This post stuck to the top for a while….newer posts will follow until I remove the “stick.”
————————————————————————————-

They say it clearly. We can’t grasp it as a country, much less as the Western World. Scary, telling, insightful, yet some have known this all along. Bolding in the quoted article below is mine for emphasis. Read and be educated.

Iraq: Jihadist Perspectives on a U.S. Withdrawal

By Fred Burton
www.stratfor.com

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a nonbinding resolution to express disapproval of the president’s plan to send more troops to Iraq. Republicans in the Senate prevented a similar resolution from coming to the floor for a vote the next day. The congressional actions come during a period of vigorous debate about U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan — a debate that is being heavily fueled as presidential hopefuls from both parties begin to position themselves for the 2008 election.

Naturally, this internal debate and media coverage have focused on the American perspective — and, more specifically, on public opinion polls. But often missing in that discussion is the fact that Afghanistan and Iraq were not entered into as self-contained discrete wars, but as fronts in the wider U.S.-jihadist war. Therefore, though the Bush administration’s troop strategy, the positioning of the Democrats and the anti-war statements of potential presidential contenders are by no measure unimportant, the intense focus on these issues means that another important perspective on the war — that of the jihadists — frequently goes unmentioned.

Al Qaeda leaders and the jihadist movement in general always have taken a long view of the war, and discussion of a U.S. withdrawal from either Iraq or Afghanistan has long been anticipated. In planning the 9/11 attacks, al Qaeda leaders clearly expected that the United States, once drawn into a war, eventually would weaken and lose heart. A study of al Qaeda’s philosophy, mindset and planning — conveyed through the words and actions of its leadership — is a reminder of just how the current U.S. political debate fits into the jihadist timeline and strategy.

It also is an indicator that a U.S. withdrawal from Muslim lands is not al Qaeda’s ultimate requirement for ending attacks against the United States or American interests abroad.

Perceptions of American Resolve

Long before the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, Osama bin Laden clearly stated that, in the jihadists’ opinion, the United States was not prepared to fight a war of attrition.

Prior to 9/11, bin Laden’s public statements conveyed his dim view of the U.S. military’s capabilities and resolve, as well as of the willingness of the U.S. government (and to a larger extent, the American people) to take casualties in a sustained war. In a 1997 interview with Peter Arnett, bin Laden said, “We learned from those who fought [in Somalia] that they were surprised to see the low spiritual morale of the American fighters in comparison with the experience they had with the Russian fighters. The Americans ran away from those fighters who fought and killed them, while the latter were still there. If the U.S. still thinks and brags that it still has this kind of power even after all these successive defeats in Vietnam, Beirut, Aden, and Somalia, then let them go back to those who are awaiting its return.”

It is widely believed that the U.S. withdrawal from Lebanon, following the 1983 Marine barracks bombing, and from Somalia in 1993 were important precedents in driving the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. The jihadists believed that if they killed enough Americans, U.S. forces would leave Saudi Arabia.

Bin Laden’s opinion of U.S. resolve was not shaken by the “shock and awe” campaign that was unleashed in Afghanistan and, later, Iraq. In a February 2003 message, he said, “We can conclude that America is a superpower, with enormous military strength and vast economic power, but that all this is built on foundations of straw. So it is possible to target those foundations and focus on their weakest points which, even if you strike only one-tenth of them, then the whole edifice will totter and sway, and relinquish its unjust leadership of the world.”

Bin Laden and other jihadist strategists often have stressed that the U.S. economy is one of the foundations to be attacked. However, another significant — and in their view, vulnerable — target is morale. In an October 2002 statement, marking the first anniversary of the Afghanistan invasion, bin Laden discussed the importance of “the media people and writers who have remarkable impact and a big role in directing the battle, and breaking the enemy’s morale, and heightening the Ummah’s morale.”

