Michael Writes...

Could you please assess Al Gore's reasons to run or not for the Presidency in 2008. It seems to me that the Dem's have a lock. They just have to pick someone who will give voters a reason not to vote for them. I cannot imagine the DNC risking a bold move like nominating a woman or a black man.

Michael:

This year the issue isn't "bold", but dollars (Ka--chingg!). This is especially true with the political season having been moved up to such an early date this time around. (I think that when Florida moved up their primary, they decided to bite the bullet and say "what the heck, let's hold the 2012, and 2016 primaries on the same day).

Talk about "bold", what about a Latino?

Money and organization are key, but not the ultimate deciders. A great amount of free press coverage can make up for a lack of dollars. That is what has happened to Barak Obama. But money, organization, and a candidate who controls his or her image are key. Kerry lost control of his image last time around. Damned fool had to go windsurfing. Couldn't provide a simple declarative sentence. No, it had to be "I was for it before i was against it." Sheesh!

The DNC doesn't pick the candidates, it just tries to keep the potential for Democratic political suicide down to a reasonable level (you know the old joke: a Democratic firing squad forms up into a circle so they could shoot themselves!)

Hillary supposedly has, or had a lock on the nomination, but yesterday's news of the leaked campaign memo suggesting that she pull out of Iowa to save her money for later campaigns could indicate that the cash register isn't ringing for her like she wants. We will be able to tell during the next round of Federal Election Commission reports.

Barak Obama, I believe, ultimately will be seen as the media creation he is. John Edwards could win Iowa, and ultimately win the nomination.

My personal favorite, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, has just moved up into double digits in Iowa polls. I've heard a lot of talk about slotting Richardson for the VP position, but geez, I think this guy is so superior to the rest of the pack.

By the way, if you read the national polls, the candidates will be Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton. Besides the fact that I think Giuliani's record can not really endear him to a Republican constituency (especially to that party's right wing), I can't conceive of the possibility that both national tickets will be headed by New Yorkers.

Finally, I would ignore the overall national polls> all they reflect right now are the warm fuzzies. They do not reflect the strength each candidate has to exhibit at each caucus or primary along the way. Candidates can blow up (see: Howard Dean). The best practice is to look at the individual state results, such as those that David Yepsen in Iowa reported on.

As for Al Gore, this is what I wrote on March 3, 2007:

Gore Redux

So some Democrats are unhappy with the possibility of a Hillary candidacy and they are looking for a hero. With upturned eyes and adoring faces, they turn to the failed 2000 candidate, Al Gore. That’s the Democratic party: fail once and then get to fail again.

Gore is Gore. Sure, they said he was groomed for the presidency, but maybe everyone believes it except Al Gore himself. His 2000 campaign was a disaster. He didn’t know what he was , what he stood for or where he wanted to go . He allowed everyone to tell him which clothes to wear, what to say, what to do. Remember the articles which said he wasn’t an “alpha male”? He wasn’t. He was picked apart and hen-pecked like Prometheus on the rock. Only Gore didn’t seem to require chains to bind him. He was a willing victim. Did he ever really want to be president?

On the other hand, Bush wanted the presidency. Oh yes, Bush and his handlers knew what was involved. (I’ll never forgive my leftist friend for saying Bush and Gore were Tweddledee and Tweedledum and since there was no difference between them, he would vote for Nader! NADER! I begged him. I pleaded with him—The Supreme COURT! Bush will pick justices for the Supreme Court! Didn’t work. Hell, if all of the voters in Florida who voted for Nader voted instead for Gore, our history for the last eight years would be markedly different!) Bush et.al. went and got family consigliore Jim Baker and they went to the Republican-picked and packed Supreme Court, which handed the election to GWB.

So when it came time to let it all hang out and challenge the Florida vote count, Gore dithered and diddled away the time and tried to pick and choose which districts required the recount and which didn’t. I want my candidate to know when the time comes to fight for something like a starving junkyard dog. Gore didn’t. He should have demanded a recount for the entire state. Then he played the gentleman, and quietly withdrew “for the good of the country

Gore’s adherents now look to him as the party’s savior; the anti-Hillary, if not the elected one, then the electable one. The guy who was right all along. Gore doesn’t put a stop to the speculation so that the party can move along with it’s quadrennial circular firing squad thing. Nope. Instead he plays the tease with a mock announcement of his candidacy at the Academy awards. When given the chance for a Sherman-esque declaration, he declines to do so.

Maybe Gore feels that he can bide his time and put himself into a winning position. Let’s look at the possibilities: Gore is not a fan of the Clintons because he felt they screwed him out of the possibility of becoming president. Perhaps he thinks that he can wait and pick up an Academy Award here, a Noble Prize nomination, if not a prize itself, there, and then waltz in and save the party from Hillary. For Gore, there would be more and better media coverage then any candidate possibly could garner, and all without the muss and fuss of raising money, putting an organization together, and actually running a campaign.

They used to call him “Prince Albert.” Maybe that’s the secret: Gore doesn’t want to be elected. He wants to be coronated!

I hope I've answered your question.

Yours,

TRM

Iran Math

Here are some interesting story threads to ponder:

1.Nine US military ships enter Persian Gulf Wednesday, assembling off Iran’s coast in largest American naval move since 2003

May 23, 2007, 6:56 PM (GMT+02:00)

They sailed through the Strait of Hormuz by day - according to US Navy officials for training exercises. The vessels carry around 17,000 combat and marine personnel. They include the two aircraft carriers, USS Nimitz and USS Stennis, as well as the USS Bonhomme Richard LHD 6 Group, the world’s biggest amphibious strike force. Iran was not notified of the planned arrival.
DEBKAfile reports the maneuvers take place less than two weeks after Vice President Dick Cheney visited the region and informed Saudi King Abdullah and fellow Gulf rulers that President George W. Bush has determined that if Iran refuses to waive a nuclear weapon capability, the US will attack its nuclear, military and economic infrastructure before he leaves the White House in Jan. 2009.


2. (CNN) -- U.S. and Iranian officials will meet in Baghdad later this month to discuss issues involving Iraq, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said Thursday.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told reporters that the date would be May 28. Both officials were speaking from Islamabad, Pakistan, where an Islamic conference of foreign ministers was being held.

According to Zebari, the discussions will be a part of three-party talks, involving the United States, Iran and Iraq.



3.The US House of Representatives last week allocated another $25 for the Arrow’s joint production and integration; and $45 m for the US-Israeli short-range David’s Sling, which is under development for countering high trajectory projectiles, such as Hizballah’s Katyusha rockets.

US and Israeli anti-missile systems are scheduled to be fully integrated by the year 2013. A further American investment of $1 bn in the Israeli programs will top up the $2.8 bn already spent.



Israel’s defense minister Amir Peretz said on May 19 that he hopes David’s Sling will be ready in two years. This leaves Israel unprotected against the Palestinian Qassam, Hizballah’s Katyusha or mortar attack before 2010.


4. Iran is estimated to be 3-8 years from possessing an atomic weapon, according to teh International Atomic Energy Agency, states the Houston Chronicle:

LUXEMBOURG — The head of the U.N. nuclear agency said Thursday he agreed with CIA estimates that Iran was three to eight years from being able to make nuclear weapons and he urged the U.S. and other powers to pursue talks with the Islamic country.

The best way to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear arms is "through a comprehensive dialogue," International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei told a news conference in Luxembourg. "One way to do that, rather than to continue the rhetoric, is to ... sit down together."

On Wednesday, the IAEA reported that Iran's uranium enrichment program was expanding in defiance of U.N. demands that it be suspended, findings that could lead to new sanctions against the country.

The report also warned that the IAEA's knowledge of those activities was shrinking.

