Yon vs Fulham, NO CONTEST...

I just read two very different opinion articles: the first, by Michael Yon, the second by Peter Fulham.

Yon is 44. He did a stint many years ago in the US Army’s Special Forces, and now, as an independent blogger correspondent, has been embedded off and on for the last several years with soldiers and marines in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Conversely, at 18, Fulham is a prep school student in Delaware.

On the two main fronts of The Terror War, as far as covering it from “where the fighters meet the fight,” Michael Yon has been one of THE most objective chroniclers I’ve found. In fact, a couple years ago his critical observations resulted in a refusal by the Army to allow him to re-embed. Lucky for us, the army had a change of heart, or was forced to it. In fact, his “tell it like it is reporting” along with his willingness to suffer the same fate for weeks on end, right along with the dirtiest, scruffiest grunts out there, has endeared Yon with most low to mid-level elements of US and British warfighters.

Young Master Fulham’s opinion piece is titled, “When will young Americans get angry about the war?" His concern is that many of his peers are bored with it all, that because our young warfighters are volunteers and not drafted, he grouses: “Why should we worry when we have no personal stake in the conflict?”

I’ll grudgingly give him that; actually, he makes a good point: most folks today have seemed to have lost interest in what we are doing in Iraq, and NOT just young people.

Yon, on the other hand, is ALSO concerned with what the average American thinks about the war in Iraq; only Yon’s concerns are based on what he’s seen “over there.” In his words, “Our soldiers are turning defeat and disaster into victory and hope. But we could still fumble—if the American people don’t hear the truth now. There remain serious perils in Iraq and this is a time for action.” (I suspect Yon plans to vote for John McCain…)

Now, from the knee-jerk cataleptic antiwar side, here’s more from the Fulham boy:

“American students have an obligation to be outraged about the war in Iraq — not just disapproving of it. We need to make this administration and the remaining pro-war lawmakers start to worry.

Young people need to get involved — and soon. We must organize protests. We must write letters to the editor. Most important, we must vote for a president who will acknowledge and act upon our anti-war sentiment. We have wavered too long on the fringe of electoral irrelevance, and 2008 is the year to fix this problem.”

Comments like the ones from this preppy kid in Delaware are exactly what’s got Yon so alarmed. The kid’s heart seems in the right place, he seems to be against war for being against war’s sake, but other than the two reasons he lists as to why this war should immediately end—“…its steep death toll and mounting costs…”—he seems totally unaware of WHY young volunteers continue to go back over there, tour after tour, at great risk to themselves.

If Fulham would take just a moment to look beyond the most recent Democrat talking points as to why we should immediately abandon Iraq (to Al Qaeda, albeit a trounced one, and to the Iranians), he might want to read what Michael Yon had to say about that in his recent Wall Street Journal Op-Ed article:

“…I may well have spent more time embedded with combat units in Iraq than any other journalist alive. I have seen this war – and our part in it – at its brutal worst. And I say the transformation over the last 14 months is little short of miraculous.

The change goes far beyond the statistical decline in casualties or incidents of violence. A young Iraqi translator, wounded in battle and fearing death, asked an American commander to bury his heart in America. Iraqi Special Forces units took to the streets to track down terrorists who killed American soldiers. The U.S. military is the most respected institution in Iraq, and many Iraqi boys dream of becoming American soldiers. Yes, young Iraqi boys know about "GoArmy.com…

…Iraqis came to respect American soldiers as warriors who would protect them from terror gangs. But Iraqis also discovered that these great warriors are even happier helping rebuild a clinic, school or a neighborhood. They learned that the American soldier is not only the most dangerous enemy in the world, but one of the best friends a neighborhood can have…"

So, in partial answer to Squire Fulham, war in and of itself is not evil; sometimes wars MUST be fought, and in the interest of civilization, including the continuation of Mr. Fulham’s safe little piece of it, those wars must be waged until won. American youth in Iraq regularly risk having to give “the last full measure,” and most do so entirely for selfless and decent reasons: because of the men and women they serve with, because they are professionals, AND, because, slowly but surely, they see that they are doing something truly wonderful and inspirational: they are breathing life into a new nation, even as they defeat the people who would destroy us.

Yet, Fulham, completely unaware of the miracles being accomplished in Iraq by HIS peers, continues to agonize:

“I can't help but imagine that the tone in high school was different in 1970, as the Vietnam War raged and 18-year-olds were sent into its deadly grinder. There must have been anger and no small amount of fear. The idea of a draft is almost laughable today. So we don't worry. We live our lives.”

I’m sorry, but I have to say it. How pitiful. The kid whines that none of his well-to-do schoolmates (AND him) give a fig enough to take to the streets (all Fulham does is write about it), even as he whimpers about how scary it must be for 18-year-olds to go off to war. Instead, totally inconsequential, he admits that all he and his buds do is “live our lives.”

To this pathetic lad I say, there ARE some things worth fighting and dying for. Bringing democracy and a chance at peace to Iraqis seems like a pretty noble thing to do, whether or not you agree in the reasons that brought us to it.

When it comes to the money we are spending, I say “The costs be damned.” The price of leaving the job undone would be FAR more costly, and not just in money and lives. To date, we’ve lost 4000 precious Americans in Iraq. To properly honor THEM we MUST stay until Iraqis are able to go it alone, whether it takes one, two, or even five more years to do so, EVEN if it costs a TRILLION plus dollars. And to the naysayers that claim the Iraqis aren't stepping up to the task, Yon, who knows, says that they ARE.

Being against war because it’s costly in lives and money has got to be THE most cynical of reasons. Notice that Fulham never once mentions being against the war because of ethical or moral grounds; I suspect that’s because he can’t substantiate such reasons. Thank goodness that we DON’T have the draft, as it keeps self-serving, wimpy individuals like Fulham and his preppy friends from being forced to serve alongside the like of truly brilliant young people who at this very moment are putting service over self, while continuing to do so, year after year, tour after tour.

(And yes, Michael Yon DOES have an axe to grind. HE has spent years in the region and KNOWS that we DO have HUGELY important national interests there; and if we simply wash our hands of the Iraqis, “cut our losses,” and run away from our responsibilities there, we will, in effect, be voluntarily ending ANY influence we have in that part of the world, and probably in the rest of the world as well).

He also knows that the best way to destroy the fabric of our marvelous military is to withdraw even as they are winning. Now that WOULD be immoral. Ask them if they want to come home now; most will say, “Yes, AFTER we’ve accomplished the mission!" If ANYONE knows if this war is the right thing to continue with, THEY DO! Listen to them.”

The State Department in Iraq: One More Strike and You're OUT

The last couple of days I’ve been knowingly sniggering and sneering while reading the latest Iraq War news stemming once again from the State Department, its reputation only getting worse with each passing day.

Now, it seems that many in the diplomatic corps of that organization are howling over having to serve in a dangerous assignment like Iraq. My first thought was, “YOU Pussies!” After a shrug, my second thought was, “Well, it figures!”

That’s strike two. It SHOULD be three strikes and “you’re OUT!” The Blackwater transgression of a few weeks ago being strike one. It looks like that private security firm was merely acting out the policies set by faint-hearted Department of State officials who would rather assure their own complete safety rather than "risk a few collateral civilian deaths." That assertion appears to be fairly well born out by a recent assessment by the FBI stating that at least 14 Iraqi civilians died unjustifiably at the hands of State’s "private army."

Strike three, when it comes, should result in the ejection of all State Department officials from Iraq and Afghanistan until the military makes it “safe enough” for these lily-livered civilian bureaucrats to safely coordinate and attend their nightly dinner parties (which is all that they really care about anyway).