He also noted that the Americans had failed to achieve their objectives in Afghanistan, saying, “The invading American forces in Afghanistan have now started to sink in the Afghani mud, with all of their equipment and personnel. The weird irony of the matter is that the Crusader forces, which came to protect the governing system in Kabul from the attacks of the mujahideen, have now come to need the protection of the regime’s forces, having been dealt continuous blows by the mujahideen, so who protects who? The international and American forces had come to ensure the security [but] have become the biggest burden to security!!”

Orders given by Mullah Omar and his tactical commanders to Taliban fighters in Afghanistan also reflect this mindset. They are told not to go toe-to-toe with coalition forces in battle, but rather to increase the costs of doing battle in order to hasten the withdrawal of Western forces.

An al Qaeda military strategist and propagandist, Abu Ubeid al-Qurashi, expounded on this concept in an article titled “Fourth-Generation Wars,” carried by the organization’s biweekly Internet magazine, Al Ansar, in February 2002:

“Fourth-generation warfare, the experts said, is a new type of war in which fighting will be mostly scattered. The battle will not be limited to destroying military targets and regular forces, but will include societies, and will seek to destroy popular support for the fighters within the enemy’s society. In these wars, the experts stated in their article, ‘television news may become a more powerful operational weapon than armored divisions.’ They also noted that ‘the distinction between war and peace will be blurred to the vanishing point.'”

Al-Qurashi went on to extol jihadist successes in fourth-generation warfare, in settings ranging from Afghanistan to Somalia. He also noted that, like the Soviet Union, the United States was not well-suited to fight that type of war. And he predicted that al Qaeda’s ideal structure for, and historical proficiency in, fourth-generation warfare ultimately would secure its victory — despite the fact that jihadists were outgunned by the Americans in both types and quantities of weapons. Al-Qurashi said that while the U.S. military was designed and equipped with the concept of deterrence in mind — that is, to deter attacks against the United States — the guiding principle was not applicable in the struggle against a nonstate actor like al Qaeda.

“While the principle of deterrence works well between countries, it does not work at all for an organization with no permanent bases and with no capital in Western banks that does not rely on aid from particular countries. As a result, it is completely independent in its decisions, and it seeks conflict from the outset. How can such people, who strive for death more than anything else, be deterred?” he wrote.

In contrast, al Qaeda’s leaders persistently have exhorted their followers to fight a war of attrition similar to that successfully waged by the mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan. In bin Laden’s words, “We don’t articulate and we don’t quit.”

One principle that has been emphasized in many statements by bin Laden and others is that the jihadists love death the way Americans love life — a concept originally stated by Abu Bakr, a companion of the Prophet Muhammad, as he led an army into battle against the Persians.

A Four-Part Strategy

The United States’ military response to the 9/11 attacks was the reaction al Qaeda wanted and expected. The statements of al Qaeda leaders have made it clear that the jihadists’ goal was to make sure these became protracted, painful and costly wars.

Ayman al-Zawahiri put it this way in August 2003, as the insurgency in Iraq was beginning to take hold: “We are saying to America one thing: What you saw with your eyes so far are only initial skirmishes; as for the real battle, it hasn’t even started yet.”

Now, whether al Qaeda or the jihadist movement actually retains the capability to achieve its long-term goals is a matter for vigorous debate, and one we have explored at other times. For purposes of this analysis, however, it is useful to examine just what those long-term goals, to which al-Zawahiri obviously was alluding, actually are.

Internal al Qaeda documents indicate that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan is but one of the stages factored into the movement’s long-term planning. One of the most telling documents was a July 2005 letter from al-Zawahiri to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq, outlining a four-step strategy for establishing a caliphate in the “heart of the Islamic world.” (The authenticity of the al-Zawahiri letter has been questioned by some, but our own analysis has led Stratfor to conclude it was bona fide.)

The steps he outlined were:
1) Expel the Americans from Iraq.
2) Establish an Islamic authority or emirate in Iraq.
3) Extend the jihad wave to secular countries neighboring Iraq.
4) Initiate a clash with Israel.

