How To Defeat America

Commander Jeff Huber, U.S. Navy (Retired) writes:

I’m a few years older than Osama bin Laden, so I didn’t really know him at King Abdul-Aziz University. We don’t attend the same church and our kids don’t play on the same soccer team. I don’t need to know much about the guy, though, to realize that he is probably the greatest strategist of the 21st century. I don’t have to be a world class strategist myself to have a pretty good idea what he wants to do or to figure out that he has access to the same information I have access to, and given those two things I can certainly imagine what I would think and do if I were in his position.

If I wanted to take down the United States but didn’t have an air force or navy or army to do it with, I’d find a way to get it entangled in another disaster like Vietnam. In September of 2000, I would have read the neoconservative manifesto Rebuilding America’s Defenses (I would have downloaded the .pdf file here) by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and understood that if they gained power in the U.S. they would invade and occupy Iraq on any pretense. When their hand-picked candidate won the 2000 election on a technicality, I’d put the wheels in place to give them the “new Pearl Harbor” they were looking for, and come September 11, 2001 I’d have told my people “Let’s make magic happen.”

Then I’d sit in the countryside in prayerful meditation and watch as the American people bought their leaders’ Vietnam guilt trip in six-month installments and squandered their country’s might and wealth into a sand dune until it was all gone.

Too Much War, Not Enough Troops

WASHINGTON — Army leaders are expressing increased alarm about the mental health of soldiers who would be sent back to the front again and again under plans that call for troop numbers to be sustained at high levels in Iraq for this year and beyond.

Among combat troops sent to Iraq for the third or fourth time, more than one in four show signs of anxiety, depression or acute stress, according to an official Army survey of soldiers’ mental health.

The stress of long and multiple deployments to Iraq is just one of the concerns being voiced by senior military officers in Washington as Gen. David H. Petraeus, the senior Iraq commander, prepares to tell Congress this week that he is not ready to endorse any drawdowns beyond those already scheduled through July. MORE

The New York Times is shocked to discover that combat is a stressful activity. They miss the real story. Exactly why is it that soldiers are having to serve three and four 12-15 month tours in Iraq? Could it be that we have bitten off more than we can chew?

Assume for a moment that everything Bush, Cheney and the most hawkish neocons tell us is correct. The U.S. faces an "existential threat," and installing a friendly regime in Iraq is critical to our national survival. I don't accept these points, but for the sake of argument let's go with them for a minute.

Why, then, is the United States not in a full wartime mobilization? The sad fact is that it's very easy for most Americans to forget we are at war. Other than longer lines at the airport, our lives are not terribly different. Something is wrong with this picture. If all our lives depend on victory over radical Islam, why is it that we aren't being called to share the burden? Following 9/11, President Bush had the perfect opportunity to rally the nation toward a great common goal. He did not. Instead, he suggested we all go back to watching TV and buying stuff at the mall.

Something is wrong with this picture. If we really face such a great threat, life should be different for everyone. That's how it was in World War II. Every able-bodied male not needed in the farms and factories was in uniform, and the home front lived with rationing and other hardships.

If, during the Cold War, the Soviet Union had every decided to invade Western Europe, I can promise you that life would have changed drastically in the U.S. I know this because I was in the Army back then, and I saw the contingency plans for REFORGER (Return Forces to Germany). Had we ever put the plans into motion, there would have been no lines at the airports - because there would have been no airliners. Every passenger plane was set to be drafted into the Air Force. Large parts of the Interstate Highway System (which was originally a defense project) would have been shut down so equipment could be rushed from inland military bases to seaports. Critical factories and natural resources would have been nationalized. Thanks be to God, we never had to execute these plans beyond small-scale annual exercises. It would have been something no one could miss.

The current war is a minor operation in comparison. Certainly it doesn't seem minor to the soldiers and marines who are under fire every day. Yet it is stretching our forces to the limit. The force structure now is about half the size it was when the Cold War ended. If, as we are told, we now face an equally serious threat, why are we trying to face it with an undersized military? This is why troops are being shipped back to Iraq for the third and fourth time.

It makes no sense, and I have yet to hear a Bush supporter give a coherent answer. You can't blame it on the Democrats - in the months after 9/11, Congress would have given Bush anything he wanted. Nor can you blame the generals - they warned Bush the forces available were insufficient for what he wanted to do in Iraq.

