This “thread” of consciousness began as I chased a link on Chapomatic.

He referenced an editorial Iraq: Learning the Lessons of Vietnam, posted in Foreign Affairsfrom Melvin Laird, who was Richard Nixon’s SECDEF.

Having been closely related to that war from 3rd grade, and having just missed it when I was graduating from high school, I have read quite a lot, trying to merge in my mind the conglomeration of first person stories, the Stars and Stripes view and that of the “Main Stream Media.” To this day, it seems all three repoprted a different, but the same war.

In Melvin Laird’s editorial, he discusses how our Vietnamization plan (turning over the ground warfighting effort to the ARVN) was coupled with negotiaions with the Soviets, which would limit our and their direct and financial interplay in the Vietnam War. Melivin also points out that the ARVN soldiered on for about two full years, despite our withdrawal, and relatively light funding (which was in compliance with the negotiated settlement of the Superpowers. The contrast is more remarkable whne you find oout the Soviets, from before the ink was dry, never conformed to the spending limits and kept pumping resources and money to the NVA. Our allies still held the line for a few years, despite this egregious violation. That gives me new respect for the ARVN. Here is an excerpt of his analysis that supports my comments above:

“The truth about Vietnam that revisionist historians conveniently forget is that the United States had not lost when we withdrew in 1973. In fact, we grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory two years later when Congress cut off the funding for South Vietnam that had allowed it to continue to fight on its own. Over the four years of Nixon’s first term, I had cautiously engineered the withdrawal of the majority of our forces while building up South Vietnam’s ability to defend itself. My colleague and friend Henry Kissinger, meanwhile, had negotiated a viable agreement between North and South Vietnam, which was signed in January 1973. It allowed for the United States to withdraw completely its few remaining troops and for the United States and the Soviet Union to continue funding their respective allies in the war at a specified level. Each superpower was permitted to pay for replacement arms and equipment. Documents released from North Vietnamese historical files in recent years have proved that the Soviets violated the treaty from the moment the ink was dry, continuing to send more than $1 billion a year to Hanoi. The United States barely stuck to the allowed amount of military aid for two years, and that was a mere fraction of the Soviet contribution. “

One particular sentence jumped out at me:

“Documents released from North Vietnamese historical files in recent years have proved that the Soviets violated the treaty from the moment the ink was dry, continuing to send more than $1 billion a year to Hanoi.”

For the last few days, I’ve thought about that one comment and here some of my thoughts as a result:

1) Vietnam is referred to as a war. I think in a greater context, it was an over a decade long battle in the greater conflict between the Superpowers. I believe most people follow and subscribe to that, but it makes me think of today and the naysayers. Vietnam was one of the hot points in the Cold War, something that came to center stage and captured our attention.

2) As Melvin points out in the beginning of his editorial, one must be careful in drawing parallels, yet I have one. It speaks to me that we have faced a fearsome enemy before. It was the Soviet Bloc/Communism. In that conflict, ranging from the fall of Berlin in 1945, up to the falling of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the subsequent demise of the Soviet Union, we confronted an enemy that followed no rules, and readily violated treaties when possible. We most certainly had moments when our moral compass needle was bent, too, yet I’ll submit that that was the exception, rather than the norm. Between oversight from Congress and pressure from our citizens, we played fair. Along the way to winning the Global War, our media labeled us as losers and imperialists. In the grand scheme, we won the Cold War and never resorted to nuking any one. Considering the thermonuclear firepower “potential energy” in both ours and the Soviet’s arsenals, I’d say the casualties, each one being a lost life, were far, far less by many orders of magnitude that it could have been. We, as humainty, should rightly pat ourselves on our collective back for this accomplishment.

Here’s my connection between now and then: We are once more faced with an enemy who follows no rules. They do what ever they can, from hiding behind children, to dressing as women, to driving cement mixers full of explosives towards a hotel full of reporters, as well as chopping off civilians heads with dull knifes. We keep playing by the rules. I suggest, that despite what the press says, and even knowing there is some heartfelt opposition to the war that does not involve the simplistic and obsessive hatred of President Bush, should take heart in seeing how the high road taken has proven the best once before in our not too distant history.

If Congress pulls funding, and we have to come home, and we have to endure a president or two who force us into an virtual, or practical isolationist/non-interventionist mode, we still have a fighting cnahce of winning the bigger battle. I certainly don’t want to think about “going there,” but if we do, we soldier on.

Thanks, Melvin for pointing out that the light at the end of the GWOT is maybe brighter than we perceive right now.

October 25th. No year attached, just a day of the year. As I researched some connections I have to this day in 1998, I have discovered it’s interesting how so many battles of historical note happened on this day.

I am most attached due to this day due to my Naval career, which included a tour aboard USS CARR (FFG-52). Gunner’s Mate Paul Henry Carr, USN, of Checotah, OK, is the namesake for the vessel.

He was awarded the Silver Star for his actions aboard the USS SAMUEL B ROBERTS (DE-413) at the Battle Off Samar on October 25th, 1944. My post last year, to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the last great sea battle held in the history of mankind is here.

The best book I have read on this battle, which brought together many first person accounts was “Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors” by James Hornfischer. I highly recommend it.

Walking backwards on the timeline of history to October 25th, 1854. The Crimean War was raging and the 13th Hussars of British cavalry rode to their deaths and immortality at Balaklava in the poem by Alfred Lord Tennyson.

The last stop on this October 25th journey is a day of special significance is the Battle of Agincourt in 1415. The recollection of this battle is usually provided in the form of the stirring and often quoted call to the troops to rise to the challenge of the day before them in Shakespeare’s play “Henry V:”

This day is called the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say ‘To-morrow is Saint Crispian:’
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
And say ‘These wounds I had on Crispin’s day.’
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he’ll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day: then shall our names.
Familiar in his mouth as household words
Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember’d.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember’d;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.

I’m amazed that these several battles of major significance would all fall on this day in history. Each battle can be rightly described as courageous, filled with honor and sacrifice for a higher calling, that have been noted by history as something out of the ordinary.

That’s today’s history lesson.

Thanks to Mudville Gazette for the Open Post!

Update 10/26/2005: Check out ANYDAY Today in History to see what happened on any day of the year!

I fear the object of my post my now have become history as a result of Hurricane Katrina, but, then again, maybe not….

