Just a reminder to all those who try to profess they say they know what history will record at the moment something happens:

In 1967, when Governor Reagan and Senator Robert Kennedy debated a group of international college students, interesting things were said…

It sure seems to have taken a long time for a historian to remind us of this.

While not a total revelation — it was caught by a few early Reagan biographers — there was an event that occurred 40 years ago this month that has gone underreported and certainly unappreciated. The event concerns not only Reagan’s political life but that of an equally well-known rising star of the time: Robert F. Kennedy. It should be a permanent part of our mental history of Reagan’s rise, if not a permanent video exhibit at the Reagan Library and Museum.

On May 15, 1967, there was a fascinating debate between California’s new Republican governor, Ronald Reagan, and New York’s new Democratic senator, Robert F. Kennedy. The subject: the Vietnam War. The debate was titled “The Image of America and the Youth of the World,” and was billed by CBS as a “Town Meeting of the World.”
[…]

And, that wasn’t exactly what Governor Reagan said in 1967, but he did say the wall should be removed.

H/T: Chapomatic

Ah, we are living in interesting times.

The President says we need to help secure the Iraqi borders, so foreign fighters don’t come in….

The President, and the Congress (for the most part) says it’s too hard to secure our borders, so we should just accept those here…

Am I missing some thread of consistency here?

Either we take the easy way out in Iraq and commit no more resources to control the Iraqi borders, because, as the Democrats will say it’s not effective and too hard…or we put the effort in over there and OVER HERE!

Anyhow, I think there is a dynamic of both the Republican and Democratic parties being in a turf war over the prospect of new voters to fill their ranks. It’s like Starbucks and Dunkin’ Donuts fighting it out to control the market. It’s all about power.

Forget the sports analogy, we need some people brave enough to throw themselves on the political hand grenades, or man the Ma-Duece in the face of about 100 people “eying you with bad intent” so that the rest of us survive, even if it means your political life ends. Yes, I prefer the military service model, thank you Mr. Arkin.

Which ever party looks the “most magnanimous” believes they will get the voters to enter and swell their base. We “extra curricular politics” (speaking as one of “those”) aren’t the issue in their mind, but we just may be come the very next election…

Fess up, someone. Who forgot to invite William Arkin of the Los Angeles Times?

That’s what it’s all about. Step forward and apologize…then everything will be alright. In the meantime, some commentary and opinion editorializing:

While bemoaning the job security competition milbloggers in his article “If Only War Reporting Were More Like Sports Reporting”, William Arkin makes a blatant falsehood a pivot point for his discussion:

[…]
I’ve been wanting to write about the 2nd Annual MilBlog conference (I wasn’t invited),…
[…]

I suspect he may not have been graced with a gold foil engraved, leather invitation, secured with a silk ribbon, but then again, I didn’t get one either.

On top of that, he’s way behind the power curve in trying to say something that makes me believe he all of a sudden had equated the conduct of baseball to the conduct of war. I blogged about it some time ago, on several occasions, and I still like my analysis much better.

Soldier’s Dad has already chimed in and was the first to reply to Mr. Arkin at the WAPO site.

I left my version, too..something to do with how the registration was open for almost 6 weeks and at the bargain price of $40. I further went on to say his mis-stating of facts was exactly what makes people distrust them and his article further hurt the “cause.”

I’ve often thought if we could cover the military like sports, with transparency and intimate knowledge and a play-by-play that was both affectionate and unsparingly critical, we’d have a healthier debate. Interest and knowledge on the part of the typical American in foreign affairs and national security would actually increase.

This would go over much better is most people in the US actually had military experience, but even more importantly, an education that thought them how to critically think about such issues. Then, yes, we could have that rewarding debate Mr. Arkin desires.

But alas, it is the military, and whether it is the death of Pat Tillman or a war plan, the impulse of the institution is strategic defense. Secrecy, of course, is always justified on OPSEC grounds.

I’m guessing Mr. Arkin has not spent anytime being the potential target of an enemy, be they German, Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Russian, Soviet, Vietnamese, or many nationalities of Islamic jihadis. If so, he would not make such a flippant remark.