Sounds like I don’t have much respect for the State Department. If you think so then good guess. My first run-in with State Department workers was watching a bunch of them scurry away from my comrades and me as we approached them on a bus one evening many years ago. It was about 5 pm and my entire class of about 100 MSGs or Marine Security Guards was just pulling up in front of Condoleezza Rice’s current place of business, the State Department building in Washington D.C.; only at the time, the “head honcho” was The Honorable Cyrus Vance under then President Jimmy “peanut farmer” Carter.

Part of our training before being assigned to any of the hundreds of American embassies around the world was to actually inspect offices at least once for possible security violations. Out in the field that is part of the duties of Marine Embassy Guards. There is a technique to it, and after learning the theory in the classroom they sent us into the lair of “the enemy” to get a feel for the real thing. (Actually, we didn't think of them as "the enemy" so much as they did of us!)

It was funny. As our two Marine Corps buses pulled up to the fancy front glass entrance doors we could see State Department workers—diplomats, FSOs and secretaries—do U-turns back into the building. Some of them actually ran back inside when they spotted us 100 young Marines in our "C" dress blues descending upon them like the avenging angels that we KNEW we were (grin). It’s a huge building and we would only be able to inspect a comparatively few of the offices, but they didn’t want to take the chance of getting busted and finding a career ruining “pink slip notice of violation” on their desk the next day.

Right away, that made me think little of these people. It told me that they probably didn’t have a very high level of security attentiveness if just our presence made them spin on their heels back into their warrens of paper.

After graduation once I got out into the embassy world, my negative opinion of State people did not waver much except to become even more negative. If you know Marines then you know we can tend to arrogance, but no one is more arrogant than Foreign Service Officers. It seems that they start off this way and become more so the longer they “serve.” I never met an FSO that wasn’t egotistical, absolutely convinced of their own importance.

These people have like four primary jobs—to gather intelligence, to take care of consular matters like passports and visas, to represent the USA in a positive manner, and supposedly to take care of Americans who live or pass through their country of obligation. But there is a fifth "job," and they take it the most serious—to live WELL!

What does that mean? Just like it sounds—to party hardy, to acquire “for free” the best furnishings possible for their “free” luxurious apartment or house, and to save up and invest most of their more than adequate salaries.

I have to laugh whenever I hear statements praising Foreign Service officials for their “service” in backwater and dangerous places throughout the world. The fact is that diplomatic duty is the best-kept secret in the US government. It is rare indeed that any of them ever has to truly suffer or “serve,” because that’s not their style. I dare anyone to honestly compare the living and working conditions in Iraq of any of the “lowliest” FSOs to that of the average US military personnel over there. Believe me, there is no comparison.

I can attest to this since I have first hand knowledge. As an embassy guard, operationally assigned to the State Department, I never touched a penny of my military wages. I lived completely off my State Department allowance, and I didn’t draw even half of what the average FSO gets. I was stationed in a supposedly dangerous backwater country, yet we managed to find a party to attend almost every night, if we weren’t throwing one ourselves.

I couldn’t believe how expansive and plush the typical abode was of my fellow State Department workers. Each drew allowances for carpeting, furniture, appliances, even for drapery, yet they didn’t have to spend a dime of it for any of those items since they had access to a State Department warehouse chock full of some of the nicest stuff you could ever want to outfit your home with. I don’t know if they still have this scam going, but a scam is what it was.

What really sealed the deal on how I felt about these oblivious prima donnas was an encounter I had with a young FSO one weekend afternoon. I was standing duty at Post 1 right at the front entrance of the embassy. The bearded young FSO was there to learn the very basics of my job as a Marine watch stander.

I doubt if it’s done anymore, but back then none of the Marines had to stand watch in the embassy during the annual Marine Corps Ball every November 10th, which believe it or not was the embassy’s most important social function of the year. FSOs voluntarily stood watch for one-hour increments, allowing all of us Marines to attend our Birthday Ball.

During my briefing to the young pup, although he was probably a year or two older than me, I explained to him some of the complaints we Marines had with the security setup. It was totally inadequate and obviously so to us. The window to our front was mere Plexiglas, cars could drive up within yards of the front door, and a side door to our left was secured with a chintzy cypher lock that could be easily breeched. I told this guy that if someone wanted to take out the lone Marine on duty then it could be done with only a couple guys with minimum weaponry in all of about 2 minutes. Then I told him exactly what I would do to correct the situation. He shook his head and said something that I think is typical of the thinking of many of the liberal-minded folk working in the State Department.

“Your job is to die,” he declared nonchalantly.

He explained. “The United States has an image to project and turning our embassies into fortresses is not the image that we want the world to see.”

I heartily objected, "Sir! My job is to stay alive so that I can protect Americans, including YOU, in this building. How the hell can I do that if I'm killed in the first five minutes of an attack!" But in his righteous conceit he was not to be dissuaded.

See what I mean? Arrogance! This was just a year or so before the Iranians took our embassy in Tehran and not too long before Pakistanis almost did the same thing in Islamabad, and in doing so shot and killed a Marine Guard as he stood watch on the roof.

I learned something else from talking to and being around various FSOs; many of them have swallowed a form of anti-Western liberalism and have done so hook-line-and-seeker, probably to the toon of at least half of them to one extent or another. Evidently, left-leaning professors teach a lot of political science in our universities, so it only makes sense that a lot of their students who eventually become FSOs would be thusly "tainted." Therefore, it really doesn’t matter who is Secretary of State, these bureaucrats with their “peculiar way” of looking at the world stay on forever and they know it.

Here's what I know about these folks: they are great at pie in the sky theoreticals, but when it comes to the cold hard reality that IS the real world that's when they fall flat. It's why so many of them can't stomach REAL service in Iraq; as long as they can BS each other during their nightly soirees during one of their normal cushy non-threatening assignments then all is right with THEIR world. They don't do so well though when they get into a place where all the diplomacy in the world won't make people stop wanting to kill them.

So naturally, with the news hitting the wire about these “dissatisfied diplomats,” my dislike for them, for their prima donna arrogance, for their luxurious style of so-called “service,” and THEIR willingness to put others in harm's way even as they protect their own pampered asses from danger, all of those thoughts came roaring back to me while reading about their little “uprising,” their ridiculous treasonous tempertantrum against their boss, Secretary Rice.

How dare she! How dare she ask them to ACTUALLY serve where we really NEED them, and in a place where they might be hurt or killed. Imagine that? Finally, some overpaid American diplomats actually earning some of those inflated allowances and “hardship” pay!

I say fire the whole bunch. Who needs these wimps? Ship the whole timid lot back to the safety of the States, or to some cushy consulate in Europe or Asia. Give General Petraeus the whole kit and caboodle. Hell, bring me out of retirement. I volunteer General, to replace one or two of them Sir. Anyway, with me, at least you couldn't do any worse.

Mukasey's "tap-dance" on Waterboarding

I just read something thought provoking--even slightly entertaining--in the Yahoo opinion section. It was by Katrina vanden Heuvel. I’m not sure if I’ve ever read anything by her before, but she’s typical of the modern day haters-of-all-things-Bush.

Katrina’s column is called “Waterboarding Justice,” an almost clever play on words referring to the president’s nominee for Attorney General, Michael Mukasey. She’s not happy with Mukasey’s “tap dance,” as she calls it, around the possible legalities and illegalities of waterboarding as he interviews for the job with the various senators, all the democratic ones much intent on tripping him up.

