Salute

Yesterday I was looking for an uplifting item to post, and had to hunt for something.

Today one dropped into my lap, in an email from a friend and fellow veteran.

The title of his email was 'No Words Needed'.

In some respects he was right. But in others, maybe less right.

The events stand on their own; the actions of this boy are proudly able to speak volumes.

But they are also worthy of comment.

I have a 9 yer old granddaughter; I know what $20 represents to a child of that age. A dollar is money; 5 bucks is heaven. $20; that's Sam Walton Rich. It represents unlimited spending. When a major purchase is $2.50, $20.00 is REAL CASH! Think about it this way: assume you just found enough cash to equal two weeks pay. Puts it into perspective, doesn't it?

We also have a child who never knew his father. He knows he was a soldier, and he knows his career as a soldier is why he is not around. Some folks would be bitter about that. The Army wouldn't represent the best we can be, but the entity that stole the most important man ever in your life as a young boy.

But he isn't. He has found money, and instead of spending on himself, or on his immediate family, he spends on his larger family, his Army Family.

Another point the article doesn't make that needs to be. Not only is this one special kid; he has one very special Mother.

This youngster didn't get this way on his own. He was formed by a woman who had every reason to be bitter, and apparently is not. What better way to honor her husband's memory than the boy she has raised?

Yesterday I went hunting for good news, and found a group of divers who rescued a shark.

Today I had good news thrust upon me, and this was the best kind of good news; it is the kind that gives me hope.

On the Butcher Block

Well; they are at it again.

Carter did it; Clinton did it and now Obama is doing it.

Read the US Constitution. It is written in pretty plain English, unlike some modern laws that seem to be written in Sanskrit. There is a direct charge to the Federal Government to pay for an Army and Navy. Defense of our borders is, in some respects, the ONLY charge to the Federal government.

Yet when money gets "tight" (yes I am using that word sarcastically) the first cuts are in Defense. There are so many things wrong with this announcement  i don't know where to start.

How about here: The cuts assume the United States no longer becomes involved in large, prolonged stability operations overseas on the scale of Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Really? And what happens if that assumption is wrong? NO problem; call up more of the National Guard and Reserves. Except, damn the bad luck; they are getting cut too. So with less regular Army and less Guard and Reserve Units, what happens when the manure hits the fan? What happens when Iran and North Korea conspire to attack Israel and South Korea at the same time, plunging two areas of the globe into chaos at the same time?

I'll tell you what happens. Have you ever locked two feuding boys into a room without parental supervision? Then come back a hour later to the utter devastation? Without the US as a stabilizing force a Korean conflict will drag in Japan and China at least. An Iran- Israel war will drag in Iraq and Syria and probably Egypt as well. And maybe Russia, as a 'silent' partner. Which side of the world would we respond to? Where would the limited resources get allocated?

Which ally will we throw to the dogs? and don't mention the United Nations as a solution; without US firepower (both figurative and literal) they are a laughing stock.

Don't misinterpret me; I don't want the United States military to be used the world's policeman. I don't want out best young men dying between the fighting factions in a backwater Civil War. But like it or not, our country has international interests; both treaty and trade related.

Those interests need to be protected. We can no more abandon South Korea than we can, should she require our help, England.

But these cuts may force just such a decision. There is a reason we have not had a Army smaller than it now for the last 70 years; its because we need to be prepared to not just fight a war on two continents; we need to WIN both wars.

Have you ever watched a show on the nature channel? Have you ever watched a pride of lions chase after a herd of wildebeests? Have you ever seen them take on the biggest meanest one they could find? No, they are chasing the old, the sick, the weak. The vulnerable.

Have you ever watched a how on a wolf pack, or a wild horse hear or a any other group of wild animals? They all have A leader. When is that leader challenged? when he is at the height of his power? Or during his decline?

Like it or not it has been both the United States' power- and willingness to use that power- that has kept the world largely at peace since 1945. What happens when that power is no longer there?

Its not just our way of life we need to worry about (although I do see an increasing testing of US resolve in the last 4 years; and there will be more and more incidents to test 'President Bluster' in the coming year; watch carefully the response to his 'line' in the Ukraine), but also that of our allies. Yes Israel is a potent force, but it is the looming US Club that has helped keep the rest of the Middle East at bay. And yes; we have interests other than Israel in the Middle East; a conflict in that area would be disastrous to energy prices, not to mention the possibility of Moslem uprisings in any country in Europe that joined in on Israel's side. Yes; quite a few countries have sizable Moslem populations, like France, Belgium and England; enough that could swing a balance of power in a 2015 Mideast War.

The thing the Obama Regime doesn't think about when doing their figuring: Cutting Defense is easy.

Dealing with the results of those cuts will be hard. Hopefully not harder than we can cope with.

But I have my doubts. And the history of this Administration does nothing to ease those doubts.

Cool or What?

A friend of mine sent me a link to this video.

No, to this AWESOME video.

