attacked by the wolves, they’ll be the first and loudest screaming for protection.

While all of this makes sense if you understand that liberals like those of the Berkeley and Code Pink strains are prone to deciding and acting upon short term emotion instead of foresight and thoughtfulness, it is still sad.

A good friend of mine, a Lieutenant Colonel in the Marines and a true sheep dog described the Berkeley/Code Pink situation this way: “While I get somewhat upset by this, I am more saddened. I can't help but be reminded how dumb most sheep are…When the populace gets to the point that they don't want protection (sheepdogs), they will get the government that they deserve (wolves), and not the government that they want. As long as this sheepdog lives it will be the one that they want, but I can't guarantee that forever. Teach your children how to defend themselves. The day will come when they may need to because someone has muzzled all the sheepdogs.”

He’s exactly right. While the residents of Berkeley may loathe the Marines who protect them, they need to remind themselves of the consequences of not having a military to protect them from the foreign and domestic enemies the members of our military have sworn to defend even them against.

Seeds of An Awakening

2008-03-05T07:34:00.001-06:00

The four Iraqi men walked into the room. They were dressed in traditional, formal Arab garb. All were about 6 feet tall, strongly built, dark haired and thickly mustached. Two were older gentlemen, roughly in their late 50’s. Two were younger, likely their early 30’s. They were impressively charismatic, presented themselves somewhat regally, and from their features, were obviously related to one another.

After the usual greetings, they took seats on a wooden bench along one wall of the small dusty room, the chosen location for so many of the meetings I was having with the Iraqi’s from the area. A dilapidated, yet functional air conditioner missing its front cover hummed in the window. At least we were cool, regardless of what these meetings brought.

I also sat on a wooden bench, thrown together from scrounged up scraps of wood, my interpreter next to me. A Corporal, my guardian angel, stood near the door. Three other Marines, members of a Human Intelligence (HUMINT) Exploitation Team (HET) assigned to the area stood along one wall to the side of the Iraqi men. Although this was their first attendance at one of my meetings, they would soon become frequent visitors.

As the four men sat, one elder and one younger man looked toward the other older gentleman. The hierarchy was established.

The second of the younger men slouched and looked straight ahead, a combination of dismay and annoyance crossing his face. His overall demeanor was like that of a teenager who’d been forced along on a family outing.

Further introductions revealed the village they were from and that the one man to whom the others deferred was the sheik, the other his brother, and the two younger men his sons.

I asked the sheik what it was that had brought us together that day. He replied that he was seeking assistance in getting running water and electricity to his village.

The leader of the HET team immediately stepped forward and addressed the sheik.

Their team, along with an escort from a nearby Army unit, had tried to enter his village the week before. They came under heavy attack and had to fight their way out. One of his Marines had died in the action.

The HET leader demanded information about the terrorists and insurgents in the village. I told the sheik we simply couldn’t begin to help if we were attacked while trying to do so. The message was clear, “Tell us who the bad guys are, and then we’ll see if there’s something we could do about the electricity and water.”

What ensued was a heated circuitous exchange of denial from three of the Iraqi’s about the identities of the perpetrators and our demanding information about who they were.

All the while, I watched as the fourth man, the second of the sheik’s sons, sat back on the bench, looked to the ceiling and shook his head or looked to me and rolled his eyes with each denial by the other three about the identities of the insurgents and terrorists.

When it became obvious the debate was going nowhere and the non-verbal message from the son was clear, I called a halt to the meeting and asked everyone to leave, except for the son, my interpreter and guardian angel.

When the room had cleared, I looked back at the son and asked, in English, “You know who the bad guys are, don’t you?” He smiled a huge satisfied smile and fully nodded his head. “Who are they?” I demanded, again in English. He immediately began to rattle off names, personal and vehicle descriptions, whereabouts and daily schedules, everything we’d need to hunt down the insurgents.

That man became the first of nine Iraqi’s in the Sunni Triangle, starting about May of 2004, who became regular allies for me, informing on Al Qaeda. All nine had a common purpose: to make their villages safer and to avenge injustices and atrocities committed by Al Qaeda against them, their families and villages.

While Al Qaeda was sowing the seeds of despair in Anbar province, there were also seeds of a rebellion being sown against them, sown and cultivated until the end of the summer 2006 when the Anbar Awakening began to spring forth as a province wide movement.

Those war critics, like Barack Obama, who believe the Awakening did not occur until the Iraqi’s perceived a threat from the Democrats taking power in Congress at the beginning of 2007 need to go back and relearn the timeline and the history.

It should be simple, because that history just happened. They shouldn’t be so arrogant as to assume that those of us who were a part of it have already forgotten it.

Senator Nelson Placed Front and Center on Iraq War Debate

2008-03-05T07:32:00.001-06:00

Nebraska’s Senator Ben Nelson was put at the forefront of the Iraq war debate by Harry Reid last week.

Three aspects of this development are of particular interest.

First is that Harry Reid may be softening his stand on the insistence for a mandated timeline/date for withdrawal. Senator Nelson has refused to accept the random, catastrophic dates certain for withdrawal that Reid has so irresponsibly demanded. His new willingness to place Senator Nelson out in front on the issue may be a sign that he too has finally come to accept a more responsible position.

The second is the Senator’s position itself, presented in his weekly column.

In his column, the Senator gives our troops and their implementation of The Surge an “A+.” He praises the successful effort in saying “The plan, executed by General David Petraeus, is a resounding achievement.” I agree.

He then lays out an argument that the Iraqi’s have failed to reach the benchmarks established a year ago, giving the Iraqi national government an “F,” noting they’ve only reached 1 of 8. Fair enough, but it must also be noted that this week they reached another benchmark, the legislation for deBaathification. They’ve also been implementing yet another, oil revenue sharing, although the legislation which would check the box for the benchmark has not been passed.

Still another, local leadership via provincial elections, has occurred without the elections having taken place. It has happened within the context of Iraq’s tribal system. Here again we have no official action by the government, but have realized dramatic progress toward local leadership consistent with the intent of the benchmark. The Iraqi people are becoming empowered of their own accord.

There are two sides to the argument. The Senator’s view on the benchmarks is understandable. They are a measuring stick, but also the political corner that success has been painted in to.

There is success, regardless of the given benchmarks, and it appears the much desired political solution is likely to occur outside their parameters. Either way, the tremendous progress consistent with, but outside the confines of the benchmarks can not be ignored.

Senator Nelson then calls for a transition of the mission for our troops, recommending they keep fighting terrorists, maintain Iraq’s border integrity, protect American assets and personnel and train Iraqi soldiers; all missions with merit.

At present, most of what our troops are focused on is training Iraqi’s and fighting terrorists, either kinetically or by other means. The Senator’s proposal is not unreasonable and not inconsistent with what we’re already doing in Iraq.

So why then call for any transition? Would it actually change what we’re already doing? Not really in many cases, so why more legislation?

Because some see us fighting the war against terrorists and others simply see us as propping up a government. The reality in Iraq is that the two are currently inseparable.

So reconciliation is needed here at home, as is the legislation allowing us to stay in the fight against terrorists and prevent a forced, catastrophic withdrawal. The goal is to find a way forward here at home that allows Iraq to move forward, garners us a position of strength, and meets our national security needs.

The other challenge is that in doing so we may venture into setting a precedent for Congress to dictate war strategy, a very dangerous road for us to head down.

The Senator then sums up his position in closing with, “I do not support immediate withdrawal of American troops or setting hard dates to withdraw…,” and reiterates his view that, “The American commitment is not open ended and at some point Iraq needs to assume more responsibility for their government, their security, and their future...” Fair enough.

The final aspect of these developments is the press coverage surrounding the Senator’s new place in the debate. For whatever reason, the creative selection of his comments by the press gave the impression that he’d morphed himself into the new Cindy Sheehan.

Sure the Senator has called for a transition and provided some tough words for the Iraqi government and the President, not all from his column were included above, but neither had he suddenly become clueless or defeatist as some reporters and his opposition portrayed him.

By news stories alone there was reason for pro-victory Nebraskans to be upset with him, until you spoke with his office, and until you read and studied his words in full context, not those selected for you.

Not only was this week’s coverage a study of the press itself, but also a study in the complexity of the war in Iraq, the politics surrounding it, and the need for further analysis and a more detailed understanding than the headlines and sound bites will ever provide.

Heroes Families, Democracy, Gridlock, Iraq

2008-03-05T07:30:00.000-06:00

Each week presents itself with a myriad of topics to choose from and ideas for columns. I’ve often wanted to comment on multiple topics. Not a novel idea I know, but one that seems to work well this week launching into a new year. So here it goes.

The Families of the Fallen

One fallen troop and the grief of his family was enough to realize the cost of war to Nebraska. We ended the year with another in Broken Bow.

We’ve definitely had enough war deaths here at home in Nebraska to understand the cost of war.

If your New Year’s Resolution was for the usual weight loss/diet/exercise/stop smoking stuff, reconsider or at least amend your New Year’s Resolution. Promise yourself to check in on those families and see that they’re being cared for.

By the way, isn’t it time for a monument to honor those Nebraskans who’ve died fighting terrorists for us?

The Democratic Process

The violent aftermath of the elections in Kenya and the assassination of Benazir Bhutto bring in to focus the precious nature of our democracy and the civility with which we practice it.

Although we may disagree on many issues, and we all find ourselves on the losing side of an election from time to time, we retain a sense of respect and decorum for the processes and institutions of our democracy and the republic represented by them.

We don’t resort to violence as a means to protest or change either the candidates for or the outcome of an election.

Rancor and rhetoric, as ugly as they may have gotten in our political arena, are still not exhibitions of violence.

We should be grateful to our Founders for a well laid plan which lends itself to such peace. We should be grateful to our Creator for allowing that plan to be fulfilled.

Washington Gridlock

On one hand it can be a good thing. The less that is done in Washington, typically the better off all of us are.

Our system of government was intended to be limited in scope. It was foreseen that the more it did, the more it would act as an apparatus to impede progress. Consequently, the less it does, the fewer intrusive laws it passes, the fewer regulatory obstacles it places in our path, the better off we are.

However, there are some things that we need Washington D.C. to fix. (Ironically, we can probably also trace them back to something Washington D.C. broke to begin with.)

But those things aren’t being corrected because gridlock remains a problem. The daily operation of our government has morphed into something which stagnates itself with Congress often unable to find legislation worthy of the people and issues of the time.

We can blame special interests, extreme partisanship, party leadership, a combination of all three, or something altogether different. Either way, surely they can do better.

As an aside, I do find it interesting that Congress was unable to accomplish anything in December until the last minute when they were suddenly able to cram half a trillion dollars of legislation together in order to run out the door for Christmas break. Maybe our nation’s Senators and Congressmen aren’t all that different from college students and school kids.

The War in Iraq

In case you missed it, there is still a war being fought. Despite the lack of coverage about the success we’re having. Despite the lack of coverage, period.

Things are going well enough that news outlets can’t come up with news. Are they so entrenched in the “if it bleeds it leads” mentality that they’ve become incapable of anything else?

