To many children in America, and probably the world, Yu-gi-yoh means a customizable card game and/or a television cartoon showing people playing a customizable card game. However, Yukiyo in Korean translates literally as 6 2 5. This is in reference to June 25, the day the Korean War began. On this day, 58 years ago, North Korean (DPRK) soldiers crossed the 38th Parallel and invaded the South. After 3 years of fighting that saw about 900,000 Chinese, 520,000 North Korean, 400,000 UN and ROK and 155,000 US soldiers killed or wounded, the sides agreed to a cease-fire (not a peace treaty) and remain at war, separated by a small demilitarized zone. Several incursions and soft invasions have occurred since that time, but at no point has the invasion recommenced.
One of my most vivid memories of my time in Korea was when an elderly Korean gentleman stopped me and thanked us (the U.S. soldiers) for helping to keep him and his country free.
Take a moment to think about those who gave their lives answering the call to protect those who could not protect themselves from a real and existing invasion, protecting them from the yoke of tyranny.
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Shifting Goalposts
After 9/11/2001, President Bush declared war on "terror." Terror, and terrorist and terrorism, is an interesting idea - how does one define "terror?" How does one frame a war on terror? It's not a tangible enemy such as war against "Germany." In a situation such as the war on "terror," what we find ourselves fighting is an idea; a "terrorist" to one person is a "freedom fighter" to another, so it's sticky even to say who we are fighting against.
When one has such difficulty in defining what the enemy is, then it's no doubt going to be difficult determining how to define victory against that enemy. Here's where the concept of shifting goalposts comes to play. One the one hand, "victory" in war has traditionally meant the eradication of the enemy, or its unconditional surrender/capitulation. The latter cannot happen in a war against an idea, and the former is something that is only won when every member of that idea is defeated, which is an impossibility spawned by the definition.
This is the conundrum with the war on terror. You see, when we declared "war" on "terror," the Commander in Chief of our military stated that we would "conquer" the enemy; that we would win. Less than two years later, however, the President stated that the war on terror was not a war we could "win." Then, in 2005, the selfsame head of the Executive Branch stated that we would not settle for anything less than "complete victory."
Now, I'm not entirely sure how one can achieve "complete victory" in a war that we cannot win, but I would assume that it has something to do with shifting goalposts. These days, it's not about whether or not you "conquer" the enemy, especially if the "enemy" is whoever you say he is. Instead, the key is to redefine the parameters of the operation in such a manner that you can claim "victory" under the new rules (such as some are suggesting the NBA has done with referees in instances in the 2002 playoffs with the Lakers against the Kings and in 2005 with the Rockets against the Mavericks), or at least delay acknowledgement of the impossibility of reconciling the goal from the statement until such time as you can shift the blame for the inevitable failure on to someone else.
And people wonder why the President is being predicted to be remembered as a failure. When the defining piece of your legacy can be viewed as nothing less than a failure (and the absence of victory, however impossible to achieve, makes it exceedingly difficult to view it as otherwise), then that title is a difficult one to shake.
When one has such difficulty in defining what the enemy is, then it's no doubt going to be difficult determining how to define victory against that enemy. Here's where the concept of shifting goalposts comes to play. One the one hand, "victory" in war has traditionally meant the eradication of the enemy, or its unconditional surrender/capitulation. The latter cannot happen in a war against an idea, and the former is something that is only won when every member of that idea is defeated, which is an impossibility spawned by the definition.
This is the conundrum with the war on terror. You see, when we declared "war" on "terror," the Commander in Chief of our military stated that we would "conquer" the enemy; that we would win. Less than two years later, however, the President stated that the war on terror was not a war we could "win." Then, in 2005, the selfsame head of the Executive Branch stated that we would not settle for anything less than "complete victory."
Now, I'm not entirely sure how one can achieve "complete victory" in a war that we cannot win, but I would assume that it has something to do with shifting goalposts. These days, it's not about whether or not you "conquer" the enemy, especially if the "enemy" is whoever you say he is. Instead, the key is to redefine the parameters of the operation in such a manner that you can claim "victory" under the new rules (such as some are suggesting the NBA has done with referees in instances in the 2002 playoffs with the Lakers against the Kings and in 2005 with the Rockets against the Mavericks), or at least delay acknowledgement of the impossibility of reconciling the goal from the statement until such time as you can shift the blame for the inevitable failure on to someone else.
