Terrorism

I am one of those people who read the whole newspaper, page by page and column by column. Some of the obscure bits of information seem to get stuck in a memory cell and tickle for some time after reading them. That was the case with a paragraph informing the reader that a 19 year old local girl was being deployed to an airbase in the Middle East where she would be supporting “Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom.” It was a short paragraph, taken from a DOD press release announcing her name, rank, and the small town where her parents lived and telling us that we were sending her into harm’s way. It has haunted me since I read it.

In October 2001 I was one of those Liberals who thought that President Bush was doing the right thing sending the Marines into Afghanistan after Bin Laden – Dead or Alive. Justice and our national self respect demanded nothing less. With that support came concerns written on the pages of history. Since Alexander led his Macedonians east of Persia to gave his name to Kandahar Afghanistan has been a graveyard of empire. Armies came to take control, bleed, and limp back home again. Britain and Imperial Russia came to play their innings of the Great Game and lost and lost again. The Soviets came and, after a decade of bleeding from a thousand cuts inflicted by a ragged rabble in arms, the Russian Bear retreated to curl up in its den to die. Into that graveyard of armies we were sending the Marines. We prayed and hoped for a swift conclusion.

Now eight years have passed. Eight years of IED along the roads. Eight years of bleeding from a thousand cuts and we are sending a young lady off to war. Eight years – and our Republican Congressman has decided that he can no longer support the war his President commenced. I have to wonder if we are fighting Yesterday’s War when Tomorrow’s Enemy is elsewhere.

Al Qaeda has its safe haven – but it is not in Afghanistan. It lies on either side of the Gulf of Aden, in Yemen and Somalia. It is there and on the seas between that the next Jihadi battles will be fought. Afghanistan will recede into barely remembered history and Kipling’s words. Let the American Empire not be buried there.

Via the Trib (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/12/draft-memo-details-moving-terror-suspects-to-thomson.html)

Although White House officials say there is no final decision, a government memo leaked today indicates preparations have been made for the U.S. to move forward with plans to buy an Illinois prison and use it to house suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The one-page memo surfaced on the Web site, biggovernment.com, which features conservative thought and opinion.

In an email to the Tribune, an administration official termed the memo a "predecisional" document that lawyers at various agencies were drafting in preparation for a potential announcement.

Drafts of official documents often are prepared for any and all possibilities, regardless of whether a decision has been made about the policy or if the document will be used, the official said.

Rep. Tim Johnson is opposed to the proposed move, saying that it would expose Illinois to a "terrorist threat."  (http://will.illinois.edu/news/spotstory/urbana-congressman-opposes-transfer-of-guantanamo-detainees-to-thomson-pris/)  What concerns me a little is the relative proximity to the Blackwater/Xe site in northwestern Illinois (see map below).

Welcome back 634th!

But I'm just a little curious, where was MG Dennis Celletti, CDR, Illinois Army National Guard, during all of the ceremonies for the return of the largest battalion in the state?

Next time anyone runs into him, ask General Celletti why, in 2006, a no-name security company based out of Chicago was awarded a contract to provide security for NG facilities around the state, strangely replacing Additional Duty soldiers who had been working directly for state security at each critical NG facility since 9/11/01. Also ask him why this company failed to provide weapons, training, or even conduct felony background checks on the personnel that it hired. Perhaps ask him why, at Marseilles Training Area, the largest training area in the state, with rugged off-road terrain, that security company provided only a SINGLE SEDAN that was up on a jack for months on end in full view of the front gate. Maybe ask why the employees of this company, spread out over the state, took their direct orders from their civilian supervisor in Springfield, instead of each local facilities' state security employee supervisor.

Finally, ask him why, after many complaints and questions, and no answers from the Puzzle Palace in Springfield, the company was quietly removed and replaced by a reputable, established security company.

He may not be the best lawyer.   He may not have any "game".   He is not Robert Dunn's favorite person.   But he is one hell of a Chairman! 

Please join me in wishing Chairman Barickman a HAPPY BIRTHDAY.

PS ..... I was kidding with the lawyer/game comment.   Happy Birthday!