For those who have spent some time in the BB&G in Pascagoula, MS, you will know of the old wooden hull grounded in the mud on the east bank of the Pascagoula River. For the rest of you, know this is a “sea story,” and therefore, is truth.

The USS SPRUANCE (DD-963) was built in (then) Ingalls Shipbuilding and Drydock on the gulf coast of Mississippi. It was commissioned in 1975, and the first of 31 (30 were originally planned, then the one more was added to the procurement) destroyers of the class. I was a “plank owner” (initially assigned crewmember) on the 22^nd hull of the class, USS LEFTWICH (DD-984) and was first “exposed” to the industrial shipyard lifestyle of a new ship in July 1979. While there, I learned of a new tradition that had begun during the days of the SPRUANCE Class building.

As you travel west on Hiway 90 through Pascagoula towards Gautier, you eye caught a old fishing boat hull imbedded in the mud, stern in, bow out towards the river, just a few yards north of the bridge. The decks had long since caved in, but the mast was still standing skyward. The wooden hull was a disgusting brown tone, showing the inattention given to the boat as a whole. As you got abreast of the vessel, there was a white set of numbers on a haze grey rectangle painted near the stem, in the approximate position that would mimic a set of hull numbers painted on a US Navy warship. The paint for these numbers was generally pretty bright, as it was renewed about once a month for the “tradition” that had grown in the local area, as a good natured joke between ship’s crews.

During the rapid building of the SPRUANCE Class, there was generally a number of sailors and officers present for several of the ships. Obviously, the closer to commissioning, the larger the crew assigned. While I was there for two months prior to the commissioning of the LEFTWICH, the full crew of the JOHN ROGERS (DD-983), a better part of the CUSHING’s (DD-985) crew was around, and then the core of the HARRY W HILL’s (DD-985) where there. The ships were being commissioned about a month apart, so it was a busy time.

When I arrived in July, the wooden hull was marked with “983.” ROGERS would be the next ship commissioned. The night before commissioning of the NICHOLSON (DD-982), that crew had made off with some government issue white and haze grey paint and sent a detail out to honor the ROGERS by painting their hull number up on this derelict hull. A few days after my arrival, the ROGERS commissioned, and lo and behold, when we went to work from our barracks the next morning, the numbers “984” had replaced the “983.” It was the local tradition….

One the night before our commissioning, who were we to break the pattern? A small detail did their job and put up the CUSHING’s “985.” The day after our commissioning, we sailed south west towards the Panama Canal, as Hurricanes Daniel and Frederick churned towards the Gulf of Mexico, our time at Ingalls over for the next few months.

In late January 80, we sailed to Pascagoula from our homeport of San Diego for both warranty work (a standard yard period after the ship had been operated for about 6 months), to be followed by a several month shipyard restricted availability (SRA), where we would have upgrades of radars and weapons installed. Since our departure from Pacagoula the prior August, several more SPRUANCE Class destroyers had joined the fleet. The expectation was there certainly should have been something like the hull number of the FIFE or the FLETCHER on the derelict hull by then, but that was not the case.

I actually knew before the rest of the crew, having driven ahead of the ship to be the liaison between the shipyard and SUPSHIP reps and our crew. I arrived about a week before the ship did. I crossed the bridge heading east into town and looked at the boat, only to see a not so brightly white “984” adorning the unseaworthy hull. As it turned out, the Commanding Officer of the CUSHING had waited until after we sailed for our home port and sent his crew out to paint over 985 with our hull number. Subsequently, no other crew felt the inclination to poke fun at the hulls behind them in the commissioning sequence, hence the fact the white paint of our hull number was no longer so fresh.

At some point after the ship arrived, some of our sailors went out one night to undo the “honor” bestowed on us. I can claim that the LEFTWICH had her hull number on display longer than any of the other SPRUANCEs and most likely longer than any ship built at Ingalls.

In 1984, I flew to Pascagoula in preparation for the overhaul my ship, USS CONOLLY (DD-979) would soon be going through. I was happy to note that there was a “5” painted on the derelict’s bow for the USS PELELIU (LHA-5), which was finishing up construction at the time.

This coming Sunday’s (8/28/05) St Petersburg Times paper will have a special section with the interviews they did with the WWII veterans in the area for a tribute to VJ Day.

Last spring, the Times put out a call for veterans to share their story. From what I understand, about 100 people
responded. One of them was Jim Helinger, Sr, the glider pilot who’s story I have
posted. I was able to sit with Jim when the summer intern reporter videoed the interview for the paper. I’m looking forward to reading the memories of those who answered the call and stood up for us so many years ago. I don’t recall the reporter’s name, but I do know he was sent on many of the interviews. He is on vacation now, and will be coming back to work full time for the St Pete Times.

It struck me the day I sat with Jim and the reporter and as I heard the reporter discuss a few of the men’s stories he had received for this section, I couldn’t help but think what a wonderful gift of living history this young man received by sitting with these 80 some year old men and listening to how it was. I’m sure he will use those stories for many years, long after some of these veteran’s have left us.

Anyhow, I plan to get a hold of a few copies for my own files. If you’re set on getting your own copy, I’d be happy to try to get them to anyone who want’s them. The paper is $1 for the Sunday edition and then what ever the cost of an envelope that will keep the special section intact and postage. See my profile for the email address, or leave a comment here so I can get back to you.

Update 8/26: I found out this special section will also include the interview with Ben Garrison, one of the crew members of the USS MASON (DE-529), the only large ship crewed by African Americans in WWII.

I have posted two parts of this story previously. It is the story of the a glider pilot that I had the opportunity to meet in person and hear this story myself. Read all of it to get a picture of the life style of those who hauled troops and freight to the front lines. He flew 41 combat glider missions, but the best part of the story is how he celebrated VJ day in Paris.