And people wonder why the President is being predicted to be remembered as a failure. When the defining piece of your legacy can be viewed as nothing less than a failure (and the absence of victory, however impossible to achieve, makes it exceedingly difficult to view it as otherwise), then that title is a difficult one to shake.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Progress!
The President, as predicted, has announced that due to the progress we've seen under the Surge, he has chosen to listened to General Petraeus's advice and will start to draw down troops. He hopes to bring home some 7000 by the end of the year and reduce strength by about 30,000 by next summer. What he didn't say, though, was that the troop reduction he approved is the same amount of troops that were involved in the Surge originally. He also didn't mention that this reduction was part of the Surge strategy (indeed, by definition, a surge is a short-term concept). Another thing he didn't mention was how the Iraqi army led the surge, as was sold to us in January, though he did note that the Iraqi army training was going well, and noted some difficulty with the Iraqi police force.
As for progress, he failed to mention his own definition of the Surge's goal from January - the Iraqi government working together - as one of the signs of progress. This, of course, is because the Iraqi government hasn't progressed. He also mentioned the number of troops that will be allowed to re-enter the military, without mentioning that it was under his permission that they were disbanded originally (though he did try to discredit Bremer for that, who, learning from the mistakes of others, kept a paper trail) - though that might have been because he "can't remember."
In other news, the President apparently used this speech to try to tie in as many references to past and potential future events as possible. Of course he invoked 9-11, despite the fact that the war in Iraq has NOTHING TO DO WITH 9-11!!!!!!! He also mentioned Iran. He repeatedly referred to "terrorists and insurgents" as though they are one and the same - again failing to note that the terrorist presence in Iraq is the direct result of our meddling (as is the current threat to our security from any Iraqi instability). He also made a fleeting comment to the "Taliban-like control of al-Qaeda in Anbar Province." Again, the goal was to try to subtly connect the war in Iraq with the war on Terror. And of course, some people will buy it, because some people are stupid.
But one thing I noticed was how well his speech echoed the same progress report given by General Westmoreland that I commented on just yesterday, and which Just Wondering so kindly cross-posted on her blog today.
All in all, I was not impressed with the speech. I'm sure that it will keep his base happy ("But there's progress!") and probably keep a couple Republicans in check, but he didn't really say anything other than "I'm bringing home the troops that I said would only be there a limited time after a limited time because I've decided that the parameters we set for success in January were met close enough, so long as you ignore the overarching goal of the whole thing." And with the President's credibility, even that is suspect.
UPDATE
One thing I'd forgotten to mention was the President's tossing in of a new concept - a long term (open-ended) commitment or "security arrangement" that the Iraqis apparently want. I don't know where the government found the time to ask us to provide them with a security arrangement, but I guess when you're busy not meeting benchmarks or passing laws, you are able to squeeze that in... The problem, as someone else (I've been to many sites tonight and can't remember where I first read this, though I'm willing to bet it was from a link on the Moderate Voice) pointed out, in the other nations where we've kept forces under a security arrangement (the "tripwire troops" such as the famous "Berlin Brigade" necessary to invoke the presidents inherent rescue powers under the Constitution), in Iraq, our forces would be there to protect Iraqis from Iraqis, instead of some outside threat (such as communism). This seems to run contrary to the concept of a security arrangement, but I'm sure we're supposed to ignore that and listen to what the President wants us to hear.
As for progress, he failed to mention his own definition of the Surge's goal from January - the Iraqi government working together - as one of the signs of progress. This, of course, is because the Iraqi government hasn't progressed. He also mentioned the number of troops that will be allowed to re-enter the military, without mentioning that it was under his permission that they were disbanded originally (though he did try to discredit Bremer for that, who, learning from the mistakes of others, kept a paper trail) - though that might have been because he "can't remember."
In other news, the President apparently used this speech to try to tie in as many references to past and potential future events as possible. Of course he invoked 9-11, despite the fact that the war in Iraq has NOTHING TO DO WITH 9-11!!!!!!! He also mentioned Iran. He repeatedly referred to "terrorists and insurgents" as though they are one and the same - again failing to note that the terrorist presence in Iraq is the direct result of our meddling (as is the current threat to our security from any Iraqi instability). He also made a fleeting comment to the "Taliban-like control of al-Qaeda in Anbar Province." Again, the goal was to try to subtly connect the war in Iraq with the war on Terror. And of course, some people will buy it, because some people are stupid.
