Another Post From My Son

(Ed. Note: My son sent me this commentary on an article he read in USA Today. It gives a soldier's eye view of the article. Regular readers know he is in the Army Reserve and has completed two tours of duty in Iraq.)

Greetings, fellow crab fans. I have returned to give you all a piece of my mind about a subject very near to my heart.

First, an apology.  I've been conspicuously absent from this site for some time now, due to a combination of personal shakeups in my life and a budding career. I won't promise to do better, because I'm not sure I can, but when something catches my eye I'll do my best to let you know about it.

I passed a newspaper dispenser today and found an article on the front page that I could not ignore. I dug three quarters out of my pocket and started reading. When I got home I managed to find it online as well and below is the link for your discretionary perusal.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2007-11-06-eod_N.htm

The article is entitled, "Commanders pushed to make bomb disposal choices." In summary, it describes  a situation most people probably don't even know exists: the issue of whether to dismantle and examine or simply destroy IEDs in Iraq. First, allow me outline for you how this has worked in the past. Engineers in "sweep teams" patrol the roads of Iraq at a low speed, attempting to spot IEDs before the convoys behind them run into them. Upon finding and IED, the engineers call in the Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) teams to dismantle
and/or destroy the IEDs (I apologize for the acronym overload).

Seems like a good system, until you take into account the fact that it can take anywhere from a half hour to several hours for EOD to show up on the scene. Once they do arrive, it can take several more hours for them to take the IED apart and clear the route for travel. This is where the convoys come in.

Road travel in Iraq is strictly regulated. Once a route is made "red," i.e. unable to be traveled upon, no more convoys are allowed to come out of forward operating bases until the status is updated to "amber." Routes go red as soon as an IED is found and reported on that path of travel. For the convoys still in camp, this means an irritating delay. If convoys have already left camp, though, they are stopped behind the sweep teams until the IED is cleared.

Imagine being stuck for hours, unable to let down your guard for fear of being attacked while you're sitting still behind an IED cordon. What if the sweep team missed secondary devices that are now sitting directly outside your doors? What if the IED that stopped traffic is really not an IED at all, but a hoax designed to lure the convoy into an ambush? From personal experience, I can tell you it feels as though a giant, day-glo target has been painted on your truck.

The article in question examines the possible loss of valuable intelligence gained by dismantling IEDs. It even directly likens the work done by EOD to that of the forensic technicians on the television show CSI. I'm not here to tell you anything different. Intelligence is gained, and sometimes it leads the military directly to the bomb-maker and every so often, a huge cache of IEDs and related components. Sometimes.

There are also times when the delays caused by an IED cordon result in an ambush by insurgent attackers, or 60mm mortars being walked in on convoys that have nowhere to go, completely boxed in between the IED and convoys that have come up behind them. I've personally seen as many as nine convoys stuck over a distance of several miles behind a cordon. I've been caught in a mortar attack like the situation I've previously described.
I was blessed never to have been stuck in an ambush, though several of my Fellow soldiers in the company I served in were, on more than one occasion.

There is also a great deal of posturing in the article, describing the "superiority" of EOD techs over engineers and how under-qualified said engineers are to detonate IEDs. Having seen some of their handiwork, I can tell you engineers are quite proficient at blowing things up safely. This argument is elitism, pure and simple; it's the same kind of elitism that flares up when the Army is chosen to take an objective over the Marines. It's the mindset that they are the baddest of the bad, and as such only they should be trusted to deal with the
threat. It's a mindset EOD needs to get over, on the double, for the good of the mission.

Oh, and of the article's statement that engineers have caused unnecessary harm to friendly forces in the past with their ordinance clearing, I'd like to see what EOD's record is, because I guarantee it's not perfect either. War is hell, and sometimes things go very wrong very fast, and the only way to stop that from happening is to stop going to war.

This new order puts commanders in the field in charge of the situation, as it always should have been. If the sweep team commander is sitting on an IED in an area where there is an imminent threat of attack, he or she should have the option of destroying that IED to facilitate movement on the roads without fear of  being reprimanded or removed from duty for making that call.

This is actually a very informative article, but it only really shows one side of the issue, a woefully common occurrence these days. Where is the testimony of the grunts on the ground who are depending on these decisions, which sometimes have dire ramifications? From my point of view, this order finally
sets right a wrong that's been pervasively affecting logistical operations for years.

