This day is not about vacations, or picnics, or just having the day off.
This day is about remembering the veterans that died in the defense of this great nation.
To give you an idea as to how many have given their lives for freedom, please read on.
All gave some. Some gave all.
American Revolution (1775–1783)
Total servicemembers 217,000
Battle deaths 4,435
Nonmortal woundings 6,188
War of 1812 (1812–1815)
Total servicemembers 286,730
Battle deaths 2,260
Nonmortal woundings 4,505
Indian Wars (approx. 1817–1898)
Total servicemembers 106,000(1)
Battle deaths 1,000(1)
Mexican War (1846–1848)
Total servicemembers 78,718
Battle deaths 1,733
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 11,550
Nonmortal woundings 4,152
Civil War (1861–1865)
Total servicemembers (Union) 2,213,363
Battle deaths (Union) 140,414
Other deaths in service (nontheater) (Union) 224,097
Nonmortal woundings (Union) 281,881
Total servicemembers (Conf.) 1,050,000
Battle deaths (Conf.) 74,524
Other deaths in service (nontheater) (Conf.) 59,297(2)
Nonmortal woundings (Conf.) unknown
Spanish-American War (1898–1902)
Total servicemembers 306,760
Battle deaths 385
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 2,061
Nonmortal woundings 1,662
World War I (1917–1918)
Total servicemembers 4,734,991
Battle deaths 53,402
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 63,114
Nonmortal woundings 204,002
Living veterans fewer than 500
World War II (1940–1945)
Total servicemembers 16,112,566
Battle deaths 291,557
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 113,842
Nonmortal woundings 671,846
Living veterans 4,762,000(1)
Korean War (1950–1953)
Total servicemembers 5,720,000
Serving in-theater 1,789,000
Battle deaths 33,741
Other deaths in service (theater) 2,827
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 17,730
Nonmortal woundings 103,284
Living veterans 3,734,000(1)
Vietnam War (1964–1975)
Total servicemembers 8,744,000
Serving in-theater 3,403,000
Battle deaths 47,410
Other deaths in service (theater) 10,789
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 32,000
Nonmortal woundings 153,303
Living veterans 8,295,000(3)
Gulf War (1990–1991)
Total servicemembers 2,183,000
Serving in-theater 665,476
Battle deaths 147
Other deaths in service (theater) 382
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 1,565
Nonmortal woundings 467
Living veterans 1,852,000(1)
1. Veterans Administration estimate as of Sept. 30, 2002.
2. Estimated figure. Does not include 26,000–31,000 who died in Union prisons.
3. Approximately 1,065,000 veterans had service in multiple conflicts. They are counted under each conflict, but only once in the total.
Source: Department of Defense and Veterans Administration.
America's Wars
Total Military service during war 42,348,460
Battle deaths 651,008
Other deaths in service (theater) 13,998
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 525,256
Nonmortal woundings 1,431,290
Living war veterans 17,578,5003
Living veterans 25,038,459
Post-Vietnam Combat Casualties(1)
Place Dates Casualties
Lebanon Aug. 1982–Feb. 1984 254
Grenada Oct.–Nov. 1983 18
Libya April 10–16, 1986 2
Panama Dec. 1989–Jan. 1990 23
Persian Gulf Jan. 16–April 6, 1991 147
Somalia Dec. 1992–May 1993 29
Haiti Sept. 1994–April 1996 4
Yugoslavia March–June 1999 0
Afghanistan Oct. 2001–Jan. 2004(2) 32
Iraq March 20, 2003–May 18, 2004(2) 574
1. Defined as battle deaths. Does not include deaths from accidents.
2. A total of 787 Americans have been killed, including 213 accidental deaths and other deaths not the result of hostile attacks. 4,524 were wounded in combat (May 18); a total of roughly 9,000 were wounded, seriously injured, or evacuated for illness (mid-April).
Don't forget what this day is really for.
Thank a veteran and remember the fallen.
God Bless our troops.
Saturday, May 29, 2004
Friday, May 28, 2004
"Baby Killers", the Media has Succeeded in Their Efforts
"Baby Killers", the media has succeeded in their efforts to create a Vietnam like environment at home.
