The original plan for the troop surge in Iraq involved a time-limited increase in troop-strength followed by a phased drawdown of forces to a level that was congruent with American and Iraqi security needs.

Guess what -- they are sticking to the plan.

The White House plans to use a report next month assessing progress in Iraq to outline a plan for gradual troop reductions beginning next year that would fall far short of the drawdown demanded by Congressional opponents of the war, according to administration and military officials.

One administration official made it clear that the goal of the planned announcement was to counter public pressure for a more rapid reduction and to try to win support for a plan that could keep American involvement in Iraq on “a sustainable footing” at least through the end of the Bush presidency.

The officials said the White House would portray its approach as a new strategy for Iraq, a message aimed primarily at the growing numbers of Congressional Republicans who have criticized President Bush’s handling of the war. Many Republicans have urged Mr. Bush to unveil a new strategy, and even to propose a gradual reduction of American troops to the levels before this year’s troop increase — about 130,000 — or even lower to head off Democratic-led efforts to force the withdrawal of all combat forces by early next year.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of their reluctance to discuss internal White House deliberations publicly.

Administration officials involved in drafting the new strategy said the White House intended to argue that the troop increase ordered by Mr. Bush had succeeded on several levels in providing more security, with fewer sectarian killings and suicide attacks, and had established the conditions for a new approach that would begin troop cuts in the first half of next year.

At the same time, the administration will use the occasion to argue that vital American interests in Iraq and across the Middle East require a sustained commitment of American forces and that any rapid withdrawal would be catastrophic for the United States and its regional allies.

I don't see why there is any need to present this as something new. This was the announced plan from the beginning. If anything, it is new to the American public because the MSM wasn't particularly interested in reporting anything beyond "MORE TROOPS TO IRAQ" when the Surge began. The only thing that will be "new" is the assessment of how the strategy is working and the exact timetable for victory -- as opposed to the deadline for defeat that the war's opponents are putting forward.

Similar thoughts from Captain Ed.

Posted by: Greg at 01:30 AM | Comments (212) | Add Comment
Post contains 459 words, total size 3 kb.

The New York Times is nothing if not consistent in its inconsistency.

Five weeks ago, the New York Times insisted that the US must leave Iraq immediately, despite the potential for chaos and bloodshed.

It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.

Today, on the other hand, the New York Times insists that the chaos that would follow a US withdrawal is reason enough to stay in Iraq -- and to keep troop levels high.

The United States cannot walk away from the new international terrorist front it created in Iraq. It will need to keep sufficient forces and staging points in the region to strike effectively against terrorist sanctuaries there or a Qaeda bid to hijack control of a strife-torn Iraq.

But there should be no illusions about trying to continue the war on a reduced scale. It is folly to expect a smaller American force to do in a short time what a much larger force could not do over a very long time. ThatÂ’s exactly what the British are now trying to do. And the results are painfully plain to see.

Now wait just a minute -- In July you said that such chaos was no reason to stay, and it was a part o the reason for leaving. Now you say it is the reason to stay? Why the reversal?

Oh, and the editors give a signal about how little the New York Times values our troops. They make it quite clear that they believe the US has failed in Iraq -- but insist that more American soldier must die to continue that "failed mission". I wonder -- will they ever consider giving success a chance? Well, perhaps the wind will have changed to that direction by September.

More At NewsBusters and Don Surber

Open Trackbacking At Right Pundits, Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Committees of Correspondence, Mark My Words, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, The Pet Haven Blog, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Wake Up America, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wyvern dreams, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 04:44 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 395 words, total size 4 kb.

After all, her Mom actually voted in favor of committing troops to both Afghanistan and Iraq -- and her Dad set the stage for both invasions with his lack of concern for terrorism and repeated insistence that there were WMDs in Iraq. That the Left would insist that Mitt Romney's kids should be in uniform while Chelsea holds her six-figure, parent-arranged sinecure is downright hypocritical and obscene.

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney on Wednesday defended his five sons' decision not to enlist in the military, saying they're showing their support for the country by "helping me get elected."

Romney, who did not serve in Vietnam due to his Mormon missionary work and a high draft lottery number, was asked the question by an anti-war activist after a speech in which he called for "a surge of support" for U.S. forces in Iraq.

Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, also saluted a uniformed soldier in the crowd and called for donations to military support organizations. Last week, he donated $25,000 to seven such organizations.

"The good news is that we have a volunteer Army and that's the way we're going to keep it," Romney told some 200 people gathered in an abbey near the Mississippi River that had been converted into a hotel. "My sons are all adults and they've made decisions about their careers and they've chosen not to serve in the military and active duty and I respect their decision in that regard."

He added: "One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."

Of course, the press gets the story wrong, too -- as the video shows, Governor Romney pointed out that there are many ways to support the troops and their families, big and small.

Now if the Left wants mandatory, universal military service (none of these namby-pamby "public service" programs -- real military service), then let them say so, and explain how degrading the readiness of the American military for political purposes is in the national interests. Or if they want to create a second-class citizenship for those who have not served in the military (sort of a fascist fantasy, I'd argue) then let them make that argument. But as long as we have an all-volunteer military, military service (or lack thereof) should not be an issue, especially with regard to the children of candidates and not the candidates themselves.

Oh, and by the way -- if that whiny Leftist really believes her rhetoric, I guess she'll have to give her vote to either John McCain or Duncan Hunter, both of whom are vets with children in the military. Unless, of course, she is just a liberal hypocrite.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Right Truth, Inside the Northwest Territory, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Conservative Thoughts, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wyvern dreams, High Desert Wanderer, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 529 words, total size 5 kb.

Scott Thomas Beauchamp is a liar, according to Army investigators.

Army investigators have concluded that the private whose dispatches for the New Republic accused his fellow soldiers of petty cruelties in Iraq was not telling the truth.

The finding, disclosed yesterday, came days after the Washington-based magazine announced that it had corroborated the claims of the private, Scott Thomas Beauchamp, except for one significant error.

"An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by Pvt. Beauchamp were found to be false," an Army statement said. "His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims."

TNR wants to claim that their investigation is more authoritative. BULL! TNR just wants to create this generation's John Kerry, making false charges of troop misconduct to undermine a war they oppose.

Posted by: Greg at 02:42 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.

If the spineless don't prevent it. At least that is what a couple of scholars from the definitely-not-conservative Brookings Institution have to say on the matter

VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administrationÂ’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

And then Michael E. OÂ’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack go on to point to the real progress in Iraq that tends to get glossed over in favor of bad news stories. Things are, in fact, getting better in Iraq, and the US effort there is showing great success. Indeed, it is only on the political front that there is weakness.

What needs to be done?

In the end, the situation in Iraq remains grave. In particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another when major steps towards reconciliation — or at least accommodation — are needed. This cannot continue indefinitely. Otherwise, once we begin to downsize, important communities may not feel committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may splinter along ethnic and religious lines.

How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.

But that isn't what the Democrats want. They seek to begin withdrawing troops within 90 days, and to have the American military essentially out of Iraq by spring. Even the plans for a slow withdrawal have all the troops home within a year. Such plans, however, surrender American and Iraqi success to violence and bloodshed on an unspeakable level. And while the New York Times and liberal elites don't seen preventing genocide as a value to be upheld, those with a moral compass do -- especially when we are on the verge of ensuring that such a Holocaust does not come to pass.

UPDATE: Fortunately, the American people are beginning to see the truth in Iraq, even if it bugs the crap out of the NY Times. H/T Don Surber

Posted by: Greg at 01:30 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 506 words, total size 4 kb.

One has to wonder what qualifications the editors of the New York Times have that make them more qualified than our generals and the president to determine what is responsible military policy.

The American people have only one question left about Iraq: What is President BushÂ’s plan for a timely and responsible exit? That is the essential precondition for salvaging broader American interests in the Middle East and for waging a more effective fight against Al Qaeda in its base areas in Pakistan and Afghanistan. And it is exactly the question that Mr. Bush, his top generals and his diplomats so stubbornly and damagingly refuse to answer.

* * *

Mr. Bush proposed no realistic new plan for more effectively fighting Al Qaeda in its heartland or for exiting from the tragic misadventure in Iraq. Instead he offered the familiar, simplistic and misleading arguments that he used to drag the country into this disastrous war to start.

Prolonging the war for another two years will not bring victory. It will mean more lives lost, more damage to America’s international standing and fewer resources to fight the real fight against terrorists. If Mr. Bush’s advisers can’t tell him that, Congress will have to — with a veto-proof majority.

