help win the War on Terror

With Veterans’ Day just around the corner, I am reminded that I am thankful for those who have kept my family and friends free.

A quote from Calvin Coolidge says it clearly “The nation which forgets its defenders will be itself forgotten.”

A veteran is someone who, at one point in his or her life wrote a blank check made payable to ‘The United States of America ’ for an amount of ‘up to and including my life.’ That is Honor, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it.

To all of you who have served this country, thank you for your services and sacrifices.

In light of recent attempted attacks please be diligent about reporting suspicious activity. It has become evident that fighting this war on terror will take much more than an army. It will take each one of us doing our part to ensure the safety of our communities.

Such was the case of the most most recent foiled attack in London. Thankfully the EMT crews responding to an incident at a London nightclub noticed the smoking Mercedes and reported it! Unfortunately, it seems that the Iraq-style tactic of vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices has been brought to Britain.

Please pray for (or keep in your thoughts) the safety of my husband Mark, our family and friends, and all Londoners in general.

by showing the truth of the mass murder by our goverment on 9/11. If we can get the people to rise out of fear of the goverment, and to learn the tructh behind 9/11, we will have won the war on terror

Forty-one years after repeatedly leading a two-helicopter team into a region of Vietnam dubbed the “Valley of Death,” retired Army helicopter pilot Bruce Crandall received the Medal of Honor on Monday at a White House ceremony.

Crandall, 74, might have been eligible to receive the award — the nation’s highest military medal — years earlier. But he withdrew his name from consideration in the 1990s because he worried his quest for the medal might take precedence over that of his wingman and friend, Ed Freeman.

“If only one of them were to receive the Medal of Honor, he wanted it to be his wingman,” President Bush said in the East Room before placing the blue-ribboned medal around Crandall’s neck. “Today the story comes to its rightful conclusion: Bruce Crandall receives the honor he always deserved.”

Freeman received his medal in a 2001 ceremony at the White House. Crandall, of Manchester, Wash., attended the event. Freeman, 79, couldn’t attend Crandall’s ceremony because his flight from his hometown in Boise was snowed in.

The two have been friends since basic training. On Nov. 14, 1965, they teamed up during a vicious battle later memorialized in a book and the Mel Gibson film We Were Soldiers.

On that day, about 450 American troops had landed in a remote area of Vietnam near the Cambodian border. They were unaware that their landing in the Ia Drang Valley was amid a major sanctuary for the North Vietnamese Army.

The Americans were surrounded by about 2,000 North Vietnamese soldiers and came under intense attack. Crandall and Freeman flew the injured out to a base and returned with troops and ammunition. They kept making trips back and forth even though they were being shot at by enemy fighters, sometimes only 30 yards away.

They flew through a cloud of smoke and a wave of bullets, Bush said. Ground commanders ordered a halt to the airlifts because of the danger, but Crandall kept going, and Freeman joined him.

“We knew that if we didn’t do it our guys would go down,” Crandall said in an interview last week.

The two men made 22 trips over 14 hours. Crandall switched helicopters three times after the aircraft were shot up.

The two men pulled more than 70 Americans out of the battle zone. The battalion lost 79 men, but the North Vietnamese were overcome.

“For the soldiers rescued, for the men who came home, for the children they had and the lives they made, America is in debt to Bruce Crandall,” Bush said. “It’s a debt our nation can never really fully repay, but today we recognize it as best

for the 5th time, I’m beginning to have serious doubts about the feasibility of this goal.

if our friends over at the UK used racial profiling during the investigations that led to today’s arrests… And if they did, should we be morally oppossed? Even if it saved lives?

NEW troops for the Surge

...my most recent entries. I put a lot of thought into them, and really don’t wish to see them buried. Why is that? Often, we hear of the tragic human price of this current conflict, which I cannot minimize in any manner. On the other hand, each conflict inevitably brings with it a price, such as it is. Anyhow, for those who wish to read them…my thoughts.

What would a domestic enemy be? ...it would be that person, who takes an active role, treasonously, against the Constitution.

