Veteran's Day

Honoring Veteran's Day

If you read this blog from time to time you will know that the Armed Forces and their Veterans are something I care very much about. No matter what the policy of their mission they ought to be respected and protected when they do their jobs right. [There are a few that do not and it is those who sully the name of our military forces.]

The members of the Armed Forces and their Veterans deserve our thanks and gratitude.

Show your gratitude by donating to the USO or by supporting veterans who have returned injured, physically or mentally. Remember the Government might let a soldier through the cracks, it is our job as a society to rescue them before they fall further.


Click here to donate to the USO (United Service Organization)

Click here to send a donation to DAV (Disabled American Veterans)

Trip Report Card (Part One)

Of course we couldn't let the Obama-thon World Tour go without analyzing just a little bit... So we officially present to you:

The Obama World Tour Report Card

In the interest of not re-hashing everything that has been on every cable-news channel and news report for the past two weeks this will be a quick strike report card. Quick, clear, and fair. What did Senator Barack Obama want out of his destination, what he got, where that got him, and a Grade. An overall grade is given at the end.

Kuwait

What was the objective: Land the plane somewhere "safe", Visit the troops, feign watchers into thinking he was going to Iraq
What actually happened: Visited troops, didn't play basketball because he was hurt
Problems: Low media reporting (in part due to clamping down on information about his next destination), not a lot of coverage of him with the troops (besides the picture above and a few more)
Grade: C-, people barely even know he was there.. or that he visited the troops there.

Afghanistan

What was the objective: Face time with President Hamid Karzai; Talk about importance of "original" War on Terror
What actually happened: Superb photo-op of Obama (walking with Karzai) looking presidential (above); Obama appears to be brave arriving days after 9 US troops are killed in Afghanistan; visits Bagram Airbase
Problems: Not a lot of face time with troops or commanders; only stays in safest part of Kabul; email about his alleged disrespect on his visit to Bagram sets the blogosphere on fire
Grade: B+/A-, First real coverage and pictures broadcast in the US show a confident Obama, followed by Sen. Hagel (R-NE) and Sen. Reed (D-R.I.) talking with President Karzai and looking very much at home

Iraq

What was the objective: Prove his plan on Iraq is based on facts on the ground, meet with US Generals, meet with the Iraqi Prime Minister (and have him agree with the 16-month plan); battle McCain ads bringing up his two-year absence from Iraq
What actually happened: Picture perfect. Another Superb Photo of Obama, Gen. Petraeus , and Hagel in a copter over Baghdad; Iraqi PM al-Maliki basically endorsed Obama again.. (this time accompanied by a press conference)
Problems: Sticks around the Green Zone
Grade: A-/A, sticks to his message and seems genuinely Presidential while chatting with Gen. Petraeus and Iraqi PM

Jordan

What was the objective: Visit an Arab Ally in the region, Meet with the King of Jordan - Abdullah II, Talk about Mid-East Peace
What actually happened: Met with the King (another great Photo-Op), got Chauffeured by the King (in his Mercedes S600 S-Guard), got lectured on the history and imperatives of Middle-East Peace, visited the ancient Amman Citadel (pictured above - Hagel on right, Reed on Left)
Problems: Getting told what to do by a King without actually being President sort-of hurt, talking about democracy and then visiting and commending a Monarchy is a bit ironic
Grade: B+, not very high-publicity visit but looked very comfortable in the Royal setting and fluent in Middle-East concerns.

Israel

What was the objective: Calm American Jewish concerns that he is not Pro-Israel enough, appear interested in solving the Israeli-Palestinian question
What actually happened: Met with PM Olmert, Defense Minister Ehud Barak (pictured above - on left), and FM Tzipi Livini(pictured above - on right); visits a Holocaust Museum (and looks moved); goes to the West Wall wearing a Yarmulke
Problems: Had conflicting messages about his view for Jerusalem, his youth creates the impression that he is not fully aware of the long painful history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Grade: C, meh.. he didn't do too bad but it seemed too formulaic without much real substance.


To be continued...

Please leave comments! Part II is coming withing a couple days.

When The Wrong People Like You...

This friend is nothing to boast about...


I am talking of course about Senator Obama's recent semi-endorsement by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki this week in Der Speigel, a German Newspaper.

You may hear from the Obama campaign that a semi-endorsement by al-Maliki is a true triumph of Obama's international appeal and a show of his foreign policy prowess.. those statements are wrong. Flat out wrong. The withdrawal plan Obama has been talking about for the past.. year or two seems like a pretty good idea.. until you get an endorsement on it from al-Maliki. Why my change of opinion on the plan? The endorsement.

