It's been a tough month for the British Navy. On March 7, it learned that Tony Blair's Labor government was going ahead with drastic cuts in its budget and number of ships. By this time next year, the once-vaunted Royal Navy will be about the size of the Belgian Navy, while its officers face a five-year moratorium on all promotions.
If that wasn't demoralizing enough, last Friday the Iranian Navy seized a patrol boat containing 15 British sailors and Marines, claiming they'd crossed into Iranian waters. They're now hostages and may well go on trial as spies.
The latest report is that the Britons were ready to fight off their abductors. Certainly their escorting ship, HMS Cornwall, could have blown the Iranian naval vessel out of the water. However, at the last minute the British Ministry of Defense ordered the Cornwall not to fire, and her captain and crew were forced to watch their shipmates led away into captivity.
There was a question whether the Blair government would end up leaving Britain with a navy too small to protect its shores. Now it seems to want a navy that can't even protect its own sailors.
For some time, Tony Blair has been trying to show that for all his support of President Bush, he is no warmonger. He has been a consistent "softliner" on Iran's nuclear program, supporting the Europeans' search for a diplomatic solution and repeatedly insisting that any military options be taken off the table.
Since January, the Blair government has broadcast its intentions of gutting the Royal Navy's surface fleet. At the same time, it also announced its plans for withdrawing 2,500 British troops from Iraq. The result? First, the Royal Navy is finished as a credible military force. Second, the British Army's redeployment from Basra has been widely interpreted as abandonment of the Iraq mission, rather than as moving on to Afghanistan after a job well done, as Blair insists.
And now the Iranians have hostages with which to wring more concessions from the British - including perhaps withdrawal of British vessels from the Coalition task force guarding the Persian Gulf.
The mullahs in Tehran clearly see the new pacifist trend in Britain not as a hopeful sign of future accord, but as supine surrender. Just as clearly, they have singled out Britain as the latest weak link in the Coalition fighting in Iraq and in the War on Terror.
If the Iranians can force Britain to join the other European powers on the sidelines in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan (where most NATO nations devote their time to finding excuses for not risking their soldiers' lives in combat), they will have virtually completed America's isolation from the rest of the world community. In effect, America's only reliable ally in Iraq and the War on Terror will be Australia - and a change of government there could well mean the loss of that ally, as well.
This will be a tragedy - but not for America. The United States has grown used to doing the fighting and dying the other industrialized democracies refuse to do in order to defend themselves and their interests.
Britain has been an exception. In places like Bosnia and the Persian Gulf, and in operations like Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom, its help has been solid and genuine, as well as important in a symbolic sense. America always looks better when a couple of frigates flying the Royal Navy's White Ensignare side by side with those flying the Stars and Stripes. U.S. sailors also know that in a real fight, the men of the Royal Navy, which our navy men still call the "Senior Service," will never let them down.
That contribution has never been vital to America - yet it was a badge of honor for Britain. It had echoes of past glory as an empire, of course, but also of Britain's historic role as protector of a civilized and stable world order, and specifically the role of the Royal Navy. The British navy had wiped out the slave trade; it had single-handedly defied tyrants from Louis XIV and Napoleon to Hitler; and it served as midwife to the ideas of free trade and the balance of power.
Now those days are gone for good. Yet, if today's Britons thought that by shedding that historic responsibility they could buy themselves some peace of mind, the current hostage crisis has just proved them wrong.
Seventy years ago, another generation of British politicians believed that disarming themselves would help ease world tensions after World War One. Farsighted and progressive planners cut the Royal Navy by nearly two-thirds and ceased the fortification of vital naval bases like Singapore so as not to alarm other powers. In the name of international peace, Britain signed treaties formally limiting the size of its fleet, and as late as 1935 reached an accord with Adolf Hitler allowing him to build the submarine fleet that the Versailles Treaty had denied him.
Six years later, Hitler's U-boats were turned loose to harry British shipping and the Japanese stormed into Singapore, forcing the greatest mass surrender in British history.