Of course, the Surge is working, recent polling data shows increasing public support for the war, and the Congress does not have veto-proof majority. The New York Times, however, considers anything that disagrees with it to be "irresponsible" and "unrealistic". It may come as a shock to them, but the military ant the president are Constitutionally charged with determining the conduct of the war -- nowhere does the Constitution require that a once-great newspaper, noted for its bias and hackery, be given deference in making that policy.

Posted by: Greg at 12:21 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.

While the Democrats try to cut-&-run-&-surrender, the Bush Administration ahas created a plan that will lead to an orderly withdrawal from Iraq after certain key goals have been met -- expected in the summer of 2009.

The classified plan, which represents the coordinated strategy of the top American commander and the American ambassador, calls for restoring security in local areas, including Baghdad, by the summer of 2008. “Sustainable security” is to be established on a nationwide basis by the summer of 2009, according to American officials familiar with the document.

The detailed document, known as the Joint Campaign Plan, is an elaboration of the new strategy President Bush signaled in January when he decided to send five additional American combat brigades and other units to Iraq. That signaled a shift from the previous strategy, which emphasized transferring to Iraqis the responsibility for safeguarding their security.

That new approach put a premium on protecting the Iraqi population in Baghdad, on the theory that improved security would provide Iraqi political leaders with the breathing space they needed to try political reconciliation.

The latest plan, which covers a two-year period, does not explicitly address troop levels or withdrawal schedules. It anticipates a decline in American forces as the “surge” in troops runs its course later this year or in early 2008. But it nonetheless assumes continued American involvement to train soldiers, act as partners with Iraqi forces and fight terrorist groups in Iraq, American officials said.

Ultimately, this comes down to a very basic question for the American people -- do you value on immediate withdrawal or success in Iraq? That is the choice we face right now -- and with one political party committed to immediacy, we face teh real possibility of the second Democrat-engineered military defeat in my lifetime.

Posted by: Greg at 12:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

I mean the generals who are actually on the ground in Iraq, not the retired talking heads in the employ of the MSM.

An American general directing a major part of the offensive aimed at securing Baghdad said Sunday that it would take until next spring for the operation to succeed, and that an early American withdrawal would clear the way for “the enemy to come back” to areas now being cleared of insurgents.

Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commanding 15,000 American and about 7,000 Iraqi troops on BaghdadÂ’s southern approaches, spoke more forcefully than any American commander to date in urging that the so-called troop surge ordered by President Bush continue into the spring of 2008. That would match the deadline of March 31 set by the Pentagon, which has said that limits on American troops available for deployment will force an end to the increase by then.

“It’s going to take us through the summer and fall to deny the enemy his sanctuaries” south of Baghdad, General Lynch said at a news briefing in the Iraqi capital. “And then it’s going to take us through the first of the year and into the spring” to consolidate the gains now being made by the American offensive and to move enough Iraqi forces into the cleared areas to ensure that they remain so, he said.

In other words, to begin the withdrawal this fall and complete it by April 1 is a recipe for disaster and defeat. To begin the withdrawal sooner than May or June of next year would be to guarantee defeat. So what is the priority of the Democrats -- victory for the US and Iraq, or for al-Qaeda?

Posted by: Greg at 12:26 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 293 words, total size 2 kb.

Because the evidence simply is not reliable.

An investigating officer has recommended dismissing murder charges against a U.S. Marine accused in the slayings of three Iraqi men in a squad action that killed 24 civilians in the town of Haditha, according to a report.

The government's theory that Lance Cpl. Justin L. Sharratt had executed the three men was "incredible" and relied on contradictory statements by Iraqis, Lt. Col. Paul Ware said in the report, released Tuesday by Sharratt's defense attorneys.

"To believe the government version of facts is to disregard clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, and sets a dangerous precedent that, in my opinion, may encourage others to bear false witness against Marines as a tactic to erode public support of the Marine Corps and mission in Iraq," Ware wrote.

Defense attorneys James Culp and Gary Myers said in a statement that he was pleased with the report and that it "reflected the value of the calm of a courtroom and the adversarial process."

Sharratt's mother Theresa said she was overjoyed.

"This is a huge result, that report is a declaration of Justin's innocence," she said. "This is very, very good news."

This is the second time a charge from the Haditha investigation has been viewed as suspect by the military's own investigators. This is the equivalent of a District Attorney's investigation reporting to the prosecutor that the charges against a defendant cannot be sustained by the evidence -- and makes it appear likely that similar conclusions will be drawn for every other defendant in the case.

I'm curious -- will John Murtha apoliogize for declaring this man guilty? Will various left-wing groups admit they were wrong in tarring the US military for a murder that didn't happen? And will the press make as big a splash retracting the charges they have made as they did in publicizing them?

My gues is that the answers will be as follows.

1) No -- it wouldn't fit with his political agenda.

2) No -- because they believe every soldier is a baby-killer anyway, just like in Vietnam.

3) No -- because the media never makes mistakes and views a one sentence retraction at the bottom of page D-9 as the moral equivalent of multiple front-page stories and editorials.

Posted by: Greg at 02:06 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 389 words, total size 3 kb.

Not that the anti-war crowd really gives a damn what the troops think, but it might be useful to hear what they have to day. Somehow, though, I doubt that "supporting the troops" will include following the advice of those who know the war best.

· A deadline for withdrawal is an incentive for Iraqi political compromise. Levin thinks we ought to pressure Iraq's government with a warning tantamount to saying: "You better fix the situation before we leave and your country descends into chaos." He should consider the more likely result: an American exit date crushing any incentive for Iraqi leaders to cooperate and instead prompting rival factions to position themselves to capitalize on the looming power void.

My experience in Iraq bore this out. Only after my unit established a meaningful relationship with the president of the Samarra city council -- built on tangible security improvements and a commitment to cooperation -- did political progress occur. Our relationship fostered unforeseen political opportunities and encouraged leaders, even ones from rival tribes, to side with American and Iraqi forces against local insurgents and foreign fighters.

· We can bring the war to a "responsible end" but still conduct counterterrorism operations. The problem with this argument is what a "responsible end" would mean. What is "responsible" about the large-scale bloodshed that would surely occur if we left the Iraqis behind with insufficient security forces? What is "responsible" about proving al-Qaeda's thesis that America can be defeated anywhere with enough suicide bombings?

The senator also seems to believe that America will have success fighting terrorists in Iraq with a minimal troop presence, despite the fact that 150,000 troops have their hands full right now doing precisely that.

· We are "supporting the troops" by demanding an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Levin says that "our troops should hear an unequivocal message from Congress that we support them." He explains his vote to fund and "support" the troops while simultaneously trying to legislate the war's end. But what kind of "support" and "unequivocal message" do the troops hear from leaders in Congress who call their commanders "incompetent" or declare the war "lost"?

Such statements provide nearly instant enemy propaganda to every mud hut with a satellite dish in Iraq and throughout the Arab world. These messages do not spell support, no matter how you spin them. And they could inspire insurgents, making the situation more dangerous for our soldiers and Marines.

Veterans know firsthand that numerous mistakes have been made in the war. But that does not change the unfortunate reality: Iraq today is the front line of a global jihad being waged against America and its allies. Both Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri have said so.

Those who seek withdrawal from Iraq are really proposing a policy of surrender that devalues every sacrifice made by the troops fighting against the forces of Islamofascist terrorism. Far from supporting the troops, such anti-war activists who back such a policy spit in the face of men and women in uniform just as surely as they did during the Vietnam war.

Posted by: Greg at 12:52 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 523 words, total size 3 kb.

But we don't get reports like this one from the mainstream media -- you have to go to Michael Yon's website instead for the real cutting-edge journalism about Operation Arrowhead Ripper.

Our guys are tough. The enemy in Baqubah is as good as any in Iraq, and better than most. ThatÂ’s saying a lot. But our guys have been systematically trapping them, and have foiled some big traps set for our guys. I donÂ’t want to say much more about that, but our guys are seriously outsmarting them. Big fights are ahead and we will take serious losses probably, but al Qaeda, unless they find a way to escape, are about to be slaughtered. Nobody is dropping leaflets asking them to surrender. Our guys want to kill them, and thatÂ’s the plan.

A positive indicator on the 19th and the 20th is that most local people apparently are happy that al Qaeda is being trapped and killed. Civilians are pointing out IEDs and enemy fighters, so thatÂ’s not working so well for al Qaeda. Clearly, I cannot do a census, but that says something about the locals.