But one thing I noticed was how well his speech echoed the same progress report given by General Westmoreland that I commented on just yesterday, and which Just Wondering so kindly cross-posted on her blog today.
All in all, I was not impressed with the speech. I'm sure that it will keep his base happy ("But there's progress!") and probably keep a couple Republicans in check, but he didn't really say anything other than "I'm bringing home the troops that I said would only be there a limited time after a limited time because I've decided that the parameters we set for success in January were met close enough, so long as you ignore the overarching goal of the whole thing." And with the President's credibility, even that is suspect.
UPDATE
One thing I'd forgotten to mention was the President's tossing in of a new concept - a long term (open-ended) commitment or "security arrangement" that the Iraqis apparently want. I don't know where the government found the time to ask us to provide them with a security arrangement, but I guess when you're busy not meeting benchmarks or passing laws, you are able to squeeze that in... The problem, as someone else (I've been to many sites tonight and can't remember where I first read this, though I'm willing to bet it was from a link on the Moderate Voice) pointed out, in the other nations where we've kept forces under a security arrangement (the "tripwire troops" such as the famous "Berlin Brigade" necessary to invoke the presidents inherent rescue powers under the Constitution), in Iraq, our forces would be there to protect Iraqis from Iraqis, instead of some outside threat (such as communism). This seems to run contrary to the concept of a security arrangement, but I'm sure we're supposed to ignore that and listen to what the President wants us to hear.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
At Last! Troop Reductions!
President Bush is expected to say that he plans to reduce the US troop presence in Iraq by about 30,000 starting next spring, according to this article.
My guess is that he will make some statements to the effect that because of the successes of the Surge, we now have the flexibility to begin to bring home troops. Of course, the troops we're bringing home will be about the same number as we sent over for the Surge, which, by definition, and by the President's design, was to be a short-term operation. So what the President will be doing, essentially, is what he said he'd be doing when he started this whole thing, but he'll be adding a PR twist.
The problem with the twist is that the surge, according to both the President and General Petraeus standards at the beginning, is not working. It did not accomplish what the President claimed to be its goal. Read this article by Real Clear Politics writer George Will. Here are a couple of snippets:
My guess is that he will make some statements to the effect that because of the successes of the Surge, we now have the flexibility to begin to bring home troops. Of course, the troops we're bringing home will be about the same number as we sent over for the Surge, which, by definition, and by the President's design, was to be a short-term operation. So what the President will be doing, essentially, is what he said he'd be doing when he started this whole thing, but he'll be adding a PR twist.
The problem with the twist is that the surge, according to both the President and General Petraeus standards at the beginning, is not working. It did not accomplish what the President claimed to be its goal. Read this article by Real Clear Politics writer George Will. Here are a couple of snippets:
The purpose of the surge, they said, is to by time -- "breathing space," the president says -- for Iraqi political reconciliation. Because progress toward that has been negligible, there is no satisfactory answer to this question: What is the U.S. military mission in Iraq?"Of course, there has been some Iraqi political progress - they took August off. Some more from the article:
The progress that Petraeus reports in improving security in portions of Iraq is real. It might, however, have two sinister aspects. First, measuring sectarian violence is problematic: The Washington Post reports that a body with a bullet hole in the front of the skull is considered a victim of criminality; a hole in the back of the skull is evidence of sectarian violence. But even if violence is declining, that might be partly because violent sectarian cleansing has separated Sunni and Shiite communities. This homogenization of hostile factions -- trained and armed by U.S. forces -- may bear poisonous fruit in a full-blown civil war. Second, brutalities by al-Qaeda in Iraq have indeed provoked some Sunni leaders to collaborate with U.S. forces. But these alliances of convenience might be inconvenient when Shiites again become the Sunnis' principal enemy.In other words, the surge might not have been as effective as advertised (then again, it might be - we don't know). Perhaps the more important question, as Mr. Will suggested, is "If the surge indeed is working, why didn't the President go to Baghdad during his surprise visit?" And the question to be asked regarding the return of the troops is "Why are you selling us a car you sold a year ago and telling us it's new?"
