NOVATOWNHALL

I don’t agree with all the choices, and neither does the Rifleman, but it’s a cool slide show.

On September 12, 1944, the United States invaded Germany.  If I remember my history, those boys only got ONE tour.

Seven years on. It’s the anniversary of the last time we had a terrorist attack on American soil –

UPDATE: Why I don’t have further commentary? Because I don’t know what I have to add, I was 30 miles from the Pentagon at the time. This guy was in NYC so read his commentary.

Check out this article (and the video) from Military.com.  I do find it amusing that they finally adopted the gas-piston idea (Спрасибо, Товарищ Калашников).

Now, if we civilians could get them….

I’m not going to critique the Israel, Jordan, and Europe legs of Obama’s trip, simply because I don’t have the intimate knowledge of those areas that I have of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Once again, I’ll give the Senator credit for his conduct these past few days.  He did his listening without trying to impose his plans on foreign governments or military leaders.  In 2000, I was in a military audience for an Al Gore appearance.  He spent most of his time telling us how he wanted to give us a pay raise, better housing, etc.  A campaign speech, basically.  Senator Obama didn’t do this either.  I didn’t hear him speak, but according to the first-hand accounts I’ve heard, he kept his comments to thanking the military and giving us credit for all the progress that’s been made.

While I have no complaints about his trip, I do have some issues with his conduct leading up to and right after it.

First, why did it take him almost 3 years to visit again?  Why only the second time?  I would think such an outspoken critic of our involvement in Iraq would be doing this more often.  Especially since he claims to support the troops so much.  When was the last time he spoke with General Petraeus?  When was the last time he discussed the progress over here with any military leader at all?  His opposition to what’s left of this war has been strictly for political leverage.  He can say he’s always opposed it, while Senator Clinton and Senator McCain can’t.  Beyond that he doesn’t care.  I doubt he would have made this trip had not Senator McCain called him on his perceived lack of interest.

Second, as I said before, his past comments criticizing the Afghan and Iraqi governments were not constructive.  He is not the State Department.  He is a legislator.  His comments risk souring the relationship we have with these countries, who are already fragile allies in the War on Terror.

Third, I appreciate the Senator’s willingness to slightly back off his “16 months” timeline.  A “residual force” is a step up from a complete withdrawal.  However, I would have gained a lot more respect for the man if he had been big enough to admit he had been wrong about the surge.  I caught the clip on the TV where he admitted to Katie Couric that the surge had worked, and then proceeded to say he still wouldn’t have supported it if he had known then what he knows now.  What?  What did he want?  More of what we had here before the surge?  More chaos?  More sectarian violence?  More terrorism?  More dead Americans?  More dead Iraqis?  Straight up defeat?

I’m looking over his press release now and I have some thoughts I will share.  My comments are in italics. Read the rest of this entry »

Imagine if a year ago, the dimwit in the Whitehouse had listened to Obama and the Democrats and had not conducted the surge? What if Petraeus had not been allowed to conduct his brand of counter-insurgency-warfare? Obama in his own words …

I am not persuaded that Twenty Thousand addition troops in Iraq is gonna solve the sectarian violence there, in fact I think it will do the reverse.

Obama said the above on January 10, 2007. So much for Obama’s vaunted ‘judgement’. Today 15 of 18 of the benchmarks regarding progress in Iraq have been met. When was the last time Congress managed to meet 3 of 18 let alone 15 of 18 benchmarks with respect to anything? Today Iraq is a far safer place; Obama would not be in Iraq shooting hoops with the troops. It would not be ‘nothing but net‘, the guy would be in a bunker expounding on how the situation was all George Bush’s fault and how he (Obama) has better judgment.

Considering how the Obama has spent ~150 days in the U.S. senate, it is easy to say that he has not made any mistakes. That is because he has also not done anything worthy of note either. It appears that Obama was wrong with respect to the surge and what is worse, he is dishonest about it. His campaign has removed all the negative text from its website regarding the surge. How about a confession of his mistakes. It was OK to ask Bush about his mistakes back in 2004. Can the press corps stop fawning long enough to ask, “Why did you get this so wrong?” Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and the press’s credibility is quickly approaching that of the Democrat led congress.