Foreign Correspondence - Odds And Ends Edition

My son sent the following to me in an email to post today. I've been kind of busy battling computers (I'm winning, but just barely) so haven't really been posting at the usual insane pace. I'll let my son take over for a bit so you have something to read.

A few blurbs this week, just little things that have caught my attention:

First, thank you all so much for your words of support after my last post about the hatemongers on myspace.com. The petition that I mentioned had been going around apparently drew some attention: the group has been removed from the site. Nobody pointed it out, but it's been on my mind nonetheless that this could appear as censorship. I have very strong opinions about editing people's opinions, and though myspace is a public site that is open to everyone, my point was that it is also a place that caters to a lot of soldiers who are currently serving or have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a group like that does not make those soldiers or their families feel welcome on the site. Again, thank you for your support and your kind words.

Second, one of my soldiers sent an essay to me in an email that I thought was very poignant. The statistics are a bit dated (it has the deaths in Iraq at about 2200, so I figure it was written early last year), but it's a very intelligently written paper about the cost of the war in Iraq and how it compares to the cost, both monetarily and in terms of casualties, to World War II. Rather than post the text, I've found a link to the site. I urge you to read it and remember what losing that war would have cost the world.

http://www.youdontsay.org/Kraft.htm

Third, upon coming back "inside the wire" (the term we use when we return to base after a mission) I was flipping through the channels on AFN and found coverage of the tornado aftermath in central Florida. AFN, the American Forces Network, borrows its programming from dozens of American channels, getting feeds from CNN, FNC, MSNBC, occasionally C-Span. This particular day the feed was from CNN's Headline News, and I cannot even describe how disgusted I was. Every fifteen minutes they were playing the 911 calls of the victims. These were screams from frightened people who probably thought they had only seconds to live, pleas to send help, laments for missing family members. To the sensationalist, opportunistic meatheads in charge at CNN, these people are VICTIMS! Their desperation is not entertainment, and a simple look at the helicopter views tells all just how serious the situation is and was. Don Henley wrote the song "Dirty Laundry" in 1982; I'd be curious to see how much more caustic that song would be now, because in the intervening twenty-five years, the media has become infinitely more shameless and less respectful of their subject matter.

Next, the Superbowl! Longtime readers will know that I am a huge football fan, and though I root for one of the lowliest underdogs in the sport (the Buffalo Bills), I'll watch almost any game that's on. This was not a banner season for the Bills, but it was an improvement and things look like they're starting to click. However, another team I've had my eye on for a few years did make it to the big dance this year, the Indianapolis Colts. I sympathized with their plight of consecutive playoff berths without championships, and I think Peyton Manning is one of the best quarterbacks to play the game. Around him is a strong supporting cast of fantastic professional players, and despite a few early missteps, the Colts soundly thumped the Chicago Bears to be crowned World Champions. Though the game slowed down dramatically in the second half as both teams dealt with the monsoon conditions in Miami, it was still the most exciting Superbowl I've seen since Superbowl XXXIV. Lots of big plays and a strong team who'd been oh so close to the big game for eight consecutive seasons coming out on top makes for great entertainment. As an added bonus, the halftime show was conservative in comparison to recent halftime shows, where it seems a constant attempt to fill up the stage with as many marginally talented artists as possible. Lewis Black has done some extremely funny comedy bits regarding this practice. Prince may not be the first musical guest you'd expect at a halftime show, but he performed an excellent medley of his own hits as well as a few other artists'.

Finally, I wanted to comment a bit on the political climate, something I've been pretty tight-lipped about. My father has politically "outed" me recently, sharing some of my likes and dislikes about some of the candidates out there. In the 2000 race, I watched my favored candidate, John McCain, beaten out by presidential royalty, and I looked at George W. Bush unkindly in his first year in office. That said, I think he did a fine job in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. In the years since, my opinion of both those men has risen and fallen like the tides. I won't get into my current opinion of the President because I think it would be in poor taste considering my situation. Soldiers are not, in most cases, politicians, and we are happy to share our views with friends and family, but a soldier's duty is not to question his president; it's to follow his orders. Regarding Senator McCain, I think of him these days as a Republican John Kerry, a man who is like a boat that sails wherever the political winds carry him. Though I applaud the fact that despite popular sentiment he continues to support the war (see Chuck Hagel), his plan for troop increases is unrealistic at best. It would be worse than the current situation in that it would virtually guarantee longer tours and would stretch the military probably beyond the breaking point. Switching gears, I like Rudy Giuliani as a candidate for president. He's a man with strong convictions and courage (anyone who goes head to head with the mafia could be said to have "brass ones") who did a lot of good for a very troubled city. Of all the candidates running from both parties, he's the one I respect most by a very big margin.