Part I of the Adventures of Jim, Sr

Part II of the Adventures of Jim, Sr

Jim tells a story of a wartime romance that began in Paris, before the war had ended. Jim’s unit was stationed at St Andre, about 60 miles west of Paris. One day, Jim and his co-pilot, Eddie, were sitting at the Café de la Plait in Paris, having an aperitif when a young French woman, wearing a white angora sweater walked by. Jim said to his friend “I bet I can get her to have a drink.” In typical aviator fashion, his co-pilot spurred him on with a “Go for it!” response. Jim took off down the sidewalk and caught up with Denise Bellicord and asked if she would have a drink with him in, as he described it, very bad French. She looked at him and said “I speak English.” He said “I bet him an aperitif that I could get you to have a drink with us.” Denise asked: “Is this your first time in Paris?” “Yes” was Jim’s response. “You don’t just try to pick up a girl.” “I wasn’t trying to pick you up.” She went back and had a drink with Jim and his co-pilot, and that began the romance for the next year. Jim met the parents, and spent their free time together. Later Jim moved east, as the war progressed into Germany. Jim left Denise and did not see her again until after the war. She thought Jim had been killed, because she never heard from him after he left to go east.

The war in Europe ended, but with the war against Japan still being underway, and planning for the invasion of the Japanese Homeland in the work, there was still some uncertainty as to what would be the lot of the servicemen in Europe. While waiting for a decision on whether would be shipped to the Pacific Theater, the glider pilots would fly the C-47s. Jim saw an opportunity in the process of downsizing the troops in Europe.

The Signal Corps were the ones who had flown the light spotter planes over the front lines. When the war ended, the Signal Corps troops were sent back to the states. They left their Stinson L-5 spotter planes behind in Europe to be burned. Jim and his fellow glider pilots, who were stuck overseas for the moment, had a better idea.

The glider pilots went to the aircraft mechanics at the base, who had been assigned to dispose of the spotter planes, Jim and his men went to the mechanics and asked that they hold one L-5 for each of the glider pilots. There were spotter planes pulled from the pile, on the promise that in return for maintaining the planes, the pilots would teach them how to fly after work. It was a great deal all around. Each pilot had his own plane, complete with his name painted on it, to fly as they wished. Jim used this to his advantage. More on this later.

On August 15th, 1945, Jim and his unit were still stationed at St. Andre, in France. On this day, the war with Japan ended. In order to celebrate this momentous occasion, Jim hopped in his “personal” aircraft and headed into Paris. The glider pilots had been using Renault Field as their local airfield, since the Renault Factory was not in operation, building aircraft. Arriving in Paris, he met Denise at a Paris café. Jim got a case of champagne, and they began drinking to celebrate. Then they decided to go to into the center of Paris, but the traffic was so bad, and the people so numerous, they couldn’t get to the Champs de Elise. Jim had a better idea. They could view the massive celebration from the air, in the comfort of his Stinson O-5 spotter plane, that had been tied down to a tree in at Renault field. They got in the plane (recall some champagne had already been consumed) and took off, heading to downtown Paris, he in the back seat, she in the front.

Off they went, crossing over the Seine River. Jim’s trained eyes picked out a bridge, and being the valiant aviator he was, he proceeded to fly under it. He saw more bridges around Paris, and proceeded to fly over and under about 20 of them, then he had a better idea.

Jim flew around the Eiffel Tower and scanned for obstacles and guy wires near or attached to the Tower. He saw none. Checking the Sun’s angle, he repositioned his plane. Jim did something that then put he and Denise Bellicord into the history books. He then flew under the Eiffel Tower, and quickly away into the sun. The next day, there was an article in the 15 August Paris Edition of the London Herald-Tribune, page one covered VJ Day, and on page two, there was an article saying a crazy American pilot had flown under the Tower, but could not be identified. Witnesses reported there had been two people in the plane celebrating the moment.

After the war completely ended, Jim volunteered to stay in Europe. He was assigned as the Special Services Officer for the Munich Base. He was the man responsible to make sure there was something the keep the morale of the troops up. He was also responsible for two rehabilitation hotels, as well. He had his own jeep and….his own plane. While at Munich, Jim felt he had to see his French girlfriend, Denise one last time. Jim approached the Base Commander, a colonel, and the conversation went something like this:

Jim: “Colonel, we have a problem.”
Col: “What’s that?”
Jim: “You know the movie theater? The lens in the projector is cracked.”
Col: “Can we fix it?”
Jim: “No, we have a spare, but it’s the only one.”
Col: “Requisition one.”
Jim: “It will take 6 weeks. I have some contacts in places you’re not exposed to that can help us sooner.”
Col: “Ok, what do you need?”
Jim: “A plane.”
Col: “Ok, I’ll get you a C-47.”
Jim: “I’ll pick the crew.”
Col: “There’s something else?”
Jim: “We might want to see our old girlfriends one last time. You want us to be happy, right?”
Col: “Yes.”
Jim: “We’ll need to RON (remain overnight).”

The rest of the story is Jim took a co-pilot, flight engineer, a crew chief and a navigator. The RON ended up being three nights and 4 days. They did happen to see their old girlfriends, and yes, Jim did see Denise. A new projector bulb was not “procured” from the black market in Paris, as it seems the first bulb wasn’t cracked in the first place.

At the end of the war, the Rockettes Show in New York was purchased and put on contract to the Army to provide entertainment for the troops who had remained behind in Europe. Jim said the contract for the show required the military to return the show members to the states in the same condition as they went over. Jim, as the Special Services Officer, was responsible for setting up the shows for Munich. With that, and his interaction with the cast and crew, one of the women in the cast, Veronica Bridgette Nolan, caught Jim’s eye. Jim met here and they began dating. Since the show was traveling around Europe, Jim needed some way to get around to see his new girlfriend.

This is where his “personal” aircraft came in handy. He was able to just go pretty much as he pleased, particularly since the need for the actual flying of gliders had ended when the Germans had surrendered. Occupation duties went on, and he continued to follow his American fiancée around the circuit of the Rockette’s show in his “private” plane.

Jim and Veronica courted, got engaged, then got married in the Catholic Church in Haar, Germany. She wore a nylon wedding dress, made from Jim’s parachute by a local seamstress. They returned to the States, settling first in New York City.

In 1949, as Jim drove to work at Macy’s, he was listening to the Tex McCrary and Jinx Falkenburg radio program. That day, they were interviewing the only actress in the movie “Battleground” that had appeared in the list of the stars in the film. She had a French accent, as she promoted the movie over the airwaves. Her name was Denise Darcel. As soon as Jim got into work, he called the radio station and asked to speak to Tex McCrary. He was routed to a secretary, who asked what the call was about. He said he’d like to talked to Tex privately about his guest. She told him they get a lot of calls and she would take his number and if Tex wanted to call, he’d hear from him. Jim asked if the secretary would tell Tex he had know his guest years ago as Denise Bellicord. He hung up the phone and went to work. A few hours later, Jim got a call, having put the earlier call out of his mind. It was Tex, saying because he had supplied Denise’s family name, which she had told them in the studio, and therefore no one else would have know it, he wanted to hear how Jim and Denise’s story had ended. Jim honestly answered “It didn’t.” He told Tex how he had been transferred to Germany. Tex told Jim he would pass the story on to Denise, and leave it up to her if she would like to see him.