The following is an artist’s illustration what an Obama trip to Iraq would look like today if Bush had listened to the great Messiah of Chicago and his sycophants in Congress.

Now granted we cannot blame Obama completely for missing the boat on this one. He was not alone, and it appears that the poor dear has just been keeping bad company, again. Take the entire leadership of the Democrat party for instance; Pelosi and Reid are on record:

“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) stated that she, along with the Majority leader, Harry Reid (D-Nev.), “informed the president that they were opposed to increasing troop levels.” Both Pelosi and Reid expressed their disapproval in a letter to Bush on January 5, 2007″

Then there is Murtha, Biden and the rest of the Democrat Congressional leadership on record trying to torpedo the effort. Politics no longer ends at the waters edge in this country. That extra-national politicking is the essence of incredible pride that goes before the fall.

So now Obama, being mobbed by reporters, safe in a country that was written off by the very party he represents and the press corps that carries its water. Are the American people noticing this comical theater, or is this all a ‘willful suspension of disbelief‘?

I decided that I would not go to Senator Obama’s meet and greet here where I live, in the International Zone.  I wanted to go to bed early, and I had a feeling it would be crowded.  I was right.

One soldier described it to me, “I’ve been to rock concerts that weren’t that pushy.”  He then informed me he actually had to have security help him through the crowd once he was done meeting the Senator.  Another member of my crew told me he waited 3 or 4 hours to meet him, including the hour he got there early.  A third soldier I work with got lucky, running into him in passing and getting a quick photo in.

Senator Obama had his meet and greet yesterday evening (Monday).  According to all accounts I’ve heard, he spoke briefly to a large crowd, but did not appear to have a speech prepared.  His normally polished words were filled of “uh” and “um”.  Poor guy must have been jet-lagged or exhausted or something.  He then proceeded to meet with and pose for pictures with anyone who wanted one.  There was no organization to this part of it, you just had to work your way up if you wanted to talk to him.  Seems he was a decent enough fellow to hang around for quite a while due to the large number of people.  He (or his security team) was also decent enough not to pull a Bill Clinton and disarm all the troops around him in the middle of a war-torn country.

Most evenings, I eat dinner in the same chow hall, then I go outside and have a cigarette and coke in the MWR area, near some outdoor pool tables in a shady gazebo.  Yesterday as soon as I left the smoking area, I noticed the largest motorcade I’ve seen here parked on the road.  I asked around and found out he had just walked into the chow hall I had left 10 minutes prior.  I went back to my room thinking I had missed my chance.   I was informed that after his dinner, he stopped to shoot pool with some Joes in the same spot I sit and smoke every night.  This morning, I was out for my regular PT run, and there went the motorcade right by me again, I’m assuming on his way out since the news says he’s already gone.

Oh well.  Would have been nice to have gotten a picture for the site.

I have to give the Senator credit, he “stayed in his lane,” as the Army expression goes.

U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama met Iraq’s prime minister in Baghdad on Monday but did not raise his plan to remove combat troops within 16 months if he wins the election, an Iraqi official said.

-From a National Post report

It sounds like he did as he said he would.  He listened, rather than talked.  I hope his visit with the Iraqi PM was enlightening to him.  I also wish the Senator had been paying us more attention over here prior to this point in time.

Other than my previous objection to Senator Obama’s past comments, I think he did pretty well on this part of the trip.

Here and here are two different accounts.

I don’t have a problem with US Senators meeting with foreign leaders, so long as they are doing so with the approval of the State Department (hear that, Nancy Pelosi?).  Senator Obama’s meeting with President Karzai was good for America overall.  I think it is appropriate for a sitting US senator to act as an ambassador and help strengthen our alliances.

The only complaint I might have is this:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama pledged steadfast aid to Afghanistan in talks Sunday with its Western-backed leader and vowed to pursue the war on terror “with vigor” if elected, an Afghan official said.

-From the above linked AP article

My opinion is that Presidential candidates should not be making “if elected” commitments to foreigners (hear that, John Kerry?).  The only people any US Presidential candidate should be making “if elected” promises to are the American people.  Like Senator Obama has said himself, he is travelling as a US Senator, not as a presidential candidate.

