Lest We Forget

The waving flags

The threatening tones

Saying we will stand for this no more.

The rallying cry

That flames our passion

Sending our young to die in war.

The broken souls

The rows of tombs

Marking each mortal end.

The monuments

Showing we'll remember

Again. And again. And again.

No Take Backs

Remember back in 2009 when President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize? It was for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". The Norwegian Nobel Committee announced the award on October 9, 2009, citing Obama's promotion of nuclear nonproliferation and a "new climate" in international relations fostered by Obama, especially in reaching out to the Muslim world.

Thorbjørn Jagland, chairman of the committee, said "We have not given the prize for what may happen in the future. We are awarding Obama for what he has done in the past year. And we are hoping this may contribute a little bit for what he is trying to do," noting that he hoped the award would assist Obama's foreign policy efforts. Involvement in which can now be proven as early as March 2009. Jagland said the committee was influenced by a speech Obama gave about Islam in Cairo in June 2009, the president's efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation and climate change, and Obama's support for using established international bodies such as the United Nations to pursue foreign policy goals.

Today we have this:

"I can confirm that U.S. military and partner nation forces are undertaking military action against ISIL [ISIS] terrorists in Syria using a mix of fighter, bomber and Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles," Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Admiral John Kirby said. "Given that these operations are ongoing, we are not in a position to provide additional details at this time. The decision to conduct theses strikes was made earlier today by the U.S. Central Command commander under authorization granted him by the commander in chief. We will provide more details later as operationally appropriate."

And this:

A sprawling new plant here(Kansas City, MO) in a former soybean field makes the mechanical guts of America’s atomic warheads. Bigger than the Pentagon, full of futuristic gear and thousands of workers, the plant, dedicated last month, modernizes the aging weapons that the United States can fire from missiles, bombers and submarines. 

It is part of a nationwide wave of atomic revitalization that includes plans for a new generation of weapon carriers. A recent federal study put the collective price tag, over the next three decades, at up to a trillion dollars.

It's Not Like It Means Something

Yesterday, President Obama said he's decided that the United States should take military action in Syria, but he's going to seek Congressional authorization first. However, he also said he believes he has the authority to take military action without Congressional authorization.

So why bother? To give the appearance of a checked Executive, I suppose.

A Bastion Of Freedom And Democracy?

When you kill civilians in person it's a war crime, as it should be.

When you kill civilians with an unmanned aerial vehicle it's...um...regrettable?

And just as it does with surveillance and monitoring of Americans, Congress aids and abets even when simply doing nothing.

Never Ending War

This from Wired yesterday:

Asked at a Senate hearing today how long the war on terrorism will last, Michael Sheehan, the assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict, answered, “At least 10 to 20 years.”  

It was just two months ago that the top U.S. intelligence official testified that al-Qaida had been battered by the U.S. into a state of disarray. A year ago, the current CIA director, John Brennan, said that “For the first time since this fight began, we can look ahead and envision a world in which the al Qaeda core is simply no longer relevant.” Just this week, the commander of the Joint Special Operations Command, Army Lt. Gen. Joseph Votel, told a Florida conference that he was looking at missions beyond the counterterrorism manhunt.

Yet a spokeswoman, Army Col. Anne Edgecomb, clarified that Sheehan meant the conflict is likely to last 10 to 20 more years from today — atop the 12 years that the conflict has already lasted. Welcome to America’s Thirty Years War.

Since only 25% of America's 17-24 year olds are eligible for military service, a trend that has been going on for years now, if you keep your children fit and healthy they will be members of a select pool who will have the opportunity to become heroes.

What could be one of the reasons the war against terrorism could last so long?

Keeping An Eye On The Aggressor

Glen Greenwald makes some good points about the CNN report on Iran allegedly shooting at a US drone. CNN basically repeated what they were given by the Obama administration and didn't bother asking Iran what their side of the story was.

I'm reminded of Stephen Colbert's blistering of the press corps at the White House Correspondents Dinner back in 2006.   