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
The End of War
Today is a significant day in American History. This is the day that the United States, Great Britain, France, and Spain signed the Treaty of Paris, in 1783, bringing the American Revolution to an end.
Congratulations, and thanks, to those who served and fought to create this Noble Experiment.
Congratulations, and thanks, to those who served and fought to create this Noble Experiment.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Bush Derangement Syndrome
One of the favorite lines of the 20 something percent of Americans who still support President Bush like to spout out against anyone who dares to question the Dear Leader is that those who are questioning the Decider are suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome, or BDS.
This is because nothing that has happened in the past six plus years are President Bush's fault. We need to remember this.
It wasn't his fault that No Child Left Behind ended up leaving hundreds of thousands of children behind, what with test scores being lower, discipline being worse, and fewer funds going to activities that could keep those children active, engaged, and interested, or counselors to identify the problems students are encountering outside the classroom.
It isn't his fault that God speaks to him and guides him in his decisionmaking. That should go to show the infallibility of his plans and decisions.
It wasn't his fault that the military "found" a tape of a guy who looked like Bin Laden in 2002 discussing Al Qaeda's role in 9-11 (though he does get some points, because it turned out whoever he told to make that tape was right, ultimately).
It wasn't his fault that Iraq didn't have WMDs, wasn't involved in 9-11, or most of the other justifications for liberating those people, so that they never have to worry about violence on their streets again.
It wasn't his fault that he staged a round table discussion with officers to look like it was a genuine discussion with troops about the goings on in Iraq.
It wasn't his fault Donald Rumsfeld criticized one of his troops for daring to ask about going to war ill-prepared with the now-famous "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had."
It wasn't his fault Terri Schiavo's husband did have the right to make the decision he did and the President couldn't stop it no matter what he told Congress.
It wasn't his fault he said you always err on the side of life, and then declined to send aid immediately in the midst of reports that there could be overtopping of the levees in New Orleans after Katrina. "You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie!"
It wasn't his fault the Iraqi soldiers didn't stand up.
It wasn't his fault the insurgency wasn't in its last throes, as Dick Cheney suggested.
It wasn't his fault the Mission Accomplished banner hung directly behind his head so everyone could see it. They should have known the banner referred to the ship, and not taken the implication that the banner referred to Iraq.
It wasn't his fault the tapes of Abu Graib got out.
It wasn't his fault people don't like the idea of their phone lines being wiretapped without a warrant, or that the pesky 4th amendment still exists.
It's not his fault that Alberto Gonzales went to John Ashcroft's bed while Ashcroft was heavily sedated to try to wrest an OK to go ahead with said wiretaps, then justify it by saying "there are no rules."
It's not his fault Libby was arrested, indicted, tried, and convicted with regard to the Valerie Plame affair. It's not his fault Libby's sentence was commuted - oh, wait. Yes it was.
It wasn't his fault the AG fired seven prosecutors for not going after democrats fast enough, or (gasp!) for daring to go after Republicans!
It wasn't his fault the presidents before him did not make quite as much use of the signing statements as he did. Seriously, didn't they realize that they could keep themselves from being held accountable to any kind of law by simply saying it doesn't apply to them when they sign it?
And, of course, it's not his fault that the democratic majority in Congress, elected as a result of America's disgust with the Republican Party, dare to choose their own path instead of blindly following the orders of the least popular president in 35 years.
Seriously, people. Give it up. You're making America weaker, and your traitorous behavior emboldens the enemy.
This is because nothing that has happened in the past six plus years are President Bush's fault. We need to remember this.
It wasn't his fault that No Child Left Behind ended up leaving hundreds of thousands of children behind, what with test scores being lower, discipline being worse, and fewer funds going to activities that could keep those children active, engaged, and interested, or counselors to identify the problems students are encountering outside the classroom.
It isn't his fault that God speaks to him and guides him in his decisionmaking. That should go to show the infallibility of his plans and decisions.
It wasn't his fault that the military "found" a tape of a guy who looked like Bin Laden in 2002 discussing Al Qaeda's role in 9-11 (though he does get some points, because it turned out whoever he told to make that tape was right, ultimately).
It wasn't his fault that Iraq didn't have WMDs, wasn't involved in 9-11, or most of the other justifications for liberating those people, so that they never have to worry about violence on their streets again.