Yon is on the scene, while the MSM reports from press releases given to them in the Green Zone -- and the NY Times report buries reports of the success of the operation in an article detailing terrorist attacks in different parts of the country. I guess that is what passes for "supporting the troops" in New York -- give the terrorists top billing and make them appear more successful by playing up their murders of civilians instead of the American fighting man's righteous efforts to wipe out the forces of Islamofascism.

H/T Captain's Quarters

UPDATE: I just got pointed to this NY Times story that deals with Operation Arrowhead Ripper more directly -- and more positively.

Posted by: Greg at 12:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.

Following WWII, American troops stayed in Germany for a half century. We still have US troops in Japan, as well as Korea. I guess I've always sort of assumed that we would have a US troop presence in Iraq for the rest of my lifetime, and well beyond that. Indeed, my question is why anyone would be surprised.

U.S. military officials here are increasingly envisioning a "post-occupation" troop presence in Iraq that neither maintains current levels nor leads to a complete pullout, but aims for a smaller, longer-term force that would remain in the country for years.

This goal, drawn from recent interviews with more than 20 U.S. military officers and other officials here, including senior commanders, strategists and analysts, remains in the early planning stages. It is based on officials' assessment that a sharp drawdown of troops is likely to begin by the middle of next year, with roughly two-thirds of the current force of 150,000 moving out by late 2008 or early 2009. The questions officials are grappling with are not whether the U.S. presence will be cut, but how quickly, to what level and to what purpose.

One of the guiding principles, according to two officials here, is that the United States should leave Iraq more intelligently than it entered. Military officials, many of whom would be interviewed only on the condition of anonymity, say they are now assessing conditions more realistically, rejecting the "steady progress" mantra of their predecessors and recognizing that short-term political reconciliation in Iraq is unlikely. A reduction of troops, some officials argue, would demonstrate to anti-American factions that the occupation will not last forever while reassuring Iraqi allies that the United States does not intend to abandon the country.

The planning is shaped in part by logistical realities in Iraq. The immediate all-or-nothing debate in Washington over troop levels represents a false dilemma, some military officials said. Even if a total pullout is the goal, it could take a year to execute a full withdrawal. One official estimated that with only one major route from the country -- through southern Iraq to Kuwait -- it would take at least 3,000 large convoys some 10 months to remove U.S. military gear and personnel alone, not including the several thousand combat vehicles that would be needed to protect such an operation.

"We're not going to go from where we're at now to zero overnight," said Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the U.S. commander for day-to-day operations in Iraq.

Indeed, what we are talking about is a force that will be equal to what we had in Korea for decades -- around 40,000. Of the proposed force remaining in Iraq, 10,000 would be there to help train the Iraqi military, and I would imagine that these troops would be removed within 5-10 years as the Iraqis gain enough experience to train their own. Indeed, I suspect that the US force will be drawn down by 40-50% within 20 years -- but that we will maintain bases in the region for decades for strategic reasons.

Frankly, I don't know why anyone is surprised by the information in this story, and cannot imagine any but the most extreme members of the Left objecting -- you know, the US Out Of San Francisco crowd. For the rest of America -- those who believe in a sound military policy -- this news should be comforting.

Posted by: Greg at 06:51 AM | Comments (174) | Add Comment
Post contains 588 words, total size 4 kb.

The NY Times is right about supporting wounded troops after they get home -- too bad they are constantly seeking to undermine their mission and impose defeat upon them.

Congress is taking the lead in prodding the Bush administration, which shamefully underestimated the cost of treating the wounded. The House is sensibly budgeting $6.6 billion more than last year for veterans health care and processing claims. A series of other measures approved by the House tackle only some of the problems but point in the right direction. The Senate should act quickly on these proposals, which include:

¶Creation of up to five new brain trauma research centers to create comprehensive treatment programs. This is a whole new field of intensive care prompted by the signature injury of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, inflicted in roadside bomb attacks.

¶Extending open-ended care for combat veterans to the first five years after their return, from the current two years. This is needed not only because of the backlog in claims and appeals but also because of the slower-evolving nature of postwar stress trauma and other illnesses.

¶A more intensive program to contact veterans who need to know about their rights.

Nothing to disagree with here. Too bad the paper's editors are unwilling to support the troops where they most need it now -- on the field of battle.

Posted by: Greg at 12:39 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 237 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, for starters, it isn't Iraqis who are the problem.

It is what's wrong with this story, however, that makes it so irresponsible. The fact is that, contrary to so many predictions, Iraq has not descended into civil war. Political bargaining continues. Signs of life are returning to Baghdad and elsewhere. Many Sunnis are fighting al-Qaeda terrorist groups, not their Shiite neighbors. And sectarian violence is down by about 50 percent since December.

By far the biggest problem, and the source of most of the violence reported every day, has been al-Qaeda in Iraq. Al-Qaeda's strategy is to foment sectarian violence by killing both Shiites and Sunnis. How come? If sectarian violence were out of control already, why would al-Qaeda have to stir it up? In fact, it is precisely fear that things will calm down in Iraq that has al-Qaeda working overtime to blow things and people up.

Al-Qaeda's penetration in Iraq is not the fault of the Iraqis, some of whom are mustering the extraordinary courage to fight back. Nor are the Iraqi people to blame for al-Qaeda-manufactured car bombs that go off in markets where Sunnis and Shiites are shopping together. According to Gen. David Petraeus, upward of 80 percent of the suicide bombers are not Iraqis. Al-Qaeda's inhuman violence, including the use of small children as "suicide" bombs, cannot be written off as just part of that whole Iraqi cultural thing, however convenient that might be for the American conscience. As for the United States, if we are driven out of Iraq, it will be by al-Qaeda, not by the flaws of the Iraqi people.

And, of course, an al-Qaeda victory in Iraq does not merely implicate the future and security of the Iraqi people -- who will then in fact be facing a foreign occupying power intent upon controlling their destiny in perpetuity.

There is another problem with the cover story. We didn't intervene in Iraq primarily to save the Iraqi people. We went in mostly for reasons of our own, to protect our interests and our allies from the menace of a serial aggressor whose domestic repression was of a piece with his desire for regional domination. And now that we are in Iraq, the United States, not just the Iraqi people, will suffer the consequences of our failure. If Iraq implodes, if the region explodes, if al-Qaeda gains a victory and a foothold in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf, it will be our interests that have suffered.

In other words, getting out of Iraq without a clear and substantive victory not only allows for an al-Qaeda victoey that harms the Iraqi people, it also causes a substantive American loss that undermines the entire Middle East and, ultimately, American interests and security. Regardless of he war's popularity, America will suffer much more greatly as a nation if we accept anything less than the crushing of al-Qaeda there.

Posted by: Greg at 11:53 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 497 words, total size 3 kb.

Posted by: Greg at 05:59 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

After all, it wouldn't do for the American people to be given any sense that the war is going well this memorial day -- it wouldn't fit in the template of the narrative established by the MSM and the neo-Copperhead Democrats.

So you get this story highlighted by the Times.

Staff Sgt. David Safstrom does not regret his previous tours in Iraq, not even a difficult second stint when two comrades were killed while trying to capture insurgents.

“In Mosul, in 2003, it felt like we were making the city a better place,” he said. “There was no sectarian violence, Saddam was gone, we were tracking down the bad guys. It felt awesome.”

But now on his third deployment in Iraq, he is no longer a believer in the mission. The pivotal moment came, he says, this past February when soldiers killed a man setting a roadside bomb. When they searched the bomberÂ’s body, they found identification showing him to be a sergeant in the Iraqi Army.

“I thought, ‘What are we doing here? Why are we still here?’ ” said Sergeant Safstrom, a member of Delta Company of the First Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry, 82nd Airborne Division. “We’re helping guys that are trying to kill us. We help them in the day. They turn around at night and try to kill us.”

Of course, they then proceed to downplay the attitude of a different sergeant in the same unit, hiding his comments at the very end of the article, wehre they are most likely to be overlooked.

Sergeant Griffin understands the criticism of the Iraqi forces, but he believes they, and the war effort, must be given more time.

“If we throw this problem to the side, it’s not going to fix itself,” he said. “We’ve created the Iraqi forces. We gave them Humvees and equipment. For however long they say they need us here, maybe we need to stay.”

So, whose view of reality is more valid?

And let's not forget the point of view that highlights what has been accomplished, rather than the negatives.

“I thought it would not be long before we could just stay on our base and act as a quick-reaction force,” said the barrel-chested Captain Rogers of San Antonio. “The Iraqi security forces would step up.”

