In Part 1, I laid a foundation for what I see going on around the world from us…

The restructuring of the American Military gave us a connection, as a society to the warfighter/warfighting. In Iraq, it is now doing a third, most likely unintended benefit: With the mix of reservisits and National Guardsman who are operating far from home, they are able to share with the local population a variety of skills required for a nation not at war.

Nation building, done by those prepared for war. Pretty cool. I just don’t believe anyone in the planning in the 70’s and 80’s foresaw this.

I’ve seen stories about a Guard lawyer who was tasked to help draft the Iraqi Constitution. There are stories of police officers, reservisits and Guard, who are working with the local fledging law enforement organizations, bringing them modern techniques and tactics. I’m sure there are countless stories that we will never hear, where someone’s full time profession in the States, was used to assist in either social or business dimensions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Military personnel of this Nation have done us proud. They have set up schools, women’s centers, parks and playgrounds. They have engaged the local populations in their sport of choice (soccer) and I read one story where a unit sent home asking for old bats, gloves and balls to set up a Little League league. Instead, they got all new equipment to hand over the Iraqi children to teach them baseball. Units have handed out school supplies, sent by a foundation set up by actor Gary Sinese. A multitude of other items have been sent from the US and donated to the children. In Afghanistan, one Army Soldier (Regular Army, but with a heart of gold), collected shoes to distribute. I could go on, but you get the point. As with the tsnami disaster, the American population opened it’s wallets to do something we can because of our prosperity: give from our excess.

The Iraqis and Afghanis who have benefited from these personal relationships, with our men and women who gave of themselves, and helped funnel even more compassion from our citizens who could not be there, will forever be changed. I’d venture for the good.

This war, while maybe no different than the times of rebuilding Europe and Japan after WWII (which I must admit, I have not taken the time yet to see if there are parallels to this topic), it certainly will reap benefits in a more peaceful part of the world in years to come…and that’s good for everyone, both here and there.

I wrote an earlier post on the winning of hearts and minds, and it included some information about some small “nation building” efforts at the village level by some Marines. There was also some references to the way the composition of the makeup of regular versus reserve/national guard units was modified in the period between Vietnam and Gulf War I.

This afternoon, I was toying with the thought that something very unique is going on a half a world east of me, but I believe it is more off cycle, that I hope becomes a trend.

My basic thought is we have, quite by accident, built a military well suited to nation building. The concept of the re-mixing of logistics to combat unit ratios between active duty and the “citizen soldier” components after Vietnam is described by Col. Harry Summers, Jr. in “On Strategy: Gulf War.” Harry describes how the middle grade combat leaders from that War moved into assignments where they had the opportunity to recompose how we manned our armed forces, to ensure they, and their juniors marched to the next war with “the will of the people” in their corner.

The concept of having an active duty organization that could march quickly into battle, but only for short periods, needed rapid augmentation by reserve and National Guard units right away, if there was a sustained conflict. “Round out” units, such as the 2/263rd Armored Battalion from the South Carolina National Guard would provide the 3rd battalion to bring the 2nd Armored Division to full strength. Military police, engineer, chemical and quartermaster corps units would have to come along to provide vital logistical and combat support functions. People in these units would be your banker, lawyer, sheriff, hardware store owners, etc, from cities and towns all across the nation. In other words, just about every one of us would have a personal connection to someone who would be sent out in the name of the people of this United States. It was, quite frankly, pure genius. This concept was to solve a problem real warfighters in the late 60’s and 70‘s had to contend with. From their pain and anguish, a plan was conceived and executed.

Not only was this idea right on target to tie our military to the general civilian population for support for a war, it has the added, and I would argue, subconscious, benefit of placing a “governor “ on the emotions of this Nation. The mere fact we may consider entering our military into a conflict, they are not as they were during the Vietnam era, a sub-class of people who were poor or too stupid to hold a real job, but they are who we live alongside. It was too easy to emotionally discard the people who defended us when they were drafted into service. With this new force makeup, it is our sons and daughters, sisters and brothers, friends and neighbors at stake. If the cause is important, we will acquiesce to their deployment, and most unfortunately, the death and injury to some of them. Conversely, if that’s too great a risk for what is at stake, then our voices will be raised in protest.

In Gulf War I, the designed benefit of connection to the will of the people played out. “We” went forward and pushed an invader out of a sovereign nation. Not only did the country rally behind the troops, when some of them were killed by “friendly fire” (most people who have been in combat will argue that there is no such thing- any fire is unfriendly when it’s coming at you!) It was the public sentiment that helped spur on the budgeting and development of better communications and identification equipment and procedures.