Which leads to the question: Is Al-Maliki really that bad?

Simple Answer: Yes.

More complicated answer: Propping up and promoting PM Nour Al-Maliki is perhaps the one of the biggest mistakes of this Bush Administration. Now it seems natural for the Bush Administration in their simple-mindedness to take a Shi'ite to head the government.. but obviously beyond that fact they didn't do any vetting or research. This man LIVES for Iran and a united Shi'ite front of Persians (Iranians) and Arabs (Iraqis). He is only glad to see US troops getting out of the country because it will mean he will have more latitude and freedom in the targeted killing of Sunnis all in the name of the War on Terror and battling Al-Qaeda.

His power base comes mostly from Shi'ite clerics like Moqtada al-Sadr and al-Sistani who are very clear that they wish Iraq to be a nation for Shi'ites and Shi'ites ONLY. This kind of political alignment is hardly a testament to good will, political reconciliation or national unity.

Furthermore, you cannot trust this man any further than you can throw a dozen used car salesmen. He'll say anything to stay in power and keep international aid money coming his way. That aid money.. mostly goes to pad his and his cronies pockets and as much as 70% of arms bought "for the Iraqi National Army" in fact find their ways to militias run by his Shi'ite thug friends. Sure, he puts on a show every now and then to prove he's actually 'tough' on these militia criminals but in fact every time the outcome is the same, a 'truce' is announced and back to the status quo they go!

Well, I would hate to just rant and demolsih on al-Maliki, as I just did, for too long.. I should probably conserve some energy to spend on offering solutions. (I know, I know.. typical political bloggers and pundits are just suppose to whine without giving alternatives or solutions.. but I'm not your typical political enthusiast)

Solution(s): According to the Obama website, Sen. Obama's plan is basically two movements at once: combat troops out in 16 months, political pressure up to push progress. Instead Obama should focus on a series of benchmarks and goals to remove troops at varying speeds from differing areas depending on the political progress of his "diplomatic surge." The quick removal of troops is not exactly going to ratchet up the pressure on a government whose Interior Ministry basically exists to send out death squads and then protect them as government employees. It is Barack Obama's goal to "end the war" as soon as he is elected but instead taking a page out of this Bush Administration's book by blindly trying to do that, he should direct the military leaders on the ground there of his intentions to begin the removal of all non-essential combat troops and reserves and then listen to where from and when to remove them. The US needs to have a strong presence in the Iraq in order to at least slow down the total influence of Iranian politics on the Iraqi government.

Remember Barack, what this nation needs is a change of politics not just a change of policy.



Link: Original Article about Al-Maliki's Endorsement of the Obama plan - Der Speigel

Link: Analysis of Al-Maliki's Comments to Der Speigel - CNN

New GI Bill Needs to be passed

Salute our Soldiers, Pass the New GI Bill

The New GI Bill must be passed. It is the only right thing to do.

The New GI Bill as developed by Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) (and supported by John Warner (R-VA) and so many more) is being discussed right now in the Senate and I believe after taking a look at it that passage of this bill would really benefit our fighting men and women in uniform. It sets out to revamp the benefits that military members get after they leave the service. When the first GI Bill was passed to help the veterans of World War Two, the GI Bill gave these brave veterans a shot at a higher education that was completely paid for - a real boost to our economy no doubt as these people moved up the pay scale and had their minds opened to new ideas.

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) however (along with Senator Lindsey Graham(R-SC) ) disagree with that position. They say by offering more money for our brave veterans' education we are discouraging them from re-enlisting. This position is ridiculous! Are we not proud of their service? We should allow them to do with their time as they please considering they volunteered to put their lives on the line! In the McCain version of a new GI Bill (although it is difficult to not call it an anti-GI Bill) the military would slowly give the soldier more money based on the number of deployments and years they put in. Is one tour of duty in Iraq not enough? Senator McCain thinks so.

I believe I stand with many veterans and common sense decent Americans in saying, let the reward fit the service, Pass the New GI Bill.

---

Links:

The Carpetbagger Report - Webb calls McCain out on the GI Bill
CNN Story - Here

The US Re-education Camp in Iraq

Nothing draconian going on here...

The United States military runs a re-education prison in Iraq... yes, a re-education camp with 21,000 suspected militant sympathizers. It has been awhile since I last heard of a re-education camp but when I do it mostly pertains to Chinese "re-education facilities" where people disappear or draconian facilites run by the Soviet Union, Nazi German, or some other despotic dictatorship. The "Land of the Free"run by Rule of Law not barbarism runs a re-education camp... What would Dwight D. Eisenhower say if we told him? What would Thomas Jefferson say? Have we lost our common decency and national character in trying to stay secure from terror? The sad answer seems to be, Yes.

