U.S. troops who overcome their natural urge to slaughter civilians will get awards for showing heroic restraint - at least that's the message being sent by a proposed new service medal.
The proposal circulating around the headquarters of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan would establish a decoration to be awarded in those situations in which troops refrain from using lethal force, even at risk to themselves, so as not to endanger civilian lives. An ISAF spokesman said that, "in some situations our forces face in Afghanistan, that restraint is an act of discipline and courage not much different than those seen in combat actions."
Medals for saving lives are nothing new. Many recipients of the Medal of Honor received the award for preserving the lives of others in noncombat situations, such as rescuing people from drowning. An existing award, such as the Bronze Star, could be applied to cases where troops make extraordinary efforts to save Afghan lives. Adding a new decoration to the swollen list of ribbons and awards that festoon our troops is unnecessary.
A separate award for "heroic restraint" or "courageous inaction" or "gallant self-control" - or whatever it winds up being called - would simply be a public relations stunt, part of the campaign that ISAF has been waging to improve the image of coalition troops in Afghanistan. It smells of politics. And the fact that it is being given serious consideration is testament to a military establishment that has run out of ideas.
As a public relations ploy, the medal sends a strangely mixed message. The United States is saying that when our troops don't take out dozens of civilians during normal operations, it is worthy of commendation. This award sends a message to the Afghans that when Americans do the right thing, it is so rare, so exceptional, so noteworthy that we have to come up with a medal to celebrate it.
The current rules of engagement in Afghanistan, adopted in July, were meant to decrease civilian casualties and help win hearts and minds. But an ABC News poll taken in Afghanistan last December showed 43 percent of Afghans saying ISAF's record of avoiding civilian casualties has gotten worse, against 24 percent saying it has improved. Afghan Interior Ministry data from March 21 to April 21 show almost six civilians a day being killed in Afghanistan, a 33 percent increase over the same period in 2009. Meanwhile, U.S. troop fatalities in Afghanistan for the first three months of 2010 were double the number over the same period in 2009. Since April, they have been triple. All of those statistics are moving in the wrong direction, and a smiley face medal is not the solution.
Training and discipline will ensure that troops do the right thing and make the best decisions in stressful situations. Sometimes, that will mean taking extra risks to keep civilians out of harm's way. Other times, that will mean making the much harder choice of doing what needs to be done to complete the mission and preserve the lives of American soldiers, even if that means noncombatants will be placed at risk. Adding this medal to the already complex calculus troops face in those tense moments is a needless complication - and it could wind up getting Americans killed. We can only hope this award will never be awarded posthumously.
#4
When I enlisted in the Navy I automatically got a medal for enlisting in time of War since it wasn't for anything heroic, many other enlistees threw it away, I only wore it once at full dress inspection (To prove I enlisted, to an especially obnoxious Chief who insisted I was drafted), never again.
This looks about as Pointless.
Now my Dad was an army Officer (Got up to full Colonel) he had several rows, all well earned, he wore his proudly Bronze star, Silver star, Occupation of Japan, etc nothing worthless like this Pretty trinket.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
05/14/2010 11:37 Comments ||
Top||
#5
This is just another way to emasculate and "metro-sexualize" our military.
#6
"Between 1919 and 1942, the Navy issued two separate versions of the Medal of Honor, one for non-combat bravery and the other for combat related acts.
"Official accounts vary, but generally the non-combat Medal of Honor was known as the Tiffany Cross, after the company that manufactured the medal.
"The Tiffany Cross was first issued in 1919, but was rare and unpopular, partly because it was presented only for non-combat situations, while combat award remained the previous version.
"As a result, in 1942, the United States Navy reverted to a single Medal of Honor, awarded only for heroism."
In other words, military personnel haven't changed much, and know a poofter award when they see one.
Again, I suspect that privates will vie with their First Sergeant for LOTS of extra duty, rather than to be branded with the POS.
#2
I think if you look a bit harder, we did too, in Fact ALL nations had invasion plans for ALL others. (Possibly not Switzerland) It's called "Planning ahead".
The European Commission is calling for EU powers to vet budgets of the 27 member states before the draft laws have been presented to the House of Commons, the Tweede Kamer, the Folketing, the Bundestag, the Assemblee Nationale, or other national parliaments. It applies to Britain even though we are not in EMU.