Well, that's all I've got for this edition of Foreign Correspondence. As always, feedback is welcome in the comments section.

Grassroots Support

[My son sent me an email to be posted here. I will not link to the site he describes for rather obvious reasons.]

Hello fellow readers of the Boulevard.

Many apologies for the lack of posts in the past several months. I call Gaius all the time and say, "I'm thinking about writing about [insert news item]." He says to send him something, and invariably a mission comes up or a sporting event comes on television, etc. The point is, I've been awful at communication of my thoughts and opinions. While that may be a relief to some, many of you have been very supportive of my situation and for that you deserve my thanks. No promises of future content, but I'll try to work on it a bit more. If you have any questions you want answered please leave it in a comment. I'll tell you anything I can (some questions I can't answer because of security concerns).

My post today involves the myspace phenomenon. Whatever your feelings on the website that purports to be "a place for friends," I'll admit that it's a handy way to keep in touch with and rediscover old friends. Today a friend pointed out a group on myspace that is anything but friendly, a veritable slap in the face to the men and women of the U.S. armed forces. In a search, the name of this group shows up as "Hug the Troops," but upon clicking the link one finds a giant yellow ribbon with the words "F*** the Troops" on it. There follows several anti-U.S. videos borrowed from YouTube and a line of text accusing U.S. troops of being "responsible for the slaughterings [sic] around the world." I am sad to report that at the time of this writing, this group had 109 members.

By and large, the people of the United States have shown overwhelming support for the military, something those of us in uniform speak of often and with a touch of awe. After my first tour I visited the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, D.C. wearing my military garb. I felt like a celebrity, with so many requests for photos that my planned one-hour stay ended up closer to three. When I arrived at the airport with five fellow soldiers for R&R leave last summer, we were treated to a completely spontaneous standing ovation from a very crowded terminal. Soldiers need this kind of grassroots support in a conflict such as this one, where politics and negative media coverage have overshadowed the accomplishments and sacrifices made by those in the military. To those who support us, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. To those who wish failure and tragedy upon us, we have no use for you. As long as you are a U.S. citizen we will staunchly defend your right to say as you will as it is enumerated in the First Amendment. We will defend your right to burn the flag and trash the United States publicly. We ask only that you remember there are very few places in the world where such things are allowed.

Oh, there's one final part to this story. The item that brought this group to my attention was a bulletin posted calling for a petition to have this group removed from the site. First Amendment or not, such a message board should not exist in "a place for friends." I'm pleased to report to you that I added my own virtual signature to the list, which has nearly 800 names on it. Count it. An eight to one advantage.

Thank you for your support, America.

UPDATE: Thanks to Hugh Hewitt for the link. Visitors, please do take a look around while you're here. If you have not already signed the pledge, please consider doing so. More posts from my son are under the "Foreign Correspondence" category on the sidebar.

UPDATE: Thanks also to KT at the Scratching Post and the good doctor at the Jawa Report for the links. Thanks also to The Influence Peddler.

The Revolution Will Be Live Blogged

One of my long-time commenters here at Blue Crab Boulevard, Roland Hesz, happens to live in Budapest, Hungary. With the reports of demonstrations and whatnot, I offered to post something for him if he wanted to say anything about the situation over there. He just sent me the following in an email. In many ways a report like Roland's gives perspective that you will never get from a wire service story. So please take the time to read what Roland has written. I did not correct spelling or grammar as his errors are really quite few and it is more his true voice if I keep my hands off it. The formatting is a bit odd since it came out of email.

If you can, leave a comment for Roland, too. Just so he knows people have read what he wrote.

Budapest, 2006, Wednesday morning.

I just woke up, still rubbing my eyes when I hear my brother - "Hey, some
people taken over the TV".

Well, that's quite a start for a day, isn't it.
Of course, I went straight for the net - okay, straight for coffee, then for
the net - just see what happened.
Glancing at the headlines it was like some movie, but then, reading forward
it turned out that some 100-200 hard-core nationalists stormed the
headquarter of the public television, burning cars, clashing with the
police, a real riot, but, to be honest nothing on the level the headlines
suggested.
Of course it was a disturbing.
So tuesday went by furious reading of blogs, blogging and generally trying
to work while spending every minute reading news, and then, tuesday night
following the next day of this "event".