About 4PM, Jim’s phone rang. It was Denise. He apologized and she asked when she could see him. He said he couldn’t, as he was now married and had two children. Denise said: “I must see you.” “When?” “The matinee show tomorrow.”

Jim arrived at the stage door of the show with a dozen red roses. The stage crew ushered him in and put him in a center front row seat. When Denise came on stage to sing, she began with “You, Jimmy! I think he kaput in the war, you bad boy!” From there, she proceeded to tell the story of the two of them flying under the bridges, and the Eiffel Tower on VJ Day, August 15th, 1945.

Jim and Veronica divorced and the Herald-Tribune paper of August 16th, 1945, attesting to Jim’s daredevil flight was lost in the split. Many years later, Jim and his second wife, Jane, traveled to Paris, and stopped in the London Herald-Tribune Office. Jim asked to see the publisher. Upon completing the introductions, the publisher told Jim he had heard the story, and they had a reporter who had been on staff in Aug, 1945. They met the old reporter and he confirmed Jim’s story. The reporter told Jim that he was the first of 6 people to fly under the Eiffel Tower to date. Unfortunately, they told Jim the archives were across town and couldn’t be accessed in time to get a copy of the paper for him.

No story is complete, when you are speaking of an aviator of almost any kind without finding out what their “call sign” or peer given nick name. Jim’s call sign was “Bung.” The moniker relates to the name of the wooden plug that is put in the side of large beer kegs. It is placed there after the keg is filled, using a mallet to seat it. It is also the thing that is removed to place the tap and empty the keg.

Jim says his favorite song during the war was “Moonlight Serenade” by Glenn Miller.

On his birthday, Jim occasionally goes to a local airfield and takes a flight in a small plane. He is unable to fly himself anymore due to health issues, but he flies with a certified instructor and gets in a little supervised “stick time” in remembrance of his service time.

Jim joined the service on his 18th birthday and served with “The Greatest Generation.” He returned to the States and has since become a father, and a successful businessman, and part of the economic engine of America. Today Jim Helinger, Sr. lives in St. Pete Beach, Florida, and runs his own business. He is also the Florida State WWII Combat Glider Pilots Association Commander and regularly gives speeches to interested civic and church groups on the eight major combat glider operations of WWII.

The entire issue of “FIRE KARL ROVE!!!” seemed to evaporate last night. I’ll tell you, if I was a reasonably smart person in the Democratic Party now, I think I’d have to give my party affiliation a serious moment of thought. More on that later.

Von Clausewitz brought into the lexicon the concept of “centers of gravity” (hereafter a “COG”). Here”s a comment on his definition found here:

Perhaps most important was the idea of focusing one’s military efforts against the enemy’s “center of gravity” (“Schwerpunkt”), which has become an important concept in American doctrine. Clausewitz’s use of this term is problematic, however. He often used it in very general terms to mean something like “the main thing” or “the key point at issue.”

The Democrats are after President Bush. That’s no secret. These past few weeks, they have focused on the COG of Karl Rove. Good move, they have found a “main thing” without a doubt. If they can topple him, I presume the Democrats believe they will see a major degradation of the Republican’s strategic planning. This could work.

If you’re going after a COG, realize the “enemy” will know those pressure points and defend them. Plan a viable strategy to accomplish your mission. This brings up a number of points.

First off, many middle grade and senior officers of the armed forces are sent to the various war colleges around the nation, as well as abroad to learn about von Clausewitz and his concepts of warfare. It sure would be nice to have some of those people in your pocket when you wage any type of war, be it business or political. The Democrats have long viewed military members as people who are not intelligent enough to come to the table, and therefore, they don’t seem to be able to attract “the best and the brightest” when they have to hang up their uniforms. That seriously limits the understanding of planning and executing a strategic plan. Add to this a tendency to see Democratic types spending more time getting to understand domestic and social programs. That would be another strike in the score card, because of the lack of exposure to those types of situations where strategic “war fighting” would be experienced and therefore understood better.

That being said, and back to my earlier comment regarding reviewing your party membership, the Democrats can identify the Republican COGs, but their assaults are virtual banzai attacks. A few months back, while putting Tom Delay in the cross hairs, it appears the Democrats had somehow forgotten to load their weapons with live ammo, and not just paintballs. How embarrassing to stand up and demand someone’s resignation and find out many members of Congress were also not reporting their paid for travel activities per the regulations. Open mouth, insert foot and chew, then repeat. Notice how quiet it got before many Democrats should have been called out to resign?

Same thing just happened with Karl Rove. It seems a journalist made the first move, let alone we find out now Valerie Plame made a point to make sure her neighbors knew about her employment long ago, and that she wasn’t any kind of undercover operative at all. With so many lawyers in Congress, how did they miss checking the “charges” against the “elements of the offense?” I learned that one as a collateral duty legal officer aboard a ship. More paint balls fired, lots of angry voices, but ¦the republican COG is still alive and well. Actually, I think it’s ironic that the defense of the charge was mostly just done by letting the truth that the journalistic organizations, who also show a marked bias against the sitting president caused their own failure.

I say again: It’s tough to fight when you pretty well let people who do know how feel like they are incapable of hanging around with you. Sort of like when the Democrats opened their eyes after last September and proclaimed “We have to find out what these ‘values” are!”

Taking out COGs is a large undertaking, yet it’s rewards are dramatic if you succeed. You have to mount an effective campaign, and match your weapons to the target. Also make sure you know your enemy well. Don’™t go at it half baked.