I really don't know what to think about this, but it is definitely interesting and the back and forth was very entertaining. I particularly enjoyed the (comments about the) breast implants. Is Miss California wrong for answering a question honestly? I've included the CNN clip and the actual clip from the pageant.  When listening to the YouTube video I only heard cheers.    Is it a safe bet to assume Miss California will be significantly more popular than Miss USA?   I still can't get the (stupid attack on the) breast implants out of my head.   Discuss.

Embedded video from CNN Video

This week has seen a slaughter of the Palestinian people in Gaza that must have caused even the staunchest supporters of Israel to pause.  Israel has, thus far, committed the following atrocities, most of which are war crimes:

• Attack of relief vessel Dignity (carrying Cynthia McKinney among others) in international waters.
• Attack of Ibrahim al-Maqadna mosque during evening prayers, killing 13 people, including six children.
• Murder of 40+ civilians who were taking shelter in UN schools across Gaza.
• Forcing of Palestinians civilians into a home with no food or running water and then shelling that home killing over 30 people.

According to the UN, as of Friday (9 January) the Palestinians have suffered over 4100 casualties, with 800 dead and 3100 wounded.  Israel has suffered about 132 casualties, with 13 dead and 119 wounded.  Of the Israeli dead, three civilians and one soldier have been killed by rocket fire, five soldiers have perished in combat, and four have been killed by friendly fire.  Of the Palestinian dead, 257 have been children and 56 were women.  21 relief workers have also been killed.  Hamas claims that only 10 of its soldiers have been killed.  Assuming that this is an underestimate, and that 10x that number have been killed, that means about 200-300 male Palestinian civilians have also perished.

These numbers are shocking.  Israel has killed 600-700 innocent civilians in a couple of weaks, and injured thousands of others.  In return, Israel's civilian population has remained fairly immune from the fighting.

Yet, Israel's defenders continue to claim that they are morally justified in continuing the slaughter.  Even when they clearly break international law, and commit atrocities that can logically be called terrorism, Israel's supporters claim that they are only taking these measures because of the illegal actions of Hamas.  That, in short, if Hamas would "stop declaring that Israel must be wiped from the face of the earth" and "renounce terrorism against Israel", then their civilians would stop dying.

This argument disgusts me, as it should disgust any American.  It is almost a carbon-copy of the argument made by Ward Churchill in the days after September 11, 2001, in his essay, Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens.  Churchill started his essay by explaining the illegal activities of the U.S. Army during the first Gulf War, which resulted in the deaths of about 500,000 Iraqi children.

1991 US "surgical" bombing of [ Iraq's ] water purification and sewage facilities, as well as other "infrastructural" targets upon which Iraq's civilian population depends for its very survival.

... it should be noted that this sort of "aerial warfare" constitutes a Class I Crime Against humanity, entailing myriad gross violations of international law, as well as every conceivable standard of "civilized" behavior -- the death toll has been steadily ratcheted up by US-imposed sanctions for a full decade now. Enforced all the while by a massive military presence and periodic bombing raids, the embargo has greatly impaired the victims' ability to import the nutrients, medicines and other materials necessary to saving the lives of even their toddlers.

All told, Iraq has a population of about 18 million. The 500,000 kids lost to date thus represent something on the order of 25 percent of their age group. ... In effect, an entire generation has been obliterated.

He's right.  Our military broke international law when we bombed water and sewage treatment plants and the result of those actions was the death of hundreds of thousands of people.  Just as Hamas broke international law and "every conceivable standard of civilized behavior" when it launched rockets into Israel.  But Churchill subsequently went further, arguing:

As for those in the World Trade Center, well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire, the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved and they did so both willingly and knowingly.

In follow-up interviews he clarified his position, stating:

I am not a "defender" of the September 11 attacks, but simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned. I have never said that people "should" engage in armed attacks on the United States, but that such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, "Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable."

In other words, if a government (say ... Hamas) commits attacks on other countries that result in "death and destruction" (like ... rocket attacks) then the country that they attack (Israel?) has the right to "return" some of that destruction.  I have no doubt that many of Israel's staunchest defenders would agree with the quote from RFK.