It has not worked out that way. Still, Captain Rogers says their mission in Kadhimiya has been “an amazing success.”

“We’ve captured 4 of the top 10 most-wanted guys in this area,” he said. And the streets of Kadhimiya are filled with shoppers and the stores are open, he said, a rarity in Baghdad due partly to Delta Company’s patrols.

Unfortunately, there are negatives to this situation -- including turncoats and infiltrators in the Iraqi Army. But a piece on disillusionment in a single unit, based upon interviews with 14 soldiers, hardly seems to be the thing of headlines drawing major conclusions about the war.

Unless the folks doing the writing and publishing have already decided the war isn't worth fighting.

Too bad the days are long gone when the press felt its role was to support, not undermine, the war effort.

H/T Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 02:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 551 words, total size 4 kb.

UPDATE -- 5/24/2007: The murdered American hero has been identified.

The American military confirmed today that a body found in the Euphrates River on Wednesday is that of Army Pfc. Joseph Anzack Jr., one of three American soldiers seized in an ambush on May 12.

A military official said that the body, which was pulled from the river several miles south of where the attack occurred, had been identified late Wednesday and that the family of Private Anzack, 20, of Torrance, Calif., had been notified.

The discovery brought the first signs of closure to a massive manhunt that has gone on for 11 days, with thousands of American and Iraqi troops searching day and night for the missing soldiers. But for the men and women who lost friends, it was hardly enough.

* * *

Iraqi police officials said the body was partly clothed in an American military uniform and had a tattoo on one arm, bullet wounds and possible signs of torture. Residents said it was found floating in the Euphrates on Wednesday morning, several miles south of the road by the river where the attack occurred.

“Some people from our town — and I was with them — dragged the body from the river,” said Ali Abbas al-Fatlawi, 30, a resident of Musayyib. “We saw the head riddled with bullets, and shots in the left side of the abdomen. His hands were not tied, and he was not blindfolded.”

* * *

American military officials did not confirm the local accounts. A group of soldiers who had been searching near Musayyib this week — and who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about the operations — said American troops might have cornered the gunmen, who then killed the soldier and dumped his body as they fled.

The bitter irony here is that only last month, this news report about Private Anzack appeared in the media.

A Torrance family was trying to return to a normal life this week after learning that reports of their son's death in Iraq were incorrect.

Rumors that Joseph Anzack, an Army gunner stationed south of Baghdad, had been killed in Iraq began circulating earlier this week, shocking family members and prompting his high school to put a message on its marquee: In Loving Memory -- Joseph Anzack -- Class of 2005.

Family members were stunned, and none more so than Anzack himself, who called home to make it clear he was, in fact, alive and kicking.

To have to deal with such horror twice in one month boggles the mind.

My deepest sympathy to the Anzack family, and to his comrades in arms. You are in my prayers, and the prayers of every loyal American.

ORIGINAL REPORT- 5/25/2007

It is way too early to tell, but this report does not look good.

Iraqi police found the body of a man who was wearing what appeared to be a U.S. military uniform and had a tattoo on his left hand floating in the Euphrates River south of Baghdad on Wednesday morning, and one Iraqi official said it was one of three missing American soldiers.

The man had been shot in the head and chest, Babil police Capt. Muthana Khalid said. He said Iraqi police turned the body over the U.S. forces.

The report of the body found was confirmed by a senior Iraqi army officer in the Babil area. He told The Associated Press that the body found in the river was that of an American soldier. The officer spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the media.

The discovery of the body in Musayyib, about 40 miles south of Baghdad in Babil Province, came as U.S. troops and Iraqi forces continued their massive search for the three soldiers abducted May 12 in an ambush on their patrol near Mahmoudiya, about 20 miles south of Baghdad.

The U.S. military said in an e-mail that it was looking into the report, but could not confirm it.

It doesn't take a great leap of faith to reach the conclusion that the terrorists have failed to show the same respect for the rights of their prisoners that the neo-Copperheads in this country and the terrorist-supporters abroad demand that America show captured terrorists.

As i've said in the past, maybe it is time to start treating such folks as pirates.

Posted by: Greg at 11:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 750 words, total size 5 kb.

And to be honest, I think it would work just fine in this country, too.

The officer, a squadron leader in the Royal Air Force, felt he had no choice. So he stood up in front of his squad of 30 to 40 people.

“I said, ‘Right, I’ve got something to tell you,’ ” he said. “ ‘I believe that for us to be able to work closely together and have faith in each other, we have to be honest and open and frank. And it has to be a two-way process, and it starts with me baring my soul. You may have heard some rumors, and yes, I have a long-term partner who is a he, not a she.’ ”

Far from causing problems, he said, he found that coming out to his troops actually increased the unit’s strength and cohesion. He had felt uneasy keeping the secret “that their boss was a poof,” as he put it, from people he worked with so closely.

Since the British military began allowing homosexuals to serve in the armed forces in 2000, none of its fears — about harassment, discord, blackmail, bullying or an erosion of unit cohesion or military effectiveness — have come to pass, according to the Ministry of Defense, current and former members of the services and academics specializing in the military. The biggest news about the policy, they say, is that there is no news. It has for the most part become a nonissue.

The Ministry of Defense does not compile figures on how many gay men and lesbians are openly serving, and it says that the number of people who have come out publicly in the past seven years is still relatively low. But it is clearly proud of how smoothly homosexuals have been integrated and is trying to make life easier for them.

We know how to handle the integration of homosexuals into the military -- Truman provided the model when he integrated the armed forces nearly 60 years ago. Those who cannot accept the change in policy are unfit for military service -- and should be discharged.

Posted by: Greg at 10:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 365 words, total size 2 kb.

Jonah Goldberg points out that there often are “good guys” and “bad guys” in a civil war – and that the argument that Iraq is a civil war is not a compelling one for adopting a cut-&-run-&-surrender policy as advocated by the neo-Copperheads.

Why is it obvious that intervening in a civil war is not only wrong, but so self-evidently wrong that merely calling the Iraqi conflict a civil war closes off discussion?

Surely it canÂ’t be a moral argument. Every liberal foreign policy do-gooder in Christendom wants America to interject itself in the Sudanese civil war unfolding so horrifically in Darfur. The high-water mark in post-Vietnam liberal foreign policy was Bill ClintonÂ’s intervention in the Yugoslavian civil war. If we can violate the prime directive of no civil wars for Darfur and Kosovo, why not for Kirkuk and Basra?

If your answer is that those calls for intervention were “humanitarian,” that just confuses me more. Advocates of a pullout mostly concede that Iraq will become a genocidal, humanitarian disaster if we leave. Is the prospect of Iraqi genocide more tolerable for some reason?

Indeed, there is no way one can argue that intervention in Kosovo or Darfur are defensible while intervention in Iraq is not. For that matter, many folks still struggle mightily over our failure to intervene in the brief and bloody events in Rwanda, which can also be argued constituted a civil war. I fail to see the moral calculus that would allow for intervening to stop genocide while not doing so in an effort to forestall such genocide.

Then there are those who take the fatalistÂ’s cop-out: Civil wars have no good guys and bad guys. TheyÂ’re just dogfights, and we should stay out of them and see who comes out on top. But thatÂ’s also confusing, because not only is it not true, liberals have been saying the opposite for generations. They cheered for the Reds against the Whites in the Russian civil war, for the Communists against the Fascists in the Spanish civil war, and for the victims of ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia and Sudan. Surely liberals believe there was a good side and a bad side in the American Civil War?

Indeed, most civil wars do, in fact, have an identifiable dichotomy of “good guy” and “bad guy”, to use Goldberg’s simplistic terms. With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that the world would have been a better place had the Whites won in Russia. Knowing what we do about Communist regimes, one can reluctantly conclude that the better of two sides won in Spain. And would anyone argue that a Serbian victory in Yugoslavia or an Islamist victory in Sudan and their accompanying genocides would be better for America or the world? Would one seriously argue that a Confederate victory over the Union would have been a neutral outcome?

In the end, America has an interest in who wins in Iraq – as do the Iraqi people. It is strategically, not to mention morally, imperative for us to act in the best interests of our nation and the Iraqi people – and to reject the defeatist cries of the nay-sayers who invoke the phrase “civil war” as if it were a magic talisman.

Posted by: Greg at 12:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 550 words, total size 3 kb.

Military posts have never been a public forum for political activity. These folks must therefore lose their case.

Last year they stopped short of the U.S. Military Academy gate. This year, anti-war protesters hope to go a few steps further.