Now military personnel are being called "baby killers", and this goes on at campuses where ROTC is held as well.
This is an utterly abhorrent behavior and is the wrong attitude towards our Armed Forces. Should someone say it to me, in my face, they will be eating their meals through a straw.
How dare anyone out there say this to any service member, past, present, or future!
It is the soldier, not the reporter who has given us the freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag.
This is a war that needs to be fought, anywhere, except on American soil.
If innocents die, it is a fact of war.
Innocent people died in the WTC attack on September 11, 2001. You do remember that, don't you?
Innocent people are not killed by the US Armed Forces purposely. At times, they may be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is a fact of war.
However, on that note, the enemy that we are fighting, has no morals, nor do they have any concern over the deaths of innocents that they cause, on a regular basis.
Nick Berg comes to mind. As well as those four contractors that were delivering aid.
But, to label any service member a baby killer out of spite and lack of support for this war, is absolutely asinine.
You have to be a complete idiot to do so.
Take it from me, a retired Army combat veteran; you put your own life in your hands when you do this. If it weren't for the discipline and fortitude that the soldier has, you would at a minimum, be sucking dinner through a straw.
If you don't like the policies of the current administration; so be it, take it out on them at the voting booth.
As for the soldiers, if you can't say: "thank you for your service" and "have a nice day", then shut the hell up. That soldier is there to protect this country and the freedoms that you obviously enjoy, try saying that in a dictatorship, such as the one we just liberated.
To a soldier, it doesn't matter what party holds the office, they still follow the orders of the Commander in Chief.
By calling one a "baby killer", you are not harming the president, you are harming that soldier's pride and lowering his confidence in the American people that may lead to defeat.
Let's not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory here.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS! ALWAYS!
Now military personnel are being called "baby killers", and this goes on at campuses where ROTC is held as well.
This is an utterly abhorrent behavior and is the wrong attitude towards our Armed Forces. Should someone say it to me, in my face, they will be eating their meals through a straw.
How dare anyone out there say this to any service member, past, present, or future!
It is the soldier, not the reporter who has given us the freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag.
This is a war that needs to be fought, anywhere, except on American soil.
If innocents die, it is a fact of war.
Innocent people died in the WTC attack on September 11, 2001. You do remember that, don't you?
Innocent people are not killed by the US Armed Forces purposely. At times, they may be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is a fact of war.
However, on that note, the enemy that we are fighting, has no morals, nor do they have any concern over the deaths of innocents that they cause, on a regular basis.
Nick Berg comes to mind. As well as those four contractors that were delivering aid.
But, to label any service member a baby killer out of spite and lack of support for this war, is absolutely asinine.
You have to be a complete idiot to do so.
Take it from me, a retired Army combat veteran; you put your own life in your hands when you do this. If it weren't for the discipline and fortitude that the soldier has, you would at a minimum, be sucking dinner through a straw.
If you don't like the policies of the current administration; so be it, take it out on them at the voting booth.
As for the soldiers, if you can't say: "thank you for your service" and "have a nice day", then shut the hell up. That soldier is there to protect this country and the freedoms that you obviously enjoy, try saying that in a dictatorship, such as the one we just liberated.
To a soldier, it doesn't matter what party holds the office, they still follow the orders of the Commander in Chief.
By calling one a "baby killer", you are not harming the president, you are harming that soldier's pride and lowering his confidence in the American people that may lead to defeat.
Let's not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory here.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS! ALWAYS!
Thursday, May 27, 2004
Ignored Heroes At My Lai And Abu Ghraib Who Stopped Atrocities
I feel that this needs to be posted as a response to all the negative crap from the media, so here is the story from Conservative Truth:
Mary Mostert
by, Banner of Liberty
Seymour Hersh, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his “exposé” of the My Lai massacre of March 1968, is at it again. His most recent article, “The Gray Zone”, published in the New Yorker Magazine reads like a rerun of some of his Vietnam War era “exposé” articles, such as the one on the My Lai massacre. That article led the American People to demand an end to American military efforts in Vietnam and turned the nation over to the North Vietnamese communists. This time Hersh claims that “according to interviews with several past and present American intelligence officials,” the misbehavior of the picture-taking US Army MPS at Abu Ghraib prison was “approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.”
