Perspectives

Who Are the Arabs?

Notorious "war correspondent"/journalist Michael Yon got a headache asking this question:

Yon Watch: The Banning of an Angel

A few of the people on the banned list puzzled me.  This is a part of the story on how Mary Ann of Soldiers' Angels - Germany got banned, along with the Greyhawks of Mudville Gazette:

"Like MaryAnn I appreciated that he had publicly acknowledged on Facebook that he knew the story wasn't true, but all I wanted was what MaryAnn wanted - the truth actually appended to the story. "I don't want a "Greyhawk vs Yon" story. Or a "Yon vs Soldiers Angels" story for that matter," I wrote MaryAnn. "A "Yon vs anybody" story is not helpful, but a "You can't trust what you read at Mike Yon's" story might be called for if he refuses to correct it."

"I advised her why halting her efforts was a bad idea - and it wasn't about Mike Yon"

Greyhawk tells the story, and it is a long story, but an important story.  I had wondered how a Soldiers' Angel of Mary Ann's stature had attained the banned list, along with the Greyhawks, and now I know: it was all because Mary Ann didn't want glory she had not attained.  It's a story of donations, of false glory, of heroism - unearned.  It's not a new story.

The Tarnak Saga:
1)  The Bridge Over the River Tarnak Looking at Fact and Fiction of the incident
2)  From Tarnak Bridge to Bruhaha Looking at Yon's obsession for Menard
3)  The Tarnak Scalp That Wasn't  Looking at Yon's claims of scalping Menard
4)  The Yon Conspiracy Over Tarnak: Looking at Yon's Conspiracy Theory Origins
5)  Overview of the Michael Yon Saga

Deviant Behavior
1)  Yon OPSEC Violations: It can't be more blatant but some are in disbelief
2)  Yon Publicizes Video of American Soldier Losing Legs.
3) Banned By Yon!
4) Yon's Attack on PTSD as insanity
5) The Banning of an Angel

The Vast MilBlogger Conspiracy (Humor)

 
Now dat's some funny shi'ite, ah don' care who ya are! (Except Sahib) With permission of course.  Allegedly, the characters above have no bearing in the reality of any man's mind.  Apologies to all men (or women) named Sahib.  Click the cartoon to go to the artist's site. (He's pretty damn funny, fer a gun bunny!)

The Tarnak Saga:
1)  The Bridge Over the River Tarnak Looking at Fact and Fiction of the incident
2)  From Tarnak Bridge to Bruhaha Looking at Yon's obsession for Menard
3)  The Tarnak Scalp That Wasn't  Looking at Yon's claims of scalping Menard
4)  The Yon Conspiracy Over Tarnak: Looking at Yon's Conspiracy Theory Origins
5)  Overview of the Michael Yon Saga

Deviant Behavior
1)  Yon OPSEC Violations: It can't be more blatant but some are in disbelief
2)  Yon Publicizes Video of American Soldier Losing Legs.
3) Banned By Yon!
4) Yon's Attack on PTSD as insanity
5) The Banning of an Angel

The Tide of Tyranny is Rising

Lacking US leadership, the world is devolving into turmoil.  The is an old saying that I'll butcher but goes something like: "When a butterfly flaps its wings in asia, Florida feels a hurricane."  It is designed to demonstrate figuratively that small events around the world have seemingly unconnected but serious effects globally. 

When the US economy took a downturn, it wasn't an isolated event, but the impact of a global economic downturn.  Political slogans blamed the President, but the reality is the recession had been staved off for years, despite international unemployment rates in 2004 that were higher than the US has seen in years.

The Democracy Tide peaked in 2009 when hundreds of thousands of Persians peacefully risked death to protest the tyranny of Iranian Islamism, in the wake of a patently fraudulent election there.  Iran had to recall its Hamas thugs in order to put it down, violently, protests that even the Iranian Revolutionary Guard would not stop.  Democracy had seen 8 years of American leadership willing to protect the will of the people and to stand up against tyranny.  In 2009, there was not even a weak condemnation of the brutal tyrannical violence against peaceful protesters.

The tide has turned against democracy and for communists and islamists, for tyranny.

YonWatch: A little humor - Update

(A little humorless: It's all fun and games and then someone gets banned.)  Some of the allegations against Yon are that he has no sense of humor and that he will ban a man for asking questions.  So, this might seem like a cartoon dialogue, but I couldn't help but laugh at the irony of the reality.