Churchill was excoriated in the press for his remarks, and rightly so.  In fact, this blog has several posts in the archives show the righteous anger directed toward Churchill.  That so many of those same posters have now adopted his logic to defend Israel's actions is disappointing, to say the least.

As George W. Bush and Dick Cheney rapidly move from the center stage of American politics it might be wise to take a minute and remember what the last eight years of Republican rule have brought to America.  It seems to me that many Americans are so tired of Bush, Co. and so inspired by Obama, Co. that they are willing to let Bush and Cheney slowly fade into the woodwork.  That, imo, would be a big mistake.

Anyone interested in the policies pursued by the Republicans in DC following the 9/11 attacks and up to this day needs to watch Torturing Democracy - which is a free stream on the web.  Here's a preview:

There is a learning guide that accompanies the film, which looks useful for the classroom. I highly suggest this film, and Taxi to the Dark Side, for any American who is concerned about the lengths to which the Bush Administration has gone in the name of safety.  This should not be a partisan issue.  Americans should not torture prisoners.  And those responsible for these atrocities should, without a doubt, be held responsible through either American or international courts of justice.

Somebody missed the signs on this nutcase!  Some armed citizens might have help end it. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23059784/

This article, from the on-line New York Times, best describes the challenges facing the next president.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/magazine/27world-t.html?pagewanted=8&_r=1&th&emc=th

I always remain surprised that candidtaes are not asked who they would consider ideal members of their cabinet if they were elected.    This would be a significant insight into a candidate's thinking and policies.      

Dammit.

Last night,  The Commonwealth Club program on Will-AM played an October presentaion by retired general and former presidential candidate Wesley Clark.

He spoke of the mismanaged and lack of a coherent foreign policy when he was in the military (and how this is a problem of both major political parties), the invasion mentality of the most influential advisors of the current president, and the directions the U.S. needs to take to maintain its position as a global leader.

Some of his experiences concerning national foreign policy are very unnerving, and worth listening to

To hear his remarks, go to the following link and scroll down to the Oct 3rd program

http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/

Wesley Clark would seem a better president than any of the current candidates, either Republican or Democrat.

You can add that to the list of things that you thought you'd never see me write.

A summary:

Clinton's 50-minute speech, which started about an hour behind schedule, was derailed briefly by several hecklers in the audience who shouted that the 2001 terrorist attacks were a fraud. Rather than ignoring them, Clinton seemed to relish a direct confrontation.

"A fraud? No, it wasn't a fraud," Clinton said, as the crowd cheered him on. "I'll be glad to talk to you if you shut up and let me talk."

When another heckler shouted that the attacks were an "inside job," Clinton took even greater umbrage.

"An inside job? How dare you. How dare you. It was not an inside job," Clinton said. "You guys have got to be careful, you're going to give Minnesota a bad reputation."

Saw this come down the VA Watchdog.org wire from a Military.com article:

Why DoD Likely Will Lose Authority to Rate Disabilities

Congressional action to end the services’ authority to assign disability ratings and put the Department of Veterans Affairs in charge can’t come too soon for retired Army Lt. Col. Michael A. Parker.

Parker, 45, has complained for a couple of years to lawmakers and to the Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission about lax DoD oversight of the disability rating process and unfair disability decisions across the services.

...

The VDBC uncovered a March 1985 legal opinion from the DoD general counsel that allowed the services, without notifying Congress, to begin to hold down disability ratings. The services were to stop setting disability ratings based on all ailments and injuries found during medical evaluations and to start basing them only conditions that make a member unfit for duty.

The intent, it appears, was to save on retirement and medical costs. If a service discharges a member as unfit with a rating of 20 percent or less, he or she gets only disability severance. A 30 percent or higher rating brings “retiree” status, a lifetime annuity and lifetime military healthcare.

This appears to be a serious problem for thousands of GWOT veterans these days and implementing a working solution for them and future veterans is long overdue.

