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.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Near and Long-Term Terrorism Threats
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
