Not the brightest moment for the military

From the Washington Examiner:

Medal for 'courageous restraint' plan get mixed review from troops
By: Sara A. Carter
A proposal to grant medals for "courageous restraint" to troops in Afghanistan who avoid deadly force at a risk to themselves has generated concern among U.S. soldiers and experts who worry it could embolden enemy fighters and confuse friendly forces.
Lt. Col. Edward Sholtis, a spokesman for Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who commands NATO forces in Afghanistan, said that no final decision has been made on the award, which is the brainchild of British Maj. Gen. Nick Carter.
"The idea is being reviewed at Headquarters ISAF," Sholtis said. "The idea is consistent with our approach. Our young men and women display remarkable courage every day, including situations where they refrain from using lethal force, even at risk to themselves, in order to prevent possible harm to civilians. ... That restraint is an act of discipline and courage not much different than those seen in combat actions."
However, professor Jeffrey F. Addicott, a former senior legal adviser to the Green Berets and director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University School of Law in San Antonio, said "It's an absolutely outrageous proposal to our fighting men.
"The implication of this award is that we do not engage in war fighting that is appropriate," Addicott said. "They're sending a chilling message to our troops that we are not complying with the law of armed conflict. It's a propaganda victory for our enemies."
Sholtis disputed that the award would limit troops' ability in the battlefield.
"We absolutely support the right of our forces to defend themselves," he said. "Valuing restraint in a potentially dangerous situation is not the same thing as denying troops the right to employ lethal force when they determine that it is necessary."
The medals proposal is consistent with NATO rules of engagement aimed at reducing civilian casualties in Afghanistan as a way to win the support of the populace. But some soldiers say rewarding "restraint" while risking their own lives is a troubling concept.
The directives "are confusing and the mixed messages from command is making it more difficult for us to defend ourselves," said a U.S. Army soldier in Afghanistan.
A U.S. Marine captain who has served in Iraq, said that he understands the intentions of the award but believes "it's just a bad idea." He said, "They teach us not to second-guess our decisions in dangerous situations. When people second-guess themselves they can be putting lives at risk."
Some soldiers shrugged at the proposal. "It's good, but just like with valorous medals, guys are going to do the right thing because it is the right thing," said Army Lt. Joseph Cooper said. "I think our year in Maiwand [Afghanistan] has shown that in frightening and confusing moments the U.S. soldier will consistently make the right choice time after time."
But other soldiers saw the medal proposal as a reinforcement of troubling rules of engagement. "Unfortunately, we are being reduced to a police force," said another U.S. soldier. "There are troops that never leave Bagram or Kandahar airfield. ... Maybe if they left us all on base and never sent us out to confront the enemy, we could all be honored [for] valor ."

They didn't get a  clue from the exoneration of the Navy Seals, apparently.

Afghanistan is becoming a political/military problem

U.S. military growing concerned with Obama's Afghan policy

By: Sara A. Carter

The Obama administration's plan to begin an Afghanistan withdrawal in 2011 is creating growing friction inside the U.S. military, from the halls of the Pentagon to front-line soldiers who see it as a losing strategy.

Critics of the plan fear that if they speak out, they will be labeled "pariahs" unwilling to back the commander in chief, said one officer who didn't want to be named. But in private discussions, soldiers who are fighting in Afghanistan, or recently returned from there, questioned whether it is worth the sacrifice and risk for a war without a clear-cut strategy to win.

Read more at the Washington Examiner.

A New Use for the Military

Running for Congress.  John Fund in the Wall Street Journal lays it out for us.

Rahm's Way
 Recruiting military veterans to run for marginal House seats comes from the Book of Rahm. 

The idea of specifically recruiting military veterans to run for marginal House seats was part of Rahm Emanuel's master plan when he ran the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006. The strategy helped Democrats win back the House. Now Republicans are taking a page from the Book of Rahm and mounting their own effort to run veterans of the Iraq and Afghan wars. The Washington Times reports that the number of vets running this year will be double what it was in 2008 -- and most of the 40 who are running are running as Republicans.

The surge comes at a time when the total of veterans in the House has reached a post-World War II low of just over 21%. D. Patrick Mahoney, an Iraq War veteran who heads the Veterans for Congress political action committee, says it's to be expected that several of this year's candidates will stumble short of the finish line because they come to their races without the wealth or network of supporters that more established candidates have.

Nonetheless, in the right districts veterans can appeal to voters as fresh faces who have proven their leadership qualities. Rep. Joe Sestak, a former admiral, is picking up ground in Pennsylvania's Democratic Senate primary against longtime incumbent Arlen Specter. Mark Kirk, an Illinois GOP congressman who was twice deployed to Afghanistan as a reservist in 2008, is now favored to win the Senate seat once held by Barack Obama. Allen West, a Bronze Star winner who has trained Afghan troops as an adviser, is wowing Republican audiences in Palm Beach, Florida in his race to unseat an incumbent Democrat. Steve Stivers, another Bronze Star winner from the Iraq war, is an even bet to unseat Democratic Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy in a Columbus, Ohio district.