Fonctionnaires and EU finance ministers will pass judgement on the British (or Dutch, or Danish, or French) budgets before the elected bodies of these ancient and sovereign nations have seen the proposals. Did we not we not fight the English Civil War and kill a king over such a prerogative?
#5
The EU way is a loss of sovereignty, the other way maybe not. It would be similar to the U.S.A. making treaties with the U.N. and then letting them call the shots.
#2
BEING THE sensible one in the family is no fun, but itÂ’s a cross the Germans have carried with dignity in the EU for decades. Of late, though, the cross has begun to weigh them down.
Sensible? Is this the same country that made $70B of morally bankrupt deals with Iraq, only to have a reality check when the US invaded the same?
#3
"BEING THE sensible one in the family is no fun"
Gee, now maybe ya'll know how we feel, having to "come back there" and save you from yourselves time and time again....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
05/14/2010 12:54 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I must disagree.
The are not rescuing Greece, they are preventing the European banking system from collapsing. It's the same idea from September, 2008 -- and whether we like to admit it or not, that massive intervention worked for what it did.
Euro banks are just as stupid as American banks, and they bought just as much government paper that turns out to be near-worthless, paper issued by Greece, Spain, Italy, etc. Anyone with a brain knows that Greece isn't good for the money they borrowed -- they were barely good for it before the world economy tanked, and they're sure not good for it now.
But if the Euro banks can't continue to value their Greek paper at par, they're going to go under, and that threatens all of us, including us Americans. The loans by the EU credit system, IMF, etc are a way to keep that from happening.
The key difference is that when the American banks and brokers started to go down in the 2008 panic, there were still good assets amidst all the toxic sludge. If we could get past the panic then rational people would sort it all out. That by and large has happened where it's been permitted to happen (e.g., NOT Fannie/Freddie). In contrast, there's next to nothing good in all the Greek paper. It's all crap, and a year from now we're going to have round 2 of this problem. The only hope is that the Greeks wake up and realize that they can't continue on the same course they've been on the last fifty years.
Oh, that'll happen.
So the rescue today is to buy time; if the EU can kick the can down the road perhaps the world economy will turn up a little and save them. It's not much of a hope but it's the only one they have.
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/14/2010 14:49 Comments ||
Top||
This week Spain decided it wasn't going to be the next Greece. It launched tough fiscal measures, and pitched "green" programs and public union raises over the side. Seems there are some lessons here.
Spain, a latecomer to democracy and the welfare state, has agonized for years about its place on the Continent. Wanting to be a European welfare state, it imitated its neighbors. It spent like they did, but it couldn't match their productive capacity.
Instead, it found itself looking like Greece, a country with a stunted private sector and a bloated public sector. Any effort to balance the two was met by union violence in the streets.
Spain's spending binge put its deficit at 11.2% of GDP and its 2009 public debt at 50% of GDP, with credit agencies warning that it was headed for 90%. Unemployment stood near 19%. Sovereign ratings agencies downgraded the country's outlook to negative, and market analysts made Spain the "S" of the PIIGS bailout candidates alongside Portugal, Italy, Ireland and Greece.
Spain, it turns out, didn't intend to be the next disaster story.
Instead of blaming "an Anglo-Saxon conspiracy" as he did in February, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero came up with something new: the political will to cut back and take the political heat.
As Europe fashioned a $1 trillion bailout fund and prepared for the worst, Spain did what no one thought a socialist state could ever do: It cut public-sector workers' salaries 5% and held off their raises for 2011. Pensions were frozen for all but the poorest.
Better still, all the big money-wasting "green" and "alternative energy" projects — which a Spanish university study exposed as job killers — were scrapped. That's right, all the global warming measures put in place because of the "emergency" were dumped.
Not surprisingly, markets rallied on this amazing show of will, whose message was that Spain is not Greece.
It's a heartening story to see a nation on the precipice decide to walk back from the cliff instead of jump. Up until now, socialist states from all over — from Venezuela to Greece — have always resorted to blaming others when the money ran out.
Spain's window into Europe and Latin America gave it a better view than most into how many different ways there are for socialist nations to commit suicide. Spain also witnessed real Hispanic success stories in Chile, Peru and Colombia, as well as Brazil; its recent cutback s would not have been unusual in those successful countries.