(Read more in the extended entry)

Read more »

Waxing Poetic About The Buffalo Bills

My son sends along a non-political item that he asked me to post. A remembrance of teams past, if you will. Enjoy.

It's something I was born into. Sundays in the fall were for watching Buffalo Bills games. I remember very clearly all of their Superbowl appearances, remember acutely the crushing sense of loss that accompanied them, the all-encompassing grief of seeing my heroes defeated, first by the honorable and great 1990 New York Giants, last by the quagmire of moral turpitude that is (and has been for a long, LONG time) the Dallas Cowboys. I admit, for years I gave up on them. After 1993, watching Buffalo play was just painful, especially in '96, when Jim Kelley, Thurman Thomas, Andre Reed, and Bruce Smith (among many others) were coming to the end of their careers, and not at all gracefully. Gone were Cornelius Bennet and Don Beebe, gone to Atlanta and Green Bay respectively, where the latter finally got his Superbowl ring. Gone was the great Bill Brooks, who stepped into Andre Reed's capacious shoes in 1995 as Jim Kelly's go-to guy, to retirement.  Crumbling was the house that Marv Levy built in Orchard Park, NY. Since his retirement at the end of the 1997 season, Buffalo fans have been constantly taunted with the promise of new greatness, only to be violently thrown from our seats by one idiotic decision after another within the program, screaming and sometimes crying.

They call the Dallas Cowboys of that era "The Dynasty," but ask anyone from western New York who grew up in the early 1990s who made up the dynasty, and you won't hear the names Emmet Smith or Troy Aikman uttered. You'll hear the names of the men listed above, along with dozens of others. Steve Tasker, Frank Reich, James Lofton, Pete Metzelaars, Phil Hansen, Steve Christie, and yes, dammit, Scott Norwood (you're still the best, Scott), just to name a few. Those were good days, simple days, when I was young and didn't care about salary caps, multi-million dollar paychecks, or who was taking performance-enhancing drugs. Days when I didn't know what a "rebuilding season" was. Maybe all of those things were there, but I didn't care. I liked Jim Kelly and Thurman Thomas and Andre Reed and Bill Brooks because they made touchdowns. I liked Cornelius Bennett and Bruce Smith and Phil Hansen because they made the other quarterbacks eat turf. To the rest of the world, they were almost heroes, but to me, four consecutive AFC championship rings and giving hope and the principles of perseverance and dedication to a generation of youngsters makes you all heroes.

So now I sit back, more than a decade later, catching what games I can on AFN (the American Forces Network) as I sit in a tiny trailer in Iraq, rooting for Indianapolis and Cincinnati and Chicago because I see sparks in those teams of what Buffalo used to be. However, as the song goes, the first cut is the deepest. When it comes to being lucky, they're cursed. When it comes to loving me, they're worst; but when it comes being loved the Bills are, and will always be, first.

Oh, and the other reason this season is disappointing: I don't care how damn good he is, Terrell Owens is a jackass. How ironic that Dallas picked him up…those two deserve each other.

An American Soldier’s Perspective On Israel

Some Perspective from my son, serving in Iraq.

Except for a few sideways references in the past couple of weeks, I've remained pretty quiet about the current situation in Lebanon. I figured it was time I put my two cents in.

I'm twenty-three years old, so I was a bit too young to remember or care about what happened the last time Hezbollah was feeling its oats. For me, in my cognizant lifetime, Israel has been a hotbed for suicide bombings, perpetrated by people whose actions have been guided by a twisted and evil interpretation of an otherwise normal religion. I don't remember the last time rockets were fired into Israel from Lebanon. I don't remember the bombing of the Marine barracks. However, I am a student of history, so when all this kicked off I started doing some research. And I started thinking.

I wonder what would happen in the United States if, say, Mexico began launching artillery rockets into Texas, if the images of destruction and death were coming not from Haifa, but from San Antonio? Would the left wing and the media be crying for moderation and peace talks? Would the world condemn us for taking the fight to them? Some would say that Israel is a contested territory, that hundreds of thousands of Muslims were forcibly removed from their homes, and for that reason, the analogy does not hold up. To those people I say you are wrong, because a large portion of Texas was once under the Mexican flag.

