I first came about this book when I contacted a reporter for the Washington Post by the name of Thomas Ricks. At the time, he was reporting from Baghdad as the Post's military reporter. He had just written an article about the 3rd Armored Cavalry Division in al-Anbar province of Iraq. I wrote him thanking him for the good reporting and asked him about a reading list he mentioned where a colonel from the 3ACR had asked his commissioned officers to read. That Col. was HR McMaster, who has combat experience in Desert Storm, as well as Operation Iraqi Freedom. His bio is below:
http://www.carson.army.mil/UNITS/3RD%20ACR/main%20pages/71st%20Bio.htm
Well that reading list:
http://www.carson.army.mil/UNITS/3RD%20ACR/Regimental%20Education.pdf
included the title, "Counterinsurgency Warfare," and was the book that Ricks indicated to read, if you only read one.
So if there was one lesson from this book, it was the following:
A counterinsurgency is more a matter of civil affairs than combat. Clear and hold, rather than search and destroy.
Supposedly, this has been a very popular title within the ranks of the Bush Administration. In fact, these are the lessons that McMaster, et al. have been employing in Ramadi and other parts of the Anbar province. But it has taken a long time and is not catching on everywhere. However, if we are to succeed in Iraq, this is our only chance.
As a postscript, McMaster, along with Col. Peter Mansoor (also of the Army) and Col. Thomas Greenwood of the US Marine Corps (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111901249_pf.html) have been tasked with an alternative to the Iraq Study Group featuring James Baker and Lee Hamilton by General Peter Pace, which will feature these concepts. Hopefully the civilian leadership will listen to those who have succeeded in fighting our enemies.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Michael Richards is a racist...so what!
Over the last week, the country became aware of a particularly vitriolic tirade issued by former Seinfeld star, Michael Richards (Kramer). The situation basically evolved from a disruptive entrance by a large party at a comedy club in Los Angeles. From there, it de-volved into a name-calling, epithet laced banter between the comedian and the members of the crowd, some of whom are black.
Now, the subject of this verbal melee has contacted counsel and are considering legal action. But what can the courts do? Can they compel Mr. Richards to do anything?
The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.htm
Wouldn't a government sanctioned decision (while civil and not criminal) abridge Mr. Richard's freedom to spout his racist rantings? This is another case where logic and reason complicate America's sense of justice. Clearly, Mr. Richards offended the people whom he verbally assaulted. And ask any lawyer, people have the right to redress their grievances for at least $200 per hour in legal fees.
However, where do we draw the line? In Germany, it is illegal to imitate Adolph Hitler. In most of Europe, it is a crime to deny the Holocaust. While some of these behaviors are reprehensible, in this country, we could say pretty much anything so long as it didn't endanger another's life (i.e. yelling fire in a crowded theater).
But the times, oh they are a changin.' As kids we used to be able to say that we live in a free country and could do anything we want. even if it is moronic. I'm not so sure that is the case anymore. Just ask Kramer.
Now, the subject of this verbal melee has contacted counsel and are considering legal action. But what can the courts do? Can they compel Mr. Richards to do anything?
The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.htm
Wouldn't a government sanctioned decision (while civil and not criminal) abridge Mr. Richard's freedom to spout his racist rantings? This is another case where logic and reason complicate America's sense of justice. Clearly, Mr. Richards offended the people whom he verbally assaulted. And ask any lawyer, people have the right to redress their grievances for at least $200 per hour in legal fees.
However, where do we draw the line? In Germany, it is illegal to imitate Adolph Hitler. In most of Europe, it is a crime to deny the Holocaust. While some of these behaviors are reprehensible, in this country, we could say pretty much anything so long as it didn't endanger another's life (i.e. yelling fire in a crowded theater).
But the times, oh they are a changin.' As kids we used to be able to say that we live in a free country and could do anything we want. even if it is moronic. I'm not so sure that is the case anymore. Just ask Kramer.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Finally, some new pictures...
Since today's is Thanksgiving, we dressed the little guy up and went to Grandma Karen and Grandpa Ray's house.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Rep Alcee Hastings (D-FL) Seeks Chair of House Intelligence Committee
Today, Representative Alcee Hastings of Florida asked his fellow House members to select him as the Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committe on Intelligence. While not the ranking Democrat on the committee (that title belongs to Rep Jane Harman of California), Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is being lobbied to support Rep Hastings for the chair.
Rep Hastings holds a distinguished title among Congressmen. He is one of only 6 federal judges in the history of our republic to be impeached, having been so in 1988 by a vote of 413-3 in the House (including by Rep Nancy Pelosi herself) and convicted by a vote of 95-0 in the Senate. This is despite the fact that he was acquitted of bribery charges.