This offers important lessons for Europe, but even more so for the U.S., which has embarked on a spending spree and an expansion of public-employee unions.
Zapatero's road ahead is tough, but his cuts show that he has the courage to acknowledge the laws of economics instead of fight them. Our White House hasn't shown the same common sense, at least domestically. But now, at least, there's one example to follow.
#1
That was indeed motivating. For just a minute I felt like I actually had some impact on the federal government. Oh wait a minute it is just a straw vote. What was I thinking?
Guess you'll have to vote for them individually, as I did, AzCat.
I couldn't think at the moment of a specific program to cut, though, so I think I'll go back and enter your suggestion in their "what to cut next" block. ;-p
Bobby, how would I tell? They've already got mine as a result of my donating to Palin's candidacy (they just think it was for McLame).
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
05/14/2010 18:23 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Those already bombarded will not know. The pubs called my house four times in one day this week. Mrs. Bobby told them off each time. "I'm not a Republican anymore; you don't want me, and my husband is tired of "surveys" which are really solicitations. What are you guys going to DO? What do you STAND for?"
Posted by: Bobby ||
05/14/2010 19:42 Comments ||
Top||
#7
What do you (GOP) STAND for?
1) Getting re-elected
2) Spending (but less than Dems)
3) Big government (but less than Dems)
The two presidents -- Karzai and Obama -- were on stage together in the East Room of the White House for forty minutes on May 12. They each talked about how they had differed in the past and how committed they are to going forward together. Both leaders expressed great hope in their mutual "quest for peace" and the forthcoming "Peace Jirga" or "reconciliation talks" to be held in Kabul at the end of this month. Neither leader -- nor any of the journalists present -- mentioned a "cease fire" or the unseen skunk at their picnic: Taliban leader, Mullah Omar.
Mullah Mohammed Omar, secretive head of Afghanistan's Taliban movement, is one of the most wanted men on Earth. His sanguinary regime sheltered Osama bin-Laden's Al Qaeda as it prepared for the 9-11-01 attacks. The U.S. government's "Rewards for Justice" program has a standing offer of "up to 10 million dollars" for information resulting in his capture or confirmed death because he "represents a continuing threat to America and her allies." Now, thanks to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), Mullah Omar may be a key factor in the upcoming "Peace Talks" trumpeted by Messer's Obama and Karzai at their joint White House press conference.
Both heads of state avoided reference to the ISI or Mullah Omar as they gushed about the "Consultative Peace Jirga," that starts in Kabul on May 29. And each president spoke glowingly about "commitment" to an "Afghan-led peace process" that will allegedly produce a negotiated settlement among Afghanistan's warring parties -- and the country's neighbors -- meaning Pakistan and Iran. Mr. Karzai announced he wanted to consult with "thousands of Taliban who are not ideologically oriented, who are not part of Al Qaeda, or other terrorist networks, or controlled from outside in any manner troublesome to us."
All of this sounds very promising to the so-called "International Community" and the self-declared mainstream media. It makes the striped-pants set all warm and fuzzy to see two leaders who last month appeared to be very much at odds, now standing side-by-side to pledge their troth. And of course, the forthcoming "Peace Talks" mean diplomats, not warriors, are about to have their day. Unfortunately, none of this takes into account ISI plotting about the role they intend to play in Afghanistan's future, the part being played by the ISI's long-time ally, Mullah Omar, or the near-total lack of intelligence on what's really happening on the ground on either side of the Af-Pak border.
This lack of intelligence was evident last week in the aftermath of the failed Times Square bombing on May 1 when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proffered a blunt indictment of Pakistani cooperation with the U.S. Her stunning comment: "I believe somewhere in this government are people who know where Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda is (sic), where Mullah Omar and the leadership of the Afghan Taliban is (sic)..." created a diplomatic firestorm.
Hopefully, Ms. Clinton was dissembling, because intelligence sources here in the U.S. and Afghanistan inform me that Pakistani officials know exactly where Mullah Omar is: in the hands of the ISI. This should not be news to the U.S. Secretary of State.
