Monday, June 29, 2009

Tired of city life? Time to move to the countryside.....

Since Afghanistan has been in the headlines recently with a large uptick in violence, ineffectual governance, and an increase in US forces, the occupation of Iraq hasn't gotten much airtime in our media. Although sectarian violence had decreased, it's now again surging, especially in Mosul and Baghdad.

On 30 June, all US combat formations are to be evicted from Iraqi cities, theoretically leaving only Advisors and Trainers. However, in at least one instance that I know to be true, the city limits of Baghdad were redrawn to place FOB Falcon outside rather than it's previous position in the city. Further, the mission of Advising and Training are undertaken by Combat Arms Divisions and Brigades, thus making a distinction of combat forces and trainers semantic in nature.

On the political front, the Kurds are claiming Baghdad governance of oil facilities and products to be unconstitutional, and Sunni groups are charging Prime Minister Maliki with using his Iraqi Army Special Forces as 'death squads' to eliminate perceived and possible Sahwa opposition to his regime.

A few days ago, PM Maliki has made controversial statements concerning his 'allies' and the occupation.

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has taken to calling the withdrawal of American combat troops from Iraq’s cities by next Tuesday a “great victory,” a repulsion of foreign occupiers he compares to the rebellion against British troops in 1920.

They have closed outposts — even in Baghdad and still-troubled Mosul in the north — that they had initially lobbied the Iraqis to keep open, having concluded, the officials said, that pressing the case would be counterproductive given the political significance that Mr. Maliki had given the deadline.

The day itself has been declared a national holiday, though it is not yet clear whether Iraq will hold the “feast and festivals” he recently promised.

American and Iraqi officials acknowledge the risks — to Mr. Maliki’s political position and to Iraqis’ safety.

NYT

Iraq’s civilian leaders held a meeting on Thursday with the 300 top Iraqi military commanders from around the country to discuss the withdrawal of American forces from cities by the June 30 deadline, and scarcely mentioned the United States.

“Foreign forces have to withdraw from the cities totally,” said Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. “This is a victory that should be celebrated in feasts and festivals.”

It was the first time so many commanders had gathered in Baghdad to meet Mr. Maliki. Iraqi and foreign reporters were invited, but when a senior American military officer arrived, a major general from Mr. Maliki’s Office of the Commander in Chief told him to leave. “We apologize to you, but this is an Iraqi meeting and you’re not invited,” the general said. Neither officer would give his name.

NYT

Are the Iraqi leaders displaying a dangerous overconfidence in their ability to maintain security and governance after US forces leave the cities in a week, and [theoretically] completely in 2011? I believe so. Granted, some of Maliki's comments can be chalked up to playing to Iraqi populism......portraying himself as the post-Saddam leader to rid the country of foreign occupation. However, it's well known through Special Inspector General Reports and other sources that the Iraqi Army and police forces (IP/NP) simply do not possess the logistic system to be self sustaining, and do not maintain a corps of professionalism within their officer and NCO ranks to sustain a viable, non-sectarian and corruption free force.

As I alluded to above, boundary delineations have played semantic games with the order to disengage from the cities, and combat formations will stay put in Mosul for the time being. That there has been a rise in violence coinciding with this event is not a surprise in itself, but it does highlight the tenuous grip the Iraqi Security Forces have in their own nation....where they indeed have a grip at all.

Unfortunately, it is the American forces that will now find themselves in the most uncomfortable position. US units are now being shifted to already overcrowded smaller FOB's outside of the city, where a greater concentration and [in some cases] less force protection, will place them at greater risk when not conducting missions. Combat missions themselves provides an equally daunting outlook. There really isn't much of a framework in place from when US forces can enter the cities, where they can go, under who's tactical command they will operate under and what legal jurisdiction they will have in capturing, detaining and interrogating suspect insurgent; what land can be temporarily occupied, for what purposes and for what duration. Judging from my experience with and assessment of the Iraqi command structure.....I simply envision a call for help, and US forces riding to the sound of the guns.....uncoordinated, uncommitted and unprepared.

I'm hopeful, but not terribly optimistic that concessions and compromise are likely between Shia, Sunni and Kurd. Iraq is still very much a powder keg. There are so many political dimensions that were meant to be solved or facilitated by the surge, that they render the security success that did occur, nearly meaningless. There is still no oil sharing agreement and democratic delineation of governance in the Kurdish region; the Kurds still fielding a very viable Peshmerga militia. The has been lip service and foot dragging at the incorporation of the Sunni 'Sons of Iraq' fighters into the Iraqi Security Forces, as well as relief and reparation for the thousands of Sunni families forcibly evicted and cleansed from their neighborhoods....leaving a well armed and impatient [and formerly insurgent] minority. And there are still very dangerous power struggles occurring within the Shia community between Maliki and the Dawa/Badr coalition and al-Hakim's ISCI. Remember the political discourse favored by these entities does not consist of "I disagree with the distinguished Gentleman from Kirkuk" it consists of militia warfare. This is all assuming that the weight of rampant corruption in the Maliki government doesn't yield yet another course, that of combustible anarchy.