However, based on the way the AP article is written, he may have been quoted out of context.  If anyone knows where to find the full quote or a transcript of the meeting, fill us in.

From an AP report:

Obama recently chided Karzai and his government, saying it had “not gotten out of the bunker” and helped to organize the country or its political and security institutions.

Also on his itinerary later in the trip is a meeting with Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi leader. On the campaign trail, Obama has said one benefit of withdrawing U.S. troops is that it would pressure al-Maliki to shore up his government as well.

Nonetheless, he said he did not plan to reiterate those messages in person.

I don’t buy his “I’m going over there as a US Senator” cop-out.  He’s willing to publicly put down foreign leaders to get a crowd of liberal supporters going (and get primary votes), but refuses to personally confront those same leaders when given the chance.  He shouldn’t have said those things to begin with.

GUTLESS.

I’m not sure.

It’s been almost 3 years since he last was here, so it’s not one of his regular priorities.  He seems to have already finalized his position on the situation, so I don’t think it’s an information gathering mission.  The only reason I can think of to explain his visit is to silence his critics.  He wants to be able to say, “I’ve been there,” when they challenge his position.  In short, a publicity stunt.

He won the Democratic Party’s primary on a campaign promise of withdrawal.  I will be surprised if he visits with an open mind.  If he gets here, sees how things have improved, and changes his position, I won’t think less of him.  That’s what “change” is all about, right?

P.S.  It doesn’t bother me that the network news is paying Obama so much attention on this trip.  The man has charisma.  Senator McCain is boring.  Who would you put on YOUR news program?

During my first deployment, my platoon occasionally had to execute a joint mission with the Afghan National Army.  I say “had to” because we didn’t want to.  They were terribly unproffesional and incapable of accomplishing anything by themselves.  Being hooked on opium, most of them were there for the pay.  The police weren’t much better.  Slightly more proffesional in appearance, they were far more corrupt.  I remember thinking at the time that if nothing changed, they would never be able to hold off the Taliban on their own.  I haven’t been back since then, but it doesn’t sound like things have improved.

I am pleased to see that this is not the case in Iraq.

In the small section of Baghdad I see regularly, the Iraqi forces are all over the place.   The Iraqi Army, Iraqi police, and third party groups like Sons of Iraq have really stepped up to the plate.  Carrying American weapons and driving American trucks, I always see them standin’ tall and lookin’ good.  Planning and conducting their own patrols, security stations, and traffic checkpoints, it’s only a matter of time before they are completely running this area on their own.  I’ve yet to work with them directly, but on the few occasions I’ve gotten to talk with one of them, I’ve always perceived through the language barrier an impressive sense of pride and duty. I’ve yet to hear one of them complain.

I cannot overstate the positive impact these forces are having.  Aside from the obvious benefit of having their forces share the burden, there is a huge psychological impact on the public’s view of the new government and the American presence here.  There is a certain amount of racial, religious, and nationalistic prejudice that American forces will never be able to fully overcome in this part of the world.  The Iraqi forces do not have this problem so much.  I’ve been told the Iraqi Army was cheered by crowds lining the streets of Basra when they took back that city.  Also, it’s pretty hard for someone like Muqtada al Sadr to keep complaining about us “foreign occupiers”, when it was the Army loyal to the Shia-led government of this country that kicked his militia out of the Baghdad district named after his father.  Sorry there, Mr. Sadr…you won’t be coming back to Sadr City.

That’s not to say these forces are perfect.  Their capabilities don’t come close to ours, but it is improving.  There is a certain level of corruption and enemy infilitration in these groups.  However, it hasn’t been enough to overshadow the overall positive impact that they are having.

We are winning here, and their efforts are helping.  I wish I could thank them each personally, soldier to soldier.

I can’t prove it. I can speculate.

As I mentioned here, I’ve suspected it since Zawahiri started doing the al Qaeda videos.

Seriously, all his audio and video releases of the past few years have been vague “Death to the Infidels!” blabbering with no reference to anything current. Something tells me we’re getting Tupac remixes.