The holidays presented me a rare occasion to watch television uninterrupted for two hours one morning between Christmas and New Year’s. I almost wore out my thumb on the remote control, racing from channel to channel and news program to news program.

With the exception of the ticker crawling across the bottom, there was only one story about Iraq in those two hours and it was about a Sunni woman and Shiite man who were married in Baghdad and all they’d done to keep the flame of love alive in a war zone. Sunni and Shiite marrying? Must have been a civil war.

But only one story in two hours, on at least 6 different channels. I’ll take it.

I’d like to see the stories of all the good work our troops are doing, but I’m also willing to settle for “no news is good news.”

The New Way Forward, 11 Months Later

2007-12-28T08:12:00.000-06:00

Less than a year ago, I outlined at least 10 aspects of The New Way Forward that provided hope for victory in Iraq.

While many were focused exclusively on one aspect of the plan, The Surge in troops, the whole plan, The New Way Forward, showed much more promise in its comprehensive nature and deserved thorough analysis.

Eleven months later the facts on the ground in Iraq show the indisputable success of a plan well conceived and executed.

So what were those 10 points and how have they achieved such stunning success?

First, we changed the rules of engagement in Iraq. Small unit leaders were given the necessary permission to act as best they saw fit. Our outstanding young NCO’s and Officer’s enacted true counterinsurgency tactics, made the right decisions, and succeeded. We were finally allowed to engage all insurgents and terrorists.

The New Way Forward also set out to address the turmoil created by Iran. We have pursued their operatives inside Iraq. We focused on interdicting their armament shipments. We have sent the diplomatic message that their interference would not be tolerated. We isolated the militias they were trying to support.

Third, the plan called for Iraq’s neighbors and regional influencers to realize their stake in a peaceful Iraq. We have tried to reinvigorate the Middle East peace process and pursued ongoing diplomacy with Iraq’s neighbors, achieving at least limited success in this area.

Fourth, The New Way Forward was conceived in large part by those in the military who saw this as a fight we needed to and could still win, those who would be called upon to implement it. No one can dispute that General Petraeus has executed the plan brilliantly. No one can dispute the skill with which our troops have accomplished what so many defeatists thought impossible. Not only are they winning the fight, they continue to believe they will prevail, reenlisting to fight through to victory at record levels.

The President had to convince Prime Minister al Maliki to address all militias in Iraq. If an end to the sectarian violence was to be reached, all antagonists must be dealt with. That included Muqtada al Sadr. Albrecht Muth succeeded with Sadr. Uncooperative militias have been dealt with and cooperative ones have become part of the solution for peaceful neighborhood policing.

Sixth, the new strategy called for acceleration in the training and development of Iraqi Security Forces. That has happened. Iraq’s security forces continue to operate more and more independently. There is still some degree of reliance upon the Coalition, but their proficiency has absolutely helped with the force to space ratios and in establishing the improved conditions.

Seventh, the plan focused our troops where the most violence was. The metrics from Anbar and Baghdad are staggering in their turnaround for peace. Anbar is now almost the safest place in Iraq and Baghdad is on its way. We have chased Al Qaeda and all troublemakers from those areas and done something we’d not done before, continued to pursue and crush them every placed they’ve fled. We were successful with the first step in counterinsurgency warfare, security for the people.

Benchmarks were set for the Iraqi government to which they’ve fallen short. But reconciliation at all levels below the national has occurred and lent itself to the peace. Despite the shortfalls of the national government, the Iraqi people have moved forward.

Ninth, the Administration continues, through diplomatic trips by the Secretary’s of State and Defense, to insure the Iraqi’s understand that at all levels they must be willing to stand strong and soon address all of their own problems.

Lastly, the force to space ratios which had been needed were met and tactics changed to reflect sound counterinsurgency strategy, allowing us to address Anbar and Baghdad while exploiting the opportunity which was presented with the Anbar Awakening and the subsequent spread of reconciliation through the country.

I also questioned a year ago whether we would let defeatists like Chuck Hagel and John Murtha convince us to cower and run home, or would we truly support our troops to victory and bring greater insurance of security for our country by being a bold, victorious world leader?

Enough Americans have stood with stalwart leaders like Senator’s McCain, Cornyn, and Lieberman and prevented the defeatists from winning in Washington D.C. Previously skeptical critics have now become advocates for victory. Even John Murtha, although not fully in the victory camp yet, has said what we’re doing in Iraq is working.

Now will the others come around, or will they continue to advocate for the death of a winning strategy in Iraq?

The Patriot Meets The Architect

2007-12-28T08:07:00.000-06:00

On a recent trip to Washington D.C. I met Karl Rove aka "The Architect" and had a chance to visit with him. What stood out the most from my time with him is the sincerity of his appreciation for the troops and all we've done. It was clearly genuine, emotional support for all we've sacrificed and accomplished.

Why Weren't We Fighting This Way All Along?

2007-12-27T11:59:00.000-06:00

It would be interesting to know why the strategies and tactics we learned prior to deploying to Iraq in early 2004, the very same ones that are achieving so much success now, were not being fully utilized from mid-2004 through 2006.

What happened then to impede the execution of sound counterinsurgency strategy and progress in Iraq? “Impeded” is the optimum word here, not “prevented.” Had none of the counterinsurgency actions been taking place, Iraq would have been far worse.

The success achieved in Tal Afar long before the New Way Forward and The Surge is a good example of leaders at subordinate levels doing well to implement known counterinsurgency strategies, despite any floundering taking place around them. Many a squad leader, platoon, company, battalion, or even regimental commander did well to move the process forward. They were the glue that held the country together for two and half years.

On the other hand, had full blown counterinsurgency strategies and tactics been implemented then as they are now, we likely would have seen the present success two years ago.

Questions and analysis of the disparity between what was known and trained for and what was directed is intended here in the military sense of after action improvement, the process by which we become better war fighters. (Sadly I concede that any attempt to question previous shortcomings in order to improve our military is likely to be spun into political fodder.)

For example, as a mobilized reserve Marine infantry battalion, we underwent 1st Marine Division’s whirlwind training regimen prior to deployment. We accomplished in 30 days what normally took place over the course of about 3 months.

That training included counterinsurgency tactics for unit leaders at all levels within the battalion, highlighted by a full blown, nearly week long exercise in SASO (Security and Stability Operations) aboard a large abandoned housing area at March Air Force Base, complete with an entire cadre of Iraqi role players and insurgents.

The training was led by those Marines who had been successful in the early parts of the Iraq war, others who were experts in counterinsurgencies, as well as British and Australian officers who had experience in this kind of fighting from other places in the world.

The package that General Mattis put together prepared us well for what lie ahead, including his motto “No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy” which summed up how we were to interact with the Iraqi’s and insurgents.

Within our battalion was also historical knowledge of previous counterinsurgency campaigns. The lessons of Vietnam, the Philippines, and even Lawrence of Arabia were not lost to us. In fact, much required reading and study had taken place long before our activation.

The deployment to Iraq started with our implementing what we’d studied and trained for. And we were successful. In fact, so much was being achieved during the early stages, eager young officers and NCOs were pulling to move quickly to the next levels and repeat the achievements of previous counterinsurgency operations.

Our outstanding young Marines were making it happen. It was an incredible opportunity to see them take all they’d been trained to do and execute it in a real world scenario. They were the Iraqi’s best friends and the worst enemy of all who stood in the way.

But then Fallujah happened in the spring of ’04. And then the money for reconstruction was held up and then re-released with burdensome strings attached. And then missions and directives from higher headquarters inconsistent with history and training started coming down. And the fight turned into something not completely consistent with what we’d trained to do.

It was not a derailed train, but it was slipping on the tracks instead of charging full speed ahead.

When speaking to others who were there from that time through 2006, much of the same is revealed in their experiences. They’ve shared many success stories, but some of similar frustrations as well. We could have always used more troops, but would numbers have mattered given the tactics and strategies being used?

None the less, the progress we made seemed to chug along at a pace not wholly inconsistent with the inherent difficulties of a counterinsurgency campaign.

But the last 12 months have given us something with which to compare the period from ’04 through ‘06.

With the success of The New Way Forward, The Surge, and the rapidity at which General Petraeus has changed the very face of the fight and the country, the comparison and hindsight show just how off-target from sound counterinsurgency strategy we were for two and half years. And we must beg the question “why?”

As War Critics Change Views, Focus Turns to a Political Solution at Home

2007-12-27T11:56:00.000-06:00

Another previous war critic became a public supporter for victory in Iraq this week. In doing so, he highlighted the need for Congressional lawmakers to set aside differences and find a way forward in this war.

Retired General John Batiste had, until this last weekend, been an open critic of the war in Iraq, receiving much publicity in his criticism of the war. Although not to be wholly lumped in with the “cut and run” camp, he was certainly not a catalyst for victory either.

Now he, like John Murtha the week before, has come forward with a not so critical perspective. The truth about the successful surge in Iraq continues to reclaim those who had not been hopeful in this war.

Last Saturday General Batiste co-authored an opinion piece in the Washington Post with Vets For Freedom Executive Director Pete Hegseth outlining the need for perseverance in this Long War and the need for Congress to become united in the cause for victory.

Thank you to the General for standing for victory.

In the column, Batiste and Hegseth make a very strong case for rallying Americans to five fundamental tenets: U.S. success is imperative in the fight against Islamic extremists, Iraq is the central front in that fight, the Petraeus plan is the right plan and is working, our strategy must also address Iran, and lastly, our military must grow and change to fit our national strategy.

Highlighted in the column were the open reconciliation between two who had been on opposing sides and an emphasis on finding common ground in order to focus our energies on America’s long term national security interests.

They called on Congress to have the courage to do the same.

That brings us to the fight as big as the one in Iraq itself, the fight in Washington D.C.
Much is made of the need for political reconciliation in Iraq. It is probably needed more in Washington.

The surge in Iraq is clearly achieving success, some of it beyond even our greatest hopes at this time last year. Yet the success of the surge does not necessarily reflect success toward the “benchmarks” set for the Iraqi national government.

Some in Congress will be quite focused on those benchmarks during the funding fight coming in February or March. They would however, be in error, to ignore the success on the ground in Iraq, the reconciliation taking place among the Iraqi people and various religious groups, as well as the increasing functionality of local and lower levels of government.

Either reconciling the differences in political success among Iraq’s people with the shortcomings of Iraq’s national government or providing their government a pathway to success, a “political surge,” is the single biggest challenge we face over the next few months.

Ignoring success which is creating stability and achieving political reforms across the power base of Iraq, the people, simply because the Iraqi national government has been slow to move would be shortsighted and foolish.

The current trends around the country are creating the needed political solution. It just happens to not be evolving in the manner foreseen via the benchmarks.

Throwing out this success toward a political solution because it did not fit our predetermined method would most certainly be throwing the baby, the infant democracy in Iraq, out with the dirty bathwater of Washington politics.

During the next few months it will be imperative that leaders in Washington D.C. heed the calls of Pete Hegseth and John Batiste to find the courage to act in the country’s best interest, not a political party’s or that of a vocal minority.

The solution here at home and a way forward toward victory will obviously not come from those who have been adamant defeatists.