It wasn't his fault that he staged a round table discussion with officers to look like it was a genuine discussion with troops about the goings on in Iraq.
It wasn't his fault Donald Rumsfeld criticized one of his troops for daring to ask about going to war ill-prepared with the now-famous "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had."
It wasn't his fault Terri Schiavo's husband did have the right to make the decision he did and the President couldn't stop it no matter what he told Congress.
It wasn't his fault he said you always err on the side of life, and then declined to send aid immediately in the midst of reports that there could be overtopping of the levees in New Orleans after Katrina. "You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie!"
It wasn't his fault the Iraqi soldiers didn't stand up.
It wasn't his fault the insurgency wasn't in its last throes, as Dick Cheney suggested.
It wasn't his fault the Mission Accomplished banner hung directly behind his head so everyone could see it. They should have known the banner referred to the ship, and not taken the implication that the banner referred to Iraq.
It wasn't his fault the tapes of Abu Graib got out.
It wasn't his fault people don't like the idea of their phone lines being wiretapped without a warrant, or that the pesky 4th amendment still exists.
It's not his fault that Alberto Gonzales went to John Ashcroft's bed while Ashcroft was heavily sedated to try to wrest an OK to go ahead with said wiretaps, then justify it by saying "there are no rules."
It's not his fault Libby was arrested, indicted, tried, and convicted with regard to the Valerie Plame affair. It's not his fault Libby's sentence was commuted - oh, wait. Yes it was.
It wasn't his fault the AG fired seven prosecutors for not going after democrats fast enough, or (gasp!) for daring to go after Republicans!
It wasn't his fault the presidents before him did not make quite as much use of the signing statements as he did. Seriously, didn't they realize that they could keep themselves from being held accountable to any kind of law by simply saying it doesn't apply to them when they sign it?
And, of course, it's not his fault that the democratic majority in Congress, elected as a result of America's disgust with the Republican Party, dare to choose their own path instead of blindly following the orders of the least popular president in 35 years.
Seriously, people. Give it up. You're making America weaker, and your traitorous behavior emboldens the enemy.
New Tactic from President Bush on TSP
Since he cannot go back to warrantless wiretaps without the Republican majority in Congress to shield the administration, President Bush has apparently decided to take a new approach to encroaching upon our civil liberties. Apparently, it's time to update FISA. From the AP, via Yahoo!: "President Bush wants Congress to modernize a law that governs how intelligence agencies monitor the communications of suspected terrorists. 'This law is badly out of date,' Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address."
President Bush then explained why this law needed updating:
Let's see what, exactly is outdated about FISA. The law requires a FISA judge grant the warrant as long as the allegation is not deficient. This is not a probable cause requirement; it's a "are all the spaces filled in and are there no typos" requirement. In other words, as long as the agency requesting the warrant fills it out right, it cannot be denied. In the history of FISA, over 96% (and possibly higher, but I'm not going to do the calculation right now) of the applications have been approved. But that's not all. The law also allows for the intelligence agencies to collect intelligence through warrantless wiretaps even WITHOUT A WARRANT. From the language of the Act:
President Bush then explained why this law needed updating:
Bush noted that terrorists now use disposable cell phones and the Internet to communicate, recruit operatives, and plan attacks; such tools were not available when FISA passed nearly 30 years ago. He also cited a recently released intelligence estimate that concluded al-Qaida (sic) is using its growing strength in the Middle East to plot attacks on U.S. soil.This is, of course, a serious issue. However, the President is notoriously silent as to HOW Al Qaeda managed to regain its strength, namely the misguided, poorly planned, underprepared, misrepresented invasion of Iraq, which has drained our resources in a police action. Remember, the Iraqi troops were being trained in 2004 and were almost ready to take over security of their nation. But, instead, 3 years later, instead of fighting the "entity" known as "terror," we are still trying to clean up the mess we made in Iraq. In other words, President Bush's actions made America weaker, and now he wants a revamped law that strips more of our civil liberties (an encroachment into our 4th amendment protections) to "fix" what he jacked up.