Iraq moved from a dismal number 5 spot on the Failed States Index, to a slightly less dismal number 6 spot this year.

The repair needed cannot come from without, it must be internal. Maybe that means a few more years of civil war, maybe it means another [hopefully more benign] dictator. This may already be occurring:

Although Iraq's parliamentary elections are not until January, the campaign has begun, and Maliki has shown a determination to fight with a tenacity and ruthlessness borrowed from the handbook of Iraq's last strongman, Saddam Hussein. From Diyala, where men under Maliki's command have arrested and threatened to detain a host of his rivals, to Basra, where security forces have swept up scores of his opponents since January, the message is: cooperate or risk his wrath.

Although Iraq's sectarian war has largely ended, and the Sunnis feel they lost, another struggle for power, perhaps no less perilous, has begun in earnest. Maliki has resorted to a more traditional notion of politics in which violence is simply another form of leverage. His goal is simple -- to ensure he emerges as prime minister again after the vote.
WaPo

Nobody has a very good answer for this because it's all speculation.

We cannot maintain the footprint we currently have in Iraq -and- ramp up a suitable offensive strategy in Afghanistan. It isn't fair to our national security or to our military to maintain a one foot in - one foot our policy in Iraq. All we're left doing is the Hokey Pokey....with casualties. It's far past time to pull the plug.

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Trauma....

Went to a Wal-Mart.....in West Virginia today. It's amazing when you can step into the gene pool, and not even get your feet wet. I will bear those mental scars for some time to come.

Friday, May 22, 2009

Dueling Speeches on National Security

Although not impressive by historical standards, Obama's speech clearly captured the reasoned approach that this nation needs. Obama's speech highlighted both past successes and failures, while outlining an approach for the near term. Unfortunately, that approach still appears vague and undefined, allowing wiggle room for executive power to supersede constitutional authority.....again.

Cheney was noted from the beginning for waiting for Obama's speech to end, then cracking a poor joke about the length of the speech. Cheney used the Giuliani crutch.....all 9/11 all the time. The dichotomy of repeatedly stating that the Bush Administration kept this nation safe, while ignoring that 9/11 happened on their watch, was apparently lost on Cheney. This nation suffers from the pendulum effect of the two party system......and an insufferably short attention span. Cheney played to those two symptoms with aplomb. His speech was fervently laced with apocalyptic hypothesis of another 9/11, without remotely identifying whether or not that is even part of Al Qaeda's strategy. Cheney speaks of a truthful telling of history, all the while the myrmidons and pundits are in spin mode to legitimize the un-Constitutional and un-American excesses of the previous eight years.

We are of course, hearing about these speeches from the five minute news cycle media....but only couched in terms of the two party's and their competing ideologies. Anyone who doesn't toe Line A or Line B, as represented by the two party's is ostracized and shut out of the national debate. There are, however, several policy experts who take a logical and scholarly approach to the issue of national defense. Men such as Sageman, Bacevich, Barnett and others lay out the problems and the pitfalls without regard to party. As such, you are not likely to hear of them outside of wonkish defense blogs and academic seminars. That's our loss as a nation. The general population gets stuck listening to Liz Cheney on her 'Legacy Restoration' tour.

Unbiased information is not hard to find. You simply must look outside of the cable news media. Military sites such as the Strategic Studies Institute and academic sites like the World Affairs Council of Northern California always offer analysis from policy, regional and professional experts. People that you won't find on Fox or MSNBC; for a reason. They promote understanding and education, not party politics.

