Awesome Visual Aid

Ramirez has a great way of boiling down an issue and presenting it in a manner that makes the issue easily understood. Case in Point:

The Way to Win in Afghanistan

I have immense respect for Steven Pressfield after reading his novel, Gates of Fire. In his online blog, he turns his critical eye on Afghanistan and the current conflict there. Most agree there needs to be a change in the way we conduct the war there, if we plan to 'win.' It's obvious to embedded reporters, like Michael Yon, that the war is not going well. General McChrystal believes we can win, but only if he is given the right tools and the resources needed to fight.

The question to ask is,"Who are we fighting in Afghanistan and how do we figth them?" Stephen Pressfield's answer is very telling. See the initial article in the continuing series on how we need to rethink the conflict.

Simply having more troops will not work. We need to refocus our energy and create a real alliance with the tribes in Afghanistan.

A Short, Powerful Article

One phrase I've heard before is about a "war to the knife." The idea is that you fight hard, until the job is done, even if you have to get up close. This means fighting until your enemy is well and truly defeated and not capitulating because the way is hard for you.

Today, I read a great article in Real Clear Politics by David Warren. His article talks about how the Allies stopped short of completing the job in WWI, which inevitably led to WWII. He rightly points out that something similar happened in Iraq during the first Gulf War, which necessitated the need for Gulf War II to finish the job and remove the destabilising dictator, Saddam Hussein.

As Warren continues his article, he points to mistakes happening now, mistakes that are allowing our War on Terror to flag and weakening our country. That he manages to cover all of this so clearly in under 800 makes this a must read article.

Hat Tip - Hot Air

Remember the Fallen

Today is a day to remember. Today, we all should take a moment and think about what happened 8 years ago. We were attacked because our way of life, our foibles, our freedoms insulted their religion.

We should nver forget. We should always remember that Radical Islamists, supported by men who grow rich off of a product they sell in our country to fuel our lives, took advantage of our modern marvels to wound us.

Read more from Ralph Peters at the New York Post.

Hat Tip - Power Line

Something More to Add

I'm sure that many blogs and web sites will publish great articles by paid pundits about the meaning of this date. Even the "progressive" Huffingtonpost.com site has analysis of the importance of the date.

To me, many of these paid pundits' arguements pale in comparison to the words of "Doctor Zero," an unpaid writer who posted a short article at HotAir.com's Greenroom. His post, "Falling Through Fire," stirred my heart. Doctor Zero correctly points out that the same courage and fortitude that stiffened the backs of the men on Bunker Hill helped the resolve of the individuals on Flight 93.

Read the entire article to feel the full effect.

Friday Funny

Here is an article about one dedicated soldier. When duty called, he didn't even take the time to pull his pants on. Instead, Spec. Boyd put on his helmet and body armor, then ran out the door.

Someone needs to give this guy some serious recognition for his dedication to duty. Even if the pink underpants are a little tacky. 

Hat Tip - Little Green Footballs

Continuing Coverage of Media Bias...

So CNN ran a front page story about the 'enhanced interogation' techniques, which we use during SERE training for our own military members, not being effective. As evidence, they use the testimony of one man, Ali Soufan. He stated these techniques are "ineffective, slow and unreliable." 

Balance this against the coverage they gave Cheney's request to release official memo's stating the techniques were effective in gathering information about an imminent threat. "Coverage," you'll ask. "What coverage?" And that's exactly my point. 

CNN, by giving more credence and weight to the testimony of an unknown man over the statements of a public figure, is editorializing the news. They are slanting the message to fit what they think the answer should be. I mean, typically, public figures are hounded and their words reported with great frequency. It's the only reason People magazine and TMZ exist. However, in this case, the unknown man's story fits with the narrative the liberal main stream media (but I repeat myself) wants to project. Cheney's assertations just muddy the water.

Can we please get back to the "Fourth Estate" acutally reporting the news instead of just trying to tell a story that supports their views of the world? Please?

This is Going to Cause Trouble

So, I read this CNN story over a couple of times and had more questions than answers. However, the bare facts about the raid, as given by the reporter are that US forces entered a house/compound in the city of Kut. Six people were arrested, and a man and woman were killed. Apparently the home/compound was owned by a tribal leader and the individuals arrested, as well as those killed, were family members to the tribal leader.

The US stated they had support and approval from the proper Iraqi authorities. Apparently this is the truth, since the last line in the story states "Iraqi State TV reported that Iraq's defense ministry ordered the arrest of two Iraqi commanders in Kut who apparently allowed the U.S. military to carry out the raid."

Now the Iraqi authorities want to accuse the US of violating the security pact in place. Al-Maliki has asked for the release of the suspects from the raid and to "hand over those who committed the crime" to the Iraqi judiciary. However, if the Iraqi representatives gave consent, as the story indicates, then the US troops did nothing wrong. Of course, facts may not be as important in this case as who you're related to.

Now for the questions:

1) The reason for the raid. According to US intelligence, those detained were affiliated with Iran as a "special group" operating inside Iraq. I assume the US will produce evidence about this (and must have done so in the past to get the permission from Iraqi representatives in Kut).