I’ll stop here, and soon post my analysis of an added, third benefit of this force structure I’m sure wasn’t foreseen decades ago, as this plan was forming.

Part II is here.

I’m honored to share this poem with you, from a man who “gets it.” A Vietnam vet, with a keen mind, has “penned” another great one…

Pulled from The Mudville Gazette (a “paper” you should make a habit of reading), here’s Russ:

When the World Dials 911

Disaster strikes a world away
We get the call, what do we say?
We move at once, to ease their plight,
To aid them through their darkest night.
But come shrill cries from carping Press,
That’s not enough to fix this mess.
We know that, fools, but give us room,
To counter Mother Nature’s doom.

America gives to those in need,
With no regard to faith or creed.
We’re there for all when need is great
A helping hand to any state,
That’s fallen under Nature’s wrath
And needs a lift back to the path.
So what they may have mocked our ways?
We’ll turn our cheek ‘til better days.

But there are those who hate us so,
They’ll carp and snipe and hit us low,
Who’ll bend disaster to their needs,
And try to choke us on our deeds.
They’ll play their dirty liberal tricks,
For them it’s only politics.
In the face of massive human pain,
They only think of their own gain.

But the world knows sure whom it must call,
When disaster strikes, when nations fall.
America is the beaming light
That fades, dispels disaster’s night,
And standing firm provides relief
To salve the pain, allay the grief.
So to Hell with what our critics say,
America’s fine, still leads the way.

Russ Vaughn

Russ; Thank you!

I continue to be baffled by the lack of the participation of NOW in the current world situation. I would think with all the news of the mistreatment of the sisters of the American women from other parts of the world, most notably the Middle East, we would have seen women “suiting up” by the thousands, demanding slots at Parris Island and Fort Bragg. I would think any way they could get into the fight, now that we have functionally acquiesced to women in combat, they would be demanding.

So, what’s up with the lack of concern? Are there too many important glass ceilings in corporate America, that are oppressing women on a world-wide level for them to leave their executive suites they have worked so hard to gain? Must they stay put in order to protect the right of women, or can they just keep their sisters in Africa and the Middle East, and even now, parts of Europe, better protected from where they are?

I could go one for a while and provide plenty of links to stories about honor killings, stoning and mutilations, but they have been ignored so far.

What about me you may wonder? In case you think I’m speaking from some ivory tower, demanding someone do something I’m not willing to do, I did my time, and would still be in, had it not been for the reasonable and required downsizing of the US Military after the Cold War ended. I’d love a chance to get a piece of those who are preventing the basic human right of freedom. Along the way, equal rights for everyone would be a cause good enough for me to fight for.

If you’re a feminist at heart, I’d challenge you to step up to the plate and do something, besides figure out if you can get that next promotion, while your sisters are being brutalized at the hands of men who think they are property, and not worthy of respect. Any of the services will take you, but I’d suggest the Marines, because in the Corps, everyone is a rifleman first.

If you would like to make a statement to CBS about firing Dan Rather, here’s a link to an online petition: Fire Dan Rather.

I’d like to see him go. For many years, I have skipped over his news, as it long ago was proven to me that he was grinding many axes and not reporting. This whole issue of the forged documents and his reaction show he lacks integrity, morals and wants grace for himself, yet he offers no quarter to those he is attempting to discredit or malign.

I learned something very powerful in 9 months of Naval War College: It’s always dangerous to set a precedent. The catch is you never know when you may have to live by the rule you put in place. Dan Rather was all over blaming the President of the United Sates for the acts of those who pulled some pretty stupid stunts in the prison in Iraq. The crys of how it went all the way to the top, and how the President was responsible were all over the media, including CBS Evening News for weeks. Stop a minute and take off your partisan hats (or tin foil ones) and consider real life. Is it reasonable in your world to blame any president for the acts of someone in the lower and middle grade ranks of the govenrment? Nope, it’s not and we all know it. The US Military alone is larger than the largest corporation on the planet, let alone consider the President is “responsible” (under the Rather and Democratic party model mentioned above) for all the rest of the people who are employed or contracted to the US Government. That’s an extremely huge number of people and we all should be amazed at how smoothly the machinery of our Federal Government works most all the time.

Here’s the final connection to Dan Rather using the foreged documents, then trying to cover it up, and the President and Abu Gharib: If George Bush is responsible for Lindey and her friends, all that way down the chain of command, then Dan Rather is responsible for the work of his supporting staff. Hey, fair’s fair! Dan Rather set the precedent, and now it’s time for him to be a man and stand up, as he expected the President to do. Oh, that’s right, he didn’t. He blamed his employees, so it’s too late for him to regain any minute portion of my respect.