Although it may, there are doubts it will come from lawmakers who have stood unyieldingly resolute in the cause for victory, though their strength will continue to be imperative for victory. We should continue to stand with those who have been critical for our success thus far.

But we should also be ready to stand with those to whom the burden for finding a workable path toward victory is likely to fall, lawmakers like Senator Ben Nelson. Those leaders who have held a reasoned stand on the war, previously sought resolutions to partisan issues, and who understand the consequences of defeat in the war against Islamic extremists will be critical to this fight in the upcoming months.

Congressman Murtha Admits Positives in Iraq

2007-12-06T08:14:00.000-06:00

I had to look up the word “conniption.” I wasn’t sure how to spell it, but I’m sure that the likes of Code Pink, MoveOn, and other far left anti-war groups had a collective conniption fit last week.

One of their poster boys, John Murtha, quit toeing their line.

Surely what followed were the same fits of rage I’ve seen them have before.

In September at a Washington D.C. rally as Senator Joe Lieberman began to address a group of pro-mission vets and Gold Star Families, several members of the anti-war groups charged toward the stage with seemingly unrestricted fury, screaming with hatred, red faces, and flying spittle. Even as the police hauled them away, their venom did not subside.

Last week gave them another reason to become completely unhinged when Congressman Murtha visited Iraq and came back with a new view.

After a long run as one of the war’s most vocal critic he now says the surge strategy is working. He joined a growing list of previously critical lawmakers who see the undeniable positive developments in Iraq.

That can’t sit well with Code Pink or MoveOn who have counted on John Murtha to carry their Kool-Aid in Congress.

This summer and even into the fall when all metrics indicated growing and huge successes with the surge, Congressman Murtha remained absolutely adamant that it was not working.

At times he would fly off into tirades against those who saw and declared success in any aspect of the war. At one point he even let his emotions about the war override his senses when he publicly accused fellow Marines of cold-blooded murder at Haditha before an investigation was completed or charges leveled.

Now he says the surge is working.

We should welcome him back to reality with open arms.

Because the reality is that we are winning in Iraq and hope for the future has never been brighter with regards to the defeat of Al Qaeda there.

Congressman Murtha finally sees the truth of what’s happening. The surge is working, there is tremendous success in Iraq, but the national leaders still need to get their act together.

He should take heart with regard to the national leaders. As reconciliation continues at the lower levels, as has now been well documented by multiple parties, it will increasingly pressure Iraq’s national leaders to do the same and get their act together.

Needed pressure for reconciliation increased on the national level last week when, according to the Kuwait News Agency, a fatwa was issued by the leading Shiite cleric in Iraq, Ali Sistani, who “banned the killing of Iraqis, particularly the Sunnis, and urged the Shiites to protect their brother Sunnis.” During the meeting in which the fatwa was issued, Ali Sistani was quoted as saying, “I am a servant of all Iraqis, there is no difference between a Sunni, a Shiite or a Kurd or a Christian."

If national religious leaders can take that strong of a stand for all Iraqis, surely the political leaders are capable of doing so as well.

The counter-insurgency strategy of General Petraeus, the professionalism of our troops, their hard work, and the difficult risky stand taken by many Iraqis against the various terrorist and insurgent groups have all meshed to create the environment for success.

And John Murtha finally sees it.

The flip-flop bashers now need to leave him alone. He’s changed his mind based on the facts of the situation. Isn’t that how and why we want our lawmakers to change their positions? Too many times politicians change views for purely political reasons. Leave well enough alone on those occasions when politics takes a back seat to the truth.

However, two very visible questions remain on the political front here at home.

First, will Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi (whom reports say was furious with Murtha) quit playing politics with the war, finally concede that the surge is working, and reinforce success, or will they continue to play games, seeking our defeat for their own political victories?

Second, will the other Vietnam veteran to whom the left has often turned for quotes, sound bites, and solace, Senator Chuck Hagel, also concede that things are going well and finally support victory in Iraq, or will he continue to be the favored endorsee of Cindy Sheehan? If he were to finally admit success in Iraq and start voting for victory, he too would be welcomed back.

As Al Qaeda Shrinks, Focus Turns to Iran

2007-12-06T08:12:00.000-06:00

As violence continues to drop and hundreds of Iraqi’s return home each day, a result of extinguishing the influence of Al Qaeda, many eyes are focusing on the negative impact of Iran’s involvement in Iraq.

With Al Qaeda’s violence waning, Iran’s meddling is increasingly sky-lined against Iraq’s reformation.

The capture of Iranian weapons and Quds Forces (Iranian Special Forces operatives) in Iraq is now well documented. Iraq’s residents have quickly become effective informants on the movement of these munitions and personnel. Coalition Forces have been successful in diminishing the impact of Iran’s intervention through these means.

But Iran’s relationship and involvement through Iraq’s militias is still creating instability.

Two large Shiite militias had been responsible, to a lesser extent than Al Qaeda and the Sunni insurgency, for sparking previous troubles. Al Qaeda started the problems and the Shiite militias escalated the violence as they sought to defend Iraq’s Shiite population against Al Qaeda.

One Shiite militia responsible for their share of trouble was the Jaash al Mahdi or JAM led by Muqtada al Sadr. Sadr is well known for his anti-Americanism and ties to Iran.

However, as part of “The New Way Forward” at least one diplomat was specifically assigned the task of working with Sadr to have the JAM stand down and bring cooperation between JAM and the Coalition Forces. Although it took some time, he succeeded and earlier this year Sadr agreed to do that very thing. The stand down of most of the JAM has helped curb the violence in Iraq, although splinter groups continue to be troublesome.

The second group is the BADR Organization formerly known as the BADR Army controlled by Iraq’s largest political party, The Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. Many leaders of this group spent years of exile in Iran during the reign of Saddam Hussein. The BADR Organization is thus very close to Iran.

Through BADR, Iran is trying to assert the most influence and the most violence.

The same diplomat who has been successful in working with the Sadrists believes that it is now BADR, not JAM, working directly with the Iranians for training and equipment.

BADR is suspected in the bombing of a Baghdad market last week. Subsequent arrests have now been made which also include the arrests of members of a “special group,” Coalition speak for those with direct ties to Iran. BADR is often associated with such forces.

Although both militia groups have been responsible for adding to the complexity in Iraq, as with so many current trends, there is reason for optimism with regard to their diminishing negative impacts.

In Shiite dominated southern Iraq, particularly around Basra, BADR has been somewhat of a thorn in the side of the Coalition as British forces have been turning over control to the Iraqi government. However, at this time “JAM is fully engaged with the top UK brass regarding stabilizing Basra” according to the same diplomat.

Having to concern themselves with one potentially hostile group certainly simplifies the situation for the Coalition forces.

There is a better sign, however, than this willing militia cooperation. That comes from the Iraqi people themselves.

Through the course of the last 6 months, the Iraqi people have been rejecting combatants and insurgents on all sides. On many occasions tribal and community leaders from all religions, groups, and sects have come together and rejected the violence being perpetrated by any antagonist. Accords have been reached which excluded all violent groups, including Al Qaeda and at times BADR and JAM.

They are doing the same with Iran. In a nearly amazing development, Reuters provided a story on the 21st about a group of Iraq’s sheiks who released a petition signed by more than 600 Shiite tribal leaders and 300,000 Iraqi’s condemning and rejecting Iran’s involvement in their affairs. Although both Shiite, the Arab Iraqi’s are rejecting the Persians who they say are guilty of "The most poisonous dagger stabbed in us, exploiting the Shi'ite sect to implement its evil goals, and planning to divide Iraq."

As has happened in so many parts of Iraq, the people are again rejecting a group which has shown that its interests are not solely focused on the Iraqi people, stability, and peace. The people increasingly seem to understand that they hold the key to their future and the power to influence what takes place in their country.

Coalition and Iraqi ability to diminish Iran’s influence will thus be achieved, not just through diplomacy and interdiction of Iran’s weapons and forces, but by continuing to foster the environment in which Iraq’s people reject Iran.

Supporting Their Mission Supports the Troops

2007-12-06T08:10:00.000-06:00

I’ve always felt that those who said they “support the troops but not the mission” held an untenable position. Supporting the troops and their mission are inseparable.

That is especially true in the fight against Islamic extremists in Iraq. For the Islamic extremists to win their fight against us, they need Americans to lack perseverance in the protracted war they are more than willing to endure.

They need Americans who will shrink from victory. Their goal has always been to defeat the will of the American people, not defeat our troops in battle.

Thus, those who do not support the mission provide the enemy exactly the kind of morale boost he needs to continue his fight against us and our troops. As long as this enemy believes he can outlast the will of a majority of the American people, he will keep fighting.

Encouraging an environment in which our enemy’s resolve is steeled against our troops does not support the troops.

Now, with the undeniable success we’re having in Iraq, the “support the troops, but not the mission” position is becoming increasingly precarious. In fact, taking a position which encourages our enemy to keep fighting when our troops are achieving so much success in their mission against them is unjustifiable.

One mission of our troops has been to foster an environment where cooperation and reconciliation can take place among the different groups of Iraqi’s. Our troops are succeeding in that mission.

They have united the Iraqi people against both Al Qaeda and the Iranian influenced Shia militias.

The L.A. Times published a story this week, as so many others have over the last several months, about Sunni and Shia joining together to defend their local communities against militants on both sides. This column has chronicled many events where groups from all backgrounds in Iraq have been participating in “bottom-up” reconciliation.

Who can’t support our troops in that mission?

Another of our troops’ missions has been to drive Al Qaeda from Iraq.

Numerous stories over the last few months have detailed that very thing. Our troops, working with Iraqi forces and Concerned Iraqi Citizens have been relentless in their pursuit of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, reducing the terrorist organization to a mere fraction of what it once was.

Who can’t support our troops in that mission?

Another mission for our troops has been to eliminate the violence in Iraq fueled by militants and terrorists so that normal civilian life could once again take hold for the growth of the people and self governance.

The number of attacks against civilians is at its lowest point since early last year. Civilian deaths are down by 60% since June alone. Attacks are averaging less than 1 per day in many areas. Anbar province has become so calm that the Marines are starting to get bored. The sectarian violence has all but ended and recently Prime Minister Malaki declared the same for Baghdad.

Newsweek recently did a story about Baghdad coming back to life from the perspective of a journalist who has been there off and on for the last four and a half years. He now sees definite progress with durability. This week, Multi-National Forces – Iraq released a story about Baghdad schools reopening and the distribution of school supplies by our soldiers. Other recent stories have shared news of markets reopening and staying open late, amusement parks being attended, and people moving back to Baghdad.

Through the efforts of our troops working with Iraqi forces and citizens, a sense of normalcy is returning to many areas of the country, the kind of normalcy that allows for self-governance.

Who can’t support our troops in their mission to end the violence in Iraq sparked by the same terrorists who also plan our demise?

One goal of this counter-insurgency “surge” strategy has been to create an environment which is less risky for our troops. It is sadly unfortunate when our troops are injured or killed. The news of their deaths is very emotionally difficult for me. So, I am a firm believer in our troops having a mission which allows them to defeat our enemies with the least number of casualties.