Using absolute words can absolutely get you into trouble now, or later, or maybe for a long time, like the rest of your life, when you make sweeping statements. People hang onto absolutes, because they are rare….or should be, but we cry “all” or “nothing” way too much anymore, just to get the gaze shifted to whoever wants attention.

And side note: Yep…OPSEC is the thing we do because stuff is secret.

Anyhow, it’s ironic, isn’t it, that a writer/editorialist can’t move his body around the country in order to even be a fly on the wall, let alone possible meet some MilBloggers in person and sit and chat. Think about it: There we were, in one place, at an appointed time slot on two sequential days. Good thing we haven’t had any attacks in country since 9/11….but, a wide range of bloggers filled the room and that’s only an annual event right now. Perfect timing for anyone who wants to save a lot of funding to get a lot of interviews. I’m sure his Editor would have sprung for the airfare and hotel bill, just on the hopes of a lot of out of context remarks they could quote later on.

And then, he makes it “our” fault for not letting him come to a conference that was open to everyone who wanted to sign up, up to 200 people.

H/T: Milblogs via Mrs Greyhawk

We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.
– John F. Kennedy, 9/12/1962 at Rice University

I know it was about the moon, but it is about the greater purpose we have in all our endeavors, and this one, the issue of illegal immigration, is no different.

First: I have not read the text of the elite group of senators and the illegal immigration support groups done is a closed meeting, circumventing the manner in which the business of the people has been done for a long time. News reports began at “380 pages” and as of last night, it was “1000 pages.” Some of what I write may prove to be off the mark, but some, I predict, will remain as factually analysis of the situation we’re facing.

Update: Some details listed here.

Second: I have a complaint for this group, who would be able to find time in their busy schedules to hammer out such a long document, while our troops are still waiting for the fund to continue the prosecution of national security affairs. Shame on them. I’m sure at least a few service members and their families share my wonderment at the ability of these senators to take time from a pressing issue, to rapidly address and issue they have been largely ignoring since they did something like this in 1986.

On to my regularly planned comments on this bill:

The overall “feel” I get from the elected special people is “It’s too hard, so we just have to throw our hands up and surrender.”
This, I submit sounds exactly like the calls to pull out of Iraq, and also ties into the title of this post. Just as lawyers are forcing us to a risk adverse society (except for not trying to take the one thing that kills about 40K Americans annually away), Congress, and the will of the people is shifting to not wanting to take on the long, hard, uphill effort that complex issues require. Bad trend.

What are these guys thinking? A 1000 page bill, not even published for review by we “extra-curricular” types of people. let alone the many lobbyists, and they want to take it to the floor the following Monday? For a few months, while working on my Master’s I had to read 600 pages of history a week, plus write a paper, plus attended classes (Monday – Thursday 0900-1500). It was a challenge to not just skim through the reading, and to actually absorb the information well, and that was with the help of the Dick Cavet speed reading course they offered for free. I would submit the 100 pages of information will be difficult for any outsider to read and comprehend fully in the time alloted before we need to be able to intelligently comment and inform our representatives of our thoughts.

I know one talk show host told his interns they would each have to read 20 pages (wow, that’s a lot of interns!). I don’t think that will do it either. Why? Simple. The many processes and procedures listed will have to intertwine significantly. While I may comprehend the 20 pages I read and provide an adequate “book report” to the boss, the dead ends and illogical connections that will abound in the document will be missed, some of which, unless someone catches, may need major rewriting, before they become law.

I say this because, in order to not make bad decisions, I got pretty good at making myself chase references to other parts of government writings, or the other documents linked to. I was constantly amazed at the problems that surfaced, while each document had been written in good faith for success. What does that mean? Several smart people need to get their coffee, donuts and pizza orders placed, and get a comfortable, but no to much so, chair, a few highlighters and note paper. Not only will they have to read the work from one end to the other, but be ready to chase each and every rabbit trail presented, ensuring the consistency and continuity is there. Not only will associated/referenced documents need to be read, but they must be checked for their currency.

It is in this type of review that the “unintended consequences” will be uncovered. While the document was most likely written by many, only in the reading by individuals will uncover the flaws.