Al-Zawahiri said he was proposing the four-step strategy in order to “stress something extremely important” to al-Zarqawi, “and it is that the mujahideen must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal.” He clearly wanted the jihadists to press on toward bigger objectives following the U.S. withdrawal.

In the letter, he cautioned: “Things may develop faster than we imagine. The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam — and how they ran and left their agents — is noteworthy. Because of that, we must be ready starting now, before events overtake us, and before we are surprised by the conspiracies of the Americans and the United Nations and their plans to fill the void behind them. We must take the initiative and impose a fait accompli upon our enemies, instead of the enemy imposing one on us, wherein our lot would be to merely resist their schemes.”

It follows from this that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be construed by the jihadists as an opportunity to establish an important base or sanctuary — and then to consolidate their gains and continue their “jihad wave” to other parts of the region. With that in mind, jihadist attacks against “Jews and Crusaders” could be expected to continue even after a U.S. departure from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Ultimate Objective

Al Qaeda’s grievances with the United States have been well documented by Stratfor and numerous others since the 9/11 attacks: Bin Laden was outraged by the presence of U.S. military forces in Saudi Arabia following the 1991 Gulf War, and by what he sees as an unholy alliance between Western powers and “apostate” secular regimes in the Islamic world. Historical conflicts between Muslim and Christian entities also have been referenced as a precedent for what bin Laden describes as “aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world” — meaning the U.N. embargo against Iraq, the existence of Israel and U.S. support for said “apostate” regimes.

In a February 1998 statement, bin Laden declared that “The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the Al Aqsa mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.

An important point is that al Qaeda defines terms like the “lands of Islam” as territory that includes present-day Israel, India and Spain. While Israel is clearly more significant to Muslims than other areas, given the importance of Jerusalem and the Al Aqsa mosque to Islam, Spain — which was the Caliphate of al-Andalus from 711 to 1492 — is also in the crosshairs. An equally important point is that the political shift in Madrid (which followed a 2004 commuter train attack in the capital) and the government’s decision to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq have not removed Spain from the jihadists’ target list. In a July 2006 message — in which he threatened revenge for the Israeli aggression against Lebanon and the Palestinians — al-Zawahiri said, “The war with Israel … is a jihad for the sake of God … a jihad that seeks to liberate Palestine, the whole of Palestine, and to liberate every land which (once belonged to) Islam, from Andalus to Iraq.”

In other words, at least as long as the state of Israel exists — and the “apostate” governments in places like Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Morocco and Kuwait remain in power, with U.S. support — the jihadists will continue to complain about U.S. “aggression against Islam.” And, insofar as they are able, they will carry on their war.

This report may be distributed or republished with attribution to Strategic Forecasting, Inc. at www.stratfor.com.

This analysis, using their own words, tells us there is the multi-generational war in the wings. The age of instant gratification/Desert Storm type “wins” aren’t going to be a reasonable expectation.

Is this a surprise to many? Maybe the link should be sent to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Note the expectation of us ending this war in Iraq just as we did in Vietnam. My, my, my! So the Democrats in power are playing right into their plans, which would show the Democrats cannot understand their role on the larger stage of the World, then and now…

Posted in Little Green Footballs comment section….
H/T: Diary of a Mad Pidegon, Samantha Burns

These are strange days, indeed. And interesting. Stand by for “stream of consciousness” transmission.

I’m a process guy. For as long as I can remember, I have enjoyed dismantling times to see what makes them go. In my adult years, that has taken the form of “how does it work and is there room for improvement?” more often than not. I despise those who can can only manage to lift themselves intellectually enough to identify a problem and go no further. far too many of those people, when we need problem solvers. Implied the same “problem solvers” will, because it has to be this way, get their hands, and maybe the rest of them quite “dirty” in the pursuit of making things better.