To be honest, and I quote Heinlein here, the determination of who an enemy is, isn’t my decision. That’s for heads who are older and wiser than I. The military is an extension of a nation’s foreign policy. Can I have an opinion? Sure, I just don’t have the authority to necessarily ACT on it. The Officer Corps is traditionally apolitical as a profession, a small price to pay for the priviledge of serving. Again, I have an opinion, but that doesn’t count for much – I don’t decide where and when to apply force, just the how, and really only on an operational and tactical level.

Before this goes further, and I’ll admit I’m leery of the response, “don’t you think Bush is doing that with troops in Iraq,” I think I should clarify my point of view a little more.

We have had, since 2002, which is when OIF kicked off, just a hair over 3000 US deaths in Iraq. That’s over a period of FIVE years. Given the fact that troops rotate in and out on 12 month cycles (far less for the USAF), and assuming we have 150K troops there at any given time, I’m calculating roughly 750K troops have cycled through the entire theater of operations. Take out 25% for slop and replacement (some have been more than once) and we’re down to 563K. 3/563,000 is far, far less than 1%. More numbers: in 1999, 41,611 Americans lost their lives to automobile accidents on domestic highways. In 2001, it was 42,166. 3K over five years, 42K in one year, yet oddly enough, we don’t shut down the Interstate system. I know for a fact we’re doing good things for the Iraqi people, as I’ve heard too many eyewitness stories about it that don’t make headlines here.

Now, a domestic enemy – a traitor. Anyone who takes an active role in destroying the Constitution.

The current passport I hold is, I’m fairly certain, my fourth issued. #3 was issued at the Berlin Consulate when my parents lived there the second time, #2 was the official brown passport when parents were stationed there, teaching, in the 80s, and the first was the tourist version of #2. :) I totally understand the feeling of being more a citizen of the world, rather than just a US citizen. When I returned from my senior year in college abroad, returning to an “american” way of life was not easy. It still isn’t.

In terms of the awful toll this conflict has brought, I am of two minds – one being a circumstance of my profession, which is a choice. I chose the profession of arms, which is what it is. I don’t see anything dishonorable with the profession, realizing that it’s “need” is a function of the human condition, such as it is.

The Officer mindset does tend to express the price of the conflict in terms of US lives, it’s how we think and fight. What I tend not to mention is the price the families pay, while fathers, brothers, sons, mothers, daughters and sisters are off in foreign lands. I saw friends and family (my twin returned from his tour with the Army National Guard in Mosul in Dec 05) go to Iraq and Afghanistan and return. The whole time, I have seen the price paid by families torn asunder – some weather the separation, some do not, which is nothing short of tragic.

Personally, I’d rather not go, and rather not be fighting. Honestly, I didn’t choose this profession because I like the destruction it causes. I know none of my brother Officers would have this war going on either, given the choice. We are the ones who must go. I know very few Soldiers who want to go fight. We are all volunteers, and the fighting comes with the profession of arms.

The cost of this entire conflict has been awful in human terms on both sides. Clash of ideas, clash of religions, clash of cultures, clash of civilizations, call it what you will. I know the price has been steep for all involved, regardless of nationality, race or religion.

“The war on terrorism is a war on ideas….and when we fight fire with fire…we just get a lot of ashes and destruction…I would like to see us figure out how to distinguish the fire…

It seems you would too. Thanks for that, if I am understanding you correctly.”

There you all have it, in all its glory.

A further twist, since I seem to be on a roll today. I am an Army Officer, teaching Soldiers to become Officers. Therefore, I do an inordinate amount of thinking and pontificating about the very nature of the profession and its implications. Folks, keep in mind that most Army Officers today, in fact all, have a college degree, many hold one, if not two, Master’s degrees. Many also have a PhD or equivalent (I’m starting my EdD as soon as C&GS is done). Officers are not low-brow killers. Many of them fit in as easily in mudholes and firing ranges as they do at a black tie affair in any major city in the world. I have a friend who looked forward to his year in Afghanistan, as it would be an excellent opportunity to get some great poetry written.