Our troops have that mission with “The New Way Forward,” a strategy which has decreased the number of their deaths to the lowest point since October 2006.

When there’s a war to win, you need to support a mission which does that.

In every way, by every metric, our troops are succeeding in their mission. They are winning. Truly supporting them requires that we support them in these winning endeavors.

Religious Zealotry, Not Foreign Policy, to Blame

2007-12-06T08:09:00.000-06:00

Those who believe that Islamic terrorist groups flourish in response to U.S. policies need to review this week’s news to see that Salafist beliefs and organizations are trying to impose their will throughout the world for their own reasons.

Simply put, the United States is not to blame for the existence of Islamic terrorist organizations or the hatred they harbor.

A world-wide movement exists among a minority of radical Islamists, not the world-wide Muslim population, who believe it is their obligation to force, impose, and enforce their interpretation of Islam upon the people of the world.

It’s not just the spread of Islam these terrorist groups concern themselves with. It’s the spread of their version (emphasis added) of Islam they believe in. Nothing less will be tolerated, nor will anyone who tolerates anything less.

In their eyes, all who do not follow their philosophies or who tolerate those who do not follow their philosophies are infidels worthy of destruction.

To them, not only are westerners, Christians, and all non-Muslims worthy of death, but so are other Muslims who don’t interpret the Koran as they do.

They have therefore declared enemies and attempted to proselytize by the sword around the globe.

They exist in the Philippines.

Bill Gertz reported this week on a briefing by Special Operations Command – Pacific on the status of the Al Qaeda affiliated group in the Philippines known as Abu Sayyaf. For several years Philippine and American special operations forces have been hunting members of this Islamic terrorist organization.

The extremists demanded action against Muslim nations in northern Africa this week.

Al Qaeda number two man Ayman al Zawahiri called for the overthrow of the leaders in Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, and Algeria.

These mostly Muslim, northern African countries do not practice Islam exactly as the terrorists believe it should be practiced. To their detriment they have also developed relationships with many other countries the terrorists view as “dogs, crusaders, and infidels,” which in turn makes them “slaves” who deserve punishment.

Although largely Arab and Islamic, they do not adhere to the Al Qaeda mentality and interpretation of Islam. They are therefore worthy of being overthrown and replaced by regimes which do.

In conjunction with Zawahiri’s calls came reports from the AP and Al-Jazeera that a terrorist organization from Libya, the Fighting Islamic Group in Libya, has joined ranks with Al Qaeda. Reuters had a story about terrorists in Algeria noting extremists from Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat. In an AFP report, Zawahiri also touted jihad by militants from these African countries against the United States, France, and Spain.

Radical Islamists exist in Pakistan.

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf took steps this week in his country, unfortunately acting anti-democratically, in order to confront the growing threat of extremism in his own country.

Pakistan’s proximity to so many radical groups, including the Taliban, refusal to nationally submit to a Taliban style belief system, and cooperation in fighting against terrorists has made Pakistan and Musharraf prime targets. This week he took actions he felt necessary to defend against them.

He did so in response to those groups growing in strength, their offensive against the government (including publicly beheading six Pakistani soldiers), and moving outside their traditional tribal areas into other parts of the country.

Pakistan has become yet another example of extreme Islamic militants acting violently against other Muslims who do not share the same radical interpretations and beliefs they do. The same has happened in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Somalia.

Bloomberg news also reported this week that Al Qaeda is recruiting British children to carry out attacks against their own country. The head of MI-5 stated that, “terrorists are methodically and intentionally targeting young people and children in this country.”

Recent history, not just this week’s news, proves the trend of a global network of Islamic terrorists who are set upon converting or killing anyone who disagrees with them.

Many nations throughout the world, regardless of religion or belief system, have now had to face the reality of Islamic terrorists who refuse to tolerate those who do not worship as they do.

The world-wide trends and threats are clear. Islamic terrorists are waging a jihad against everyone, not just the United States, who does not share the same religious beliefs as they.

It is foolish and short-sighted to believe that the policies of the United States alone cause them to exist.

Iraq Provides Lessons on Local Control

2007-11-03T19:06:00.000-05:00

In yet another step forward this week in Iraq, Karbala became the 8th province to be turned over from Coalition to full Iraqi authority.

It is now well documented that reconciliation has been taking place between Iraqi’s at local and provincial levels. Cooperation between different sects and religions is occurring in several areas of the country.

Local people and their leaders have been finding ways to bring about stability and peace to more and more neighborhoods, eventually into whole villages and towns.

Many Iraqi’s have rejected the radical form of Islam that Al Qaeda is so desperately trying to import. Their brutality has finally brought many of the Iraqi people together, standing in opposition to the tyranny terrorists have tried to impose.

At the provincial levels, local governments have found ways to function. They’ve allocated assets and put them to use for necessary public works projects and economic stimulation.

At local levels, and sometimes even at the provincial level, the Iraqi people have begun to shake off a generation of oppression. It can not go without notice that the present day Iraqi has lived under dictatorship and brutality for the majority of their lives. Yet they understand and are making strides toward the freedom of self-rule.

They are doing this as individuals. They are growing in the knowledge of liberty at the personal and local levels. They are beginning to exhibit the actions of free people.

They do all this despite their national government struggling to find its identity and its way.

While personal freedom, local, and provincial governments grow, the influence the Iraqi national government has on their lives grows proportionally smaller and smaller.

Isn’t that the way it’s supposed to be?

Interestingly, some Americans view the weakness of the Iraqi national government as a “failure” for their country. They project their own ideas for a powerful federal government upon the Iraq situation, neglecting the progress of local governments.

Is it any wonder that as our federal government continues to grow in size, scope, influence, and power, that some Americans would become incapable of seeing growth in personal liberty and local governments in the newly emerging democracy of Iraq?

Has what is happening in Iraq become an example of what our country was? Personal freedom and governance pushed down to the lowest levels with as much power going to individuals, state and local governments as possible, while the power and scope of a federal government remains limited.

Some of the same individuals who have called for partitioning, with the intent being more provincial autonomy and local control, as a resolution to the conflict in Iraq are among the same group which has been trying to consolidate more and more power in our own federal government.

There is constantly a push toward higher taxes which controls income and forces dependence upon the government.

One can look toward the growth in regulations from the EPA, FDA, USDA, Department of Education, and other government agencies to see the increase in government telling us how we may or may not live.

The constant assault on our Second Amendment, the very thing that guards us against a tyrannical government, allows consolidation of power within government.

Iron grip control of retirement funds through a failing Social Security program is another way our federal government has outgrown its purpose.

Recent attempts toward nationalized healthcare through the SCHIP program attempt to control yet another facet of our lives. As with Social Security, the attempted growth in SCHIP is another move from a well-intentioned program for those in need to a government controlling the future of individuals.

Federal judges who legislate from the bench rather than letting the people’s body decide how they ought to be governed shifts power away from the people.

Lists could be made of areas where state’s rights have been infringed upon and the many times national leaders have called “foul” when a state attempted to assert the authority granted to it by the Constitution.

While Iraq moves slowly toward self-governance, local control, and growth in individual freedom, our country moves away from those very same things upon which we were established.

We will long remember the war in Iraq for the militarily hard lessons learned there.

We should also take care to remember the lessons of people establishing personal liberty along with functionality and power of government at levels below the national. Those lessons, along with the history of our own nation, may be useful should the day come when we decide to move back away from such an overgrown federal government.

How Much Will We Tolerate From Iran?

2007-11-03T19:04:00.000-05:00

How loud would the outrage and the call for action be against Iran had they attacked an American base in the Middle East and killed several hundred of our troops?

Would the American public tolerate Iran attacking one of our ships in the Persian Gulf, killing several hundred sailors?

What if an Iranian sponsored terrorist group made an attack in the U.S. and killed hundreds of Americans?

In reality, Iran is already responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American troops in Iraq over the course of the last year.

Explosively formed projectiles (EFPs) imported from Iran have been deadly to our troops. These copper-disked roadside bombs have been linked to Iran time and again.

Each week Multi-National Forces Iraq reports on disrupted and destroyed terrorist cells that had direct ties to Iran. These cells are often implicated in moving fighters in and out of Iraq and Iran. They receive military training in Iran and are then sent back into Iraq to kill Americans.

There are others with training and financial ties to Iran, often lumped into a group identified as “Special Groups.” These groups include everything from kidnapping cells to the EFP and terrorist trafficking cells noted above.

Several members of Iran’s Quds force have been caught in Iraq. The Quds force is that specialized branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard responsible for special operations and covert actions. Roles of the Quds force include stirring up anti-American sentiment, training insurgents and terrorists, and leading subversive attacks against our forces in Iraq.

Shiite militias with close ties to Iran have been warring with those loyal to a stable Iraq in southern parts of the country.

British SAS troops have been fighting Iranians trying to smuggle people and weapons into Iraq.

There is overwhelming evidence of Iran’s detrimental influence in Iraq and their complicity in the deaths of our troops.

However, these questions and facts about Iran’s involvement and their direct ties to the deaths of our troops are not offered as an endorsement for war with Iran. They are offered as a way to question why the piecemeal loss of our troops has not steeled Americans for action against Iran.

I dread the thought of yet another public front on the war against terrorists opening. Unfortunately that front is already opening, and Iran is, without doubt, heavily involved in terrorist activities which have killed Americans.

But America is not ready for war with Iran.

Fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan in addition to other world-wide commitments has shown that our military is too small to take on much more without an expansion or a mentality where our troops leave to fight for years at a time. The American public is not ready for that.

There is far too much dovish sentiment in Washington D.C. and the rest of the country for an expanded conflict with Iran. That dovish sentiment has been reborn with the distance of time since 9/11. Too many have forgotten the true threat and intent of Islamofascists, even of the Iranian Shiite variety.

Nor should anyone seek war. The analogy has been made that the enemy are the “wolves,” Americans are “sheep,” and our military the “sheep dogs.” Well, war is tough on the sheep dogs. Those who have experienced war should never want it revisited on their brothers and sisters in arms if other options still exist.

Sadly, Iran is likely to push us and others to war, and sadly, America’s warrior class and their families will shoulder the burden alone, again, because all Americans are not willing to sacrifice for their defense.

Although we don’t want it, some are ready for war with Iran if pushed to it. The deaths of Americans at the hands of the Iranians have already steeled their resolve.

But America is not ready for war with Iran.

Which leads us back to the original questions: would we be thinking differently about fighting Iran had they killed the same number of Americans at one time? Would we be ready then?

Hundreds of our troops have died individually, but their deaths have not carried the same weight had they all died during one large attack, or were it civilians who had been killed.

Why the difference in value upon their lives, and the likely difference in outrage by Americans?

Medal of Honor Awardee Ignored

2007-10-18T19:41:00.001-05:00

Next week the Congressional Medal of Honor will be posthumously awarded to Navy Lieutenant SEAL Mike Murphy from New York. The medal will be presented to his family by the President at the White House.

This will be the first Medal of Honor awarded for the fight in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and the third during the war against terrorists.