In looking at processes, I enjoy trying to find the core of the problem so that the “fix” might be done with the least amount of effort, while the effort in some cases will be enormous, going to cut the tap root directly is still superior to trying to kill a tree by plucking each of it’s leaves…

With those thoughts in mind, I get to the point of my current wondering:

What happened to the Republican Party? The title of this post conveys some of the problem, and thank God we have a number of our countrymen who still run to the sound of battle to offset the current trend at just about every level of government these days.

I think back to the President’s news conference and actions on November 8th, 2006. President Bush did not stand tall and face the changed balance of votes in the Congress with forthright consistency. I believe this was the day things went south. Well, actually the night of November 7th to be more precise, but the interviews and “conciliatory attitudes” couldn’t be showcased until the next morning. I am a supporter of the President, but wonder why he has stepped back from his upright stance he had from 9/12/2001 through the days before the 2006 election.

How does this factor in? The Republicans have fractured and jumped on the band wagon to try to exercise non-Constitutional control of the military operations of the country. It’s as though the team has lost its coach, and, seeing tough sledding ahead, they “separate” and believe running alone will up their chances of survival politically. Not a chance I’d postulate. That thought process doesn’t work well in the wilderness, nor when lost at sea. “we” as humans do better when we work together (which goes a lot further when trying to solve problems, too). This will be something I think history, and the electorate will not judge in a positive light when our days are looked back on.

I think the Republicans have lost their rudder and I just hope someone can step up to the plate to pull them back together.

Watching the Democrats since 11/8/2006, all I see is a more shrill “voice” to impose their way on the entire nation. They said they would bring a new conversation to Washington, and I’d have to agree, but it is in the form of demanding they have their way, not in bi-partisan open discussions to solve the problems of this nation. Frankly, there are big issues facing this country, and the majority party is frittering away valuable time by spending their waking hours merely trying to oppose the President.

That being said, for those on the opposing side of the political scale than I, it’s one thing to just stand up and vote your power in funding as a Constitutionally valid method to exercise “checks and balances” and quite another to waste time putting forth legislative work that will most certainly be turned down when reviewed in a court of law. You want a prime example of “waste, fraud and abuse?” The “slow bleed” strategy of the Democrats in the House is just that. For those who complain about $400 toilet seats in military aircraft projects, will you also put your elected Federal representatives on notice that they are mis-handling your tax dollars now, or will you give them a pass?

As many others have said, if Congress believes the will of the people is to get out of the Middle East and bring the troops home, that can be communicated loudly and clearly by just not giving money to the military.

“Revoting” how much authority the President was given is also a time wasting, cheap shot at halting the gears of the Nation. At least I have to acknowledge that John Edwards has the courage to say he voted one way and now has changed his mind. Hillary (the smartest women in the world, some would claim) just wants to pretend she was out-foxed. Think about that one: The “Shrub” who is the stupidest man/president ever according to many, out thought the smartest women in the world. If I were Hillary, I’d shut up now, before people realize a dumb man convinced her to do something she shouldn’t have…..

Lately I have heard accusations that the President didn’t plan adequately for this war. I agree, wholeheartedly. In retrospect, and in his favor, who could have predicted that after the deaths of 2996 people on our own soil, in a deliberate attack, that the response would have had to have included plans to counter a national and world press that would consciously not seek the truth, would accept as “news” fabricated stories, photographs and videos provided without fact checking from the enemy in caves and alleys of war torn towns, showing more Americans dying at the hands of a driven, brutal enemy, and then let the same culture demand they not be spoken of in terms to describe, at best their apathy and at worst their clearly stated blood lust and murderously conducted actions?

Who would have known to plan for those same things, pushed in the face of the world daily would be blamed on the man who was in a classroom of an elementary reading class, not having planned to, in cold blood, execute 2996 people on the same day? And, further, that that accepted meme would then cause a party out of power to use this as fodder to re-gain those positions where they could personally gain in political stature? Besides having to plan on how to combat an effort on an world-wide, internal to the nation and from without, war against us, by an enemy who would hide in plain sight, and chose to be stateless in order to confound the reaction to their attacks?

