This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Support the troops

  • The surge against the surge is failing, or not

    Carl Levin and Dick Durbin concede that the surge has had spectacular results against al Qaeda – as if they could even begin to believe their lyin’ eyes. But they add the proviso that the Iraqi government is failing the progress our troops are making for them. The Washington Post, in the meantime, chooses to follow the leader of Congress’ “Out of Iraq Caucus” Jan Schakowsky; adament, unbendable intentionally ignorant of the realities of the world;

    …the outspoken antiwar liberal resolved to keep her opinions to herself. “I would listen and learn,” she decided.

    At times that proved a challenge, as when Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih told her congressional delegation, “There’s not going to be political reconciliation by this September; there’s not going to be political reconciliation by next September.” Schakowsky gulped — wasn’t that the whole idea of President Bush’s troop increase, to buy time for that political progress?
     
    But the real test came over a lunch with Gen. David H. Petraeus, who used charts and a laser pointer to show how security conditions were gradually improving — evidence, he argued, that the troop increase is doing some good.

    Still, the U.S. commander cautioned, it could take another decade before real stability is at hand. Schakowsky gasped. “I come from an environment where people talk nine to 10 months,” she said, referring to the time frame for withdrawal that many Democrats are advocating. “And there he was, talking nine to 10 years.”

    Imagine that! A part of the world that has been steeped in turmoil for more than five decades won’t be tamed in the next few months – it may take another decade to make 6th Century throwbacks stop bombing schools and marketplaces. Of course, this realization only reinforces Schakowsky’s knee-jerk, emotive calls to pull the troops out of Iraq and condemn the region to another several decades of horror and injustice.

    The lack of political progress among Iraq’s rival factions and Petraeus’s estimate of the time needed to stabilize the nation left Schakowsky all the more convinced that Democrats must force Bush to begin bringing troops home.

    Insuring that in another 15 years we’ll be forced to go back and finish the job AGAIN. The Democrats and the media forced us to abandon the attack on Hussein in 1991 – before there was al Qaeda, before the cowardly actions over Mogadishu made the world less fearful of American resolve. Before our response to agression became a few cruise missiles fired at empty tents, empty buildings and asprin factories – before we merely put terrorists in jail for their attacks on the World Trade Center.

    But Democrats aren’t happy to undermine our own security, they especially enjoy deriding the Iraqis – causing our allies to lash out;

    Nouri al-Maliki, who is fighting to hold his government together, issued a series of stinging ripostes against a variety of foreign officials who recently have spoken negatively about his leadership. But those directed at Democrats Clinton, of New York, and Levin, of Michigan, were the most strident.

    “There are American officials who consider Iraq as if it were one of their villages, for example Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin. They should come to their senses,” al-Maliki said at a news conference.

    The New York Times decides that what the Vietnamese went through wasn’t so bad, so maybe we should let the Iraqis suffer for a few decades under the boot of radical Islamism;

    Vietnam today is a unified and stable nation whose Communist government poses little threat to its neighbors and is developing healthy ties with the United States. Mr. Bush visited Vietnam last November; a return visit to the White House this summer by Nguyen Minh Triet was the first visit by a Vietnamese head of state since the war.

    “The Vietnam comparison should invite us to think harder about how to minimize the consequences of our military failure,” Mr. Bacevich added. “If one is really concerned about the Iraqi people, and the fate that may be awaiting them as this war winds down, then we ought to get serious about opening our doors, and to welcoming to the United States those Iraqis who have supported us and have put themselves and their families in danger.”

    I love how the Left likes to point out the “military failures” in Vietnam, yet they can’t point to a single military defeat. The only failure in Vietnam was the anti-war crowd’s failure to admit that we should have shut down the Ho Chi Minh Trail in Cambodia in the early years – that would have cut the time we fought the war in half and South Vietnam would be a democracy today. Just like we should seal off Syria and Iran from Iraq today – but like Nixon’s actions in Cambodia, the Left would call it an “expansion of the war” – instead of an attempt to actually win the war.

    On August 5th the Washington Post started a series on Congressmembers in their districts during their summer recess and explained the dilema facing them;

    With Congress beginning its summer recess, supporters of the war are expecting attacks and protests from war opponents, and many lawmakers are looking for bipartisan consensus on a new war strategy that has so far eluded them.

    Maybe they’re having such trouble because instead of finding a “bipartisan consensus” they should be looking for a working military solution – or they should sit down and stfu.

    I wonder why Tzun Tsu and vonClauswitz never mentioned that wars should be fought by committees and consensus? Maybe because it doesn’t work – have the Democrats never heard of “unity of command”?

