Thursday, December 29, 2011
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Opinion Polls, Democracy, and The Fickle Nature of the American Population
Right before we entered WWII the United States was a self-avowed isolationist nation, and happy to be that way. While a minority of "hawks" wanted to get involved against Hitler most Americans thought of the war as something that affected Europe and not us. Warnings about a global expansion of the hostilities were met with skepticism and arguments about the distance that Germany would have to cover in order to be a threat to the USA. Fortunately, some forward-thinking dudes in the War Department were able to convince Congress to mobilize National Guard units for one year of training and for the defense of the Western Hemisphere as well as the territories and possessions of the United States - which included the Philippines at that time. So units from New Mexico; California; New York and other states were in various locations in the Philippine Islands when Pearl Harbor happened and the Japanese started their systematic takeover of European colonies. One big point to take in here is that the National Guard units sent to the Philippines we all either Anti-Aircraft or Tank Destroyer units - which should illustrate what we were expecting from Japan a full year before Pearl Harbor. The fact that Japan had allied with Germany and the way they were treating American prisoners (not just Chinese and Islanders) galvanized the American population against the Axis Powers and the cries for war started.
We had no real Army at that time and our Navy was nowhere near what would be needed to wage a war against two powers in two different theaters. So President Roosevelt, encouraged by Prime Minister Winston Churchill made the very unpopular decision to minimize our exposure in the Pacific and work on eliminating the European threat (Nazi Germany and Italy) first. While you may see historical footage that indicates otherwise; know that if we had only been fighting the Japanese, with the fervor our population was willing to expend, the war would have been over in the Pacific much more quickly. The decision to pursue the Nazis first is still unpopular in certain circles. The belief is that we kowtowed to Churchill and Stalin by fighting their war first. Our involvement in Sicily and Italy after a shaky African campaign did tie up a significant number of German units that would otherwise have been fighting Russians - so while not popular it did serve a good purpose in the European theater and start the process of hardening American Soldiers for the eventual invasion of France.
So in 1942, 1943 and half of 1944 we were pushing most of our effort against the Nazis in Northern Africa, Sicily and Italy and only providing the necessary resources to work one island campaign at a time in the Pacific. Naval battles were being fought and the historic raid on Tokyo by Lt. Col. Jimmy Doolittle and his raiders on April 18th, 1942 was designed to let the public know that Japan was not forgotten while we pursued Germans in the Mediterranean. Marines, Soldiers and Sailors were actively engaging Japanese forces but not to the extent we could have been had we been able to concentrate on the Pacific and let the rest of the allies work the European problem.
So what is my point? Well - my point is that Roosevelt was a master at manipulation of information. First, we must remember that there was no Internet and no quick way of getting actual information out of the government without their express permission and cooperation. So news was slow and censored. Some photographs of casualties in the Pacific were never published until nearly the end of the war. And they were released at a time when it was necessary to engender American rage so that the population would continue to support the effort against Japan when it was becoming common knowledge about the plans to invade the Japanese Islands. With the estimates of American casualties for that invasion exceeding one million, Roosevelt knew it would be necessary to get the Americans to hate the Japanese enough to support so costly an invasion. So, in essence, the President manipulated public opinion in order to maintain support of the war. The same thing happened with Iwo Jima, a costly battle in terms of American lives and injuries. The photo of the flag raising accompanied by a a press release about a flag being raised on Japanese soil was released weeks before the casualty reports.
Roosevelt was a popular President in most circles. But he made decisions that would normally cause a dip in popularity in order to win the war. He managed his popularity by ensuring timely release of negative and positive information. A look at the Roper polls taken during the war will highlight the peaks and dips in his popularity when compared to a chronological sequence of wartime events. He also was a wordsmith. He coined the term "United Nations" when speaking of the allies. When that term was included in a Roper poll in 1943 it was used to ask John Q. Public if the United States should be counted on to assist the United Nations in getting countries weakened by the war "to get back on their feet". More than 70% of Americans agreed that we should; and more than 75% said we should assume a more global role after the war. This is only two years after we were a happy isolationist nation and at a time where we were not even in control of Europe or the Pacific and the outcome of the war was in question. I'll say it again; President Roosevelt was really good at manipulating information.
So here we are, pulling all of our troops out of Iraq after eight and a half years and trying to draw down the number of troops in Afghanistan after ten plus years there. Is it a political move or is it one that we are ready for? It all depends on who you talk to.