Associated with this entire issue is one of the extreme hypocrisy of the Democratic party. John Kerry specifically said Karl Rove should go, even if he is found innocent (funny, he wasn’t even charged with any crime). Extend this as though you just got some insight into the strategic thinking of the man who may have become our President. It never works when your main weapon against your enemy is a microphone used liberally at a press conference, to ask you enemy to just dismantle their COG, because you want them to. I’d argue you can demand they destroy the COGs themselves, but only after you have shown them the capabilities of your armed forces. Peace through superior firepower. It’s been proven across history, that negotiations from a position of strength are exceptionally effective. I’d be inclined to believe John Kerry would have considered the power of words to be his most effective weapon, had he made it into the White House. I submit someone with only junior officer service is ill-equipment by the virtues of that alone, to be considered a strategically minded person.

Another extension of this issue is the amount of evidence the Democrats were using to ask a man to end a career. Effectively, they said there didn’t even have to be any evidence at all, that he should just resign. Square this with the fervent calls from the Democrats, led by John Kerry and Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid, for the President to beyond a shadow of a doubt, prove explicitly that there were WMDs and that Saddam Hussien had everything to do with terrorists. Hypocrisy in large neon, flashing lights comes to mind. How can lawyers not get one iota of this disconnect? All they are doing is demonstrating outwardly that they have no plans on how to get anything done.

If they can’t mount an effective assault to regain the Presidency, I submit they are unable to plan any strategy to defend this nation, let alone taking a stab at leadership in any arena. I suspect some Democratic Party members are thinking, for the Democratic party is losing political seats. If the National Democrats march out on any more campaigns against their last two, all they can hope to win is irrelevance.

Thanks, Mudville Gazette!

I’m glad to see Grey Eagle of A Female Soldier back again. I say back, because I was regularly reading the blog of this 35 YO mother who enlisted in the Army because she wanted to do something for her country. I really have to admire a peson that old, an especially someone with plenty of real world considerations to not volunteer,
who just puts up their right hand and then makes sure she’ll be carrying a serious responsibility along in the midst of the fighting. A few months back, my link quit working to her blog. I was afraid she had decided with the upper level scrutiny that she just packed it in rather than register her “place of business.”

She’s back at the link above. This morning, a picture with the caption “Charlie’s Angels” (three female medics assigend to C Company) cuaght my eye. By clicking on each of their names below the picture, you get a one page story about them.

All three are good reads. More real world input to who is making us safe and what they do. The one for Sgt. Angela Magnuson had something very impressive in it in the form of the testimony of a dying man. Not his words, but his actions.

“His name was Spc. James Holmes. But to those who knew him, he was affectionately called “Tugboat” because he was a large man who would pull his load and then some.”

While Sgt Magnuson tried to bandage his wounds from an IED attack, he was pulling more than his fair share, by helping her help him, despite being mortally wounded.

I invite you to take a few minutes and read about one more hero who is no longer here, but sets a fine example for those of us left behind.

Thanks to Mudville Gazette Open Posts!

Or: What do the terrorists, the Japanese in WWII, cell phones, CAP actions in Vietnam and recent Army recruiting woes have in common…

Point of Pondering #1.

As I sat in traffic today, a few things came to mind that may be the reason we are seeing some shifts in the attack patterns of al-Qaeda this past few months.

I guess the thinking on the topic began with this post over on Chapomatic’s blog. It was a one-liner, which ends with:

“That much effort indicates to me that these guys don’t currently have usable WMD.”

That struck me as not necessarily correct under the circumstances, so I left this comment:

“or…alternatively, they still think they may not be ready to be completely exterminated, after being hunted down like rabid dogs. They may see this “level of violence” can still get them a pass from those who keep saying it’s all illegal. I’d bet even the nay sayers, well, maybe half of them, would come around to GWB’s view and measures as acceptable if a dirty bomb, or bio/chem agents are released…which would put the polls at about 75% saying “kill the bums!” Kind of hard to say there isn’t a “mandate” when your polls are that high…the gloves would come off at that point, and I suspect they know they cannot stand a full court press.

A real, no kidding WMD, complete with destruction of “Biblical proportions,” would most likely shift the World’s opinions completely against them.

(I’m no intel guy, but) The exact opposite of this briefing may not be discounted…. “

These terrible, yet small scale attacks, we have been seeing are noteworthy in that they hits the media like the tsunami last Dec 26th, and get the attention up, yet the outward sentiment of the world still stays latched on the “Bush Lied, People Died” and “Where are the WMDEEEEEEEEESSSSSS???????” themes.

As I noted above, I think the use of a WMD, of any degree, would suddenly cause a reaction they know they can’t afford.

Point of pondering #2:

Until the comment today about how the London bombs appeared to have all been triggered by cell phones, I hadn’t really stopped to think about the fact that this is a common tactic of the terrorists in Iraq right now. The news reports of the military finding a bomb or IED making lab, usually in a house somewhere, contains cell phones in the listing of materials found. One picture I saw a few months back was a soldier’s hand holding a cell phone with the annotation “1 Missed Call” on the phone’s LCD. The phone had wires hanging out of it that weren’t for better reception. They use this triggering tactic regularly.

Why the interest in the cell phones? Well, simple. If you see the masses, or the attendees at the videoed beheadings, there is usually plenty of indication they are willing to die for Allah. We have repeatedly heard, and can find it supported in the Koran, that to die in a declared holy war for Allah will get you admitted to paradise. If that’s the case, we know jihad has been declared in about 4 hundred and eleven different ways against “The Crusaders” (which would literally include England, and never did include the United States of America, as were just hadn’t found the place yet), so why are they not lining up and saying: “Mohammed, put me in! Come on, put me in, just this time, you know I can do it for the team!”

Simple: The use of the cell phones allows them to keep the trained fighters for another day.

It’s all about resource management, which is mostly what a commander in the field does. It’s nice to have a plan, and then gather the logistical support for the execution, but if the bad guys don’t follow your plan, you may come up a little short. In this case, I think there are two dynamics at play here.

Point of pondering #2A.

The first condition is I think the terrorists have seen the opinion tide shifting in their favor. I won’t belabor the world media’s love affair here, but they, as does anyone, gather strength to endure by seeing they and their cause being praised. The problem is, there aren’t enough “resources” (read people willing to blow themselves up to head for paradise), coupled with the fact that the media hasn’t caused the US and it’s collation countries to capitulate. They have to hang on. It’s sort of like the point in many war movies, when the platoon/company is surrounded and the enemy is chomping at the bit to overrun them, and some cigar chomping master sergeant or company commander yells for everyone to conserve ammo and only shoot what you know you can hit. In this case the ammo is a humanized version of the smart bomb (smartness may be debatable, but let’s leave that to another post). I think they are running low. Using cell phones improves the possibility of having more seasoned fighters around for the final push.