As Vice President Dick Cheney prepares to deliver commencement remarks at West Point on May 26, local activists are headed to court for permission to protest the Bush administration inside the Academy on Graduation Day.

It's a type of civil disobedience that's never been permitted at the nation's oldest military college.

But Goshen civil rights attorney Michael H. Sussman and members of the Democratic Alliance of Orange County say they are seeking to set precedent. A federal judge has agreed to hear their request for an injunction this morning in White Plains.

"These people want to have it inside the gate, and West Point says they don't authorize (protests) inside the gate," said the group's lawyer, Stephen Bergstein. "But if they can be there in a peaceful way, they should be allowed to be there."

Nonsense.

Posted by: Greg at 12:28 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.

I grew up in a military family during Vietnam. Dad was a Navy Officer, and was often away -- including multiple trips into the war zone. And I remember my mother doing her damnedest to raise two boys while dad was gone, with daily concerns about the possibility of my father being killed or wounded, and diminishing public support for the war and the warriors. I therefore feel quite qualified to tell Dr. Laura Schlesinger to SHUT THE F&$% UP!

Radio talk show host “Dr. Laura” Schlessinger is tired of all the complaints she hears from military wives who say they’re lonely and overwhelmed.

“You’re not dodging bullets, so I don’t want to hear any whining — that’s my message to them,” said Schlessinger on a visit to Utah.

Schlessinger broadcast her daily radio program on ethics, morals and values from the Fort Douglas theater here Friday. ItÂ’s one of several visits Schlessinger is making across country this year, publicists said.

Schlessinger boasted of once talking a young woman out of marrying a solider, saying “warriors need warrior wives,” and the girl was unprepared.

“It’s very unwise to be married young when you’re going to be alone — everybody has to grow up first to know who they are,” said the talk show host, whose first marriage ended in divorce.

I'm sorry, but this woman is simply wrong. There is nothing wrong with talking about the difficulties -- indeed, the failure to discuss them was part of why I knew so many neurotic, drunk or drugged military wives growing up. In fact, the military has recognized that reality and now offers more support services for families of those deployed.

Frankly, I've never understood why anyone listens to, much less calls, this woman for family advice when she could not even sustain her own relationship with her own mother. And for all her claims of patriotism, i don't think this attack does American soldiers and their families a bit of good.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, A Blog For All, 123beta, Shadowscope, The Amboy Times, Phastidio.net, Cao's Blog, Jo's Cafe, , The HILL Chronicles, Stageleft, stikNstein... has no mercy, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, The Right Nation, Blue Star Chronicles, and The Pink Flamingo, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 04:24 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 396 words, total size 4 kb.

I cannot believe the ignorance that these folks are showing here in their editorial regarding the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Rewriting the act should start with one simple step: restoring to prisoners of the war on terror the fundamental right to challenge their detention in a real court. So far, promised measures to restore habeas corpus have yet to see the light of day, and they may remain buried unless Democratic leaders make them a priority and members of both parties vote on principle, not out of fear of attack ads.

Anyone who knows anything about international law would stop reading at that point. Under international law, POWs do not have the right to access the courts of the nation holding them. Indeed, they can be held indefinitely, until the end of hostilities, and may not be tried in any civilian court -- or (ordinarily) in any military court except for certain carefully delineated offenses that constitute crimes against humanity or other violations of the laws of war.

So in fact, what the editors of the New York Times are calling for is a strict violation of the Geneva Conventions. Is it any wonder that the Gray Lady are no longer particularly relevant in the public discourse.

Posted by: Greg at 09:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 1 kb.

This will cut out communication home and some of the best information about how well the war is going in Iraq. Instead, Americans will have to rely on the neo-Copperheads in the MSM for information.

The U.S. Army has ordered soldiers to stop posting to blogs or sending personal e-mail messages, without first clearing the content with a superior officer, Wired News has learned. The directive, issued April 19, is the sharpest restriction on troops' online activities since the start of the Iraq war. And it could mean the end of military blogs, observers say.

Military officials have been wrestling for years with how to handle troops who publish blogs. Officers have weighed the need for wartime discretion against the opportunities for the public to personally connect with some of the most effective advocates for the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq -- the troops themselves. The secret-keepers have generally won the argument, and the once-permissive atmosphere has slowly grown more tightly regulated. Soldier-bloggers have dropped offline as a result.

The new rules (.pdf) obtained by Wired News require a commander be consulted before every blog update.

"This is the final nail in the coffin for combat blogging," said retired paratrooper Matthew Burden, editor of The Blog of War anthology. "No more military bloggers writing about their experiences in the combat zone. This is the best PR the military has -- it's most honest voice out of the war zone. And it's being silenced."

Army Regulation 530--1: Operations Security (OPSEC) (.pdf) restricts more than just blogs, however. Previous editions of the rules asked Army personnel to "consult with their immediate supervisor" before posting a document "that might contain sensitive and/or critical information in a public forum." The new version, in contrast, requires "an OPSEC review prior to publishing" anything -- from "web log (blog) postings" to comments on internet message boards, from resumes to letters home.

Failure to do so, the document adds, could result in a court-martial, or "administrative, disciplinary, contractual, or criminal action."

This regulation needs to be withdrawn immediately – and by the Commander-in-Chief personally. After all, the "new media" of blogging is really the only way that the truth about Iraq has been disseminated to the American public, since the "news" media has taken an ideological slant against good news -- just like in Vietnam.

UPDATE: Great WaPo article about milblogs and milbloggers today.

Today, many of the stories coming from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are being written by those fighting them, in the form of thousands of soldiers' military blogs, or "milblogs." Their tales are unfolding as they occur, with limited censorship from the military, and they are attracting a growing readership from inside and outside the military.

Ward Carroll, the editor of military.com, an online military and veteran membership organization, said some of the best milbloggers have the ability to shape opinions on the war.

"If you are going to be informed, especially with something so controversial and polarizing as the Iraq war, you need to read one of these blogs along with The Washington Post and the New York Times," Carroll said.

Gee, where did I hear that point before?

Hugh Hewitt also has a great column on the subject.

Posted by: Greg at 10:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 544 words, total size 4 kb.

This will cut out communication home and some of the best information about how well the war is going in Iraq. Instead, Americans will have to rely on the neo-Copperheads in the MSM for information.

The U.S. Army has ordered soldiers to stop posting to blogs or sending personal e-mail messages, without first clearing the content with a superior officer, Wired News has learned. The directive, issued April 19, is the sharpest restriction on troops' online activities since the start of the Iraq war. And it could mean the end of military blogs, observers say.

Military officials have been wrestling for years with how to handle troops who publish blogs. Officers have weighed the need for wartime discretion against the opportunities for the public to personally connect with some of the most effective advocates for the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq -- the troops themselves. The secret-keepers have generally won the argument, and the once-permissive atmosphere has slowly grown more tightly regulated. Soldier-bloggers have dropped offline as a result.

The new rules (.pdf) obtained by Wired News require a commander be consulted before every blog update.

"This is the final nail in the coffin for combat blogging," said retired paratrooper Matthew Burden, editor of The Blog of War anthology. "No more military bloggers writing about their experiences in the combat zone. This is the best PR the military has -- it's most honest voice out of the war zone. And it's being silenced."

Army Regulation 530--1: Operations Security (OPSEC) (.pdf) restricts more than just blogs, however. Previous editions of the rules asked Army personnel to "consult with their immediate supervisor" before posting a document "that might contain sensitive and/or critical information in a public forum." The new version, in contrast, requires "an OPSEC review prior to publishing" anything -- from "web log (blog) postings" to comments on internet message boards, from resumes to letters home.

Failure to do so, the document adds, could result in a court-martial, or "administrative, disciplinary, contractual, or criminal action."

This regulation needs to be withdrawn immediately – and by the Commander-in-Chief personally. After all, the "new media" of blogging is really the only way that the truth about Iraq has been disseminated to the American public, since the "news" media has taken an ideological slant against good news -- just like in Vietnam.

UPDATE: Great WaPo article about milblogs and milbloggers today.

Today, many of the stories coming from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are being written by those fighting them, in the form of thousands of soldiers' military blogs, or "milblogs." Their tales are unfolding as they occur, with limited censorship from the military, and they are attracting a growing readership from inside and outside the military.

Ward Carroll, the editor of military.com, an online military and veteran membership organization, said some of the best milbloggers have the ability to shape opinions on the war.

"If you are going to be informed, especially with something so controversial and polarizing as the Iraq war, you need to read one of these blogs along with The Washington Post and the New York Times," Carroll said.

Gee, where did I hear that point before?