2) Who was the "Tribal Leader" and how much pull does he have with the Iraqi national government? This is huge because, from my inklings about human nature, it seems like the leader might have cried to the right people in the national government about the raid to have these actions taken. Of course, this is totally against the rule of law, but there it is.

3) Did the US receive approval from the proper authorities? Again, my knowledge of how the US Army operates is that the order would come down from someone high enough in the US forces to allow the planning and execution of the order. The big issue is where the approval came from on the Iraqi side. Was the issue addressed at the proper level? Again, gut instinct says, "Yes, enough to cover the Americans who ordered the raid and executed the orders."

4) How serious is Al-Maliki about prosecuting the US troops? Is this an honest attempt to prosecute people who have actually committed "grave premeditated felonies" or is this more of a move on the Iraqi government's part to flex their muscles and show some nationalist tendencies? If Al-Maliki really pushes this, it can cause trouble between the US and the nascent Iraqi government.

Again, the last line in the news article acknowledges there was some sort of approval from Iraqi authorities. This covers the US this time in a true court of law. However, I believe this action will definitely chill the possible approval for raids in the future.

What We Need to Do

If Obama was smart, he would latch hold of this guy and use his ideas.



Barnett's ideas are incredibly simple when you first look at it, but the devil is in the details. His point is that we have no real transition plan for the work that the Army does. If we had a plan like this during the initial invasion of Iraq, we would have our troops out by now, with a victory in-tact.

Something to Watch Out For

I recently watched a video that made my blood chill. Seems that a group of Foreign Nationals have started setting up training bases... in the US.

Watching the video just made me mad. Here are people taking advantage of our government's protection to plot against, and carry out attacks against, our government and our country.

It seems this is a group that the US Federal Government should watch closely.

Will They Ever Learn?

Why are the Danes even pursuing a case against Geert Wilders for expressing his opinion and telling a story, based on actual facts and quotes? Do they not believe in the most basic freedom, freedom of speech? This case is based on their somewhat odd idea that you can legislate what will "insult... Muslim worshipers." Unfortunately, this case insults me. Where an I to go for redress?

Fortunately, Mr. Wilders has support from many Europeans who are tiring of being told they have to bow down to Islam's ideas and not insult Mohamed's followers. If you've watched "Fitna," you know that Wilders simply interspersed quotes directly from the Muslim holy book with images, news pieces and quotes from Muslim speakers. This is the truth. And as one speaker said, "The truth is sometimes offensive... but it doens't make it any less true."

And remember, the group forwarding the prosecution of Mr. Wilders is the same group that held violent riots and demonstrations because someone drew this:




When all men are free to speak their minds, then will we truly have freedom of speech. Noam Chomsky said, "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." I agree. In America we quote Voltaire and say, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Hat Tip Jawa Report for getting me started.

We Need New Rules for Dealing With Al Qaeda

We can't treat AQ operatives as criminals. They are an international organization that is outside US law. They are not US citizens, they do not have the same rights under our nation's laws. They are enemy combatants and should be under the regulation of military justice, not civilian courts as some think. This might be tough on them, since they do not abide by the Geneva conventions.

And even when the rule of law is followed, the enemies we capture seem to take advantage of this. Some of those freed from Gitmo have even returned immediately to their active participation in a group that seeks to destroy the western way of life.

Of course, now we have a president who has decided we don't need special circumstances to deal with Al Qaeda. With a stroke of his pen, he has removed many of the tools Bush put in place to combat terrorism. How asinine!

This is not developing a strategy that will help defeat terrorists. This is similar to the actions of the last Democratic president who showed America as a "Paper Tiger" that Al Qaeda need not fear.

Motive for Mumbai

I think Mark Steyn hit the nail on the head in his editorial from the National Review Online. After 9/11, after the Madrid and London bombings, and now after the Mumbai attack, the "religion of Peace" has members who are stating they are afraid of retaliatory violence. Seriously, they think they might be in danger from unruly citizens. This, even though there has never been any real evidence of retaliation. Huh? Are they just intentionally trying to play a "victim" card? Please give me evidence of violence against Muslim civilians from Western civilians.

What we should hear from them, and what Mr. Steyn points out is missing from many of the communications from the "Moderate Muslism", is a quick denouncement of these acts committed against peaceful citizens. Instead, we get celebrations and parties.

The "Face of Grace" in Iraq

What an incredible story this is. A soldier serving gets to see first hand the impact his service has on the inhabitants of Iraq. And, surprise of surprises, it's a positive one. This story is something to remember when we start talking about the war in Iraq.

Yes, it was a tough war. Yes, it is (and it's going to be) a long, tough occupation. However, the final outcome for the people of Iraq is freedom. Free elections, freedom to 'pursue happiness' as they see fit, and freedom to move forward on the international stage as another country in the Middle East not controlled by a dictator, king or despot.

All of these freedoms America enjoys are finally starting to emerge in Iraq.