She wants the probable future AG to come out against this relatively mild, yet extremely uncomfortable (and effective) method of interrogation. As she says, “it simulates the feeling of drowning.” If you’ve ever had water pour into your nose and mouth then you know the panic you’d feel while going through it. The mind shuts off and craves air. No one has ever died from it nor has anyone been seriously hurt. The "beauty" of it is that everyone who has gone through it has broken--no exceptions.

Even so, the CIA reports that it has only used this form of “torture,” as Ms Heuvel needs to call it, just three times in the past four years. I could add the caveat “that we know of,” but to what end? As far as I’m concerned our people should be allowed to use it as often as necessary to continue to keep the world safe from the human beasts that wish to destroy it. Read of life in Afghanistan during the Taliban to find out how they would rebuild it.

Mukasey's answers to the question of waterboarding was indeed a tap-dance, but a necessary one if he wants to be confirmed by certain key legislators. He knows good and well that keeping our war-fighting options open is what is going to continue to keep us free from more attacks. Has anyone noticed that since 9-11 we haven’t had any more terror attacks on US soil? That was due to some luck, but mostly the credit goes to this administration and its lean forward posture of preemption.

It seems that people like vanden Heuvel prefers to look at the CIA and The Justice Department as rogue organizations keen only on freewheeling torture and gratuitous spying on its citizens, all in the name of keeping us safe—banish the thought! I think Katrina has seen too many movies like Syriana and the Bourne series, all of which is mostly unadulterated anti-CIA crapola.

Mr. Mukasey understands all too well that every case requires a different level of understanding before allowing or disallowing the use of waterboarding. We waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Muhammed, the brains behind 9-11, as soon as we could get our hands on him. To wait even a day to do it might have caused actionable intelligence to evaporate with time. Yet unbelievably, people like Ms. Heuvel, and even John McCain, would NOT have allowed it. Americans who understand the threat have no problems with what our people did to this guy to squeeze him. The word is that he broke in 2 and ½ minutes and what we got from him was very actionable indeed. Your comments Ms. Heuvel?

A lot of very nice people will sputter and moan over "losing our souls" as we go about using “horrible” methods of interrogation. I agree with them for the most part. We shouldn’t use it wholesale—but the thing is, we aren’t.

Here’s how I would analogize the decision-making behind when we should waterboard. On 9-11, four airplanes flew above our nation taken over by terrorists looking to kill as many of us as possible. Yet, also onboard those planes were several hundred innocent passengers, all of whom had Constitutional rights. The president had a decision to make—does he impinge on the rights of those captured citizens by killing them when ordering their planes shot down; or, does he hope for the best and continue to honor their right to live, and by doing so, possibly condemn to death thousands more? This kind of situation is exactly what Mr. Mukasey is referring to as he “tap-dances” around the senators' questions. But to Ms Heuvel everything is black and white, Bush is evil, waterboarding is wrong and always wrong, regardless of the circumstances.

I do admire Katrina’s desire that we not “damage our values” in the name of our security, and I share her concerns that we not harm relations internationally, and above all, her concern for the safety of our captured soldiers is commendable.

The fact that we are even discussing the ethics of waterboarding already speaks of our high values, and that we’ve only used it on occasion says even more. Internationally, other nations use far more physically and mentally damaging methods of extracting information, only they don’t speak of such things publicly. To do so destroys the effectiveness of the methods. The fact that we quibble over it causes them to snigger at us behind their hands. Other nations, including those in Europe claim all day long that they don’t condone torture, but they use it when they deem necessary, just as we should, when necessary.

As far as the safety of our captured soldiers, our people already know that to be captured by Al Qaeda means hideous torture and an eventual brutal death, for that’s been the way of it. If we could only talk Al Qaeda into waterboarding our people instead of cutting off their fingers, toes, feet, hands and finally, their heads; now THAT would be a great accomplishment! Now, if only someone could talk Katrina vanden Heuvel into writing THAT article. How about it Ms. Heuvel?

x

Blackwater, State Department's Blackmark

R. J. Hillhouse of the Christian Science Monitor just wrote a piece called “Don’t blame Blackwater.” If you haven’t been following the news closely from Iraq then you might not have heard of the security contractor called “Blackwater” employed by the U.S. State Department to keep their people “safe” as they go about their duties in Iraq.

Back in September, Blackwater personnel shot up a Baghdad street when they determined the State Department motorcade they were guarding was "under fire from several locations." What has the Iraqi government upset is that 17 civilians, including a policeman, died in the “crossfire” resulting from that shoot ‘em up.

(As it turns out, the dead Iraqi policeman fired on the convoy when he perceived that the Blackwater security people were killing bystanders around him. I probably would have fired at them too if I were him.)

The incident smells an awful lot like Haditha to me. I just posted the other day a follow-up on the Haditha incident of nearly two years ago where a Marine patrol similarly claimed that as they lawfully defended themselves going after attacking insurgents that a multitude of civilians died collaterally. Some 15 non-combatants, including women and children, perished in that mêlée.

Hillhouse is of the opinion that the reason Blackwater used the apparent aggressive firepower that it did on that crowded Baghdad square is because “State” has developed a culture of zero acceptance for American Foreign Service casualties. I’m sure Blackwater is even doubly on guard to prevent capture.

So, The State Department’s security policy has been to protect -- at all costs -- all of their diplomats and Foreign Service Officers serving in Iraq, EVEN if it means Iraqi civilians have to die at the heavyhanded tactics of the mercenary security forces doing the "protecting." Blackwater evidently took this guiding principle to heart, and when their convoy became stalled in Baghdad traffic and they felt threatened, they basically reacted full force with stun grenades and massive assault weapons fire laid down almost like a final protective fire on anyone within range outside of their perimeter.

Security "professionals" don’t “spray rounds,” not unless they perceive themselves under some kind of overwhelming attack, and "professionals" don't panic. Of course all this leads to the obvious question: Exactly HOW "professional" ARE these Blackwater security people anyway?

Blackwater’s chief and founder, Erik Prince, claims that his people in Iraq ONLY do what they do under the direct supervision of the State Department’s security heads. Prince says that if State wants an aggressive style of security then that’s what Blackwater gives them. If he’s right, then the State Department is trying to blame the security firm for simply following orders.

From my own experiences with the State Department, both as an American citizen “customer” at several embassies in the world, as well as having worked for them operationally as a U.S. Embassy Marine Security Guard, I can comfortably say that by and large our diplomats and FSOs are arrogant, insensitive and many are even a bit dimwitted, and that’s putting it nicely.

In other words, knowing the mindset of our embassy and State Department people, I’m giving Blackwater a partial benefit-of-the-doubt on this one, although I’m having a hard time believing that these supposed “security professionals” can truly justify the massacre of those 17 innocent Iraqis.

The fact that the State Department let go without charge all these Blackwater “hired guns” tells me that these contract trigger-pullers were probably following policy and State doesn’t want that to come out in an investigation and trial.

As I said in my last entry, we can’t win this counter insurgency by wiping out everyone in sight whenever our people come under attack. The fact that many of Iraq’s tribal leaders are coming over to our side has more to do with their perception that U.S. military is the lesser of two evils, the other “worse evil” being the even more brutal members of Al Qaeda.

I think of it this way: If I were an Iraqi and had lost a family member in that Blackwater assault, or at Haditha, I would probably join the insurgents myself, just for the opportunity to kill an American. Revenge might not be all that sweet, but it’ll do until something better comes along.