Today, British politicians seem determined to make the same mistake. They exude the spirit not of Winston Churchill or Margaret Thatcher but of diplomat and Labor Party stalwart Harold Nicolson, who used to sigh to friends in the dark days after France's surrender in 1940: "All we can do is lie on our backs with our paws in the air and hope that no one will stamp on our tummies."
The capture of 15 British sailors should serve as a warning. Nations cannot "opt out" of their responsibilities in the War on Terror when they feel it, like players in a pickup basketball game or cricket match.
Enemies like the mullahs and their terrorist allies recognize no time outs, no neutral ground. They see only strength and weakness, those nations they can manipulate and those they have to fear. Today they clearly feel they can pull the British lion's tail with impunity.
If the hostages are finally released unharmed, it will have a lot more to do with the presence of two American carrier groups off the Iranian coast than anything Blair is doing - and the British will have learned that what they really lost when they gave up their fleet and abandoned the fight in Iraq is their own self-respect.
Arthur Herman's latest book is "To Rule the Waves: How the British Navy Shaped the Modern World." His next book, on Gandhi and Churchill, is due out next year.
#3
Being articulate and not having the means to back those words up, as Tony Blair is doing is like having the nicest cartridge in the world and no gun to chamber it into.
Britain cannot expect help from the US if they do not do something to help themselves. The Socialists and Tranzis have succeeded in gutting this once great nation. We should understand this example before we fall to the same fate.
Posted by: Alaska Paul at Homer, Alaska ||
03/28/2007 13:23 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I can't really say that this withdrawal is bad for Britain. What it's really bad for is all those peripheral states that could be annexed by major powers. The same logic that applies in Britain also applies here. I, for one, am tired of seeing American losses on a daily basis while the rest of the world not simply ignores us, but actively jeers from the sidelines. I think it may be time to resume the posture of armed neutrality we had during the 19th century. If someone gives our merchant vessels, nationals or corporations a hard time, we can see to it that they regret it. But anything other than direct national interests ought to be a matter for the locals. Not because their lives aren't worth anything - rather, it's because the lives of our fighting men ought to be worth more than theirs, and thus restricted to duties that involve primarily defending our direct national interests.
#5
Time will tell. *IONews > LUCIANNE > Korean Media > CHINA plans to build a 93,000 ton [nuke?]aircraft carrier to rival anything in the USN or other. Nominal launch date set for Year 2020.
#3
This condition becomes understandable given the average persons limited experience with catastrophes that cannot be pelosied away by the magic of immediate withdrawal.
#4
On the plus side, between the US re-writing the politics of western Europe into meeching social democracy, and Soviet brutality of eastern Europe, violently crushing much of their nationalism, we managed to finally pretty much extinguish the fires of war which had ravished Europe for 1500 years.
That is, in the West we convinced them to accept bland homogeneity and helplessness, and in the East, colorless misery and resignation. And except for a brief flare up with the collapse of Yugoslavia, it has remained pretty peaceful since.
So what is left? Well, a unified Europe is still a pipe dream, national self interest is too strong. So unless there is a major conservative revival in Europe, I suspect there will again rise mercenary armies, as they had in the 30 Years War.
The French already have a model in their Foreign Legion, and other nations may follow their example of garrisoning their mercenaries on islands.
The Channel is too close to home for the British, but it would serve several interests of theirs to have an army in the Caribbean. The Dutch, too, would most likely do the same, if not in a joint operation with the British.
Germany and Spain would probably prefer some African island.
#9
I thought this was a good conclusion and I especially like the imagery of the rampaging guinea pigs.
Excuses along these lines also fit the west of Europe. Enjoying good weather since 1945 under a for-free umbrella amounts to ineffective preparation to defend liberty against anything beyond rampaging guinea pigs. Thinking in such terms it is more difficult to comprehend the naiveté of some majorities in east-central Europe. Theoretically the recent practical experience the region had with foreign domination, should provide for a general awareness of past, present and future perils and the ways of coping with them. Thinking that the reward for refusing American protection will lead to a grant of immunity by those who combat western civilization is strategic imbecility. Jettisoning the American alliance can only be justified if an alternative to US protection is found. As things stand the list of candidates that are willing and able to play this role appears to be short.