From an implementation standpoint, the details I so far understand are for the illegals to come forward and identify themselves. AT this point, they will have background checks run to see if the meet some standard of “lawfulness” and allowed or not to stay n the country. This check will only indicate their criminal history while they have been in the US. What about the history they may have had in their countries of origin? I’m sure the proposed legislation will cover this, but I’m also suspecting it will assume other nations have such interconnected crime databases as we do (which, by many accounts, are still lacking all the details for issues noted within our borders), which, I believe is a bad assumption across the board.

As far as asking the illegals to “step into the light” and sign in, please, consider our own internal attempts to register and track the residences of sex offenders in the country. The numbers do not even come close to 12M people and there are regular reports of how a number of them have not met the requirements to report and register and law enforcement has a difficult time devoting the assets to this chase. How much better do you think this will be when we at this task? Not only is it a time consuming effort, there are funds, currently unbudgeted, I’d guess, for the man hours to just do this, let along the requirements for office space, vehicles, computer resources, databases storage and connectivity, creation of the tamper-proof IDs (I have priced printers to make ID cards for a job I once worked – they are above $1K just for plain old ID cards), etc, etc, etc. Besides the trauma of all of a sudden dealing with the added burden on the social welfare payment system, what about the extra cost for enforcement and the administration? Maybe that’s why the Dems want the war ended, so they can shift the funds to getting the new voter base in place for 2008…but maybe I’m just cynical.

Once more I will bring up the need for all of us, born or legally documented citizens to soon have the same biometric data card the “illegals” will have. In the risk adverse society we have been indoctrinated into by the legal caste, employers, subject to monetary penalties beginning at $5000, and moving up from there, will not want to risk their business by having unknowingly having an illegal working for them. The bill, I’m sure, will state they have to have knowledge of the illegal status as a part of the offense, but think about this: The defense of any charges will still cost the owners time and money to keep from being fined. The result? They won’t hire us, unless we have the same untamperable evidence to present to them. Once more, they lawyers feather their own nest by making sure an entirely new set of crimes can be added to the list of defenses they can provide. I’m sure it will become another legal specialty, and the Yellow Pages of communities everywhere will need to have this section added soon.

I’m not liking the tenor of the message from those elected to serve us, not the speed at which this is all happening, especially when we aren’t able to take care of the “wolf closest to the sled”, let alone our increasing inability to take on the hard things we encounter in our time.

And in ending, two thoughts for Senator McCain:

– My experience in government is that when things are non-controversial and beautifully coordinated, there is not much going on.

– In the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding on the back of the tiger ended up inside.
– John F. Kennedy

Lex has composed a fine piece, “Chatter,” putting some thoughts he has to the ‘net regarding the current state of our foreign affairs.

I began commenting and the stored thoughts I have had in the last few weeks began crawling to the forefront, so I’m bringing it over here. The beginning:

For my lowly opinion, I think it would do the bad guys well, looking at it from a purely strategic view point, to hunker down, at the minimum until after Jan 20 something in 2009. At best, put the chocks and chains in place for a few more years.

If “they” get it, the best tactics right now are to crawl into their spiderholes in the sand, and, if “caught in the open” be unarmed and politely disarming. Make all the violence go away.

Just what does that do? It gives a way out now, to both “sides” of the equation. One says “Mission Accomplished, we don’t need no mo’ money!” and the other says “Mission Accomplished, we’re cutting off all funds!”

Dang! I’m moving this to the blog…I haven’t written anything today!

If it gets all quiet on the Middle Eastern Front, President Bush, or any other supporter of the combat operations in Iraq, would be hard pressed to justify spending even a single penny more. Both side could claim they had the winning ideas. Both sides, as they ramp up for a Presidential election cycle, might even extend hands across the isle and smile for the cameras, for a brief moment displaying some sort of unity that the electorate might accept and thereby help the poll numbers on the popularity climb out of the basement.

The same thing happened when the Soviet Empire cried “Uncle!” President Bush was left to tell the Pentagon that a 600 ship Navy was no longer needed, along with the many air wings, and Army divisions. He actually began the downsizing of the military, and when President Clinton came into the Oval Office, he accelerated the plan dramatically.