Lieutenant Murphy’s heroism is detailed in the book “Lone Survivor” written by Marcus Luttrell, the only member of Lieutenant Murphy’s four man reconnaissance team still alive after a fight with over 100 Taliban in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Not surprisingly, The New York Times didn’t even mention the awarding of our nation’s highest honor for valor to a home state boy.

Their neglect of this remarkable story is to be expected. After all, as the icon of liberal mainstream news, why would they ever report something positive about the military?

After dozens and dozens of front page stories about Abu Ghraib, they have no room, ideologically, for reporting the extraordinary heroism of one of the world’s most elite warriors.

But, it also seems appropriate that they didn’t cover the story. After reading Marcus Luttrell’s account of Lieutenant Murphy’s final day, I have doubts that Lieutenant Murphy or Luttrell would have wanted the bastion of liberal media to cover it.

On that fateful day in 2005, while conducting a reconnaissance mission in the Hindu Kush, their four man team was accidentally happened upon by three Afghani goat herders.

What ensued was a discussion among the four SEALs about what to do with the three Afghanis. The rules of engagement weren’t specific enough for them to decide whether they should kill, detain, or release the men.

During the debate, Lieutenant Murphy pointed out that if they killed the three men, “The media in the U.S.A. will latch on to it and write stuff about the brutish U.S. Armed Forces. Very shortly after that, we’ll be charged with murder.”

At that point, Luttrell confessed that even though he wasn’t afraid of the Taliban, he was “afraid of the liberal media back in the U.S.A.”

As the discussion continued, Lieutenant Murphy again stated that “…the liberal media will attack us without mercy” if they killed the three.

The four SEALs weighed the strategic, tactical, safety, legal, and religious implications on the rules of engagement as best they could.

Unfortunately, these men served during a time with a biased liberal media, bent more toward an ideology, less toward honest and accurate news reporting, and one with an eager willingness to publicly sacrifice members of the military, often without proof. In this environment, Lieutenant Murphy had to consider the impact of the press against his men, the mission at hand, and the strategic blow the press was likely to deal the mission in Afghanistan.

In the end Lieutenant Murphy decided to let the men go. The three immediately alerted the Taliban who then attacked them en masse.

The four fought valiantly, making one fighting withdrawal after another down the side of a mountain. When all other options failed, Lieutenant Murphy moved to an open area where his satellite phone would work, exposed himself to heavy gun fire, made a call for a rescue, was shot in the back during the call, but finished and continued to fight until his death.

Sadly, as I read through this account, I couldn’t keep the blaring headlines of Haditha out of my mind. I could hear John Murtha screaming “cold-blooded” murder as he did about our Marines at Haditha. Similar treatment would have befallen the four had they made a different decision that day.

Their story flashed back through my mind as I read through the recent, relevant words of General Sanchez about the press:

“Unscrupulous reporting…solely focused on supporting your agenda…preconceived notions of what our military had done…no regard for the ‘collateral damage’ you will cause…tactically insignificant events have become strategic defeats for America…unjustly destroyed the individual reputations and careers of those involved…”

Lieutenant Murphy became a hero that day through his courage, fighting spirit, unselfish decision to expose himself to mortally dangerous gunfire, and his decision to err on the side of strategic victory by letting three innocent civilians live despite the personal danger.

Unfortunately he had to weigh the bias of our press in his decision.

Given that, maybe the New York Times, or other decidedly anti-military news organizations, shouldn’t cover the stories of such heroes. They somehow don’t seem worthy enough to print their names or their deeds.

"Phony Soldier" Debate Ignores Service, Disguises Other Problems

2007-10-18T19:39:00.000-05:00

A soldier I know who served in Iraq, and remains quite indifferent to the war, asked me one day, “have you ever noticed how those vets now opposed to the war never left the base they were on, they were some clerk or something, but never left their base?”

I didn’t think it was a fair statement, and have ruminated over it on several occasions.

He made that comment long before the whole “Phony Soldier, Rush Limbaugh” thing blew up.

I should ask him what he thinks now, because the soldier who is on the television ads calling out Rush, the one who suffered traumatic brain injury, is evidence that not all vets against the war stayed behind a desk in Iraq.

The reality is, all of us who’ve served have earned the right to take a stand on the war: for, against, or indifferent. All who served have earned the right of respect from that service. Whether we agree or disagree with each other matters not, because all of us have “been there, done that.”

Every American has the right to their opinion on the war as well. All of us, for and against and indifferent to the war, fight to insure our fellow citizens retain that right, whether we agree with their opinions or not. We serve unconditionally.

Jesse MacBeth, whom Rush referred to, who couldn’t even make it through boot camp, but then had the audacity to belittle the service of others through horrific tall tales, also has the right to an opinion (not to contrive stories), but should know he’s on very thin ice when sharing it.

His tales of atrocities not only demean the service of all, but they also make the jobs of those still fighting even more difficult. His stories help fuel the fire for Islamic Jihadists. They are a recruiting tool, encouraging others to kill America’s finest.

He is worthy of the title “phony soldier” and all the shame, venom, and disrespect the label is intended to carry.

Those who willingly prop he and his stories up in their deliberate attempts to attack, conspicuously or inconspicuously, the service of our troops are only one rung up the ladder of disgust from him. They are complicit in making the jobs of our troops more difficult.

Sadly, while the national debate rages about what was said or not said, several things have been lost along the way.

First, we stopped talking about the war and the best ways to move forward against terrorists. There are still extremists who want all of us, regardless of status or opinion, dead. There is still a war to be won; something much more important than discussing those sitting on the sidelines.

Second, we continued to ignore the valiant efforts of those who’ve fought for us. Instead of talking about true heroes, we were talking about a phony soldier.

More than 180 of our troops have earned our nation’s highest commendations for valor in the fight against terrorists. There are countless others who have made a difference to those they served alongside, to the Iraqi and Afghani peoples, and the security of this nation. We should be talking about them.

Third, our Senate took yet another step away from the great body it once was. Instead of acting as the greatest deliberative body in the world, the Senate continued its descent toward becoming a debilitated body. Only the Nebraska Cornhusker football team is falling farther and faster than they.

Officially attacking the cloudy comments of a citizen, albeit one with a large audience, and demanding action against him, is so very far from what our founders intended and from what this country needs from our Senate.

Lastly, the credibility of our national media eroded even further after taking up the spin and talking points of a group designated specifically to the task of contorting the media to its agenda, reporting it as hard news.

Our national media was gullible and biased enough to take a direct feed from one of several incredibly biased, far-left attack groups and run with it: hook, line, and sinker. No apparent research, no balance, no debate, no objectivity, just plain and simple ideology and incompetence.

To see this cornerstone of democracy crumbling as it is, is truly disconcerting.

Although we all serve unconditionally, isn’t it right for us to ask, “Are these crumbling, eroding pillars of our government, national identity, and democracy what we fight for?”

Facts and Reality Change Minds About Iraq

2007-10-03T20:46:00.000-05:00

Suddenly Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama can no longer promise their far-left base they’d make an immediate pull out from Iraq if elected President. In fact, they couldn’t even promise to have all our troops out by 2013 at the end of the term.

I guess sometimes the light of truth even penetrates the sand these two usually have their heads stuck in.

If you caught the most recent debate of Democratic Presidential hopefuls, several of the lead candidates could no longer answer in the affirmative that they’d immediately pull troops from Iraq.

Have they been listening to the counsel of President Bush about Iraq and the complexities of the Middle East?

Are they trying to distance themselves from the unhinged MoveOn crowd after public sentiment turned sharply against them following their attack on General Petraeus?

Did their internal polling finally move them from “dangerously weak” on national security to “absolutely unelectable?”

Or is it the fact that the surge is working and for them to deny this would illuminate their ignorance about the current situation in Iraq and reveal to the world how partisan and selfishly, politically ambitious they truly are? Neither good positions as more and more Americans see success in Iraq while paying attention to the politics of this Presidential race.

The fact is we continue to experience and achieve success in Iraq across many fronts as illustrated by several different metrics.

Living in small combat outposts in the villages and neighborhood and sharing risk with the Iraqi’s has protected them, gained their trust, and in turn given us the actionable intelligence to fight Al Qaeda.

Not only have we been able to take down many Al Qaeda cells in Iraq, last week we also killed Abu Osama al-Tunisi after earlier capturing several members of his immediate cell. Al-Tunisi was the emir of foreign terrorists in Iraq, part of Al Qaeda’s leadership circle, and the man responsible for kidnapping, torturing, and killing three American soldiers last summer.

Brigadier General Joseph Anderson speaking from Iraq says that our efforts have isolated the terrorists into pockets which we can easily exploit. From personal experience, I know the information to locate these groups comes from Iraqi citizens who are increasingly secure and are then more and more willing to provide intelligence about these cells.

The value of taking the volatile Al Qaeda element out of the picture is immeasurable in its benefit to the safety of the Iraqi people, our troops, our national security, and the ability of political processes to move forward in Iraq.

The Iraqi Army continues to show more and more competence, is operating independently in many places, and providing promise for a drawdown of American forces replaced by skilled Iraqi forces. Just on the 30th alone, Reuters reported that Iraqi forces had killed 44 militants, arrested 52 others, and defused 3 roadside bombs in one 24 hour period.

In addition to the reconciliation and cooperation across religious and sectarian lines taking place between tribal sheiks and provincial leaders, the New York Times reported this week on increasing provincial government competency. At local levels schools, hospitals, and power plants are being built, factories reopened, and loans being made for small business ventures.

This is yet another indicator that Iraq is rebuilding itself from the bottom up, not from the top down as many big-government types in Washington believe must happen.

Also, the trend over the last few months has been toward fewer American and Iraqi deaths. Now the AP is reporting that the number of deaths actually reached their lowest levels in over a year. The troop surge and movement on the political front are having an undeniably positive impact.

Not to be overlooked among the successes being achieved in Iraq is the fact that the Anbar Awakening is a group of Sunni Arabs openly fighting against the radical, Wahabi teachings of other Sunni Arabs. The Iraqi’s have said “no” to the extreme version of Islam which gave birth to Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Many of us have wondered where the Muslim voices have been to disapprove, disavow, and distance themselves from the ideology which brought us September 11. Well, Iraqi voices are doing just that, fighting against radical Islam, making a statement across Iraq, doing what we’d all hoped would happen in the fight against terrorists. They’re just having trouble being heard over all the defeatist bloviating coming from Washington D.C.

If they get loud enough, maybe even Barack and Hillary will hear their muffled voices through the sand.

On Capitol Hill With Vets for Freedom and Families United

2007-09-23T22:31:00.000-05:00

This week nearly 250 members of Vets for Freedom and 450 members of Families United For Our Troops and Their Mission gathered on Capitol Hill to tell our elected officials to stay strong in the fight, for others to get in the fight against terrorists. We wanted to let them know that there is another voice in America other than the one they hear from MoveOn, ANSWER, and Code Pink.

These veterans, Blue Star, and Gold Star family members were on the Hill to let their Senators and Congressmen know there are plenty of us out here who believe in persevering in the war on terrorists and that victory in Iraq is essential to long-term success over the terrorists.

Their visit to the Hill came on the heels of Gathering of Eagles rallying in Washington D.C. to counter the anti-war protestors the weekend prior.