Point of pondering 2B.

So, what’s up with that? Well, let’s take a short trip to the near past, like two months ago. What was the almost daily screeching from the papers and HBM about? Yep, you got it: “Army Not meeting Recruiting Goals.” War is a tough business and it’s not just some of the youth of America that sometimes balk at the call. Where are the demanding headlines in the world press, demanding to know what the actual numbers targeted (sorry, but we use that word about our recruiting plans) to get signed up and how many actually did. I want to know if their recruiters are treated to an un-video taped beheading if they fail on a monthly goal. I bet there’s a massive cover-up on this issue amongst the jihadis…

The “recruiting numbers” may be lower (assuming my analysis that they are missing their numbers is correct) based on another reason. In “Our Own Worst Enemy” by William Lederer, the author tells the story of a Marine unit that gets assigned to work security for a Vietnamese village. They model their interaction with the villagers from the guidance of the “Small Wars Manual” the Marines figured out after having served in Central America in the early 1900s. Anyhow, the Marines not only provided protection, they showed the villagers how to farm and grow livestock more effectively, then there is surplus over the families needs, so they form a little co-op and take the surplus to market and then they had extra hard cash to use to then do more and make more. Great story.

This links in with this discussion because, as we have also seen in Iraq, over time, the villagers start “ratting out” the VC, telling the Marines when the attacks are coming. The village bonded with their Marine protectors and mentors. The best part of the story is what I think applies here. The Viet Cong locals would slip back into the village at night. Their friends would tell them all the things the Marines had helped them to learn, and how they actually were improving their farms and making some money. The VC had been promising this type of thing for a long time, but it was the young men of the USMC that delivered on the promise.

As we see Iraq rebuilding itself, with commerce developing, and people being able to speak and interact freely, I’m sure some of the “recruits” are having second thoughts. When we hear stories of al-Qaeda recruiters killing off family members in order to get people to come and join the jihad, I’d say they are pretty well beat. The VC ended up doing that, and that sort of recruiting has an exceptionally low “1st Term Retention” number associated with it…like about 0% in any one’s armed force.

Point of pondering #3.

Maybe the jihadis took some time to look into the whole suicide bomber deal by reading up on another recent example in world history. I am assuming they did some course work in the “Divine Wind” work of the Japanese in WWII. If they studied this well, they would see a few interesting things, not the least of which was JAPAN LOST! (that’s a no cost clue). Another real issue in Japan was that some senior and middle grade officers strongly (well, as strongly as they could) lobbied against the concept, the dissenting side largely being the pilots. Their argument was, if you took enough time to train them to fly (and it was kind of like the 2001 bombers, very little, just enough to get you to the target), then you should use them as a “reusable resource.” Using them once was only going to help so long, then the Chop (supply officer) is saying “sorry, no got!” That’s what happened to the Japanese Navy. By the Battle Off Samar, the Japanese aircraft carriers had pretty much been relegated to being just large targets for the Navy bombers, as they had no pilots to fly from them. They were the decoy to get Bull Halsey to leave the area, while Admiral Kurita went with his surface battleships, cruisers and destroyers to try and spoil MacArthur’s landing at Leyte Gulf.

I think the jihadis have come to understand this lesson: Manage your resources conservatively from the Japanese example.

Summary: I think the boys are on the ropes, but still have the fight in them. I think they are good students of the technical aspects of killing, with some mastery of phsychology and public relations. I think they are very weak historians, as they someone how seem to be repeating many of the mistakes of the past.

Got all that? Clear as mud? Comments?

Thanks to Mudville Gazette for the Open Posts!

Update 11:50PM EDT:

If you’d like a detailed analysis of the London Bombing itself, get your coffee and then click on this link…good stuff from Kung fu Kat…

p>The correlation between the interaction of man with a disease and the US and it’s coalition with the Iraqi “insurgency” have something in common.

Laurie Garrett published her lengthy work, “The Coming Plague” in 1994. While the book is not about malaria, that is one case study she presents to show how we made some poor decisions, which allowed the disease to carry on, even today. In the reading of her well researched book, there are many other parallels between man’s interaction with man that tracks remarkably close to how we have interacted with creatures of far fewer cells and complexity over history. When I read the book years ago, her comments on malaria stuck with me, despite it being a relatively minor portion of the discussion.

In Chapter 2, she discusses how the 1951 World Health Organization “was so optimistic that it declared that Asian malaria could soon reach a stage through careful local management wherein ‘malaria is no longer a problem of major importance.’ The discovery of DDT and other organochlorines, all of which possessed remarkable capacity to kill mosquitoes and other pests on contact…” The insurgency can be looked at in a similar way, that by the application of effective methods and means, the terrorists could be reduced to being “no longer a problem of major importance.” DDT certainly had it’s downside from a public health standpoint, but it did get us out of the starting blocks in the eradication of malaria and killed many mosquitoes.

In 1967, the Surgeon General reported to the President and a gathering of health officials that it was time to close the books on infectious diseases in the US and take on chronic diseases. This then, obviously, would shift the focus away from the eradication of malaria, but it didn’t end the efforts towards that planned move to make it no longer a major problem.

Malaria has plagued the US Military, and of other countries before ours, since the Revolutionary times. In 1947, Congress budgeted $47M to take on the problem of malaria in the 48 continental states. Five years later, funding was stopped, as there hadn’t been any cases of malaria found within the US borders. Other countries around the world still had the problem…Come 1956, a malariologist named Paul Russell of Harvard’s School of Public Health began lobbying for a program to eradicate malaria on a worldwide basis. In a report to Congress, Russell had these words to indicate the degree of commitment required:

”This is a unique moment in the history of man’s attack on one of his oldest and most powerful disease enemies. Failure to proceed energetically might postpone malaria eradication completely.”

With minor changes, this sounds much like the speeches of President Bush, but when he speaks of the terrorist threat. The comparisons in this story are quite striking. Enemies that are not alike. Someone with a vision to know what is not good for society. Lobbying to get the support, and there are many more I’m sure you’re picked up on by now. “Having won World War II, Americans were of a mind to ‘fix things up’: it just seemed fitting and proper in those days that American should use their seemingly unique skills and common sense to mend all the ailments of the planet.”