The root of the problem, in my opinion, is that this is a war of ideas, and it's not going to be won with bullets. Had we fought it on that basis, the current force level would be enough. Our "compassionate conservative" Christian president chose a different strategy, and then failed to see that his strategy didn't match the available resources. It is a mistake we will all live with for the rest of our lives.

RIP Matt Maupin

Ohio Soldier's Remains Found in Iraq

In a war filled with sad stories, this one is especially wrenching. Losing a spouse, a parent, or a child is never easy. Until now Matt Maupin's family has been in a special kind of hell, without even the small comfort of knowing whether he was dead or alive. For four years they knew only that he was in the hands of a cruel and ruthless enemy.

It is worth noting that this young man was a reservist - a citizen soldier who worked at Sam's Club until his nation needed him elsewhere. Whether the U.S. has any business fighting in Iraq is beside the point. Matt Maupin answered the call that many refuse to hear.

We will probably never know exactly how Matt died. Yet we know he died as an American soldier. Having lived through war, now he is at peace.

Reluctant Diplomats

WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 — Career Foreign Service officers at the State Department reacted angrily at a town hall meeting on Wednesday to the possibility that they might be forced to go to Iraq, putting senior Bush administration officials on the defensive.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced just a few days earlier that the State Department would require some diplomats to serve at the American Embassy in Baghdad or on reconstruction teams in some of the country’s volatile provinces. Only those who can cite compelling reasons, like medical problems or extreme personal hardship, will be exempt from disciplinary action, including dismissal, if they turn down the assignment. [NY Times via Darth Beckman]

This is a strange story. On one level, it is easy to say that people at the State Department should stop whining and do their jobs. It's not like they're being asked walk through mine fields. They'll live in Bagdad's fortified Green Zone and be protected by Blackwater, the best security money can buy. Diplomats live in much better, safer conditions than most of the soldiers and Marines who are deployed to Iraq.

On the other hand, I wonder why this is suddenly a problem now. The world is full of places where it is not particularly safe to be an American diplomat, yet so far as I can tell it has not been necessary to threaten foreign service officers with termination to make them go anywhere else but Iraq. Why is this?

If, as we are told, the "surge" is working, violence in Iraq is falling and political reconciliation among the factions is right around the corner, you would think the State Department people would be pushing each other out of the way to get over there. Claiming a piece of the forthcoming great victory ought to be a good career move. This is not happening.

One would think that diplomats have a high degree of knowledge about the real situation in Bagdad. The reactions we see in this story suggest that the State Department rank and file is not optimistic. They could be wrong, of course. I sincerely hope so. Or, they may know some things that the rest of us don't.

Judging from the reports, Secretary Rice seems fully prepared to follow through on and replace anyone in the Foreign Service who refuses assignment to Iraq. From the Bush Administration's point of view this might not be an entirely bad thing. They would then get to re-populate the State Department's career ranks with people of their own choosing who would be more likely to share Bush's attitude toward diplomacy. This would make it that much harder for the next Administration to change course from the direction Bush has been going.

If in fact there are job openings at the State Department soon, it will be a golden opportunity for some people. Personally I am not interested. If I were, say, someone with a Ph.D. in political science who loves his country, fully supports current U.S. military operations around the world, and enjoys defending his positions vigorously, I might look into it. Then again, I might not.

The Real Iraq We Knew

Today's Washington Post has an editorial by 12 former U.S. Army captains, all of whom served in Iraq. They are not pleased with current policy.

... the U.S. military has been trying in vain to hold the country together. Even with "the surge," we simply do not have enough soldiers and marines to meet the professed goals of clearing areas from insurgent control, holding them securely and building sustainable institutions. Though temporary reinforcing operations in places like Fallujah, An Najaf, Tal Afar, and now Baghdad may brief well on PowerPoint presentations, in practice they just push insurgents to another spot on the map and often strengthen the insurgents' cause by harassing locals to a point of swayed allegiances. Millions of Iraqis correctly recognize these actions for what they are and vote with their feet -- moving within Iraq or leaving the country entirely. Still, our colonels and generals keep holding on to flawed concepts...