I am a member of Families United For Our Troops and Their Mission as well as Vets for Freedom, one of two Nebraska state co-captains for Vets. Carl Hartmann, an infantryman, a Corporal in the Marine Corps and veteran of three combat tours in Iraq is the other co-captain.

For he and I, the event started on Sunday evening with a dinner and informational, training meeting with other state leaders, the executive director of Vets for Freedom, Pete Hegseth, as well as the original co-founders of the group, including Wade Zirkle and David Bellavia.

Staff Sergeant Bellavia is a highly decorated Army infantryman and the author of “House to House,” a must read for anyone who wants to get a picture of an infantryman’s life and what fighting in Fallujah was really like.

On Monday evening, after the arrival of the other vets through the day, a banquet was held for the entire group. Guest speakers for the event included Wade Zirkle, David Bellavia and:

Fred Kagan from the American Enterprise Institute, one of the nation’s leading scholars on Iraq
Retired Army General Jack Keane whose testimony before Congress got Kansas Congresswoman Nancy Boyda so worked up
Congressman Brian Baird from Washington who has shown more political courage than I can recall from a member of Congress with his new found support for the war
Congressman Jim Marshall from Georgia

Highlights from their speeches that I jotted down. Mostly just comments and ideas listed. Direct quotes as noted:

David Bellavia – “Every day is Memorial Day for us.”

Fred Kagan

The surge strategy was developed by military leaders frustrated with the strategy up until then. They were frustrated with the deaths and lack of progress.
There is Iraq and “Myraq.” Myraq is the distorted view that so many in Congress have.
The number of troops was never the issue, the strategy was wrong – we weren’t doing what was needed.
The first that needed done was security for the populace.
Congress can’t legislate a strategy. Many actually want to revert back to and pursue the strategy that we pursued in ’05 and ’06 which didn’t work.
Why are we still there? Because of Al Qaeda and Iran. Fighting against them is protecting the vital national interests in the middle east.
There are no longer any Al Qaeda sanctuaries in Iraq. None. They are all gone.
Baqouba is now clear because of the surge.
We need to go after the Iranians now which includes their Quds force, terrorist cells, Lebanese Hezbollah agents.
We are now disrupting those Iranian agents, closing up the Iranian border, trying to clear EFP’s.
Focus is shifting to stopping the Iranians.

General Keane

The strategy we are pursuing, which is to protect the people is defeating the insurgency, including Al Qaeda, Iran, and any indigenous insurgents.
Security was the first step and is/will lead(ing) to political movement and economic development.
The surge was never designed to be permanent.
The surge is a classic counter-offensive campaign for those who think militarily.
There is significant progress in Iraq.
Al Qaeda is defeated. That coming from our very best intel guys.
The Anbar Awakening is the first significant push back by Arabs against fundamental Islamists.
We’ve now defeated Al Qaeda in the Diyala province as well, with the help of the local population. They started helping us in July.
We’re not letting Al Qaeda rest or reset this time. We keep after them.
The most profound event is what’s happening with the Sunni’s in Anbar. They have rejected Taliban-like thinking, Sharia law, beheading children, cutting fingers off for smoking. It was a political movement among the provinces leaders.
The Sunni insurgency is fading away. Those who used to fight against us are fighting with us.
The Iraqi government is reaching out to former Sunni insurgents. There is political reconciliation taking place.
Progress is growing exponentially.
The Shia militias are still a problem.
The Iraqi people demanding change/progress in the national government will drive even more progress far more than our brow beating them over their bench marks.
We have turned the corner.
We know for a fact that the objective of Al Qaeda and those loyal to Iran is to break the political and moral will of the American people.
The Shia are not as formidable a problem as Sunni’s and Al Qaeda.
The Shia militias exist to protect their own people, and really didn’t become a problem until Sunni’s starting direct attacks in ’06. (’04 was an exception).
A few of the Shia are irreconcilable, like Al Qaeda. With that exception we are able to work with the Shia.

Congressman Baird

“I can get another job, I can’t get another country.”
Petraeus and Crocker provided a stark contrast between professionals like themselves and politicians making 7 minute speeches during their testimony. The politicians “should have been shutting the hell up and listening to those who know what they’re talking about.”
Talk of withdrawal hurts the cause in Iraq, it doesn’t help pressure the Iraqi’s to work and stand up (like so many in Congress think). Why should they stand if we’re not going to help?

At the banquet I met Bill Kristol from The Weekly Standard and frequent guest and panelist on the Fox News Channel. I also had the privilege of sitting with two sisters whose brother had been killed with others from Lima Company, 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines near Haditha. One of the things that strengthens me is being able to stand with people like that, who’ve lost so much, but still believe in fighting through to victory in Iraq. If they can stay strong for victory, then I have to as well. Or in military parlance, if they can hack it, then I will too.

Tuesday, The Big Day, Starting at The White House

The next morning our Vets for Freedom group, Families United, members of the VFW and American Legion all had breakfast on the south lawn of the White House. The Marine Corps band played in the background from the veranda of the White House. We were treated to a speech by the President. Also in attendance were the First Lady, Secretary of State, and the Vice President. Many of those in attendance were able to speak with our nation’s leaders after the President’s speech, but others had to head for Capitol Hill to carry out the mission we were there for.

In addition to the honor of being there and having the President, Vice President and Secretary of State in attendance was getting to meet some of the Gold Star families, including the mother of the sisters I’d met the previous evening. This again reaffirmed and steeled my resolve to stay in this fight.

With Senator Hagel

Our first meeting of the morning was with Senator Chuck Hagel. If you’ve been reading my columns for the last year or so, you’ll know that I have not been a fan of the Senator’s position on Iraq. I’ve been quite critical.

We first met with his Chief of Staff, LouAnn Linehan, herself a Marine Corps Mom (her son’s a helo pilot) and the Senator’s MLA. LouAnn and I have had previous discussions on the phone after some of my columns appeared in Nebraska newspapers. LouAnn’s a nice lady, we just disagree on Iraq. Carl laughed when the Senator’s aid mentioned that she thought LouAnn and I had spoken before. I had previously joked that we’ll be lucky to get in the door after the relationship I’ve developed with his office.

The four of us had a good discussion for 20 minutes or more about our views on Iraq. They certainly see it differently than those of us in Vets for Freedom. LouAnn said almost all of their calls on Iraq are “get out now” calls. By the end of the next day, after visiting with the rest of Nebraska’s congressional delegation (except Fortenberry), I found this interesting because it is not consistent with what others said they are hearing from Nebraskans. Maybe it’s just a matter of people calling those representatives they agree with.

One lighter moment came toward the end of discussing deployment stress on us and our families when Carl told her he was volunteering for a fourth tour in Iraq next summer. LouAnn immediately switched from “political mode” into “concerned Marine Corps Mother mode,” and demanded of Carl, “What does your mother think of that?” I think Marines and their mothers can all appreciate the sincerity and humor of such a moment. Marines take care of each other, and so do their moms.

The Senator then stepped in and spent about 20 – 30 minutes with us. I know we didn’t change his mind, but at least we delivered our message and he listened, although he did speak his mind. I was thankful for so much time and his attentiveness knowing the busy schedule of everyone on Capitol Hill.

He is concerned with the deployment tempo on the troops and their families. I believe his concern for the lack of political progress at the national level overcomes his ability to see the impact the success of the troops and the surge is having on a broader scale. He hesitates to acknowledge any success in Iraq. He cited several examples of failures by the government, and seems to be solely focused on that.

It’s as if he’s stuck in a mode of criticism and pessimism, and can’t see beyond that.

Although he expressed concern that funds will get completely cut off and we’ll have to make the precipitous pull out which would send the whole middle east into chaos creating a bad national security situation for us, I was disappointed with his votes during the rest of the week. He voted for (and co-sponsored) the Webb amendment which is the back door way to cut off troops for the war and then voted with 46 others to bring all the troops home in 9 months. Those votes aren’t consistent with the concerns for a stable middle east.

With Senator Roberts’ (Kansas) Staff

Carl, Pete Hegseth, the lone VFF rep from Kansas on the hill, and I then met with Senator Roberts staff. They assured us the four of us that Senator Roberts intends to remain very solid for victory. It was reassuring after having been in Hagel’s office. It was also good to sit in the meeting with Pete as well, there was much to learn from him. He speaks to the issues very fluently, the benefit of doing so all day every day I’m sure.

With Senator Nelson

Pete Hegseth, Carl, and I then headed to Senator Ben Nelson’s office. Senator Nelson had just returned from his fourth trip to Iraq over the weekend. Although we were only scheduled for a few minutes with him, he graciously took more time to discuss some of the issues. We shared our views and concerns. He did the same for us.

My assessment of the meeting is that Senator Nelson understands the complexities and the obstacles to victory in Iraq which we all discussed. At the same time he is afraid that funding could get cut off forcing a precipitous withdrawal, a disaster for the region, and a bad national security situation for us.

He doesn’t want to impose hard time lines, only recommended dates as goals, nor does he want to tie the hands of our commanders on the ground in Iraq. He sees where we’re having success with the Petraeus plan at the local levels, but has concerns over the lack of progress with national political reconciliation.

I got the impression that he wanted General Petraeus’ plan to continue moving forward given the success it’s shown and is working to find some way to provide the political cover for that to happen. He’s been working hard on his Nelson-Collins amendment which he believes will do that. He didn’t phrase it in those terms, that’s simply my assessment of what he sees as the best route to victory, resolving this war, and what he’s trying to do.

His votes against the nine month pull-out deadline and the Webb amendment were consistent with the spirit and intent of what he told us during our time with him.

With Congressman Adrian Smith

Carl and I headed to Congressman Adrian Smith’s office. Being delayed at the White House earlier had set the schedule back and we had to cancel an earlier morning appointment with him. But we showed up unscheduled, happened to catch him in the office, and he graciously agreed to meet with us before he had to head to the Capitol for a vote.
(I am very surprised at the schedule’s all of our representatives keep. They are jam packed and non-stop well into the evening hours every day. Getting the chance to catch them for even 10 minutes is a challenge.)

Congressman Smith assured us he understands the complexities and obstacles of Iraq, but is committed to victory there. I felt confident and comfortable with his position after the meeting. Although the meeting was fairly short, he and I have spoken about Iraq before and I had a pretty good grasp of his position. His comments in this brief meeting reinforced my confidence in him.

At The Rally and Press Conference With Vets, Families, and Members of Congress

All the vets (who’d also been meeting with their members of Congress) then headed to the Upper Senate Park for a press conference and rally with the Families United members, about 700 of us in all. We were a little short of that number probably because there were still members of both groups meeting with their delegations.

As vets we were joined on stage by about 18 different Senators and members of the House. Some were there for the duration, others floated in and out as their schedules allowed. The Gold Star and Blue Star Family Members sat in the chairs in front of us. We in our khaki shirts, they in their red.

There were also about 3 dozen anti-war protesters from MoveOn, ANSWER, Code Pink and maybe some other groups. That was my first time around any of them. They did not make a good first impression. “Wacky,” “loony,” and “lunatic” seem to be the words of choice for describing them by many on the Hill. I would agree.