And just how does he know that? Because he says so, that’s how. Hersh wants us to take his word for those unnamed and possibly imaginary intelligence officials to undermine the Secretary of Defense and the President and convince us we need to, again, cut and run.
As I have already said, if a bit of humiliation worked to get information out of terrorists planning on slaughtering hundreds, if not thousands of other people, it would not really upset me unduly. However, in this case there is an entirely different issue here. The real issue is Hersh’s inability to tell both sides of the story.
That, after all, is exactly what he did with the My Lai massacre. What was NOT reported by Hersh at that time, and is again NOT being reported, is the heroism of soldiers who tried to stop both events. It was not the media that uncovered either story. In both cases ordinary soldiers who were witnesses to those events stopped the actions and alerted their commanding officers. Then the Army took action.
While even today nearly everyone knows the name of Lt. William Calley, who was court-martialed for the My Lai massacre, few today know the name of Hugh Thompson, the helicopter pilot who stopped the massacre and promptly reported it to his commander. According to Chief My Lai prosecutor William Eckhardt, when Thompson realized what was happening, “He put his helicopter down, put his guns on Americans, and said he would shoot them if they shot another Vietnamese. He then had his people wade in the ditch in gore to their knees, to their hips, took out children, took them to the hospital...flew back [to headquarters], standing in front of people, tears rolling down his cheeks, pounding on the table saying, 'Notice, notice, notice'...then had the courage to testify time after time after time."
Hugh Thompson’s heroism was not considered news during the Vietnam War by the American media and today the heroism of another young soldier who reported the abuse to his commanding officer is not being reported. In fact, the report issued by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba notes that, “Numerous witnesses stated that the 800th MP Brigade S-1, MAJ Hinzman and S-4, MAJ Green, were essentially dysfunctional, but that despite numerous complaints, these officers were not replaced.” You can also read that in spite of the really bad leadership the unit had from its female Brigadier General and a couple of other officers, that Taguba reported there were many in the unit who refused to follow orders they knew were not right. Some of them were mentioned by name:
1. Master-at-Arms First Class William J. Kimbro, US Navy Dog Handler, knew his duties and refused to participate in improper interrogations despite significant pressure from the MI personnel at Abu Ghraib.
SPC Joseph M. Darby, 372nd MP Company discovered evidence of abuse and turned it over to military law enforcement.
1LT David O. Sutton, 229th MP Company, took immediate action and stopped an abuse, then reported the incident to the chain of command.
The issue isn’t that bad things have happened in both wars. After all, bad things happen in all wars. It is the propaganda spin put on the events that is the issue here. It is the fact that the media simply will not report both sides of the Abu Ghraib story. They prefer to try to pin the responsibility on someone who was not there and who was appalled when he found out about it.
Another part of the story, which is hard to find among all the charges that only the lowly soldiers taking orders are being reprimanded, is that the female commanding officer of the unit, Brigidier General Janis L. Karpinski was relieved of her duties for incompetence. Also, six other officers, a colonel, two lieutenant colonels, a major, a captain, and a lst lieutenant, plus a couple of sergeants and a couple of private contractors, were relieved of duty.
One of the reasons they were promptly removed was for lying to the investigators. Made me think of the US Senate that didn’t think a president who had lied to a court of law and the American people should be removed of his duties back in 1999. Obviously, we expect more these days from sergeants and contractors than we did in ’99 from a president.
But the real story here is the really remarkable change that took place when Abu Ghraib, a major torture and murder center for prisoners under Saddam Hussein, fell under the command of an obviously incompetent American female commander. Her incompetent rule of the prison was short-lived, because some under her command, being citizens of a free nation, refused to follow orders they knew were wrong and promptly reported what was happening to a higher command.
Can you imagine that happening under Saddam Hussein or, for that matter, in ANY Muslim nation in the Middle East? Neither can I and neither can the Arab media – if they were honest.