So, if the Jihadis could just manage a degree of patience and fake smiles and handshakes all around, just take a guess at what measures we’d let go of…

• Intelligence gathering…why now the bad guys are good guys (they said they were), so Congress skims money to use for more pet projects
• Funds for stockpiling military related supplies could be cut back/off. No bad guys, what do you need all those millions of pairs of Desert Boots for?
• Overseas headquarters funds for all the leases in host countries could be dispensed with and CENTCOM personnel and equipment could retire to sunny SW Florida, helping boost the tourist economy
• Keep thinking on your own…there are all sorts of things that we could “do without” (translates that the voters are used to givning us that much money, so, since we’re collecting it, we’ll find some feel good program to spend it on)

You get the idea. The troops in Iraq come home. The troops in Afghanistan do, too. The “big decks” return to throngs of family members and well wishing females in small craft racing by, the “small boys,” in the shadow of the aircraft carriers get a warm welcome, too. Spouses get happy and quit writing to their Congresspersons. Vets by the returnees lots of beer and other beverages as “thank yous!” What is sweeter than reuniting the country?

Oh, and yes. Why pay more to have the TSA stand around to inspect your 3 oz bottle of liquid? What about the cost to maintain those fancy bomb detecting devices, lat alone the electricity bills? With the “terrorists” happy in their new land, busy constructing a working government, who would want to bomb us? You know, some contend the reason for the terrorism is the presence of America military forces in Iraq. Since they are home now, we no longer have to worry about such trivial issues. The Jihadis, keeping their composure and being able to control their “bomb lust” would be able to see us roll back the many security measures we have come to accept in public transportation venues and large gatherings, as the last of the US troops departs for a reunion with family. “Staying the course” for a few years would provide us, internally, greater demand for and rationalize impetus to get rid of all those things that got in the way of instant gratification.

Holding the violence to essentially nothing around the world would de-fang us. We could add another level of shame and guilt onto the heap, to go with slavery (never mind the Arabs enslaved more than we did and also were the ones capturing many of the Africans and selling them to us and Europe). If we left and the terrorists “quit,” then it had to be us who caused it all.

In the political realm, I would venture to guess that the Democrats would take just about every seat in the Congress, specifically if the holder of the seat had been in support of the war, and take the Presidency, too. The fallout would be an unstoppable legislative machine, with enough votes to soundly trump any minority remaining.
At this point, is there any doubt in your mind that an isolationist president would then take an even more appeasing standpoint for our foreign policy? What about then testing all our ideas for anything we do outside our borders (and even some things inside, such as immigration policy) in the Court of World Opinion ala jfk’s 2004 presidential campaign demanded?

Not only would we de-construct the tools of the trade to be alert for terror attacks, we’d ask other nations to give their views on how we should do it.

At some point, we will be lulled back to just being ourselves, happily pretending the world around us isn’t an issue and we can focus on going to Dixie Chick concerts and NFL games without “pat downs.” Then will be the time to strike, when we have successfully poked out our “I&W” eyes completely.

What that would look like would either be something “OUTCONUS” or, if within the 48 states, it better follow the old bar saying “If you’re gonna hit me, you better make sure I don’t get up, because if I do….”

So, the point I hope I have made is the best strategy would be for the Islamic leaders, who are looking for the Caliphate to reform, and expand to include the entire world, resign themselves to understand it is most likely not possible in the near term, but they may be able to make the appropriate moves to allow their children or grandchildren to be that “privileged.” We would do the work for them, we would turn inward and feed on ourselves, minimizing any “friction” they are currently trying to overcome.

If they do get this smart, I only hope the Democrats wake up in time to enter reality, or, as some now believe, we are outta here.

Of course, there are some who know the reality shouldn’t be like this, but I think they will admit I may not be far off the mark in today’s political climate.

One last thought I have on the topic for now: The chances of the Jihadis stopping the violence altogether are remote. Why? Simple. The very nature of the manner in which their waging an asymmetrical war, on many fronts, all around the world simultaneously is due to a dispersed, loosely connected network of terrorists. There is no structured chain of command, much less a trained force with a distinctly common vision of substance. So the very strength of their attacks on us also mitigates their ability to effectively manage such a grand, yet central strategy, to their cause right now, and for years to come.

I was rather amazed that even Tony Snow tapped danced around the arrest of the 6 Muslims today to say there hadn’t been any noticeable links to terrorist groups in the story that hit the wires today.