Since December 7, 1941, the world has known that the United States is a force to be reckoned with when it's attacked within its own borders. I think it's safe to say that that tradition would hold up, and the U.S. military would swiftly and violently punish those responsible. What do you expect the game plan would be? Precision airstrikes? Small incursions of infantry? Special Forces?

My point is this: Israel is a sovereign country. The Israelis have EVERY RIGHT to defend their own borders against foreign attackers. For decades they have endured the cowardly attacks of terrorists. They have turned the other cheek time and time again against these attacks. They have offered the olive branch many times and been spurned by radical Muslims. To accuse them of any wrongdoing because they have finally retaliated against these acts of aggression is pure lunacy.

Put yourself in their shoes, and realize if it was your country, your fellow citizens being murdered, you'd probably want something done about it.

UPDATE: Many thanks to the folks at Powerline for naming Blue Crab Boulevard Blog of the Week (or so) and thanks again for linking this post from my son. His other posts are under the 'Foreign Correspondence' tag on the sidebar should you be interested in reading them. Visitors, please do take a look around, and thanks for stopping by.

UPDATE: Commenters would do well to read the comment policy. Violating the rules gets you deleted, repeated attempts to post the same comment will get you an IP block as well.

Something Small / Something Big

My son, serving his second tour in Iraq, just sent in this post that he wanted me to share.

Last night I wrote an email to my father about the situation in the Middle East. For the past several months, Iran has been a toxic element in this area, feeding anti-American and anti-Semitic interests money, weapons, and support. I'm tired of it. I'm tired of the world at large tolerating dictators and terrorists. This is the fight of our lives, and if we don't stand united against this threat it will throw the entire planet into chaos. But I digress.

Shortly after I sent that email my fiancée got online and we talked for several hours, and when we parted digital ways for the night, I realized I felt better. So what changed? The Middle East didn't get any less dangerous or volatile in that span of time. It's still going to be several months before I rotate back to the world. Why did I suddenly feel better about the future and life in general? Simple. I spent an evening talking to the best thing in my life, and that put things in perspective. In this day and age of 24/7 news coverage, it's easy to get wrapped up in problems abroad: war, politics, and scandals it's easy to forget that there is beauty in this world. I think my father, in his way, tries to remind people of that with his humor and his photos.

Most of what I post on this site is some kind of doom and gloom. I'm not saying we should ignore the issues around us, but we all need to remember the good things that make life worthwhile. Good friends, good food, good times. Sunrise and sunset. A child's laughter. If everyone everywhere spent more energy on the good things in their lives, maybe the world wouldn't have so many problems.

Oh well. I'm off my soapbox now. Before I send this out though, let me share something with you: the topic of my conversation with my fiancée was our wedding. Next month.

Good things.

(My son and his bride-to-be will marry while he is home on leave from Iraq.)

Letter From A Marine

Bruce Kesler has a post up about a letter from a Marine currently in Fallujah. The letter was sent to the Marine's hometown paper, the Ridgefield Press, and is published there.

My primary concern is the assertion that these individuals support the troops in Iraq but not our mission. It boggles my mind that this logic is actually utilized on a large scale.
Supporting the troops but not the war is like saying that you support filmmakers but not making films. One cannot claim to support an individual in a given profession but not support what the said profession entails. This is essentially a slap in the face to those in the service.
How protesting the job we are doing in Iraq while demanding our withdrawal constitutes supporting us is beyond me.
Furthermore, I am particularly interested in how these people support us, specifically. I have never once received a letter from an individual who claims to “support the troops, not the war.” Not a single Marine I know has received anything that could be considered remotely supportive from any of these people or the groups they represent. We have received phone cards, hygiene supplies, food, etc. from members of state and local government, radio stations, schools, private individuals and organizations, but never once from any group claiming to “support the troops, but not the war.”
I ask again: How can these groups claim to support our troops while telling us that what we are participating in is wrong?
How can they support us if they are essentially saying that our blood and sacrifices have all been given in vain?
How can they support us if they say that our comrades and brothers who have been wounded or killed in action have done so for a hopeless and morally questionable cause?

This is a very powerful letter, please take the time to read it. Anthony Ippoliti writes a pretty fine letter to the editor.

(Note to other bloggers, links should go to Bruce at Democracy Project.)