Funding from Congress came in 1958, but with stipulations of and end to funding by 1963. Why the time frame? Paul Russell’s report indicated that four years of spraying, followed by four years of sure that three consecutive years of no infections were noted. Like all plans, whether for war fighting, or building, or fighting diseases, the “program manager” makes projections based on generally ideal conditions. In the case of the worldwide eradication of malaria, as with dispensing with the threat of terrorism, the campaign must pretty much proceed in parallel everywhere simultaneously, or you’re likely to have the enemy merely slip away to somewhere safe. This does, however, require a high degree of commitment to the plan, as well as a high expense to keep the attack going everywhere. This, of course is much of the discussion today.

As far as ideal planning, the general desire if to get moving as soon as funding flows, but sometimes you have to begin in a piecemeal fashion, which, as with combating malaria and terrorists, can not be very effective. Top that off with a bunch of, for the most part, lawyers who don’t always grasp the technical detail of the plan, and therefore take the Reader’s Digest version and also apply simplistic measures to the plan. In this case, handing out money, then demanding it be done in a few years.

As life and much of history dictates, things change. Along comes a bright graduate student, Andy Speilman, who figured out DDT wasn’t the final answer. What he observed was the Anopheles mosquitoes were dying, but some were resistant to DDT, and still reproducing. A wrench in the gearbox of the plan had just been discovered. Speilman met Rachel Carson, a marine biologist at Woods Hole, and she explained that evolution would get in the middle of the eradication plan.

By 1963, malaria was certainly beat back tremendously, an example being India going from 1 million cases a year in 1955 to 18 by 1963. Congress, checking their notes, realized it was the terminal date of the plan and therefore, committed no more funding to the project. “As far as Congress was concerned, failure to reach eradication by 1963 simply meant it couldn’t be done, in any time frame. And virtually all spare cash was American; without steady infusions of U.S. dollars, the effort died abruptly” says Garrett.

The story continues from there and is fascinating reading, but look at the connections to the current debate about how to handle the GWoT. Once more today, I heard a caller on a talk show bring up the President’s “major hostilities are over” speech on the aircraft carrier. Anyone with any military experience would agree that when artilleymen and tankers are doing foot patrols in the crowded streets of another country, major hostilities are over, otherwise, they’d be rocking the bad guys with the really cool hardware they were trained to use with deadly efficiency. Also, when B-52s no longer fill the skies over the battlefield, it’s a big hint that major operations are concluded. The President was correct. He didn’t say “the war is over and we are victorious.” Had that been the case, it would have been proper to remove a major portion of the deployed military. And, despite that proclamation by the President, as was the case in 1963, the enemy is still around; diminished, but still there.

What lessons are to be extracted from a historical account of how the American leadership took on malaria and the GWoT?

– It’s difficult to judge the exact end of a major plan, regardless of the discipline involved.
– Arbitrary constraints linked to Congressional budget cycles can actually delude you into thinking it’s easy to see the day things will change/end. Oh, if it could just be so simple. On the other hand, the person championing the cause needs to be forthright in indicating the expected “variation” in the timeline. I feel President Bush has been honest about saying this war will be a long and complex one, and he said that early on.
– If you really want to make something “no longer a major problem,” don’t make artificial end dates, instead make milestones with evaluation criteria. At those junctures, see what the state of the plan is and modify your responses accordingly. Make sure the checkbook holders understand this clearly, and get the will of the people to line up with that understanding.
– A form of tactical evolution has happened on the battlefield. We have most likely gotten to the point where we have killed off the weakest of the terrorists, and not are locked in a war with the ones that are resistant to the military tactics applied to date.
– Most times, the weapons you begin the fight with aren’t the ones that will win the conflict Congress is a big group of “bean counters.” I have had life experiences with such people, on a smaller scale, and it was always interesting to see “them” grasping the pennies and not seeing the bigger picture. Sometimes spending a few dollars more today will guarantee you spend far less a few months of years from now. If they can’t let go of the funding to get that done, then you’re pretty much locked in to dealing with it longer.

Regardless of how rosy an initial plan looks, it’s best to evaluate it realistically along the way. Adapt and survive. Don’t declare victory when that’s not the case. Stay the course when your life depends on it.

We have a chance to end the story of the GWoT differently than the one about our war against malaria, which is still with us.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

We invaded Iraq, and it was difficult, yet we managed to militarily subdue a nation is a very short time. The troops fought well gainst some dedicated opposition.

We had seen the amount of conflict reduce as time went on. In reading blogs from those on the front lines, I noticed fewer entries about VBIEDs going off, and more posts that were substantive reports on getting to know the local population, helping out injured Iraqis, doing community projects…

The in recent weeks, the number of attacks by the terrorists ramped up, and we began losing increased numbers of service members.

As a result, members of our Congress began calling for a a timeline to pull out of Iraq, and began pronouncing the entire effort as the now well worn out word “quagmire.”

What’s happening? The opposition is taking some shots at us.

Where have we seen this before?

In the center of Europe in late 1944, the was a little shoot-em-up recorded in history as “The Battle of the Bulge.”

“The Battle of the Bulge which lasted from December 16, 1944 to January 28, 1945 was the largest land battle of World War II in which the United States participated. More than a million men fought in this battle including some 600,000 Germans, 500,000 Americans, and 55,000 British. The German military force consisted of two Armies with ten corps(equal to 29 divisions). While the American military force consisted of a total of three armies with six corps(equal to 31 divisions). At the conclusion of the battle the casualties were as follows: 81,000 U.S. with 19,000 killed, 1400 British with 200 killed, and 100,000 Germans killed, wounded or captured.

In late 1944 Germany was clearly losing the war….”

We had breached Fortress Europe on the beaches of Normandy, fought across France and entered Belgium, enroute the invasion of Germany.

I’m sure if you had been with the troops surrounded at Bastonge, you certainly wouldn’t conceive that the Germans were, as the last line of the except above properly presents being characterized as “clearly losing the war.” It was a last gasp for Hitler, hoping he’d make a big enough dent in the pending invasion to regain the offensive. Since we are so lucky to know the end of the story, we know his gambit failed. The Third Reich was crushed within the next 7 months.

I think we are in this circumstance once again. The terrorists, like Hitler sense the end is near and need to score some big points and hope we’ll go defensive and possibly have the will of the people broken.