But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works. The President makes decisions. He's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home.

But I digress.

From the CNN article:

Two Iranian Su-25 fighter jets fired on an unarmed U.S. Air Force Predator drone in the Persian Gulf last week, CNN has learned.  The incident raises fresh concerns within the Obama administration about Iranian military aggression in crucial Gulf oil shipping lanes.  

Let's put the Obama administration concerns about Iranian military aggression in the right perspective.

What country invaded neighboring Iraq over unwarranted fears of weapons of mass destruction?

What country has launched missile attacks from unmanned aircraft in neighboring Pakistan, and even as far away as Somalia and Yemen, going so far as killing Americans?

Given that, one can easily understand why the Obama administration has fresh concerns about Iranian military aggression.

What We've Become

Prospective Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry says he is open to sending the U.S. military to Mexico to help fight the drug cartels.

“It may require our military in Mexico working in concert with them to kill these drug cartels and to keep them off of our border and to destroy their network,” Mr. Perry said during a campaign appearance here.

“I don’t know all the different scenarios that would be out there,” he said. “But I think it is very important for us to work with them to keep that country from failing.”

This is the same type of thinking that pushed us over the moral edge when we decided to declare a Global War on Terrorism and use the military to fight it. The war was not against a state, but against a small organization whose members were out in the global hinterlands. The enemy in this war became so conflated and the definition of a terrorist so expansive that Congress has to pass a bill that declared Nelson Mandela wasn't a terrorist so he could travel to the United States.

Our military has been involved in Afghanistan for ten years. We helped overthrow the Taliban and installed a government that cannot exist without our continued presence. We used to drop bombs and shoot cruise missiles. Technological advances have given us the ability to use remote controlled aircraft to stay over a target for a long time and then hit it with a missile.

That target, as we witnessed recently, can even be an American citizen, a decision cleared by U.S. government lawyers. And how hard can that be these days? During the Bush Administration John Yoo said the President's constitutional authority was broad enough to order the massacre of a village. He also helped provide legal justification for "enhanced interrogation techniques", better known in other circles as torture. So clearing the extrajudicial killing of Anwar Awlaki via a remote controlled aircraft launching a missile shouldn't be hard to do. And as you can see from many of the comments on any articles about this, most people don't consider the violation of his constitutional rights to be an issue. And many that do think that killing a terrorist is worth trumping the law. Instead, celebrate that we killed another terrorist.

Putting Their Foot Down--Sort Of

In today's Spokesman Review we read about the House of Representatives passing a resolution that gives President Obama 14 days to justify the U.S. military involvement in attacks on Libya. Along with that they voted down a resolution that calls for withdrawing from Libya within 15 days.

Could the House be getting semi-serious about abuse of executive power?

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 list very specific conditions where the president is permitted to send our military into hostile action.

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

The Obama administration claims it not violating the War Powers Act. The law also requires the president to cease military within 60 days unless there's been a declaration of war, an extension of 60 days, or an automatic 30-day extension if Congress is unable meet because of an armed attack on the U.S. That 60-day period ended on May 20.

UN Resolution 1973 created a no-fly zone over Libya and gave member states authorization to enforce it. The Arab League supported that resolution. When asked about military intervention, Defense Secretary Gates said, "We all agreed that NATO will only act if there is demonstrable need, a sound legal basis, and strong regional support."

With the Arab League supporting (regional support) the UN resolution (legal basis), we and our NATO allied used that as the basis for our military intervention in Libya. However, we have gone beyond enforcing a no-fly zone and arms embargo by implementing a broad bombing campaign. The demonstrable need, therefore, has presumably become the expelling of Muammar Gadaffi after 42 years of power. Inspired by events in Tunisia and Egypt, Libyans rose up in protest and a civil war broke out. We decided to take sides and get involved for reasons that don't match up to the specifics in the War Powers Act.

Congress has given past executives free passes on military action before. Heck, they even authorized an invasion of a country that posed no threat to us resulting in thousands of deaths, the displacement of millions of people, and justified American use of torture. For that we are safe from Saddam Hussein and his nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.