Hugh Hewitt also has a great column on the subject.

Posted by: Greg at 10:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 550 words, total size 4 kb.

The pen used by President Bush to veto the cut-&-run-&-surrender bill yesterday has a very significant origin.

It was just a regular, black-inked ballpoint pen that President Bush used to sign his veto yesterday, instead of his usual personalized Cross pen.

The pen was a gift from the father of a U.S. Marine killed in Iraq, who asked Mr. Bush last month to use it when he vetoed a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq.

Robert Derga, of Uniontown, Ohio, gave Mr. Bush the pen after an April 16 speech by the president at the White House.

Mr. Bush invited a number of "Gold Star Families" -- families who have lost a U.S. military member in Iraq -- to the speech, and met with them afterwards in the Oval Office.

Mr. Derga, 53, had brought the pen with him. It was the pen he had used to write letters to his son, Marine Cpl. Dustin A. Derga.

"It was just a common run of the mill ... I don't even remember the brand name," Mr. Derga said, in a phone interview last night. "It was just a $2 pen. Nothing special."

Mr. Bush met with the Dergas and other families for about 45 minutes, and spoke directly with each family.

"I looked the president square in the eye," Mr. Derga said. "I looked at him and said, 'Mr. President, if this Iraq supplemental comes down to a veto I want you to use my pen to do it.'"

Mr. Bush "kind of looked at me funny for a moment and then said, 'Absolutely,' and then handed the pen to his assistant," Mr. Derga said.

"He assured me he would use it," Mr. Derga said.

Dustin was killed in Iraq on May 8, 2005, while leading house-to-house searches in Ubaydi, Iraq. He was 24.

Dustin was the first Marine killed in Lima Company, with the Marine Force Reserve's 3rd Battalion, 25th Marine Regiment, 4th Marine Division, out of Columbus, Ohio.

So to Pelosi, Murtha, Reid, and all the other neo-Copperheads in Congress, that would be a big SCREW YOU from the President of the United States and the father of one of our honored war dead – who, I believe, you folks would agree has unquestionable moral authority on this matter and is much more representative of Gold Star families than certain media darlings.

Mr. Derga said that about 80 percent of the other Gold Star Families he knows agree with the president's decision to send more troops to Iraq to try to stabilize the country.

"We have given the ultimate sacrifice in terms of our sons, and if we can still stand in the trenches with the president and support him, why can't the rest of the nation do it?" Mr. Derga said.

So get with the program, America, and support our troops and their mission.

Posted by: Greg at 11:10 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 483 words, total size 3 kb.

And in the mean time, good news from Iraq in the effort to clean up Anbar Province.

Many Sunni tribal leaders, once openly hostile to the American presence, have formed a united front with American and Iraqi government forces against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. With the tribal leadersÂ’ encouragement, thousands of local residents have joined the police force. About 10,000 police officers are now in Anbar, up from several thousand a year ago. During the same period, the police force here in Ramadi, the provincial capital, has grown from fewer than 200 to about 4,500, American military officials say.

At the same time, American and Iraqi forces have been conducting sweeps of insurgent strongholds, particularly in and around Ramadi, leaving behind a network of police stations and military garrisons, a strategy that is also being used in Baghdad, IraqÂ’s capital, as part of its new security plan.

You know, the US and the Iraqi people might come out of this thing as winners -- if the President holds firm against al-Qaeda, al-Sadr, and the Democrats.

Posted by: Greg at 02:10 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 191 words, total size 1 kb.

I don’t know about one of these charges. The charge of “aiding the enemy” sounds an awful lot like the definition of another crime – the only one defined by the US Constitution.

A senior U.S. officer has been charged with nine offenses, including aiding the enemy and fraternizing with the daughter of a detainee while he commanded a military police detachment at an American detention facility near Baghdad, the military said Thursday.

Army Lt. Col. William H. Steele was accused of giving "aid to the enemy" by providing an unmonitored cell phone to detainees.

Steele was the commander of the 451st Military Police Detachment at Camp Cropper, a U.S. detention center on the western outskirts of Baghdad, when the offenses allegedly occurred between October 2005 and February, military spokesman Lt. Col. James Hutton said.

Steele was being held in Kuwait pending a grand jury investigation, Hutton said.
The other charges included unauthorized possession of classified information, fraternizing with the daughter of a detainee, maintaining an inappropriate relationship with an interpreter, storing classified information in his quarters and possessing pornographic videos, the military said.

Steele also was charged with improperly marking classified information, failing to obey an order and failing to fulfill his obligations in the expenditure of funds, the military said.

All of this is serious. All of it needs to be punished. But if Steel has provided “aid to the enemy”, doesn’t that fall within the scope of the definition of “treason” contained in Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution?

Posted by: Greg at 11:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

As a Navy brat, I grew up worshiping the Blue Angels. Indeed, my brother and I both had fantasies of flying those planes. There even are a couple of pictures of us boys actually standing next to one of the planes with its pilot -- being an officer's kid has some advantages.

And so stories like this one leave me with a heavy heart.

A Navy Blue Angel fighter jet crashed during an air show Saturday, plunging into a neighborhood of small homes and trailers and killing the pilot, the county coroner said.

It was the first death of a Blue Angel pilot since 1999.

Witnesses said the Navy aerial-demonstration team, made up of six planes, was flying in formation at Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort when one jet dropped below the tree line and crashed, sending up clouds of smoke.

It was not immediately known whether anyone on the ground was injured.

* * *

The Blue Angels were formed in 1946 to promote public interest in naval aviation. Flying F/A-18s painted navy blue, the team performs nationally at air shows, spring through fall, executing highly synchronized aerial acrobatics that bring the fighters within feet of each other at high speed.

Twenty-four Blue Angel pilots have died in accidents, including the one killed Saturday. In 1999, two were killed when an F/A-18 crashed into a stand of pine trees in Georgia as the team practiced for a show.

May the family and colleagues of the pilot who died yesterday -- whose name has yet to be released -- be comforted in this time of sorrow.

Posted by: Greg at 02:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.

The body of a World War II airman has been identified.

The remains of a World War II navigator listed as missing in action for almost 63 years have been identified two years after they were found in Croatia, the brother of the deceased pilot said.

Air Force 1st Lt. Archibald Kelly's B-24 crashed on July 22, 1944, south of Dubrovnik, Croatia, near the Adriatic Sea. The plane carrying 10 crew members was returning from a bombing raid on oil fields in Romania.

Fellow crew members who survived the crash told Sam Kelly that his brother was the first to jump from the damaged aircraft, but he was struggling to straighten out his parachute and crashed into a mountain. He was 23.

''The irony is that my brother had been on 45 missions and had five more to go and he would have been discharged,'' Sam Kelly, 83, told The Oakland Press.

Kelly said he and his wife, Katie, were notified in February by the Defense Department that dental records matched the skeletal remains found in a shallow grave near the village of Cavtat.

The remains, first discovered by children in 2005, also included a button from an American military uniform, said Capt. Robert Frazer, a casualty assistance officer.

Kelly's remains were being held in a military facility in Hawaii and until they are shipped to Michigan for a May 12 funeral.

We have so many American patriots willing to show up to provide an honor guard for our dead from the current conflict which was thrust upon us by the Islamists -- I hope that some of these are available to provide a fitting homecoming for 1st Lt. Archibald Kelly when he returns home to his permanent place of rest.

Posted by: Greg at 01:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 305 words, total size 2 kb.

It has been three years.

Two years ago, Matt Maupin was a typical American young man.

He worked at Sam's Club.

He was attending college, majoring in nutritional science.

He worked out at Powerhouse Gym.

He had a dog named Fibi.

He drove a Mustang.

And in February, 2004, he was deployed to Iraq with the 724th Transportation Company.

Six weeks later, on April 9, 2004, he was guarding a civilian convoy that was ambushed by so-called insurgents -- terrorists, to call them by their proper name -- and was captured. He is the only American to have been captured in Iraq.

The Pittsburgh Times-Review has a great piece about the Maupin family and their experiences over the last year-and-a-half. I encourage you to read it.

I also encourage you to copy my little PhotoShop project above and put it on your site.

For we must never forget Matt Maupin, a typical American young man, who fell into the hands of the enemy while fighting for this country and the freedom of the Iraqi people.

And we must make sure that Sgt. Matt Maupin returns home with honor -- an American hero.

Please feel free to use the badge to honor Sgt. Matt Maupin.

Here are a couple of great articles marking the anniversary.

Posted by: Greg at 11:09 PM | Comments (41) | Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 2 kb.