Go with these words carefully stored in your memory: It’s always dangerous to set a precedent!

I’m hopeful, but there’s this feeling I have that we are on the verge of seeing a change in how we have elected officials seated. There was a foreshadowing of it in Oct/Nov 2000, but this time, we’ll have it in spades.

The reason I believe there is a realistic opportunity for this to happen is because we have become a pretty sue crazy society. If it’s not how we like it, forget about sitting down and discussing it and don’t even consider looking at the bigger picture outside ourselves, to possibly find out it is beeter for all for us to take a second place, or even back seat, in order that a greater good be fulfilled.

With the introduction of electronic voting systems, there is a possibility they can be tampered with, and there are already indications some analysts/consultants have shown it can happen. Picture this: In a tight race, there are no hanging chads to joke about, and that, my readers makes it no joking matter. There will be no reliable way to reconstruct the actual “will of the people.” What then? If we settle for the “recorded” and for the sake of this discussion, and contested contest? That would certainly suit the winner of the moment, but, I submit, here’s where we get into trouble. The “loser” has a legal right to challenge it, due to the known vulnerabilites of electronic voting. Now, how will anyone possibly be able to pull togehter the program code and be able to replicate the voting to a degree that is reasonable, without redoing the actual election over again? Trust me, it will be so close to impossible that our puny little heads would explode from either 1) the massive technical issues involved in re-creating the votes, or 2) the millions of dollars someone would have to spend to do this properly.

Ok, so the bad news is electronic voting might provide such results that we need a judge to be the arbitrator.

Actually, if that wasn’t bad enough, pitting humans (who aren’t taught real math any more, let alone digital logic and related topics, required to not be completely cluless – another topic to be discussed later on how we have failed to teach real life things in our schools) against computers, how about the extreme hatred that will pit humans against humans? I can see it now, accusation and counter accusation about this and that group being “disenfranchised” in the process, so off to court we go. That’s going to be the downfall, when “we the people” have our votes questioned in court.

“Activist” judges. Yep, they exists. Not all judges are appointed for life. Some are elected. Since they are elected, they will try to model the behavior of the people that elected them, and that can go either way in party affiliation, to be fair about it. How will we feel when a judge rules a few thousand votes should have been this instead of that? If that tips the scale, and now its advantage to the moments before loser of the election, how will we react/

That’s a rhetorical question, of course, but think about that. I’ll pray we won’t have to deal with this, but with all the slimy maneuvering in the election, I think we will.

Thanks to the overly active imagination of Frank J. at IMAO:

“This is Dan Rather with continuing coverage of Hurricane Jeanne which has surprisingly skipped right over Florida and landed in Minnesota. Yes, I know some ankle-biting pajama wearing fanatics known as ‘bloggers’ are disputing this, some claiming to be from Minnesota and showing pictures that everything is fine, but we still have this evidence.”

Rather held up a photo of hurricane damage with the word “Minnesota” on it.

“See, this photo, sent to us by an anonymous, unimpeachable source, shows hurricane damage and is clearly labeled ‘Minnesota.’ And listen to this expert.”

An expert walked up to Rather. “That is clearly a label.” He then walked away.

“So, you snot-nosed punks, stop doubting me!” Rather then jumped up on his desk. “I am newscaster Rather! Fear my power, or I shall report your obituary!”

This link leads you to an interesting posting regarding the before and after action of CBS in the recent “RatherGate” issue that discusses what constitutes criminal behavior. It’s pretty well laid out. Settle in for a 10 minute concentrated read.

All in all, it’s one thing to mis-report, it’s entirely another to “modify” the truth with conscious effort.

On the ride home the night of 9/20/2004, the local talk fill in host talked about how he was for George Bush, but he didn’t think he was being aggressive enough prosecuting the war in Iraq. Most of his callers agreed.

Here’s the skinny: Step back and look at the proper long term strategy. If President Bush had gone full tilt boogie on the bad guys, it’s still like trying to get rid of the cockroaches in your southeast low country home. You can go after them and beat them back, while you consider your options, or just burn the house down. Option two helps you make it through the day, with only sometimes seeing the bugs at night when you turn on the light. You keep them from overrunning the place, and it’s pretty livable, given other more aggressive options. If you burn the house down, you’ll probably have the cockroaches around, and you’ll get really, really wet when it rains. So here George is, standing at the threshold of getting rid of many of the cockroaches, while his “family” pleads with him to quit gassing the house and spreading chemicals all over, because it hurts the environment. He’s within striking distance, but the gate he must pass through to do more is the one labeled “Re-Election.”