ConservativeTruth.org
Mary Mostert
by, Banner of Liberty
Seymour Hersh, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his “exposé” of the My Lai massacre of March 1968, is at it again. His most recent article, “The Gray Zone”, published in the New Yorker Magazine reads like a rerun of some of his Vietnam War era “exposé” articles, such as the one on the My Lai massacre. That article led the American People to demand an end to American military efforts in Vietnam and turned the nation over to the North Vietnamese communists. This time Hersh claims that “according to interviews with several past and present American intelligence officials,” the misbehavior of the picture-taking US Army MPS at Abu Ghraib prison was “approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.”
And just how does he know that? Because he says so, that’s how. Hersh wants us to take his word for those unnamed and possibly imaginary intelligence officials to undermine the Secretary of Defense and the President and convince us we need to, again, cut and run.
As I have already said, if a bit of humiliation worked to get information out of terrorists planning on slaughtering hundreds, if not thousands of other people, it would not really upset me unduly. However, in this case there is an entirely different issue here. The real issue is Hersh’s inability to tell both sides of the story.
That, after all, is exactly what he did with the My Lai massacre. What was NOT reported by Hersh at that time, and is again NOT being reported, is the heroism of soldiers who tried to stop both events. It was not the media that uncovered either story. In both cases ordinary soldiers who were witnesses to those events stopped the actions and alerted their commanding officers. Then the Army took action.
While even today nearly everyone knows the name of Lt. William Calley, who was court-martialed for the My Lai massacre, few today know the name of Hugh Thompson, the helicopter pilot who stopped the massacre and promptly reported it to his commander. According to Chief My Lai prosecutor William Eckhardt, when Thompson realized what was happening, “He put his helicopter down, put his guns on Americans, and said he would shoot them if they shot another Vietnamese. He then had his people wade in the ditch in gore to their knees, to their hips, took out children, took them to the hospital...flew back [to headquarters], standing in front of people, tears rolling down his cheeks, pounding on the table saying, 'Notice, notice, notice'...then had the courage to testify time after time after time."
Hugh Thompson’s heroism was not considered news during the Vietnam War by the American media and today the heroism of another young soldier who reported the abuse to his commanding officer is not being reported. In fact, the report issued by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba notes that, “Numerous witnesses stated that the 800th MP Brigade S-1, MAJ Hinzman and S-4, MAJ Green, were essentially dysfunctional, but that despite numerous complaints, these officers were not replaced.” You can also read that in spite of the really bad leadership the unit had from its female Brigadier General and a couple of other officers, that Taguba reported there were many in the unit who refused to follow orders they knew were not right. Some of them were mentioned by name:
1. Master-at-Arms First Class William J. Kimbro, US Navy Dog Handler, knew his duties and refused to participate in improper interrogations despite significant pressure from the MI personnel at Abu Ghraib.
SPC Joseph M. Darby, 372nd MP Company discovered evidence of abuse and turned it over to military law enforcement.
1LT David O. Sutton, 229th MP Company, took immediate action and stopped an abuse, then reported the incident to the chain of command.
The issue isn’t that bad things have happened in both wars. After all, bad things happen in all wars. It is the propaganda spin put on the events that is the issue here. It is the fact that the media simply will not report both sides of the Abu Ghraib story. They prefer to try to pin the responsibility on someone who was not there and who was appalled when he found out about it.
Another part of the story, which is hard to find among all the charges that only the lowly soldiers taking orders are being reprimanded, is that the female commanding officer of the unit, Brigidier General Janis L. Karpinski was relieved of her duties for incompetence. Also, six other officers, a colonel, two lieutenant colonels, a major, a captain, and a lst lieutenant, plus a couple of sergeants and a couple of private contractors, were relieved of duty.
One of the reasons they were promptly removed was for lying to the investigators. Made me think of the US Senate that didn’t think a president who had lied to a court of law and the American people should be removed of his duties back in 1999. Obviously, we expect more these days from sergeants and contractors than we did in ’99 from a president.
But the real story here is the really remarkable change that took place when Abu Ghraib, a major torture and murder center for prisoners under Saddam Hussein, fell under the command of an obviously incompetent American female commander. Her incompetent rule of the prison was short-lived, because some under her command, being citizens of a free nation, refused to follow orders they knew were wrong and promptly reported what was happening to a higher command.