General Petraeus understands this simple human visceral reaction for personal justice and has dictated that our people no longer destroy entire buildings full of non-combatants in order to kill insurgents hidden among them. Evidently however, the State Department doesn’t believe that any of the general's new COIN tactics applies to them, even though this approach is now helping to turn this war around.
x

Armenian Genocide

Even though it happened way back in 1915 throughout much of Eastern Turkey, I’m not surprised in the least that the Armenian Genocide committed by the Ottoman Turks is still today such an inflammatory topic (although the Turkish state denies genocide per se) almost a century after it took place.

By happenstance many years ago, I once painfully withstood an example of the long-smoldering ire firsthand from one of the surviving genocide victims, an aged Armenian grandmother. I still remember her bitter rage when, due to my own youthful imprudence, she misdirected her vitriol at me.

Getting to how this unpleasant confrontation happened in the first place begins with the irate old Armenian woman’s grandson, who happened to be one of THE best men I’ve ever had the pleasure of calling friend. He was a dark haired, dark featured fellow with a face punctuated with huge Byzantium-like eyes that gave him a childlike innocent look, along with a substantial nose common to many from that part of the world. His name was Michael Boloyan, an Armenian-American Marine reservist.

It was my good fortune that he had signed up for a stint with the U.S. Marine Air Reserve. Subsequently, he was based at Alameda Naval Air Station, where I too was stationed. I say “my good fortune,” because his enlistment in the Marines provided me the opportunity to get to know him.

Mike’s innate goodness almost single-handedly kept me from falling headlong into the iniquitous mire that can be the U.S. Marine Corps. As an impressionable 18-year-old still not entirely sure of my place in the world, I found myself sinking into the same wicked habits that I was seeing around me in the older marines, many of whom displayed a self-indulgent foulness of word and spirit that I never dreamed existed just weeks before during my previous comparatively naive schoolboy existence.

Mike Boloyan NEVER used foul language, and even when I last saw him when he was already in his early twenties, believe it or not, I honestly think the unmarried fellow was still a virgin. If you know Armenians, then you know they are a deeply spiritual Christian folk and do not take their beliefs lightly as many US Christians tend to in these post-modern times. He had never been to Armenia, but within the walls of his family’s modest home located on a quiet street in Berkeley, California, he was very much within the culture of the old country. He wholeheartedly wrapped his traditional Armenian way of life around him like a comfortable old blanket.

Michael’s goodness was infectious. When around him, like him, I never used coarse language. He had that affect on people. In fact, when other marines were not so inclined to watch themselves in his presence I felt obliged to step up and ask them to mind their potty mouths. Mike would just shake his head and grin shyly saying, “Phil, you don’t have to do that.”

He was an auto upholsterer and had been since before turning 16. I believe he worked in his chosen trade in a small shop in or near Berkeley, and the years of stretching fabric had made Mike’s hands the most powerful I’d ever seen. The saying “he doesn’t know his own strength” definitely applied to Mike. You shook hands with him at your own risk. Without realizing it, even what he considered to be a gentle squeeze of a handshake felt like a vicious death grip to mere mortal-handed people like myself. For such a sweet guy, his otherwise gentle paws were unintentional metacarpal crushers.

Several times, during the years I knew him from the late 70s to early 80s, Mike invited me into his family’s home for dinner. There were other family members around whom I’ve long since forgotten, but I still vividly remember Mike’s feisty grandmother, who was already very old then—I think well into her 70s—when I first met her in 1976. I only wish he would have given me a briefing on what NOT to say around the old girl, because as far as she was concerned I made the ultimate booboo, and I don’t think she ever forgave me for it.

I had never heard of Armenia before meeting Mike, but I was very familiar with Armenia’s western neighbor, the country of Turkey, having lived there twice for a number of years during the 60s. My Turkish experiences were mostly pleasant, and still quite fresh in my mind having last departed from there just 5 years earlier. My eagerness to speak well of my Turkish experiences had never betrayed me before, but my enthusiasm for things Turkish was about to get me into some very deep doo-doo as Michael introduced me to his diminutive old grandma.

With enormous enthusiasm and affection, she shook my as yet unblemished teenage hand with both of hers. Her own tiny hands were shrunken, wrinkled and mottled, yet cool and pleasant. From a face ravaged and withered by a lifetime of difficulties she smiled up at me with eyes filled with interested friendliness. Cocking her head in curiosity, she seemed to peer into my soul. All the while, she spoke rapidly in Armenian, while Michael answered her in turn, I presumed telling her all about me. It all sounded like Greek to me. By this time I felt great pressure to make a good impression, but alas, it was not to be… Soon, unwittingly, I was about to make one of the biggest gaffs of my young life…

The old woman led me into a formal parlor and Michael followed. The first thing I noticed were portraits and family photos that very nearly covered all four walls of the small room. All the photos were very old and in tones of faded black-and-white. Michael explained to me that these were photographs of long dead relatives from when his family used to live in Turkey many decades before.

Aha! An opportunity! I practically blurted, “Oh really! I used to live in Turkey. I really enjoyed it and met some nice people there!”

As I started gushing about Turkey and Turks, Michael attempted to interrupt me and waved his arms at me urgently behind his grandma to try make me stop, but at that young age I was too obtuse to understand that I was totally messing up. I started to get the picture, but it was too late.

The old woman’s sweet demeanor did an immediate 180-degree turnaround on me. I was no longer a nice young man to be esteemed; now, I was someone who had consorted with the devil himself. Her face hardened with hatred and heated words erupted like machine gun fire from her mouth. I had no idea why she was suddenly so furious with me, but I knew it had something to do with Turks. I was stunned and mortified. Only a few months before, I had learned to shrug off and withstand the barrage of artificial fury from a horde of marine drill instructors, but I had never encountered this kind of actual visceral hatred before. It was disconcerting to say the least.

Michael did his best to soothe her but she was having none of it. I stood there completely helpless, not yet even knowing what I had done wrong. She continued to assail me in heated Armenian, while I assumed Michael apologized for me as he attempted to smooth things over. I told him to please tell her that whatever I had said that I was very sorry.

In a voice filled with regret he said, “It’s okay Phil. I’ll explain later. Just please, don’t talk about the times you lived in…” he paused and continued, “…that country… Okay?”

Eventually her anger waned, but still she insisted on pointing out to me each of her dead relatives enshrined on the walls around us. I was to find out with plenty of horrific detail that each had been murdered by the Ottoman Turks during the convoluted happenings of The Great War, now known as World War I. I remember vividly that after all those years since the mass killings—by that time more than 60 years—that there was no apparent grief left in the bosom of the animated old woman; instead, I saw nothing in her but unadulterated fury. I realized too late that even though she could not speak English she certainly understood enough to know that I had been speaking well of her sworn enemies.

Regrettably for me, I didn’t know it then, but learned later (beginning on that day!) that the Ottomans did not make many friends during the centuries of their empire. They tended to cruelty and slaughter in all the regions over which they ruled, and apparently, the religion of the people they dominated did not much matter. In fact, even though the Ottomans were Muslim, they committed the same sort of heinous acts in the Islamic lands they controlled as they did to the Christian Armenians.

Indeed, the Arabs under the Englishman, Lawrence, exacted with great relish many acts of gory revenge against the Turks as they drove them ignominiously from Arabia and from all of the lands of the Middle East. Now it makes sense that all that "Lawrence of Arabia" stuff happened during the same period of Ottoman colonial collapse that caused the Turks—in their time of desperate defeat—to expel and kill Armenians by the hundreds of thousands from Eastern Turkey.