    Of course, in a last desparate attempt to save the surge against the surge, the Left turns to Huffington Post to undermine the good order and discipline of the military  (hat tip to COBDanny) and urges General Pace to fire President Bush. Ya know, like the militaries in third world countries do all of the time. And HuffPo commenters heartily agree;

    Unfortunately, the fact remains that there are serious reasons to consider any and all scenarios, or remedies because of GWB, the worst President ever. Why should anyone else care about the rule of law when he hasn’t concerned himself with it for the 6 long years while he has crapped all over the Constitution and ignored law after law?

    I think that the creative thinking by Mr. Lewis should be commended and that if General Pace is the patriot he claims to be, he should consider the suggestion. My God, our nation as we know it is at stake. 

     I’d like to know, just for my own reference, what laws the President has ignored and when he “crapped on the Constitution”. Fortunately for me, I won’t be waiting with bated breath.

    But the anti-war Left loves this country and the Constitution, don’t they?

    I BELIEVE IT IS NOW TIME TO DEMAND AND SCHEDULE THE SECOND CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.

    We have GOT to get this little problem of hubris and ‘reinterpretation’ by the Whiggy ones settled once and for all, so U.S. can move forward.

    They love the Constitution so much, they want to rewrite it – as if I’d just stand aside and let them. Maybe they should put it to a national referendum – but they couldn’t do that, actually. Then they’d find out how many Americans oppose them in an undeniable actual vote count instead of one of those vacuous polls to which they cling so dearly. Or a lopsided Electoral College vote that favors the people who drain the country’s coffers over those who fill it. I doubt it’d even be close.

    CoBDanny reads my mind, and even pirates my legal research into the Smith Act to explain to the little worm why his idea just won’t work and why he should probably do some jail time for good measure.

    The death throes of the surge against the surge will be played out on September 15th in Washington – and I’ll be there to chronicle the last desparate gasp. So, too, will the Gathering of Eagles. Anyone else going?

  • Hand salute for veterans

    I just got an email from the my local chapter of the 82d Airborne Division Association that announced that new legislation has passed the Senate, courtesy of Senator Inhofe;

    U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) today praised the passage by unanimous consent of his bill (S.1877) clarifying U.S. law to allow veterans and servicemen not in uniform to salute the flag. Current law (US Code Title 4, Chapter 1) states that veterans and servicemen not in uniform should place their hand over their heart without clarifying whether they can or should salute the flag.

    “The salute is a form of honor and respect, representing pride in one’s military service,” Senator Inhofe said. “Veterans and service members continue representing the military services even when not in uniform. “Unfortunately, current U.S. law leaves confusion as to whether veterans and service members out of uniform can or should salute the flag. My legislation will clarify this regulation, allowing veterans and servicemen alike to salute the flag, whether they are in uniform or not. “I look forward to seeing those who have served saluting proudly at baseball games, parades, and formal events. I believe this is an appropriate way to honor and recognize the 25 million veterans in the United States who have served in the military and remain as role models to others citizens. Those who are currently serving or have served in the military have earned this right, and their recognition will be an inspiration to others.”

    The text reads;

    1 . To amend title 4, United States Code, to prescribe that members of the Armed Forces and veterans out of uniform may render the military salute during hoisting, lowering, or passing… (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by Senate)[S.1877.ES]
    2 . To amend title 4, United States Code, to prescribe that members of the Armed Forces and veterans out of uniform may render the military salute during hoisting, lowering, or passing… (Referred to House Committee after being Received from Senate)[S.1877.RFH]
    3 . To amend title 4, United States Code, to prescribe that members of the Armed Forces and veterans out of uniform may render the military salute during hoisting, lowering, or passing… (Considered and Passed by Senate)[S.1877.CPS]

    I may be late to this party, but I think this a great idea! I’d rather render a hand salute to my fallen comrades on Memorial Day. I also think it’s a good idea to get on our Congress members about getting this through the House before Veterans’ Day.

  • TNR back from vacation with their Scott Thomas excuses

    I guess the editors of The New Republic are back from their vacation and trying to explain their journalistic shortcomings by blaming it on the Army in their newest A Scott Beauchamps Update;

    Although the Army says it has investigated Beauchamp’s article and has found it to be false, it has refused our–and others’–requests to share any information or evidence from its investigation. What’s more, the Army has rejected our requests to speak to Beauchamp himself, on the grounds that it wants “to protect his privacy.”

    At the same time the military has stonewalled our efforts to get to the truth, it has leaked damaging information about Beauchamp to conservative bloggers.