Last month, while I was still in Afghanistan, rumors were circulating that the ISI had detained Mullah Omar in Karachi on March 27, and placed him under house arrest in what they call "community care." American operatives say he has since been transferred to a secret ISI lock-up under the Pakistani euphemism: "institutional care." According to several reports, all of this information was confirmed to U.S. officials by a senior Pakistani military officer "several weeks ago."
"Why would the ISI take down 'one of their own?'" I asked. The answer came in a mixed metaphor but the meaning was clear: "The ISI intends to be in the driver's seat when the 'Peace Talks' get underway in Afghanistan later this month. And the ISI officers calling the shots know Mullah Omar is the best bargaining chip they have."
None of this bodes well for the "Consultative Peace Jirga," on which Mr. Obama has now placed his imprimatur. Some of those watching preparations for the "peace talks" predict a call for an immediate, Vietnam-style, "cease fire" as a pre-condition for the conference -- and a demand to grant Mullah Omar -- Osama bin-Laden's closest ally -- safe haven in Saudi Arabia. If the O-Team agrees to any of this, it will be akin to putting perfume on a skunk.
#1
Why would the ISI take down 'one of their own?'" I asked. The answer came in a mixed metaphor but the meaning was clear: "The ISI intends to be in the driver's seat when the 'Peace Talks' get underway in Afghanistan later this month. And the ISI officers calling the shots know Mullah Omar is the best bargaining chip they have."
So Nato and US having been fighting a proxy war v Pakistan for the last 9 years?
UC-San Diego student Jumanah Imad Albahri last week, under questioning from David Horowitz, refused to condemn Hamas and Hizballah and endorsed a genocidal statement by Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah. Many were shocked. Albahri's statement is being treated as a singular utterance, a lapse that has nothing to do with the Muslim Students Association of which she is a part, and certainly not with Islam as a whole.
Unfortunately, Albahri's support for genocide of the Jews doesn't reveal that she is a closet Nazi, but that she is an entirely mainstream Muslim. Genocidal statements are painfully common from Muslim leaders today.
Posted by: ed ||
05/14/2010 18:07 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
After 40 years, the United States' war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread.
Even U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske concedes the strategy hasn't worked.
#1
and that it made them resistant to police bullets.
Well partly true, that's why the 1911.45 Colt was invented, the troops were shooting the Moro Tribesmen, who were high on drugs and they didn't stop them, the .45 Knocked them down and thy didn't get back up and kill you.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
05/14/2010 11:44 Comments ||
Top||
Hardly. Never is there the postulation of what the place would look like if we all looked the other way. Just look at the ratty neighborhoods and expand that easily ten fold. It's really not about drugs. Drugs are simply the means for the money and power. That game will never go away. It's about the will to keep the destructive and predatory down to background noise. They are the elements of a population that have no bounds or compulsion to work within a system, but to exploit anything and everything they can to gain what they want.
#5
BP, while I doubt Napolitano's sincerity, I must say I agree with what she says at the end of this article: "This is something that is worth fighting for because drug addiction is about fighting for somebody's life, a young child's life, a teenager's life, their ability to be a successful and productive adult."
If government can't do that for us, WTF can it do?
My problem is that I don't care how much money they've spent because I can't believe it's ever been anything but a kabuki dance. The enforcement has always been selective and ineffective. You're right about one thing: somebody's making a hell of a lot of money. The power of that money to corrupt our government is most frightening to me as is the decline of our civilization.
Check out that link I posted to the CNBC special on marijuana. They have a slide show and one of the pictures shows a family getting ready to move out of Mendocino County in northern California after the pot house next door to them burned. Ask yourself, would you want your kids growing up in a town like that? Really? Yes? No? Well, before you write off Mendocino County remember that northern California is quite literally one of the most beautiful places on this planet. You want to give a place like that over to marijuana cultivation? Really?
#7
A distant relative was in intel from OSS days... by the time of Carter he was too high a GS rating for Carter to fire so he transfered him to be an acting Drug Tsar in hopes he would quit.
The first day on the job it took him an hour and a half of security checks and pat downs to make it to his new office.
Within 10 mins. of getting there his secretary knocked on his door and said "These Gentlemen are here to see you". She ushered in a bunch of mobsters who made threats against him and his family if any of their shipments were interfered with.