So is Congress going to get serious about U.S. bombs and missiles hitting targets killing people in Libya?

We have two weeks to find out before we find out how much more time we have to find out.

Bring Back The Draft

Yesterday Senator Lindsey Graham spoke at the Halifax International Security Forum held in Halifax, Nova Scotia in which he advocated going to war with Iran.

"The last thing America wants is another military conflict, but the last thing the world needs is a nuclear-armed Iran... Containment is off the table."

The South Carolina Republican saw the United States going to war with the Islamic republic "not to just neutralize their nuclear program, but to sink their navy, destroy their air force and deliver a decisive blow to the Revolutionary Guard, in other words neuter that regime."

This is not new language for Graham. He gave a speech at AIPAC last March in which he also advocated going to war with Iran as a last resort and yet as the only choice. And how fitting that he ended that speech with these words.

God bless all those who believe in peace and tolerance.

Graham must reserve special blessings for those like himself who see no alternative but war.

During dinner a few nights ago I told Steph that we should bring back the draft and include women.

"No way," she said. "That means I could be sent off to war."

Yes, but mandatory government service is an excellent motivator for getting young people to learn what their government is doing and care enough to do something about it.

There Is No Question

Reuters has been seeking the release of this video for almost three years. According to the original story, published in the New York Times:

The American military said in a statement late Thursday that 11 people had been killed: nine insurgents and two civilians. According to the statement, American troops were conducting a raid when they were hit by small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. The American troops called in reinforcements and attack helicopters. In the ensuing fight, the statement said, the two Reuters employees and nine insurgents were killed.

“There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force,” said Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, a spokesman for the multinational forces in Baghdad.

Warning: This is graphic.
The video shows that to be false.

Questions to ponder. What if that were your child in the van? What if that were your child pulling the trigger?

Well, If You Have To Do What You Have To Do...

Colin Powell's take on preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said new sanctions on Iran to persuade it to stop enriching uranium won’t work because the Islamic republic is “determined to have a nuclear program.”

“I don’t see a set of sanctions coming along that would be so detrimental to the Iranians that they are going to stop that program,” Powell said in an interview with Bloomberg special contributor Judy Woodruff. “So ultimately, the solution has to be a
negotiated one.”

And from Senator Evan Bayh.

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) said Sunday that the White House needs to consider the use of force against Iran to keep the country from getting nuclear weapons.

Bayh, speaking at a roundtable discussion on the opening day of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference, said that the administration should go through the motions of proceeding with planned tougher sanctions against the Islamic Republic, but cautioned that they probably wouldn't work and that the White House should be prepared for the worst-case scenario.

"We need to go forward with aggressive sanctions that are likely to hurt the regime... but that's unlikely to work," Bayh said. "Now we have to turn to contemplate the final option -- the use of force to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon."

"...In the long run, you have to do what you have to do," he said.

Maybe we could nuke Iran and then they'd truly understand why they don't want nuclear weapons. You know...since we're thinking so hard about this...in the long run.

Determining It Was Worth It

I needed to take some to think after reading the article in yesterday's Spokesman Review about Josh Olson, the Spokane native and Iraq War veteran.

Sgt. 1st Class Josh Olson has a lot invested in the future of Iraq, and he would like to believe his sacrifice was not in vain.

What he saw in October, when he returned to the place where a rocket-propelled grenade took his leg, gave him reason to believe “it was worth it.”

Nobody would like to believe the sacrifice they or their loved ones made was in vain. I think Sergeant Olson, quite understandably, is addressing this in terms of his sacrifice and experience.

Six years after leaving Iraq, Olson returned as part of a program called Operation Proper Exit, in which wounded soldiers are “allowed to go back and leave under their own power,” he said.

It is hoped that revisiting the site of their trauma will help injured soldiers heal their psychological wounds, often called invisible wounds.

I hope this program works for the vets and I applaud the Army for taking steps like this to help them.