"We are moving toward Iran building (nuclear) capacity and knowledge, without (the IAEA) in a position to verify the nature or scope of that program," ElBaradei said.

5. United Nations Security Council permanent members Russia and China have been most active in opposing world-wide sanctions against the Iranian government to halt nuclear development. See this March Washington Post report.


6. As Janes reported in 2005, Russia and China are driven more by their economic interests than by concerns for international security:

An Iran-Russia-China axis?

The decision by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to refer Iran's nuclear programme to the UN Security Council has thrown into sharp focus relations between Iran and Russia. Moscow may soon have to choose whether to back Iran or align itself with the US and the European Union (EU) in reining in Iran's nuclear intentions.

Russia appears ready to co-operate with both the USA and Iran in order to boost its trade relations with the two countries. Although Russia is also a leading oil exporter and therefore unlikely to be intimidated by Iranian threats to reduce oil sales, the Russian nuclear industry is dependent on the completion of Iran's USD1 billion Bushehr project, which Moscow hopes will be followed by future billion-dollar contracts. Russia's defence industries, also badly in need of an economic boost through exports, have also been selling weapons systems and aircraft to Iran.

Meanwhile, China is becoming even more dependent on Iran for energy. A November 2004 deal to supply China with gas worth USD100 billion is likely rise to a total of USD200 billion after a similar oil agreement is finalised. Iran will export 10 million tonnes of liquefied natural gas (LNG) annually for 25 years in return for Chinese investment in exploration and drilling. This energy co-operation is rendering the US administration's economic sanctions on Iran ineffective. However, the Russians must now assess the likelihood of being supplanted by China if they appear willing to trade favours with Washington and lose the confidence of Tehran. Iran may yet emerge as a leading member of a post-Cold War alliance which will work to undermine US regional objectives.

And take a look at this 2005 item from Asia Times:

China lays down gauntlet in energy war
By F William Engdahl

On December 15, the state-owned China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) inaugurated an oil pipeline running from Kazakhstan to northwest China. The pipeline will undercut the geopolitical significance of the Washington-backed Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC)oil pipeline which opened this past summer amid big fanfare and support from Washington.

The geopolitical chess game for the control of the energy flows of Central Asia and overall of Eurasia from the Atlantic to the China

I'll have some analysis by Sunday.

Dweeb of the Week

The Dweeb of the Week non-award is in danger of being permanently retired in the hands of Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. Due to his continuing role in politicizing the Justice Department, Gonzalez has been nominated for the John Mitchell Memorial Award

Check this out in today's Washington post:

A former senior aide to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales leveled serious new accusations against him and his deputy yesterday, describing an "uncomfortable" attempt by Gonzales to discuss the firings of U.S. attorneys as Congress and the Justice Department were intensifying their investigations of the issue.

Monica M. Goodling, who resigned last month as Gonzales's senior counselor and White House liaison, also told the House Judiciary Committee yesterday that she "crossed the line" by using political criteria in hiring a wide array of career professionals at Justice, including looking up political donations by some applicants.

In a day-long hearing that afforded her immunity from prosecution, Goodling minimized her role in the controversial firings of nine U.S. attorneys last year and joined a long line of Justice officials who say they were not responsible for adding names to the lists of those to be dismissed.

But Goodling's appearance also opened broad new avenues of inquiry for congressional Democrats, who think Gonzales has presided over intensifying political meddling at the Justice Department. It also provided fresh evidence of the deepening rifts between current and former Justice officials, who have increasingly turned on one another since the prosecutor firings.

Goodling, 33, alleged that Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty was "not fully candid" with Congress about his knowledge of White House involvement in the firings. McNulty, who tendered his resignation last week, disputed that.

IOWA-- Polls for Pols

New polls in Iowa have less than good news for some of the perceived presidential candidate front-runners. Rudy ain't doing as well as he thought he would, and Hillary's charm is lost on some of the farmland crowd. Read the linked David Yepsen article.

On the Democratic side, John Edwards leads Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton among likely Iowa Democratic caucus-goers. He gets 29 percent of the Iowa vote. Obama gets 23 percent, and Clinton comes in third with 21 percent. Nationally, Clinton leads in most polls of the Democratic race.

On the Republican side, Mitt Romney has taken the lead with an impressive 30 percent of the vote among that party's likely caucus-goers. John McCain is in second at 18 percent, and Rudy Giuliani is in third with 17 percent.

By the way , does anyone really understand how the heck the Iowa caucuses really operate? And why it is important for a sophisticated pol, someone who is running for president, to be seen sitting on some farmer's bale of hay while chewing on a piece of straw?


Let's think about the importance of all of this.

Family Values

Thanks to the Votemaster (see previous blog) for pointing me to The Daily Irrelevant.

If the Republicans use the term "family values" once more, well, they were laughable to begin with, so this absolutely shows their utter hypocrisy.

I tried to copy some material from The Daily Irrelevant into this blog, but without success. Please check out TDI directly

The Horse Race

Every political horse race needs an announcer. Over the past few years I have found http://www.electoral-vote.com/ to be one of the most interesting. It is run by an expatriate American math and computer sciences professor living in Amsterdam. His work is outstanding from many aspects: he keeps the big pollsters honest, he is informative, his analysis is free of political slant, and the page is quite humorous.

The site is excellent for all the congressional elections and it is especially fun for the presidential contests.

Consider bookmarking it and referring to it regularly.

Edmund Burke, You Have a Call

I find this extremely disturbing. So a significant number of young AMERICAN Muslims believe that suicide bombing is an acceptable act? It's not enough that we have our own forms of insanity, now we import it! I keep hearing that Islam is a peaceful religion, but there seems to be a serious disconnect between that statement and actions.

Or are the peaceful people so terrorized that they cannot take action? It would not be the first time.

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"-Edmund Burke

On.....A War

War is a lot of things to a lot of people. Generals strategize, armchair generals criticize, diplomats talk, companies make money, government leaders do whatever the hell they do, soldiers fight, and angels descend from the heavens to become nurses.

I pass this along from the website "The Sandbox"

ONE OF THOSE DAYS
Name: RN Clara Hart
Posting date: 5/18/07
Stationed in: a military hospital in the U.S.
Email: clarahart2@yahoo.com

I knew Monday was not going to be one of my finer days when I put both contacts in the same eye then had to spend 20 minutes prying them apart. In the end it turned out to be one of those days that was overwhelming, irritating, exhilarating and heartbreaking all at the same time. Tired from a busy weekend packed full of “must do” chores, I came sluggishly into the recovery room. Answering called-out greetings from my coworkers, I stowed my things and wandered to the postings board. As I stood there and reviewed the cases it was apparent we had inherited a new crop of OIF wounded over the weekend.

Feet shuffling, I headed to the computer to check the email and assess how many unimportant messages I could immediately delete without bothering to read. Mentally trying to get myself back into the nursing game I looked across the room to see a young man, lying in a hospital bed, yank at the blankets trying to better cover himself. Realizing the room was far colder for him than for me as I wasn’t the one in an “oh so chic” hospital gown, I grabbed a blanket from our blanket warmer and took it over to him. As I tucked it around his shoulders, he thanked me profusely and we started to talk.

Injured in Iraq when he was thrown off balance carrying a heavy load, he was now on the list for surgery to repair a broken leg. He'd arrived from Germany over the weekend only to be told today that his leg was too swollen, so they would not do his procedure until later in the week. He told me it had taken a week to get him back to the States from Germany. He shook his head and said, “I’m really glad to be here and not still in Germany." I asked why. “In Germany I shared a room with two other guys who had each lost a leg. They cried a lot and it was really hard to listen to them. I felt bad for them, but I was glad at the same time. I can’t relate.” He went on to say that one of his buddies from boot camp had been killed while on patrol in Iraq. We chatted a little while longer, then work called me away.