Questions for you...
Was President Obama popular after the take-down of bin Laden? You bet!
Did he do anything other than approve the final move? No way!
Presidents don't look for terrorists - they pay professional to do that. If Mickey Mouse had been in office as President he would have had to make the same decision. Jimmy Carter is the only former President that I don't think would have approved of what was done by SEAL Team 6. The President had to make that call - especially after his indecision on the pirate take down following the Maersk Alabama hijacking in April 2009. Somehow our President felt he knew more about international terrorism and piracy than those who deal with it every day. Had the SEALs been given orders to solve that problem it would have ended quickly and properly. So what I'm saying is the President said "Go" on bin Laden and his popularity soared for a few weeks. Now, with a re-election looming out there, he needs to capitalize on any positive press he can get. Lord knows he's getting enough bad print lately. So what he's going to do now is keep doing things to make his popularity spike at appropriate times. He will time it for September and November - just watch and see. Because he knows that we are a fickle bunch and the truth can be challenged or stonewalled with sufficient energy to make what he's doing seem good, especially to the sheep that still think he is a capable President.
Sarmajor
We had no real Army at that time and our Navy was nowhere near what would be needed to wage a war against two powers in two different theaters. So President Roosevelt, encouraged by Prime Minister Winston Churchill made the very unpopular decision to minimize our exposure in the Pacific and work on eliminating the European threat (Nazi Germany and Italy) first. While you may see historical footage that indicates otherwise; know that if we had only been fighting the Japanese, with the fervor our population was willing to expend, the war would have been over in the Pacific much more quickly. The decision to pursue the Nazis first is still unpopular in certain circles. The belief is that we kowtowed to Churchill and Stalin by fighting their war first. Our involvement in Sicily and Italy after a shaky African campaign did tie up a significant number of German units that would otherwise have been fighting Russians - so while not popular it did serve a good purpose in the European theater and start the process of hardening American Soldiers for the eventual invasion of France.
So in 1942, 1943 and half of 1944 we were pushing most of our effort against the Nazis in Northern Africa, Sicily and Italy and only providing the necessary resources to work one island campaign at a time in the Pacific. Naval battles were being fought and the historic raid on Tokyo by Lt. Col. Jimmy Doolittle and his raiders on April 18th, 1942 was designed to let the public know that Japan was not forgotten while we pursued Germans in the Mediterranean. Marines, Soldiers and Sailors were actively engaging Japanese forces but not to the extent we could have been had we been able to concentrate on the Pacific and let the rest of the allies work the European problem.
So what is my point? Well - my point is that Roosevelt was a master at manipulation of information. First, we must remember that there was no Internet and no quick way of getting actual information out of the government without their express permission and cooperation. So news was slow and censored. Some photographs of casualties in the Pacific were never published until nearly the end of the war. And they were released at a time when it was necessary to engender American rage so that the population would continue to support the effort against Japan when it was becoming common knowledge about the plans to invade the Japanese Islands. With the estimates of American casualties for that invasion exceeding one million, Roosevelt knew it would be necessary to get the Americans to hate the Japanese enough to support so costly an invasion. So, in essence, the President manipulated public opinion in order to maintain support of the war. The same thing happened with Iwo Jima, a costly battle in terms of American lives and injuries. The photo of the flag raising accompanied by a a press release about a flag being raised on Japanese soil was released weeks before the casualty reports.
Roosevelt was a popular President in most circles. But he made decisions that would normally cause a dip in popularity in order to win the war. He managed his popularity by ensuring timely release of negative and positive information. A look at the Roper polls taken during the war will highlight the peaks and dips in his popularity when compared to a chronological sequence of wartime events. He also was a wordsmith. He coined the term "United Nations" when speaking of the allies. When that term was included in a Roper poll in 1943 it was used to ask John Q. Public if the United States should be counted on to assist the United Nations in getting countries weakened by the war "to get back on their feet". More than 70% of Americans agreed that we should; and more than 75% said we should assume a more global role after the war. This is only two years after we were a happy isolationist nation and at a time where we were not even in control of Europe or the Pacific and the outcome of the war was in question. I'll say it again; President Roosevelt was really good at manipulating information.