Olson has since visited Iraq two more times as an Operation Proper Exit mentor. He said he was amazed by the changes he saw there.

“It was totally different,” Olson said. Victory Base has once again become Baghdad International Airport and Iraqi security forces have largely replaced U.S. troops. “It made me feel good to see there was progress.”

Had Sgt Olson seen that part of Iraq before we invaded the contrast would have been even greater.

A large section of Tel Afar had been leveled and its residents removed by U.S. forces to prevent it becoming another Fallujah, a former hotbed of Iraqi insurgence.

“It’s still a big ordeal for the Iraqi people,” Olson said, adding that a surge in violence already has begun in advance of upcoming Iraq elections. “People over there are dying to vote where people over here don’t bother.”

We engaged in a preventive war by invading a country that posed no threat to us. In doing so we created 2 million war refugees and displaced 4.7 million of the Iraqi people. We caused hundreds of thousands to die. Of our military forces, over 4,000 died and over 31,000 were wounded. We did depose Saddam Hussein, a ruthless dictator, and yet many other ruthless dictators are left to do as they please.

I do not begrudge Sgt Olson's perspective. He has a very personal stake in this and I would too were I in his place. But we need to look at the big picture before we as a country ask ourselves if it was worth it.

Will The Soldiers And People That Died Notice?

We are renaming the war in Iraq. As of September 1, 2010--why the wait?--it will change from Operation IRAQI FREEDOM to Operation NEW DAWN.

Wolverines!!!

I know, that was Red Dawn, but in a way it makes just as much sense.

Maybe If We Sent Sympathy Cards

In today's Spokesman Review we are brought the "good" news of a Taliban leader being killed.

The Pakistani Taliban confirmed Tuesday that their leader, Hakimullah Mehsud, died from injuries suffered in a U.S. drone missile strike last month, an attack that forces the insurgency to find a new leader for the second time in six months.

Those who say Obama is soft on terrorism may not be aware that he has increased the use of missile-bearing drones to attack Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders. The part that's always murky is the number of civilian deaths. From the Christian Science Monitor:

To be sure, there are frequently conflicting public claims about the number of civilians or militants killed in such attacks. On a number of a occasions, senior Taliban or Al Qaeda-linked figures have been reported killed, only to emerge on videotape later to say reports of their demise were exaggerated. Hakimullah Mehsud, the current leader of the Pakistani Taliban, was once reported dead – and then made a public appearance in good health. US officials now say they're confident that he was killed by a December drone strike. His predecessor, Baitullah Mehsud, was killed by a US drone strike in August, 2009.

Hmmm, the CSM didn't pursue the civilian deaths. And from Al Jazeera:

Washington's refusal to comment on its alleged attacks has been criticised, with even supporters of the raids as a tool in Washington's fight against the Taliban saying that the US needs to be more open to counter the fighters' allegations that only innocent civilians are dying.

"The US government doesn't even suggest what the proportion of innocent people to legitimate targets is," Michael Walzer, an American scholar on the ethics of warfare, said.

"It's a moral mistake, but it's a PR mistake as well."

According to the statistics compiled by Pakistani authorities, drones killed 708 people in 44 attacks targeting the tribal areas in 2009. Authorities said more than 90 per cent of those killed in the raids were civilians.

I'm sure that regardless of the number of innocent civilians killed by our missiles, the people there would be understanding because we're in a just fight against terrorism. So if you had family members living in the same place for many years and they happened to be next door to an Al Qaeda leader and a missile killed them along with that leader, you would understand, right? They shouldn't have been there, right? Who in their right mind lives near an Al Qaeda leader?

After all, the last thing we want is for this to go too far.

The Definitively Ambiguous Gray Area

It seems we made a mistake in treating Umar Farouk Abdulmutalib like the criminal he is suspected of being. (There's an article about this in today's print edition of the Spokesman Review but I can't find it online.)

Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair on Wednesday criticized the decision by FBI agents last month to question the Christmas Day airline bombing suspect as a criminal and not interrogate him as a terrorist.

...