Michael’s grandma saw my discomfiture and calmed somewhat, but only to the point that she stopped her verbal assault on me. She went from that to trying to convince me that there could be nothing virtuous about Turkey, or from any Turk for that matter. I was reduced to chastened silence and quiet nodding as she explained the deaths of each of her long departed family members. I’ve never seen anything like it. Even after 60 years, to her, all those people on the wall had died just the other day. She went to her grave not long after that still filled with loathing and seething detestation. It was the most abject history lesson that I’ve ever received.

On the other hand, when I lived in Japan in the early 80s not too many years after my encounter with the unforgiving Armenian woman, I met another woman who had also experienced the cruel loss of family to callous murder, yet she had an entirely different outlook toward her enemies. Her name was Lonnie. She had been just a young girl living in the Tarlac area of the Philippines during the time of the Japanese occupation of 1941 to 1945. Learning of this and always interested in speaking to people of their wartime experiences, I asked her what it was like.

Speaking slowly with great sadness she shared with me a horrendous story. When she was 6 and her brother just 3, a Japanese patrol passed by their modest nipa house where they had been playing outside. Suddenly, one of the soldiers impulsively grabbed her tiny brother by a leg and tossed him high in the air causing him to wail in fear. Before the little lad could hit the ground the cruel soldier caught the tiny tot on the tip of his bayonet, killing him instantly and abruptly ending the toddler’s plaintive screams.

Horrified and sickened, I asked her, “Lonnie, how can you live in this country knowing that these are the people that did that terrible thing to your little brother? Some of these old guys around here actually served in the Philippines during the war, you know that don’t you? You know what? My landlord TOLD me he had served there. How do you do it? I don’t think I could.”

I’ll never forget what she said: “Phil, you can’t hate forever or it will destroy you. Eventually I forgave them, because that’s what our Lord would want us to do. My brother is gone, but now he’s in a better place with God.”

As a Christian, I knew that technically, Lonnie was right, still… I think Michael’s grandmother’s response of continuing her hatred over the decades is probably the more normal of the two women’s very different responses. To forgive, especially to forgive murder of family, is not natural and is probably the most difficult thing anyone can do, especially considering the nature of what both of those women experienced in their lives.

Lonnie died of an aneurysm not long after she shared her story with me. She’s buried in the American cemetery out on Clark these past 23 years. I used to wonder if she didn’t die from the emotional strain of what she witnessed all those years ago as a young girl. I’m sure she was in the throes of PTSD, the bodily stresses of which can really mess with the human physiology. I hope that like her brother she too is now in a better place.

As far as the immediate furor over Nancy Pelosi’s Congressional insistence on declaring that our ally, Turkey, committed genocide against the Armenians almost 100 years ago, I wish she wouldn’t. For one thing, we can’t force any country to feel remorse when they aren’t willing to do so. To tweak them now, when we are so utterly dependent on Turkey’s cooperation in keeping supplies flowing into Iraq makes me think that she is knowingly trying to sabotage our current good relationship with this fellow NATO nation. If Al Qaeda and the Shia militia cannot cause us to lose perhaps she thinks she can personally make it happen through this backdoor method.

Aside from the international considerations of the Armenian genocide, I personally wish the Turks would do what Germany did long ago concerning its own considerable misdeeds during WWII, and just admit that the transgression happened and apologize. It wouldn’t cost them anything but pride, as I’m sure we are long past any possibility of reparations. We can't punish a country for things done more than four generations ago. It just isn't feasible or right.

Unfortunately, the belligerent attitude of many contemporary Turks toward the 1915 massacre has done nothing to heal old wounds. I foresee the current standoff between Turks and Armenians concerning this issue continuing for at least another 100 years. That seems to be how they do things in that part of the world.

Even so, many modern Armenians want to put this ugly history behind them so that they can move on and normalize relations with the Turks. After all, Armenia is landlocked and shares a vast border with Turkey. The Armenian economy could stand a dose of normalization with their ancient enemy, and most modern Armenians know it. Yet, this probably cannot happen until the Turks take the first step and admit that the wrong happened all those decades ago.

To my practical American mind, I have a difficult time understanding how this has not happened already. I mean, my own family has long since forgiven the English for what they did to my Irish and Scottish ancestors; and we’ve also pardoned the Canadian Tories for murdering our grandfather, Samuel Lount, way back in 1838 in Toronto. How long do you hate people for what their dead great great grandfathers did?

Eventually, as my friend Lonnie reminded me, forgiveness is the only way to go.

Americans “know” little, but “feel” a lot.

I’m amused every time I see a TV pundit display some poll result supposedly reflecting how Americans “feel” about certain current important matters. Why my amusement? Because most US citizens pay little attention to anything in the world other than what directly interests or affects them, such as the cost of gas, work or school, or pop culture items such as what happened at The MTV Awards (Tommy Lee and Kid Rock act “ghetto,” while Britney Spears flops).

Knowing the above, as far as I’m concerned, polls SHOULDN’T be all that important, except for perhaps as a gauge to show how uneducated, misled or purposely-ignorant most Americans are.

For instance, I saw some polls today taken before and after General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker gave their progress reports on Iraq. The poll stats were a joke, just as most polls are these days. I say that because I guarantee that if you ask folks on the street if they know the identities of those two gentlemen that only 1 or 2 out of 10 could answer correctly. Indeed, I maintain that most poll respondents know little about what they are being asked about.

Therefore, to administer poll questions with even a modicum of credibility, as part of the survey pollsters must first carefully inform the poll answerers what it is they are about to be questioned about. In the Petraeus/Crocker poll, poll givers must explain WHO the two gentlemen are, what they do, and where. Then, once carefully prepped (and probably skewed), the respondents are asked ridiculously loaded questions like “Do you believe Petraeus and Crocker are lying?” and “Are they just spouting party line?”

I despise polls, primarily because they are too easily manipulated. More important to me would be other data. For example, I’d like to know on what the respondents based their opinions, or more fittingly, their “feelings.” I’d like to ask if they have followed events in Iraq, and if so, through what medium? Do they know anyone over there? Are they familiar with the careers of the general or the ambassador? How much do they know about Iraqi culture and history? On what specifically do they base their positive or negative stances—is it their politics, stuff they read in blogs or saw on FOX or CNN? Or, is it just based on how the two men in question presented themselves?

President Clinton was the king of governing by poll—a personable and ostensibly smart fellow, in effect he was a will o’ the wisp commander in chief who conducted his entire presidency by survey. He made few presidential decisions according to his own compass, instead using the fickle finger of public opinion. He might as well have been governing by referendum, which in fact would reflect true democracy, although as such would be a miserable failure, but I digress.

Speaking of U.S. opinion polls—for quite some time now they have reflected a definite lack of national spirit and resolve for continued American involvement in Iraq. This nationwide angst against the war is probably mostly attributable to our well-known cultural impatience and need for immediate fulfillment, as well as from the continual bombardment of “bad” news from our politicized media. What these polls actually show is that Americans “know” little, but “feel” a lot.

What follows is a pretty good example of what I’m talking about.

Weeks ago, I met a nice young fellow from the San Francisco area. A 20-year-old, he emigrated from the Philippines when he was 10. We struck up a conversation pedaling side by side on stationary bikes in my gym. I heard him speak to one of his Filipino cousins with an American accent and asked him where he was from in the US.

Getting to know each other, we played the typical conversation game. We asked questions about each other’s background, which brought forth comments and more questions. My personal “way” is to never ask anything controversial about politics, war or religion, at least not until I know a “thing or two” about with whom I am conversing. However, in this case my new young friend was the one to open the debate box, and I dare say that for him it was a horrible thing.