This is Operation Iraqi Freedom and the reality we experienced. This is what we tried to communicate up the chain of command. This is either what did not get passed on to our civilian leadership or what our civilian leaders chose to ignore. While our generals pursue a strategy dependent on peace breaking out, the Iraqis prepare for their war -- and our servicemen and women, and their families, continue to suffer.

There is one way we might be able to succeed in Iraq. To continue an operation of this intensity and duration, we would have to abandon our volunteer military for compulsory service. Short of that, our best option is to leave Iraq immediately. A scaled withdrawal will not prevent a civil war, and it will spend more blood and treasure on a losing proposition.

America, it has been five years. It's time to make a choice.

I'm pretty sure this sentiment is more widespread than the Pentagon is willing to admit. Of course, the nation's military policy is not decided by captains - nor should it be. Their proposed solution of "get out or impose a draft" isn't especially workable, either. Even if you could re-start the draft tomorrow, it would take a couple of years to train enough troops to make a difference. In World War II it was relatively simple to convert farm boys into infantry soldiers with a few months of training. That is not the case in today's high-tech military.

Where are we left? The same place we are now: all the options are bad. Choose your poison.

A Useless Appendage?

What does the human appendix have to do with Iraq, interrogations, and the U.S. Constitution? Quite a lot, it turns out.

Submitted for your fascination: Doctors just now think they have come up with the function of the appendix.

In a similarly fascinating story, the American executive branch just now claims it knows the function of the Geneva Conventions.

Which explanation do you want first?

Read the rest.

State Secrets

The Supreme Court has terminated a lawsuit that alleges the CIA kidnapped and tortured a German man in a case of mistaken identity. The facts of the case are actually not as interesting as the grounds for its dismissal. The Bush Administration argues that allowed the suit to proceed would risk the exposure of important national secrets. There is legal precedent for this argument:

The state secrets privilege arose from a 1953 Supreme Court ruling that allowed the executive branch to keep secret, even from the court, details about a military plane's fatal crash.

Three widows sued to get the accident report after their husbands died aboard a B-29 bomber, but the Air Force refused to release it claiming that the plane was on a secret mission to test new equipment. The high court accepted the argument, but when the report was released decades later there was nothing in it about a secret mission or equipment.

This appears to be a legal principle that is, quite literally, built on lies. There was nothing to protect in the 1953 case. The government simply made up a story that was not true.

Whether the case at hand has any merit, I don't know. That's why we have courts - courts that are quite capable of protecting sensitive information from public view when necessary. It would be nice if we could simply trust the Bush Administration not to use this privilege to hide its crimes and mistakes. Any takers?

Saudis Release Terror Suspects

Here is a disturbing story. The U.S. recently transferred 55 suspected terrorists, all of them Saudi Arabian citizens, from the Guantanamo Bay facility and gave them back to Saudi authorities to be kept in prison there. Presumably the U.S. government received assurances that the prisoners would be kept securely locked up.

It seems that the Saudis have “temporarily” released all 55 to spend a Muslim holiday with their families. Furthermore, each prisoner was given $2,600 with which to celebrate. They are supposed to return to custody and eventually stand trial. We’ll see. I think there is reason to be dubious.

Now there are two possibilities here. Either:

• Our so-called allies, the Saudis, think it is well and good to let dangerous terrorists out to roam the streets, creating who knows what kind of problems, and the Bush Administration let itself be duped once again; or
• These 55 prisoners are actually not dangerous terrorists - as we are often told the residents of Guantanamo must be - and were being held by the U.S. under false or incorrect charges.

Neither scenario is particularly comforting.

Hat tip: Born at the Crest of the Empire

American Torture

Mark Shea unloads on the Rubber House Right, its supporters and defenders, in a long and colorfully illustrated post today.

It is a painful thing to face and I don't enjoy it any more than you do. But the facts are really quite plain. The reality is Abu Ghraib was not an isolated event. We have been torturing people in other facilities. What happened at Abu Ghraib was that some morons who loved their work thought it would be fun to take pictures and those pictures shocked the world. Naturally, the Bush Administration could not say, "Yeah! We support that!" Of *course* they repudiated it and made sure the lackeys got punished in order to distance the Administration from the awful press.

But the reality is that after Abu Ghraib, the Administration labored--intensely--to make sure that the abusive techniques used at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere would remain part of what the President calls his "tools" for fighting the War on Terror. You can read all about it here.