What would lead his fellow Democrats to pass such judgement? I have read the indictment and the evidence surrounding the case. It is my firm belief (and clearly the nearly unanimous belief of the 1988 Congress) that Rep Hastings was guilty and should be punished for his crimes.
Of course, that doesn't speak to his capability of serving the state of Florida in a different capacity, but the man does not deserve to be in Congress, let alone the chairman of a committee. Shame on you, Rep Pelosi! Apparently ending the "culture of corruption" was just a bunch of lip service. Unfortunately, you are now playing with our nation's security.
Go figure; another politician lying. Who woulda thunk it?
Rep Hastings holds a distinguished title among Congressmen. He is one of only 6 federal judges in the history of our republic to be impeached, having been so in 1988 by a vote of 413-3 in the House (including by Rep Nancy Pelosi herself) and convicted by a vote of 95-0 in the Senate. This is despite the fact that he was acquitted of bribery charges.
What would lead his fellow Democrats to pass such judgement? I have read the indictment and the evidence surrounding the case. It is my firm belief (and clearly the nearly unanimous belief of the 1988 Congress) that Rep Hastings was guilty and should be punished for his crimes.
Of course, that doesn't speak to his capability of serving the state of Florida in a different capacity, but the man does not deserve to be in Congress, let alone the chairman of a committee. Shame on you, Rep Pelosi! Apparently ending the "culture of corruption" was just a bunch of lip service. Unfortunately, you are now playing with our nation's security.
Go figure; another politician lying. Who woulda thunk it?
Sunday, November 19, 2006
New Report from CTC @ West Point
The Combatting Terrorism Center at the US Military Academy at West Point is one of the most engaged groups from an institutional level studying terrorism, specifically Salifi terrorism, in the United States today.
Recently, they came out with a rather lengthy (360 page) report called, "Militant Ideology Atlas." In this report, they looked over the most popular texts forming the ideological basis for Salifist terrorism (Jihadism) in the world today. This does not include the propoganda videos and speeches by fighters like Zarqawi, etc., but the published ideological texts of modern and pre-modern extremist thinkers. This is important because, as the report indicates, the only way for this ideology to be defeated is for Muslims, particularly clerics, to denounce the tactics.
However, from the report come some interesting tidbits of information. First, who is the enemy? The report details the world of Islam with the following divisions:
Recently, they came out with a rather lengthy (360 page) report called, "Militant Ideology Atlas." In this report, they looked over the most popular texts forming the ideological basis for Salifist terrorism (Jihadism) in the world today. This does not include the propoganda videos and speeches by fighters like Zarqawi, etc., but the published ideological texts of modern and pre-modern extremist thinkers. This is important because, as the report indicates, the only way for this ideology to be defeated is for Muslims, particularly clerics, to denounce the tactics.
However, from the report come some interesting tidbits of information. First, who is the enemy? The report details the world of Islam with the following divisions:
- Jihadis lie within a population of Salafis
- Salafis lie within a population of Islamists
- Islamists lie within a popluation of Sunnis
- Sunnis lie within a population of Muslims
This is important to understand, because I believe the general public believes that the enemy is a very small group and the large majority of the population of Muslims are secularist moderates. This is simply not the case. In reality, our definition of moderate and their definition of moderate are two completely separate concepts. Their definition of moderates would be those who don't advocate the killing of women, children and elderly. Extremists, therefore are those who can justify the killing of women, children and the elderly in the furtherance of jihad. Moderates, however are not those who want a secular government. Within Africa and the Middle East, those who advocate for a secular government are in the distinct minority. In fact, most of the people in the Middle East are considered Islamists, who want their government to be based upon the Qu'ran. A significant component of Islamists are Salafis, who want their government to effectively implement the Qu'ran as the law, and the minority are those who wish to execute those who don't follow the Qu'ran: these are the jihadis.
If you have an interest in reading more of the report, you can find it at:
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/atlas/Atlas-ResearchCompendium.pdf
Friday, November 17, 2006
Parker Wearing his Hat from Joanie
Above are some pictures Kari took so that we could send a picture of Parker to Joanie in the hat she sent him for Halloween.
Enjoy!
Sunday, November 12, 2006
New Enemies in the Global War on Terror
Over the past week, several factions withinthe leadership of Palestine, including Hamas (the ruling party of Palestine), Fatah (the former ruling party of Palestine) and the al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade (the terrorist wing of Fatah), have declared war against the United States in response to an Israeli attack on Beit Hanoun in Palestine earlier this week. This attack led to the death of 18 Palestinians in an apparent accidental tank shelling of the West Bank community.