Can you imagine being on the trigger side of that thing? How about the business end?

And the base technology was patented while Lincoln was President. Hows that for an update on an old idea?

If you read the comments they talk about the cost of each shot. Around $.75 to $1.00. Approximately $2300 a MINUTE.

Owning one of those things is like a owning a Ferrari; the purchase price is only half the cost; the upkeep is like buying a second one.

The US Military owns hundreds of those weapons, and shoots them on a regular basis.

And you wonder why we spend so much on the military budget.

D-Day; the Sixth of June

I had few minutes today and went to Ann Althouse's blog.

I found something I had to share.

I haven't heard this speech in almost 30 years. I surprised it is still available to view and listen do. I definately puts the lie to the notion that current president is a great orator.

Or even an orator.

Today is D-Day; 69 years on, not 40. President Reagan's words still ring true and should remind us that there is no such thing as a Peace Dividend. Yes, we can call this an Era of Peace and cut our military spending, just as every nation but Germany and Japan did between the two World Wars, and we will wind up in exactly the same place the world did in 1939.

I usually spend a few hours on this day to watch The Longest Day; the 1963 movie about the heroes of D-Day. That will be postponed until tomorrow night.

I also think I will start adding President Reagan's speech to my D-Day itinerary. Great words, honoring greater men.

Drones, Revisited

Rand Paul, my junior Senator from Kentucky, was in the news again this week; apparently for advocating drone strikes inside the USA, on American citizens.

Well, that's what the media was saying anyway. All the while managing to squeeze in the word hypocrite as many times as they could. Senator Paul has a slightly different position, as you can imagine. After all; this is the man who filibustered for 13 hours against the Obama Administration on that same topic.

Senator Paul said on a show on Fox that: "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him".

Here is the detail that makes this a non-news, non-event; detail that the folks wanting you to believe Senator Paul is a hypocrite hope you don't hear about.

Rand Paul used that exact same phrase in his filibuster. He has drawn a very bright line between the use of a drone as a law enforcement tool and its use as an assassination tool. The liquor store scenario shows that a drone, much like the bomb squad robots, can be used as a law enforcement tool to keep cops out of harm's way. A technology that, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't yet exist.

Small wonder- I agree with the Senator.

If someone is leaving a liquor store- or any place- they have just robbed, guns blazing and stolen cash in hand, law enforcement has a duty to protect the rest of us from this menace. Whether the cops protect me with their sidearm, their shotgun or the yet-to-be-developed urban drone, I don't care. This is a 'hot' situation, requiring instant reaction.

Let's say our bad guy gets away somehow, although the police have a description of him. 6 months later this same yet-to-be-developed urban drone spots our unindicted, but known, felon eating lunch at a patio table at your local Rally's.

And pumps 3 slugs into him; making him a former unindicted, but known, felon, now known as the recently deceased.

Do you see the difference in these two scenarios?

I would have no problem with eh Administration flying a few armed drones into a situation- like say the Benghazi Embassy attack- and dropping a few combatants.

But I would have a problem with them dropping those same combatants a few weeks later while they sitting at a cafe enjoying some spring sunshine.

The difference is all about when we can allow the use of lethal force as a substitute for a trial by jury and a legal- and possibly non-lethal- punishment.

Take for example the recent Boston bombing. The cops had a gun fight with the two bombers, and killed one. They searched for and found the second bomber, and now know where he is. Can the Boston PD walk into his prison hospital room and shoot him? Would that have been justified in shooting him instead of arresting him when they found his bullet-riddled carcass hiding in a Watertown backyard?

Of course not. It's the difference between an active situation requiring an equal reaction and a simple arrest.

So why should the use of drone technology be considered differently? Technology makes us more able to control a situation; it doesn't remove our moral or legal restraints from the action.

Rand Paul is once again on the right side of the issue, leaving the Democrats sitting on the wrong side, and being forced to defend their poor position as best they can.

Miranda Rights

Have you ever heard of a fellow called Ernesto Arturo Miranda?

Probably not. Ever heard of Miranda v. Arizona?

Again; probably not. But you have heard of Miranda Rights, or the Miranda Warning. Especially in the last week. But what are they, exactly, and why are they 'read' to a suspect? And why is the the fact they are read or not important to the Boston Bombing Case?

First; we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights (do those words sound familiar?) Those rights are enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Some of us will never need to know about some of those rights; they only come into play when we become involved with the government in a possible discreditable nature.

In English? When we get busted.

If you have ever watched a cop show you know the drill: You have the Right to Remain Silent (anything you say can and WILL be used against you in court). You have the right to an attorney (one the state will pay for if you are broke enough). And of course, the first piece of advice from your mouthpiece is SHUT UP.

Here is where the Miranda Rights come in on Live Bomber (as with all mass murderers, I will not name either of them; for sake of difference they are Dead Bomber and Live Bomber). We want to know some things; things only he and Dead Bomber knew. Once we have Mirandized him, if he tells us how this action came about, and maybe admits to a few more crimes while he is at it, we can use that information in court. It is to his benefit to follow the sound (and expensive) advice of his mouthpiece and shut up.