    Well, I guess that’d be their perogative wouldn’t it? After all, you stonewalled when the dustup first began. Oh, and Beauchamps is now government property – he signed the papers fully knowing that would be the result.

    Earlier this week, The Weekly Standard‘s Michael Goldfarb published a report, based on a single anonymous “military source close to the investigation,” entitled “Beauchamp Recants,” claiming that Beauchamp “signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods–fabrications containing only ‘a smidgen of truth,’ in the words of our source.”

    Here’s what we know: On July 26, Beauchamp told us that he signed several statements under what he described as pressure from the Army. He told us that these statements did not contradict his articles. Moreover, on the same day he signed these statements for the Army, he gave us a statement standing behind his articles, which we published at tnr.com. Goldfarb has written, “It’s pretty clear the New Republic is standing by a story that even the author does not stand by.”

    Well, your boy Beauchamps lied to you about the melted-face contractor, at least on one “small” point about the geography and the chronology, why do do you still cling to him as a source? If the New Republic had a shed of journalistic integrity, they should at least say that their support for this fabulist is on hold – that they don’t stand behind him until new proof comes to light.

    In fact, it is our understanding that Beauchamp continues to stand by his stories and insists that he has not recanted them. The Army, meanwhile, has refused our requests to see copies of the statements it obtained from Beauchamp–or even to publicly acknowledge that they exist.

    Scott Beauchamp is currently a 24-year-old soldier in Iraq who, for the past 15 days, has been prevented by the military from communicating with the outside world, aside from three brief and closely monitored phone calls to family members.

    Again, the Army has that right – TNR has not been a rational actor in all of this. Their rush to print fables and fairie tales has not given the Army any confidence in their ability to report the truth, so why should the Army cooperate.

    We once again invite the Army to make public Beauchamp’s statements and the details of its investigation–and we ask the Army to let us (or any other media outlet, for that matter) speak to Beauchamp. Unless and until these things happen, we cannot fairly assess any of these reports about Beauchamp–and therefore have no reason to change our own assessment of Beauchamp’s work. If the truth ends up reflecting poorly on our judgment, we will accept responsibility for that. But we also refuse to rush to judgment on our writer or ourselves.

    Good. That’s the captain’s job – go down with the ship, then.

    The best line from this whole story comes, unsurprisingly, from Charles Krauthammer;

    We already knew from all of America’s armed conflicts — including Iraq — what war can make men do. The only thing we learn from Scott Thomas Beauchamp is what literary ambition can make men say.

    Personally, I’m tired of the whole story. But that’s what the editors of TNR want – like al Qaeda – they want to run out the clock and hope everyone forgets about the story or just gets weary of the whole thing. But I’m here until the bitter end. But, even AP is piling on TNR.

  • Rakkasan: SGT Aguina is mentally ill

    Robin at Chickenhawk Express sent me this link to the comments section of the Daily Kos  from the Angry Rakkasan, otherwise known as Brandon Friedman, one of Jon Solz‘ strokin’ buddies in the VoteVets front organization for attention-starved former Army captains who couldn’t make the Majors’ list.

    Freidman accuses the young buck sergeant, David Aguina, who confronted “Lil Mac” Clarke and his half-witted poodle Jon Solz with the facts of the surge at the YearlyKos Convention, of suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome because he doesn’t stand with Rakkasan, Clarke and Solz on the facts of the “surge”;

     We need to get to the bottom of this.  This is a soldier who needs some help–whether it’s more training in military bearing and discipline or treatment for complex PTSD, we just don’t know yet.  Either way, he’s being exploited by the right-wing blogs.

    Yeah, like the Left wing blogs aren’t using Friedman, Clarke and Solz  – at least their mental problems are more easily recognizable – penis envy. Now I haven’t seen a picture of Brandon, but I think Solz and Clarke must’ve got waivers for their height and weight in order to join the military – they’re the shortest little peckerheads I’ve ever seen to have worn a uniform. Since I can’t find a picture of Freidman, I gotta guess he’s the tall one – he has to be.

    As far as Aguina’s bearing and discipline, I think you’d better start with that gelding Solz. Aguina acted entirely professional, his bearing and discipline were just fine. It’s that pussy Solz that needs to be taught how to be a leader and not some power-starved lap dog for a retired diminutive general. If I had been in SGT Aguina’s shoes that day, the maintainence crews would still be picking pieces of Solz out of the ventilation system.

    Robin also tells us that Friedman gave the opposing response to a presidential radio address back in July. I guess he doesn’t think the Left is using him like a two-bit whore for that, huh? Those fat cows over at Code Pink must be falling all over their worn out udders to get seen with him. 