Can you imagine that happening under Saddam Hussein or, for that matter, in ANY Muslim nation in the Middle East? Neither can I and neither can the Arab media – if they were honest.
ConservativeTruth.org
Saturday, May 22, 2004
"Wedding Party" is BS
Again the media jumps all over the terrorist propaganda prior to gaining any facts what so ever.
I don't know about you, but I am certainly getting tired of the liberal, terrorist slant that the media has gone to.
The "wedding party" turned out to be a gathering of terroris insurgents, that actually fired on the US forces prior to getting their collective asses handed to them.
You would think that the media would pick up on the fact that the area that was hit was under surveillance by ground units prior to the air strike.
Maybe that is asking too much though.
I would venture to say that 90% of the media have never been in the military, and wouldn't pick up on such nuances as I've mentioned.
The "wedding party" was investigated by the military and there were no children involved although there were six women killed at the site, I would venture a guess, that they were involved up to their eye balls with the terrorists.
It also appears that the footage of the dead women and children was from a completely different geographical area.
Where are the headlines reporting this?
Where are the Democraps and their apologists on this one?
Here's the story from the Defense Department.
Don't give me this crap that you can't trust what they put out! I trust the military a hell of a lot more than I do the friggin media!
Article
I don't know about you, but I am certainly getting tired of the liberal, terrorist slant that the media has gone to.
The "wedding party" turned out to be a gathering of terroris insurgents, that actually fired on the US forces prior to getting their collective asses handed to them.
You would think that the media would pick up on the fact that the area that was hit was under surveillance by ground units prior to the air strike.
Maybe that is asking too much though.
I would venture to say that 90% of the media have never been in the military, and wouldn't pick up on such nuances as I've mentioned.
The "wedding party" was investigated by the military and there were no children involved although there were six women killed at the site, I would venture a guess, that they were involved up to their eye balls with the terrorists.
It also appears that the footage of the dead women and children was from a completely different geographical area.
Where are the headlines reporting this?
Where are the Democraps and their apologists on this one?
Here's the story from the Defense Department.
Don't give me this crap that you can't trust what they put out! I trust the military a hell of a lot more than I do the friggin media!
Article
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
Talking Heads
Again I am inundated with the talking heads in the media and their lackies.
Here is a great letter that was published in USA Today.
The letter comes from a Marine currently in Iraq.
A Marine sees what defeatists don't
By Ben Connable
RAMADI, Iraq — This is my third deployment with the 1st Marine Division to the Middle East.
This is the third time I've heard the quavering cries of the talking heads predicting failure and calling for withdrawal.
This is the third time I find myself shaking my head in disbelief.
Setbacks and tragedy are part and parcel of war and must be accepted on the battlefield. We can and will achieve our goals in Iraq.
Waiting for war in the Saudi Arabian desert as a young corporal in 1991, I recall reading news clippings portending massive tank battles, fiery death from Saddam Hussein's "flame trenches" and bitter defeat at the hands of the fourth-largest army in the world. My platoon was told to expect 75% casualties. Being Marines and, therefore, naturally cocky, we still felt pretty good about our abilities.
The panicky predictions failed to come true. The flame trenches sputtered. Nobody from my platoon died. Strength, ingenuity and willpower won the day. Crushing the fourth-largest army in the world in four days seemed to crush the doubts back home.
Twelve years passed, during which time America was faced with frustrating actions in Somalia and the Balkans. Doubt had begun to creep back into public debate.
In the spring of last year, I was a Marine captain, back with the division for Operation Iraqi Freedom. As I waited for war in the desert, just 100 miles to the north from our stepping-off point in 1991, I was again subjected to the panicky analyses of talking heads. There weren't enough troops to do the job, the oil fields would be destroyed, we couldn't fight in urban terrain, our offensive would grind to a halt, and we should expect more than 10,000 casualties.
Remembering my experience in Desert Storm, I took these assessments with a grain of salt. As a staff officer in the division command post, I was able to follow the larger battle as we moved forward. I knew that our tempo was keeping the enemy on his heels and that our plan would lead us to victory.