So here we are, pulling all of our troops out of Iraq after eight and a half years and trying to draw down the number of troops in Afghanistan after ten plus years there. Is it a political move or is it one that we are ready for? It all depends on who you talk to.
Questions for you...
Was President Obama popular after the take-down of bin Laden? You bet!
Did he do anything other than approve the final move? No way!
Presidents don't look for terrorists - they pay professional to do that. If Mickey Mouse had been in office as President he would have had to make the same decision. Jimmy Carter is the only former President that I don't think would have approved of what was done by SEAL Team 6. The President had to make that call - especially after his indecision on the pirate take down following the Maersk Alabama hijacking in April 2009. Somehow our President felt he knew more about international terrorism and piracy than those who deal with it every day. Had the SEALs been given orders to solve that problem it would have ended quickly and properly. So what I'm saying is the President said "Go" on bin Laden and his popularity soared for a few weeks. Now, with a re-election looming out there, he needs to capitalize on any positive press he can get. Lord knows he's getting enough bad print lately. So what he's going to do now is keep doing things to make his popularity spike at appropriate times. He will time it for September and November - just watch and see. Because he knows that we are a fickle bunch and the truth can be challenged or stonewalled with sufficient energy to make what he's doing seem good, especially to the sheep that still think he is a capable President.
Sarmajor
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
The President - Leader or Lecturer...
How come we have a president (I no longer have to call him my Commander-In-Chief) that can't figure out he is the President of the United States as opposed to the spokesperson for the Democrats? Why is it that he can't stand in front of a bunch of Americans without taking blatantly cheap shots at only the Republicans in Congress? His Democrat controlled Senate is just as indecisive. He needs to stop rabble-rousing and get key leaders to work together and start to
C O M P R O M I S E on some issues. There is a nation at stake here, not just a popularity contest. Of course cooperation is not something that Chicago bred politicians know too much about.
This is going to be a long election year...
Sarmajor
C O M P R O M I S E on some issues. There is a nation at stake here, not just a popularity contest. Of course cooperation is not something that Chicago bred politicians know too much about.
This is going to be a long election year...
Sarmajor
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Stolen Valor - What Is The Problem?
Two things hit the news this week concerning Stolen Valor. First, Terry Calendra is going to jail for a year for fabricating award records. Second, the United States Supreme Court will review the "Stolen Valor act of 2005" during this session (hopefully not in time to intervene in Calandra's sentence...).
In essence, according to the congressional summary of the bill passed in 2006, is that the bill "prohibits falsely representing oneself as having been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces or any of the service medals or badges". That's all it does. It does not differentiate between those that are just bullshitting about their combat awards with friends and those that use their "military records" to advance their personal position in the community or to gain an advantage in seeking an award of a multimillion dollar contract. And that, I surmise, is the reason that the Supreme Court is re-looking at the act to determine its constitutionality. The argument is that the Constitution permits me to lie as a part of my freedom of speech.
Look at some of the cases that have been in the news over the years. One, in Maryland, was a fake Army Special Forces Colonel who was frequently used as a guest lecturer at federal, state and local law enforcement seminars. He claimed that his daughter had been killed after she had been abducted and fed into the European human trafficking system. He even claimed that Liam Neeson played a character based on him in the movie "Taken". The only problem is that the Colonel was a fake, albeit a good one who was very convincing in front of professionals that are trained to detect liars.
Another case, actually the genesis of the law, concerned a former Marine who was injured and ultimately released from the Corps while still in initial training. Because of his knowledge of the entry system and training techniques he experienced in the Marines he was able to perpetrate a fraud based "career" as a veteran. His stories grew and grew until he eventually claimed to be a USMC Major General who served in combat in Vietnam up through the Gulf war. He was rewarded for his lies by becoming an official in the local VFW and a much sought speaker at patriotic ceremonies in Ohio and Florida. His downfall was when he gave a eulogy at the funeral of a respected retired Marine. He wore an ill-fitting uniform and made the mistake of talking to an FBI agent who was a former Marine and had the ability to read the medals the guy had on his uniform. The medals and the stories didn't line up so the agent pursued his history and he was ultimately exposed.
In both cases the perpetrators were rewarded with monetary honorariums and expense paid trips. So personal gain was a factor - but the most invigorating thing that both admitted to was the rush associated with being the hero; the center of attention; the guy everyone wanted to talk to. If the action of the perpetrator is limited to that alone, meaning there is no personal gain from the fraud, is there really a victim. People are lied to all the time and no one gets arrested. Why then is it illegal to lie to simply inflate one's own ego by using wartime heroics as the vehicle?