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

A Silent Passing

A man died today. He was not famous.....he was not a celebrity. He was a veteran of WWII who came home to make a life for himself and his family, as an ordinary patriotic American.
But what he made, his vision, has inspired Americans to remember those countrymen who never came back. Our countrymen whose whereabouts are known but to God.
Newt Heisley died today at the age of 88. His legacy however, will endure far beyond his years. In 1971, Newt designed the sketch of what would become the POW/MIA symbol. A symbol adorning lapel pins, flags, shirts, helmets and license plates across the nation. That symbol was never copyrighted; Newt never became famous for this endeavor. Not many know his name, and he did not copyright it. But the POW/MIA symbol he created, belongs to everyone. It unites Americans from disparate lives all across the nation in a collective mourning for those left behind.
Newt Heisley, the designer of the POW/MIA flag adopted by Congress in 1990 as a symbol of the nation's concern for those missing during military actions in Southeast Asia, has died. He was 88.
Mr. Heisley died at his home in Colorado Springs Thursday after years of failing health, said his son Jim.
Mr. Heisley's image sketched in pencil in 1971 during the Vietnam War shows the silhouette of a gaunt man, a strand of barbed wire and a watchtower in the background with the words POW/MIA "You are not forgotten."
Congress in 1998 mandated the flag be displayed at the White House, U.S. Capitol, military installations and other federal buildings on national observances that include Memorial Day and the Fourth of July. The flag also flies at Veterans Affairs medical centers each day, along with the American flag.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/obituaries/1580469,CST-NWS-xheisley19.article
The next time the drive-by media laments the passing of some celebu-twit or another.....remember the ordinary citizens like Newt, who have had far more impact on the ideals of this great nation.

Monday, May 18, 2009

The Iraq Surge: Astounding Success or Cruel Joke?

**Selected as a recommended diary on VoteVets.org**

I figured it was only a matter of time before the true instigation's of the 'surge success' found its way out of the wonkish COIN blogs and circles of strategists; but I was shocked and dismayed that this story may be true.

Iraq has been a national nightmare, but the tremors are going to be felt for years to come, as little known vestiges of deceit, incompetence and arrogance continue to trickle out. The question remains, will the collective national response be righteous outrage or a desire to 'turn the page' and 'move forward'....because we know which is easier.

What the history books should also record, revealed here for the first time, is that the Sunni insurgents had offered to come to terms with the Americans 30 months earlier, in the summer of 2004, during secret talks with senior U.S. officials and military commanders. The Sunnis were gathered by an Iraqi named Talal al-Gaaod, a Sunni sheikh and wealthy businessman based in the Jordanian capital, Amman. The American officials included Jerry H. Jones, then a special assistant to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and later serving as an expert on transitional government to Rumsfeld’s successor, Robert Gates; the late ambassador Evan Galbraith, Rumsfeld’s special envoy to Europe; Colonel Mike Walker, the head of civil affairs for the Marine Corps in Iraq; and James Clad, then a counselor to the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (which was seeking to foster economic development in Iraq) and later the Pentagon’s deputy assistant secretary for South and Southeast Asia. These men were desperate to pursue the Sunni contacts, and took serious risks with their own careers in order to do so. They were supported by officers close to the top of the U.S. military, including Lieutenant General James T. Conway, then the Marine Corps commander in Iraq and today the commandant of the Corps. For a variety of reasons, some of them petty, some of them ideological, and some of them still obscure, these men were blocked by superiors in the State Department, the Pentagon, and the White House.

The Sunni Awakening, when it did finally come, provided welcome relief, says Jerry Jones. But the cost of delay is quantifiable. “From July ’04 to mid-’07,” he points out, “you can directly attribute almost all those K.I.A. [killed in action] in the Sunni regions of Iraq to this fatal error, and if we hadn’t been fighting the Sunni, we’d have had a lot more resources for dealing with Shia militia leaders like Moqtada al-Sadr in places such as Baghdad. It didn’t have to happen. Those lives did not have to be lost.” To put the matter concretely: if the compromises accepted later by the Bush administration had been accepted when a rapprochement was first broached by the Sunnis, in 2004, some 2,000 Americans and thousands more Iraqis might not have died.

Vanity Fair

Saturday, May 16, 2009

The Bracelet on my Wrist




On the 29th of September 2007, I lost my friend Jim Doster.

A guy, who like me, wanted nothing more than to lead soldiers one more time before retiring. A guy who, like me, had heartache about where the Army had sent him during his career, and the regrets of missed opportunities. Jim and I became friends while sitting next to each other during Battle Staff NCO Course at Fort Riley. Since we had PC's at our desks, we would entertain each other by trying to find the most ridiculous and raunchiest pictures possible on the internet (not easy on a .gov domain), while the instructor droned on about Combat Service Support or some other less than thrilling topic.

Leading men in battle is the pinnacle of the profession of a warrior. It's not a dream or desire that someone truly wishes for, because true warriors pray for peace. But when the call comes, there is no greater honor, nor greater test than meeting the challenge of combat, defeating your enemy and keeping your men alive.