If he isn't Mirandized, then we can act on the information in all cases but the defendant's. He hadn't been told that we could use the information against him, so we can't use it.

In practical application, let's say that Live Bomber says he was part of a larger conspiracy and names names. If he states that information before he is Mirandized, then we can find his conspirators and charge them, but not him, with the conspiracy. Same information after he has been read his Miranda Rights? Then we can round up the gang, AND add a conspiracy charge to Live Bomber.

This is why the decision to read him his Miranda Warning was a poor one, provided he has his right mind. Who in their right mind wouldn't lawyer up and shut up? Information we might have obtained if we couldn't have used it against him now can and will become a part of the case.

Granted, I think we have enough to fry Live Bomber and send him to where ever it is he has earned in his God's eyes. He couldn't incriminate himself anymore than the photos and other physical evidence has. We can't fry him twice; who cares what else he could incriminate himself in?

This is Massachusetts for crying out loud. They may not fry him for the murders and the maimings, but they will for not filing an Environmental Impact Statement before he set off the bomb and polluted the atmosphere.

Here is the other problem with our Constitutionally protected inalienable rights: Live Bomber is a United States Citizen and entitled to all of the rights every other citizen has. Considering that he has blown the oath he took into as many pieces as he has his pressure cooker, and considering what he is charged with, I'm not happy about it.

But I would rather have him acquitted than I would have a precedent set of trying him as a foreign national.

Sometimes Justice is not pretty. Sometimes the rights of the one must be seemingly misused in order to save the rights of the many.

I hope it doesn't happen in this case.

How Much Did You Miss Yesterday?

Was yesterday a bust-ass day or what?

Half a dozen bloggable things happening and I, to use my Dad's phrase, felt like death warmed over.

I'm a little better today, but not by much. Now I'm only a near death experience warmed over.

Rand Paul hit Hillary rather hard yesterday, didn't he? Not hard enough, but still, harder than anybody else did.

And he's right. We not only no longer keep score in kid's sports, apparently we no longer keep score in government.

Who was responsible for the four deaths in Libya? What  is/will be their punishment?

What are we doing to make sure this does not happen again?

All questions that should be asked and answered.

But won't be. We don't want to ruin somebody's career over a little thing like this, now do we?

Even Hillary's. She will bail on the job of Secretary of State- a 'post turtle position' for her for sure. And don't even get me started on Kerry's "QUALIFICATIONS"- and retire to her estate in New York or somewhere, and start showing up at shopping malls and diners in Iowa in a couple of years.

And no one will ever mention it was her inadequacies and errors that cost us the lives of 4 Americans, including an Ambassador.

And then we have Biden hinting he will be in the running in 2016. Why? is he looking for another 4 years as Vice-President?

And last, but by no means least, we have Leon Panetta stopping on his way out the door as Secretary of Defense to announce the end of the ban on women in combat roles.

Really? Talk about dumping a hot mess into the lap of whoever is next Secretary. Who is the current sacrificial lamb? Is it still the RINO Hagel? But that description even gives RINO's a bad name. When was the last time we actually had a Democrat as Secretary of Defense? The middle of the Clinton Administration? 20 some years ago?

Why don't any Democrats want the job? Too much responsibility? You can lose a few diplomats an still keep your job. Lose a dozen young men and there is Hell to pay.

And of course they won't change the standards; any woman wanting a combat MOS will need to meet the same standards as the men currently do.

Yeah; that'll last. Only until the first batch of 250 women wing up producing 5 qualified applicants.

Three of which who will withdraw when they break a nail.

And then watch the race to the bottom.

I'll be blunt; I have never served in a combat unit. But I have served in the military, and I have seen what happens to a group of young adult males when a few women have been dumped among them.

It ain't pretty. The men lose all control and the women gain it. And nobody can resist following their instincts to protect the weaker sex.

It wasn't just in the military; I saw it happen in the workforce too. Not as pronounced- because the folks are older, in general- but still the same jealousies and conflicts.

Comparisons will be made to the integration of the services during the Truman Administration. Some of them may be valid, but I really doubt there were breakdowns in unit cohesion because the new arrivals stopped dating one fellow soldier and started dating another, or a breakdown in discipline because of an over protective attitude toward the black unit member.

Hopefully we can start reversing the damage before it's too late.

But I am starting to have my doubts.

Gaza

I am not a big fan of the way Israel was created in 1946. It has lead to additional violence in an unsettled part of the world that nobody needs.

That being said; it was almost 70 years ago; at some point you need get on with your life. But not, I guess in a part of the world known for long memories.

Does Israel have a right to exist? As much as any other country. They also have a right to defend themselves and to support from their allies.

Which, more or less, brings us to recent events.