And to throw some water on the fun, I'll throw in some information.  Though "blogger" or "journalist" are probably the better descriptions of what people would think of his work being called, I think he likes to call himself a "war correspondent."  Evidently, he doesn't like to be labeled by others and he doesn't like to label himself.  He doesn't like doing homework himself, nor does he like people that don't do their homework.

We all know what war means, so what is a correspondent?
n. 1. One who communicates by means of letters.
2. Someone employed by a newspaper or magazine to supply news or articles: a foreign correspondent.
3. A person or firm having regular business relations with another, esp. at a distance.
4. Something that corresponds; correlative.  (The American Heritage Dictionary, 1985, Houghton Mifflin Co.)

Well, he isn't employed by a newspaper or magazine, he's not having business relations, and he's not something that corresponds, SO, I guess that means he is a person the communicates by letter to the war.  But I could be wrong, because, he wants us to do his homework rather than to just answer a question.

UPDATE: Marcus has expressly stated his permission to leave his name unedited in the exchange to the right.

He has been banned, for this dialogue.

MTF

 

 

The Tarnak Saga:
1)  The Bridge Over the River Tarnak Looking at Fact and Fiction of the incident
2)  From Tarnak Bridge to Bruhaha Looking at Yon's obsession for Menard
3)  The Tarnak Scalp That Wasn't  Looking at Yon's claims of scalping Menard
4)  The Yon Conspiracy Over Tarnak: Looking at Yon's Conspiracy Theory Origins
5)  Overview of the Michael Yon Saga

Deviant Behavior
1)  Yon OPSEC Violations: It can't be more blatant but some are in disbelief
2)  Yon Publicizes Video of American Soldier Losing Legs.
3) Banned By Yon!
4) Yon's Attack on PTSD as insanity
5) The Banning of an Angel

YonWatch: Just a Bully

There's a fine line between the necessity to expose a malcontent and it being better to ignore him.  I want to ignore Yon.  I have for years and hence I did not know many of the negative actions he had taken.  Yon does not want to be ignored and he will commit to all sorts of negative behavior to get attention.  He may or may not have already forgotten his call to find me, but his new focus is on CJ Grisham.  The behavior demonstrated here is unacceptable.

When Yon had proven his intent in the Blackfive thread
I told him this:

"Yon, I've oft stated the 1st Amendment protects the right of idiots to prove how stupid they are. I see you are using it to the fullest extent of your capacity."

Banned by Yon!

Or as Yon would say a "milkook."  This was a surprising but quick moving development which put me in a small club of very respected Veterans on the web.  CJ Grisham and Troy Steward are some of the plankholders in the club of 14.  But the real question anyone must ask is "why?"  If you do a site search here, you'll find few if any other references to Yon, though I've been aware of him for some time.

This is the reason Yon originally stated for his decision to discredit me:

"Thank you for pointing out that you'll take a fraudulent "Uncle Jimbo" even when the truth stares you in the face. This shows that WOTN should be added to the category of quacks." January 21, 2011 at 07:13 PM

What does this new status mean to me and the readers here?  To me, there is basically no impact at all.  I wasn't prone to reading Yon, nor commenting.  I don't have his book and don't plan to buy it.  I will not ask readers here to stop reading his words, nor to begin harassing him.  On the other hand, Yon has asked his readers to do an all out search for me, and to end any connection.  You're adults, almost exclusively, so the choice is yours.

Discussing the Arguments Against Women in Combat Units

 
First, I went over the arguments used to call for allowing women to have any Military Speciality they desire.  So far, no one has provided any arguments I missed, nor provided any rational debate that I was wrong in those discussions.  That article is the place to discuss those arguments.

There is an outstanding point I need to elaborate on and that is the nature of Female Engagement Teams.  They're important but they don't have a combat mission.  They are better trained in combat than most non-combat teams.  While I need to elaborate on that, that's a different article, all its own, so if you want the scoop on them, I recommend using the search bar in the upper left which will give you links to stories we've published as well as other military related sites.  "FET" or "Female Engagement Teams" will give you focused results.

The focus in this article are the arguments used against putting women in Combat MOS's.  All arguments I've heard rest on the principle that National Defense and the lives of Our Troops are more important than Political Correctness or the personal desires of individuals to claim glory.  Let's look at those arguments and again, if I miss one, feel free to let me know.