    And Friedman apparently plans on stalking young Sergeant Aguina;

     I would like to get contact information for Sergeant Aguina, if anyone has it.  I’m also working through VoteVets.org to get it.  I want to speak with him, Iraq veteran-to-Iraq veteran without any consideration of rank.  I’m willing to listen to him, as well as to give him some advice.

    Yeah, Brandon, I’d like to get your contact information, too. You ain’t worth listening to, but I’ve got some advice for you. Probably the same advice your first platoon sergeant had for you.

  • Beauchamps; it ain’t over yet

    I pretty much put the Beauchamps story behind me, it was worth a lot of traffic, I met some new people and I made my point – an indisputable point. My last word on Scott Thomas Beauchamps was “Told ya”.

    Well now I read from Little Green Footballs that The New Republic can’t believe its lyin’ eyes;

    We’ve talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account as detailed in our statement. When we called Army spokesman Major Steven F. Lamb and asked about an anonymously sourced allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, he told us, “I have no knowledge of that.” He added, “If someone is speaking anonymously [to The Weekly Standard], they are on their own.”

    And the left still clings to the fairie tales of Beauchamps; from the Washington Post;

    Mark Feldstein, a journalism professor at George Washington University, called the Army’s refusal to release its report “suspect,” adding: “There is a cloud over the New Republic, but there’s one hanging over the Army, as well. Each investigated this and cleared themselves, but they both have vested interests.”

    See, the Army is “suspect” more than the New Republic is suspect for their shoddy journalistic procedures – especially if you check with “journalism” teachers. Um, I wonder why that is?

    Even the New York Times gets a quote exhonerating the troops;

    “We are not going into the details of the investigation,” Maj. Steven F. Lamb, deputy public affairs officer in Baghdad, wrote in an e-mail message. “The allegations are false, his platoon and company were interviewed, and no one could substantiate the claims he made.”

    And yet, the NYT still doubts the Army’s statement. Why? Well, for the same reasons they think President Bush did cocaine and went AWOL – there’s no evidence supporting it, so it must be true.

    Any halfwit who spent even a day in the Army knows that those stories Beauchamps wrote are false. Especially since some of the stories were written before Beauchamps even got to Iraq (even New Republic admits that the melted-face contractor story supposedly happened in Kuwait while Beauchamps’ unit was staging for deployment to Iraq- if it happened at all). The Onion called it Pre-Traumatic Stress Syndrome back in November.

    Regardless, the damage is done – both to our troops reputation and to the New Republic. The Beauchamp Tales will be spun at every anti-war rally from now until the troops come home and repeated millions of times on the internet as reasons we shouldn’t support the troops – just like the “Bush was AWOL” and “Bush the coke-head” tales get repeated ad nauseum.

    Personally, I’d really like to take the high road, like Baldilocks – one of the classiest ladies on the internet – but I’m afraid if I ever bump into Beauchamps…well, he’d better practice begging for mercy now. And falling down and ducking.

  • YearlyKos moderator enforces DoD policy (Updated 2x)

    I picked up this story from Little Green Footballs who got it from American Prospect that some moderator shouted down an audience member in uniform;

    [A] young man in uniform stood up to argue that the surge was working, and cutting down on Iraqi casualties. The moderator largely freaked out. When other members of the panel tried to answer his question, he demanded they “stand down.” He demanded the questioner give his name, the name of his commander, and the name of his unit. And then he closed the panel, no answer offered or allowed, and stalked off the stage….

    Well, apparently Wes Clark, this century’s “Little Mac” McClellan, explained that a member of the military can’t participate in polical meetings in uniform. Funny, that wasn’t the argument the Left used when Adam Kokesh was bothering people while in uniform on the National Mall during anti-war rallies.

    What Wesley Clark was referring to was DoD Directive 1334.01 which states;

    It is DoD policy that:

     3.1.  The wearing of the uniform by members of the Armed Forces (including retired members and members of Reserve components) is prohibited under any of the following circumstances:

      3.1.1.  At any meeting or demonstration that is a function of, or sponsored by an organization, association, movement, group, or combination of persons that the Attorney General of the United States has designated, under Executive Order 10450 as amended (reference (c)), as totalitarian, fascist, communist, or subversive, or as having adopted a policy of advocating or approving the commission of acts of force or violence to deny others their rights under the Constitution of the United States, or as seeking to alter the form of Government of the United States by unconstitutional means.

      3.1.2.  During or in connection with furthering political activities, private employment or commercial interests, when an inference of official sponsorship for the activity or interest may be drawn.