I'll not claim any special insight into the region or its actors; I only know what the media and history tell me. So, given those caveats...

The one good thing Jimmy Carter did was the Camp David accords, which ushered in 30 years of peace between Egypt and Israel; a period of peace broken by Obama allowing Egypt to become an ally of Al-Qaeda. And then the dominoes began to fall; Syria; Libya; Mali. For all of the Obama Administration's admonitions that Al-Qaeda was dead, I see an awful lot of life in that corpse.

The leadership of Iran has publicly declared that Israel does not have a right to exist and their intentions to wipe them off of the map. With Iran approaching the ability to become a nuclear power, Israel is in a bad position. Trying to maintain the security of its borders and people, and facing the possibility that Iran would one day be able to drop a nuke on the Dome of Rock.

So, while Israel is trying to figure out how to strike at Iran's nuke program, the Palestinians in Gaza decide it's time to start lobbing rockets into Israel. Where did they get the rockets? Looks like it was Iran.

The attacks are the result of Israel assassinating a Hamas leader, Ahmed al-Jabari. But the tension has been building for months; most likely as a result of the Arab Spring.

Militant Moslems are a minority we are told, but apparently a powerful one. They seem to be able to have themselves voted into power on a regular basis. Without Egypt as a stabilizing force for peace, who knows where the violence will end.

I'm on Israel's side. They, as a country and a people have a right to exist- a right their neighbors seem unwilling to accede.

They also have a well trained, well armed and competent military force that has several times in the past successfully defended their borders. It's hard to fight a tank with a rock or a suicide bomber.

But in the past they have had the United States squarely in their corner, something that may or may not now be the case. Elections have consequences.

Israel and Gaza are about to start a land war. Will Egypt join in? Who else will join them to help wipe the hated Jew off of the map? Who will join on Israel's side? No country will send troops, and I doubt any would be accepted, but they will need arms and ammunition; who will resupply them?

How will it affect world oil supplies? How will it affect our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? Our relations with Saudi Arabia and Turkey?

These are the questions I don't have answers to. But I'm not expected to; I'm some Kentucky Redneck.

But Obama and his team are expected to have these answers.

I just don't have any faith that they do.

Honor and Respect

Veterans are a special breed.

We have done things no civilian probably has. Some of us had it easy. I like to brag, especially around guys who were in the Army or Marines at the same time I was in the Air Force, that in four years of service to my country I never spent a night without a soft mattress under my butt and a cold beer in the fridge a few steps away.

I especially like to let that 'slip out' after the conversations about 6 weeks in the field during training with only a Saturday Night Shower; or tales of being at sea for 6 months.

But even those guys had it easy, compared to the combat vets. The men who fought from Normandy to Berlin. The men who had ships blown out from under them in the Pacific. The men who then spent two years in Korea. Or Vietnam; the Gulf War; Iraq or Afghanistan or countless other situations where our military men and women have willfully gone into harm's way.

There are other, earlier wars, going all the way back to the Revolution, but veterans of those conflicts are no longer with us, according to Wikipedia.

There are those who hope our country creates no more combat veterans, I among them. War is, as General Sherman described it, Hell. The fewer young men and women we put into that Hell the better.

But I know that is, at least for now an unattainable goal. The world is not full of peace and light and unicorns.

It's full of Iran and Al-Qeada.

We cannot fight Al-Qeada with good will and happy thoughts. We have tried that in the past.

It caused September 11, 2001.

We are seeing the effects again of our slackening resolve against Al-Qeada, with the increasing attacks in Afghanistan. This isn't the 1960's. We can't be the proverbial hippy, poking daisies in the gun barrels we face. The finger on that trigger isn't a well disciplined National Guardsman; its an uneducated young Moslem, hyped up on thoughts of revenge for imagined slights.

So we will, by necessity, create another generation of veterans. We'll send them off to do our dirty work, pray for them while they're gone and honor them when they return; either with a parade, or a flag-draped casket. It is only through our resolve to create and use that force, and, more importantly, the willingness of our young men and women to volunteer to do that dirty work, that this country is and will remain free.

To honor them, every year we set aside a day to recall and honor those men and women, their service, and their sacrifice.

Today is that day.

Take a minute today to thank a veteran you know; I think they have earned it.

Please, Spare Me

Last night was the long awaited- for me anyway- season premier of NCIS; the only show I watch on network TV.

And Obama almost ruined it.

If you don't follow the show, NCIS stands for Naval Criminal Investigative Service; basically an FBI for the US Navy. It is more or less a spin-off of JAG, an older Navy legal show. In it's tenth season, it is still consistently in the top ten. It also follows my prime directive; a good story convincingly told.

Anyway, last season ended with a cliff hanger (don't they all?) with a bomb going off at the NCIS headquarters, and all of the stars appearing to have gotten injured at the very least.

Well, as usual, all of the stars are fine.