Halfway through my day the charge nurse asked me to cover another nurse’s patient while she went to lunch. “No problem," I replied, as my patient was stable and I was just waiting for her to wake up. The patient in question was also a wounded OIF, injured last year in a mortar attack. Blind in both eyes, with multiple facial, chest, back and arm injuries, he was doing well now and had a great attitude. I introduced myself, putting my hand on his shoulder to let him know where I was. Working to get his pain under control from the surgery he'd just had, we talked and joked.

He asked me if I was married and had children, and when I responded in the negative he said, “What’s wrong with these men? You’re a good-looking woman."

“Thank you," I replied. “How bad is the damage to your vision?”

“Totally gone, can’t even see a glimmer of light”, came his rueful answer, only to be replaced with a grin. “I could just tell you were good looking.”

Smiling, I shook my head as he began to talk about wanting to run the Marine Corp Marathon.

“Are you running it, Clara?”

“Hell no!” was my ardent response. “I might do the Army 10-miler, but 26 miles? Uh-uh, ain’t noooo way!” He told me he wanted to run both races, but he needed a partner, and that person he did not have. I asked him how that worked and he explained to me about “tethering” and how this partner would help him with direction and keep him on track. As I bounced back and forth between my two patients Joe kept up a running commentary, keeping me entertained and laughing as we together battled his pain and finally won.

My coworker returned and as I gave her an updated report Joe called out to me: “Clara?”

“Yep, I’m here” I said, crossing to the bedside and placing my hand on his shoulder.

“I think I need a good-looking woman to run with me. It would be fun to be tied up to as fine a woman as you, Clara. Why don’t you run with me?” Speechless, I could only stand and stare down at this man who had been through so much. Regaining my composure I told him I would come and visit him in his room tomorrow and we could talk more about it. He seemed satisfied with that answer, and later as he was wheeled down the hall he called out, “See you tomorrow, Clara.” Somehow I think I will be running the Army 10-miler this year, “tied up” to one of America’s most awesome and amazing sons of freedom.

Because I had spent too much time talking with Joe, I forfeited part of my lunch period. Inhaling my food in 15 minutes I was back on the floor just in time to hear “Clara, got a patient coming into 14, OIF, arriving now.” I walked back to my corner with a sense of irritation as my patient arrived. Placing him on the monitor, I apologized for my hands being cold.

“Yeah, they are”, came the soldier's surly reply. As I finished the task, I listened to the report from anesthesia and completed my assessment. Taking in the dressings wrapped around both his legs, the shrapnel wounds that peppered his face, hands and arms, I started to document my findings.

As I was writing, I was interrupted by my patient, who rudely said, “I want some water.” Since water is never an option for a right-out-of-surgery patient, I started to explain to him that as soon as we had finished some things with his care I would get him some ice. Belligerently he snapped at me, “I don’t want ice, I want water!”

My irritation was now at an all time high. I stepped closer to his beside, leaned down and sternly said, “Mark, this is not acceptable behavior. I respond much better to polite, respectful tones of voice and the words 'please' and 'thank you.'" As I held his eyes I added, “We will get along much better if you remember that.”

Turning my back to him I finished reviewing his chart, orders, and writing down my assessment and his vital signs. That completed, I once again asked him if he was in pain. He nodded, and gauging his pain I began to medicate him. As the tech brought me a cup of ice and I scooped it into his mouth he mumbled, “Thank you,ma’am”. Okay then, here’s to new beginnings. My irritation started to wane until I noticed a note stuck to the front of his chart: “Please change IV when in OR”. Wham! The irritation and anger returned; I was pissed off that OR/anesthesia had once again not changed an IV while the patient was asleep, and I stomped off to get the necessary supplies. As I returned to the bed another nurse came over.

"Need any help?” she asked.

“Yeah, definitely,” I grudgingly admitted. “Can you set up his PCA (pain pump) while I start a new IV? Anesthesia didn’t do it in the OR. Again!"


As she went to work I explained to Mark what I needed to do, reaching out and taking his arm. He thanked me.

“For what?” I asked.

“Well, they keep putting the IV in this arm and it’s really sore. You’re the first one to put it in my other arm.” Noticing his arms had no hair I questioned him, he smirked and said, “Yeah, with all the tape you people use you were yanking it all out anyway so I just shaved it off. Makes my life easier and a whole lot less painful.” Again shaking my head in bemusement I set about to do my job. IV completed, PCA hooked back up, I re-evaluated my wounded patient. He told me he was still having significant pain. Maxing out his pain medications, I put another call into anesthesia and was told they would be by to see him.

As we waited, Mark again asked if he could please have some water. After he promised he wouldn’t vomit I gave in and brought him a small cup. Anesthesia arrived, made some adjustments in his pain meds, and said they would be back in 20 minutes. The time passed slowly and Mark continued to complain. Irritated, frustrated and simply wanting my day to end, I took a deep breath and resigned myself to actually having to converse with my patient. Distraction can be a wonderful tool to use when someone is lying in a hospital bed with nothing else to think about other than how bad they feel.

As I medicated him, I asked Mark where he was from. Was his family here with him? (They were, but they’d had to leave today.) Did he like sports? (He did, mostly pro football, basketball and baseball.) Who were his favorite teams? (Too numerous to list.) How long had he been in the military? (Five years.) As conversation turned to his military career he told me he was on his third tour in Iraq and this time had only been there for six weeks before he was hurt.

Having been told that another squad was dropping something off at their outpost, he gathered his soldiers and moved outside the building to wait. Carefully watching as the other squad drove up and exited the vehicle, Mark moved out from cover to meet them. As he did he and his men, as well as the men in the other squad, were hit with an RPG.

Medevaced out of Iraq to Germany and then on to the States, it took him almost a week to reach us. He continued to tell me his story, and as he did his voice took on a tone of anger. He looked at me and exclaimed, “I’m embarrassed, pissed off and depressed I got taken out.”

“Why?”


“Because I’m the leader, I’m supposed to watch out for these guys, the inexperienced guys. They look up to me and here I am the one who gets hurt!”

“Did you step in front of that RPG?” I asked him.

He looked at me as if I had grown two heads and snidely. "Of course not.”

“So what’s there to be embarrassed about? Do you think the other guys are saying, 'Yeah, Mark, what an idiot! Got hit with an RPG!'"

“Naw”, came his reluctant reply.

“Could you have done anything differently?” I pushed on.

“Yeah I could have gotten more guys killed," and he began to diagram for me how that would have happened.

“In the end, could you have done anything else to prevent what happened?”

“This just SUCKS!” he cried.

“Absolutely it does! One hundred percent sucks!” I commiserated.

His face started to get red. “I’m stuck in this fucking bed all the time. I can’t even get up to take a shit! I gotta go in a pan and then wait for someone to come to get rid of it. I’m supposed to be the one in charge, the one responsible, and here I am, in the hospital.” The angry words poured from his mouth as a single tear trailed down his cheek. Lowering the siderail on the bed, I wrapped my arms around him and held him, rubbing his shoulder and wiping the tears that he could not keep from escaping. As I held him I felt his composure slowly return.

“Thank you” he simply said, I nodded my head to show I had heard and then turned away.

“Hey Clara, do you think dinner will be there for me when I get back to my room?” I later heard him ask.

“I’ll make sure of it”, I promised. Time passed and I was able to transfer him back to the floor. As I gave report, I told his nurse what had transpired here in the PACU and how upset he was. She thanked me for the heads-up, and assured me she would keep an eye on him and make sure he had dinner waiting for him. As Mark was rolled out of the recovery room he asked if I would come visit him.

“Of course I will." With a quiet swish of the doors he was gone. I cleaned up my bay and walked over to the nursing station to finally sit down. When one of the other nurses looked at me with a question in his eyes I said, “I hate it when they cry."