#10
Postmodern Europe has done precisely what postmodern theory tells them to do. Their n-a-a-a-a-a-rative is all that matters.
The facts regarding an almost certain demographic collapse, coupled with an inability to defend themselves without the U.S., is too ugly of a concept to let the n-a-a-a-a-a-rative remain intact. So it gets denied and ignored.
Too much effort to rethink the core philosophy, doncha' know.
I loved the bit about Euroland essentially being a drunken fool throwing mud at its only protector. That is an absolute winner of an analogy.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
03/28/2007 19:30 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Mercenary armies are a lot cheaper than permanent armies.
Typically, they are like an active reserve, but with less than the normal amount of training on deployment equipment--which is warehoused--again, keeping costs down.
By keeping them on an island, where all their pay is sent back to their native country or kept in a bank account for them, costs are just rock bottom.
Just endless grass drills, practice missions, classroom, eat in the mess and sleep in cheap wooden barracks.
The biggest regular costs are the officers and senior NCOs, who all have to be from the regular army, food and medical.
You do not need great quality, just strength and endurance and "boots on the ground" numbers. Optimally, they don't even engage the enemy; they occupy critical support assignments like flank security, rear area and logistic train security, that are very consumptive of manpower.
#12
LOL NS - I try to only correct Ship's faux pas...
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/28/2007 20:29 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Lest we fergit, there is reason Commies collude and give support to Radical Islam, and that reason has to do wid the POST-AMER/USA WORLD ORDER. As said times before, even presuming that the Commies + Islamists "save the World" from America, CAN THEY SAVE THE WORLD FROM EACH OTHER [plus other -isms]ONCE THE USA-WEST IS FINALLY GONE?
The Iranian kidnapping happened at an odd time. The UK gets no meaningful EU proclamation of solidarity. You can laugh at that, but the EU is Iran's largest trading partner and a cessation of commerce would do more than anything to weaken the theocracy.
NATO is oddly silent: the only member who could do anything is the US, and the British public has already made it clear it does not wish closer operational ties with us. So what we are seeing is a sort of Islamist heckler at the parade of a Western emperor, screaming to the crowd about his majesty's nudity. All the Europeans have is soft power, but when that much vaunted "tool" is not used, then it is something softer than soft.
One of the more brilliantly bad things Iran has done is to remind the Europeansthe British, French, and Germans particularlythat their military assets are not assets when used far from home in solitary fashion. Instead because they are faux "military assets"with their small size, number, and rules of engagementthey become liabilities that at any time could prompt a political crisis.
In the future, we should expect the following: greater demands from the European public to distance itself from the US (e.g. the fault for this crisis is our arrest of Iranians in Iraq, our failure to talk to Ahmadinejad, our war in Iraq, fill in the blanks) while at the same time greater demands from European admirals and generals only to venture out from their ports while in convoy with American ships or under cover of American air power.
I'm nostalgic for the day when you had to scroll down to the Huffington Post comments section to find something so beyond the pale. Today this appears from an actual official H-Post blogger, a California radio host by the name of Charles Karel Bouley:
CNN has decided this week to be the Cancer News Network. Just as it was wrapping up its wall-to-wall coverage of Elizabeth Edwards and the return of her cancer, the ethics of staying in the campaign and then every pundit in the free world weighing in on the issue they have now moved on to White House Press Secretary Tony Snow and the return of his cancer.
I admit my bias shows with these stories. I hear about Tony Snow and say to myself, well, stand up every day, lie to the American people at the behest of your dictator-esque boss and well, how could a cancer NOT grow in you. Work for Fox News, spinning the truth in to a billion knots and how can your gut not rot? I know, it's terrible. I admit it. I don't wish anyone harm, even Tony Snow. And I do hope he recovers or at least does what he feels is best and surrounds himself with friends and family for his journey. But in the back of my head there's Justin Timberlake's "What goes around, goes around, comes around, comes all the way back around, ya.."