Let's see what, exactly is outdated about FISA. The law requires a FISA judge grant the warrant as long as the allegation is not deficient. This is not a probable cause requirement; it's a "are all the spaces filled in and are there no typos" requirement. In other words, as long as the agency requesting the warrant fills it out right, it cannot be denied. In the history of FISA, over 96% (and possibly higher, but I'm not going to do the calculation right now) of the applications have been approved. But that's not all. The law also allows for the intelligence agencies to collect intelligence through warrantless wiretaps even WITHOUT A WARRANT. From the language of the Act:
[W]hen the Attorney General reasonably determines that (1) an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information and before an order authorizing such surveillance can ... be obtained; he may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if [a properly authorized] judge ... is informed by the Attorney General or his designee ... and if an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance (emphasis mine).In other words, surveillance can be done without a warrant for up to three days, before an application for a warrant which cannot be denied due to lack of probable cause (a 4th amendment requirement) must be asked for. Yet this is insufficient to fight the war on terror that took a backseat when the President sought to fight a war that need not have been fought, at least not when we did. Rubbish.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
If only...
United States intelligence indicates that Al Qaeda is has rebuilt to an operating capability it has not had since just before the 9-11 attacks. The intelligence report says that Al Qaeda has been gathering strength along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
It's tragic. If only there was some way we could have had more forces available to fight this war on terror. If only we could take several hundred thousand soldiers from one nation and use them to fight a war declared by our Commander-in-Chief.
But, we fight with the army we have, not the army we wish we had, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld. Of course, that seems somehow less effective a defense when the army we had was taken away from our total strength to fight in a war that needn't be fought at the time. A war that now has the administration referring to every act of insurrection against our "liberating" forces as Al Qaeda - which, incidentally, is the organization now as strong as it was in 2001, according to our own Department of Defense.
Fortunately, Al Qaeda's days are numbered. We were told two years ago that the insurrection was in its last throes, so they should be throwing in the towel, soon. We just have to be patient, and not set any arbitrary dates for defeat. Then we can finish what we started in Afghanistan, and then Osama Bin Laden better watch out!
It's tragic. If only there was some way we could have had more forces available to fight this war on terror. If only we could take several hundred thousand soldiers from one nation and use them to fight a war declared by our Commander-in-Chief.
But, we fight with the army we have, not the army we wish we had, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld. Of course, that seems somehow less effective a defense when the army we had was taken away from our total strength to fight in a war that needn't be fought at the time. A war that now has the administration referring to every act of insurrection against our "liberating" forces as Al Qaeda - which, incidentally, is the organization now as strong as it was in 2001, according to our own Department of Defense.
Fortunately, Al Qaeda's days are numbered. We were told two years ago that the insurrection was in its last throes, so they should be throwing in the towel, soon. We just have to be patient, and not set any arbitrary dates for defeat. Then we can finish what we started in Afghanistan, and then Osama Bin Laden better watch out!
Monday, June 25, 2007
Yugiyoh
The Korean term for June 25 is Yugiyoh, which literally translates to 6 - 2 - 5. This date has a particular significance in Korea, as it is the day that North Korean soldiers with the support and blessing of Stalin and Mao crossed the 38th parallel and invaded South Korea in 1950. Between 1950 and 1953, approximately 900,000 Chinese, 520,000 North Korean, 400,000 UN and South Korean, and 155,000 U.S. soldiers were either killed or wounded. Though a cease-fire has been declared, there still has been no treaty signed, and the two countries are still technically at war.
For those of you who view Yugiyoh as a kid's card game, remember for a moment that for millions of people, it means much, much more.
For those of you who view Yugiyoh as a kid's card game, remember for a moment that for millions of people, it means much, much more.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Shamefully, I forgot
I've been rather busy with the Bar Exam. I didn't even realize until now that it is D-Day.
I've taken a moment to reflect on the task they faced, the courage they showed, and the sacrifices they made so that others could be free. Perhaps we all should.
Thank you.
I've taken a moment to reflect on the task they faced, the courage they showed, and the sacrifices they made so that others could be free. Perhaps we all should.
Thank you.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Irony
From Yahoo!: "Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Sunday cautioned Turkey against sending troops into Northern Iraq."
You see, Turkey claims that terrorists are entering Turkey from Iraq, and they want to invade the country to attack the source. They can't do that. We weren't invaded by Iraq, we had no Iraqi forces attacking us, and were under no imminent threat of attack from Iraq, so we invaded them and brought them freedom - the freedom to launch terrorist attacks against Turkey from Northern Iraq, as it were.