I was surprised at how nasty they really were and some of the crummy things they were willing to say, especially to the Families United members who had lost family members. They even harassed Merilee Carlson, who lost her son in Iraq, when she got up to speak. As much as I dislike and disagree with Cindy Sheehan, I would never do that to her or say to her the things these protestors were saying. I think they showed how low and ghastly of people they are.

I was thinking that the moms weren’t going to tolerate much of it, and at one point the protestors must have said something really nasty (I didn’t hear) because a wave of red clad moms all headed for them at once, but stopped themselves short of an altercation. Overall, our group showed a good contrast being what was right, and what was crazy. It was also a contrast in civility and decorum between our group and theirs.

Senators like Cornyn from Texas were there, as was Thune from South Dakota. The place got loud when Lindsey Graham showed up, then went crazy when John McCain and Joe Lieberman showed up. Those three defenders of the troops were shown much appreciation for all the hard work they’re doing.

When Joe Lieberman got up to speak, the protestors went nuts. Several headed for the stage shouting at the top of their lungs. I’ve seen and heard pure unadulterated hatred before, and this was it. A few were arrested by the Capitol Hill police who had a small showing at first, but quickly gathered in numbers as the protestors gathered. Senator Lieberman gave it right back. I think the words “despicable” and “stupid” were used, especially as he referenced their actions and linked those groups to the attack on General Petraeus the week before.

Mary Katharine Ham from Townhall had a nice story on the event as well as a video.

The whole experience of Tuesday was quite motivating. It was humbling to be in the presence of so many Gold Star families at the rally. It was invigorating to stand with so many others of the same mind. Hearing the Senator’s speeches was enough to fight another day, and to the end. I believe it was Lindsey Graham who called us vets and families “the political cavalry” so many on Capitol Hill had been waiting for.

Seeing the protestors, understanding how nasty and fanatical those involved in the anti-war movement are gave me a first hand revelation of how intent they are on destroying the life we love in pursuing their own motives and desires. Fighting against what they’re trying to do to our country is more than enough to stay in this fight.

Wednesday Morning in Pursuit of Lee Terry, Jeff Fortenberry, and Brian Baird

The next morning, on my own, I headed back to Capitol Hill in search of Nebraska’s other two Congressmen. I was able to speak with Lee Terry’s Chief of Staff for a while, even though I had shown up unannounced. He was quite gracious with his time. I am confident after visiting with him, that Congressman Terry has a reasoned and solid position for victory. I was also impressed with his Chief of Staff’s ability to immediately cite some of the most important and informative web sites on Iraq; obviously their office makes a regular study of events in Iraq.

I proceeded to Congressman Fortenberry’s office. He had requested an appointment with us on Tuesday, but we weren’t able to match his schedule with ours. I popped in anyway and visited briefly with the staff members on hand. The staffers present felt that we shared similar ideas on the war, but no real details were shared or ideas discussed. I asked them to let Congressman Fortenberry know we’d have his back as long as he stays strong for victory.

I then went to Congressman Brian Baird’s office. I wanted to let the Washington Congressman know how much I appreciated his strong stand and political courage. He wasn’t in the office, so I wrote and left him a thank you note. Seeing that kind of political courage is a reason for all of us to have hope. A note was the least I could do.

It was then time to catch a cab for the airport and head back to Nebraska.

Don't Speak For Me

2007-09-21T08:41:00.000-05:00

There is a detailed account of the Vets for Freedom trip to D.C. forthcoming.

Now, this week's column:

Don’t Speak For Me

“The will of a nation is one of those phrases most widely abused by schemers and tyrants of all ages…Some have even discovered it in the silence of a nation and have supposed that from this apparent submission, they had a right to control.”

True words written by Alexis de Tocqueville over 150 years ago that applied to his observations of history, of America at the time he wrote them and which still apply today.

Time and again we hear defeatists in the war against terrorists use derivations of that phrase, “the will of the nation,” or “the will of the people.” In their presumptive attempts to speak on behalf of all of us, we often hear politicians use this idea to further their cause of pulling out of Iraq: “the American people sent us to Washington to…the American people expect us to…the people spoke in November and told us to…”

Beyond the fallibility of assumptions and interpretations of election results is the arrogance of thinking one possesses the authority to speak for all of us.

Statements such as, “The American people want us to leave Iraq now…” or anything similar which attempts to speak for all of us, even those who absolutely disagree, are conceited and lack merit.

Because they don’t speak for all of us, nor should they assume that perceived silence by other Americans who want to defeat the terrorists gives them the right to lead our country toward defeat.

To do so puts them in the company of the schemers and tyrants of whom Tocqueville spoke.

While these individuals attempt to speak for all of us, there are fortunately more and more Americans who are no longer silent, who are unwilling to allow them the privilege of speaking on their behalf. They refuse to submit to political schemers who pursue power and control over our security our futures and our country.

This week several groups stood in opposition, and through their actions, told them, “you don’t speak for me.” Groups invested in American success, arguing for perseverance and defeating the terrorists, converged on Capitol Hill.

Vets For Freedom, a grassroots organization of Iraq and Afghanistan War Veterans and those who support them, who believe in victory, were there, visiting Congressmen and Senators, encouraging them to stay in the fight, or in some cases to get in the fight.

Families United For Our Troops and Their Mission were there doing the same with hundreds of the Gold Star and Blue Star Family members who comprise the base of their organization. Despite the sacrifices of their families, despite the personal suffering they’ve endured, they were there, not silent, not letting anyone speak for them.

Gathering of Eagles, an organization dedicated to honoring and protecting our war memorials as well as supporting our troops (which they rightfully claim also means supporting their mission) was in D.C. They performed their primary mission of defending the war memorials against the anti-war groups which had converged on Washington. They also supported our troops by countering the message of the anti-war groups, addressing them directly.

Freedom’s Watch, a group which believes in American victory over terrorists, has been addressing success in Iraq through a very prolific ad campaign highlighting wounded veterans and Gold Star Families over the last month. Obviously Harry Reid does not speak for them.

When MoveOn ran their despicable newspaper ad in the New York Times attacking General Petraeus, renaming him “General Betray Us” before he had even given his testimony, there was widespread, very public outrage against them from these organizations and others willing to fight for victory in Iraq. That ad came from a group tied to many of the same politicians (through contributions and/or policy positioning) who incorrectly believe they speak for all of us.

Association with such a radical, anti-American group is absolutely why people like Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton don’t speak for all of us. It’s one of the reasons why those who oppose surrendering the fight should not be silent or give them a free pass.

When it comes to the defense of this country, and ultimately the defense of our freedom and liberty, be on guard against those who claim to do your will, and falsely claim to speak for you, especially when their position does not advocate American victory. Beware of them and their schemes. History has proven they both lead to the loss of freedom and liberty, not their preservation.

Caring For Our Troops and Veterans

2007-09-21T08:38:00.000-05:00

The Global War On Terrorism and resultant casualties among America’s warriors have revealed many of the inefficiencies and inadequacies of the health care system for our active troops and veterans. Gaps have also been shown in the health care transition process from active duty to civilian and retired status.

Some corrections have been made to these flaws, but there is still much work to do. Improvements and attention are needed at the national and local levels to assist them with the unique health care challenges developed during their service. For rural states like Nebraska, special needs exist because of the distances to military and VA treatment facilities.

It looks like help is on the way at the national level.

As an original sponsor, Senator Nelson has been instrumental in moving a very important piece of legislation forward that addresses many of the veterans health care needs revealed to us during this war. Some of the highlights of “The Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act” include:
A comprehensive policy for the care, management, and transition from the military to VA or civilian life of service members with combat-related injuries or illnesses
Authorization of medically retired service members to receive the active duty health care benefits for 3 years
Requirements for a comprehensive plan on prevention, diagnosis, mitigation, and treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and authorization of $50 million for improved diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation of service members with these conditions
Provision of respite care for family members who care for injured service members
Improved travel reimbursements for retired personnel seeking continuing medical treatment
Defense Department reporting on existing conditions and criteria used for contracting with civilian rehabilitation providers

3rd District Congressman Adrian Smith has been pushing to address the needs of veterans in rural areas, highlighted by being one of the original co-chairs of the House Rural Veterans Caucus and one of the original cosponsors for legislation establishing the Office of Rural Health within the Department of Veterans Affairs.

He was a cosponsor for the HEALTHY Vets Act of 2007 which would require the VA Secretary to contract with local doctors and hospitals to provide medical services, including primary care, for those veterans who live far away from VA medical facilities.

He is also a cosponsor to the Rural Veterans Health Care Improvement Act of 2007. This legislation is intended to improve access and care for veterans living in rural and/or geographically remote areas. Smith also voted for the Veterans’ Health Care Improvement Act of 2007 which addresses many aspects of veterans’ health care, including grants for veterans in rural areas to be transported to medical facilities.

Additionally, he has been publicly critical of the VA cutting ties with St. Francis Medical Center in Grand Island because that action is contrary to the needs of rural vets.

Not to be overlooked in the delivery of services to our vets are the representatives who put this legislation into action for them, the people working “where the rubber meets the road,” our County Veterans Service Officers.

The rules and bureaucracy of the VA system have been likened to an octopus. In reality it’s probably more like a whole tank full of live octopus.

Our County Veterans Service Officers are the ones tasked with sorting through the tentacles of ever-changing rules and pointing vets in the right direction (or even driving them) for care and claims. They are the important liaisons who lead veterans to the points of delivery for the services available.

Their jobs aren’t getting any easier either with aging vets requiring more care, the influx of new war veterans, and the constant change of bureaucracy at the VA. But they are still successful in helping our veterans.

For example, according to the office in York County, the VA compensation and benefits being obtained through that office has increased from $1.3 million in 2002 to $4.5 million in 2006. Although roughly 1/3 of that amount is for claims filed by vets from other counties and states, it still increases, by about $1.7 million, the money coming into York county veterans. Those figures not only indicate an ever present need for services among our vets, but also reveal a county officer who is quite successful in sorting through the red tape to get them what they need.

We need to make sure our county governments are taking care of these successful county officers with the same zeal and enthusiasm with which those officers take care of our vets. Otherwise, we could end up not improving delivery of the services our Congressional delegation is working so hard to provide and improve.

There Isn't a Civil War in Iraq

2007-09-07T23:18:00.000-05:00

There is no civil war in Iraq. I agree with the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Conway, on this one.

On July 10th, he gave a speech in San Francisco and addressed the subject with the following, “I sat this week and listened to a United States Senator who criticized the U.S. effort in Iraq as being involved in an Iraqi civil war while ignoring the real fight against terrorism that was taking place in Afghanistan.
With due respect to the senator, I would offer that he is wrong on two counts. The fact is that there is no civil war taking place in Iraq by any reasonable metric. There is certainly sectarian strife, but even that is on the declining scale over the past six months…”

As one of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a student of war and politics, and with direct access to all the information coming out of Iraq, I’m confident the Commandant is qualified to make those statements.

Knowing there is no civil war in Iraq is important, because it debunks the notion that our troops are somehow caught up in a civil war and that we need to change war policy accordingly.