But war is never clean and simple. Mourning our losses quietly, the Marines drove to Baghdad, then to Tikrit, liberating the Iraqi people while losing fewer men than were lost in Desert Storm.
In May of last year, I was sitting with some fellow officers back in Diwaniyah, Iraq, the offensive successful and the country liberated from Saddam. I received a copy of a March 30 U.S. newspaper on Iraq in an old package that had finally made its way to the front. The stories: horror in Nasariyah, faltering supply lines and demonstrations in Cairo. The mood of the paper was impenetrably gloomy, and predictions of disaster abounded. The offensive was stalled; everyone was running out of supplies; we would be forced to withdraw.
The Arab world was about to ignite into a fireball of rage, and the Middle East was on the verge of collapse. If I had read those stories on March 30, I would have had a tough time either restraining my laughter or, conversely, falling into a funk. I was concerned about the bizarre kaleidoscope image of Iraq presented to the American people by writers viewing the world through a soda straw.
Returning to Iraq this past February, I knew that the Marines had a tremendous opportunity to follow through on our promises to the Iraqi people.
Believing in the mission, many Marines volunteered to return. I again found myself in the division headquarters.
Just weeks ago, I read that the supply lines were cut, ammunition and food were dwindling, the "Sunni Triangle" was exploding, cleric Muqtada al-Sadr was leading a widespread Shiite revolt, and the country was nearing civil war.
As I write this, the supply lines are open, there's plenty of ammunition and food, the Sunni Triangle is back to status quo, and Sadr is marginalized in Najaf. Once again, dire predictions of failure and disaster have been dismissed by American willpower and military professionalism.
War is inherently ugly and dramatic. I don't blame reporters for focusing on the burning vehicles, the mutilated bodies or the personal tragedies. The editors have little choice but to print the photos from the Abu Ghraib prison and the tales of the insurgency in Fallujah. These things sell news and remind us of the sober reality of our commitment to the Iraqi people. The actions of our armed forces are rightfully subject to scrutiny.
I am not ignorant of the political issues, either. But as a professional, I have the luxury of putting politics aside and focusing on the task at hand. Protecting people from terrorists and criminals while building schools and lasting friendships is a good mission, no matter what brush it's tarred with.
Nothing any talking head will say can deter me or my fellow Marines from caring about the people of Iraq, or take away from the sacrifices of our comrades. Fear in the face of adversity is human nature, and many people who take the counsel of their fears speak today. We are not deaf to their cries; neither do we take heed. All we ask is that Americans stand by us by supporting not just the troops, but also the mission.
We'll take care of the rest.
Maj. Ben Connable is serving as a foreign-area officer and intelligence officer with the 1st Marine Division.
------------------------------------------------------------------
This couldn't be stated more eloquently than this.
I salute you sir.
Here is a great letter that was published in USA Today.
The letter comes from a Marine currently in Iraq.
A Marine sees what defeatists don't
By Ben Connable
RAMADI, Iraq — This is my third deployment with the 1st Marine Division to the Middle East.
This is the third time I've heard the quavering cries of the talking heads predicting failure and calling for withdrawal.
This is the third time I find myself shaking my head in disbelief.
Setbacks and tragedy are part and parcel of war and must be accepted on the battlefield. We can and will achieve our goals in Iraq.
Waiting for war in the Saudi Arabian desert as a young corporal in 1991, I recall reading news clippings portending massive tank battles, fiery death from Saddam Hussein's "flame trenches" and bitter defeat at the hands of the fourth-largest army in the world. My platoon was told to expect 75% casualties. Being Marines and, therefore, naturally cocky, we still felt pretty good about our abilities.
The panicky predictions failed to come true. The flame trenches sputtered. Nobody from my platoon died. Strength, ingenuity and willpower won the day. Crushing the fourth-largest army in the world in four days seemed to crush the doubts back home.
Twelve years passed, during which time America was faced with frustrating actions in Somalia and the Balkans. Doubt had begun to creep back into public debate.