The White House response has been, I must be blunt, to lie through its teeth in the knowledge that it has broad support from a people that don't want to look too closely at what we are doing. Indeed, past polls have shown that Catholics have a higher rate of support for torture than the general population.

The lie is simple and plain: President Bush continue to look us in the eye and say “This government does not torture people.”

But the reality is, it does. Bush made certain of this by loading the Justice Department with toadies who gave him what he wanted:

In two separate legal opinions written in 2005, the Justice Department authorized the C.I.A. to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.

Note that word "including". This is not an exhaustive list. Much of the degrading stuff you saw at Abu Ghraib isn't even life-threatening, so it falls well below the threshhold of "torture" for this Administration's Justice Department, as far as we can tell. And when we speak of "simulated drowning" or what our Vice President lightly laughs off as "dunking" we are looking at prima facie evidence of the Administration's careful mendacity. [Source]

You must read the whole thing. The doubletalk we get from Bush defenders about this is astonishing. It boils down to "Torture is fine. We don't torture." Which is it? If there's nothing wrong with torture, why all the gymnastics denying that the U.S. does it? This bunch can't even keep its lies straight.

In the combox at Mark's post, someone asked a chilling question: is there any example any time in history of a government that tortured its enemies but not, eventually, its own citizens as well?

Bill Clinton Makes Sense

Now there is a headline I never expected to type. Still, I must give credit where credit is due. On the matter of torture, or "enhanced interrogation techniques," or whatever you wish to call it, Bill sounded remarkably intelligent and thoughtful when he appeared on Meet The Press last Sunday.

The subject came up because a few days earlier Tim Russert had trapped Hillary Clinton in a presidential debate by quoting what Bill had said about torture in the past [Video here]. He had said that the U.S. should normally not use torture but there should be provision for the president or other officials to grant exceptions in extreme situations - the "ticking bomb" scenario.

Bill has since changed his mind. Now he doesn't think there should be any exceptions in the law. Here's his latest:

... I think America’s policy should be to oppose torture, to honor the Geneva Conventions for several reasons. One is, it’s almost always counterproductive. If you beat somebody up, they’ll tell you what they want to hear. Two is, it, it really hurts us in the rest of the world and helps to recruit other terrorists. And thirdly, it makes our own people vulnerable to torture.

You know, there’s a one in a million chance that you might be alone somewhere, and you’re Jack Bauer on “24.” That’s the Jack Bauer example, right? It happens every season with Jack Bauer, but to—in the real world it doesn’t happen very much. If you have a policy which legitimizes this, it’s a slippery slope and you get in the kind of trouble we’ve been in here with Abu Ghraib, with Guantanamo, with lots of other examples.

And I’m not even sure what I said is right now. I think what happens is the honest truth is that Tim Russert, Bill Clinton, people filming this show, if we were the Jack Bauer person and it was six hours to the bomb or whatever, you don’t know what you would do, and you have to—but I think what our policy ought to be is to be uncompromisingly opposed to terror—I mean to torture, and that if you’re the Jack Bauer person, you’ll do whatever you do and you should be prepared to take the consequences. And I think the consequences will be imposed based on what turns out to be the truth. I think there are a lot of areas in life where you don’t. But I, I loved how she handled this whole thing. I guess you want to show the rest now.

MR. RUSSERT: But, but not [have a] formal exception.

MR. CLINTON: Yeah, I don’t think you should now. The more I think about it, and the more I have seen that, if you have any kind of formal exception, people just drive a truck through it, and they’ll say “Well, I thought it was covered by the exception.” I think, I think it’s better not to have one. And if you happen to be the actor in that moment which, as far as I know, has not occurred in my experience or President Bush’s experience since we’ve been really dealing with this terror, but I—you actually had the Jack Bauer moment, we call it, I think you should be prepared to live with the consequences. And yet, ironically, if you look at the show, every time they get the president to approve something, the president gets in trouble, the country gets in trouble. And when Bauer goes out there on his own and is prepared to live with the consequences, it always seems to work better. [Full transcript]

It is entirely possible Bill will change his mind again, and there is no guarantee his wife will think this way if she becomes president. Nevertheless, for now he has a far more reasonable and realistic torture policy than any candidate of either party has taken, other than Ron Paul.