 

Discussing the Arguments FOR Women in Combat Units

Last week, activists floated the balloon that the Congressionally appointed "Military Leadership Diversity Commission" would recommend that women would be allowed to serve in Combat Positions.  The report is due to Congress in March, so the leak allows them a chance to tailor their arguments to overcome the ensuing opposition.  The concept of the argument for the change is that its about "equal opportunity," but the proponents have the advantage of keeping their specific arguments secret while observing what the opposition will say.  [FETeam in action.]

As is typical of this kind of debate, the proponents of the change dismiss any that oppose them as "male chauvinists," "sexists," or "immature."  In doing so, they are able to ignore the actual discussion and evidence against their position, while failing to actually produce evidence that a change is needed.  The arguments against a change in policy are far from unified and run the gambit from enemy actions to human realities.

Typical of the debate is the attempt by one of the most capable, Uncle Jimbo, to discuss the pitfalls with activist Eve Chase on Russia TV, with a moderator who clearly favored Eve's argument.  Uncle Jimbo is as capable on the battlefield as he is in a battle of wits, but his argument was undermined by the fact he was distracted by the woman in front of him.  He allowed the two women to railroad and ignore him while proudly proclaiming he was able to secure drinks afterward.  While, it was apparent to all but the two women involved in their own discussion, his words and style of argument may have been gentlemanly, but his eyes were focused on Eve's attributes, whenever the pair weren't paying attention to him (which was pretty much the entire "debate").

Let's look at the primary arguments of the proponents of women in Combat MOS's (Military Occupation Speciality, ie. jobs):

"Current policy prevents career progression of women."  This is patently untrue.  Under current policy, women have attained the highest ranks of the military in the NCO Corps, Warrant Corps, and Officer Corps.  These promotions to the highest ranks have occurred in less than 3 decades of women serving in the Army, which means they've attained those ranks faster than the average Soldier makes the same ranks. Compare: General David Petraeus and General Ann Dunwoody Biographies.

"Current policy prevents awards recognizing the Valor of women."  Also false.  Two females have already received the Silver Star in the War On Terror.  One earned the Medal in Iraq and the other in Afghanistan.  There are mulitple awards of the Bronze Star for Valor to females. 

The Medal of Honor has or has not been awarded to a woman depending on who you ask.  There is a case of it being awarded to a Civil War female civilian and revoked as it is not authorized to civilians.  The brass are desperate to do so and I still contend that Jessica Lynch would have been the first if it weren't for her integrity.  She was the one that stepped forward to tell the world the DoD storyline was untrue.  Compare SGT Leigh Hester Silver Star to MSG Anthony Pryor Silver Star.  Compare MSG David Miles Silver Star to SGT Monica Brown's Silver Star, both medics.

"Women are already serving and dying in combat."  This statement is true but it implies a falsehood.  Women have served in combat zones since before Desert Storm.  Most MOS's are open to women and the positions those MOS's fill are open to females at Combat Brigade and higher level commands throughout the military.  They are open to females in all non-Combat Brigades throughout the military.  Many of those units (and hence females) do in fact see some combat.

An example of an MOS open to women but a position that is not is Combat Medic in an Infantry Squad.  A Combat Medic on an MP truck is open to a female, and that medic is very likely to see combat action, but does not operate in the same conditions, nor are MPs (regardless of what they like to think) designed to "close with and destroy the enemy."  An MP is almost always in a "mounted patrol," i.e. riding in a vehicle, whereas an Infantry Patrol, even Mechanized Infantry, must have the capacity to carry their life on their backs.  Infantry and other combat positions are the units that conduct combat as a way of life, rather than responding to combat when the enemy gets bold.

There is a big difference between manning a machine gun in a turret and carrying a machine gun for days and miles at a time before assaulting the objective.

"The military records cheat those women out of noting their combat experience."  Patently false.  The military maintains a record of the units and places served.  As with the medals, women are also authorized to be awarded the Combat Action Badge.  The individual Soldier receives a copy of all orders of assignments and can further document their roles if they lack trust in the military paperwork system.  (I recommend that they do, as all military paperwork is prone to loss in the bureacracy.)