I find it ironic, to say the least, that within moments of any significant violence in schools, a virtual choir of media and talking heads all trot out the connection to “violent video games, like Dungeons and Dragons and Doom.”

I’d bet the shooters at Columbine and VT never met with John Carmack, but “we” are happy to link them together.

Update: See update at the end to get a better picture of the fallout of the new Army Policy on blogging from the Sandbox
———————–
I was in the car driving late into the evening, but I first heard the bad news and an audio clip of Matt of Black Five saying the leadership ordered soldiers to check their blog posts and personal emails with their chain of command. I know it’s not been presented in those terms yesterday and over night (Here’s Matt’s post: “The End of Military Blogging”), mostly it’s a wave of hysteria (and I agree this needs to be raised to the point of the top of the heap), but it requires soldiers to “consult” with their chain of command before posting/sending info.
From Black Five, quoting an email he received from a writer for Wired magazine:

Army Squeezes Soldier Blogs, Maybe to Death
Noah Shachtman Email 05.02.07 | 2:00 AM

The U.S. Army has ordered soldiers to stop posting to blogs or sending personal e-mail messages, without first clearing the content with a superior officer, Wired News has learned. The directive, issued April 19, is the sharpest restriction on troops’ online activities since the start of the Iraq war. And it could mean the end of military blogs, observers say.
[…]

One of the authors at MilBlogs, Army Lawyer, point ot the regulation published doens’t say you can’t blog:

By its terms, the new OPSEC regulation does not require approval of all communications beforehand, rather, the obligation is to consult. But as Noah’s article points out, the proponent doesn’t envision all communications to be monitored nor would it be practical to do so. When a regulation’s proponent gives you that kind of guidance, you hang your hat on it.

But even without that, the guidelines still place the authority (or burden) on the commander. Commanders are as varied as snowflakes. Will some lean too far forward and say “no blogs”? Yes. but they could have done that before. While a commander may technically say “No Myspace” “No Ebay” and “No AKO forum posting” they are not obligated to do so under the regulation and, truth be told, commanders that ARE so lacking in common sense probably have other concerns within their units.
[…]

Army Lawyer brings sanity to the table, and also points out my concern: How will each chain of command member implement this? Some will look at their troops and know they are trustworthy, sane, loyal, sold soldiers, aware that slips not only endanger their lives, but those of comrades in arms, in their units, in their service and in other arms of our combat forces, and will not let things slip. Other commanders will make the “default” decision and say “no more” so they 1) lift a possible time consuming administrative/security burden off their plate, but more likely 2) do it to CYA the situation: “No posts, no risk!”

All that being said and you’re wondering what the terrorist reference is in my title?

I pick up my free copy of USA Today and the headline that is (quite literally) above the fold (The bold print is, the article copy is below) Terrorists not countered on the Web” (titled “Report: Net is key extremist tool” on the “front page” of the online edition – I like that better for a one line synopsis) Key assaults my eyes. We know that, and thanks to General Casey, there is one more weapons we had to take them on, the real daily inputs of soldiers in the sandbox, taken out of the arsenal.

by Mimi Hall

WASHINGTON – Government and community leaders aren’t doing enough to counter media-savvy terrorists from using flashy websites, provocative video games, hip-hop music and gruesome images of bloodied Muslim children to recruit young people online, according to a new report that says the internet may be the extremist’s most powerful frontier.”
[…]

Now, contrast this to the report filed by Major Robbins “Muddy Boots IO (Information Operations): The Rise of the Soldier Blogs” stating thse blogs have a global reach.

[…]
Soldiers understand that the public has become increasingly distrustful of mainstream news, and milblogs are a way to circumvent the media’s power to select news content.
[…]

And that has been a good thing. It equally applies for the bad guys, where the media’b’Allah will choose to possibly not report the beyond the pale horrific activities the terrorists still want the world to see.

Now, possibly, no countering “good” reporting. The only good thing about this news is that I had begun a post a few weeks ago about sitting in a seminar and chafing at the statement of the Army general in charge of public affairs saying we (the room had members of all services in it) had to become experts at public affairs. I thought as a Surface Warfare Officer I had enough to be an expert at, and we were paying “staff corps” officers to be PAOs. At least the time invested in that work will not be lost, now this has come up…

I’m sure the Saturday discussions at the 2007 MilBlogging Conference will be full of this issue.