What Clinton says about exceptions is absolutely true: give them an inch and they'll take a mile. That universal principle is the reason we have a Constitution that is not easily changed. President Bush, on the other hand, sought to grant blanket immunity for those who torture prisoners, all the while denying that they do any such thing - a claim we cannot verify since he steadfastly refuses to define what he means by "torture."

With such power in hand, it should be no surprise that some agents of the government will abuse it. Mr. Bush says we should just trust him, similar to the way we trusted him about Iraq having nuclear and chemical weapons. Sorry, sir. I won't be fooled twice. On this one, your predecessor is a lot closer to the right. You might want to listen to him.

Related posts:
Tortured Logic
Colin Powell on Guantanamo
Petraeus on Battlefield Ethics
Adventures in Fog
Defining Torture

Kid Detention

As usual, the satire of Andy Borowitz hits disturbingly close to the mark.

Fresh on the heels of their reality show “Kid Nation,” in which children are sent to perform hard labor on a ranch with no adult supervision, CBS announced today that it was readying a new reality show in which children are sent to the federal detention camp at Guantanamo.

The new program, called “Kid Detention,” is expected to be ready for broadcast in time for November sweeps, with the following promotional slogan: “One detention camp. Forty kids. No lawyers.”

CBS said that filming would begin as soon as forty children are “randomly rounded up.”

Within hours of its announcement, CBS found itself under fire from the organization Amnesty International, who warned of possible human rights violations if the children are sent to Guantanamo.

In an attempt to rebuff such criticism, CBS spokesperson Carol Foyler told reporters, “Nothing worse is going to happen to those kids than if they were on ‘Two and a Half Men.’”

Ms. Foyler also attempted to dismiss Amnesty International’s complaint that the kids at Guantanamo would not be permitted to have lawyers.

“We want to recreate the experience of being detainees, and of course that means no lawyers,” Ms. Foyler said. “Besides, just like the other detainees, these kids haven’t been charged with any crime.”

If “Kid Detention” takes off in the ratings as expected, Ms. Foyler said, the network was considering launching another series, “Kid Rendition,” in which the children are flown to Egypt for further questioning.

Ignoring the Troops

You may recall the scandal that erupted last spring when news emerged that wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center were living in neglected squalor. A media furor ensued, generals were relieved, the Secretary of the Army resigned, and officials from the president on down promised the situation would be quickly resolved.

Guess what: six months later, it seems very little has been done.

A government report being released today concludes that wounded warriors are still getting the runaround from the Pentagon and Department of Veterans Affairs despite big promises of change after last February’s revelations about scandalous conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, says delays for disability payments still average 177 days — nearly six months — with no indication that dramatic improvement is in the offing. The GAO also found continuing frustrations and shortfalls in care for the increasing number of military returnees from Iraq.

“Delayed decisions, confusing policies, and the perception that DOD and VA disability ratings result in inequitable outcomes have eroded the credibility of the system,” the GAO says in testimony to be released on Capitol Hill today. “Thus, it is imperative that DOD and VA take prompt steps to address fundamental system weaknesses.” MORE

Six months, on an issue that allegedly has the highest priority and promises directly from the president, and nothing happens. This is beyond incompetence. It is evil. When the news came out, the Bush Administration could plausibly claim it didn't know how bad things were for disabled veterans. I was not so sure, but gave them the benefit of the doubt. They no longer deserve that benefit.

Here's the truth: when Bush Administration officials, including Bush himself, say they care about the troops, they are lying. They do not care. If they did, disabled soldiers would not be waiting 177 days to get paid. The president can fix this overnight if he wishes. He obviously has other priorities.

Conservatives For Hillary

I used to think that Hillary Clinton had the proverbial snowball's chance of ever living in the White House again. Now, I'm not so sure. What changed? People on the right, seeing the dismal selection candidates the GOP is offering for 2008, are starting to make their peace with the idea of President Clinton. Andrew Sullivan explains why:

The conservative Washington Establishment is swooning for Hillary for a reason. The reason is an accommodation with what they see as the next source of power (surprise!); and the desire to see George W. Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq legitimated and extended by a Democratic president (genuine surprise). Hillary is Bush's ticket to posterity. On Iraq, she will be his legacy. They are not that dissimilar after all: both come from royal families, who have divvied up the White House for the past couple of decades. They may oppose one another; but they respect each other as equals in the neo-monarchy that is the current presidency.