Many veterans lack the polish and political skills of candidates who have climbed the ladder of public office, but in an anti-incumbent year they may find more success than normal precisely because they haven't been tainted by the backroom deal-making that voters are increasingly suspicious of.

Friday Links from the Washington Post

Official: Son of al-Qaeda-linked terror leader killed in U.S. strike

Four NATO troops killed on sixth day of Marja offensive in Afghanistan

Republican Marco Rubio is anti-Crist challenging Florida governor in Senate primary
Dana Milbank leads off with a play on words, he probably thinks that is really clever, but as a Christian I take offense to it. This is what he follows it with:

The anti-Crist came to Washington on Thursday. In the ballroom of the Marriott Wardman Park, they acted as if he were the Messiah.

Michael Gerson has this: A primer on political reality
Be sure to read this one. 

It's nonsense to say the U.S. is ungovernable
by Charles Krauthammer
The meat of the article is down into it:

It's 2010, and the first-year agenda of a popular and promising young president has gone down in flames. Barack Obama's two signature initiatives -- cap-and-trade and health-care reform -- lie in ruins.

Desperate to explain away this scandalous state of affairs, liberal apologists haul out the old reliable from the Carter years: "America the Ungovernable." So declared Newsweek. "Is America Ungovernable?" coyly asked the New Republic. Guess the answer.

That is just a part, read it all.

This is just a part of what they are offering today, to see what all they offer go to
Washington Post.

Poll Data

From Powerline, by John

Current poll data are brutal for the Democrats. In the Rasmussen survey, President Obama's approval index, the difference between those who strongly approve and strongly disapprove of his performance, has hit a record low of -15. Overall, voters disapprove of Obama by 54-45%. That's no doubt in part because voters have also turned decisively against the Democrats' health care proposals, opposing them, currently, by 56-38%.

Meanwhile, voters now favor Republicans over Democrats by seven points on the generic ballot, 44-37%.

Byron York examines the numbers behind Obama's slumping Gallup rating and finds that Obama is now at 39% with whites and below 50% among all those who go to church. Pluralities of all of those who are over 29 years old or earn more than $2,000 a month disapprove of Obama's performance. Looking at it positively, you could say that the President is still hanging tough with the pivotal young, poor, atheist voting bloc. Michael Barone, meanwhile, asks whether Democrats are beginning to desert their sinking ship.

Is that premature? Sure. But there is no doubt that if the 2010 election were held tomorrow, the Democrats would be slaughtered. What do they plan to do between now and November 2010 to turn that around? Jam an unpopular health care bill down the voters' throats, enact a job-destroying tax on carbon that most people now believe is founded on a myth, and raise taxes. [UPDATE: I should have added, they're also freeing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four confederates into the federal court system--that'll generate some helpful headlines over the next year--and now they're also talking about bringing back "comprehensive immigration reform," which prior to the Obama administration was the most unpopular thing Congress had done in a long time. It's a perfect storm of legislative malpractice.] Beyond that, they are crossing their fingers and hoping that the extraordinary vigor of the American economy will survive all of the damage they have inflicted on it, and will rally by November.

That could happen, of course. But it seems like a rather poor bet.

Also by John:
A Sickening Story

You could call this pre-September 11 thinking, except that there never was a time when it would have been sane:

Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq -- the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com. ...

Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named "Objective Amber," told investigators he was punched by his captors -- and he had the bloody lip to prove it.

Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers. ...

The source said intelligence briefings provided to the SEALs stated that "Objective Amber" planned the 2004 Fallujah ambush, and "they had been tracking this guy for some time."
The Fallujah atrocity came to symbolize the brutality of the enemy in Iraq and the degree to which a homegrown insurgency was extending its grip over Iraq.

The four Blackwater agents were transporting supplies for a catering company when they were ambushed and killed by gunfire and grenades. Insurgents burned the bodies and dragged them through the city. They hanged two of the bodies on a bridge over the Euphrates River for the world press to photograph.

Intelligence sources identified Abed as the ringleader, but he had evaded capture until September.

Our armed forces have become exquisitely sensitive--toward Nidal Malik Hasan and Ahmed Hashim Abed, and one wonders who else. Such sensitivity comes at a price, of course. But for now, at least, that price won't be paid by those who set the policy.

For the Older Generation

From the Thunder Run blog:

What Patton Would Have Said...

Go read it, it's good, it's going around in emails. While you are there enjoy his Day by Day cartoon that he always runs at the top.