By his third query he knew that I had spent many years in the military. Most people at that point will ask things like which service branch was I in, how long did I serve, and what job did I do, but not so this guy. Truthfully, I don’t think he knew enough about the armed forces to even begin to know what kind of questions to ask about it conversationally. Instead, he sighed and made a comment that “got me started.”

He said offhandedly, “It’s horrible what’s happening over in Iraq. I feel so bad for all the military people over there. They should all just be allowed to come home now.”

I looked at him sideways and smiled saying, “Can I ask you exactly what you think is happening over there that makes you say that our people should all come home immediately?”

“Ah, you know, bad things are happening. It’s not right. We shouldn’t be over there.”

“Okay, you DO know that everyone in the military is a volunteer, right? And you know that it’s been more than four years since we deployed to Iraq in 2003, correct? That means that hardly anyone in uniform today enlisted BEFORE the war started. Do you understand why that’s important?”

“Ahhh, no?” he answered, unsure of himself.

“Because the Americans over there doing the hard job of trying to help the Iraqis secure their country against terrorists and insurgents have all HAD the opportunity to quit. Many of them aren’t getting out; they are reenlisting. If you think about it, that should tell you something, right?”

“Like what?”

“Like maybe they believe that they are doing something that NEEDS to be done. May I ask, do you even KNOW anyone in the military?” I watched him carefully as he answered and knew from his facial expression and demeanor that deceit was coming.

“Ah…, …yeah.” He said haltingly with averted eyes, obviously lying. I let it go.

“Okay, lets say you do. Now what do you think would happen if we just up and left Iraq the way you want?”

“What do you mean? If our troops leave then the killing will stop. It only makes sense. All they are doing is just making more people into terrorists anyway. We never should have gone over there in the first place.”

“You just folded three different arguments into one there buddy. Let’s start from the top.”

Taking a breath I started, “I won’t argue with you on whether or not we should have invaded in the first place. You might not even remember why the president sent us in anyway, but I’ll just say that it wasn’t a problem UNTIL the insurgency turned it all sour. In case you didn’t know or don’t remember, but virtually every member of congress including most of the democrats voted to give Bush the go ahead before we attacked. So enough said on that. If you want to say, “Bush lied and people died” then that’s up to you. If he did lie, he damn sure was convincing.”

“I think it was for the oil man,” he tossed out nonchalantly.

I chortled, “You think so? I don’t think you’ve thought about that very much, because we could have gotten oil a lot easier and cheaper if we’d just continued to deal with Hussein. You know, just like the French and Germans did with the “oil for food program.” Remember that?”

Haltingly, he answered, “No, …not really…”

I continued, “O…kay, so much for that. So then, why do you think that the killing, as you say, will stop once we leave? Who is it that you think is DOING all the killing? Do you think its us?”

“Well, yeah. With all our bombing and attacks. Like that.”

“Let me school you up a little my friend,” I said good-humouredly. “Virtually ALL the killing is being done by the terrorists and insurgents, and now a lot of murder and mayhem is being done by Shia on Sunni and Sunni on Shia. You know what Kurds, Sunnis and Shia are, right?”

“Ahhhh, not really,” he said self-consciously.

“Well friend, I suggest you find out if you are planning on having an opinion on Iraq. You know?” I was having a hard time at that point hiding my condescension.

I continued, “Do you even know WHY we are there? You said something about oil and actually, you are mostly right. A huge chunk of the entire world’s oil supply comes from that part of the world. If we simply leave now, without ensuring stability, the whole region could go up in smoke.”

I asked him suddenly, “Do you have a car?”

“Yes, I do. …just bought it last year.”

“Cool, because if you want to be able to afford to put gas in it then I would think you would want us to make sure the Persian Gulf area stays secure. If we declare defeat and go without leaving an Iraqi government in place then you can kiss goodbye affordable gasoline. If Iran starts something and Hormuz closes, or if the pipelines close, then expect to pay 10 dollars per gallon my friend.”

He shrugged. I think he was getting a bit tired of not being able to answer my barrage of questions and assertions. Knowledge is a terrible thing when you DON’T have it. Too late now, he was ALL mine.

Turning my recumbent exercycle setting higher, I mopped my brow with my towel before going on, “Hey buddy, you said something about us MAKING more terrorists?”

“Yeah. All we are doing is pissing off a lot of people and making them hate us.”

“Okay, let me understand what you’re saying. You say if we weren’t there, then Al Qaeda would STOP hating us? So why do you think the 9-11 hijackers attacked us? At the time we weren’t even in Iraq or Afghanistan yet.”

“I don’t know. I guess because we support Israel. What they are doing to the Palestinians is terrible.”

“Oh man! I don’t want to get into the Palestinian thing, but I can tell you that Al Qaeda would still be trying to get rid of us even if Israel disappeared tomorrow. The Palestinian problem is a diversion my friend, just one bogus excuse among many. Al Qaeda wants to make the whole world into a Taliban state, like what they had in Afghanistan before we helped the Northern Alliance kick them out of power.”

I asked him if he knew anything about the Taliban and the atrocities they committed but once again he knew nothing of them. I sighed.

I finished up my one-sided debate with one more crack at trying to explain why we were in Iraq to this person who “felt” so much while “knowing” next to nothing. Keep in mind that at the time of this “debate” the surge had not yet kicked in and the Sunnis in Al Anbar and Diyala had not yet risen up against Al Qaeda with our help:

“One last thing man, and I’ll stop. Did you know that our presence isn’t so much making terrorists, as you claim, as attracting them. Bin Laden has already declared that the new war against America is IN Iraq. In other words, they are coming in from all over the jihadi world to try to defeat us there.

Now, the reason that’s good is because we are killing them as fast as they are coming. The bad thing is that out of evil desperate spite they are killing more Iraqis than they are blowing up Americans. But the fact that our sworn enemy, which Al Qaeda is, is there in Iraq is one of THE primary reasons we CANNOT go UNTIL we destroy them there, otherwise, we will have to go back and its going to be even harder the second time. So whatever we do, defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq HAS to happen first. Are you feeling me?”

I grinned over at him and apologized, “Sorry about that, but you have to admit you asked for it. Anyway, I can tell your heart is in the right place. You just need some insights that you’ve never been exposed to before.”

I reached over to him with my left hand and formed a fist. He hit it with his right fist and smiled saying, “Hey man, you’re a good guy. It was nice talking about ugly things without getting mad at each other. That’s always a good thing, you know?”

I nodded and had one last bit of fun at his expense as I kidded him, “You’re damned skippy dude, especially when I'M right!”

We both laughed.
x

Conversation with a "dinosaur"

I had an extended conversation the other day with a retired marine, a grizzled old fellow ten years my senior. We see each other occasionally, maybe twice a week, but we aren’t really friends. Actually, I don’t think I COULD be friends with him. His attitude, although fascinating to me, is also very disturbing. I’d forgotten people like him exist.

Usually, we just speak of mundane and comfortable things, like veteran’s benefits or recent dealings with Social Security. We started out that way, but then we got into other slightly more sinister subjects.

Like most marines he’s been married multiple times; lets just say more than five, actually, many more. I asked him about his kids. He hasn’t kept in touch with any of them. He claims its been 20 years since he spoke to his daughter and even longer to his two other children.

“What about grandkids? Do you have any?”

“I have no idea.” He said.

“How can that be? Don’t you want to know?”