He never wanted the job, thought about how long it took him (the new boss) to enter and how long it took the mobsters to make it to his office.... and decided the DEA was totally corrupted with his life in danger..... He said... "I didn't want this war... I am a Cold Warrior and not a Drug Warrior.... just keep my staff aware of where your shipments are and we'll be elsewhere until I am transfered back to my field".... six months later he was back "safely" in the spook field..
#9
I knew the WoD was over in Christmas 2009 when not only just us young good-for-nothing grandchildren, but my entire property-owning, taxpaying older family sneaked away at some part of the holiday or other to smoke weed. At that point, what's the meaning of sneaking off? Everybody does it. It's like drinking wine.
There's just too much profit in continuing the system as is. Connected people would lose money if we repealed prohibition, and obviously that can not be allowed to happen.
#10
Socialism and drugs. Both opiates of the masses. Why resist one and not the other. Surrender to both, you'll have a wonderful civilization. /sarc off
#14
My wife went to visit a woman friend today. The woman broke down and just started sobbing. Her 27 yr old daughter is strung out on drugs. She goes to the doctors she knows to go to who will prescribe hydrocodone for some ailment or complaint. Most likely she uses illegal drugs also. She steals money from her mother to support her drug use. Her mom tried to get her into drug rehab and she signed herself out and walked away. Counseling was set up for her; she didn't follow through. She had a baby and gave up the baby to the father. She is not going to straighten her life out unless she wants to or she is forced to by going through the police-court-correction system or she dies. Drugs are a problem. In her case some of the drugs she uses are legalized. Drugs are a problem for her and for others close to her. There are lots of people like her across society.
Marijuana may not be such a big problem other than the criminal element around it and it seems to rob people of their motivation. Abuse of prescription painkillers is a problem. Cocaine, heroin, and meth are big problems--these drugs ruin lives and present a huge cost to society.
We do attack the problem on a lot of fronts across society; federal and local law enforcement, Coast Guard and border interdiction, education, intervention, drug testing, DEA monitoring of doctors, rehab, counseling. It's not like we are not doing things at the present. These efforts seem fragmented and not well-coordinated. Two questions arise: Can we afford these efforts? Can we afford not to do these things to control drug problems? There has to be a huge demand for illegal drugs for criminals to attracted to big profits.
#15
Doctor shopping for pain pills is a much bigger problem than kids buying pot. it is openly and notoriously practiced and almost everyone looks the other way.
/spit
Posted by: abu do you love ||
05/14/2010 18:41 Comments ||
Top||
#16
JohnQC
She's got a life problem you're blaming on drugs.
I'd bet she's self-medicating because she's got a form of depression.
#17
Abu I wouldn't go that far. When I lived in Savannah my neighbor was a pain mgt specialist 18 months, 2 DEA raids and found innocent he dropped the practice and went back to being an internest. Wasn't worth the headaches and paperwork. A lot people are worse for that inevitability.
Drug addiction, IMO, is genetic certain people are predisposed just like some drink too much, eat too much, etc. Legalize it, tax it and fund rehabs with the money. No society is free if has to tell its citizenry what it can and cannot ingest.
#18
Pot should be legalized but the other stuff should probably remain illegal. Imagine when the baby boomers retire they are gonna want to smoke pot and remember the 60s. There is a lot of tax revenue to be harvested there and we can promote buy American!
Drug users should be released from our overcrowded prisons and sent to rehab and parole. Those involved in sales of all but pot should have their sentences increased, or at least those arrested going forward. Drive up the prices and risk that way.
The Socialist Bureaucrat and drugs are the same. Both are sought after by people seeking to solve a problem only they both steal human free will and install dependency.
#20
If a single life is saved, then it's a victory. The fact is countless lives have been saved. And let's revisit the math: 1 trillion over 40 years. ReallY? Not a bad investment IYAM. Hey, we spent almost the same amount in 1 year for a "stimulous" snow job that did nothing but line the pockets of Dems. We'll never get rid of drugs, but it doesn't mean we have to get on our knees and put our lips around a crack pipe. No doubt about it that some drugs are much worse than others. But the fact remains, legalization will not rid of us of the WoD. It will only be more focused as we seek to secure our investment in the drug trade.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
05/14/2010 22:40 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