A few years ago I was with a bunch of Sergeants Major in Essex, Maryland at a Dining-In. We were all in Army dress blue uniforms with the big gold service stripes and prominently displayed rank that most service members would recognize readily. After the dinner was over about 9 or 10 of us stopped in at a nearby American Legion Post to have a drink. I sat at the bar on the end of our group so I was next to a guy who was clearly impressed with so many people in pretty uniforms. He was a bit under the influence and he told me that he was in Iraq at the end of the Gulf War. I thanked him for his service and asked him what service he was in. His answer was "I was special forces, a SEAL recon sniper. I was with my team in Baghdad and had my sight lined up on Saddam's head when we got the order to stand-down. Just think, if I had taken that shot the towers would still be standing in Times Square..." The woman with him, also tipsy, was smiling knowingly; thoroughly convinced of the accuracy of his account. Of course, I assured him that he was truly the victim of an egregious tactical error and began to ask questions about where he had trained and served prior to and since the episode in Baghdad. I didn't try to embarrass him but I was able to convince myself that he probably had never served BUT had seen some really imaginative movies. My conversation ended when he asked us what ranks we were and what service we were in. A liar? More than likely. A criminal? No way.
Well, my feelings are that the law needs to be refined a bit in order to protect those of us that actually served and did our part for the nation. Further, the law needs to protect the real heroes who did a bit more than the rest of us and earned the right to wear certain medals. The law needs to specify that no one can gain any kind of advantage by claiming to be a veteran in seeking employment; contracts; benefits and other things by lying about their records. There are still ways to fake a DD-214 which is why it states that all records need to be verified.
Those desiring to be members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars; Order of the Purple Heart; Disabled American Veterans; and The American Legion and other recognized service organizations are required to produce actual records to show certain qualifying requirements. I am active in the VFW which has a requirement that you need to have served in a combat zone and be able to prove it. I frequently see applications that lack any reference to overseas service, combat time and campaign awards. Some still try to push it by saying that where they served and under what conditions could not be recorded on any records. This will usually be accompanied by a "no shit, there I was" story.
People need to appreciate what they have actually accomplished in their lives. Exaggeration is one thing but inventing stories and background is another. When a legitimate veteran who started a business from scratch has to compete against a fake veteran for a contract there is a legitimate issue. There needs to be a law that exposes these people for who they are - not who they claim they are.
Sarmajor
Medals of Honor (Army, Air Force, Navy & Marine Corps)
In essence, according to the congressional summary of the bill passed in 2006, is that the bill "prohibits falsely representing oneself as having been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces or any of the service medals or badges". That's all it does. It does not differentiate between those that are just bullshitting about their combat awards with friends and those that use their "military records" to advance their personal position in the community or to gain an advantage in seeking an award of a multimillion dollar contract. And that, I surmise, is the reason that the Supreme Court is re-looking at the act to determine its constitutionality. The argument is that the Constitution permits me to lie as a part of my freedom of speech.
The Navy Cross
Look at some of the cases that have been in the news over the years. One, in Maryland, was a fake Army Special Forces Colonel who was frequently used as a guest lecturer at federal, state and local law enforcement seminars. He claimed that his daughter had been killed after she had been abducted and fed into the European human trafficking system. He even claimed that Liam Neeson played a character based on him in the movie "Taken". The only problem is that the Colonel was a fake, albeit a good one who was very convincing in front of professionals that are trained to detect liars.
Distinguished Flying Cross
Another case, actually the genesis of the law, concerned a former Marine who was injured and ultimately released from the Corps while still in initial training. Because of his knowledge of the entry system and training techniques he experienced in the Marines he was able to perpetrate a fraud based "career" as a veteran. His stories grew and grew until he eventually claimed to be a USMC Major General who served in combat in Vietnam up through the Gulf war. He was rewarded for his lies by becoming an official in the local VFW and a much sought speaker at patriotic ceremonies in Ohio and Florida. His downfall was when he gave a eulogy at the funeral of a respected retired Marine. He wore an ill-fitting uniform and made the mistake of talking to an FBI agent who was a former Marine and had the ability to read the medals the guy had on his uniform. The medals and the stories didn't line up so the agent pursued his history and he was ultimately exposed.