Just as the cry of concern that a fictional television show might influence someone to cross the line and commit crimes in and interrogation, the media is a powerful voice, and it’s not just “24” that may influence. Tipper Gore wanted music controlled, because of the influence. about 20 years ago, ads for smoking products were banned, as “the nation” agreed they were influential. As one talk show host said when wondering why only “24” was singled out: “If only ’24’ is influential, why are corporations spend $2.5M for 30 seconds of Super Bowl air time?” Because the media influences, plain and simple.

Quite honestly, I wonder at the depth of understanding of those in leadership who would trust the polls of the American public to guide their policy positions. For one, they were elected to be leaders, and not to just follow the crowd (which is why, duh!, we refer to them as leaders). Secondly, if they haven’t figured out we are kind of fickle in our positions, then they really have lost touch with the regular Americans and don’t comprehend the comings and goings of fashions, music, the “coolest” cellphone, the hottest movie, the “in” band/musician, do they?

So, to wrap up some random, yet connected thoughts on the state of the Union, it occurs to me that constancy, vision and dogged determination in the face of adversity has been the quality that has served this nation, in public and private affairs the best. Bickering over the “how” of the “how to get the job done/problem solved” is wasted energy and, with the issue of global warming being the impending death of Mother earth, I’d suggest the exhaled breath would serve us all better if it was used to form sounds of conversations about making the future safe for us now, and our heirs later, rather than used to call names and quibble over who had better grads in college/law school.

From here, I return to my regularly scheduled analysis of just what the heck is going on. I refuse to publish a timeline for my plan, just in case you are going to demand one.

Real solutions to the real problems can be submitted in the comments section below.

“Fairness” provided by comments section below.

Common sense and reality accepted.

Crossposted at: The Wide Awakes

Tracked back at: Third World County,

From the wonderfully insightful work of Cox and Forkum site:

CAIR is raising a ruckus about the depiction of terrorists. It follows the pattern. Pick away at any situation here in the US that makes them “feel” bad, yet never stand up and condemn the beheading/torture/slaughter of anyone in the Middle East, or Thailand or the Philippines, or Malaysia (you get the idea.

The plan? Well, make us afraid to even comment that Muslims may be connected with terror, which makes it easier to walk on buy with evil intent, and we are afraid, for fear of lawyers championing the “cause.”

On top of that, what word can we use to epand the description beyond “hyper-?” As with credit cards types, first they were just cards, then “Gold” cards, then “Platinum” and now “Titanium.” Before long, you just run out of elements in the periodic table and then what do you do? We’re kinda already at the end of the modifier run for descriptions of over the top reactions….suggestions?

January 20th, 1981… some Americans were freed, just in case you forgot about the day 444 days of captivity disgraced our nation, when the President refused to respond to the attack on the soil of America.

Now he’s acting like he’s some kind of hero from first facilitating the ascendancy to power, then backing down from them right away.

A Navy Aviator, then a Commander in rank, was sent to Iran, as the storm was brewing…to “advise” our allies in the Iranian Air Force, to whom we had sold the F-14 Tomcat to. It seems his job was to inspect each of their aircraft and make sure the capability to employ the AIM-54 Phoenix as disabled. He did that, and then was the guest of Amadinerjacket and company for over a year.

I knew this man when he was the Chief of Staff for Commander, Cruiser-Destroyer Group TWO (CCDG2) in 1988-89, by then the rank of Captain.

Thank you, Capt Sharer for your service so many years ago.

Today’s political, military and geo-political landscapes are a muddy, quicksand like consistency it seems some days. Little clarity, lots of “suction” to keep the progress from occurring. From Hugh Hewitt’s radio show tonight, a moment of clarity, the words of a young man. His words, those of a freshly minted “butter bar” provide the answer to the title of the post, and also convey some wisdom his elders might be wise to take counsel of.