Some of my fellow Officers support the cause of the conflict and some do not, it’s that simple. In all cases, we all go when ordered and do the best we can once there. One of the sacrifices we make for the Profession of Arms, is we abdicate, on some level, the right to choose. If I’m ordered to go to Iraq, that’s an order. I don’t have a choice in the matter, providing I want to remain in the service of my country.

Above all, please remember one thing, if nothing else. We serve our country. We don’t do it for the gore, the violence, or the “priviledge” to be away from loved ones for extended periods. We do it, ultimately, out of a love for country. We’re not psychotic, nor do we wish to inflict an inordinate amount of pain and suffering for the sake of inflicting it. Understand this, however: when it comes to protecting my family and my Soldiers, I will do whatever I must.

This is a transcript of a section of a Gingrich Speech in New
Hampshire.

NEWT GINGRICH: The third thing I want to talk about very briefly is the genuine danger of terrorism, in particular terrorists using weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass murder, nuclear and biological weapons. And I want to suggest to you that right now we should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it weren’t for the scale of threat.

Let me give you two examples. When the British this summer arrested people who were planning to blow up ten airliners in one day, they arrested a couple who were going to use their six month old baby in order to hide the bomb as baby milk.

Now, if I come to you tonight and say that there are people on the planet who hate you, and they are 15-25 year old males who are willing to die as long as they get to kill you, I’ve simply described the warrior culture which has been true historically for 6 or 7 thousand years.

But, if I come to you and say that there is a couple that hates you so much that they will kill their six month old baby in order to kill you, I am describing a level of ferocity, and a level of savagery beyond anything we have tried to deal with.

And, what is truly frightening about the British experience is they are arresting British citizens, born in Britain , speaking English, who went to British schools, live in British housing, and have good jobs.

This is a serious long term war, and it will inevitably lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country, that will lead us to learn how to close down every website that is dangerous, and it will lead us to a very severe approach to people who advocate the killing of Americans and advocate the use of nuclear or biological weapons.

And, my prediction to you is that either before we lose a city, or if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us.

This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the first amendment, but I think that the national security threat of losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several million Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to proactively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement.

And, I further think that we should propose a Geneva convention for fighting terrorism which makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are in fact subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength that it is truly horrendous.

This is a sober topic, but I think it is a topic we need a national dialogue about, and we need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait until actually we literary lose a city which could literally happen within the next decade if we are unfortunate.

This is finally said in a way that even the most “head in the sand” person can understand it. Please God, help us.

This is a very sober description of the Islamic terrorist threat we are faced with. We are NOW at war with a culture that wants, not to take over our land, but to KILL us.

Wow, holy Baghdad! America’s antiwar paper of record, the New York Times has suddenly found “military experts” who are against cutting and running in Iraq! The same experts who were huge critics of the war before the election.

General Anthony Zinni, who had demanded Rumsfeld step down, now tells The Times that troop withdrawals would likely accelerate a civil war in Iraq rather than stop it. Sounds like Bush; sounds like Rummy.

As part of a broader effort to stabilize Iraq, Zinni wants more troops so we can “regain momentum,” create gigs, foster political reconciliation, and allow Iraqi security forces to gain a firm foothold.

John Batiste, another retired general who wanted Rumsfeld’s scalp, calls Congressional proposals for troop withdrawals “terribly naïve.” That would be Congressional Democrats’ proposals, by the way. Batiste sounds like Bush. And Rummy.

Kenneth Pollack, former Clinton NSA guy, argues that troop reductions would backfire. “If we start pulling out troops and the violence gets worse and the control of the militias increases and people become confirmed in their suspicion that the [US] is not going to be there to prevent civil war, they are to going to start making decisions today to prepare for the eventuality of civil war tomorrow…That is how civil wars start.”

My head is swimming. Now that the Democrats have regained power, it’s about-face time? Suddenly, the Times has discovered that cut-and-run is a bad option? Suddenly, winning is important? To the New York Times?