To my knowledge, the last time he made specific reference to a current event was after we waxed Zarqawi, and it doesn’t take psychic powers from allah to know that was coming.

What’s with the jet black beard?

Listen up, al Qaeda. I don’t believe you. I want proof of life. Give me a picture of the guy holding up today’s newspaper or something. Idiots.

[This post has been updated since I sort of fell asleep in the middle of writing it last night]

The “Devil’s Guard” trilogy of books by George Robert Elford are an anomaly in publishing, consisting of three books which are among the rarest and most expensive post-1970 publications in the world. It is difficult to find even a paperback version of either DG1 (Devil’s Guard) or DG3 (Devil’s Guard III Unconditional Warfare) for less than $150 anywhere, and DG2 (Recall to Inferno) is almost impossible to find under $295. Try some Amazon searches on “Devil’s Guard Elford”, “Recall to Inferno Elford” without the quotes, and you will see what I mean.

Apparently, the copyright holders have no intention of allowing new printings, therefore the price of these books is ridiculously, artificially inflated.

Why these books are significant: Several months after 9-11, while perusing an Internet forum, I read where someone noted “the only way we can win against this enemy is to go the route of the Devil’s Guard.” After a bit of research, I learned that Elford’s works, though highly controversial, were also viewed seriously by military strategists around the globe. The story in these books traces the experiences of a former German Waffen-SS battalion under the command of “Hans Josef Wagemueller” which joins the French Foreign Legion after World War II and heads to Indochina to fight the Viet Minh and ends up playing a role throughout the Vietnam War.

The books are framed as a narrative by Wagemueller recorded by author George Robert Elford. The gist of the narrative is: This is what you absolutely, positively must do if you want to prevail over a terrorist insurgency. Methods employed are extraordinarily harsh, although in the course of the stories the acts of the “good guys” are consonant with those of the enemies. What you get is a true sense of war and what it takes to win a war in such an environment.

I will wait for NR to weigh in on this, because his opinion is the only one that matters as far as I am concerned. Is the Wagemueller story useful, or is it crap?

Anyway (this was the point of the post in the first place but the hour got late before I could finish) I found a copy of DG1 on Amazon the other day for $11, “used” and of course snapped it up. Then a few days later the reseller e-mailed me saying my copy had been returned from the local post office “water damaged” and would I want them to find another copy. I wrote back, “sure, that would be great” thinking in the back of my mind they were going to come back with a $300 copy of the book. A few hours later they wrote to me that they could not find the same edition (1984) but found a 1972 edition, and would I want that instead. 1972 was the first run in paperback.

I said “Sure, thanks so much” and then wondered if I was in the process of being scammed, either to receive a totally different book for $11 (there is a a similar work by the same title), or a first print edition of DG1 for full market price, an amount I would never want to pay for a book regardless of its rarity. Well, yesterday the book arrived, a pretty clean first edition of DG1 in paperback, with the invoice for $15 inclusive of shipping. How odd is that? It is going to be kept in a very safe place.

As I said I would, I’m chipping in my two cents on some old news here.

I was a little bit annoyed by this. I understand the President is on his way out and wants to protect his legacy, soften his historical image, blah blah blah. I don’t understand why.

You know what? I don’t regret it. Bush’s tone was perfect at the time he used it. We were (and are) a nation facing a tough enemy on multiple fronts, and the Commander in Cheif of the toughest Army in the world needs to be a tough man when dealing with tough situations.

Imagine this:

I regret the tone I took when I stated: “We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.” I think that in retrospect I could have used a different tone, a different rhetoric. I didn’t want to give the world the impression I was a guy really anxious for war.

-Something never said by Winston Churchill

Granted, the President isn’t as skilled with his words as the Prime Minister, but he DID have the right tone. In retrospect, al Qaeda is close to finished, Libya abandoned its pursuit of nukes, Saddam is hanged, Mullah Omar hasn’t been heard from in over a year, North Korea is at least pretending to get rid of its nukes (hey, it’s a step), and that kook in Iran is digging himself into a hole from which he won’t ever get out. Hey, even France is on board with us for that one. Why the regret?