He nodded his head. “Yeah, I do too.”

That evening I was sitting at home talking on the phone with my significant other. “How was your day?” he asked.

“Amazing."

Check out The Sandbox

GITMO Lawyer Guilty

A Navy court found LCDR Matthew Diaz guilty after he gave the names of 550 GITMO detainees to a "human rights lawywer".Diaz took the "Nuremberg" defense, claiming that his actions were morally correct because he thought the detainees were being abused at the military installation prison on the island of Cuba.Here is CNN on the story

So Diaz gets six months in prison, without loss of rank or pay.He could have been imprisoned for up to 14 years. He got off way too easy for engaging in what used to be called " dime store novel" tactics.As for motive, CNN says:

But in an hour long interview after the opening day of his trial Monday, Diaz said he believes the Bush administration's prosecution of the war on terror is illegal. He accused officials of violating international law, such as the Geneva Conventions on the humane treatment of war prisoners, and the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of due process.

Diaz may well be right about the actions of the Bush administration, but his own actions were just as illegal.

On Iran

The pot is slowly bubbling for US-Iran relations.

After 27 years, the United states and Iran are-gasp!- talking. Without a doubt, there have been back channel negotiations over the years on issues of mutual benefit, but now the talks are slowly emerging from the shadow world.

Al Jazeera's English edition web site has this story buried on their cover page (Of course it leads with the latest Israeli attacks on Hamas as well as a story that the United States plans a missile shield with Israel

US plans Israel missile shield
Israel already used US-made Patriot missiles to defend against missile attacks [GALLO-GETTY]

The US House of Representatives has adopted a measure aimed at weaving closer US and Israeli defences against ballistic missiles of the type that could be fired by Iran.

The measure, part of a $504 billion defence spending bill passed on Thursday, would redirect $205m in defence department funds toward projects already underway in Israel.

It would provide $25m more for Arrow missile co-production and integration, $45m for a US-Israeli short-range missile defence system dubbed "David's Sling" and $135m to buy a Theater High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, fire unit.

All three projects involve interceptors rockets designed to shoot down ballistic missiles in the terminal phase of their flight paths.

I can't for the life of me think that this is a BAD thing!


Stratfor is a website that does "analysis" of the world's hot spots. Here is a recent Stratfor paper on US-Iranian talks. I disagree with the Stratfor assessment that the Iranians prefer to deal now with a weakened President Bush. I think they know they could get the best deal possible from the perpetually weak-kneed Democrats, who are almost sure to come into the White House in '08. No, what I think the Iranians have in mind are those US aircraft carriers that currently are in the neighborhood with the capacity to destroy the nascent Iranian nuclear bomb. And they know that GWB is fully capable of using US airpower while telling the world to go to hell, which it well might. Sort of like what Menachem Begin did when he ordered the IDF to destroy that Iraqi reactor at Osirak. Israel was publicly scourged for its action , but behind closed giverment office doors in various parts of the world collective sighs of relief were exhaled.

I think the Iranians are playing a game: keep things under a medium heat for Bush in Iraq and give the appearance of "almost cooperating" in that theatre and "almost talking", thereby preventing the US from pressing the issue in the United Nations to take strong action against the Iranian nuclear program which every day grows more capable of producing a nuclear weapon. Mao-Tse-Tung said it a long time ago, "Talk, Talk, Fight, Fight"


I like to check out this website, which purports to contain blogs by Iranians both inside and outside that country. I do not doubt that some are by private citizens. On the other hand, I have no doubt that some are placed by the government as disinformation, as well as by anti-government people. Read some of these blogs, take a guess, reach out and see if anyone responds.
*********************************************************************************
Here is the Stratfor piece

Stratfor: Geopolitical Intelligence Report - May 16, 2007


The United States, Iran and the Iraq Negotiation Process

By George Friedman and Reva Bhalla

At long last, the United States and Iran announced May 13 that they
will engage in direct public bilateral talks over Iraq. From
Washington, it was the office of Vice President Dick Cheney and the
National Security Council that broke the news. From Tehran,
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad confirmed that the two sides will
meet in Baghdad in a few weeks, most likely at the ambassadorial
level. That makes these talks as officially sanctioned as they can
be.

Already there have been two brief public meetings -- albeit on the
sidelines of two international conferences -- between senior
officials from the Iranian Foreign Ministry and the U.S. State
Department in March in Baghdad and in May in Sharm el-Sheikh ,
Egypt. The upcoming meeting in Baghdad, however, will be the first
official bilateral meeting. After months of intense back-channel
discussions, both sides have made a critical decision to bring
their private negotiations into the public sphere, which means
Tehran and Washington must have reached some consensus on the
general framework of the negotiations on how to stabilize Iraq.

Why Now?

The U.S. political situation illustrates why both sides are willing
to come to the table right now. Both Iran and the United States are
closely eyeing each other's busted flushes , and they understand
that time is not on their respective sides.

From the U.S. perspective, it is no secret the Iraq war has soaked
up an enormous amount of U.S. military bandwidth. With the 2008
presidential election fast approaching, the Bush administration is
left with little time to put a plan in action that would
demonstrate some progress toward stabilizing Iraq. It has also
become painfully obvious that U.S. military force alone will not
succeed in suppressing Sunni insurgents and the Shiite militias
enough to allow the government in Baghdad to function -- and for
Washington to develop a real exit strategy. But by defiantly
sending more troops to Iraq against all odds, Bush is sending a
clear signal to Iran that it is not in the Iranians' interest to
wait out this administration, and that the United States is
prepared to use its forces to block Iranian aspirations to dominate
Iraq.

From the Iranian perspective, Tehran knows it is dealing with a
weak U.S. president right now, and that the next U.S. president
probably will have much greater freedom of action than Bush
currently does. The Iranians learned that dealing with former U.S.
President Jimmy Carter would have been preferable to dealing with
his successor. If you know negotiations are inevitable, it is
better to negotiate with the weak outgoing president than try to
extract concessions from a strong president during an increasingly
complicated situation. The Iranians also know that the intensely
fractious nature of Iraq's Shiite bloc -- which Iran depends on to
project its power -- makes it all the more difficult for Tehran to
consolidate its gains the longer Iraq remains in chaos.

U.S. and Iranian Demands

And so the time has come for both Iran and the United States to
show their cards by laying out their demands for public viewing.

U.S. demands for Iraq are fairly straightforward. Our understanding
of what Washington wants from Tehran regarding Iraq rests on these
key points:

1. The United States wants Iraq to be a unified and independent
state. In other words, Washington knows a pro-U.S. regime in
Baghdad is impossible at this point, but Washington is not going to
permit an Iranian-dominated state either.

2. The United States does not want jihadists operating in Iraq.

3. The United States wants to be able to withdraw from security
operations, but not precipitously, thereby allaying Sunni Arab
states' concerns .

Essentially, the United States is looking to create an Iraqi
government that, while dominated by the Shia, remains neutral to
Iran, hostile to jihadists and accommodating to mainstream Sunnis.

Iranian Demands

Iran's answers to these demands were publicly outlined in a paper
at the Sharm el-Sheikh summit. The Saudi-owned, U.K.-based daily
newspaper Al Hayat established the details of this paper in a May 5
article. The key points made in the presentation include the
following:

1. Iran does not want an abrupt withdrawal of coalition forces from
Iraq for fear this would lead to reshuffling the cards and
redistributing power. Instead, there should be a fixed timetable
for the withdrawal of U.S. and British forces from Iraqi cities and
relocation at bases and camps inside Iraq, provided the Iraqi
forces have reached the point at which they can provide security.
The Iranians also stated that they would extend all possible
assistance so that foreign forces could exit "honorably" from Iraq.