So how do I explain Elizabeth? See, there's my bias. Sometimes bad things happen to good people. . . .
Later in the article, the author goes on to proclaim his own virtue: he's going to be pricing solar power in the coming week.
REMEMBER, THE HUFFINGTON POST IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR OPINIONS IN THE COMMENTS
Oh wait, that wasn't in the comments! That was in a post by Charles Karel Bouley. (Who?) Now, I don't want him to walk in front of a bus, get dragged underneath it through blocks and blocks of razor blades and broken glass, survive by some miracle, slowly get up and raise his broken, bloody hands to the sky and thank whatever higher power he suddenly believes in, and be set upon by wild dogs. I don't wish anyone harm, even Charles Karel Bouley. But like many this afternoon, I had the thought. My brutal honesty is terrible, I admit it...
Posted by: Mike ||
03/28/2007 06:25 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Always check the bio. If it's more then one paragraph, chances are the blogger's a self important douchebag.
Charles Karel Bouley's is four paragraphs...
One of the dangers in being a demagogue is that some of your own supporters those who take you literally can turn against you when you start letting your actions be influenced by realities, instead of following the logic of your ringing rhetoric. That is what seems to be happening to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other liberal Democrats in Congress.
Antiwar protesters in Washington and outside her home in San Francisco are denouncing Pelosi and other congressional Democrats for not cutting off the money to fight the war in Iraq. If the war in Iraq is such an unnecessary and futile expenditure of blood and treasure as Pelosi et al. have been saying, why not put an end to it? But to do that would mean taking responsibility for the consequences and those consequences would be disastrous and lasting. They would probably still be lasting when the 2008 elections come around.
The Democrats cannot risk that. They have taken over Congress by a very clever and very disciplined strategy of constantly criticizing the Republicans, without taking the risk of presenting an alternative for whose results they can be held responsible. There is no sign that they want to change that politically winning strategy now. Their non-binding resolutions against the war are a perfect expression of that strategy. These resolutions put them on record as being against the war without taking the responsibility for ending it.
Unfortunately for the congressional Democrats, their left-wing supporters have taken the antiwar rhetoric of Pelosi, Murtha, et al., at face value and consider it a betrayal that they talk the talk but will not walk the walk.
It has been painfully clear that Speaker Pelosi was serious only about scoring political points. Her big grin when she won a narrow vote for a non-binding resolution was grotesque against the background of a life-and-death issue. You don't grin over a political ploy that you have pulled when men's lives are at stake.
It is not just congressional politicians who are so preoccupied with scoring points against the administration that they show no sign of concern for what the actual consequences of their words or actions will be for troops in the field, nations in the Middle East, or the global war on terror. Much of the media is similarly caught up in scoring points on Iraq. For example, the cover of the March 18th issue of the New York Times magazine section featured a story about women in the military who said that they had been raped in Iraq. A week later, they had to print a correction, after discovering that one of these women had not even been to Iraq. But any unsubstantiated charge against the American military rates headline coverage, even if there is no space for anything positive in Iraq.
There is apparently no space even to assess the extent to which the increase of American troop strength in Iraq has reduced the deaths of our troops from terrorist attacks. Nor is there apparently much space to discuss the implications of the return of Iraqis from the less violent provinces to their homes in Baghdad. Indeed, there has apparently never been any space to discuss the fact that most provinces in Iraq have not had the levels of violence featured day in and day out in the media.
The demagoguery of the Democrats has already put them in the position where a successful conclusion of the Iraq war before the 2008 elections can be a political disaster for them. If the recent increase in the number of troops in Iraq, and their freer hand in dealing with the terrorists there, reduces the level of violence enough to stabilize Iraq enough for American troops to start coming home before the 2008 elections, the Democrats will have lost their gamble.