After enduring the indentured servitude of staff work at FOB Falcon, Jim was called up, and took the reigns of a platoon of door kickers from our Brigade, but based out of FOB Rustimiyuh. A couple of weeks before he was scheduled to come home for R&R, an IED took his life. He didn't go quickly or without a fight. Despite severe trauma and loss of blood, Jim held on through the evacuation to the CSH in the IZ (Green Zone). He fought his greatest battle, but it was not enough.

My brother, who I could always go to when I was down....who would always join me in bitching about the oxygen thieves we worked with, and for......left for another FOB, and then left forever.

Like me, he had a loving wife and two beautiful daughters that were the center of his universe. We made plans to get our families together after we returned from Baghdad. We talked of our plans to retire and what in the world we would do once we grew up.

Two friends, two brothers..........united in profession, the love of our families and the simple pursuit of trying to do the right thing. One gets to go home and lead a full life, the other ripped away in an instant. One family living each day in innocent bliss, sometimes taking for granted the true treasures of life; the other living each day changed by the pulse of an electrical circuit and explosives, never enjoying a day without sorrow.

Why? Who rolled the dice that day and decided that Jim couldn't come home? What greater purpose was served by Kathryn and Grace not having their Daddy? My greatest nightmare is to think of Emelie and Susanna in that same situation. That's all I can write now, I'm sitting in Starbucks and people are starting to look at me funny.

I try to honor Jim's memory in the only way I know how.....to love my wife and daughters like he loved his. I wear his KIA bracelet on my wrist everyday to remember.

For Emelie



Because my little guitar playing girl wanted to see this video....here it is.

Friday, May 15, 2009

Rendition and Accountability

**Selected as a recommended diary on VoteVets.org**

There has been a recent trend to compare the actions of one administration to another, in the defense of torture and rendition. Here's the part they're missing when trying to defend the Bush Administration and compare their actions to the Clinton Administration; Prior to 9/11, rendition was an acceptable legal authority to extradite suspects and known terrorists back to either their home nation or a nation that had a warrant for that suspect. This was conducted under the auspices of treaty agreements between the US and said nation. Torture was no doubt conducted in some of those nations, but once a suspect was under the legal jurisdiction of that nation, we did not control the events. We may even have suspected that torture was going to be or was conducted.....but under the treaty obligations, we did not have the authority to withhold that suspect without evidence of impending torture.

In 1979, the Justice Department re-affirmed the US statute that states that the executive needs congressional authority for rendition transfers; must be in accordance with treaty or statute authority; AND the rendition must be for the primary purpose of bringing that suspect to trial. The statute prevents the executive from transferring a suspect back to a nation where they would be subject to political persecution; so if someone can make a case that the Clinton Administration was guilty of knowingly violating that portion of the statute, then state your case.

After 9/11, under the Bush Administration, the policy was changed to extraordinary rendition, where the executive relied upon the Office of Legal Counsel [notably Yoo] to formulate [or invent] legal precedence to render someone to another nation without the primary purpose being a trial, and knowing that political persecution [or torture] would take place. In fact, Yoo could only cite the executive's powers under Article II, as it concerns the Geneva Convention and Convention Against Torture, where it deals with Prisoners of War. Ironic, as Bush declared Al Qaeda and other groups as not being POW's [again upon requested advice from the OLC]

The process of rendition dates back to the authorizations of Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, but held that rendition must be bound by treaty and statute law, with checks and balances in place by Congress. Those safeguards were completely removed by the Bush Administration, and rendition [no extraordinary rendition] entered the realm of independent and arbitrary executive law.

Legal experts have long stated that harsh methods of interrogation used in unlawful rendition would nullify potential prosecutions because evidence and confessions would have to be discarded by the court, as they had been illegally coerced. In 1998, Congress stated in the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act (FARRA) that: `It shall be the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture, regardless of whether the person is physically present in the United States.' . To do otherwise would violate our obligations under Article 3 of the Convention against Torture.

The TORTURE VICTIMS RELIEF ACT OF 1998 further spells out what treatment is abhorrent and unlawful in the eyes of the US government.

And that merely scrapes the surface of the policy of rendition, then and now. One legal and with oversight, one without. You are free to make a case where the Clinton Administration probably knew that torture was conducted in some cases, but to attempt to compare those practices, under legal auspices, with Bush's policy, with black sites and not for purpose of trial.....is grasping at vapor trails of partisanship.

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Emelie's 1st Communion



I'm not especially religious, but I was so proud to see Emelie that day. The next day, she was chosen over the other 1st Communion girls to crown the statue of Mary with flowers. Quite the honor.

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Thought of the Day


You can have your pansy-ass Tea Parties......I want a Whiskey Rebellion!