"Women are denied combat training because they aren't in Combat MOS's."  Partially true.  Because women are not assigned to Ranger or Special Forces positions, they are not authorized to attend those schools.  These schools are not open to the peers of women either.  It costs a lot of money to send a Soldier to those schools, so there must be an Army need to do so.  Unless you're the supply clerk at a Ranger Company, you're not going to go to Ranger School as a supply sergeant and even then, you'll be at the bottom of their list.  The supply sergeant at a Special Forces Company is not going to the SF Qualification Course, unless he's changing his MOS to 18 series. Neither do women compete for promotion against those MOS's, so it doesn't effect their career progression.

Women get 100% of the combat training that every other person in their unit gets.  They go to the same Basic Combat Training as men and the same Advanced Individual Training as every other person in their MOS.  They don't have to pass the same physical fitness standards as men, even in the same MOS.

"FET (Female Engagement Teams) prove women are already in combat."  No, FETeams are not combat operations.  They are patently not combat operations.  They are particularly important because of culture and cultural myths involved in the War in Afghanistan.  They engage female Afghans in conversation and may even search females.  The moment a FETeam attempts to search a male Afghan, things would go south quick.  Every Soldier/Marine is trained for certain aspects of combat and these teams require particular attention in such training due to their nature, but their mission is NOT to seek out and destroy the enemy.  Here's one story of a FETeam.  Feel free to search the site for more (upper left sidebar).

"Today's assymetrical warfare is different than historical linear warfare."  Yes, it is, but regardless of what pundits and politicians want to say, the current war does not define the next war.  Linear warfare can break out on the Korean Peninsula, the Island of Taiwan, or even the Border with Mexico.  In fact, the Iraq War began as linear warfare and Iran threatens war of the same traditional style of combat, before it too would turn into assymetrical warfare.  Even in the strategy of US COIN operations, Infantry go on long foot patrols climbing mountains before assaulting an enemy objective.  That is far different to reacting to an IED or SAF(small arms fire) ambush on a mounted patrol where the heaviest thing worn is body armor.

I cannot explain what the real reasons are that there is again a push to put women in combat MOS's, but none of the arguments I've heard hold water.  This is not about "equal opportunity."  But I can tell you that if EO programs were not abused by women, there would be much less opposition to putting women in Combat MOS's. 

And I will straight up call any Veteran a liar that says they don't know of multiple cases of EO being used as a means of retribution of a leader someone didn't like or to get out of UCMJ action for breaking regulations, unless that person never served around women.  It is a rampant abuse of the system and undermines true equality in the military.  Even an allegation of an EO complaint can ruin a Soldier's career, hence even the threat of a false allegation can and does get violaters of UCMJ out of trouble.

The false allegations in the EO complaint system are particularly detrimental to equal opportunity.  The sheer volume casts doubt on every case brought up in the minds of those that are aware of the case, as well as those that must adjudicate it.  Real cases of sexual harrasment or sexual discrimination suffer because EO is so often used as a blunt assault against good leaders or to escape punishment that is deserved.

With the arguments for a change in policy holding no weight, I will in a later article discuss the arguments for maintaining the current policy.  In a third article, I will provide examples of the current system as relates to the debate.

Related articles

Two Female US Soldiers Sue to End Ban on Women in Combat

Where's the 5W of Goals in Afghanistan?

Historically, Wars are made up of multiple battles with a Nation-State enemy commanding its own military forces, whose capital is generally captured and Generals/Politicians forced to the table of surrender.  Civil Wars are more difficult to define in terms of the enemy because it is not a Nation-State, but group of citizens who've taken up arms against their own government.  Interested Nation-States often throw allegiance behind the government or the rebels, as did France in the American Revolution and Britain for the Confederacy in the Civil War.

Missing from current wars is that clearly defined objective which means Victory.  The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan had it, but the aftermath has not.  Bush believed (in my opinion) it so obvious, that he failed to explain why defeating Al-Qaeda in Iraq was important or why defending the young Iraqi Democracy was in the interests of the Middle East and the United States.  He allowed his political opposition to instead claim there were no Al-Qaeda in Iraq, until support for Victory was near completed eroded.

When is Violence the Answer?