Keep in mind, Hillary doesn't need every single conservative in order to win the general election. All she has to do is peel off enough of them to make a couple of closely-divided states like New Mexico and Ohio swing back into the Democratic column. It's not impossible. (I'm assuming, of course, that she will get the Democratic nomination, but that is looking more inevitable all the time.)

I think back to the odd pairing of former presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton in relief efforts following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and Katrina in 2005. They seemed to get along very well and the two are now close friends, by all accounts. So I think there is something to the "royalty" theme Sullivan mentions. If Hillary is elected in 2008, we will have 24 and possibly 28 years of continuous Oval Office occupation by people named Bush and Clinton. Mark Shea thinks partisans on both sides will get what they deserve:

It will be an exquisitely just comeuppance for all the consequentialists on both sides of the aisle if Hillary is elected (as Bush seems to be telegraphing) and she winds up embracing Mr. Bush's War. All the whores on both sides of the aisle who have loathed one of them and praised the other (while making every excuse in the book for their prostitution of basic principles of natural law in the name of their respective ideologies) will get the last full measure of betrayal from each of them as they walk off, hand in hand, having given us a state fully committed to salvation through leviathan by any means necessary *and* to the sacrament of abortion. Hillary will be the perfect Bush legacy. A classic example of the system doing what we designed it to do, not what we want it to do.

Fighting Them Over There

via What's Wrong With the World

Tough Choices: SEALS vs Goatherders

From a column by Diana West:

Dropped behind enemy lines to kill or capture a Taliban kingpin who commanded between 150 and 200 fighters, the SEAL team was unexpectedly discovered in the early stages of a mission whose success, of course, depended on secrecy. Three unarmed Afghan goatherds, one a teenager, had stumbled across the Americans' position, presenting the soldiers with an urgent dilemma: What should they do?

If they let the Afghans go, the Afghans would probably alert the Taliban to their whereabouts. This would mean a battle in which the Americans were outnumbered by at least 35 to 1. If the Americans didn't let the goatherds go -- if they killed them, because there was no way to hold them -- the Americans would avoid detection and, most likely, leave the area safely. On a treeless mountainside far from home, four of our bravest patriots came to the ghastly conclusion that the only way to save themselves was forbidden by the ROE. Such an action would set off a media firestorm, and lead to murder charges for all.

It is agonizing to read their tense debate as recounted by Marcus Luttrell, the "lone survivor" of the disastrous mission. Each of the SEALs was aware of "the strictly correct military decision" -- namely, that it would be suicide to let the goatherds live. But they were also aware that their own country, for which they were fighting, would ultimately turn on them if they made that decision. It was as if committing suicide had become the only politically correct option. For fighting men ordered behind enemy lines, such rules are not only insane, they're immoral.

The SEALs sent the goatherds on their way. One hour later, a sizeable Taliban force attacked, beginning a horrendous battle that resulted not only in the deaths of Mr. Luttrell's three SEAL teammates, but also the deaths of 16 would-be rescuers -- eight additional SEALs and eight Army special operations soldiers whose helicopter was shot down by a Taliban RPG.

Actually, Ms. West, what would be immoral is murder of civilians. The SEALs did exactly the right thing, both ethically and tactically. I doubt political correctness had anything to do with it.

As an Army officer and company commander I thought a lot about these issues. Here is the deal: American soldiers do not intentionally kill non-combatants. Never, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever. We do not do it. Or at least we should not; sometimes it happens, and those who do it are deservedly punished.

Obviously, civilians will be caught in the crossfire at times and get hurt or killed. That’s different. Killing them was not our intent. We take reasonable steps to minimize it, but in modern warfare civilian deaths are inevitable. Everyone recognizes this.

That was not the case in this situation. The goatherders had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Ms. West thinks that this was, in effect, a capital offense. The SEALs should have just executed these people in order to save themselves, she says.

The SEALs made the right choice. It is unfortunate that some of them paid for it with their lives, but should not be surprising. U.S. troops are all volunteers who know they may go into combat and risk death. Special Ops units like the SEALs are doubly so. The goatherders, on the other hand, did not volunteer for any such thing. They were simply going about their business, harming no one. If you want to blame someone for the American casualties, blame the commander who appears to have sent them into this situation without adequate plans and resources.