Update 4/3/2007 Evening:

As I drove today, I wondered if the MilBlog Community reaction (mine included) was a little too shrill and maybe we should take a breathe and use the 24 hour rule. like “we” like to advise others. It would have been good advice, but at least it elicited this response (H/T: Andi):

Fact Sheet
Army Operations Security: Soldier Blogging Unchanged

Summary:
o America’s Army respects every Soldier’s First Amendment rights while also adhering to Operations Security (OPSEC) considerations to ensure their safety on the battlefield.
o Soldiers and Army family members agree that safety of our Soldiers are of utmost importance.
o Soldiers, Civilians, contractors and Family Members all play an integral role in maintaining Operations Security, just as in previous wars.

Details:
• In no way will every blog post/update a Soldier makes on his or her blog need to be monitored or first approved by an immediate supervisor and Operations Security (OPSEC) officer. After receiving guidance and awareness training from the appointed OPSEC officer, that Soldier blogger is entrusted to practice OPSEC when posting in a public forum.

• Army Regulation 350-1, “Operations Security,” was updated April 17, 2007 – but the wording and policies on blogging remain the same from the July 2005 guidance first put out by the U.S. Army in Iraq for battlefield blogging. Since not every post/update in a public forum can be monitored, this regulation places trust in the Soldier, Civilian Employee, Family Member and contractor that they will use proper judgment to ensure OPSEC.
o Much of the information contained in the 2007 version of AR 530-1 already was included in the 2005 version of AR 530-1. For example, Soldiers have been required since 2005 to report to their immediate supervisor and OPSEC officer about their wishes to publish military-related content in public forums.
o Army Regulation 530-1 simply lays out measures to help ensure operations security issues are not published in public forums (i.e., blogs) by Army personnel.

• Soldiers do not have to seek permission from a supervisor to send personal E-mails. Personal E-mails are considered private communication. However, AR 530-1 does mention if someone later posts an E-mail in a public forum containing information sensitive to OPSEC considerations, an issue may then arise.

• Soldiers may also have a blog without needing to consult with their immediate supervisor and OPSEC officer if the following conditions are met:
1. The blog’s topic is not military-related (i.e., Sgt. Doe publishes a blog about his favorite basketball team).
2. The Soldier doesn’t represent or act on behalf of the Army in any way.
3. The Soldier doesn’t use government equipment when on his or her personal blog.

• Army Family Members are not mandated by commanders to practice OPSEC. Commanders cannot order military Family Members to adhere to OPSEC. AR 530-1 simply says Family Members need to be aware of OPSEC to help safeguard potentially critical and sensitive information. This helps to ensure Soldiers’ safety, technologies and present and future operations will not be compromised.

• Just as in 2005 and 2006, a Soldier should inform his or her OPSEC officer and immediate supervisor when establishing a blog for two primary reasons:
1. To provide the command situational awareness.
2. To allow the OPSEC officer an opportunity to explain to the Soldier matters to be aware of when posting military-related content in a public, global forum.

• A Soldier who already has a military-related blog that has not yet consulted with his or her immediate supervisor and OPSEC officer should do so.

• Commands have the authority to enact local regulations in addition to what AR 530-1 stipulates on this topic.

There you have it. Advice: When you feel the urge to “launch,” take a deep breath and see what happens in the morning…

The US Embassy in Saigon, RVN, 4/29/1975
Operation”Frequent Wind”: 32 years ago. What: The evacuation scores of friendly Vietnamese, rushing to get away from the onslaught of the North Vietnamese Army, rolling into Saigon. Why: Because we are Americans and we value loyalty and we are compassionate and we didn’t want our friend to die by the hands of the Communists.How did this come to be? The “defeatocrats” had won the battle and “defunded the war.” First they pulled money from our troops, then for all military aid to the South Vietnamese government.Sound familiar? Yes, it does. Toss this into the intellectual mixing bowl: In 1968, a new president, Richard Nixon, began pulling our troops out, based on the political pressures within our nation. He just didn’t load them up and bring them home, but put into place “Vietnamization” as a palatable strategy to fight the war, but not with US troops directly.