The pacifist crowd is quite curious.  While they would have us believe that "violence is never the answer," a great deal of violence is committed in the name of pacifism.  The unreported attacks on Miltary Recruiting Offices, University Laboratories, and even home construction by groups espousing pacifism or animal rights is a prime example not only of the violence of pacifists, but the MSM cover-up of their less savory cousins.  More often, the pacifist elitists attempt to incite violence through aggressive rhetoric.  This is demonstrated in a recent post at This Ain't Hell.

Does anybody remember the outrage about Muslims being murdered in Bosnia?  Does anyone remember the outrage that the world stood by and watched the slaughter of Darfur?  Who stood up when Iran was raping and murdering Persians in the streets and in college dorms?  Tyrants do not care that foreign citizens are outraged or that diplomats publicly protest their atrocities.  They notice a bit more when their ports are blocked or sanctions are enforced, but as Saddam and Castro proved, the sanctions may effect their people, but not the largesse of the tyrant.  And if a tyrant is willing to abuse his own people, why would he care that they suffer a bit more so he can thumb his nose at the butting in of the world body?

Do Americans Now Accept Government Groping?

Remember the outrage when Napolitano's Government Agents were ordered to sexually assault airline travelers?  One man got his 15 minutes of fame when he voiced what we (most of us) all wanted to scream: "Don't touch my junk!"  Remember the Thanksgiving Day call to protest?  Travelers were bid to request agents to massage their genitals rather than remotely view their pornographic images.

The groping and pornographing of US citizens is no more effective nor Constitutional today than it was in November 2010. 

In response, the Napolitano and DNC apologists suggested we Americans would simply get used to accepting pornography and sexual assault as the cost of air travel.  The said they would stubbornly maintain their right to grope us.  Personally, I expected the outrage over crimes committed by government agents could not suffer an enduring practice of the crimes.  I expected that the government elitists would realize the error of their ways, even if only because of the outrage.

The question of what form of protest would be effective in reversing the practice produced few viable options.  Those with the loudest voices sought exemptions from the new rules, and got them, while demonstrating that they really could care less about the common man and perhaps envying the TSA agents their view of cheerleaders and aspiring models.  In the end, Gloria Allred and Janet Napolitano were correct: Americans got used to being sexually assaulted by the government.

Are we Winning as Violence in Afghanistan Escalates?

Bouhammer wonders how "increased violence" can be valid at the same time as the enemy's loss of momentum.  It's a valid question, but one which recent history has demonstrated.  The problem is not in the seemingly paradoxical statements by an Admiral parroting a political platform, but in what the results of those statements are geared towards.  Troy is correct to ask how the two can both be true.

In 2007, as the Petraeus Plan was implemented, we saw the highest levels of violence in the Iraq War.  In a previous version of this site, I had been chastising McCain for his calls for an increase in Troop Strength there, and expressing support for Military leaders to be given the latitude to win the war.  So, when other Senators lambasted General Petraeus in the concert with the "General Betrayus" ads of their patriarch George Soros, I also spoke out against them.

Five Stars for Petreaus?

In an opinion piece at the Wall Street Journal, Iraq War Veteran, Pete Hegseth argues for the promotion of General Petraeus to "General of the Army," the highest rank authorized, but seldom awarded, in the Military.  It is an interesting argument and brings to bear the question of why so few in our military history have attained the rank. 

All but two were Generals/Admirals in WWII, and two more of those were promoted after that war ended.  George Washington was promoted to the rank centuries after the fact, which leaves only General Pershing to be the first to attain the rank and during WWI.   

General Petraeus is certainly our most accomplished General.  He has fought on the conventional battlefield and against non-conventional enemies, and won.  He literally wrote the book on Counter-Insurgency, which turned Iraq around.  His success comes not in style of Patton, but that of Eisenhower.  His success is directly linked to his modesty and realization that it is the lowest levels of leadership that fight and win battles of bullets, as well as hearts and minds.  He delegates authority and maintains responsibility.

He is worthy of a 5th Star, but is it feasible? 

What went wrong with the Haiti Aid?

The earthquake in Haiti is long past.  The aid work there has been well-funded and has had plenty of time to take effect.  To put things into perspective, which brings questions but not answers.

The US Government (alone) has dedicated more than $1 Billion through US Aid and similiar programs.
US Citizens have given more than $30 Million through private Non-Profits. 
The Clinton Initiative has been the lead agency in the effort.

Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere.  It has annual revenue of  $1.003 Billion as a government and expenditures of $1.3 Billion.  It has a gross domestic product of $11.97 (all figures: 2009)  It equals 23.6% of each workers portion of the GDP.

In short, Aid from the United States alone exceeds annual revenue there and was more than 8.5% of their annual GDP.  This is in addition to any other nation's assistance and the Haitian Government revenue.

The question is why after so much time and money is the situation so little changed?  There is something seriously askew when we double the money in a country and it still lies in shambles.  There is a need for someone to identify why that money has had little to no effect.

Heroes and Villains of the Gabrielle Giffords Tragedy

"Never let a crisis go unused."

As we continue to learn more about the mass murder committed by a deranged college student in Arizona, we also learn of the strengths of a Congressman that was targeted but also see politicians and pundits who jump on the tragedy, pretending to care about a victim, in order to advance their political causes. 

The first thing that should be noted is that neither the letter behind a name nor book covers define the person.  I knew very little about Gabrielle Giffords before Saturday, but an interview on Fox with her not long before the event included the remark that her platform sounded more conservative than Democrat.  Who, other than the politicians in Congress, would oppose her call for reducing Congressional pay?

The second thing to note is that too often those that rush to press are wrong.  They jump on "facts" that support their political causes and positions and suddenly portray themselves as the best friends of the victim to support their call to action.  They play on the emotional outrage to garner support for a cause that would not likely have sufficient support in rational times.  Michael Haltman puts the political scene in perspective.

Return to a Eunuch Military?

Ages past, rulers trusted their most prized possessions only to warriors neutered, physically, from sexual desire.  Eunuchs were stronger than common warriors and could be trusted to guard the kings' harems without any thought of succumbing to sexual desire or thoughts.  Their energies were focused solely on their mission.

Political Correctness seeks to neuter Our Troops.  General Order #1 forbids fun, and expression of sexual thoughts.  EO programs go beyond ensuring equal opportunity to creating a hangman's noose for any that verbalize sexual thoughts.  And yet, combat and sex are reflections of basic human instincts.  As Dave Grossman points out, combat and sex are closely related.

The recent "scandal" surrounding Capt Honors demonstrates not only the natural military means of dealing with sexual tensions in a humorous way, but also the political correct backlash to the public finding out that Troops maintain sexual thoughts, despite legislation to the contrary.  Combat not only is a base human action, but brings out base human needs.  The sexual tensions of Troops cannot be legislated, regulated, nor suppressed away.  The more suppressed it becomes, the greater the tension becomes.  It must have an outlet so long as Warriors are sexually intact.

Rumor Doctor Gets It Wrong on Teufelhunden

It's good to have a smart man in the room, but sometimes the smartest man in the world is going to be wrong.  Sometimes, research proves faulty or incomplete.  With that said, I'm not going to attempt to identify who first used the term Teufelhunden or Devil Dogs, but I will point out that if one mistranslates the English or the English meaning that the German translation will also be wrong.

I came across the story at TAH, but followed the link to the "Rumor Doctor" to find out how he came to the wrong translation.  Then I looked for my English-German Dictionary to make sure I wasn't wrong.  When I didn't find it, I looked one up online.  The online dictionary produced no results for "Teufelhunden," "Devil Dog," "Devil Dogs," etc. It suggested looking up the component words "Devil" or "Dog."

A second online dictionary produced similar results, but also afforded "online translation."  It translated "Devil Dogs" as Teufel-Hunde, which demonstrates the challenge of computer based translators as there should be no hyphen.  If you instead enter "with Devil Dogs" it translates it as "mit Teufel-Hunden," where the error is simply the hyphen.  It translated "Devil's Dog" as "Hund des Teufels" which is the long form of the name the Rumor Doctor gave.

PC Police Arrest USS Enterprise Captain Honor's Career

The latest Navy "scandal" provides an interesting look at the divide between Military and Civilian, between men and women, between what the protected want to believe about the Military and what the Military once was and traditions it has tried to protect from politcal correctness.

Not every civilian condemns the video of Captain Honors and not every veteran defends it, but the line is primarily drawn between those that have "been there" and those that never served.  In cases like this, to the great consternation of my subject matter expert, I ask a particular civilian for her perceptions, before providing any input.  I like to start with just the information provided in the media, then provide the fuller context (in this case the video), get the resulting perception, and then my Veteran input on the matter.  I don't want to corrupt the perceptions, because I want to know how effective the media has shaped the debate and how the more complete story does/does not change it, before I attempt to do so.