The city of Tacoma wants to bill the military for the cost of controlling anti-war anti-American protesters who caused a ruckus when military equipment was being deployed from the Port of Tacoma.

Tacoma police say last month's 12-day anti-war protests cost the city an unbudgeted $500,000 to provide a large-scale law enforcement presence.

The rough estimate covers overtime, regular compensation, equipment and food for hundreds of workers from Tacoma police and other agencies, Assistant Chief Bob Sheehan said.

The city plans to ask the Port of Tacoma and the military to cover some of the costs.

"That's a tremendous hit on our budget -- a half-million dollars of unexpected expense," said Tacoma Mayor Bill Baarsma, adding that the military would get the first invoice.
"I think our request is justifiable," Baarsma said. "I would expect that we would be reimbursed. I would be surprised if we weren't."

Police increased law enforcement at the Port of Tacoma during the convoying and storage of Army Stryker vehicles from March 3 until a ship carrying the military equipment left for Iraq on March 14.

Protesters were there each night.

Might I suggest that the invoice be returned with the words “BUGGER OFF!” scrawled across it.

Either that, or bill Tacoma for its proportionate share of the national defense budget.

H/T Michelle Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 12:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 2 kb.

Looks like the Senate GOP may leave it to the President to kill this deadline plan.

Unwilling to do the White House's heavy lifting on Iraq, Senate Republicans are prepared to step aside to allow language requiring troop withdrawals to reach President Bush, forcing him to face down Democratic adversaries with his veto pen.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) announced the shift in strategy yesterday, as the chamber took up a $122 billion war spending package that includes a target date of March 31, 2008, for ending most U.S. combat operations in Iraq. The provision, along with a similar House effort, represents the Democrats' boldest challenge on the war, setting the stage for a dramatic showdown with Bush over an otherwise popular bill to keep vital military funds flowing.

Republicans will still attempt to remove the deadline in a Senate vote expected as soon as today, and GOP leaders were reasonably confident they would muster a majority. But the margin is expected to be thin, requiring the presence of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who had skipped several previous Iraq votes to attend presidential campaign events. McCain canceled a series of fundraisers and meetings in Florida to return to Washington, telling a conservative radio program that he wanted to "beat back this recipe for defeat that the Democrats are trying to foist off on the American people."

No matter the outcome of the Senate vote, McConnell is looking ahead, assuming House Democrats will insist that withdrawal conditions be included when a final bill is sent to Bush. If so, McConnell said, Republicans would forgo the parliamentary tactics they used to block antiwar legislation that had forced Democrats to amass an insurmountable 60 votes to prevail.

"We need to get the bill on down to the president and get the veto out of the way," McConnell said.

Regardless, there will be no deadline enacted into law by Congress. Not even this absurd notion.

In one of the more unusual proposals to emerge in the Senate debate on Iraq withdrawal, Sen. Mark Pryor wants to keep any plans for bringing troops home a secret.

The Arkansas Democrat is a key holdout on his party's proposal to approve $122 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while setting a goal of March 31, 2008, for winding up military operations in Iraq. Unlike the plan's Republican opponents, Pryor wants a withdrawal deadline of some kind. He just doesn't want anyone outside the White House, Congress and the Iraqi government to know what it is.

"My strong preference would be to have a classified plan and a classified timetable that should be shared with Congress," Pryor said yesterday. A public deadline would tip off the enemy, "who might just bide their time and wait for us to leave," he said. "Then you'd have chaos and mayhem and instability."

Pryor said a classified plan would be provided by the president, shepherded by Senate committees and ultimately shared with Congress and Iraqi leaders. He is confident that the plan would remain secret, because Congress is entrusted with secrets "all the time."

And Congress leaks secrets all the time -- I imagine it would take about 20 minutes for some enterprising Democrat staffer to be dubbed "an anonymous Capitol Hill source" by the television networks, the NY Times and Washington Post. After all, when has the mere fact that something is classified -- and its disclosure harmful to national security -- ever stopped them from supplying information to the enemy? And since there is never any prosecution of leakers of classified info, what would be the reason to think it would not be let out to the public quickly?

Posted by: Greg at 03:24 AM | Comments (179) | Add Comment
Post contains 620 words, total size 4 kb.

Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States.

Today I'm joined here at the White House by veterans, family members of people serving in combat, family members of those who have sacrificed. I am honored that they have joined me here today.

Here in Washington, members of both parties recognize that our most solemn responsibility is to support our troops in the war on terror. Yet, today, a narrow majority in the House of Representatives abdicated its responsibility by passing a war spending bill that has no chance of becoming law, and brings us no closer to getting our troops the resources they need to do their job.

The purpose of the emergency war spending bill I requested was to provide our troops with vital funding. Instead, Democrats in the House, in an act of political theater, voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq. They set rigid restrictions that will require an army of lawyers to interpret. They set an arbitrary date for withdrawal without regard for conditions on the ground. And they tacked on billions for pet projects that have nothing to do with winning the war on terror. This bill has too much pork, too many conditions and an artificial timetable for withdrawal.

As I have made clear for weeks, I will veto it if it comes to my desk. And because the vote in the House was so close, it is clear that my veto would be sustained. Today's action in the House does only one thing: it delays the delivering of vital resources for our troops. A narrow majority has decided to take this course, just as General Petraeus and his troops are carrying out a new strategy to help the Iraqis secure their capital city.

Amid the real challenges in Iraq, we're beginning to see some signs of progress. Yet, to score political points, the Democratic majority in the House has shown it is willing to undermine the gains our troops are making on the ground.

Democrats want to make clear that they oppose the war in Iraq. They have made their point. For some, that is not enough. These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal, and their pet spending projects. This is not going to happen. Our men and women in uniform need these emergency war funds. The Secretary of Defense has warned that if Congress does not approve the emergency funding for our troops by April the 15th, our men and women in uniform will face significant disruptions, and so would their families.

The Democrats have sent their message, now it's time to send their money. This is an important moment -- a decision for the new leaders in Congress. Our men in women in uniform should not have to worry that politicians in Washington will deny them the funds and the flexibility they need to win. Congress needs to send me a clean bill that I can sign without delay. I expect Congress to do its duty and to fund our troops, and so do the American people -- and so do the good men and women standing with me here today.

MORE COVERAGE AT WaPo & NYTimes

Posted by: Greg at 03:30 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 575 words, total size 4 kb.

How fitting that a grateful nation honors a soldier who willingly gave his life to save his comrades.

The legacy of an Iraq War hero from Allegany County will be honored on the high seas for years to come.

Members of Congress announced Tuesday that the U.S. Navy will name its newest guided-missile destroyer the USS Jason Dunham – for the Marine corporal from Scio who threw himself on a grenade to save the lives of his comrades in April 2004.

“We’re basically totally amazed that this happened,” said Deb Dunham, Jason’s mother. “I anticipated that it would be 10 or 20 years before we saw this.”

Indeed, the Navy has a long tradition of naming its ships for war heroes, but it often happens many decades after their death.

For example, in June 2006, the Navy commissioned the USS Farragut, a guided-missile destroyer named for Adm. David Glasgow Farragut, the Civil War hero who coined the phrase: “Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!”

Mrs. Dunham said she wasn’t sure how the Navy came to name a ship for her son less than three years after his death. She said the family’s Marine liaison called last week to mention the possibility. “We thought it was very appropriate,” she said.

The naming of the ship will be just the latest accolade accorded to Dunham, who was awarded the Medal of Honor — the nation’s highest military award – by President Bush in January.

As a historian, I know it is important that we honor the heroes of decades and centuries past, to keep their memory – and our history – alive. But it is equally appropriate that we bestow such honors upon our latter-day heroes – men like Jason Dunham, who gladly served this nation and who laid down his life for his friends.

Posted by: Greg at 12:16 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 311 words, total size 2 kb.

Want to bet it won't be enough for the rabid Bush-hating Left? Comments at the article's end proves it won't be.

George P. Bush, a nephew of President Bush who was a hit on the campaign trail, has been accepted in the Navy Reserve as an intelligence officer and has begun the process of being commissioned for eight years of service.

Bush, 30, said in a telephone interview from his office at a real estate development firm in Fort Worth, Texas, that he was moved to join the service in part when he attended the rainy commissioning in October of the aircraft carrier named for his grandfather -- the USS George H.W. Bush.

"My grandfather's my hero, and what really sold me on the ultimate decision was having the chance to see the CVN-77 be commissioned under his name," he said. "That was pretty moving, and I had a chance to meet some Navy admirals, as well. I had a chance to talk to them briefly about the opportunity, and I was won over."