One thing I noticed was blatantly absent in this article was the massive VA claims backlog already giving headaches and heartache to veterans waiting for benefits. How would this affect the backlog? One can only assume that it will only increase the number of claims in backlog and increase the wait times as well. But to what degree? Given that many of these situations would have resulted in a VA claim anyways, would it be a significant jump? People are already demanding more resources be used to fix the current backlog. One hopes that these recommendations will be followed through with the appropriate resources to deal with the increase and current backlogs as well.

Long Version: here.

According to recent polling:

33 percent of all Americans, including 40 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of Democrats, say Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

What the hell?

Where are these people?

And where are the people who are supposed to be slapping them?

Honestly!

This article http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/08/post-11.html#more  discusses how Alberto Gonzales has undermined federal prosecutions and undermined the effectiveness of the Justice Department.   

I just noted an article in the BBC yesterday http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6763119.stm that tells of the trouble anticipated with the knighthood of Salman Rushdie. Militant fundamentalists of any stripe are as offensive to me as they are frightening. The effect of religious fundamentalists in national and international politics is astounding. That was most recently brought to mind when  I heard that several presidential candidates admitted that they did not believe in evolution. I was floored. Is this the twenty-first century? Even the Pope acknowledges evolution, for cripes sake.

How many of those who condemn Sir Salman have even read any of his work, much less The Satanic Verses? That book was from 1988; what issues have that much staying power? Rushdie is an incredibly intelligent and eloquent voice of reason in the world today. I was just wondering what you think?

Here's the perfect plan to end the war in Iraq:

Announce a timeline thus:

After 3 days of no violence, that means: no IED explosions, no car bombings, no kidnappings, no sniper fire, no executions or any other act that injures or kills attributed to an insurgent group.  Then the US announces that the clock for the end of the war has begun.  Initial plans for troop removal begin.

After 3 weeks of no violence, US troops pull back to bases, troop patrols are only made during evening hours.  US contractors begin reconstruction of basic utilities in or near major cities where needed.

After 3 months of no violence, US announces that troop withdrawals will begin.  Execution of plans for troop withdrawal begin.  Reconstruction of basic utilities is accelerated and expanded to areas outside major cities.

After 6 months of no violence, a full withdrawal of US troops begins.  A major push in reconstruction efforts begins.  Iraqi citizens are trained in various trades to a standard of excellence necessary to ensure that reconstruction efforts are of a quality that will last.

After 1 year of no violence, the withdrawal of all troops is complete.  Only military advisors, state department, and US Embassy personnel are present in Iraq.

After 2 years of no violence, normal economic relations with the US are reinstated.

Only one iron clad rule, if a violent act occurs at any step along the way, the troops come back, and the clock starts again. 

This is the only kind of timeline that gives the law abiding citizens of Iraq a chance to get their feet underneath them and create the economic climate that keeps people from joining the insurgency.  The religious leaders can sign on to this, because they are mostly for the US troops leaving and this is the easiest way to ensure that happens.  The US gets its win and goes home.

Any takers?

I just listened to some of her looney rants from the View, as cut by OReilly.  From what I gather, she believes that the Brits were in Iranian waters, on purpose, doing American dirty work, and trying to give the US an excuse to invade Iran.  And that the poor Iranians get no respect in the American press - they are being dehumanized so they will be easier to kill.  "Gulf of Tonkin - google it".

So, anyone agree with her?

Victor Davis Hanson has a great piece today about the connection between petrodollars and terrorism around the world.  He also notes how the need for oil in industrial nations distorts interstate relations.

Could a coalition be built in Washington today to ”Ëœstarve the beast' by moving America and the world off of Middle East oil dependence?  Conservatives could ask for greater exploration and drilling in America, more nuclear plants and maybe even large cash prizes for the accomplishment of some technological breakthrough in alternative energy.  Liberals could request greater conservation mandates and more funding, tax credits or mandates for alternative energy.  Even a higher gas tax, or gas mileage luxury tax on vehicles would be open for discussion.  When any of the above expenditures are compared to the amount of money spent fighting in Iraq, they sound like a pretty good deal.

Move away from an oil-based economy and give Americans a chance to ”Ëœshare some sacrifice' in the War on Terror ”“ could the time be right for such a compromise?

Personally, conservation mandates offend my sensibilities, but in the name of draining the Iranian bank accounts I could probably be convinced.