« July 2006 | Main | September 2006 »
Yesterday I saw a big SUV with a Massachusetts license plate on it, I kid you not. I don't know if it was a joke, or if there really was someone from Massachusetts in the car. Personally, I'd pick a New Hampshire plate (Live Free of Die) to put on my car, if I was going to put any US plate on a US vehicle and drive around Baghdad.
I got another email, well intentioned I'm sure, from some Lefty who tried to explain what was really happening in the world today, so I'd understand how wrong I am. Look, I am perfectly fine with the idea that two smart people can hold completely divergent opinions on what the facts are underpinning virtually any part of the world as it exists today. But I don't need things explained to me as if I'm a moron. I'm not an idiot simply because I chose to be a soldier. I know, perfectly well, every single argument you can come up with as to why Bush is a greater threat to US interests than islamic fascism. I really do. I just don't believe it; but I do know why some very smart people believe it, and I don't think they are dumb because of it.
To Lefties only: I know it's a major foundation of your thinking that soldiers are by and large, dumb. And that we only joined the services because we had no other avenues open to our dumb, pathetic lives. I've heard that meme enough over the years, from Conyers, Clinton, and other Lefties who really should have known better, but probably don't since they don't really know anyone in the military. Here's news for you. I hunt other human beings for work. I have done this for over 21 years. My job is more intellectually challenging than any other job I know. If a rocket scientist gets a portion of his job wrong, the end result is likely to be no worse than some laughing at the peer review prior to publishing. If I get a portion of my job wrong, someone with an AK-47, or an RPG, or an IED, gets to kill me. Which job do you think is more intellectually challenging? Send me your toughest, mentally challenging day, and I'll let you know if it comes close to the work our soldiers, many of them teenage privates, do on a daily basis getting ready to go outside the wire. Really, I mean it. You can believe we soldiers are wrongheaded because of the opinions we hold, or the job we do, or for any number of reasons. But I can guarantee you this, my soldiers have to outhink a very clever and resourceful enemy every single day, just to live to see the next day. They are not stupid. We are not stupid. We understand things that you understand about life because we have lived a life very much like yours; in my instance almost 30 years of such a life. I was a good son, an average student in public school, an honor student in university, a conscientious worker who worked at normal jobs. I am a good friend to my many friends outside the military; I'm a good father and a good husband. Out of uniform, I'd probably look and act like any neighbor you've lived beside. Most of us soldiers would. However, we may understand some things that you don't simply because we've spent a portion of our lives on a job where we've had to outhink, outshoot, and outmaneuver other human beings just to survive and come home to our families.
So send me a description of the toughest thing you've had to do in your job, Lefty. Please. Then tell me again how it is that because I am a soldier, and your job is not as a soldier, you assume I am intellectually inferior to you. Go ahead. I'd like a good laugh.
This fall, really. It's all fun and games to stand on the sideline and complain about what a mess Bush has made of the war in Iraq. With Congress back in the hands of the Democrats, the fun and games stop. They have an obligation..nay, a Constitutional duty, to weigh in on the course of the war in Iraq, something they have been incapable of doing in a serious way for the last three years. And they will have to weigh in on the course of the war on terror, something that they have been incapable of doing in a serious way for five years now. I want to hear how they plan on making the US safer; right now all I hear is Chamberlainesque mutterings about how Bush is making the bad guys more angry, and this is making the US more unsafe. How that cannot be viewed as a historically proven loser strategy is beyond me, but it seems that a majority of the American public now hold that to be the truth. I'd like to see how the Dems will make that into a foreign policy that works, that keeps us safer.
I am back in Kuwait, awaiting a C-130 ride to Baghdad. 
The two weeks I had with my family was great, topping it off was the delivery of my son, Joshua, in the front seat of our Nissan Pathfinder, about 15 minutes out from the hospital on Fort Carson. Just me, my wife, and Joshua, there on the side of the road. Great story, but I never want to do that again. As a former EMT, I knew what to do, but when it's your wife, and your son, there's a lot more nervousness. Anyway, both were fine within minutes of the delivery, and the 911 operator who tried to help, was a bit too late with the advice, as baby was in Mom's arms by the time I could make the call. I do want to thank the Colorado Springs Fire Department (first to arrive) Colorado Springs Police (next to arrive) and the Ambulance Service (last, but still no more than maybe 4 or 5 minutes time, total, from 911 call to arrival) for their help. In the end, baby and Mom only needed some O2, a blanket, and a safer ride to the hospital than what I could provide after the birth, shaking as I was.