In the spring of last year, I was a Marine captain, back with the division for Operation Iraqi Freedom. As I waited for war in the desert, just 100 miles to the north from our stepping-off point in 1991, I was again subjected to the panicky analyses of talking heads. There weren't enough troops to do the job, the oil fields would be destroyed, we couldn't fight in urban terrain, our offensive would grind to a halt, and we should expect more than 10,000 casualties.
Remembering my experience in Desert Storm, I took these assessments with a grain of salt. As a staff officer in the division command post, I was able to follow the larger battle as we moved forward. I knew that our tempo was keeping the enemy on his heels and that our plan would lead us to victory.
But war is never clean and simple. Mourning our losses quietly, the Marines drove to Baghdad, then to Tikrit, liberating the Iraqi people while losing fewer men than were lost in Desert Storm.
In May of last year, I was sitting with some fellow officers back in Diwaniyah, Iraq, the offensive successful and the country liberated from Saddam. I received a copy of a March 30 U.S. newspaper on Iraq in an old package that had finally made its way to the front. The stories: horror in Nasariyah, faltering supply lines and demonstrations in Cairo. The mood of the paper was impenetrably gloomy, and predictions of disaster abounded. The offensive was stalled; everyone was running out of supplies; we would be forced to withdraw.
The Arab world was about to ignite into a fireball of rage, and the Middle East was on the verge of collapse. If I had read those stories on March 30, I would have had a tough time either restraining my laughter or, conversely, falling into a funk. I was concerned about the bizarre kaleidoscope image of Iraq presented to the American people by writers viewing the world through a soda straw.
Returning to Iraq this past February, I knew that the Marines had a tremendous opportunity to follow through on our promises to the Iraqi people.
Believing in the mission, many Marines volunteered to return. I again found myself in the division headquarters.
Just weeks ago, I read that the supply lines were cut, ammunition and food were dwindling, the "Sunni Triangle" was exploding, cleric Muqtada al-Sadr was leading a widespread Shiite revolt, and the country was nearing civil war.
As I write this, the supply lines are open, there's plenty of ammunition and food, the Sunni Triangle is back to status quo, and Sadr is marginalized in Najaf. Once again, dire predictions of failure and disaster have been dismissed by American willpower and military professionalism.
War is inherently ugly and dramatic. I don't blame reporters for focusing on the burning vehicles, the mutilated bodies or the personal tragedies. The editors have little choice but to print the photos from the Abu Ghraib prison and the tales of the insurgency in Fallujah. These things sell news and remind us of the sober reality of our commitment to the Iraqi people. The actions of our armed forces are rightfully subject to scrutiny.
I am not ignorant of the political issues, either. But as a professional, I have the luxury of putting politics aside and focusing on the task at hand. Protecting people from terrorists and criminals while building schools and lasting friendships is a good mission, no matter what brush it's tarred with.
Nothing any talking head will say can deter me or my fellow Marines from caring about the people of Iraq, or take away from the sacrifices of our comrades. Fear in the face of adversity is human nature, and many people who take the counsel of their fears speak today. We are not deaf to their cries; neither do we take heed. All we ask is that Americans stand by us by supporting not just the troops, but also the mission.
We'll take care of the rest.
Maj. Ben Connable is serving as a foreign-area officer and intelligence officer with the 1st Marine Division.
------------------------------------------------------------------
This couldn't be stated more eloquently than this.
I salute you sir.
Tuesday, May 18, 2004
Senator Kennedy
This guy has got to be the biggest asshat in politics today.
This idiot doesn't know when to shut his fat mouth.
In my not so humble opinion, this guy is a traitor.
There is no if, ands, or buts about it.
Traitor.
He should be censured and removed in irons from the Senate floor, never allowed to return.
Here are a few examples of his treason from the Mobile Register.
"Kennedy's calumnies have gone way too far
Saturday, May 15, 2004
Edward Kennedy ought to resign from the U.S. Senate.
Likewise, Sen. Kennedy's protegé John Kerry ought to publicly disassociate himself from, and denounce in no uncertain terms, his mentor's latest inflammatory remarks.
Sen. Kennedy has made a career of verbal attacks so vicious that few other politicians could get away with them. But the frequency and outrageousness of his cheap shots have increased in recent years -- and this past Monday he outdid himself.