Only an American defeat in Iraq can ensure the Democrats' political victory next year. Their only strategy is to sabotage the chances for a military victory in Iraq without being held responsible for a defeat. That is the corner that they have painted themselves into with their demagoguery that even their own supporters see through.
#1
How curious it is to see the democrats slowly back away from demanding a complete troop withdrawal. Much more so when such a thing would seem to suit their own purposes in an ideal fashion.
Far less likely would be for them to request a partial withdrawal that would allow Shiite and Sunni factions to escalate their incessant bloodletting for all to see. Even though a residual troop presence would provide immeasurable assistance in combating terrorism. Absent any American intervention, Iraq's Muslim population could begin decimating themselves without a single American finger being lifted.
While this would certainly serve the ends of a Global War on Terrorism, the democrats cannot stomach the possibility of having to admit that, regardless of our presence in Iraq, the internecine slaughter there would continue unabated.
The democratic party's embrace of Islam is so thorough and ongoing that there is no way for them to understand how important it is to let Muslims go about killing each other with grim determination so that the West can enjoy a modicum of increased security.
Increased security? Perish the thought! Not that democrats are unwilling to seek better security for America and its citizens. It's just that they simply cannot stand the idea of better security coming at any cost to precious Muslim lives, no matter how murderous those given individuals might be.
This is what shall, someday, make the democrats party to one thing alone: Namely, a party to treason.
#2
For several years now the Democrats' entire political strategy has consisted of deriding the Bush administration for entering into a war of choice to oust the Iraqi dictator (a course of action which the Dems originally approved).
The American people primarily empowered the Democrats out of dissatisfaction with our demonstrated inability to cripple the insurgents' capability to conduct violent attacks, but I believe the Democrats have misread the nature of whatever mandate they may have received from the election results.
Although it is reasonable for Congress to hold the president's feet to the fire in his overseeing the stabilization of Iraq within a reasonable timeframe, I have seen no evidence that the public (other than the Dems' radical antiwar base) demands an "evacuation at any cost" strategy which disregards the future condition of Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. The majority of Americans would welcome the change in counterinsurgency strategy AS IT STARTS TO SHOW PROGRESS.
Politically this spells disaster for the Democrats, who have now committed themselves to ensuring the failure which they have for so long decribed as inevitable.
#3
They don't misread it. They realize the demented wing of the Democratic party is out to lunch. They are hoping they can fleece them of more money and favorable media attention while not turning off the American Public.
Expect them to go back to the nutroots saying "Oh Baby! I'm trying just as hard as I can! It's those terrible Republicans. Give me more money and we'll fix things in 2008!"
I don't know if this will work, but I'm sure if they get in the White House they'll do the same things that Bush is doing now (except that the NY Times will think it's OK).
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
03/28/2007 14:24 Comments ||
Top||
Note: Earlier this month, six publicity-seeking imams filed a federal lawsuit against US Airways and the Metropolitan Airports Commission in Minneapolis/St. Paul. The Muslim clerics were removed from their flight last November and questioned for several hours after their suspicious behavior alarmed both passengers and crew members. Minneapolis Star Tribune columnist Katherine Kersten reported last week that the imams, advised by the grievance-mongers at the Council on American-Islamic Relations, also plan to sue "John Does" innocent bystanders who alerted the authorities about their security concerns. Rep. Steve Pearce, R-N.M., has introduced legislation to protect John Does who report suspicious behavior from legal liability. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; talk show host Michael Reagan; Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, who heads the American Islamic Forum for Democracy; and Minnesota lawyer Gerry Nolting have all stepped forward to offer free representation to the imams' targets.
Dear Muslim Terrorist Plotter/Planner/Funder/Enabler/Apologist,
You do not know me. But I am on the lookout for you. You are my enemy. And I am yours.
I am John Doe.
I am traveling on your plane. I am riding on your train. I am at your bus stop. I am on your street. I am in your subway car. I am on your lift.
I am your neighbor. I am your customer. I am your classmate. I am your boss.