So, for the next few months, I'll be back in good ol' Baghdad. I haven't been watching the news or reading any papers, I sure hope that things have been going okay. I guess I'll find out.
Lots of people who don't know shit about the military seem to be surprised by this, although not a single one can say why this is a bad idea. Andrew Sullivan seems to be as surprised as the rest of the Lefties, and also void of reasons as to why he's showing any interest in this at all. He would, however, be the last Lefty to acknowledge that older, more mature soldiers could be a huge benefit to the military as we wrestle with "nation-building". He thinks it's wrong to use sexual orientation as a discriminator, but he's okay with using age. How come? We don't know, he's just registering his complaint. Oh that's right. It happened under Rumsfeld, so it's gotta be wrong.
So, what is it? Is it the physical requirements? I graduated Air Assault School when I was 39 years old. Our class had plenty of 19 and 20 year olds drop out because they couldn't hang. So I'm not really sure what the Lefties are complaining about, except that that is what Lefties do. Complain. So should we add "ageism" to the growing list of open Lefty prejudices?
My wife met up with some good friends of mine that I haven't seen since shortly after high school. They moved away to Colorado Springs, and I moved away to other places, and that was that. My wife said that they showed her a lot of pictures of us back then (when my hair was long enough to put into a ponytail that still reached my shoulders), and told her all sorts of stories of when we were younger. I'm pretty sure that their stories did not align too well with what I've told my wife about my near-perfect childhood.
Seems like when I get home I may have some 'splainin to do!
What with all the findings of arabic script spelling out "Allah" lately (you know, the fish, the flood, the turnip), I figured I'd ask my cultural advisors to look at the now infamous photoshopped smoke from Reuters.
Any yup, just as I thought, it's another message from Allah, apparently.
Although he said it is a bit tough to see, and you have to turn the picture at a 90 degree angle, and look at it in a mirror, it does spell out a message. According to him, it translates as: "From Allah to the dirty rotten monkey sons of pig Jews. You will never defeat the glorious and righteous army that is ready to shake the earth under your feet and rid the world of your jewish pig-like monkey scum. Be prepared to....what's that noise? What the hell is a JDAMs? No, really, they have that ability? OH MY G..."
And it just ends there.
Though it may seem like it at times, the diplomatic corps and the armed forces are not at opposite ends of the national interests spectrum. We should be on the same side, working towards the same goals, albeit with different tools. The diplomatic corps would be little more than a bunch of puffed up blowhards without the armed forces watching their perimeter, literally (in the case of the USMC embassy guards) and figuratively. And the armed forces would be mired in endless wars without the diplomatic corps working towards solutions to worldly problems without resorting to force, and setting the stage for peace when force is necessary.
It is a bit disturbing to me, therefore, to find a resignation letter so obviously flawed in logic as the one submitted by COL (USAR-ret) Mary Ann Wright, at the time Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. embassy in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. The resignation, dated 19 March, 2003 is a great example of why the folks at Foggy Bottom appear to be unable to keep up their end of the balancing act between the diplomatic corps and the armed forces as they apply to US interests. She writes in her resignation the normal BDS pablum of “the Administration's policies are making the world a more dangerous, not a safer, place” and “I feel obligated morally and professionally to set out my very deep and firm concerns on these policies and to resign from government service as I cannot defend or implement them.” All well and good, as anyone with any character should, in fact, be willing to resign their taxpayer supported position when they can no longer carry out the mission given them by their duly elected civilian leadership (military included). However, it becomes apparent later in her resignation letter, as she feebly tries to explain her reasons for being unable to “defend or implement” the policies of the duly elected president, that she never really should have been entrusted with that duty in the first place. She states that she “believe(s) we should not use US military force without UNSC agreement to ensure compliance.” With this statement, Ms. Wright is confirming that she feels more duty-bound to the United Nations, and their wishes, than she does to the wishes of the President of the United States. As head of the Executive Branch, he is her boss. There are a few layers in between, but he has every right to tell the State Department what their priorities and policies should be. The people of the United States elected President Bush to set our foreign policy, they did not elect Kofi Anan. In fact, not one of the members of the United Nations, Ambassador Bolton included, was elected to the United Nations by the people of the United States. There is no mechanism whatsoever for the will of the citizens of the United States to be reflected in the actions or policies of the United Nations. None whatsoever. And yet, Ms. Wright feels that US military force should not be used at the direction of the US President, but instead should be used only under the direction of the United Nations Security Council. For someone who seems worried about the US Constitution, she certainly has a warped idea of who the Constitution gives the power of Commander in Chief to, and who the Constitution says is in charge of foreign policy (here's a hint, it's not going to be anyone in the UN, ever).