On a purely practical level, killing the civilians might have saved some American lives in the short run. It would also have ended any chance of further cooperation from the inhabitants of that region. Creating still more enemies when you already have enough of them is rarely a good strategic move. The end result would likely have been far more American deaths as the population turned hostile.

Ms. West concludes her column with a particularly despicable line: “A nation that doesn't automatically value its sons who fight to protect it more than the "unarmed civilians" — spies? fighters? — whom they encounter behind enemy lines is not only unlikely to win a war, it isn't showing much interest in its own survival.”

Let me rephrase: a nation that allows, and even encourages, its sons to kill unarmed civilians in cold blood will not only lose its wars. It will lose its soul.

Civil Discourse in America

The video below (via Wingnuts & Moonbats) is rather chaotic but worth watching. Several women from an anti-war group called Code Pink were staging a protest about Iraq, only to draw the ire of what appear to be hundreds of counter-protesters. Some became belligerent, ripping up the Code Pink women's signs and screaming curses and insults in their faces.

Whatever else the impact of events like this, I think it safe to say no one's mind was changed. The counter-protest actually served to gather even more attention for Code Pink than their small numbers otherwise would have brought. The better strategy would have been to ignore them.

The pro-war protesters also forget what they are supposedly protecting. If, in fact, the purpose of the Iraq War is to defend our constitutional freedoms (which I doubt, but that's what many conservatives say), attempts to shut down opposing viewpoints are inconsistent with their goals. Freedom of assembly and freedom of speech apply to everyone, not just those with whom we agree.

Also, I have to say that I am turned off when I see people wearing bits and pieces of military camouflage in an attempt to look patriotic. It's just lame. I'm a veteran and I still have my old uniforms. I will treasure them always because they symbolize an important part of my life. Even so, I remember what I was taught: wear it right, or don't wear it at all. The uniform is a mark of military professionalism and unity. Using it to score political points is just wrong. If you want to wear camouflage again, find a recruiter and re-enlist.

If you don't see the video embedded below, click here.

Debauchery in the Ranks

Texas Fred has a new post with interesting stories from war front. Specifically, his sources say that prostitution and illegal drug use are growing problems among U.S. troops in Iraq. We don't know how widespread these problems are, and Fred's sources are anonymous, so take this with a grain of salt. However, I don't think anyone would deny these things happen to some degree at least.

Prostitutes have followed armies for thousands of years, of course. The difference this time is that the same people are wearing both hats: some female American soldiers are reportedly selling themselves to the males for cash. Some, according to Texas Fred's sources, are making quite a lot of money in this way.

I'm trying to think of a historical parallel for this and coming up short. Examples of gender-mixed armies deploying outside their home countries for more than short periods are few and far between. Maybe now we are seeing why it is not a good idea.

In principle, I'm not against the idea of women in the service. My experience in the Army commanding a mixed unit was fairly positive. We had some minor problems, but the females in my company were professional and did their fair share of the work. However, those women came of age in a different era. They didn't grow up with MTV and gangsta rap and all that goes with it. Is a mixed force workable in today's sexually-charged popular culture? Maybe not.

Leaving aside the moral dimension, this kind of activity is still problematic. First of all, in a war zone every soldier is a potential blood donor for injured troops. Anything that promotes the spread of infectious disease creates risk for all. Yes, yes, I'm sure they use "protection." Fine. It's not foolproof, as lots of people find out the hard way.

Second, when the "protection" fails, the result is pregnancy. That leads to several possibilities, all unpleasant. The pregnant female soldier becomes physically less able to do her job, leaving more work for the others in the unit and harming morale. Eventually she will get shipped home and may or may not be replaced. From there, she will either kill her baby through abortion, or give birth to a baby with no father in the picture. Neither option is good for the child.

Third, we now have an Army with many married soldiers. Long deployments create temptation for both spouses to be unfaithful, which may be inevitable, but it doesn't do morale any good when the wives (or husbands) back home have to wonder what their husbands (or wives) are up to over there. This leads to more broken homes and family strife, and ultimately weakens the force as good soldiers look for work that lets them keep their families together.

Fourth, a unit whose members are in the habit of sleeping with each other for money is unlikely to be cohesive and operate at peak efficiency when necessary. Given that military forces are routinely involved with life and death, it doesn't make sense to let them devolve into fraternity parties.