The U.S. decision to surge more troops into Iraq forced Iran to
think twice about placing its bets on a complete U.S. withdrawal.
An abrupt withdrawal without a negotiated settlement leaves more
problems than Tehran can manage in terms of containing Iraq's
Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish factions, and Iran does not want to be
left to pick up the pieces in a country that is already on the
verge of shattering along sectarian lines.

It is important to note that Iran is not calling for a complete
withdrawal from Iraq, and actually acknowledges that U.S. forces
will be relocated at bases and camps inside the country. Though
this acts as a blocker to Iranian ambitions, the presence of U.S.
bases also provides Iran with a stabilizing force placating the
Sunnis and Kurds. Moreover, the Iranians are sending assurances to
the United States that they are willing to cooperate so the Iraq
withdrawal does not look like another Vietnam scenario for the U.S.
administration to deal with at home.

2. Iran is "strongly opposed to all attempts to partition Iraq or
impose a federal system that allows for regional autonomy." No
region should be allowed to monopolize the resources in its
territory and deprive other regions of the revenues from these
resources.

Iran is essentially saying that Tehran and Washington have a common
desire to see a unified Iraq. The U.S. insistence on a unified Iraq
takes into account Sunni concerns of being left with the largely
oil-barren central region of the country. Iran is signaling that it
is not interested in seeing Iraq get split up, even if such a
scenario leaves Tehran with the second-best option of securing
influence in a Shiite-dominated, oil-rich southern autonomous zone.

3. Iran wants a plan, involving the Kurds and Sunnis, drawn up to
root out the transnational jihadist forces allied with al Qaeda in
Iraq. Sunni tribes should also assume the responsibility of
confronting jihadists, whether they are Iraqi citizens or are from
other Arab and Muslim countries.

In this demand, Iran and the United States share a common goal. The
jihadists will use every attempt to sow sectarian strife in Iraq to
prevent a political resolution from developing. The United States
does not want to provide al Qaeda with a fertile base of
operations, and Iran does not want its ideological nemesis gaining
ground next door and working against Shiite interests.

4. Iran clearly states that the negotiations over Iraq cannot be
separated from other regional issues and Tehran's nuclear file.

Stratfor has extensively discussed the nexus between Iran's nuclear
agenda and its blueprint for Iraq. Iran is trying to link the
nuclear issue to its dealings with the United States on Iraq as a
sort of insurance policy . Iran does not want to reach an
agreement on Iraq and then leave the nuclear issue to be dealt with
down the road, when the United States is in a stronger position to
take action against Tehran.

Iran basically is looking for a deal allowing it voluntarily to
agree to freeze uranium enrichment in exchange for political
concessions over Iraq, but without it having to dismantle its
program. That would leave enough room to skirt sanctions and
preserve the nuclear program for its long-term interests.
Washington is not exactly amenable to this idea, which is what
makes this a major sticking point. The United States already has
made it clear that it is leaving the nuclear issue out of the Iraq
discussions.

5. Iran wants a new regional formula that would make Iraq a region
of influence for Tehran.

While it does not appear that Iran explicitly stated this in its
presentation, a majority of participants at the conference got the
message. Washington cannot afford to allow Iraq to develop into an
Iranian satellite, but it is looking for assurances from Iran that
a U.S. withdrawal will leave in place a neutral, albeit
Shiite-dominated, government in Iraq.

Iranian Offers

The Iranian paper outlined several key concessions it would offer
the United States and Iraq's Sunni faction if its demands were met.

1. Iran would help the Iraqi government rein in the armed Shiite
militias and incorporate them into the state security apparatus.

2. The de-Baathification law can be revised to allow for the
rehiring of former Iraqi army personnel, the bulk of whom are tied
to the Sunni nationalist insurgency. However, Iran wants assurances
that former Interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and other
former Baathists will not be allowed to hold the position of prime
minister when the time comes to replace current Prime Minister
Nouri al-Maliki.

3. Iran would be willing to see fresh parliamentary elections, the
formation of a new Cabinet and the amendment of the Iraqi
Constitution to double the Sunni seats in parliament to 40
percent, with the Shia retaining 60 percent. Tehran has said
nothing about what would be left for Kurdish political
representation, however.

4. Iran has proposed the "fair" distribution of oil revenues in
Iraq to satisfy all parties, especially those in "central Iraq,"
the Sunni-dominated, oil-deprived heart of the country.

Tehran's offers illustrate the Iranians' open acknowledgment that
they are not going to be able to have their cake and eat it too.
Instead, they are going to have to guarantee Iraqi neutrality by
giving the Sunnis a much larger slice, leaving the Kurds to get
screwed yet again.

Back in Washington, the Bush administration is looking at the
Iranian withdrawal plan skeptically. Right now, the United States
wants assurances that a withdrawal plan worked out with the
Iranians does not simply leave a longer-term opportunity for Iran
to gradually take control of Iraq once the major roadblocks are out
of the way. In other words, the United States needs guarantees
that, as it draws down its troop presence, the Iranians will not
simply walk in. The Iranian proposal to expand Sunni representation
is a direct response to these concerns, provided the relevant
parties can actually deliver on their promises.

This is still highly questionable, though significant developments
are already taking place that reveal the United States, Iran and
various Iraqi players are making concrete moves to uphold their
sides of the bargain. With Iran's blessing, the Supreme Council for
Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) has announced it will undergo a
process of "Iraqization" -- a largely symbolic demonstration that
SCIRI will not operate simply as an Iranian proxy. Meanwhile, the
Sunni tribes and clans in Anbar province are increasingly
broadcasting their commitment and progress in combating
transnational jihadists. And finally, numerous reports in the Arab
media suggest the United States would be willing to heed the
Iranian demand that the Iraqi military not have offensive
capabilities allowing it to threaten its Persian neighbor.

The negotiations are moving, and it is becoming more and more
apparent that a consensus is emerging between Tehran and Washington
over how the Iraq project should turn out. With enough serious
arrestors in play for this deal to fall through, it is now up to
all players -- whether those players call Washington, Tehran,
Riyadh or Baghdad home -- finally to put their money where their
mouths are.


So much for Stratfor.

Navy GITMO Lawyer's Valentine to Terrorists

From NPR's website

Navy Lawyer's Guantanamo Leak Trial Begins

Listen to this story... by Ari Shapiro

All Things Considered, May 14, 2007 · The military trial has begun for U.S. Navy lawyer Matt Diaz, who is accused of leaking classified information to a civilian human rights lawyer. Diaz gave the names of 550 Guantanamo detainees to an attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights.

The prosecutor told the jury that on Jan. 2, 2005, Lt. Cmdr. Matt Diaz sat in his office at Guantanamo Bay late at night, logged into his classified computer — and called up a spreadsheet: 39 pages containing the names of all 550 detainees at the prison camp, along with their serial numbers, nationalities and other data.

The prosecutor stood in front of the jury and held up a Valentine's Day card with a picture of a droopy-eyed Chihuahua.

"The accused cut the document so the nation's secrets would fit inside this card," he said. Diaz dropped the envelope in the mail on the last day of his six-month assignment at Guantanamo, the prosecutor said.

The defense team acknowledges that Diaz sent that Valentine to Barbara Olshansky, a civilian human rights lawyer.

But the defense lawyer told the jury, "Diaz did not send classified information — even if the government intended to classify it."

The defense says that because the document was not marked "Secret," it was not classified. That's half of the argument. The other half is about intent. For Diaz to be guilty of the crime, he has to have intended to harm the United States or advantage another country. His lawyers say Diaz had no such intent.

The first witness was Olshansky, the human rights lawyer who received the Valentine from Diaz. She heaved a big sigh as she walked to the front of the courtroom.

Olshansky said that when she got the Valentine, she didn't know what the document was. There was no indication that the spreadsheet came from the government. But the postmark was from Guantanamo, so she wondered whether the names were detainees.