Sadly, these words, most likely would have been doomed to being read by a few hundred or so people in passing on Lt Mark Daly’s MySpace page, but as the result of his death in combat on 1/15/2007, his readership will increase dramatically. Here they are. Pause to consider Mark says things not popular, yet in a professional and forthright manner:

Why I Joined: This question has been asked of me so many times in so many different contexts that I thought it would be best if I wrote my reasons for joining the Army on my page for all to see. First, the more accurate question is why I volunteered to go to Iraq. After all, I joined the Army a week after we declared war on Saddam’s government with the intention of going to Iraq. Now, after years of training and preparation, I am finally here. Much has changed in the last three years.

The criminal Ba’ath regime has been replaced by an insurgency fueled by Iraq’s neighbors who hope to partition Iraq for their own ends. This is coupled with the ever present transnational militant Islamist movement which has seized upon Iraq as the greatest way to kill Americans, along with anyone else they happen to be standing near. What was once a paralyzed state of fear is now the staging ground for one of the largest transformations of power and ideology the Middle East has experienced since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Thanks to Iran, Syria, and other enlightened local actors, this transformation will be plagued by interregional hatred and genocide. And I am now in the center of this. Is this why I joined? Yes.

Much has been said about America’s intentions in overthrowing Saddam Hussein and seeking to establish a new state based upon political representation and individual rights. Many have framed the paradigm through which they view the conflict around one-word explanations such as “oil” or “terrorism,” favoring the one which best serves their political persuasion. I did the same thing, and anyone who knew me before I joined knows that I am quite aware and at times sympathetic to the arguments against the war in Iraq. If you think the only way a person could bring themselves to volunteer for this war is through sheer desperation or blind obedience then consider me the exception (though there are countless like me). I joined the fight because it occurred to me that many modern day “humanists” who claim to possess a genuine concern for human beings throughout the world are in fact quite content to allow their fellow “global citizens” to suffer under the most hideous state apparatuses and conditions. Their excuses used to be my excuses.

When asked why we shouldn’t confront the Ba’ath party, the Taliban or the various other tyrannies throughout this world, my answers would allude to vague notions of cultural tolerance (forcing women to wear a veil and stay indoors is such a quaint cultural tradition), the sanctity of national sovereignty (how eager we internationalists are to throw up borders to defend dictatorships!) or even a creeping suspicion of America’s intentions. When all else failed, I would retreat to my fragile moral ecosystem that years of living in peace and liberty had provided me. I would write off war because civilian casualties were guaranteed, or temporary alliances with illiberal forces would be made, or tank fuel was toxic for the environment.

My fellow “humanists” and I would relish contently in our self righteous declaration of opposition against all military campaigns against dictatorships, congratulating one another for refusing to taint that aforementioned fragile moral ecosystem that many still cradle with all the revolutionary tenacity of the members of Rage Against the Machine and Greenday. Others would point to America’s historical support of Saddam Hussein, sighting it as hypocritical that we would now vilify him as a thug and a tyrant. Upon explaining that we did so to ward off the fiercely Islamist Iran, which was correctly identified as the greater threat at the time, eyes are rolled and hypocrisy is declared. Forgetting that America sided with Stalin to defeat Hitler, who was promptly confronted once the Nazis were destroyed, America’s initial engagement with Saddam and other regional actors is identified as the ultimate argument against America’s moral crusade. And maybe it is. Maybe the reality of politics makes all political action inherently crude and immoral. Or maybe it is these adventures in philosophical masturbation that prevent people from ever taking any kind of effective action against men like Saddam Hussein.