There are 15 members on the Security Council. Only one of those members is even casually responsible for representing the American public. The others can, and will, (and sometimes should) vote as they see best for their country, and not what is best for the US. We should expect nothing different. This has apparently slipped by Ms. Wright; that there might be a reason that UNSC agreements will never be forthcoming and that we have to act militarily in their absence. Clearly she has divided loyalties, and quite frankly, it scares the hell out of me that a senior member of the State Department can’t readily recall who it is that she works for. She also seems to believe the myth that most of the world supported us shortly after 9-11, a myth which I personally don’t believe, but can understand why some people would, especially people like State Department employees who believe that the whole world is just a heartbeat away from declaring universal peace (and harmony). “Countries of the world supported America's action in Afghanistan as a response to the September 11 Al Qaida attacks on America.” is how she puts it in her letter, choosing to ignore the hundreds of thousands of people who protested in EU nations against US action in Afghanistan. She is mistaking as sympathy something far less supportive, and much more odious. The Europeans were willing to “support” us as long as they were also allowed to help us understand “why they hate us.” Once we understood that, they were willing to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with us as we pay penance, through the UN of course, to the muslims for their hatred of us. I guess I should not be surprised that a senior member of the State Department thinks that would constitute an acceptable way forward in the war on terror. But belief in myths is a dangerous thing in this dangerous world, and has no place in the hard-nosed world of diplomacy.
I will commend Ms. Wright for resigning from her position when she could not carry out her appointed duties. I applaud her sense of honor, even if she chose to have a very public resignation (I’m thinking that she would not have turned down a just as public re-instatement to a higher grade back into State at the beginning of the Kerry presidency), the antithesis of diplomacy. But I’m appalled at her completely flawed reasoning, and dismayed that a public servant could reach such a high grade level and still not understand what the term “service to the nation” means. If the UN interests are the same as US interests (I think that everyone will agree that they rarely are), then you use that fact to embellish and strengthen the US position. When the two diverge, US State Department officials should serve only the US.
I'm not sure what part of "Death to America" the Lefties in America don't understand. Maybe they think that it's some cute but meaningless phrase, like the ones they chant. But when supporters of Hezbollah chant "Death to America," they mean, literally, death to Americans. Their propensity to bring death to civilian targets is well known, and well documented, so I'm not sure how stupid one would have to be to think that the chants are just something done to get the attention of the world press in order to move on to some other, real, complaint. Hezbollah, given the chance, would kill every man, woman, and child in America. Be they Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jew, or Lefty. Every. Single. One. Of. Us. As violently as possible.
So how morally depraved does one have to be to openly support a group of terrorists that would turn around and behead you on video; but only after they had made you watch as they slaughtered your children? You have to be irreversibly depraved. Kofi Anan kind of depraved. Cindy Sheehan kind of depraved. Firedoglake kind of depraved. Krazy Kos Kids kind of depraved. When these people ask for your vote in the fall, remember that they are willing to support and defend someone who would stab them in the neck before they could even get out "Sahlahm Allehkum".
Maybe it's not depravity, maybe it's stupidity. Either way, it's dangerous to you and me.
Recent Comments