I am John Doe.
I will never forget the example of the passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 who refused to sit back on 9/11 and let themselves be murdered in the name of Islam without a fight.
I will never forget the passengers and crew members who tackled al Qaeda shoe-bomber Richard Reid on American Airlines Flight 63 before he had a chance to blow up the plane over the Atlantic Ocean.
I will never forget the alertness of actor James Woods, who notified a stewardess that several Arab men sitting in his first-class cabin on an August 2001 flight were behaving strangely. The men turned out to be 9/11 hijackers on a test run.
I will act when homeland security officials ask me to "report suspicious activity."
I will embrace my local police department's admonition: "If you see something, say something."
I am John Doe.
I will protest your Jew-hating, America-bashing "scholars."
I will petition against your hate-mongering mosque leaders.
I will raise my voice against your subjugation of women and religious minorities.
I will challenge your attempts to indoctrinate my children in our schools.
I will combat your violent propaganda on the Internet.
I am John Doe.
I will support law enforcement initiatives to spy on your operatives, cut off your funding and disrupt your murderous conspiracies.
I will oppose all attempts to undermine our borders and immigration laws.
I will resist the imposition of sharia principles and sharia law in my taxi cab, my restaurant, my community pool, the halls of Congress, our national monuments, the radio and television airwaves, and all public spaces.
I will not be censored in the name of tolerance.
I will not be cowed by your Beltway lobbying groups in moderates' clothing. I will not cringe when you shriek about "profiling" or "Islamophobia."
I will put my family's safety above sensitivity. I will put my country above multiculturalism.
I will not submit to your will. I will not be intimidated.
I am John Doe.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/28/2007 10:11 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
March 28, 2007
House Republicans yesterday surprised Democrats with a procedural vote to protect public-transportation passengers from being sued if they report suspicious activity -- the first step by lawmakers to protect "John Doe" airline travelers already targeted in such a lawsuit.
After a heated debate and calls for order, the motion to recommit the Democrats' Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007 back to committee with instructions to add the protective language passed on a vote of 304-121.
All 121 of the "no" votes were cast by Democrats, while 199 Republicans and 105 Democrats voted in favor.
#2
It is just a matter of time before the bad guys start making complaints about someone else on an airline to clog the system with false complaints.
If their identities are protected there is nothing stopping them from costing tons of money and delays.
I hope the airlines see it coming and give their pilots and stewardesses some backup when shriners are bing reported for wearing funny hats and acting different on their way to a convention.
This is a step in the right direction. If it can be abused, it will be, but that does not make it wrong and does not prevent anyone from following along these relatively simple rules of conduct.
#5
Give it a rest? Give me a break. I never said it was a move in the wrong direction or that it's the wrong move, I said it's likely to be abused, something you agree with so perhaps you should rest up a little yourself..
It is just a matter of time before the bad guys start making complaints about someone else on an airline to clog the system with false complaints.
If their identities are protected there is nothing stopping them from costing tons of money and delays.
I hope the airlines see it coming and give their pilots and stewardesses some backup when shriners are bing reported for wearing funny hats and acting different on their way to a convention.
Every line of which, while not specifically stating, insinuates that the legislation will be used to subvert, not substantiate "whistle-blowing" by the public.
I merely point out that you need to step up and do what you believe to be right instead of whining about how something will be used wrongly.
There are always "wrong" ways to defend our liberty.
#7
Gromgoru - lol! John Doe don't just own a gun (or guns) - he knows how to use it. And don't forget Jane - she weilds a mean high heel, killer ballpoint pen and mace on her keychain. And there is a good chance that she knows how to use that gun too.
#9
Greg - RJ is generally a clear-thinking and talking dude - I bet he meant something different than your take on it - cut him some slack. I tend to be "unclear" at times too.
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/28/2007 19:55 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Euros desire INTEGRATION, ergo dev a CONFEDERATIST EU Consitution where the EU FEDERAL level of governance is subordinate to the State levels/State Nationalism - IOW, anti-integration + anti-Federalism.