One thing is for certain, as disagreeable or as confusing as my decision to enter the fray may be, consider what peace vigils against genocide have accomplished lately. Consider that there are 19 year old soldiers from the Midwest who have never touched a college campus or a protest who have done more to uphold the universal legitimacy of representative government and individual rights by placing themselves between Iraqi voting lines and homicidal religious fanatics. Often times it is less about how clean your actions are and more about how pure your intentions are. So that is why I joined.

In the time it took for you to read this explanation, innocent people your age have suffered under the crushing misery of tyranny. Every tool of philosophical advancement and communication that we use to develop our opinions about this war are denied to countless human beings on this planet, many of whom live under the regimes that have, in my opinion, been legitimately targeted for destruction. Some have allowed their resentment of the President to stir silent applause for setbacks in Iraq. Others have ironically decried the war because it has tied up our forces and prevented them from confronting criminal regimes in Sudan, Uganda, and elsewhere. I simply decided that the time for candid discussions of the oppressed was over, and I joined.

In digesting this posting, please remember that America’s commitment to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his sons existed before the current administration and would exist into our future children’s lives had we not acted. Please remember that the problems that plague Iraq today were set in motion centuries ago and were up until now held back by the most cruel of cages. Don’t forget that human beings have a responsibility to one another and that Americans will always have a responsibility to the oppressed. Don’t overlook the obvious reasons to disagree with the war but don’t cheapen the moral aspects either. Assisting a formerly oppressed population in converting their torn society into a plural, democratic one is dangerous and difficult business, especially when being attacked and sabotaged from literally every direction. So if you have anything to say to me at the end of this reading, let it at least include “Good Luck” Mark Daily

Mark saw something we have missed or maybe dismissed, in the current debate on the “surge” and defunding the war. He notes that action gets things done. He shut up (about his views held before), suited up and stepped up when it came time. I know there are many more like him. May those ones come home victorious and when peace is at hand in the Middle East.

Rest in peace, Soldier.

Tracked back at:
Chuch and State

Dear Speaker Pelosi;

“Hammerin’ Hank” had a philosophy: Target the closest threat. Kill it any way your can, because your ability to have a future depends on it.

When you have “danger close,” it serves the future little to peer beyond it and pontificate on how you have to make things better for then. If you’re dead from the nearer danger, so what if you’d like to make things perfect for your grandchildren and mine?

Sincerely,

A concerned citizen.

Why the open note to Pelsoi Galore? It seems she is going to make a push to fund the war on global warming.

I take issue with her intention stated here:

“It is important to our children’s health and their global competitiveness to rid this nation of our dependence on foreign oil and Big Oil interests,” Pelosi told the news conference today. “Taking bold measures today to achieve energy independence within 10 years must be the highest priority for this Congress.”

Pragmatic question to Madame Speaker: What are we going to do next year when Iran embargoes oil exports to us?

Just wonderin’….

H:T: Army Lawyer

Tracked back at:
Third World County

I have been posting at The Wide Awakes for a few weeks, and I cross posted an old post of mine contrasting leadership styles…Well, it has blossomed into a full blown debate, with some ad hominum attacks, but not many, considering the “sides” represented.

The post is here. If you have anything to add (but read the discussion in the comments section, for it has transmogrified (H/T: Calvin and Hobbes) to a discussion of the current strategy for the Iraq War.

For the record, I don’t think the President has carried out the war as I have. Also for the record, I’m not the President….

I do, however, think there has been an overall strategic emphasis on a “forward defense,” which is quite offensive to some. Amazingly, to those who would call us to withdraw and huddle within our borders, staying quiet, so no one might notice us, are the very same people who refuse to support sealing our borders from illegal immigration.

I find that most interesting…pull out and pull back from an attack by a determined enemy, who makes no bones about wanting to destroy us, and, in criticizing the President, from both sides of the aisle, the comment is often made about how terrorists can slip across our border….

The prevailing mood appears to be that we will grant amnesty to the estimated 12 millions illegal immigrants, and the discussion about securing the border by physical and electronic means is pretty much discouraged.