The re-education camp of 21,000 people or so is run mostly by the Marines in Camp Bucca, Iraq. The camp has been repeatedly reported for "incidents of detainee abuse", being undermanned, under resourced, and overpopulated. Some of Camp Bucca's inmates have been held for over three years without the benefit of a hearing. The inmates are generally those picked up from the Southern Iraq and the Basra region on suspicion of sympathizing with Al-Qaeda. Thousands get rounded up for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or associating with the wrong people and are sent to this prison camp (the American taxpayer just spent 2.3 million dollars building a brick factory to provide hard labor for the inmates). The inmates are then held until a hearing board hears their cases and with little or no evidence to go on either extend their detentions or let them go.

If you remember, the military operation to conquer Iraq and depose Saddam was called Operation Iraqi Freedom, Freedom being the operative word there. So, instead of freedom we go over there and detain people who probably haven't done anything (of the 3,000 people who have been released from the prison only 9 have returned to jail.) Just in case you think this is some run of the mill Abu-Ghrarib, it isn't - it also has extensive "reeducation facilities".

On first thought, the idea of inmates being taught math, civics, and other skill seems like a very good idea.. however, they also have a religious reeducation course, which make me wonder... Obviously, for the 2,000 inmates that are put aside as possibly involved with Al Qaeda religious (re)education could be helpful in teaching them the Truth of peace in Islam but the thought of mandatory religious education classes seems a bit contrary. First of all these inmates should have access to lawyers, a guarantee of speedy trials, and protection of indefinite detention. Next, the inmates should have the option of whether to go to these classes or not. If they do perhaps it would lead to some sort of earlier release so they can serve as a testament to others as reformed terrorists. If they do not attend then they do the time for the crime for which they were convicted.

Don't like the idea? Love it? Please Comment!

CNN Story: Here

MIlitary lowers Entrance Requirements.. Again.

The United States Military Service is quickly turning from the pride of the US to a rehabilitation service for felons and delinquents.

Today it was revealed that the Army and Marines would give even more waivers to those who want to enlist for felonies. This after they brought down the requirements for physical discipline, brought up the age at which a person could enlist, and had earlier given waivers for other crimes. Felonies, though? Really? COME ON! Shame!

If it were just some crazy felonies like.. I dunno.. Whale Hunting in Nebraska or something, I'd be cool with it but here are a few of the felonies that were waived so scum could join the military: assault, drug possession, sexual assault, and making terrorist threats. Hmm... Assault - maybe not so bad - I mean they are going to be trained to assault people anyways but maybe having a big temper isn't a good thing for someone who will be equipped with a weapon and interacting with some of the most powerful military machines in the world. Second, Drug Possession - Do you really want people who were on drugs and possibly still are to be in the Army, again equipped with a weapon, in Countries which have A LOT of drugs? I'm talking of course about Afghanistan, Iraq, and the US. Third, Sexual Assault? Is this possibly the reason that there are at least 527 investigations of Sexual Assault and Rape in Iraq alone? Just sayin'... Lastly and most ironically, Making Terroristic Threats, isn't that what we are sending them to FIGHT? I mean if they are making terroristic threats the Army should be sending them to be tortured "interrogated" at Gitmo, don't ya think?!

This is really despicable and the only lame excuse the Army and Marines could come up with is that it is there are fewer recruits today meet their standards. So that means we lower the standards? This is an insult to those who entered the service before these Waivers were issued and a slap in the face to anyone who believes in the honor and service of the US Military. That proud honorable people who joined the military service because of their patriotism and love for service have to serve in the same Army or Marine unit as convicted criminals is a slap in the face of every current and former person in the US Army and Marines. These criminals will sully the reputation of our military and our image worldwide. Do you want to be represented by some criminal? It will be no small wonder that our reputation around the world will keep plummeting around the world when the first thing face-to-face interaction with an American could be one of these convicts.

Certainly a few of these criminals who received waivers just made a mistake during their youth or something and are now better people.. however it is safe to assume that not 100 percent of them are and even one such person is a disgrace to our Department of Defense, after all these men and women are suppose to reflect our volunteer "patriot" soldier Army.

The only good thing that I can say concerning this topic is kudos to the US Air Force who did not give a single waiver in 2006 or 2007 and I am less disgusted with the Navy who reduced their waivers from 48 in '06 to 42 in '07.

Link to CNN story here