Heaven forbid we accept any help in combating terrorism - the war against which we ostensibly were fighting when we went into Iraq, stopping our search for the leader of Al Qaeda, who was responsible for 9-11. Heaven forbid we allow another nation to defend itself. We empathize with Turkey, but tell them not to defend themselves when attacked.
I thought terrorism was being defeated by the surge? I thought that the president urged other nations to take a stand against terror (the "entity" we are fighting). I think it's ironic, this situation and our position, and I think it's another example of the issues this administration has with anything that isn't done exactly "his way."
You see, Turkey claims that terrorists are entering Turkey from Iraq, and they want to invade the country to attack the source. They can't do that. We weren't invaded by Iraq, we had no Iraqi forces attacking us, and were under no imminent threat of attack from Iraq, so we invaded them and brought them freedom - the freedom to launch terrorist attacks against Turkey from Northern Iraq, as it were.
Heaven forbid we accept any help in combating terrorism - the war against which we ostensibly were fighting when we went into Iraq, stopping our search for the leader of Al Qaeda, who was responsible for 9-11. Heaven forbid we allow another nation to defend itself. We empathize with Turkey, but tell them not to defend themselves when attacked.
I thought terrorism was being defeated by the surge? I thought that the president urged other nations to take a stand against terror (the "entity" we are fighting). I think it's ironic, this situation and our position, and I think it's another example of the issues this administration has with anything that isn't done exactly "his way."
Saturday, March 31, 2007
"Mission Accomplished"
I've heard the cover story for a long time now - that the banner that flew behind president Bush on March 1, 2003 when he declared a victory in the war on terror (decide for yourself the veracity of that statement) referred to the sailors on the ship, who had, indeed accomplished their mission and done so capably and admirably, and that the president had nothing to do with it.
However, I am also more than certain that the implied message was what president Bush intended to convey, and as Commander in Chief of the military, he could easily have not had that banner flying behind him.
What I want to know, though, is when did the "official" reason for the banner come out? The earliest reference I can see (with my very limited research - school is keeping me very busy today) is from October of 2003, where the White House insisted that, while they made the banner, the Navy requested it and was responsible for it. When did the story get released, and what was the true intent of the President standing in front of the banner to make that speech? Give me dates and links, not speculation.
However, I am also more than certain that the implied message was what president Bush intended to convey, and as Commander in Chief of the military, he could easily have not had that banner flying behind him.
What I want to know, though, is when did the "official" reason for the banner come out? The earliest reference I can see (with my very limited research - school is keeping me very busy today) is from October of 2003, where the White House insisted that, while they made the banner, the Navy requested it and was responsible for it. When did the story get released, and what was the true intent of the President standing in front of the banner to make that speech? Give me dates and links, not speculation.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Remember the Sabbath Day, and Keep it Holy
Just in case people forget, last week, General Pace condemned homosexuality as "immoral," in support of the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.
I think that at this time DADT is the best policy for the military simply because I don't think war is the time to integrate open homosexuality to a hostile group in a hostile environment. But that's beside the point.
The point is that the general pointed out that Homosexuality is immoral, and Sam Brownback agreed. Because it's immoral, and the military shouldn't condone immorality. The military needs to stick to the teachings of the bible, which condemns homosexuality - hence the source of the "immoral" concept. So, I think the military must do a better job of following the teachings of the bible. This means that the military should stop killing - it's one of the ten commandments. And let's not forget adultery - I seem to remember a lot of husbands and wives cheating while they were overseas while the command "officially" condemned it then turned the other way. And of course, remembering the Sabbath Day - I don't believe breaking the Lord's commandments on Sunday is in keeping with this commandment either. And Thou Shalt Not Lie? Don't we partake in disinformation in the military? How is that not lying?
Or is it just that morality is relative? And these aren't breaking the commandments, because they still believe in the spirit of the commandments, and thus they are not immoral?
Or, if breaking the commandments is a sign of immorality, then why would we not way the immoral gays fighting and killing and lying and breaking all those laws that were written by the Lord?
I think that at this time DADT is the best policy for the military simply because I don't think war is the time to integrate open homosexuality to a hostile group in a hostile environment. But that's beside the point.