Memorium

Sarge Just sent this:

It's been a little while since I've posted here, but Friday night all the
things in the world news that I'd been planning to write about suddenly
became completely unimportant. Friday night a soldier from my company, from
my platoon, was killed by an IED. His name was SPC Benjamin (Withheld), and he
was one of the best soldiers I've ever met. I'm not going to evangelize too
much because the fact is none of you knew him, and, unfortunately, none of
you will ever have the honor and privilege of knowing him. I can only
imagine how much the world has missed out on now that he's not in it. He was
a good friend, quick with a joke and a smile. Our commander, who was pretty
close to Ben, said it best: "he was a child at heart…and a man in spirit."

Goodbye Ben. We'll miss you.

Note: I have withheld the soldiers last name so as not to intrude upon the family's grief. I will not publish it unless and until the family gives me permission to do so. May God have mercy upon his soul and may his family find peace.

UPDATE: Sarge asked me to post this picture of Ben. I will do so, but will remove it if the family asks me to.

Rest in peace, Ben.

Backlash And Endangering The Troops

The second Post of the email I received from Sarge is about backlash from media reporting.

This week's news cycle seems to focus on a single issue: will the word
"Haditha" become the new buzzword for U.S. war crimes?

I was in Iraq when the Abu Ghraib story broke in 2004 (side note: I drove
past that very prison just last night) and I don't think the American
military has really recovered from the scandal. I remember the backlash it
caused, the increased attacks and IEDs. When I began to read into this
Haditha story, I suddenly realized why attacks have spiked in recent days.
One major disadvantage of the media blitzes these reporters perpetrate is
that they cause more discontent and violence in a country where you can buy
a Soviet-produced rocket propelled grenade launcher with two rounds for the
price of an iPod. For a moment set aside whether these Marines are innocent
or guilty and think about what kind of backlash this story is going to
produce. More IEDs will be placed, more weapons will appear on the streets,
and more soldiers are going to die. I'm a major supporter of the First
Amendment, but I have a vested interest in this incident being kept
low-profile. If it's true, it's an atrocity, and the men responsible from
bottom to top should swing from the yardarm. If it turns out to be yet
another case of the media attacking the Bush administration, an as-yet
unknown number of U.S. servicemen will have been killed as a result of a
media circus. If the latter is true, can we hang the reporters for negligent
manslaughter?

Freedom of the press is a double-edged blade, but it seems these days it
only cuts one way. Major and respected media figures and outlets wave their
politics about like a banner, but anyone who dares to call them on it is
immediately branded a censor and an enemy of free speech. What about
professional responsibility? My fellow soldiers and I are bombarded with
reminders to protect military secrets when speaking to our families on the
telephone or through email, yet the same secrets we're protecting can be
purchased by our enemies simply by stopping off at a newsstand and picking
up a copy of Newsweek. Retractions are rare and grudging, and in cases where
acts of violence can be traced directly to irresponsible reporting, no blame
is shouldered by the news. Anchors simply tell us about the latest incident
without ever adding, "our bad." I'm not asking for self-flagellation, but
I'm getting sick to death of my fellow soldiers being sacrificed on the
altar of journalism and of the absurd sentiment that the people have the right
to know everything and anything, even if it endangers our forces overseas.
Freedom of the press also requires some level of responsibility.

So I implore you, next time you read an article or see a news report about
Haditha, say a prayer for our men and women in uniform that none of them
come to harm because of that report.

A Soldier’s View

I received an email today from Sarge and am posting it as two seprarate posts. This is the first one and discusses Haditha from a soldier's perspective. 

I'll be honest: this morning is the first time I've heard about this
incident in Haditha. I try my best to keep up on current events through the
internet and the Stars and Stripes, but sometimes I have to make the choice
between sleeping and reading the latest news story.

What can I say? If I come out against the Marines, I'm a traitor to my
brothers in arms. If I come out in their defense, I'm an insider protecting
the guilty. It's the definition of a Catch-22; I'm damned if I do and damned
if I don't. I suppose the only thing I can do in this situation is present
both sides of the argument.