His remarks on the Senate floor were so obnoxious, so inexcusable, that no apology can make amends for them. In them, Sen. Kennedy had the gall to assert a moral equivalence between the routine brutality of Saddam Hussein's regime and the humiliating, but exceptional, treatment of some Iraqi prisoners by their American guards.
Consider Mr. Kennedy's statement: "Protection of the Iraqi people from the cruelty of Saddam had become one of the administration's last remaining rationalizations for going to war. All of the other trumped-up rationalizations have collapsed. ... On Dec. 24, 2003 -- the day Saddam was captured -- President Bush said, 'For the vast majority of Iraqi citizens who wish to live as free men and women, this event brings further assurance that the torture chambers and the secret police are gone forever.' On March 19, 2004, President Bush asked: 'Who would prefer that Saddam's torture chambers still be open?' Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management -- U.S. management."
This comes on top of Mr. Kennedy saying last year that the entire war effort was a "fraud" undertaken for political advantage, while accusing President Bush of using "bribery" to secure the support of foreign leaders.
It comes on top of him calling judicial nominees "Neanderthals." And on and on go the examples of his calumnies, including, most famously, when he slandered Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork in 1987 thusly: "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens."
This is all hate speech, pure and simple, coming from a man whose own moral compass has time and again been notoriously skewed.
Is there any doubt that this man should step down from the Senate?
There is no doubt in my mind.
Article
This idiot doesn't know when to shut his fat mouth.
In my not so humble opinion, this guy is a traitor.
There is no if, ands, or buts about it.
Traitor.
He should be censured and removed in irons from the Senate floor, never allowed to return.
Here are a few examples of his treason from the Mobile Register.
"Kennedy's calumnies have gone way too far
Saturday, May 15, 2004
Edward Kennedy ought to resign from the U.S. Senate.
Likewise, Sen. Kennedy's protegé John Kerry ought to publicly disassociate himself from, and denounce in no uncertain terms, his mentor's latest inflammatory remarks.
Sen. Kennedy has made a career of verbal attacks so vicious that few other politicians could get away with them. But the frequency and outrageousness of his cheap shots have increased in recent years -- and this past Monday he outdid himself.
His remarks on the Senate floor were so obnoxious, so inexcusable, that no apology can make amends for them. In them, Sen. Kennedy had the gall to assert a moral equivalence between the routine brutality of Saddam Hussein's regime and the humiliating, but exceptional, treatment of some Iraqi prisoners by their American guards.
Consider Mr. Kennedy's statement: "Protection of the Iraqi people from the cruelty of Saddam had become one of the administration's last remaining rationalizations for going to war. All of the other trumped-up rationalizations have collapsed. ... On Dec. 24, 2003 -- the day Saddam was captured -- President Bush said, 'For the vast majority of Iraqi citizens who wish to live as free men and women, this event brings further assurance that the torture chambers and the secret police are gone forever.' On March 19, 2004, President Bush asked: 'Who would prefer that Saddam's torture chambers still be open?' Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management -- U.S. management."
This comes on top of Mr. Kennedy saying last year that the entire war effort was a "fraud" undertaken for political advantage, while accusing President Bush of using "bribery" to secure the support of foreign leaders.
It comes on top of him calling judicial nominees "Neanderthals." And on and on go the examples of his calumnies, including, most famously, when he slandered Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork in 1987 thusly: "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens."
This is all hate speech, pure and simple, coming from a man whose own moral compass has time and again been notoriously skewed.
Is there any doubt that this man should step down from the Senate?
There is no doubt in my mind.
Article
First Entry
This is my first entry for my Blog.
I will get to more substance in short order.
I am a retired Army Infantryman.
I served from 1981-2001.
I spent a total of six years in Germany, three in Korea, and various US assignments over the years.
I am also a Gulf War 1 Veteran.
I'll add more later.
I will get to more substance in short order.
I am a retired Army Infantryman.
I served from 1981-2001.
I spent a total of six years in Germany, three in Korea, and various US assignments over the years.
I am also a Gulf War 1 Veteran.
I'll add more later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