Heres a brief on how I became witness to this war:
I grew up in Florida. Joined the army for college money, made it into Special Forces and the same week I graduated from Special Forces selection, was accused of murder after a fistfight in a Maryland nightclub. Those charges were eventually dropped. Special Forces gave me shelter, taught me to speak German fluently and tried to teach me Polish. Among other topics, we studied insurgency and counterinsurgency. I was on two A-teams. We trained to infiltrate extremely deep behind enemy lines, past the point where helicopters could extract us. The exfiltration plan included, Hope to see you again, but nobodys coming to get you. I learned something about my country. We were not the wimps many people seemed to think; we were deadly serious about going into someones backyard when needed.
Money was never my master, but a deep-seated curiosity and a desire to explore were strong. After the Army, off to college, worked security for Michael Jackson for a brief period, started a business in Poland, among other things, and I wrote a book called Danger Close.
When jets crashed into American buildings and soil on September 11, 2001, few knew the name Osama bin Laden. But as the second jet crushed into the second tower at the World Trade Center, I knew bin Laden was the culprit, and that Taliban were harboring him in Afghanistan. Despite the horror that day, I was relieved. If al Qaeda had possessed deployable weapons of mass destruction, atomic or otherwise, they would have used them. . . .
One year after the Iraq ground war had begun, I was in Massachusetts studying cults and working on an unrelated book project, when Master Sergeant Richard L. Ferguson died in a humvee rollover on March 30th, 2004 while conducting combat operations in Samarra, Iraq. Fergy was a fixture in the 10th Special Forces Group, and I had lunch with him in Colorado shortly before he went to war this time. Now he was gone.
I still remember how freezing cold it was in Massachusetts the next day when I took a break from writing to watch the midday news. Although David Petraeus and his 101st Airborne had performed brilliantly in Mosul and Nineveh Province, other areas of Iraq suffered less facile stewardship. Fallujah, for instance, which began as Coalition-friendly, had been pushed to a snapping point, largely by us. On the television, below a breaking news banner, flashed a mob of Iraqis dancing and chanting as they mutilated four American contractors.
Emails flooded my inbox. One of the murdered contractors was Scott Helvenston, an ex-Navy SEAL and super-athlete. Wed gone to high school together in Florida. . . .
From Colorado I flew to Florida for Scotts memorial, where media from as far away as Japan had besieged his moms home and camped out front, using the long lenses to try to get photos of the family through the blinds. Media types stalked Scotts friends, including a friend we shared, Eddy Twyford. Eddy took me to the memorial and funeral, blocking the relentless swarm of media buzzing their politically loaded questions. Some had taken to calling Scott a mercenary; extreme baiting even for tabloid programs.
National discourse grew even more aggressively polarized. To someone with my political tin ear, it all required too much translation. There seemed to be little emphasis on honest talk. But even with the pitch so high and intense, I heard the same thing at Scotts funeral from the military people in attendance there: Were not getting the full picture of whats happening in Iraq from the media, you should go, youre a writer. . . .
Go read the whole thing.
Posted by: Mike ||
03/28/2007 08:08 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yon's excellent ... but WE pushed Fallujah to a breaking point? Didn't the first incident - an engineered classic in which US forces were fired on out of a crowd to ensure an impossible situation for us - happen within a WEEK of our arrival? Unless I've got my facts wrong, that little item smells very off-base ....
#2
V: Yon's excellent ... but WE pushed Fallujah to a breaking point?
He's trotting out the standard "we can win anyone over to our side" snake eater (Special Forces) nonsense. The real problem in Iraq is civilians who shield guerrillas, either by feeding and housing them, or thronging around them as they flee. An Israeli-style program of demolishing the homes of guerrilla supporters could diminish their base of civilian support. Firing into crowds that are actively shielding guerrillas would reduce the number of people willing to do this. But neither of these things are going to happen. Because the lives of Iraqi civilians are more important than those of American GI's.
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.