If George leaves office now, we will slip in our resolve, and many of the hard fought gains will be lost. Because the “family” of the American public is teetering on the fence right now, it’s good that he takes a generally moderate, strategic holding battle into the war. It will cost some lives, but here’s the advantage: It will keep the squeamish conservatives on his side that may sway the vote. Since the President has a term limit, once he’s back in, then he can roll up his figurative sleeves, take off his gloves and stand and fight hard for us. It will repel some, yet in the long run, think what four more years of fighting terrorists would do for World peace? If we have come this far since 9/11/2001, and we have had a military that has been transmogrified into a flexible, well trained organization, capable of fighting in asymmetric environments, and conducting joint operations, augmented by OGAs as well as drawing on the significant expertise of the citizen-soldiers of this modern time. In Vietnam, the book On Strategy argued we took a European heavy armor mentality to the triple canopy jungle. The author was right, it didn’t fit the battle field strategically.

Since Vietnam, we have evolved somewhat in our war fighting orientations, but it was still focused on building a better self-contained military. We have been pretty successful at that. What we didn’t seem to learn very well, until we somewhat got it in GWI, is that war is a multi-faceted thing, to include the press, economics, and many other things, and not all of those arenas have people in camouflage in them. We did better this time. Anyhow, back to may main thesis: George Bush needs to grit his teeth until he is re-elected, before he goes to the “and I’m not joking” bare knuckles approach needed to get rid of the terrorists. Once in office for the four more years, then he can get busy prosecuting war as he should, for the betterment of the entire human race. Short of impeachment, and it has been demonstrated how hard that is, he will be able to run it well, provided he has a Republican Congress in his bag of tricks. So, for those who are frustrated with George Bush, help put him back in and see where this goes. Don’t put him in and see what happens in our back yard.

“We don’t have an election, we have an auction� Bumper sticker in the parking lot at Borders. You know, they have that right, but I think they haven’t figured out how right they are. I suspect, and it may be wrong for me to assume this, as I have not spoken to the owner of the vehicle, that they think it’s about how the Presidency may be bought by special interests. If they truly believed this in this, then it would seem it would apply to this president, and his predecessor, and the one before them. At what point did they begin being bought, and was it the first dollar we count from, or is there some “threshold”� we should use as a guideline? How far back in our 228 year history does this sham of elections go? Is it limited to one person, one party? Is it universal? If universal, why not some bumper sticker reminiscent of a jeer from the stands at a baseball game: Throw the bums out!�? Ah, ha! You see, the view seems to revolve around a victimized state of mind, a “my vote doesn’t count”� desperation mental frame. Two points are important to discuss here, one directly related, but the important one, with the real insight from the truth behind the bumper sticker will be discussed secondly. Firstly, yes, every vote counts. In fact, it is in getting out and standing in line, suffering thru the “process”� to poke holes in a paper, or to check blocks, or touch a screen, is worth the effort. The Nov, 2000 election is still a matter of heated debate, and it showed how a little over 300 votes in a single state, have caused a lot of dissention. If the special interest groups, with lots of money were truly in control of the election, oops, I meant “auction,”� wouldn’t the margin have been wider? Now, if almost 400 people, with a leaning towards Al Gore had gone to work early, or just got out and voted, would there still be the bumper sticker on that vehicle? Generally, the sentiment on the bumper sticker indicates that the driver didn’t like the outcome of the election, so therefore it was easier to blame it on some grand conspiracy of the moneyed elite. There may be gounds for that influence, but I don’t believe that will be as big an issue while we still refrain from an electronic method of voting. Once we have gone to electronic votes, all bets are off. If you look at how we have progressed from simple viruses on our PCs to very complex ones, and ones that do no more damage, than to get into your machine to gather information and then send it out. Who’s to stop a similar evolution in the electronic voting machines, particularly if they are based on currently well used operating systems, with a widely available list of flaws, and also openly published capabilities and interfaces. Second major point. Yes, we do have an auction. The auction is not who buys the politicians, but which politician buys our votes. We look to our representatives, at all levels, not to operate for the good of the system, but for the good of the entity that they represent, at the expense of the larger, or just simply, the other entities. If these elected officials go off to their appointed positions, and haul back truckloads of cash and benefits for our community, then we are happy to re-elect them, as they proudly trumpet how much they have “done for us,”� and not how they have had to make some hard decisions, which at times resulted in our betterment, but sometimes, took what we perceived as “ours”� and made sure it was used more wisely, and provided us long term benefits, but denied us the pleasure at the moment. There you go, inappropriate analysis from the mere sighting of a bumper sticker on the way got get a cup of coffee.