“I don’t think about it. They all know where I am. If they want to talk to me, it’s up to them.”

In disbelief I shook my head and commented, “I can’t imagine at least not trying to reach out every so often. I try to send an email to my 26-year-old boy at least once a month. I tell him I’m thinking about him. Even if he doesn’t answer he still knows I love him. ... And I’m going to go visit my two grown girls and my grandson later this month in Texas.”

He shrugged. “MY boy probably hates me, if he even still thinks of me. I treated him like I did all my marines and I was a hardass as a boss. You know, I haven’t been in touch with ANY of my relatives for a long time, over ten years. The only family I have now is the wife I’m married to now.”

Like a lot of older gentlemen over here, his wife is considerably younger than he is. I think she’s 35 years younger.

I smirked. “You ever going to take her to the US?” I asked him, already knowing the answer.

“Hell no!”

“You’re smart,” I said. “She’s a cutey. Some young guy would try to take her away in a heartbeat. You can’t be with her ALL the time, and those young studs would just be lurking for the chance to swoop in.”

I continued my tirade, “And no matter how much the little ladies declare their love for you over here, THAT all changes when some young buck starts to tell ‘em lies over THERE.”

“Yup,” he said matter of factly, “American guys have absolutely no respect for another man’s wife. I’d be crazy to take her back there…

He continued…

...Besides, I spent nearly my entire career over here in the Pacific, and after a while, over here became more home than back there. I really don’t have any reason to go back; not since my mom passed away.”

Nodding, I agreed, “Yeah, I know what you mean. It’s like we don’t have anything in common with civilians back home. It seems like they don’t know what we know, because they haven’t been anywhere or done anything that matters. They are weak willed and just don’t get it. Sometimes I watch the news and just feel sick with disgust.”

His turn to nod, “Yup. We don’t fit in back there. That’s all there is to it.”

Our conversation bounced from one disparate subject to another. As I said, the guy fascinates yet repulses me. His hard heart and innate meanness intrigues me. It brought back memories of other guys I used to know like him all those decades ago when I too was a marine. Believe me, Air Force people and marines are two totally different creatures and whenever I talk to this guy I am reminded of that. He has several purple hearts from combat action during at least two tours in Vietnam and he served in several skirmishes and wars all the way through Desert Storm, more than 24 years in all.

The disgraced senator from Idaho, Larry Craig, came up and we joked about the weak explanations he gave for his encounter with the vice cop in the public toilet stall. My former marine friend explained to me with apparent inside knowledge that when a man bumps another’s foot that he’s letting on that he wants to be the one to “give.”

I laughed, “What! How do you know so much about that stuff? What’s up with that?”

He shrugged without a hint of embarrassment, “I’ve got law enforcement experience after my time in the Corps. We learned all the “tricks” sickos use to troll for public sex. That’s how you catch them. That senator is as guilty as sin.”

I joked, “I guess Craig is a true believer in that old saying, eh? The one that goes it’s better to GIVE than to RECEIVE!”

Some how we started talking again about what a hardass he was as a boss in the Marine Corps. He came up with an example of just how hard his ass truly was,

“…It was legal to wear them but I NEVER let any of my marines wear those sissy ass high gloss patent leather low quarters. They either wore spit shine shoes or they took a lot of shit from me until they did wear them.”

After I graduated bootcamp I used to wear those pansy ass patent leather dress shoes and I told him so, trying to goad him a little…

“You ARE right man. I would have hated having you as a boss. I bought my first pair of Bates Corfram dress shoes as soon as I could. Spit shined shoes look like crap after you try to walk around in them. Besides, I volunteered to be in a color guard when I was stationed at Alameda and we ALL wore the high gloss shoes with our dress blues because they LOOK so good. Damn man, you WERE a hard ass weren’t you? Sure glad you weren’t MY boss!”

“Maybe so, but that was my policy.” He harrumphed.

The last of our longer than usual exchange took place in the parking lot. He stood at the door of his car while I took the rain cover off my scoot. We started talking about Iraq and that’s when he REALLY started to make me feel uneasy.

His eyes became as lifeless as a shark’s as he started to talk,

“I spent a lot of time in that f***ing place and as far as I’m concerned I hate all those bastards. I say kill them all and let God sort ‘em out.”

I watched his face for any clue that he might be half kidding, but no, he was deadly serious. And he went on in the same tone.

“I don’t blame those young marines one bit for killing everyone they see. Sometimes you can only take so much. You take explosions from inside a village; you blow everyone away in the damn village. F**k ‘em all! You lose buddies and all you can think about is getting payback”

That’s the moment I began to see signs of unwarranted anger and I realized his PTSD was kicking in. I’ve seen it dozens of times from other combat vets. Still, I tried to reason with him.

“Dude. You can’t fight an insurgency that way. If we actually do what you’re talking about we lose before we start. You’re not serious right?”

Oh, but he was.

‘Damn,’ I thought, ‘I’m glad this guy is out now. I wonder how many more of these obsolete old dinosaurs still think this way on active duty? Man, I hope not many!’

I tried to deflect his seething anger in another direction.

“You were in-theater for the 1st Gulf War. I still say that Powell and Bush the 1st ended that one about a month too soon. Nothing of this bullshit insurgency would be happening now if ONLY we’d taken Baghdad back then…”

He didn’t let me finish. Looking up he shook his head and interrupted me,

“No, that wasn’t it. The war ended when it did because we had no more ammo to expend. It was ALL used up. We scraped the bottom of the barrel as it was. We had to stop shooting because there was nothing left to shoot.”

He’d mentioned this bit of inside knowledge to me before, but it still evoked a strong reaction nonetheless…

“Oh my God! That just seems so impossible for the mightiest military in history,” I nearly exploded. “We had five freaking months to get the factories churning out bombs and shells, and get the supply pipeline going, so how the hell did we run out?”

“I know, but I’m telling you we had virtually nothing left. We shot our entire load.”

I jammed my hands into my hips and kicked at a pebble in disgust at the thought of it. He continued…

“You know, twice we had the tactical nukes on deck prepped and ready to fire. We all knew if the Iraqi’s used chemicals on us that we had the go ahead to use tactical nukes on them. We were fired up! The whole crew knew we were just waiting for the word. We were PSYCHED! Then we got word that it looked like the Iraqis HAD used chem on us and we were ready to retaliate. But then, goddamn it, the captain came out and gave us the thumbs down sign and told us to put ‘em away. It really pissed us off.”

He’d told me that story before, but I hadn’t noticed so much animation from him the first time he told of the prospect of actually using nuclear weapons for the first time in war since 1945.

Holding his hands a couple feet apart to show the size of a tac-nuke he exclaimed, “Hell yeah! One of those little babies will take out a square mile.”

I grinned awkwardly, and suddenly unaccountably felt embarrassed. I was having a hard time believing a person, much less a group of them, could really be so filled with anticipation at the thought of using nuclear weapons. At that moment an article popped into my mind that my brother had forwarded to me by Robert Kaplan called “Rereading Vietnam.” At the end of the article Kaplan writes:

"…The Iraqis and my own men saw how broken the system was, and some felt it was easier just to kill these guys the moment we apprehended them. After all, it would have saved lives. But," he continued, "I told them, 'oh no. Here is where I have to draw the line.' It was important to have an officer in charge who had studied ethics." The enlisted chief petty officers of his SEAL team—reminiscent of some of Larteguy's centurions for all intents and purposes—were the finest men he had ever commanded. But they required supervision.