Even Senator Nelson, in trying to find sensible resolutions to this battle (which I have commended him for doing) incorrectly bases his Nelson-Collins amendment on the premise our troops are caught in the middle of a civil war, which they are not.

It also throws water on the attempt by others to utilize the “civil war” reference with all the negative connotations of an impossible situation, much as they would venomously use the term “quagmire,” claiming “civil war” as a reason to surrender in Iraq.

Previously, one NIE report noted the country was approaching a civil war, but it never reached that level. More importantly, improved conditions in Iraq over the last 8 months definitely do not support the notion of a civil war.

The Commandant’s speech was given on July 10th, and already the trend during the previous six months was for a decline in sectarian strife. The progress made during those six months pales in comparison to the success achieved during the last two months since his speech.

Now that The New Way Forward and The Surge are completely staffed, they have shown even greater results, many detailed in previous weeks’ columns.

Anbar Province continues to be a model for the rest of the country. That same success is being replicated in other provinces. Military commanders this week reported a 75% decrease in violence in Baghdad during the last month. Tribal leaders are cooperating at unprecedented levels.

The improvements in Iraq are undeniable, and they are taking place in a country not sunk in a civil war.

Sectarian strife is not a civil war. It may be the exhibition of decades old disagreements between groups, but it is not civil war.

There were groups fighting because they felt powerless after the fall of Saddam or were unhappy with our presence. But that does not qualify as a civil war.

There have not been whole blocks of the population rising up and trying to start their own nations or governments within Iraq, both hallmark of a civil war.

The Islamic State in Iraq made an announcement along that line this week. However, with the capture of ISI terrorist leader Abu Shahid, we learned their group was nothing more than the Iraqi face Al Qaeda puts on its activity in Iraq. It is not a group of Iraqi’s rising up in a civil war against their own government. It’s just another Al Qaeda tactic to take over Iraq, and one of the reasons we need to persevere in the fight against Al Qaeda there.

Even Muqtada al Sadr, one of the most power-hungry leaders in Iraq, is not calling for a civil war or encouraging one. He has made past declarations to allow the government the time it needs to become established. Recently he ordered his followers involved with militia activities to stand down.

That is not the sign of a country caught up in a civil war.

One of the reasons for the decrease in violence throughout Iraq is the treaties and accords being made among tribal leaders of all different backgrounds, such as the one recently reached in the area around Taji. Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish leaders have all agreed to fight any group committing violence against the population, regardless of the background of those groups.

This type of cooperation between different sects for the good of all is a scenario completely opposite that of a civil war.

In a recent meeting of Iraq’s national political leaders, Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds all came to an agreement on ways they can move forward together, areas where they feel they can cooperate for immediate results. Cooperation at the national level between the different sects is not reflective of a country suffering the throes of a civil war.

Claiming, whether mistakenly or intentionally, that civil war exists in Iraq, especially as grounds for policy change, will only lead to more mistakes and prolong the fight against terrorism.

The Tide is Rolling in Iraq

2007-09-04T19:31:00.000-05:00

Positive Developments Continue for Iraq

Can you feel the tide turning, rolling in?

The week’s news detailing the achievements of our troops, politicians finally accepting the success of our troops, Iraqi’s continuing to battle insurgents and Al Qaeda, the Iraqi government starting to act like a government, and other nations acknowledging their role in the fight against terrorists was nearly overwhelming. The record number of positive news stories for the week was indicative of the undeniable improvements in Iraq.

Multi-National Forces – Iraq reported on the improving situation in Baghdad. Army Major General Joseph Fil, the commander of the Multi-National Division in Baghdad noted the improved cooperation between the Iraqi people with his forces and away from terrorists. “We have found that throughout the city there is increasing distrust, fatigue and disillusionment by the population with al-Qaeda and Jaysh al-Mahdi (militia group),” he said. “There is a strong desire in the neighborhoods to turn away from them.”

The General also reported that “fewer innocent Iraqis are being murdered as a result of sectarian violence, and statistics show murders are at their lowest level since the beginning of surge operations.” He noted, “Markets that were once targets by indiscriminant killers are now safer and thriving…more and more Iraqis are turning from the ‘rule of gun’ to the ‘rule of law.’”

At home, Senators Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin acknowledged the success of our troops in Iraq, with expected caveats of course. Although Hillary lives on a carousel of ever-changing positions, at least she momentarily had something positive to say about the war on terror.

After a trip to Iraq, Democratic Representative Brian Baird from Washington, a staunch opponent of the war, acknowledged the success we’re having, and has actually come to share the same thoughts as others about the cost of defeat in Iraq. He expressed powerful sentiments about what he saw in Iraq and the implications for the future with comments like these in a Seattle Times newspaper column: “I am convinced by the evidence that the situation has at long last begun to change substantially for the better…strategies and facts on the ground have changed for the better…the fact is, the situation on the ground in Iraq is improving in multiple and important ways…Terrorist organizations will be emboldened by our departure…Progress is being made and there is real reason for hope. It would be a tragic waste and lasting strategic blunder to let the hard-fought and important gains slip away.”

Multi-National Forces – Iraq reported on the 27th on the economic progress being made. As the security situation has improved, the diplomatic and economic gains have followed. The State Department now has 29 Provincial Reconstruction Teams making “positive strides” in all 18 provinces. These teams help provincial governments develop a transparent and sustained capability to govern, increase security and the rule of law, promote political and economic development, and provide the administration necessary to meet the basic needs of the local population.

The same story noted the security situation, pointing out joint operations between coalition and Iraqi forces have doubled since this time last year and the number of attacks against civilians and security forces is at its lowest point since August of 2006.

A separate MNF-Iraq story covered the continuously improving cooperation between the sheiks and provincial government of the Salad Ad Din province in their efforts to rid the area of terrorists and insurgents. Other stories through the week discussed the improvements being made in electrical services and sewage treatment, as well as the reopening of Iraqi industries.

On Sunday, the BBC reported that Iraqi national leaders (Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish) signed a reconciliation agreement for areas in which they agreed they could accomplish solutions. Although somewhat symbolic in nature, it’s a step in the right direction toward communication and action for a government which is still learning the ropes of democracy and overcoming the animosities fueled under Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime.

France became reengaged, in a positive way, in the war. Her new foreign minister, as part of France’s newly elected conservative government, finally visited Iraq. As New York Post columnist Amir Taheri points out, this signals to Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, who have reopened their embassies in Baghdad, that they and the U.S. are not alone in working toward a stable Iraq and Middle East. It also sends a message to Al Qaeda and Iran that they have not succeeding in dividing western powers.

Frontline reports by the troops in military blogs like that of “Badgers Forward” also showed progress in Iraq. The soldiers at Badgers Forward noticed a change in their area which reflects the current situation and the positive outlook of the Iraqi’s. After a long time without, homeowners and shop keepers have started putting glass back in what were previously boarded up windows. If the people are finally willing to spend their money on glass windows again, it’s a pretty good sign that things are going well and that the Iraqi’s believe the trend will continue.

So many positive developments over the week are a signal that the tide is turning. Although I’m a Cornhusker for life, I feel like my friends from Alabama, shouting “roll tide!”

Modeling the Way

2007-08-27T17:12:00.000-05:00

Have our troops opened the doors to political reconciliation and gone beyond simply creating a secure environment in which the political solution in Iraq can be attained? Are they on the path toward attaining what professional diplomats could not?

The Marines have found a way to bring tribal Sheiks together, provide local security, and run Al Qaeda out of Anbar province. What just a year ago was counted as lost to Al Qaeda according to the intelligence report of the time is now a success story.

The Army’s 1st Cavalry has brokered a deal in the area around Taji which includes Sunni and Shiite tribes. The agreement has a diverse group ridding their neighborhoods of all terrorists and insurgents, regardless of political or religious affiliation, and working together to improve the area.

Under General Petraeus counter-insurgency leadership, our military has been able to achieve more than just security in areas of Iraq. In some cases, they are achieving political reconciliation at the grass-roots level.

The “surge” started out as an aggressive, collaborative, armed version of the “neighborhood watch” program, but has grown into a process by which previously disagreeing factions are discussing and smoothing out differences, allying for a common cause.

The professional politicians, diplomats, and critics should take note. What they have been unable to accomplish at the national level, our troops are accomplishing at the local level.

We have State Department and other officials involved in the political reconciliation processes at the national level in Baghdad. Their sole purpose has been to help the national government find a way to come together for national Iraqi unity.

In many ways, their tutelage has fallen short of attaining that which is pursued. As the professional diplomats, shouldn’t they be the experts at leading the Iraqi’s to political solutions?

They should, but they have not yet reached their goal.

Maybe they should look to our soldiers and Marines, who have been achieving political solutions, for some guidance. What they have accomplished at the local level in bringing together the different groups can surely be repeated at the national level.

But the diplomats need to follow at least two of the closely intertwined lessons learned and now being implemented by our troops on the ground.

First, this is about the people and their tribes. The interests of the other, varied groups which claim a stake in Iraq should be secondary. The diplomats must first and always ask “are my pursuits good for individual Iraqi’s and the tribes to which they belong?”

By comparison, there are diplomats and counselors who have chosen sides at the national level. There are some who have invested themselves in moving the cause and position of Muqtada al Sadr forward. There may be others who want Al Qaeda to have a place at the bargaining table or others who want a disproportionate Sunni or Iranian influence. They seemingly fail to ask if their pursuits are good for the Iraqi people. Instead, they focus on one of the power brokers in Iraq.

By comparison, our troops have to be civilian-centric, addressing immediate security for the people themselves. Part of that process involves bringing disputing factions together to stop local violence against the citizens. It also means that anyone not willing to work toward local security must be dealt with and eliminated from the equation.

There is no place in the neighborhoods for radical religious zealots who are unwilling to live peacefully by accepting others not like them. Where diplomats believe they can accommodate Sadr or Zawahiri, our troops know they and the Iraqi’s can not.

That then is the second lesson. There is no room for any of the groups willing to use violence to further their own cause at the expense of the Iraqi people.

At the national level, attempts to appease radical individuals and groups like al Sadr and even Al Qaeda, to give them a place at the collective bargaining table, have been made. That is a mistake which will continue to be an obstacle to national unity.

Our troops (and a growing number of Iraqi people) have learned that such violent groups with zealous self-serving interests can not be part of the future of Iraq. Their presence in the neighborhoods makes every situation untenable.

In some cases our troops are working with previously violent individuals and groups who had been the opposition, but whose interests have shifted away from being so personally or religiously radical. However, our troops and some Iraqi’s have learned that inflexible, radical individuals and groups similar to al Sadr or Al Qaeda are of little value. Eliminating them from the equation creates an environment in which peace can finally move forward at the local level. The diplomats need to learn this for peace at the national level with regard to who they’re willing to represent and tolerate.

Our troops are succeeding in bringing about local political reconciliation as well as the security necessary for national political reconciliation. They are laying the groundwork from which a political solution can be developed in Baghdad. Those responsible for attaining that solution, but who still struggle to find it, need to search no further than the streets of Anbar and Taji for a model.