When Mr. Blair was asked more directly whether he agreed with the decision to put Mr. Abdulmutallab on trial, he declined to answer.

The gist of both articles is that Abdulmutalib should not have been advised of his rights and allowed to get an attorney and should have been questioned by the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group who are permitted to use more extensive interrogation techniques than the simple--and yet most effective--tools available to law enforcement.

And this is where we as a country have a problem. Treating terrorists as the criminals they are works. Yes they can get a lawyer, but if we have the evidence to prove their crime, so what? We've successfully prosecuted and sentenced many of them.

Treating them as a vaguely defined participant in a vaguely defined war is and has been very troublesome. Guantanamo is an easy example of that. There are rules for war that we're supposed to abide by, some of which are known as the Geneva Convention. We've created a new definition of war that doesn't fit the rules we claim to abide by which apparently allows us to act in any manner we see fit.

Put the shoe on the other foot and ask ourselves how we would react if one of our CIA agents in Afghanistan was captured and subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques. The hue and cry about inhumane treatment and unconscionable behavior would be deafening. How dare they?

Indeed.

Terrorism And Our Economy

Geoff introduced me to TED some time ago where you can watch, listen to and learn about a wide variety of subjects. In this TED Talk, Loretta Napoleoni talks about the relationship between terrorism and the world's economy. This will not be a waste of 15 minutes. And kudos to TED for providing closed captioning on their videos.


I love her advice at the end.

"You got to question everything that is told to do, including what I just told you today."

A Familiar Frame Of Mind

I was quite amazed to learn that among the many nuclear weapons tests our country carried out way back when in the early days, we also exploded a weapon in space in an operation called Starfish Prime. Among the effects:

About 897 miles (1445 kilometers) away in Hawaii, the electromagnetic pulse (EMP) created by the explosion was felt as three hundred street lights failed, television sets and radios malfunctioned and burglar alarms went off. On Kauai, the EMP shut down telephone calls to the other islands by burning out the equipment used in a microwave link.

...

While some of the energetic beta particles followed the Earth's magnetic field and illuminated the sky, other high-energy electrons became trapped and formed radiation belts around the earth. There was much uncertainty and debate about the composition, magnitude and potential adverse effects from this trapped radiation after the detonation. The weaponeers became quite worried when three satellites in low earth orbit were disabled. These man-made radiation belts eventually crippled one-third of all satellites in low orbit. Seven satellites were destroyed as radiation knocked out their solar arrays or electronics, including the first commercial relay communication satellite ever, Telstar. Detectors on Telstar, TRAAC, Injun, and Ariel 1 were used to measure distribution of the radiation produced by the tests.

Crazy stuff. Back in 1987, while staying at a bed and breakfast near Edinburgh, Scotland, Kathy and I had the good fortune to meet a Mr Clark. Most likely you've never heard of or met Mr Clark, but you're probably familiar with men like him. He was a veteran of World War II, retired British Army, a non-volunteer atomic test participant, and a Scotsman with a farm on Tasmania who visited his homeland once a year thus crossing our paths. His crushing handshake belied his age of seventy. He and I spoke at length after dinner.

I was blown away to hear his tale of being at the site of an atomic test. I don't recall all the details and I can't account for the veracity of his story but I do know there were British troops exposed to various atomic tests back in the 50's. I had recently read a book entitled Killing Our Own documenting American military members' exposure to radiation, the medical effects of the years, and our government's, to put it politely, inadequate response. And here I was hearing it straight from someone who'd been there.

Mr Clark had no complaints. He did as he was ordered and he said he was willing to do so because he feared communism. He spoke at length of the terrible specter of communism that, although diminished in 1987, still haunted the world. As far as he was concerned, any sacrifice was justifiable to ensure its defeat.

And so, in a similar vein, we continue.

So Where Do We Draw The Line?

From an article in the New York Times:

The White House has authorized an expansion of the C.I.A.’s drone program in Pakistan’s lawless tribal areas, officials said this week, to parallel the president’s decision, announced Tuesday, to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. American officials are talking with Pakistan about the possibility of striking in Baluchistan for the first time — a controversial move since it is outside the tribal areas — because that is where Afghan Taliban leaders are believed to hide.