But in the beginning of the show the Secretary of the Navy was on the bomb scene, and explained that finding the bomber was the highest priority. And he added that "The President has been briefed". Now I know this is fiction, and in repeats, even next summer, Obama won't be President, but last night my first thought, upon hearing that the President had been briefed was: "Did they catch him between the 17th green and the 18th tee?"

There was another scene where again the Secretary of the Navy was talking on the phone, apparently to the President again, and he hangs up and proclaims that "the President is giving the issue his full attention". I was watching the show with the wife and kids.

We all laughed.

But real kicker came when the characters were watching a news broadcast of the incident, and the news reader said something to the effect of: "The President says this act of terrorism". It was then that I knew the show was not talking about Obama.

The word terrorism is not in his vocabulary.

Did I See This In The News?

Sometimes it s impossible to satirize a situation.

I have posted about my new favorite site, Duffel Blog. 100% military satire. Including this article. I think.

Just how much Cultural Awareness do we need? Just how many times have our Marines had the idea that they need to be 'culturally aware' of the enemy?

And who on the other side is making sure they are culturally aware of us?

Yeah; that's what I thought.

4 Dead in Libya

People have always held differing opinions. Cain and Abel came to blows- and death- over their differing opinions, and that was, depending on you point of view, around 3,500 years ago. But civilized people have learned to argue differing points of view without bloodshed or injury, even during contested elections.

Not that we are completely blameless.We have had a Civil War and deadly riots in this country, and may have them again.

But for the most part, and most of the time, we accept one another as we are and peacefully coexist. Sometimes our feelings get hurt. We have government funded artists creating images that are disrespectful of religion, or of a particular faith. We express our outrage in blog posts, calls to radio shows and Letters to the Editor of the local paper.

But we don't determine that the artist was an atheist and go on a violent rampage against every atheist we can find.

Our currency of exchange in disputes is verbal, not physical.

After September 11th, both this week and 11 years ago, radical Moslems have clearly defined what their currency of exchange for discussion is.

It is violence and death.

As long as we fail to negotiate in the same currency we are seen as weak.

It is time to start being seen as strong, not weak.

They kill 4, we kill 40; or 400, or 4000.

Since violence and death are the currency they understand and seem to prefer, it is time to start talking in a way they will understand.

The problem is we can't. Our history; our culture, our religions, won't allow us to retaliate wholesale against a people for the actions of a few.

And it shouldn't.

But that restraint puts us in a terrible position for an exchange of ideas with the Middle East. Bluntly, I am no expert. I haven't spent years living in the area, or even studying the various cultures and sects. All I know is what I read in the papers and on the internet.

And I see a culture that believes the only way to deal with an issue that you don't like is to kill it.

James Lileks had a great column up yesterday, discussing this same thing. I guess it is on a lot of people's minds.

He references some recent occurrences, talking about the killing of gay young men in Iraq, and the incident in Afghanistan where a group of people were sentenced to death- a sentence that was carried out- for dancing.

I recall back in the late 1999 the Taliban were shelling with artillery fire an image of Buddha-  one that was thousands of years old and rather large, carved into the side of a cliff- because their religion didn't allow images like that. No discussion of what the culture that created it believed. They didn't like it, and they destroyed it.

The riots the other day in Egypt and Libya were allegedly caused by a movie available on YouTube that cast aspersions on the prophet Mohammed. They couldn't destroy the movie; they couldn't kill the men who made it, but they did ransack two US embassies and kill 4 Americans, including the US Ambassador to Libya.

As long as we are using words as our currency, and they are using violence, we can never come to any agreement. Its like trying to make a deal with a culture that prizes cow chips, while we are trading in gold; neither medium of exchange has any value in the other culture.

True, this is a subset of Islam, and only a certain number of people believe that jihad is the way to deal with the world. But it doesn't appear to me to be a Westboro Baptist Church situation and the balance of Christianity, or even the Baptist religion. Every time Westboro crawls out from under their rock they are soundly criticized. A verbal display, and a verbal chastisement.

When is balance of Islam going to chastise the violent segment of their religion?

Are they unable to, or just unwilling?

Eleven Years Ago Today

Today is the eleventh anniversary of the terrorist attacks on Washington and New York.

That's not news, is it?

I'm not sure how I feel about today. And the reason I lack a clear feeling about today is because of the media.

Any one over the of 16 remembers the attacks. Most of us watched them live, and watched the reporting go from a tragic and unexplainable plane crash to an attack. When the Pentagon was hit it became even plainer that there was an orchestrated attack under way.

We watched live as the second plane hit the second tower. We continued to watch live as almost 3000 fellow Americans died. Some by their own hand, in preference to dying in the towers themselves.

We were angry then. We should be angry now. But the images have faded. Where is the video that we all saw that day? The images of the planes hitting the towers; the smoke rising and the bodies falling? The video of men and women both running from and running to the towers? The images of a beautiful blue sky marred by the smoke and dust?