Soon after taking office. President Richard Nixon introduced his policy of “vietnamization”. The plan was to encourage the South Vietnamese to take more responsibility for fighting the war. It was hoped that this policy would eventually enable the United States to withdraw gradually all their soldiers from Vietnam.

In other wrods, it was a different strategy than had been in place under the Johnson Administration, which essentially was taking raw military might as the main “tool” in the diplomacy tool box.

The net result of Vietnamization was it was working, with the US supplying the air power to support the RVN ground units. Once funding for US military units was taken away, then the RVN forces began to loose the fight. Then when the funding for supplies for those troops was pulled, the war was lost.

Who had control of the Congress? The Democrats. Who had pushed for this? The Democrats. Sound like the same news could be on a newspaper headline near you soon? Yes. How about historians who can cut and paste from their works on Vietnam and then search and replace for a few names and dates and titles of bills in the Congress to record what happens next?

And when the Democrats are successful, either in this year or January 2009, know that we, the Americans people will demand that our faithful Iraqi friends and their families be spared from the quite real possibility of a horrible death, with a rapid immigration measure. And they will come…..It happened before, as we absorbed not only Vietnamese, but Montagnards and Laos, who had served us in holding the line against Communism. This will happen again.I foresee two scenarios with the massive immigration of Iraqis to this nation that put the Democrat’s policies at risk:

• The beleagured Iraqis, who risked their lives, and those of their families (and most likely did lose family already), believing we would, in the post-Saddam era, help them forge a free and safe country will be disillusioned. As they become US citizens, they will most likely not forget the petty political power struggles between Democrats that caused them to have to flee their native land for political asylum. Their votes will not fall in the Democrat’s column, nor will a few generations (at least the one following) either. Not good for the Dems.
• While the process is streamlined, much as we have done for the Cubans when they fled Castro, some who are able to get in the line to head to the US will be moles from al-Qaeda. They will, because of the rapidity with which each applicant will be handled, manage to avoid detection and then be set down in our midst, to begin to work from the inside. Whatever the next “9/11 Commission” we hold will have to struggle with a hard fact: It was some who we granted asylum to, who would not be here except for the fact that we pulled out before the job was done.

I don’t think one or the other are too far fetched. In the larger picture, I think it will be a combination of both scenarios, and the only question will be which plays out before the other?

The wave of immigration the Dems surely don’t want, but I’m sure they haven’t thought that through for gaming out the possible futures seems to be their extremely weak suit.

Tracked back @: EagleSpeak, Third World County

“Islamic State Of Iraq: The Cross Worshippers And Their Henchmen Plans Have Collapsed”.

H/T: JIhad Unspun Blog

In The Name Of Allah The Most Gracious The Most Merciful

All praise be to Allah, The Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds. Peace and prayer be upon our prophet, Muhammad, his family, and his companions.

Allah Almighty says:

“ They will not fight you (even) together, except in fortified townships, or from behind walls. Strong is their fighting (spirit) amongst themselves: thou wouldst think they were united, but their hearts are divided: that is because they are a people devoid of wisdom.” Qur’an 59-14

It is apparent to every watchful eye that recent events over the past few days have exposed a huge crack in America’s administration. With weak declarations from their leaders about events on the ground in Iraq just two months after the so-called “Baghdad security plan” commenced and a growing dispute about funds spent on the Iraq and Afghan wars, the American command has now said “The current security plan is the last chance for the American army and the Maliki government”.

As usual, this was followed by a swift visit by the new (American) Defense Minister “Gates” who said, “The American support to the Maliki government is not unlimited”, insinuating that the American administration is impatient with the Maliki government that is incapable of handling the strikes of the Mujahideen. This comes on the heels of an important statement by House Majority Leader Harry Reid who previously said, “The Iraqi war is hopeless and the situation in Iraq is same as it was in Vietnam.”

Then came Bush’s stupid statement where he emphasized that his strategic goal in Iraq is more than a military victory but also to prevent the Mujahideen from benefiting from the fruits of the Jihad to ultimately achieve victory.