Hug a Veteran by Nephew, Aaron Reed on Facebook

Hug a Veteran
by Nephew, Aaron Reed on Facebook

Tomorrow is Veterans Day. I like to think of it as “Thank a Veteran Day,” or – even better – “HUG a Veteran Day.”And, since so many of my friends and relations who are veterans aren’t in my immediate area, let me give y’all a virtual hug here.

Eric and Elliot, two of my many cousins, are in Afghanistan. Tomorrow, while I enjoy a day off, they’ll be doing what they do every other day of their deployments. Eric, Elliot, thank you. Come home safe.

Papa, thank you for your service. Uncle Bob, Uncle Junior, Uncle Vic, John Scherrer – thank you for your service.

Wow. Looking at this, I realize what a seagoing tradition we have in this family. Let’s remember Uncle Lorenzo, too, a PT-boat engineer in the South Pacific during World War II.

Mikey, thank you for your service. I sure wish our nation had been better able to support its warriors, no matter what the collective opinion of the war was, when you came home.

Uncle Joe, another Army veteran, thank you for your service.

Cousin Chris, thank you for your service in Desert Storm. Even though you were a Marine, you rode a tank, so I’m lumping you in with the grunts.

Let’s remember, too, our parents' Uncle Victor. Did he really ride into Germany with the last horse-drawn artillery battery of World War II? Someone tell me the story, will you?

In a family as big as ours, we are bound to have all sorts of heroes – some who served in uniform and others who I admire equally for other things; but tomorrow is Hug a Veteran Day.

While you’re at it, why don’t you hug the ones who shared their service? Because, you know, that ain’t easy either. Start with Kelly and Kristin, who both get to be new moms while their husbands are on the other side of the world.

Then, whoever is closest, kiss my mom’s cheek, and Aunt Anna’s and Aunt Ginny’s … you know who they are.

Thanks to my friends, too: to Danny (remember Veterans Day in Bosnia? Christmas in El Salvador?), and Kendal, and Steve and Eric, and Ken, and Ed, and Paul, and Ricky, and Casey, and Cody, and Erik, and Hilton, and Joey, and Luke, and Ron, and Craig Atwood, and John Stanford, and John Hattenbach and John McHale and John Felsher … I know I must be leaving some people out, either because I killed that brain cell or you never told me; tell me now, and I’ll add your name.

Thank you, all of you, for serving. Whether it was in peacetime or at war, at home or abroad, on a heaving battleship or a silent sub or in the air or in a pair of muddy or dusty combat boots, thank you. You endured lousy pay, lousy food, and probably – at one time or another – less than ideal living conditions. You gave up, for some period of time, your right to choose how to live your life. Some of you never fired a shot in anger; some of you saw buddies die beside you.I’m just grateful you came home. And I’m grateful to you for your service.

Thank you. And … big hugs from Dallas.

It’s a Little Late, but…

From the Urgent Agenda blog:

AT LEAST IT'S A START - AT 7:53 P.M. Although this has clearly brought some anguish to the Associated Press, whose writer seems to feel the jihadists' pain, the United States has taken some limited financial action against Iran.  From AP:

NEW YORK — Federal prosecutors Thursday took steps to seize four U.S. mosques and a Fifth Avenue skyscraper owned by a nonprofit Muslim organization long suspected of being secretly controlled by the Iranian government.

In what could prove to be one of the biggest counterterrorism seizures in U.S. history, prosecutors filed a civil complaint in federal court seeking the forfeiture of more than $500 million in assets of the Alavi Foundation and an alleged front company.

The assets include Islamic centers in New York City, Maryland, California and Houston, more than 100 acres (40 hectares) of land in Virginia, and a 36-story office tower in New York.

Seizing the properties would be a sharp blow against Iran, which has been accused by the U.S. government of bankrolling terrorism and seeking a nuclear bomb.

No, it's not a sharp blow.  It's a baby step.  This will not stop one centrifuge.

There is more to read, this is one of my daily musts.

Politicians vs the Military (our dear sons and daughters)

Kristol: Gates Blindsided by Rahm

Yesterday, in light of Rahm Emanuel’s comments on delaying the decision on troops for Afghanistan, I asked: “Are Sunday talk show declarations by Emanuel and political advisor David Axelrod an appropriate way to announce the considered judgment of the president at this stage of a long Cabinet-level review process? Or is Emanuel end-running the process? Do Secretaries Gates and Clinton agree with Emanuel? Were they consulted before Rahm popped off?”

I’ve now been told by an authoritative source close to Defense Secretary Robert Gates that he had no advance warning that Emanuel would be saying any such thing.

Update: A former government official e-mails:

Sen. McCain and other supporters of the effort in Afghanistan have feared from the beginning of this process that Whie House politicos were trying to get the pesky military out of the policy loop. Now it appears they are bypassing even the SecDef. Its hard to think of another time when the White House chief of staff and politicos were making policy so independently of the national security team, in this case apparently excluding the SecDef, SecState, and the Chairman of the JCS. (The otherwise weak nationanl security advisor retired General Jim Jones serves only one purpose here: to provide a shield for the politicos to reject military advice.)