But these images are dangerous. They call out for revenge. On September 12th we were ready to go. Point us to an enemy and get the Hell out of the way. We were eventually pointed to Afghanistan, and then Iraq. As President Bush famously said: "Your either with us or against us".

We have fought Al-Qaeda for almost 11 years. We have found and killed Bin-Laden. We have cut  multiple heads off of the terror snake, but still we aren't done.

And it seems we are losing our resolve. The war has gone on too long; too many deaths. Too much treasure.

The problem is if we quit Al-Qaeda wins. They will get stronger. They will attack us again. and the war will go from being fought by the military in the Middle East to being fought with innocent lives in the Midwest.

Communism became the enemy of the West in the 1930's. We started fighting them in the 1950's, and beat Communism in the 1990's. Every President from Truman to Clinton fought Communism.

We didn't quit. We won.

We had constant reminders of the evils of the enemy. Even though most of the victims were their own citizens, and not ours, we fought. We had a resolve to win.

In 2002 we had a resolve to win this war too. Until the press politicized it; made it Bush's War. Constant reminders of the cost of the war were on TV.

But never footage of the reason for it.

There is the reason I am not sure how to feel about today. It is still politicized, and not just the War on Terror, but even the events of that day themselves.

Right down to Obama spiking the Bin-Laden football as often as he possibly can.

We haven't seen the cost of the war in the last few years. But I guarantee you we will as soon as Romney is sworn in. The death tolls will be come front page news again, and the anti-war protesters, recently dwindled down to a few die-hards (no pun intended) will start to gain in numbers again.

Today is not so much about remembering the men and women who died in the opening salvos of the War on Terror, as it is a weapon to be used by the media to gin up support for or opposition to the President, depending on whether he is friend or foe.

I'll take few minutes today, not just to remember the fallen heros of 9-11, but also those brave souls who have given the final sacrifice in the ongoing war.

And do my level best to forget the media even exists.

Cows a Threat to Homeland Security

I knew cows were a threat to our very existence. Well, at least according to the fringe Greens their flatulence is, but I never knew they would require the department of Homeland Security to track some down.

Here is one of those stories that just has to be blogged about; if you are a certain type of blogger.

I'm not sure what type of coverage this has been getting in the media; but my guess is none.

The Basics: An Individual Sovereignest owns 3000 acres near Lakota, North Dakota. some cows wander onto his property, and he refuses to return them, and allegedly runs the cops off at gun point. So they call in the nearest SWAT Team- from Grand Forks, some 60 miles away- who, with a warrant, asks the Department of Homeland Security to spy on the farm with a drone. They locate our hero/villain with the drone and bust in and arrest him. 

There is so much going on here that is not explained in the stories I have read. First; whose cows were they? Why did Rodney Brossart think he should be able to keep the cows? These two points alone would put a whole different spin on the case. Was this the first time or the fortieth that these cows have wandered on to his place? Did these cows possibly damage some crops or fencing that their owner was refusing to pay for? How many times were the cows owners warned to fix their fence and keep their livestock at home?

Or, did the law just show up one day, looking for some missing cows, and invited themselves, without a warrant, to look around Brossart's farm for them, and our hero/villain then had to resort to firearms to run the cops off his land? Do you see how this situation, well within the given fact pattern, makes the outcome look completely different? And we haven't even gotten to the drone use yet.

There is a whole lot more than going on here than is being talked about.

6 missing cows. Worth, what? $1,000-$1,500 each on the hoof? Say all 6 are worth $10,000. So this brings in the law. I can see it; for 10 grand. But again; what is the back story? Assume this is the first time they have wandered, assume the neighbor has asked for them to be returned, politely, and has been rebuffed with undue force. So he calls the law. So far in this scenario, our hero is a villain.

But, does anybody see a need for a SWAT Team and a Homeland Security drone? Let's say there was enough firepower on the farm to outgun the local police department. Back up, reinforcements maybe. But a SWAT Team? From outside the county?

Okay; lets assume the SWAT Team was necessary. Our villain has a history of attacks on police, or of just not playing well with others. Why is Homeland Security involved? Against an American Citizen, on his own land?

I'm sorry, this does not pass the smell test for me. There is more going on than is being reported on.

I also cannot condone the use of a Federal asset for enforcement of, at best, a very local issue. According to the article:

The SWAT team stormed in and arrested Brossart on charges of terrorizing a sheriff, theft, criminal mischief, and other charges, according to documents.

Which of these crimes is even a Federal crime, much less one Homeland Security should be involved in?

Personally, I believe like the expert quoted in the article:


While there's no precedent for the use of unmanned drones by law enforcement, John Villasenor, an expert on information gathering and drone use with the Washington, D.C.-based Brookings Institution, says he'd be "floored" if the court throws the case out. Using a drone is no different than using a helicopter, he says.

I agree; the use of a drone is no different that the use of a helicopter. And if they had used a Homeland Security helicopter, instead of one owned by a local police force, I would still be concerned. It's not the equipment that is the problem; it's who owns the equipment that is twisting my knickers.