See comments at This Ain't Hell for the Veteran response.  It seems that Captain Honors has been taken down by the PC Police and for that reaction see this post at TAH.  Video and our original report here.  A page has however been setup on Facebook to defend his Honor.

The Christian Target

It wasn't so long ago that we reported about Al-Qaeda taking hostage a church in Baghdad.  Then that they made good on their promise to continue targeting Christians in Iraq and around the world.  Over the Christmas holidays, we reported on churches and Christians were attacked and murdered by Islamists in Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria, and the Philippines. 

In Islamic countries, this violence has less backlash than when Al-Qaeda was more actively murdering Muslim Children at playgrounds.  That led to Islamists in Saudi Arabia to denounce Al-Qaeda as a Mossad operation.  Funny how that works.

But how has the world reacted to the attacks on Christians?  Some have bemoaned the exodous of Christians seeking asylum from Iraq, but mostly the world has sat silent.  Obama attempted to highlight not the Christians murdered but the Muslims injured in the blast in Egypt.  He didn't mention the larger portion of the Egyptian Police force that slinked away ahead of the bombing, but the few that didn't get far enough away.

And those elements that attempted to deny Islamist murder of Muslim kids as Al-Qaeda and OBL being Mossad?  Oh, the anti-Semites find Mossad behind the Al-Qaeda murders of Christians as well, again pointing to those few Muslims injured in the sinful (as per the Koran) attack on a Church.  Then again, the anti-Semites also find a Mossad plot behind shark attacks and the Stuxnet virus, and any other evil they perceive.  There's an off shot the Mossad may have been behind the Stuxnet worm, but other than motive, little evidence.  If they were, they should be cheered and not everyone that thinks they were is anti-Semitic.  But behind shark attacks in the Red Sea?  It demonstrates how desperate the anti-Semetic crowd is.

Michael Haltman has been a great job of following up on the Coptic Church murders.  Drop in to see his coverage.

How Can YOU Use the War On Terror News?

Those I know in the world of politics are telling me that the War In Afghanistan will be a major issue in the 2012 campaign.  The same people had predicted the tenor of the 2010 election results in 2008.  In other words, there is good reason to believe they are correct.  In most ways, it is a good thing that politics will refocus the Citizenry on Our Troops in Afghanistan.  The question is what will be used as facts in the debate?

Two years is but a blink of an eye in politics.  As Congress prepares to take their new offices and seats, politicians are deciding whether or not to challenge those that have yet to make their first Congressional votes.  By the end of 2011, those challengers will be deciding which issues to campaign on.  Politicians in Congress are settling on strategies to force votes on legislation to misconstrue their ideological opponents.

Let's resolve to expose the willing to the facts, the truth, as much of the story as can be told.  Let's resolve to shape the 2012 debate with an educated electorate, immune from emotional propaganda.  The only force that can defeat Our Troops is the body politic and they can do so only with the tacit approval of the Citizenry.  If the issue is shaped by full knowledge of the ground truth, the political debate can rest on facts, not false slogans.

2011: Challenges to Victory in Afghanistan

The Military is a love-hate relationship for those that serve.  Or as I said when I was in, "an addiction."  The higher I was promoted, the more I realized how little authority I really had.  It's the guys on the ground that best understand the situation in their part of battlefield, and yet policies from the top that most hamper their ability to deal with the situation most effectively.  After a discussion this morning with one of the Warriors on the ground, I've reflected on some of the challenges we face.

It brought back memories and put in perspective some of the current conditions.  The political situation in the US has a huge impact on the orders given on the battlefield.  Unfortunately, politicians are almost always in an "urgent" situation, needing to be able to show results faster than they can be produced.  Our Generals need to have the backbone to tell politicians the unvarnished truth, that certain equipment is critical to success, that desired timelines may be unrealistic, that the politicians can set goals and provide the means to attain them, but that restricting resources means longer timelines.

Generals must be politically savy, but should avoid being politicians.  Their actions, policies, and advice must understand the political situation, but should not be shaped on party lines, nor pander to political slogans.  While we try here to avoid getting into the Generals' lanes, when they step out of their lane, they sometimes need that reminder.