Maybe it all turns out well in the end, but it's an interesting indication of how this administration runs foreign policy. Hope Hillary and Gates and the Joint Chiefs enjoy the ride.
Posted by William Kristol at 04:56 PM on the Weekly Standard Weblog

My grandson is in Afghanistan and they did WHAT???

From the Washington Times:

U.S. troop funds diverted to pet projects

Study finds $2.6 billion taken from guns and ammunition

Senators diverted $2.6 billion in funds in a defense spending bill to pet projects largely at the expense of accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an analysis.

Among the 778 such projects, known as earmarks, packed into the bill: $25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.

While earmarks are hardly new in Washington, "in 30 years on Capitol Hill, I never saw Congress mangle the defense budget as badly as this year," said Winslow Wheeler, a former Senate staffer who worked on defense funding and oversight for both Republicans and Democrats. He is now a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information, an independent research organization.

Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, called the transfer of funds from Pentagon operations and maintenance "a disgrace."

"The Senate is putting favorable headlines back home above our men and women fighting on the front lines," he said in a statement.

I'm catching up on reading some blogs tonight as we rest in the Frog Hollow RV Park in Grenada, MS. This is from the blog "In from the Cold."

Help is on the Way (Sort Of)

There is some genuinely good news on the military manpower front. Not only did all of the armed services meet their recruiting goals in Fiscal Year 2009, they also exceeded their projections for the number of troops entering basic training.

According to The Washington Times, the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps sent 169,000 new recruits to boot camp in the fiscal year that ended on 30 September. That's 5,000 more than the Pentagon's original projection, making 2009's training total the highest since 1973, the first year of the all-volunteer military.

More troops in training means eventual relief for units stretched thin by constant deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. We stress the word "eventual," because some of those recruits only recently reached their first duty assignments, after completing basic training and required technical schools.

Meanwhile, many of their comrades are still in training. It takes more than a year to train a military pilot, and technical training for some enlisted specialties are nearly as long. For example, a prospective Chinese linguist who just signed in at the Defense Language Institute won't graduate until late 2010, and more training will follow at their first duty assignment. A running joke among airborne linguists (who fly on USAF RC-135 and Navy EP-3 platforms) is that the end of upgrade training coincides with their eligibility to re-enlist.

For some very informed opinion read the whole blog, and refer to it often.

Michael Yon Reports on the War in Afghanistan

If you do not describe to the emails from Michael Yon, at least read this dispatch.
Do Americans Care about British Soldiers?

9 August 2009Helmand Province, Afghanistan

A gunshot ripped through the darkness and a young British soldier fell dying on FOB Jackson. I was just nearby talking on the satellite phone and saw the commotion. The soldier was taken to the medical tent and a helicopter lifted him to the excellent trauma center at Camp Bastion. That he made it to Camp Bastion alive dramatically improved his chances. But his life teetered and was in danger of slipping away. Making matters worse, the British medical system back in the United Kingdom did not possess the specialized gear needed to save his life. Americans had the right gear in Germany, and so the British soldier was put into the American system.

British officers in his unit, 2 Rifles, wanted to track their man every step of the way, and to ensure that his family was informed and supported in this time of high stress. Yet having their soldier suddenly in the American system caused a temporary glitch in communications with folks in Germany. The British leadership in Sangin could have worked through the glitch within some hours, but that would have been hours wasted, and they wanted to know the status of their soldier now. So a British officer in Sangin – thinking creatively –asked if I knew any shortcuts to open communications. The right people were only an email away: Soldiers Angels. And so within about two minutes, these fingers typed an email with this subject heading: CALLING ALL ANGELS.

Soldiers’ Angels Shelle Michaels and MaryAnn Phillips moved into action. Day by day British officers mentioned how Soldiers Angels were proving to be incredibly helpful. The soldiers expressed deep and sincere appreciation. Yet again, the Angels arrived during a time of need.

The severely wounded soldier, whose name I will not print without explicit permission, is recovering in the United Kingdom.

Two or three weeks after the injury, I was having dinner with a British Major and several Captains. The Major talked reverently about Soldiers Angels, and then about a herculean effort that the United States military extended to save a single British soldier. I had no idea about that effort. I just heard the gunshot, saw the soldier carried away into the night, and heard the helicopter roar into the darkness. I knew Soldiers’ Angels had intervened back in Germany, but the details that followed came as incredible surprise. The U.S. military had quietly moved Heaven and Earth to save a single British “Squaddie.”

Please read the following description, authored in part by Soldiers’ Angel MaryAnn Phillips:

The Needs of the One...
Then send this around to all your friends. Support our wonderful troops, and Micahel Yon who embeds and reports on them.