My squad leader is sitting right beside me, and we just compared notes on
how many IEDs we've been through. We counted six each. One of them hit my
truck, one of them hit his. I can tell you from firsthand experience that
after an IED goes off, every soldier's first instinct is to start shooting
at everything in sight that's moving. Someone has just tried to kill you, and
you can't kill him back. That said, we've never gone on a shooting rampage
after an IED. On the other hand, all the roadside bombs we've encountered
have only resulted in minor injuries. To play devil's advocate, I can't
imagine how it feels to lose a friend and comrade to an unseen enemy.
If the Marines in question are found guilty of committing a crime, I will
partially understand their emotions even if I abhor their decision.

The above is the military man in me talking. As a human being, I have a
natural and visceral reaction to this story that turns my stomach. If it is
indeed true, these men should suffer the most severe punishment imaginable.
As a soldier in the United States Army, I've dished out my share of
Marine-bashing jokes and comments, but I would hope that as representatives
of the American military the Marines implicated would show more restraint
and control.

However, the most absolutely important thing to remember in this situation
is that these men HAVE NOT been proven guilty. All that exists right now is
rumor and innuendo. There is no proof, no convictions. Right now, there
isn't even a trial. Last night I picked up a copy of the Stars and Stripes
with a headline about the Haditha investigations. The first line of the
article reads as follows:

"Marines from Camp Pendleton wantonly killed unarmed Iraqi civilians,
including women and children, and then tried to cover up the slayings in the
insurgent stronghold of Haditha, Iraq, military investigations have found."

The Stars and Stripes draws its articles from a number of different sources;
this particular article came from the Los Angeles Times and was written by
Tony Perry. Look at the phrasing of that sentence. In truth, the
investigations have found nothing of the sort. They've discovered evidence
and eyewitness testimony that suggests several Marines MAY BE guilty of
misconduct, up to and including murder. The truth is, we'll probably never
know what happened in Haditha, no matter what the investigations and the
trials uncover. The Marines involved were seeing through a haze of anger and
loss. The Iraqi locals were seeing through the chaos of a bomb going off in
their community.

Whatever the NCIS uncovers, the rights of these men must be protected. Even
under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the military's judicial system,
suspects are considered innocent until proven guilty. The fact that the
media, and even a former Marine congressman are already talking about these
men as if they're guilty is disgusting and just plain wrong. O.J. Simpson,
arguably the most guilty innocent man in recent history, was treated with
more respect during his circus of a trial than these Marines are being given
now. They are men in uniform, men who have sacrificed more than most ever
will in the name of the United States. They deserve our respect until such
time as a verdict is reached which calls that respect into question.

So that's my position on the Haditha investigation. If the Marines are found
guilty, I believe they will be punished accordingly. If they are found
innocent, I believe they will be outcast by the media as benefactors of a
cover up. Unfortunately, all of these men's careers are basically over no
matter what the findings. The anti-war, anti-Bush journalists have seen to that.

Letter From Iraq

A while back I wrote about "seeing the elephant", an old phrase that has been used for many years to describe people who have seen war close up. In it, I wrote:

No, unless you have seen the elephant, the best you can do is try your best to empathize, try your best to understand what you can, but you can never have that common vocabulary that soldiers who have seen the elephant share. There is a camaraderie that we who have not been there can never share. All we can do is help support the people who are returning. All we can do is let them know we care about them and respect what they have done for us. All we can do is honor the people who serve and protect all we hold dear.

All we can do is realize they have seen the elephant for all of us, and we must stand by them. By their sacrifice and service, they have kept us from having to see the elephant ourselves.

My son read those words and sent me this email. I think it helps explain. See if you do, too.

The Elephant

What is "The Elephant"? When I talk with my father about my experiences overseas (him being one of the few people with whom I can be completely honest), he often remarks that I have "seen the Elephant." I understand the term, its basic definition, but I sometimes wonder what constitutes an "Elephant." 
 
I've fired my weapon in anger, though only in a suppressive manner, by which I mean I've never leveled my sights on another man and ended his life with a hail of 5.56mm NATO standard rounds. My friends, and all of my unit, redeployed to the United States in 2005 without a single purple heart. An unskilled sniper tried to shorten my existence while I was serving as a gunner on a convoy during the summer of 2004, but his bullet missed by such a wide margin it impacted the truck behind me. I slept in forward operating bases and got mortared so many times I couldn't count them all even with my shoes off, but only a few even got close enough to disturb the air around me. My point is, I have a hard time saying out loud that I have seen the Elephant. 
 