Short of imposing a draft, I doubt the U.S. could field a military force of the current size without females. On the other hand, young men and women will do what comes naturally, especially when forced together for months on end. Sergeants can't be everywhere at once, and anyway who will watch the sergeants? They're human, too. I don't see any good solutions.

Finally, don't think for a minute that the Iraqi population doesn't know this is going on. Their culture frowns on such behavior. It's not surprising, then, if the last thing they want is for their country to become more like America. They observe our debauchery and conclude, quite reasonably, that if this is what "freedom" brings they don't want any part of it.

At the end of the day, it all points back to what I've said for many other reasons: U.S. forces should not be in Iraq. This operation is accomplishing little and destroying readiness in the process. It needs to end as soon as possible.

A Surge of Headlines

Mike at Born at the Crest of the Empire has this interesting, if somewhat confusing, roundup of newspaper headlines. All are, theoretically, referring to the same events.

AP: Bush preserves big troop level in Iraq

Reuters: Bush agrees to limited troop cuts in Iraq

AFP: Bush orders partial Iraq pull-out, citing 'measure of success'

USAToday: Bush: Continue U.S. presence in Iraq

NYTimes: Success Allows Gradual Troop Cuts, Bush Says

WaPo: Bush Tells Nation He Will Begin 'Surge' Rollback

LATimes: President redefines the U.S. objective in Iraq

CNN: 'Come together' on Iraq war, Bush urges

McClatchy: New Iraq plan recalls strategies past

You must read this "fact check" article on the President's speech from the Washington Post. Rod Dreher does a good job dismantling the White House lines, too. Professor Taylor of Poliblog has another four part post mortem.

You have to hand it to the Bush team. They've played Surge Politics very, very well. Having guaranteed that U.S. forces will stay in Iraq for the next generation, they are now turning attention to Iran. The Bush Jihad is just getting started.

We're In Iraq To Stay

With this week’s reports to Congress by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, the Bush Administration appears to have bought itself some more time in Iraq. As a result, the withdrawal - if there is to be one - will almost certainly happen under the next president. There will be some token redeployments next year, but these will at best return the U.S. presence to its pre-surge levels.

We were told this week that violence in parts of Iraq has fallen as a result of the increased U.S. military presence. This is wonderful news. However, what reason do we have to think the prior trends will not resume once the Americans leave? Violence will most certainly return unless the Iraqis decide in mass to become religiously tolerant, politically diverse, and economically altruistic. That hardly seems likely, at least not in the near future.

The latest American strategy of empowering local leaders, which was turned to in frustration after the central government proved dysfunctional, will probably create problems of a different kind. By installing multiple power centers with varying self-interests, there will now be a kind of feudal system of independent city-states with little incentive to cooperate for the common good.

Victory is still possible in Iraq, we are told. But exactly what is "victory?" No one can answer that question. The furious debates about the various statistics and benchmarks ought to tell you something: no one knows whether we are winning or losing this war. And if no one knows, then it will likely never end.

"Trust General Petraeus," the White House says. Fine, except that the same White House wants us to ignore General Pace, General Casey, Admiral Fallon, Secretary Gates, the GAO, former Secretary Baker and the entire Iraq Study Commission - all of whom offered radically different recommendations to the President.

Why is it we are supposed to trust this one expert while ignoring all others? Simple: the President has already made up his mind that there will be no troop reductions. The fact that the Joint Chiefs of Staff are, by law, supposed to be the president's primary military advisors is conveniently forgotten because the JCS will not offer the advice the president wants to hear. General Petraeus is, apparently, willing to be a scapegoat for Bush, so it is his opinion that we are told is most important. Everything else is just political maneuvering.

Bottom line: the U.S. is in Iraq to stay. There is no exit strategy. The Democrats are unable to force a policy change on Bush, so the train will keep on going. Where the tracks will take us, no one knows, but we're all aboard for the ride. The troops shovel coal into the engines while the rest of us relax in the lounge. Nonetheless, we are all going the same place.

A little advice: fasten your seat belt.

Two Quotes

"We're kicking ass."

-President Bush on Iraq, speaking to Australian Deputy PM Mark Vaile

"Pride goeth before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall."

-Proverbs 16:18