The Purple Heart
In both cases the perpetrators were rewarded with monetary honorariums and expense paid trips. So personal gain was a factor - but the most invigorating thing that both admitted to was the rush associated with being the hero; the center of attention; the guy everyone wanted to talk to. If the action of the perpetrator is limited to that alone, meaning there is no personal gain from the fraud, is there really a victim. People are lied to all the time and no one gets arrested. Why then is it illegal to lie to simply inflate one's own ego by using wartime heroics as the vehicle?
A few years ago I was with a bunch of Sergeants Major in Essex, Maryland at a Dining-In. We were all in Army dress blue uniforms with the big gold service stripes and prominently displayed rank that most service members would recognize readily. After the dinner was over about 9 or 10 of us stopped in at a nearby American Legion Post to have a drink. I sat at the bar on the end of our group so I was next to a guy who was clearly impressed with so many people in pretty uniforms. He was a bit under the influence and he told me that he was in Iraq at the end of the Gulf War. I thanked him for his service and asked him what service he was in. His answer was "I was special forces, a SEAL recon sniper. I was with my team in Baghdad and had my sight lined up on Saddam's head when we got the order to stand-down. Just think, if I had taken that shot the towers would still be standing in Times Square..." The woman with him, also tipsy, was smiling knowingly; thoroughly convinced of the accuracy of his account. Of course, I assured him that he was truly the victim of an egregious tactical error and began to ask questions about where he had trained and served prior to and since the episode in Baghdad. I didn't try to embarrass him but I was able to convince myself that he probably had never served BUT had seen some really imaginative movies. My conversation ended when he asked us what ranks we were and what service we were in. A liar? More than likely. A criminal? No way.
Well, my feelings are that the law needs to be refined a bit in order to protect those of us that actually served and did our part for the nation. Further, the law needs to protect the real heroes who did a bit more than the rest of us and earned the right to wear certain medals. The law needs to specify that no one can gain any kind of advantage by claiming to be a veteran in seeking employment; contracts; benefits and other things by lying about their records. There are still ways to fake a DD-214 which is why it states that all records need to be verified.
Those desiring to be members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars; Order of the Purple Heart; Disabled American Veterans; and The American Legion and other recognized service organizations are required to produce actual records to show certain qualifying requirements. I am active in the VFW which has a requirement that you need to have served in a combat zone and be able to prove it. I frequently see applications that lack any reference to overseas service, combat time and campaign awards. Some still try to push it by saying that where they served and under what conditions could not be recorded on any records. This will usually be accompanied by a "no shit, there I was" story.
People need to appreciate what they have actually accomplished in their lives. Exaggeration is one thing but inventing stories and background is another. When a legitimate veteran who started a business from scratch has to compete against a fake veteran for a contract there is a legitimate issue. There needs to be a law that exposes these people for who they are - not who they claim they are.
Sarmajor
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Anwar al-Awaki - Dead Terrorist
Why on earth are we wasting time and money by having FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III testify before congress as to why agents of the United States killed a very influential member of Al-Qaeda? Facts are important here - First and foremost, al-Awlaki told the world he was a terrorist and worked his entire career as a Muslim clergyman trying recruit terrorists to kill Americans. Add to that that he left the borders of his country of birth voluntarily to join a terrorist group bent on destruction of the US and our allies. He took up with them and made it known publicly that he was one of them - thereby declaring himself as an enemy.
We don't arrest enemies in a war; we kill them. Even the editorial board of the Washington Post agrees that killing al-Awlaki was justified. To agree with the opinion of the likes of Libertarian Gary Nolan and the ACLU (better known as the American Confederation of Lawyers, Unemployed) who have proclaimed that our leaders violated international law is the same as saying that we should have actively pursued traitors in past conflicts with cops instead of Soldiers and Marines. Ridiculous. If Hitler had been born in the US and done what he did to the world would we have sent J. Edgar Hoover to Berlin and arrested him? There were actual cases of German-Americans and Japanese-Americans that were native born in the US that wound up in enemy uniforms fighting against us. Should we have made the effort to find them and arrest them?
Terrorists cannot be treated as criminals. They are not engaged in common crimes. They murder, maim and injure anyone that happens to be in a certain location at a certain time in the name of their cause. They have resigned their citizenship in a legitimate country and replaced it with their affiliation to a misguided group of individuals and a cause that is bent on the destruction of our freedoms. They better know up front that they cannot have it both ways.