I've never tried to curl up in my helmet during a concentrated artillery barrage. I've never rushed a machine gun nest. I've never seen hordes of my enemies advancing relentlessly across an open plain. I've never held the limp body of a friend in my arms and wondered how I still lived while he lay dead. To me, the men (and more recently, women) who have endured these hardships of war are the ones who have truly seen the Elephant.
 
I have expelled rounds in the direction of my enemies. I have been fired upon. I have cowered in fear before, and embarrassingly, slept through mortar attacks. I have been on three separate convoys that were attacked with improvised explosive devices (the infamous IED of the Iraq War), one of which exploded directly in front of my truck. I have stood over the broken bodies of Islamic contractors, victims of attacks and accidents, waiting for MEDEVAC helicopters and knowing there was literally nothing I could do to stop those men from dying. I have a combat action badge, and I wear the "Screaming Eagle," the famed patch of the 101st Airborne Division, on my right shoulder, denoting that I've been deployed to a combat zone under the aforementioned command.

Do not misunderstand. I am proud of my accomplishments. I am thankful that all of the convoys I've protected have returned to base without any military casualties. I'm proud of the 3.8 million miles my company ran from February 2004 to March 2005, and the six divisions' worth of equipment we moved.

I just wonder if it's presumptuous of me to say that I've seen the Elephant when so many of my brethren in green throughout history have been through so much worse. To those men and women, both those who survived and those who fell, my hat is off, and my heart is grateful for your sacrifices.

Phone Call From Iraq

This morning I received a call from my son. He tells me his unit has been running almost continuous missions since he's been in country. Obviously he could not tell me where he has been traveling. We had a really nice, long chat. He told me the phone center wasn't busy at that time of the night, unlike the internet center. Which tells you a lot about communications in this day and age when you think about it.

He had a few choice words for the "extra armor" that has been much talked about. Essentially, the new side panels are useless. They will not stop a rifle round but make movement very difficult. None of the troops like them. He's very happy with the class 1 armor his unit's vehicles are equipped with and said he'd had first hand experience with it's effectiveness, which is not something a father wants to hear.

He's confident in his unit, his officers, his mission. It shows in both the words and the tone in which the words were delivered. He's proud of the members of his squad and confident enough in them to joke with them. He's currently working on getting promoted to E-6 and his unit's officers are supporting him. He says relations between units is very good this tour, better than they were the last time he was there.

It was a really nice chat. How much harder it must have been in past wars.

A Long Chat

I got a long call from my son in Iraq last night. We talked about a lot of things and had a really good visit. I always feel better after we've been able to talk. He's (rightfully) spending more effort talking to his fiancé' right now, so I get fewer calls than on his last tour.

One thing that came up in conversation was maintenance of vehicles. He said it is becoming a real problem keeping things running. Quite simply, things are wearing out because of the extremely heavy usage they get. When his unit relieved the previous force, a lot of the equipment turned over to them was in rough shape. He said they were gaining on the problem, but it is a real issue.

Today, in the Washington Post there's an article about this very subject. It seems the military is reporting that maintenance is costing much more than was predicted.

Defense officials and budget analysts point to a simple, unavoidable driver of the escalating costs. The cost of repairing and replacing equipment and developing new war-fighting material has exploded. In the first year of the invasion, such costs totaled $2.4 billion, then rose to $5.2 billion in 2004. This year, they will hit $26 billion, and could go as high as $30 billion, Kosiak said. On the other hand, at about $15 billion, personnel costs will drop 14 percent this year.

Get that? Personnel costs are dropping, maintenance costs are skyrocketing. Conditions over there are very harsh on vehicles and equipment. Heavy usage is another factor. American war-waging practice differs from a lot of other countries. We would rather sacrifice material and equipment than lives.

Congress must not play politics with spending bills. Regardless of where you stand on the war issue, refusing or delaying funding will lead to maintenance breakdown. That will in turn lead to loss of lives. That would be abandoning fellow citizens in a time of war.

I swear, I will actively campaign against any member of congress who balks at supporting the troops. I'll cheerfully raise money for anyone who opposes them in the elections.

You Have Got To Be Kidding Me

A company that supplies electronic voting machines to states here in the US is owned and operated by Venezuelans with apparent ties to the Chavez government. Now while I am not particularly concerned with foreign investment in this country, I do have a problem with voting machines being supplied by a company that has a very shady record on the Chavez recall election. Read this article and you’ll see what I mean.

It’s time to upgrade all US voting. Use paper ballots. Period.

H/T LGF for the link