This is how the cross worshipping occupiers and their henchmen live. Their morale continues to collapse as the result of the increasing strikes of the Mujahideen, carried out by the grace of Allah. From downing their aircraft to penetrating their fortified Green Zone and targeting the heads of apostasy and agents, all this has pushed the American army to repeat what it did in Vietnam. In a similar fashion, they are instigating the policy of isolating cites and regions by building a concrete roadblocks and walls as we see in al-Ghazaliyah, al-Ameriyah and others places in order to create a huge prison for the Sunnis. But none of this disappoints the Mujahideen; they have activated their sniper weapons against Allah’s enemies to fill their hearts with terror and death, by the grace of Allah.

The use of these policies by the occupiers shows their inability and the failure of all their past efforts to defeat the Mujahedeen. Our battle against the enemy is first and foremost the will to fight and the length of the battle does not rest with the cross worshippers. Their past efforts to isolate and besiege cities such as Fallujah, Samarra, Hadithah and al-Qaim continue to be met with resistance, by the grace of Allah.

So be patient O our people in Baghdad for the tribulation equals the strength of our Aqeedah so be cheerful for you have had the honor and blessing of Jihad, which is a gift from Allah to the best of His creation. Who ever denies this blessing Allah has called him an apostate and he is weak in faith for Allah Almighty said:

“O you who believe, if you revert from your religion, (Islam) then Allah will substitute in your place people whom He loves and who love Him. They will be kind with the believers, stern with the disbelievers, and will strive in the cause of Allah without fear of any blame. Such is Allah’s blessing; He bestows it upon whomever He wills. And Allah is All-Sufficient, the All-Knower.” Qur’an 5: 54

And Allah’s love is precious and Allah’s provision is paradise. The signs of victory can be seen and the cross worshipper’s defeat is obvious and progressive, all praise be to Allah.

Allahu Akbar!

“Honor, power and glory belong to Allah, to his messenger, and to the believers, but the hypocrites know not.”

Information Ministry
The Islamic State of Iraq
7 Rabi Al-Akir, 1428
April 24, 2007

My skin crawls every time I see the term “Ministry of Information.” Sorry, maybe it’s my Cold War Warrior bias showing, but the pravda never was published in “Pravda.”

Tracked back @: Yankee Sailor

As I pondered the question asked on talk shows and around the blogs: “Why didn’t he MSM show the beheading videos, but they showed this [Cho’s homegrown work]?”, this is what I believe is an underlying cultural current:

This video, horrific as it is, is yet another way to help describe how “bad” America is. The <a href=”http://amboytimes.typepad.com/the_amboy_times/2007/04/islam_beheading.html”>beheadings</a>, if shown, have the possibility of a backlash that would make the perpetrators look “bad” and then by derivation, America would look “good.” Can’t have that…

Disable reality for a moment and forget that Cho was raised in South Korea in the critical years of youth when personality is developed, according to he experts. Just pretend he has been affected by all that has been railed against in this nation for a few decades, it will make it easier to buy into the MSM’s subconscious efforts.

In addition to the above remarks, consider the trend we see of easily jumping all over the ones who don’t pose a threat. Cho is gone. If he feels bad about any of the spin on his legacy effort, well…he’s not going to shoot anyone else. On the other hand, some jihadi, or jihadi copycat, might show up at your car when you are leaving for the early morning broadcast and doa Nick Berg on you. There you have it: Only pick on the weak, or those who have shown they will not retaliate. Sort of a “Media Bullying” approach to journalism.

Consider how anything that makes the President, Cabinet officials, or any Republican look bad hits the streets right away. Anything that has the potential to make America look like a bunch of gun toting, hood wearing, bigoted, whacked out society is quickly streamed and rolled over and over and over. Where is the news of heroism, sacrifice, persistent effort (vice instant gratification) to accomplish something meaningful? Yes, little snippets pop up, but then are not crawling across the screen of your TV, nor mentioned every 30 minutes for a week. well, maybe if a 6 year old takes it upon them selves to walk their neighborhood and collect money to prevent Global “Climate Change,” then you will see that story over and over…because, you got it: America, by derivation of that type of story, is “bad.”

News: It’s about America’s inherent “badness.”

I think it is connected to this, but is not just about the specific movement discussed in that book.

Connected thought: Just where does the “Self-Esteem” movement come down on this issue? It certainly seems to be absent in telling us we have the right to feel good about ourselves…