The point is that the general pointed out that Homosexuality is immoral, and Sam Brownback agreed. Because it's immoral, and the military shouldn't condone immorality. The military needs to stick to the teachings of the bible, which condemns homosexuality - hence the source of the "immoral" concept. So, I think the military must do a better job of following the teachings of the bible. This means that the military should stop killing - it's one of the ten commandments. And let's not forget adultery - I seem to remember a lot of husbands and wives cheating while they were overseas while the command "officially" condemned it then turned the other way. And of course, remembering the Sabbath Day - I don't believe breaking the Lord's commandments on Sunday is in keeping with this commandment either. And Thou Shalt Not Lie? Don't we partake in disinformation in the military? How is that not lying?
Or is it just that morality is relative? And these aren't breaking the commandments, because they still believe in the spirit of the commandments, and thus they are not immoral?
Or, if breaking the commandments is a sign of immorality, then why would we not way the immoral gays fighting and killing and lying and breaking all those laws that were written by the Lord?
Saturday, March 10, 2007
The New Math
President Bush a short time ago announced that after listening to the input of such sources as the ISG, the military, and anyone else he could say he talked to, he had decided to increase the troop strength in Iraq by 21,500. He assured us, on national television, that this increase would be all the extra forces we would need to secure Iraq and end the sectarian violence - the violence that didn't exist until we invaded Iraq based on faulty premises (seriously, if the President truly believed that they were responsible for assisting Al Qaeda, as he said he believed after every other reason he fronted fell apart - and don't give me that shit about how democrats believed the same thing, I don't care - THEY DIDN'T INVADE IRAQ BECAUSE OF IT - then why did he insist on a new authorization for use of military force, when the one issued after 9-11 clearly authorized using any means necessary to destroy those who supported the people the president determined were responsible for the 9-11 attacks? I really want to know), and that we would then win the war that he and his administration up until recently insisted was going well and that the damn MSM was losing us this war. He insisted this was the case. I remember, because I posted on it shortly thereafter, saying I hope he's right, but I'm skeptical.
Apparently, he was lying to us. But he's not known for that, so this is a shock to the american public. It seems he approved sending an additional 4400 troops to Iraq for necessary support for the surge. As you can tell by the title, I think I've figured out the way for the President to sell this to his base, since nobody else is likely to believe anything he ever says again (and this was before this latest bit of silliness) - use new math.
You see, we did send 21,500, and that's all that is needed. But we need to augment that number by adding 4400 people. That normally would be 25,900 people, or 100 short of 26,000. Since we're short of that amount, we don't estimate 26,000 - we would estimate low, or 25,000. That of course, leads us to being over by 900 people. You add that to the 100 we were short on the initial estimation to keep us from 26,000, and you get 1000. You subract 1000 from the 4400 that we sent, because they didn't go under our estimate, and you get 3400. Now, you take that 3400 and you subtract them from the 25,000, because we didn't send 3400, we sent 4400. That gets you to 25,000 - 3400 = 21,600, or an increase of only 100 people, which, if you remember is the same number we were short on 26,000, so we can take that off and leads us to the proper equation - 21,500 + 4400 = 21,500.
Can't be simpler than that.
Apparently, he was lying to us. But he's not known for that, so this is a shock to the american public. It seems he approved sending an additional 4400 troops to Iraq for necessary support for the surge. As you can tell by the title, I think I've figured out the way for the President to sell this to his base, since nobody else is likely to believe anything he ever says again (and this was before this latest bit of silliness) - use new math.
You see, we did send 21,500, and that's all that is needed. But we need to augment that number by adding 4400 people. That normally would be 25,900 people, or 100 short of 26,000. Since we're short of that amount, we don't estimate 26,000 - we would estimate low, or 25,000. That of course, leads us to being over by 900 people. You add that to the 100 we were short on the initial estimation to keep us from 26,000, and you get 1000. You subract 1000 from the 4400 that we sent, because they didn't go under our estimate, and you get 3400. Now, you take that 3400 and you subtract them from the 25,000, because we didn't send 3400, we sent 4400. That gets you to 25,000 - 3400 = 21,600, or an increase of only 100 people, which, if you remember is the same number we were short on 26,000, so we can take that off and leads us to the proper equation - 21,500 + 4400 = 21,500.
Can't be simpler than that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)