The drone did not - according to the article- find any evidence or help in the development of the charges against Mr. Brossart. All it did was locate him for a quick arrest, on local charges.

Explain to me how these 6 missing cows were a threat to the existence and safety of the country, and I'll change my mind. But for now, I think we have a NoDak hero, not a villain.

If You Remember the '70s

You probably didn't enjoy them. Ain't that the old joke?

The trouble is, we are almost repeating the '70s; especially the late '70s.

Look at Mid-Eastern unrest. To be honest, I think we are screwed in that area of the world for a generation or more. And not just us; Europe and Asia too.Anybody who doesn't see Islamic theocracy in Egypt's future is whistling past the graveyard. Yemen and Libya too.

And then the wars start; just like he '70s. First they will go after Israel, get their collective asses handed to them again, and then the Shiites and the Sunnis will go after each other, again.

The bad news is we will not be burning Middle Eastern oil until maybe 2040. The good news is, neither will Western Europe, China, India or Russia.

The bad news is we won't be burning our own until 2015. Maybe. If we can get government permission to drill for it.

And I don't see that happening until Obama has to get out and help push Limo 1.

Face it; the only reason we give a rat's hindquarters about what happens in the Middle East at all is because of the oil. That's why we fought over it in WWII; to keep the oil out of Hitler's hands. That's why we have a presence there now, to keep the old USSR from taking the oil over. Because we- and every other industrialized nation on the face of the Earth- use oil to travel, produce goods, services and food, heat our homes and a thousand other things. Including power our National Defense.

We saw that in WWII also. The side that ran out of oil first lost. Oil is not "A" strategic resource, it is "THE" strategic resource.

Our entire economy is dependent on oil; cheap oil. Try to think of the last time you went a day without being dependent on oil for something. It could even be stretched to the idea that the coal that fired the boilers that made your electricity was delivered with oil fired towboats. So even that day you stayed home in the air conditioning and watched old movies was brought to you by oil.

Remember that post I did about your rights stopping at the end of my nose? How long until the unrest in the Middle East starts to effect the end of your nose with $5.00 a gallon gas? How long until we are nostalgic for $5.00 gas?

There is a reason that the United States sticks in nose in all over the world; what happens all over the world affects the way we live our lives; even more so than in teh 70's.

Egypt: Now What?

As I mentioned in this post, we have an interest in what goes in the rest of the world. I may not be my brother's keeper, but I sure should be his helper.

The problem in Egypt is the disconnect between the people and their government. On the radio today there was a report from Cairo where the reporter repeated what he had heard from some of the protesters in the square. Apparently there was at least one protester who felt the American government should have done more for the people of Egypt, and less for the government in the form of Mubarak.

Great Idea!

Now, how do we implement it?

Governments have to deal with governments. The folks in charge may not have a legitimate claim to being in charge, but they are the legally constituted folks what be in charge. And damn the bad luck we can't do anything about that.

Take North Korea. Other that the Chinese and Iran (talk about your strange bedfellows), there probably isn't a country on the face of this Earth that wouldn't love to see a regime change in North Korea. How do we go about it?

Declare war on North Koreans? Have our army fight their army? Would China join in? On who's side? And the end game would be what?

Thousands or more dead on both sides, wanton destruction of the Korean peninsula and eventually freedom and reunification.

Would that be best for the North Koreans? Set them free, but destroy the population and the landscape?

And who knows the cost for the South Koreans? Remember, North Korea has at least one nuclear weapon, and probably wouldn't hesitate to use it on Seoul, if it could, or Pyongyang if it couldn't.

Would that be better or worse for the North Koreans than living under the current regime?

Tough call, ain't it?

And Pyongyang is on our ENEMIES list. Egypt isn't.

Maybe the best way we can help the Egyptian people is by trying to modify their government, by bribing them to cooperate, a process sometimes called foreign aid.

The trouble is, to those on the bottom, it doesn't look like we're helping them, it looks like we're supporting the crooked regime.

And we are. Change is glacially slow, and the more we spend to try and get some reform, the tighter the nets are drawn, the more the people suffer and the more power the top man consolidates to himself.

And the US Dollars keep flowing in.

Rand Paul has a plan that drastically cuts this bribery. And we should. But maybe we should make sure we are completely self sustaining and isolated first, like we were in Washington's day.

I found this chart that in some ways asks more questions than it answers. Did you know ONE THIRD of all foreign aid goes to Egypt and Israel?

And we have no real idea how much we are spending in total.

Damn.

So back to the original question: What do we now do in Egypt?

The military is now in charge; we'll have to see if that is temporary, until the next election, or if this is just step one in a military coup. Elections in September. Free and Fair? Who wins?

And then what? What if the Free and Fair election votes in another Muslim theocracy? Then how do support the Egyptian people? Like we did the Iraqis under Saddam Hussein? Like the Iranians under the Ayatollah? Like the North Koreans?