George Prescott Bush, the oldest son of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, said the death of Pat Tillman, the NFL player and Army Ranger who was killed in Afghanistan in 2004 in what was later determined to be a friendly-fire incident, "was a wake-up call for me." He said he even "looked into active duty" and had somber conversations with his wife about the possibility.

Bush said he had not intended to announce his plans. "Honestly, I'm kind of a little disappointed that the word got out," he said. "I was hoping to keep this as confidential as possible. I'm not doing it for political purposes or anything along those lines. I'm just doing it because I've been inspired by the friends of mine that have served, either through the JAG (military law) program or through the Reserves. I thought this was a small way that I could get involved."

I wish this young man -- and future political rock star -- well in his military endeavors.

Posted by: Greg at 04:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 351 words, total size 2 kb.

Talk about your cynical ploys -- she is willing to support resolutions for a withdrawal of troops, but says she won't do so if elected. That should tell the American people everything they need to know about her willingness to lose the war to win the election.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.

In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.

In outlining how she would handle Iraq as commander in chief, Mrs. Clinton articulated a more nuanced position than the one she has provided at her campaign events, where she has backed the goal of “bringing the troops home.”

She said in the interview that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.

So you see, "bring them home" doesn't mean "bring them home" -- it means leave them there but don't let them do anything. In short, she has been out on the campaign trail lying to the American people -- but then again, why should we be surprised, given her track record?

Indeed, she has said she will be even less sensitive to genocide than her husband was, for she says she won't let US troops stop ethnic cleansing, even if it is going on right outside their door. At least when her husband stood by and allowed the genocide to continue in Rwanda, the only US troops in the country were a few embassy guards. In other words, not only is she a liar, she sees it as her proper role to allow crimes against humanity to continue unchecked. The woman is completely amoral!

May I propose the following slogan for her campaign?

Posted by: Greg at 08:51 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 399 words, total size 3 kb.

By now, everyone has heard about this little controversy surrounding remarks by General Peter Pace on the issue of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and gays in the military.

Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told The Chicago Tribune yesterday that he opposes any change to the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which bars service by openly gay soldiers. General Pace, a Marine officer, explained why he supported the current policy:

“I believe homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts.”

As you can hear in this audio file posted on the Web site of The Tribune, General Pace drew a parallel between the ban on openly gay service members and the current military policy holding that infidelity is immoral and should be prosecuted:

“I do not believe that the armed forces of the United States are well served by saying, through our policies, that it’s okay to be immoral in any way, not just with regards homosexuality. So from that standpoint, saying that gays should serve openly in the military to me says that we, by policy, would be condoning what I believe is immoral activity. And therefore, as an individual, I would not want that to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with someone else’s wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not — we prosecute that kind of immoral behavior between members of the armed forces.”

Now let me note that the man is supporting current law and policy as set by the two political branches of government. Furthermore, the moral view of homosexual that he expresses is pretty mainstream -- indeed, they are the standard moral teaching of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam (at least of those who still adhere to the notion that their respective books of scripture provide set moral norms). So I agree with Pace's position, expressed through his aides, that he has nothing to apologize for. Indeed, 'd argue that the gay rights groups really ought to be apologizing to the majority of Americans who hold beliefs similar to Pace's for the intolerance that they are expressing in condemnations like this.

"General Pace's comments are outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces," the advocacy group Servicemembers Legal Defense Network said in a statement on its Web site.

Excuse me -- that demand is outrageous, insensitive, and disrespectful to the millions of Christians, Jews and Muslims currently citizens of the United States.

None of which, however, is an indication that I agree with General Pace about 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'. I have long held and repeatedly stated that I believe the policy is wrong and should be changed. But to attack and demonize (not to mention question the patriotism of) those who hold to the historic teachings of the major monotheistic religions is much more offensive in my book than stating a moral belief held by all three of them.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, The Random Yak, Adam's Blog, basil's blog, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Pursuing Holiness, Rightlinx, third world county, stikNstein... has no mercy, Walls of the City, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, Overtaken by Events, The Pink Flamingo, Planck's Constant, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 05:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 597 words, total size 6 kb.

I wonder how much the conditions noted at Walter Reed Hospital have to do with the fact that the place has been slated for closure for some time.

Revelations of shoddy facilities and bureaucratic nightmares at Walter Reed Army Medical Center have tarnished the reputation of the renowned military hospital. But they may also have given the 98-year-old facility a second life.

The furor surrounding the treatment of wounded soldiers has prompted some lawmakers, veterans and Army officials to ask: Why is the Defense Department closing Walter Reed -- where more than 6,000 soldiers injured in Iraq and Afghanistan have been treated since 2002 -- in the middle of a war with mounting casualties?

Congress approved and President Bush signed into law the recommendation of the federal Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission in 2005 that Walter Reed be closed and consolidated with the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, where a $2 billion expansion is being planned.

The debate has been fueled by testimony from Army officials that the problems in outpatient care have been exacerbated, in part, by the planned closure in 2011. Commanders said this has created "instability" at the hospital and made it difficult to keep a good work force, which is two-thirds civilian.

"The BRAC pressure is clear," agreed Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.). "What it does is send the signal to everybody: Go look for another job because we think it's going to close down." Norton said she will introduce legislation seeking to repeal the planned closure of Walter Reed.

The issue also arose at a hearing yesterday before the Senate Armed Services Committee. "I have concerns, as we go through this long war, about taking down capacity that may be needed," testified Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff.

"I think we should take a second look at that decision about Walter Reed," Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) responded.

That does not excuse the situation at all -- it is inexcusable -- but it might partially explain the failure to do renovations that were clearly necessary. If the place is going to be fixed up, it does not make sense to close it down.

Posted by: Greg at 11:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 373 words, total size 2 kb.

Let’s be honest – “don’t ask, don’t tell” is absurd. So is the ban on homosexuals in the military. I therefore back the repeal measure sponsored by Massachusetts Democrat Marty Meehan.

A Massachusetts Democrat on Wednesday plans to re-introduce a bill repealing the congressional ban on homosexuals serving in the military.

Rep. Marty Meehan's Military Readiness Enhancement Act died last year in the Republican-controlled Congress. But with Democrats in charge, Meehan is more optimistic about passing the bill.

Meehan, who chairs the Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, plans to hold hearings as early as April, USA Today reported.

Meehan's bill would require the U.S. Armed Forces to adopt a policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation -- allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military, something they cannot do now.

Three Republicans have signed on, including Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida.

IÂ’ll concede the policy might have once made sense, but it doesnÂ’t now, given certain changes in social attitudes over the course of the last thirty to forty years. End it, donÂ’t mend it.

Posted by: Greg at 12:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 185 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, it looks like the DemocratICK leadership of both houses of Congress are looking to repeal the authorization of force in Iraq, replacing it with a withdrawal timetable. But will that move fly with the American people -- and their own members?

Senate Democratic leaders intend to unveil a plan next week to repeal the 2002 resolution authorizing the war in Iraq in favor of narrower authority that restricts the military's role and begins withdrawals of combat troops.

House Democrats have pulled back from efforts to link additional funding for the war to strict troop-readiness standards after the proposal came under withering fire from Republicans and from their party's own moderates. That strategy was championed by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) and endorsed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

"If you strictly limit a commander's ability to rotate troops in and out of Iraq, that kind of inflexibility could put some missions and some troops at risk," said Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Tex.), who personally lodged his concerns with Murtha.

In both chambers, Democratic lawmakers are eager to take up binding legislation that would impose clear limits on U.S. involvement in Iraq after nearly four years of war. But Democrats remain divided over how to proceed. Some want to avoid the funding debate altogether, fearing it would invite Republican charges that the party is not supporting the troops. Others take a more aggressive view, believing the most effective way to confront President Bush's war policy is through a $100 billion war-spending bill that the president ultimately must sign to keep the war effort on track.

What is missed in this calculation is the fact that EITHER direction will legitimately be presented as not supporting the troops -- just as the recent non-binding resolutions put forward by the Copperheads can only be viewed as a failure to support the troops and the abandonment of an ally.

However, I said some time ago that the Democrats should have the cojones to seek binding legislation if they want to act against the war -- that they should put their money where their mouth is. Let's see how serious they really are on th issue, or if all the anti-war talk is nothing but window-dressing -- because I believe that the Democrats know that any binding legislation to tie the hands of the President and the US military will ultimately be rejected by the American people.

Posted by: Greg at 11:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 409 words, total size 3 kb.