Sarmajor
We don't arrest enemies in a war; we kill them. Even the editorial board of the Washington Post agrees that killing al-Awlaki was justified. To agree with the opinion of the likes of Libertarian Gary Nolan and the ACLU (better known as the American Confederation of Lawyers, Unemployed) who have proclaimed that our leaders violated international law is the same as saying that we should have actively pursued traitors in past conflicts with cops instead of Soldiers and Marines. Ridiculous. If Hitler had been born in the US and done what he did to the world would we have sent J. Edgar Hoover to Berlin and arrested him? There were actual cases of German-Americans and Japanese-Americans that were native born in the US that wound up in enemy uniforms fighting against us. Should we have made the effort to find them and arrest them?
Terrorists cannot be treated as criminals. They are not engaged in common crimes. They murder, maim and injure anyone that happens to be in a certain location at a certain time in the name of their cause. They have resigned their citizenship in a legitimate country and replaced it with their affiliation to a misguided group of individuals and a cause that is bent on the destruction of our freedoms. They better know up front that they cannot have it both ways.
Sarmajor
Monday, October 3, 2011
Progress in Afghanistan BUT a New Desire To Get Out...
OK - we've all heard the hue and cry from the population - Osama bin Laden is dead (Thank you Seal Team 6) so lets pack our bags and get our troops out and back home immediately. While we're at it lets reduce our security procedures at all airports and go back to the way things were in the sweet 60's and 70's. Sure, that'll work...
Does anyone really believe that? Could it be that simple? Of course we know it's not. If only...
But where do we stand after exactly 10 years since an eclectic organization of Marines and various other US forces entered Afghanistan? Where they quickly set up a defensive perimeter around Bagram Airfield and got hold of a bunch of "Hoopties" to carry our forces to run the Taliban out of Kabul where our Marines re-secured our embassy and then continued to expand our toe-hold throughout all of the other cities? The effort was supported by the "Northern Alliance" a gathering of Afghan soldiers loyal to their respective warlords and operating under the guidance of some very brave US Government civilians and US Special Forces Soldiers.
Well, we don't seem to be any better off. We have two and a half combat zones still going on (Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Horn of Africa); we have two very big and obvious peace-keeping missions still active (Sinai and Korea); we are still active in Europe and the Pacific; and yet we are still being pinged by other countries to do more in support of operations in Libya (today) and other hot spots as they pop up. Our border situation is dismal and it has become a "state" mission of the National Guard to support border operations and drug interdiction so we add that mission to the list of things our military has to perform. With all of that we, along with the rest of the economically free world, are working feverishly to patch the stress fractures in our own economy while a long term solution is decided by our LEADERS in Washington. So we are worse off than that Tuesday morning where nearly 3,000 unarmed civilians were killed by madmen acting on orders of another madman who was allowed to operate in Afghanistan by the madmen that are in the Taliban, right?
I don't think so. I think that I can shop in a mall (should I actually want to...), attend any sports venue, drive on a fairly intricately engineered road network or travel freely without fear of losing my life on any form of mass transit. We are, in general, safe. The bad guys have not succeeded in mounting another major operation against our population because we are hitting the heart and soul of the terrorist community. It is taking time but it is proving beneficial while still being short of successful. Even the "lone wolves" are being thwarted before they have the ability to do their stuff. Even the ACLU has to understand that that is a good thing.
Because we are not fighting a country with a government it is confusing and taking more time than most Americans thought when we entered the fight. Most people figured that the country and the army of Afghanistan were the bad guys and once we toppled the Taliban regime all of the population would run out with roses and wine and kiss the GIs like they did in Italy and France. Terrorists are not soldiers of a country. They are soldiers of an ideology. An ideology that is abhorrent to us and to true followers of Islam who want to live peacefully in many countries.
So long as terrorist have the ability to fight we have to fight them. We eliminate them and ensure that any followers of their beliefs are identified and targeted and also eliminated. We follow-up with assistance to that country in helping stabilize their government and allowing them to provide support to their own citizens.