At the Battle of the Bulge, the situation for our troops was far more desperate, and there was a reasonable probability of them being overrun. How did the on scene commander respond? When asked by the German Commander to surrender, Gen McAulffie responded with a one word, famous answer: “Nuts!”

A commander surrounded, using cooks and clerks and anyone else with a uniform, to hold off the Wermacht troops, stood his ground. Patton’s Army did a “left face” and sped north to relieve the troops at Bastonge, no small feat for an entire Army.

The outcome? Stunning defeat for the enemy.

I once heard courage defined as hanging on for 10 seconds more than anyone else. I think that definition tends to fit will into this discussion of a battle 61 years ago. I think it’s a thought we need to hold onto for today.

My take is, like sharks, who can sense 2 parts per million of blood in the water, the terrorists have heard the cries from our own Congress, and are making an all out effort to make a splash. They want us to perceive they have been resurrected, and this spate of attacks is a foreshadowing of what is to come. It defies logic to believe an enemy, who has no “home court” at all, is composed of various competing groups, loosely held together by a hatred for the allied forces, with no effective means of secure communications, facing a well equipped and well trained military, armed with technological marvels to augment boots on the ground cannot have gathered the resources to mount a sustained offensive capable of dislodging our forces.

On the other hand, having learned the lesson of both Vietnam and Mogadishu, know if they can spill some US soldier’s blood and get Congress to begin howling for a pull out, there is a chance we will leave, only to later find out they were on a tactical “sprint,” designed to appear as a strategic offensive. We also need to hold to these lessons.

They are on the ropes, the country of Iraq is coming along well, we need to steel ourselves hang on for “10 more seconds.”

We have been here before, facing much worse at the Alamo, Gettysburg, at the Chosin Reservoir, in the Pusan Perimeter, and during the Tet Offensive. In each case, the US military stood up to the task with incredible dedication to a cause greater than themselves, and, while men were lost, the long term battles were won.

To pull back now is to admit defeat and go home, not only dishonoring the sacrifice of the 1700+ service members lost in this war, but the loses of all before them on the battlefields here and abroad where we have fought to defend freedom.
at’s happening? The opposition is taking some shots at us.

Where have we seen this before?

In the center of Europe in late 1944, the was a little shoot-em-up recorded in history as “The Battle of the Bulge.”

“The Battle of the Bulge which lasted from December 16, 1944 to January 28, 1945 was the largest land battle of World War II in which the United States participated. More than a million men fought in this battle including some 600,000 Germans, 500,000 Americans, and 55,000 British. The German military force consisted of two Armies with ten corps(equal to 29 divisions). While the American military force consisted of a total of three armies with six corps(equal to 31 divisions). At the conclusion of the battle the casualties were as follows: 81,000 U.S. with 19,000 killed, 1400 British with 200 killed, and 100,000 Germans killed, wounded or captured.

In late 1944 Germany was clearly losing the war….”

We had breached Fortress Europe on the beaches of Normandy, fought across France and entered Belgium, enroute the invasion of Germany.

I’m sure if you had been with the troops surrounded at Bastonge, you certainly wouldn’t conceive that the Germans were, as the last line of the except above properly presents being characterized as “clearly losing the war.” It was a last gasp for Hitler, hoping he’d make a big enough dent in the pending invasion to regain the offensive. Since we are so lucky to know the end of the story, we know his gambit failed. The Third Reich was crushed within the next 7 months.

I think we are in this circumstance once again. The terrorists, like HItler sense the end is near and need to score some big points and hope we’ll go defensive and possibly have the will of the people broken.

At the Battle of the Bulge, the situation for our troops was far more desperate, and there was a reasonable probablity of them being overrun. How did the on scence commander respond? When asked by the German Commander to surrender, Gen McAulffie responded with a one word, famous answer: “Nuts!”

A commander surrounded, using cooks and clerks and anyone else with a uniform, to hold off the Wermacht troops, stood his ground. Patton’s Army did a “left face” and sped north to relieve the troops at Bastonge, no small feat for an entire Army.

The outcome? Stunning defeat for the enemy.

I once heard courage defined as hanging on for 10 seconds more than anyone else. I think that definition tends to fit will into this discussion of a battle 61 years ago. I think it’s a thought we need to hold onto for today.

My take is, like sharks, who can sense 2 parts per million of blood in the water, the terrorists have heard the cries from our own Congress, and are making an all out effort to make a splash. They want us to perceive they have been resurrected, and this spate of attacks is a foreshadowing of what is to come. It defies logic to believe an enemy, who has no “home court” at all, is composed of various competing groups, loosely held together by a hatred for the allied forces, with no effective means of secure communications, facing a well equipped and well trained military, armed with technological marvels to augment boots on the ground cannot have gathered the resources to mount a sustained offensive capable of dislodging our forces.

On the other hand, having learned the lesson of both Vietnam and Mogadishu, know if they can spill some US soldier’s blood and get Congress to begin howling for a pull out, there is a chance we will leave, only to later find out they were on a tactical “sprint,” designed to appear as a strategic offensive. we also need to hold to these lessons.

They are on the ropes, the country of Iraq is coming along well, we need to steel ourselves hang on for “10 more seconds.”

We have been here before, facing much worse at the Alamo, Gettysburg, Wake Island, Chosin Resevoir, in the Pusan Perimeter, Ia Trang Valley, Khe Sanh and during the Tet Offensive. In each case, the US military stood up to the task with incredible dedication to a cause greater than themselves, and, while men were lost, the long term battles were won.

The enemy of today isn’t anywhere near the caliber of the other amred forces we encountered in those battles. Our forces are today every bit as good as thier predecessors wearing the uniforms of the United States.

This entire push by the left is what we used to call a “banana.” Put something stupid in your staff work, near the front, to catch the boss’ eye, let him harange you for it, correct that and come back to get it signed out “because it reads much better now.” Don’t buy into it, “read” their entire message…

To pull back now is to admit defeat and go home, not only dishonoring the sacrifice of the 1700+ service members lost in this war, but the loses of all before them on the battlefields here and abroad where we have fought to defend freedom, particularly in desparate circumstances.

Update 6/30/2005: Reference my speculation above, see what Major K has to say about the terrorists’ huffing an puffing (before being smoked like a cheap cigar….)