I would ask: How do we leave a war, yet refuse to secure borders? Somehow the two strategies don’t match up to me. If you aren’t going to go forward to combat a threat, then you need to build a protected area to survive in.

So, I’m rambling, but, the two issues are connected and while some would try to keep them separated in the “grand scheme of things,” they are also the ones who drag out the “the President hasn’t made us safer, because the terrorists are coming across the borders” remark when it suits the purpose to derail the war strategy discussion.

I’m working through the mental hoops on my thoughts (remember: I’m not the President) on the plan to send more troops into Iraq in order to get a handle on the conflict. Between some books I read about a 20 years ago, one that was written about 100 years ago, and another I’m waiting to receive in the mail, I think we are headed on a good track, so long as the message is not the military might is the supreme force to employ.

So, here we are, 53 years later and it didn’t happen…Thank God.

So, don’t worry, be happy, until we find out “Who’s Next?”…

Stumbling around looking for a Ted Kennedy picture (you’ll see why this weekend), I find this site for dummied up pictures of news stories: Freaking News…get on it, ok?

Last month, I was engaged in a serial posting “The Ratchet and the Governor – Tools for Today” and Part III discussed how our model of sports could help us see a manner in which we could fight the war on terror.

I attended another even a few nights back and the next day I realized something I have been around my entire life, yet it didn’t strike me as consciously as it has now, particularly in light of the political divisions, and it is tied in to sports, too.

I have never been one to watch sports much. I have played and competed in several, and even don’t prefer to sit and watch any of those, unless it’s a last resort type situation. You have to watch the Super Bowl, because it’s the Super Bowl, but other than that, I might, while channel surfing (which I don’t watch much TV, either), stop and watch downhill skiing. I think I’m attracted by the speed and adrenaline factor here.

This leads into sitting in an indoor setting, with maybe 15,000 fans. While there are great things to emulate from the experience, it also (to me) clearly points out our differences. Many there are very knowledgeable about the rules and the play, but, I’d venture wouldn’t dare to put on skates and pads to take up a hockey stick and get slammed into the boards.

So….they are relegated to observing the game. Completing this experience, many, sitting at higher angles, with a completely different, and much uncluttered view of the rink, are wont to yell out the “right way” things should be done. I’d be willing to bet, many of these people have never played hockey, or any sport at a professional level.

In any case, I feel inclined, on this end of the binary scale to place these sorts of people and call them “spectators.”

These “spectators” are the media reporters, demonstrators, politicians, and people on the sidewalks, and all seem to “know” the war is not being fought right, and is, at best, a questionable adventure at best.

The other category are those who have managed to understand there is more to life than sitting on the sidelines and offering uneducated advice. These are the competitors. It’s easy to recognize them. They are wearing a uniforms and are in, near, over, or supporting the War on Terror.

I know, it’s fairly apparent that we are becoming so clearly split into these two categories. I would note, however, the number in each category is markedly out of balance, with the spectators far outnumbering the competitors. This is the point of contention, made more striking by many who have come to believe that “self-esteem” is not just about feeling good about your self, but means you can tell everyone around you how to do things to suit you, so you can feel good. Huge difference in the two issues. One side if self satisfaction, the other is blatant selfishness, of which we have way too much of.

If we can correct the balance, and make it more equitable for getting into the future, it requires more people step up to the plate, and become competitors, which in turn requires a total attitude change and acceptance of a teamwork mentality, and that of the need to sacrifice some personal comfort, so others may also enjoy life. Required, also, is the need to submit to the leadership and wisdom of the coach, knowing they are in that position because of the very reason they have more experience, hand in hand with responsibility as well.

How to do that? Simply put (SU)³.

Teddy Roosevelt had much to say on this topic in at least two speeches, one of which I posted here, the other the one where the oft used quote about it’s the man in the arena trying greatly and failing greatly…..

Ok, I feel better now, having brought out a subconscious pattern into my conscious world view.