One of Washington’s worst-kept secrets, the drone program is quietly hailed by counterterrorism officials as a resounding success, eliminating key terrorists and throwing their operations into disarray. But despite close cooperation from Pakistani intelligence, the program has generated public anger in Pakistan, and some counterinsurgency experts wonder whether it does more harm than good.

The rationalization for remote attacks hardly makes our cause exemplary. Killing innocent people in the process generates more animosity against us. Expanding the area we will attack along with our capability to loiter above and strike increases the likelihood that innocents will die. On one hand we have the number of bad guys, or suspected bad guys, that were taken out. On the other we have the innocents we eventually apologize for. For us, it's like the bright side of cost benefit analysis because valuable American lives were not endangered in the process. For them, it's as if their lives are considered cheap and inconsequential.

There is no light at the end of the tunnel.

What I'd Like To Be Thankful For

Today I will be joined by friends and family in my comfortable home. There will be an overabundance of food and much laughter and enjoyment of each others company. Ask around the room and you will hear a multitude of reasons why we are thankful and what we have to be thankful for. It's a tribute to the human spirit that even in the most difficult times we can find something even though to others it may be small or inconsequential. But there will be one item missing from my list.

President Obama apparently has weighed his options for Afghanistan and will soon announce his decision. Leaked reports--do they float this ahead of time to see what the reaction will be?--indicate he may send an additional 34,000 troops.

Afghanistan, a country with a lengthy history of military failures on the part of the invaders. A country beset with corruption, so much so that Abdullah Abdullah refused to participate in a run-off election against Hamid Karzai this month after the first election results were essentially voided due to rampant ballot box stuffing and other voter fraud and intimidation tactics. Karzai became president by default. It's a country where we pursue and fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban whom many Americans mistakenly believe are one and the same. Regardless, it's a war we can't win.

There are 68,000 U.S. troops and 42,000 from other countries in Afghanistan. The U.S. Army's recently revised counterinsurgency manual estimates that an all-out counterinsurgency campaign in a country with Afghanistan's population would require about 600,000 troops.

Adding 34,000 to 110,000 is still well short of 600,000. It's like Obama has picked a number he hopes will send the signal that he's not a wimp but also not foolhardy. The ever eloquent and thoughtful Bill Moyers discussed a similar situation in his program last Friday. Although there are many differences, much of the talk leading up to our increased and extended involvement in South Vietnam repeats itself today.

After eight years we are no closer to our goals--whatever they are--in Afghanistan. We have not created a stable government outside of Kabul. The "enemy" is part of the populace and not easily discerned. Even Afghan soldiers and policemen turn against their American counterparts at times. While we may be able to kill from afar, do we not recognize the civilians who also perish in the attacks provide more reason to fight against us?

As Bill Moyers summarized:

Now in a different world, at a different time, and with a different president, we face the prospect of enlarging a different war. But once again we're fighting in remote provinces against an enemy who can bleed us slowly and wait us out, because he will still be there when we are gone.

Once again, we are caught between warring factions in a country where other foreign powers fail before us. Once again, every setback brings a call for more troops, although no one can say how long they will be there or what it means to win. Once again, the government we are trying to help is hopelessly corrupt and incompetent.

And once again, a President pushing for critical change at home is being pressured to stop dithering, be tough, show he's got the guts, by sending young people seven thousand miles from home to fight and die, while their own country is coming apart.

And once again, the loudest case for enlarging the war is being made by those who will not have to fight it, who will be safely in their beds while the war grinds on. And once again, a small circle of advisers debates the course of action, but one man will make the decision.

We will never know what would have happened if Lyndon Johnson had said no to more war. We know what happened because he said yes.

And that's what I'd like to be thankful for. That President Obama said no.

Absolutely Amazing

It turns out we did have God on our side when we invaded Iraq. No wonder everything turned out so well.