      3.1.3.  Except when authorized by the approval authorities in subparagraph 4.1.1., when participating in activities such as unofficial public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies or any public demonstration, which may imply Service sanction of the cause for which the demonstration or activity is conducted.

      3.1.4.  When wearing of the uniform may tend to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces.

    Now unless Kos admits that it’s a totalitarian, fascist, communist, or subversive organization, the guy was within his rights to be there and in uniform. It’s just a lame excuse to keep people from hearing that current operations have improved life in Iraq, while hiding behind a DoD policy that the Left doesn’t agree with when it suits them.

    And in case this Jon Solz dude who dressed down the soldier is wondering – I don’t care what his rank is or was – I’d tear him a new aft-orifice if I ever caught him intimidating a soldier – especially like a lame little puss. “What’s your unit? Who’s your commander?” That’s stuff real leaders stop doing their first day.

    Its pretty disingeuous of Solz, representing himself as a veteran in everything he writes and says, representing an organization called VoteVets which masquerades as a  nonpartisan organization, but is clearly a tool of the Democrats, and then Solz silences a member of the military. 

    Solz didn’t seem to have a problem with the soldier sitting in the audience – until he had something to say. If there was something wrong with him being at the event, someone should have said something during the 44 minutes he sat there.

    More hypocrisy.

    Michele Malkin has more links and thoughts. mRed at Invincible Armor tracks Leftist reaction. Volunteer Opinion Journal faults global warming for their meltdown. Ace says it’s a good excuse to prosecute Beauchamps.

    Little Green Footballs now has the video.

    UPDATE: Pajamas Media‘s Andrew Marcus has an exclusive interview with the young buck sergeant (h/t Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive). 

    UPDATE II: It seems that Daily Kos is also censoring their diarists who question Solz’ treatment of the young buck sergeant at the center of the fury. One story remains, but LGF has a screenshot if it goes the way of it’s predecesor.

  • Rumsfeld denies coverup in Tillman death

    Pat Tillman was a great American for the way he lived his life, his family is in pain over his loss, and to a lesser degree we’re all in pain over this, but I don’t think there was a intentional plot afoot to misinform anyone. But you can’t tell Henry “Nostrilitis” Waxman that;

    “You’ve all admitted that the system failed. The public should have known, the family should have known earlier, whoever was responsible,” Mr. Waxman said as the hearing ended. “None of you feel you personally were responsible but the system itself didn’t work. ‘The system didn’t work, errors were made’ — that’s too passive. Somebody should be responsible, and we’re trying to figure that out,” Mr. Waxman said.

    Why? Why just this case of friendly fire? Does anyone have any idea how many friendly fire deaths there have been since 2001? I don’t – but I know that this isn’t the only one. Yet, it’s the only one Waxman is concerned enough about to have public hearings. And guess what – it’s not the Army’s fault, it’s not DoD’s fault, it’s not even the fault of whoever the young Ranger was that shot him.

    It’s the fault of the laws of physics – steel jacketed bullets travelling at 2000 feet per second penetrate skulls – when you put a number of skulls and a large number of steel jacketed bullets in a relatively confined area, the two are bound to meet with predictable results eventually. Especially if the owners of those skulls lead from the front.

    Even the Washington Post sees a conspiracy (surprise!), and of course it’s the Bush Administration’s fault;

    Tillman was killed just as the U.S. military was becoming increasingly bogged down in Iraq and as horrific allegations of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison were emerging. The Bush administration initially portrayed his death as an act of heroism against the enemy.

    Horrific allegations of penis-pointing at Abu-Ghraib inspired by the evil Bush cabal caused a friendly fire accident.

    The incident happened at night, and some misoriented soldiers who ended up in the wrong place. I saw it happen with even more devastating results when a platoon of Bradleys got turned around in a night attack on a dug-in Iraqi armor unit – three Bradleys were destroyed by US M1 tanks which inflicted a number of casualties.

    I watched an Apache put some Helfire missiles on a friendly Bradley and M113 APC one night – two were killed in that, too. The guncamera video of that incident is here. So I know that friendly fire happens alot – it’s an ugly creature of war, but a fact nonetheless.

    Immediate announcements of deaths are usually intentionally wrong, to protect people until the incidents are investigated thoroughly. That’s only fair.

    But I guess we can’t expect Waxman and his cronies shucking and jiving for the CSPAN cameras to understand that people in the military have rights, too.

  • Well, so much for being a chickenhawk

    The Army just sent me an email asking me if I’m still interested in going back on active duty. Durn tootin’ I am.

    Details to follow. I’ve got to get in shape.