Regardless of the tragedy of Beit Hanoun, Americans must understand that once again, terrorist groups have declared war upon us, as did al-Qaeda in 1996. Will we recognize this as such, or will we yet again ignore this call. Thus far, these declarations are getting very little coverage.
What will we do when Hamas or al-Aqsa claim responsibility for a terrorist strike in the United States? This is not far-fetched as Hamas, unlike al-Qaeda, has a significant presence here in the US due to its fundraising efforts, that while illegal, nevertheless thrive due to the large Palestinian diaspora in this country.
Will America wake up this time? We shall see the Democrats challenged because of this over the next two years. How will they respond? I fear they will not respond at all and make us less safe in the process.
Regardless of the tragedy of Beit Hanoun, Americans must understand that once again, terrorist groups have declared war upon us, as did al-Qaeda in 1996. Will we recognize this as such, or will we yet again ignore this call. Thus far, these declarations are getting very little coverage.
What will we do when Hamas or al-Aqsa claim responsibility for a terrorist strike in the United States? This is not far-fetched as Hamas, unlike al-Qaeda, has a significant presence here in the US due to its fundraising efforts, that while illegal, nevertheless thrive due to the large Palestinian diaspora in this country.
Will America wake up this time? We shall see the Democrats challenged because of this over the next two years. How will they respond? I fear they will not respond at all and make us less safe in the process.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Election 2006
Today's election was quite a personal letdown for me. Frankly, it had nothing to do with the national results, as I think it was about time for a change of leadership in Washington and hopefully, lots of gridlock.
However, the elections have confirmed an alarming trend that I have refused to acknowledge for some time, but should have seen coming: the American population is rapidly giving up freedom so that they may be supported by the government. In my own state, for example, a ballot measure proposed to provide healthcare to all people under the age of 18 who don't have it. This sounds nice in principle; it would be nice if everyone had health care. But many people choose not to have it. Some people are underinsured and others are overinsured. Keep in mind, we are not talking about poor people; they are already covered under the Oregon Health Plan or Medicaid. If they are seniors, they are covered by Medicare. What we are talking about is middle and upper class kids (under the age of 18), who for some reason, don't have health insurance. Now, it is my responsibility to cover it.
Another good example of people rapidly giving up freedom was the ballot measure which would have capped annual spending failed...dramatically. The bill proposed that Oregon state spending not increase by more than the factor of inflation plus population growth (i.e.: in 2005, budgeted spending could not have increased by more than 1.4% + 3% or 4.4%). In reality, spending has increased by 13% per year for nearly 20 years. Clearly, this is unsustainable, unless Oregon decides to create their own currency. However, there are lots of services, middle class Oregonians would lose, were it not for the drastic increase in annual spending. Like what, you may ask? I attempted to think of all the government "services" in which I participate. I came up with the following list:
1) fire department
2) police department
3) roads
That's about it folks. The government doesn't pay to vaccinate my child or provide healthcare to anyone in my family. And yet, hundreds of thousands of Oregonians think they should. We'll see what they think about that when corporate insurance in Oregon stops covering kids under the age of 18. Then people may determine freedom was more important. Unfortunately, it will be too little, too late.
However, the elections have confirmed an alarming trend that I have refused to acknowledge for some time, but should have seen coming: the American population is rapidly giving up freedom so that they may be supported by the government. In my own state, for example, a ballot measure proposed to provide healthcare to all people under the age of 18 who don't have it. This sounds nice in principle; it would be nice if everyone had health care. But many people choose not to have it. Some people are underinsured and others are overinsured. Keep in mind, we are not talking about poor people; they are already covered under the Oregon Health Plan or Medicaid. If they are seniors, they are covered by Medicare. What we are talking about is middle and upper class kids (under the age of 18), who for some reason, don't have health insurance. Now, it is my responsibility to cover it.
Another good example of people rapidly giving up freedom was the ballot measure which would have capped annual spending failed...dramatically. The bill proposed that Oregon state spending not increase by more than the factor of inflation plus population growth (i.e.: in 2005, budgeted spending could not have increased by more than 1.4% + 3% or 4.4%). In reality, spending has increased by 13% per year for nearly 20 years. Clearly, this is unsustainable, unless Oregon decides to create their own currency. However, there are lots of services, middle class Oregonians would lose, were it not for the drastic increase in annual spending. Like what, you may ask? I attempted to think of all the government "services" in which I participate. I came up with the following list:
1) fire department
2) police department
3) roads
That's about it folks. The government doesn't pay to vaccinate my child or provide healthcare to anyone in my family. And yet, hundreds of thousands of Oregonians think they should. We'll see what they think about that when corporate insurance in Oregon stops covering kids under the age of 18. Then people may determine freedom was more important. Unfortunately, it will be too little, too late.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