The roster is public now, but it wasn't two years ago. Olshansky had been asking the government for the names, hoping to name the detainees in her lawsuit on their behalf. But the Pentagon had been resisting.

Olshansky testified that she didn't know the information was secret, but she gave it to the judge overseeing her detainee lawsuit. It then went to court security personnel, who conducted an investigation.

After fingerprint and computer analysis, the arrows pointed to Diaz.


So what the defense is saying is that he reduces a print-out of 500 names plus other datat items to the size sufficient to place into a Valentine's day card, and he din't have intent to harm the united states. The man sure know he was doing something wrong!

Brian Writes....

Re: "Lute, I am Your Father"
You wrote:
There already exists a unified command structure to handle all of the issues that are supposed to be addressed by the new “war czar”.

Not only that, but doesn't the Constitution of the United States already detail the roles & responsibilities of a "war czar"?

I had always thought that the "war czar" was called the "Commander In Chief".

If Bush is unable or unwilling to fulfill the duties & responsibilities of his office, he should either step down or be impeached!

My $0.02.

Later!

Brian

Corridor Three....Must Read

LTC Bob Bateman is a noted Army historian, author, and combat infantryman. He recently returned from a one year tour in Iraq and he is now posted in Washington, D.C.

I came across this wonderful piece on 5/17 that he wrote for Eric Alterman's "Altercation" blog which runs on MediaMatters.org.

This is being reprinted in its entirety with the author's permission.

***********************************************************************************

Hello, Altercators. LTC Bob Bateman again. No politics today, just some observations about a nation at war. Sort of.

Corridor Three

10:30 hours (local EST), Friday, 11 May 2007: Third Corridor, Second Floor, The Pentagon:

It is 110 yards from the "E" ring to the "A" ring of the Pentagon. This section of the Pentagon is newly renovated; the floors shine, the hallway is broad, and the lighting is bright. At this instant the entire length of the corridor is packed with officers, a few sergeants and some civilians, all crammed tightly three and four deep against the walls. There are thousands here. This hallway, more than any other, is the "Army" hallway. The G3 offices line one side, G2 the other, G8 is around the corner. All Army. Moderate conversations flow in a low buzz. Friends who may not have seen each other for a few weeks, or a few years, spot each other, cross the way and renew. Everyone shifts to ensure an open path remains down the center. The air conditioning system was not designed for this press of bodies in this area. The temperature is rising already. Nobody cares.

10:36 hours (local EST):

The clapping starts at the E-Ring. That is the outermost of the five rings of the Pentagon and it is closest to the entrance to the building. This clapping is low, sustained, hearty. It is an applause with a deep emotion behind it as it moves forward in a wave down the length of the hallway. A steady rolling wave of sound it is, moving at the pace of the soldier in the wheelchair who marks the forward edge with his presence. He is the first. He is missing the greater part of one leg, and some of his wounds are still suppurating.

By his age I expect that he is a private, or perhaps a private first class. Captains, majors, lieutenant colonels and colonels meet his gaze and nod as they applaud, soldier to soldier. Three years ago when I described one of these events on Altercation, those lining the hallways were somewhat different. The applause a little wilder, perhaps in private guilt for not having shared in the burden ... yet. Now almost everyone lining the hallway is, like the man in the wheelchair, also a combat veteran. This steadies the applause, but I think deepens the sentiment. We have all been there now. The soldier's chair is pushed by, I believe, a full colonel. Behind him, and stretching the length from E to A, come more of his peers, each private, corporal or sergeant assisted as need be by a field grade officer.

10:50 hours (local EST):

Twenty-four minutes of steady applause. My hands hurt, and I laugh to myself at how stupid that sounds in my own head. "My hands hurt." Christ. Shut up and clap.

For twenty-four minutes, soldier after soldier has come down this hallway -- 20, 25, 30. Fifty-three legs come with them, and perhaps only 52 hands or arms, but down this hall came 30 solid hearts. They pass down this corridor of officers and applause, and then meet for a private lunch, at which they are the guests of honor, hosted by the generals.

Some are wheeled along. Some insist upon getting out of their chairs, to march as best they can with their chin held up, down this hallway, through this most unique audience. Some are catching handshakes and smiling like a politician at a Fourth of July parade. More than a couple of them seem amazed and are smiling shyly. There are families with them as well: the 18-year-old war-bride pushing her 19-year-old husband's wheelchair and not quite understanding why her husband is so affected by this, the boy she grew up with, now a man, who had never shed a tear is crying; the older immigrant Latino parents who have, perhaps more than their wounded mid-20s son, an appreciation for the emotion given on their son's behalf. No man in that hallway, walking or clapping, is ashamed by the silent tears on more than a few cheeks. An Airborne Ranger wipes his eyes only to better see. A couple of the officers in this crowd have themselves been a part of this parade in the past. These are our men, broken in body they may be, but they are our brothers, and we welcome them home.

This parade has gone on, every single Friday, all year long, for more than four years.
permalink

Last week I noted the disturbing reports about the ethics of Americans in Iraq and drew parallels to the increase in cheating in American schools. I was light on the commentary, and will remain so to some degree. But what has me stewing recently is Haditha.

I should note now that I am a long time admirer of individual Marines, I have been a member of the Marine Corps Association for more than a decade (though my membership has lapsed now), I write for Marine Corps Gazette upon occasion, and I believe that the Marines are necessary and useful. That being said, I am now worried for the future of the Corps.

The New York Times, by the way, deserves kudos for assigning reporter Paul von Zielbauer to this series. I have no idea who this guy is, and so far as I know, never read any of his work before this. But he is covering the trials of the officers in the Haditha killings, and doing so as well as anyone I have ever seen. His stories are accurate, non-sensationalistic, but hard-hitting on several levels at the same time.

One final note on Haditha as a phenomena, before I get cranked up: Haditha, or more accurately the trials of the Marine officers up the chain from the events in Haditha, is something that you will not see anywhere else. It will be forever a part of our national shame that things like Haditha (and Mahmudihyah, and Abu Ghraib, etc) occur in war. As Eric noted some time ago, it does not seem possible to wage a "perfect" war (as oxymoronic as that construction is) in which nothing like this ever happens. But the fact that we are having court martials matters. The fact that we are trying, in public, officers in the chain of command. The fact that reporters are allowed to cover the trial, and the reports are appearing in our largest papers. All of this matters, and does give me hope. In more ways than may be apparent. It matters.

Now, for the disturbing stuff: The first of these stories, which you can read here, is in my opinion a sign of internal moral rot among people like me: field grade infantry officers. Majors, lieutenant colonels, and full colonels are collectively called "field grade" officers. We are supposed to be more experienced, wiser, less likely to lose our heads and more likely to listen with openness. That is what age and experience, and perhaps some moderate wisdom, is supposed to give you. But what this story tells me about is a peer of mine, another LTC (albeit a Marine) was so blinded by his love of his unit that he blew off his two senior officers and the evidence that, yes, some of his men may have killed innocents, and refused to investigate. This does not speak well for the culture of the Marine Corps, or their future.

But it was actually the next story that really made me worry for the Corps, because this one involves the general in command. You see, by the time you make full Colonel, you are in theory the epitome of everything that service values. You are among the top 1 percent of that service. If you make general, this is even more the case. If this is true, then as I said, I fear for the Corps. When you read the story, perhaps you may see why. A few highlights:

The general who led a division in charge of the marines who killed 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha in 2005 testified Thursday that he was kept from weighing accusations that the killings were illegal because his subordinate officers withheld information for nearly three months.

[...]

[Major] General [Richard A.] Huck said he had not learned until February 2006 about inquiries into the deaths by Time magazine because his own chief of staff and regimental commander kept him in the dark."