And that is where we are today. I truly believe that there are Al-Queda terrorists in this country that have to work as cab drivers and convenience store employees in order to live because they are not getting help from their HQ. I also believe that our efforts at striking directly into the heart of the organization ten years ago created enough disruption to their organization that they became more concerned about defending themselves than they did at striking out at western targets. I believe that our efforts to eradicate the opium distribution channels from Afghanistan, while faltering due to politics, has had an impact on the funding model of bin Laden's group. I believe that it took years of developing trust in the Afghans and a network of informants to finally find bin Laden in Pakistan and killing him. I believe that the rest of the information we have picked up is finally paying off in figuring out who is who and where they can be found and killed.
But - Afghanistan is not yet a stable place. It is too soon to pull out. We need to continue to train and assist the Afghans - at tribal level - to get them to manage their own security. Get away from the Karzai government and return to what worked ten years ago. Let our Special Ops people and intelligence people do their thing in getting rid of the problems by using Afghans to do it.
Sarmajor
Does anyone really believe that? Could it be that simple? Of course we know it's not. If only...
But where do we stand after exactly 10 years since an eclectic organization of Marines and various other US forces entered Afghanistan? Where they quickly set up a defensive perimeter around Bagram Airfield and got hold of a bunch of "Hoopties" to carry our forces to run the Taliban out of Kabul where our Marines re-secured our embassy and then continued to expand our toe-hold throughout all of the other cities? The effort was supported by the "Northern Alliance" a gathering of Afghan soldiers loyal to their respective warlords and operating under the guidance of some very brave US Government civilians and US Special Forces Soldiers.
Well, we don't seem to be any better off. We have two and a half combat zones still going on (Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Horn of Africa); we have two very big and obvious peace-keeping missions still active (Sinai and Korea); we are still active in Europe and the Pacific; and yet we are still being pinged by other countries to do more in support of operations in Libya (today) and other hot spots as they pop up. Our border situation is dismal and it has become a "state" mission of the National Guard to support border operations and drug interdiction so we add that mission to the list of things our military has to perform. With all of that we, along with the rest of the economically free world, are working feverishly to patch the stress fractures in our own economy while a long term solution is decided by our LEADERS in Washington. So we are worse off than that Tuesday morning where nearly 3,000 unarmed civilians were killed by madmen acting on orders of another madman who was allowed to operate in Afghanistan by the madmen that are in the Taliban, right?
I don't think so. I think that I can shop in a mall (should I actually want to...), attend any sports venue, drive on a fairly intricately engineered road network or travel freely without fear of losing my life on any form of mass transit. We are, in general, safe. The bad guys have not succeeded in mounting another major operation against our population because we are hitting the heart and soul of the terrorist community. It is taking time but it is proving beneficial while still being short of successful. Even the "lone wolves" are being thwarted before they have the ability to do their stuff. Even the ACLU has to understand that that is a good thing.
Because we are not fighting a country with a government it is confusing and taking more time than most Americans thought when we entered the fight. Most people figured that the country and the army of Afghanistan were the bad guys and once we toppled the Taliban regime all of the population would run out with roses and wine and kiss the GIs like they did in Italy and France. Terrorists are not soldiers of a country. They are soldiers of an ideology. An ideology that is abhorrent to us and to true followers of Islam who want to live peacefully in many countries.
So long as terrorist have the ability to fight we have to fight them. We eliminate them and ensure that any followers of their beliefs are identified and targeted and also eliminated. We follow-up with assistance to that country in helping stabilize their government and allowing them to provide support to their own citizens.
And that is where we are today. I truly believe that there are Al-Queda terrorists in this country that have to work as cab drivers and convenience store employees in order to live because they are not getting help from their HQ. I also believe that our efforts at striking directly into the heart of the organization ten years ago created enough disruption to their organization that they became more concerned about defending themselves than they did at striking out at western targets. I believe that our efforts to eradicate the opium distribution channels from Afghanistan, while faltering due to politics, has had an impact on the funding model of bin Laden's group. I believe that it took years of developing trust in the Afghans and a network of informants to finally find bin Laden in Pakistan and killing him. I believe that the rest of the information we have picked up is finally paying off in figuring out who is who and where they can be found and killed.
But - Afghanistan is not yet a stable place. It is too soon to pull out. We need to continue to train and assist the Afghans - at tribal level - to get them to manage their own security. Get away from the Karzai government and return to what worked ten years ago. Let our Special Ops people and intelligence people do their thing in getting rid of the problems by using Afghans to do it.
Sarmajor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)