It all looks so easy, doesn't it?

Until you start looking at the possible options, and the most likely results.

And no matter what happens, we're affected. The region is oil rich- damn the bad luck- Egypt is next to (and has a peace treaty with) our strongest ally in the area, Israel. What happens if the new, freely and fairly elected Egyptian government reneges on the treaty?

We are already fighting wars on two fronts in the area; are we ready for a third?

More importantly; are we ready for the consequences of our actions/inactions?

I wish I had more faith in the Democrats to handle this crisis. As is, I think were doomed.

What To Do About Egypt?

The current uprising in Egypt is in some ways fascinating, and others frightening.

The Egyptians are unhappy with their current government, and are seeking to change the rules. That's their right. They can choose any style or form of government the majority wants. They don't need our approval, right?

That's what my Libertarian side says.

But then there is the more practical side of me. George Washington warned us against getting involved in foreign wars, but the world was a lot larger in his day; Egypt could go to hell in a hand-basket and it wouldn't have effected us for months, if ever.

Today, if 6 people gather on a street corner in Cairo at 9 am and wave 2 signs and a burning American Flag, by 10:30 gas has jumped 15 cents.

One of the basic tenets of Libertarianism is that your rights stop at the end of my nose. Or maybe at my gas pump. Do we have the right to tell the majority of Egyptians that they may or may not choose their own style of government so I can enjoy a consistent price for my gasoline?

What if that style of government is radical, Sharia Islam? A style that could threaten to start a war between Egypt and Israel, one that may eventually involve the whole region?

Has this reached the end of my nose yet?

What about the American troops in Iraq that may suddenly get pitched into this ancient battle?

Not to mention that Egypt has been completely outfitted over the last 30 years with tons of American military equipment; equipment that radical Islamists would not hesitate to use against Israel. Or us.

How's that nose feel?

Sometimes we have to make hard choices about where to allow free will- that doesn't affect our interests- and not to allow irrational decisions that do.

This is one of those times. I just wish I had more faith in the current administration to do the right and competent thing.

Just like the last time that region blew up and we were stuck with Carter. 30 years later we are still living that nightmare.

Are we going to be living with what may become an Egyptian nightmare for 30 more?

Ready For the Next War?

I found this article through Instapundit this morning, and I have to disagree with the premise of the article.

Two things I will say first: One- Air Power was developed to save men on the ground; and Two- The Military always plans to fight the last war.

The article talks about how the Air Force budget is being cut, and air power being returned to the Army because that's how it works best in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fair enough. Local theater rules.

But to use the War on Terror as a basis for determining the future of the entire military force set up is crazy.

What will the next war be?

If we are again taking on a rogue regime in a low tech area, then this plan will work, just as it has worked in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But what if we're not? What if we are fighting China or Russia?

Sure carpet bombing in a limited war, like the War on Terror, is not an acceptable option. Does that mean we will never be in a situation where massive conventional bombing will be required?

Control of the air means control of the ground. We didn't over run Iraq in 36 days because our Army and Marine Corps was invincible (although they are incredibly capable); we did it because we controlled the air.

Look at it this way. One of the things that made space travel semi-affordable was the space shuttle; a reusable space vehicle. Think of an F-22 as a reusable cruise missile. A cruise missile is a great delivery option for a nuclear warhead. No crews are put at risk, and the cost is less than the risk of losing a plane and crew.

But to drop a conventional weapon that way doesn't make fiscal sense.

You also miss out on the psychological impact of men on the ground seeing a sky dark with bombers, each delivering a 40 ton payload.

Reducing our "need" for the technology of bombers and fighters also reduces our technological and manufacturing edge, something else I have been fighting agaisnt for the last few years.

Our military needs to be ready to fight any war; both the last one and the next one. The way Obama is going I wonder if we will be ready for ANY war.

America's Highest Honor

I just had to post this when I read it.

President Obama's remarks are remarkable.

Incredible story, and very illustrative of the best of America.

News You Can Use

I received this story in an email from my Aunt, and was initially going to blog it because it showed the bias in the media.

But always the responsible blogger, I wanted to check the veracity of the story first. Chain emails have been known to get things wrong, and the story seemed to good to be true, as far as confirming the media ban on 'good' stories from the military.

If you followed the link then you know the details, and you know the story is true. You also know that the recent email changed some details.

Which is why I'm doing this post.

The email leaves out the fact that petty Officer Monsoor was a SEAL, probably to make the final tribute seem more poignant.

They also changed the dates of the event and the awarding of the Medal of Honor, probably to make the story a current event.

And that's what has me torqued off at this point.

Somebody thought that they could use this brave SEAL's heroic death to gin up some political controversy, and created LIES about that death and tribute to make it seem like a current event.

And that has me madder than the original story. You don't use heroes for politics.

And the fact that apparently my side of the debate is doing it doesn't make it right; it makes it worse.

We are supposed to know better.