These lines indict the colonels below Major General Huck. I leave it to you to read these next selections and decide what they mean.

General Huck said he had made a list of all the officers and enlisted men who could have reported the Haditha killings as a possible law of war violation but did not. They ranged from senior officers to sergeants and radio operators who heard reports from the field that day.

...and later in the story:

For instance, he said he had learned within hours of the episode that women and children had been killed, and acknowledged that his own rules required investigation when a "significant" number of civilians died in actions involving marines. But later he said he saw no reason to look into how a "big" number of civilians had died in Haditha.

General Huck pointed out that his superiors -- including General Chiarelli and his predecessor, and Maj. Gen. Steve Johnson, the top Marine commander in Iraq at the time -- had received many of the field reports about the Haditha civilian deaths that he had received, and that none had opened an inquiry until the Time reporter, Tim McGirk, started asking questions.

Finally, at the end of the story is a short passage that really makes me worry for the Corps. If this trend continues, they may accidentally destroy themselves. To understand why I fear that conclusion you need a little history.

There was once a military force that got involved in politics. During a period of turmoil and perhaps a nationwide emotional malaise in their country, the officers of this military force became deeply enmeshed with a political party which had foisted a story that in the last war (which that nation had lost), the real reason for the loss was that the military had been "betrayed" with a "stab in the back" by soft-headed politicians and journalists on the home-front. The political party played up the idea that the military was still on captured ground at the end of that war, and that the defeat was not, therefore, a military one. This appealed to the ego of those military officers, and they promulgated the legend, and bound themselves to that party.

And no, I am not talking about Vietnam (but the parallel is scary). You can look up the history that I am referring to yourself. OK, so here is what pissed me off (Tim McGirk is a reporter for Time magazine):

The day's first witness, First Lt. Adam P. Mathes, the Company K executive officer at the time, said he and the battalion commander and the battalion executive officer had collectively dismissed Mr. McGirk's questions because they had considered them "sensational" and politically motivated.

"The questions were questionable," Lieutenant Mathes said, testifying by video link from Kuwait, where he is stationed. "It sounded like bad, negative spin. We tried to weed out the grievances that Mr. McGirk had against the Bush administration."

He said Mr. McGirk had seemed to have an antiwar agenda. "This guy is looking for blood," Lieutenant Mathis testified, "because blood leads headlines."

Here's a message for young 1LT Mathes: Lieutenant, it is not your goddamned job to screen for the political agenda of any damned civilian reporter. You are not to decide what a reporter can and cannot ask, beyond the completely reasonable limitations of Operational Security (OPSEC). You swear, like me, an oath to the Constitution. Not this party or that, not this officer or that ... to the United States Constitution. Remember that, Lieutenant. The same directive applies to your major. Pass it on. If I ever meet him, I will tell your battalion commander my own damned self.

OK, that is enough of that for a while.
permalink

This is propaganda -- or at least it would be, if the creator was not apparently just 15 years old. (When a child does this, not the government, there has got to be another name.) It is good propaganda, viewed objectively, by which I mean that it does effectively achieve the intent of the author. The fact that I personally also agree with the sentiment, and worry about it, is neither here nor there.
permalink

The Wall Street Journal has a good story from their solid reporter Yochi Dreazen titled, "New Scrutiny for Iraq Contractors, Killing by Blackwater Worker Poses Dilemma for U.S. Authorities." That story came out on 14 May, so it may or may not be behind a pay wall, here. But I do recommend it.
permalink

Sarin gas is nasty stuff. It is a nerve agent, and even a little bit can ruin your day. A new scientific report, detailed by The New York Times, suggests that some of Saddam's sarin from the last war, may still be hurting our veterans today.

Now, I am not a scientist. I pretend to no more understanding than the average well-informed generalist, and the science behind "Gulf War Syndrome" has become, sadly, politicized over the past sixteen years. I do not know how, or why, but in the 1990s the Veterans Administration and the Department of Defense could not seem to get a handle on this. We still literally do not know enough about all of these chemicals and their interactions, and the interactions of the chemical stew you ingest in the desert as preventatives, to understand how they can mess a fellow up for life. But this most recent study does seem, while limited, to point a way forward.
permalink

Some of you may remember last April's so-called "Revolt of the Generals." Now a couple of those same generals have filmed appeals for a group called VoteVets.org. Nobody can fault Major General John Batiste, in my opinion, for not being a straight shooter. (Probably literally as well as figuratively.) A life-long Republican, he retired after commanding the historic 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, and now manages a steel factory. He is not, therefore, beholden. The New York Times has a story on him, and you can go see the video yourself at VoteVets.org.
permalink

Meanwhile, on the other side of our country, the Los Angeles Times has a story about another straight-shooting Division Commander. Major General Benjamin R. "Randy" Mixon commands what we call MND-N (that's "Multinational Division-North"), which includes Diyala Province.

What is interesting to me comes somewhat farther down in the story. I am not entirely comfortable with the sourcing (I detest anonymous sources and broad statements such as "many people believe" because I think that is just sloppy journalism). But, if true, it might appear that my friend Paul Yingling's essay, which never really was intended for a civilian audience, is having an effect because it was widely read by a civilian audience:

But Mixon is not known for dealing with private disputes in such ways, said one recently retired Army general who is close to the commander. Instead, his frankness probably stems from a new "command climate" under Petraeus that is more conducive to blunt evaluations, the general said.

Many Army generals also have been stung by disclosures by officers. A recent article in the Armed Forces Journal by Lt. Col. Paul Yingling, an Iraq veteran who is deputy commander of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, accused the Army's top generals of botching the war and misleading the American public and Congress.

"That's weighing on the consciences of the general officers of our Army," Nash said. Yingling "said they failed to live up to their sacred oath of telling the truth. As a consequence, I think everybody is saying: 'Not me. I'm not going to be guilty of that.' "
permalink

Fred Kaplan has his own analysis on this issue, or at least on the issue of our generals.
permalink

In your global "Oh shit" News Department: Russia has agreed to build a nuke plant in Myanmar ... nice. Why is it that only Al Jazeera seems to have covered this story, huh?
permalink

It is also somewhat educational to read how the Palestinian fratricide is reported in the Arab media. Since Sunday 43 Palestinians have been killed by other Palestinians, but the front page of Al Jazeera, well, they lead with something else. (Link as of 17:11 Mecca Time, Thursday)
permalink

In French news (and sorry, this story is only in French; I could not find it on an English-language site), the first Sarkozy Surprise: A National Security Council (sort of).
permalink

Two good Marines. Too bad they are both retired.
permalink

Finally, something to consider. These links go to a transcript, and the accompanying slides, from a briefing conducted yesterday.

Here are the salient bits, though. War is hard, but we do try:

On May 8th and into May 9th, a combined patrol of U.S. Special Forces and Afghan national army forces killed over 150 Taliban fighters in an engagement north of Sangin, in Helmand province of Afghan's southern province. This enemy contact was in support of NATO's international security force, Operations Achilles. During the fight, U.S. forces initially encountered high-capable Taliban in the Sangin valley, who pursued our units in an effort to seize an offensive advantage. Our forces repelled the initial Taliban assault and, using terrain and close air support, engaged the enemy with devastating effect.

During this engagement in Sangin, intelligence indicated there was a major or a senior Taliban commander for Helmand province at a particular target compound.

Slide, please.

What you see here is an actual snapshot from the full-motion video asset, which was able to confirm the presence of 10 to 20 Taliban, circled in green, at this target compound.

Next slide.

Through the same -- through the use of the same full-motion video asset, children, circled in red on the slide, were identified near the objective. Consequently, U.S. Special Forces did not engage the target compound, due to the risk of harm to civilians. This is an example of the care taken to prevent civilian casualties and mitigate risk to them amid a long and intense battle with the enemy.

It was learned after this engagement that the Taliban fighters were taking refuge among local villagers, using them as human shields. This angered the Sangin tribal leaders, who blamed the Taliban for deliberately involving civilians and bringing the fight to the area. In response, the local elders mobilized an anti-Taliban militia that reportedly killed three Taliban leaders and captured 15 Taliban fighters.
permalink

You can write to LTC Bob at R_Bateman_LTC@Hotmail.com.
permalink

A friend and long time reader of my blog writes..

Re: Lute
When the President 'asks', you serve. I must agree I don't see a
need for a war czar either.

Okay, nice couple of articles, but why aren't you commenting on
Wolfowitz! That stinks on toast. I really don't understand why the
guy can't just resign after being caught doing something so blatantly
STUPID and conceited. I believe he is showing disrespect for the
World Bank and embarrassing America. Why Condi would come out an
support him is beyond me. His actions were indefensible.


I agree it is hard for a serving officer to say "no"
to the president. In the theatre of my mind I can almost see and hear LBJ saying, "Son, YOUR PRESIDENT NEEDS YOU!. YOUR COUNTRY NEEDS YOU!" Now there was a guy you couldn't say "No" to. But GWB? NAH!

When the situation is absolutely, positively insane, when there is an absence of direction, and no reasonable coherent policy exists, someone sure as hell had better so "No!" Once again I refer you to LTC Yingling's essay in Armed Forces Journal.

So what do we have now, a three-star giving order to four-stars (Petraeus and CENTCOM's Adm. Fallon), as well as to the State Department and all the other agencies that are supposed to make Iraq run? Isn't that why we have a CENTCOM commander and a Joint Chiefs of Staff and a SecDef and cabinet officers and a white house chief of staff,and, well, a PRESIDENT?

This whole business reminds me of one of my favorite scenes from the movie "Apocalypse Now." Captain Willard comes across a night action at the Do Long bridge. There's firing and chaos everywhere. Willard asks one soldier, "Who's in command here?" and the soldier answers, "Ain't you?"

Really , what was Lt. Gen Lute thinking?

As for Wolfowitz, well, as they used to say in my old neighborhood, "Stick a fork in him , he's done!"

You say Wolfowitz should resign because he was "Stupid and conceited". That's like a traffic cop giving out tickets at the Indianapolis 500. Who in this administration ISN'T "Stupid and conceited"?

But don't let Wolfowitz's peccadillo become the equivalent of the Romans' "Bread and Circuses". Karl Rove is quite masterful at the art of distraction. They will tell you to keep your eye on what's in their right hand while they bamboozle you with their left. The real issue today is Alberto Gonzalez and the shredding of the Constitution. The real issue for the past seven years has been the way GWB has run the country.

Keep your eye on the prize!

TRM

Broken Army

Did George Bush break our Army as well as Iraq?

I don’t usually read Armed Forces Journal, but this is one hell of an article, written by one of the Army’s young stars, Lt. Col. Paul Yingling.

Here are some of the most salient paragraphs, but I recommend that you read it in its entirety.

For the second time in a generation, the United States faces the prospect of defeat at the hands of an insurgency. In April 1975, the U.S. fled the Republic of Vietnam, abandoning our allies to their fate at the hands of North Vietnamese communists. In 2007, Iraq's grave and deteriorating condition offers diminishing hope for an American victory and portends risk of an even wider and more destructive regional war.
These debacles are not attributable to individual failures, but rather to a crisis in an entire institution: America's general officer corps. America's generals have failed to prepare our armed forces for war and advise civilian authorities on the application of force to achieve the aims of policy.

...

Failing to visualize future battlefields represents a lapse in professional competence, but seeing those fields clearly and saying nothing is an even more serious lapse in professional character. Moral courage is often inversely proportional to popularity and this observation in nowhere more true than in the profession of arms. The history of military innovation is littered with the truncated careers of reformers who saw gathering threats clearly and advocated change boldly. A military professional must possess both the physical courage to face the hazards of battle and the moral courage to withstand the barbs of public scorn. On and off the battlefield, courage is the first characteristic of generalship.

...
America's generals have repeated the mistakes of Vietnam in Iraq. First, throughout the 1990s our generals failed to envision the conditions of future combat and prepare their forces accordingly. Second, America's generals failed to estimate correctly both the means and the ways necessary to achieve the aims of policy prior to beginning the war in Iraq. Finally, America's generals did not provide Congress and the public with an accurate assessment of the conflict in Iraq.

...

Having spent a decade preparing to fight the wrong war, America's generals then miscalculated both the means and ways necessary to succeed in Iraq. The most fundamental military miscalculation in Iraq has been the failure to commit sufficient forces to provide security to Iraq's population. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) estimated in its 1998 war plan that 380,000 troops would be necessary for an invasion of Iraq. Using operations in Bosnia and Kosovo as a model for predicting troop requirements, one Army study estimated a need for 470,000 troops. Alone among America's generals, Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki publicly stated that "several hundred thousand soldiers" would be necessary to stabilize post-Saddam Iraq. Prior to the war, President Bush promised to give field commanders everything necessary for victory. Privately, many senior general officers both active and retired expressed serious misgivings about the insufficiency of forces for Iraq. These leaders would later express their concerns in tell-all books such as "Fiasco" and "Cobra II." However, when the U.S. went to war in Iraq with less than half the strength required to win, these leaders did not make their objections public.

...

America's generals have been checked by a form of war that they did not prepare for and do not understand. They spent the years following the 1991 Gulf War mastering a system of war without thinking deeply about the ever changing nature of war. They marched into Iraq having assumed without much reflection that the wars of the future would look much like the wars of the past. Those few who saw clearly our vulnerability to insurgent tactics said and did little to prepare for these dangers

So, Bravo Zulu to you, Col. Yingling! (Nice way to put your career on the super slow track!)

Lute, I am Your Father

What on earth compelled Lt. Gen Douglas E. Lute to volunteer to become the nations "War Czar", to stick his head through the carnival canvas to become the permanent target for war critics, thereby deflecting attention from GWB?

There already exists a unified command structure to handle all of the issues that are supposed to be addressed by the new “war czar”. The bio on Lute suggests that this is a man of great intelligence and skill. Did his soldier’s ethic force him to say, “Can Do, Sir!” Or did someone say it was his turn in the barrel?

I wish I had the time to sit down with this guy over a couple of beers and find out what the hell he really was thinking.

Lute. Remember the name. Feel free to use it anytime in place of “scapegoat”.

Banana Republic

Seems Alberto Gonzalez can’t do anything right. Latest news is that when Alberto was white house counsel, he raced to then Attorney General John Ashcroft’s hospital bed to get Ashcroft to sign off on a wiretapping law that Ashcroft’s own justice department said was illegal. Also racing through Washington streets, sirens blaring and lights flashing, was Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey, who wanted to warn Ashcroft about the White House’s plans. Comey won that mad dash. Alberto, along with White House Chief of Staff Andy Card, could not get the known right winger Ashcroft, who had such trouble with semi-nude statuary in halls of the Department of Justice that he had them draped with fabric, to sign off on the plan. FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III also had trouble with the plan, to the extent that he prepared a letter of resignation, as did several other high ranking DOJ staffers.

One would think that when your AG and FBI chief both believe that a wire-tapping initiative is illegal, then the chief executive would take notice. The NYTIMES reports that GWB decided to continue the program in its illegal state until it could be made legal. Sort of like being pregnant for a while.
I think this fits into the “high crimes and misdemeanors” clause of the Constitution of the United States. But then again, this administration, and I include the Republican majorities that existed in both the House and the Senate at the time, has shredded the constitution. The President was above the law.


“Checks and Balances.” It’s more than just a phrase.