A frustrated warrior class, always kept in check by liberal-minded officers, is the sign of a healthy democracy."

Until talking to this crusty old retired warrior the other day I thought Kaplan's comment about needing "liberal-minded officers" to keep frustrated warriors in check was so much baloney. After all, I thought, in this modern “enlightened” age I didn’t think soulless men still served who could possibly think it a good idea to wipe out entire villages for “revenge,” or that the idea of using tactical nukes could be exciting. I HOPE people like that are not the rule!

I suppose I’ve changed my mind. Now I say thank goodness Kaplan's liberal-minded fellows exist, for without them we are no better than the beastly people we seek to defeat. We DO need to come up with a better phrase to describe them though; one that doesn't include the word "liberal." Sheeeesh!

Throwing the Baby Out with the Bathwater...

As soon as I heard about the “Baghdad Diarist” and then read of his “first hand” descriptions of “scandalous” troop actions in Iraq, I was skeptical.

Why? Because of my own experiences in today’s all-volunteer professional armed forces. I’ve only been retired for 5 years; I still know people who serve and I think things have not changed so much since I got out.

The “USA haters” that seem to predominate the media are infected with the mindset that people who serve in uniform MUST have something “wrong” with them; after all, they think, ‘Why would “these people” join up and continue in a military that pursues such an “evil and misguided policy?” ’

Speaking for myself and others like me, if I were serving in-theater and saw that our policies were truly immoral—I WOULD "quit" (not reenlist); or, desiring to continue my career, I’d find some other way. I’d probably blow the whistle to my congressman and senators; I’d tell everyone I knew about the wrongs I was seeing, and I would DEMAND that they get us the heck out.

But, isn't that what Beauchamp did? ...or was it?

I can tell you that that way of thinking is the mindset of most military folks, people who are extremely honorable. Thing is, that’s NOT what is happening. By and large, the troops serving in the war are not squawking about being a cog in some nefarious endeavor. In fact, statistically, most are reenlisting; and by all accounts the morale is not low.

The best way for the antiwar crowd to explain this phenomena is to discredit those directly involved in the war, and what better way to do that than by finding one of the troops “willing” to actually describe how truly awful the whole thing is. When they found Scott Beauchamp they must have thought they had hit the journalistic lotto; that they had found their next little John Kerry. They must have been so excited by the prospect that the concept of checking the veracity of the storyteller (and his story) must have flown right out the window. Kind of like when “Baghdad Pete” didn’t bother to prove that US forces had actually used nerve gas in Laos in 1970 before publishing it as fact. (To this day Peter Arnett STILL believes this fabrication).

Putting myself in Beauchamp's shoes, maybe I too would “make some stuff up” to make my whole outfit look bad. Perhaps I would do this if I was some low-ranking Sad Sack with a chip on my shoulder and an emotional screw loose, maybe with a beef against an “overbearing” sergeant or arrogant officer. Malcontents have been in the military since before the days of Alexander, but his aggrieved rank-and-file did not have internet access. In Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp's case, he found out exactly how easy it was to make some horrible stuff up so that the Bush-hating lose-the-war-at-all-costs-crowd would EAT it up. He told them what they wanted to hear and they were off to the races.

As it turns out, this private, although technically in-theater, is by no means near any of the battle zones of Iraq. His experiences can only describe truthfully what he’s seen in the safety of the rear areas of Kuwait, but that’s NOT what he claimed in his anecdotes. That the anti-war media latched onto the falsehoods written by this obviously peeved and probably troubled individual says a lot about their agenda of getting us out of Iraq no matter what it takes, even if it means publishing “made-up stuff.”

In a phrase, I find what Beauchamp did to be very “John Kerryesque.” Remember him? He did the same thing when he came back from Vietnam in the early 70s. He also appealed to an antiwar crowd by confabulating his former mates into war criminals, all in the interest of establishing a liberal political career. Just like Beauchamp, he did this by smearing his own comrades. In my book it makes both of these fellows similarly despicable, although I’d rate Kerry far higher on my “contempt scale.” Beauchamp is a lying “no body” turned into a “some body” by some defective “alleged” journalists.

Let me tell you something. THE most idealistic and professional military EVER is the American one. It is made up of THE most freethinking bunch of individuals that have ever served in ANY significant military force.

It is THE most educated group, military or not, of its size per capita ANYWHERE in the world. Not only that, it is the best trained, not only in what they do, but also in how to do it ethically. Every year, for the last ten or so years that I served, I took mandatory classes on such subjects as the Law of Armed Conflict, The US Military Code of Conduct, The Code of Ethics in Government, and Human Relations. The troops in the battle zones are continually bombarded with Rules of Engagement and how to properly conduct themselves in virtually every conceivable situation. Believe me, our people KNOW right from wrong; if not from what they learned at home BEFORE they enlist, then by what they are immersed in AFTER they are sworn in.

Today’s army is not the one that served in Vietnam, which was made up by and large of non-careerist draftees. Even so, those citizen soldiers mostly served with distinction, bravery and attention to duty; but you’d never think so if you watch the films about that war that have come from the skewed minds of the other batch of USA haters that run Hollywood. Both batches of America haters, the Hollywood and media ones, simply feed off each other’s regurgitated hatred. What isn’t accurate, in the interest of furthering their agenda, they’ll simply dramatize into existence. Their message: “See how bad WE are!”

Some of the things Beauchamp claims to have witnessed are really not all that terrible—lowdown for sure, but not criminal. Making fun of a disfigured woman, running down dogs with their vehicles, and wearing bones on their helmets are all undoubtedly screwed up things to do, but by no means do they rise above mere awful behavior. Even so, I have no doubt that any NCO or officer witnessing any of those things would immediately step in and correct them. Beauchamp himself should have turned in anyone doing such actions. By not doing so, under military code, he also was complicit.

This is not to say that some individuals do not do dreadful things. I’ve witnessed idiots in uniform do plenty of stupid things. Every time I saw it I stepped in and corrected it. It’s the beauty of the military system because every NCO and officer is REQUIRED to do it. I miss the days when I could go up to some young E-3 or O-1 in the base exchange, identify myself by my name and rank and remind them that they should watch their language in a public place. Try that in a Wal-Mart and you’ll more than likely receive a healthy dose of “F**k you!”

In fact, we are much better at institutional self-correction than most any other organization, including religious ones. I wonder how many priests, cardinals and bishops knew that one of their own was messing around with altar boys and did nothing about it? (Obviously a rhetorical question.) We know what happened at Abu Ghraib because a troop seeing wrong being done turned it in. The Army was already investigating when the press got wind of it. The same thing goes with the Marines and Soldiers who were recently tried and convicted of rape and murder. It wasn’t some reporter who exposed those crimes—it came from people within the service, and that’s exactly how it was designed to work.

Regardless of how the war ends, whether we leave with the terrorists in charge or with a valid Iraqi government in place, I am positive that for the most part our troops will have conducted themselves honorably. We will always have aberrant behavior from a few individuals, but the system is set up to put them right. The one thing we should never do is throw the baby out with the bathwater, especially THIS baby! Historically, there has NEVER been a more upright baby than this one.

Out of Iraq and NOW?

I’ve figured it out. It came to me while I watched Al Gore on a TV sound bite the other night.

Thinking about our occupation of Iraq, as I do a lot, I tried to reckon why the left is in such a hurry for us to leave.

They make several disparate arguments for our immediate evacuation. In the order they occur to me I list them below:

1. American casualties

2. Iraqi casualties

3. Our presence foments Islamic hatred.

4. Bush lied; people died.

5. We can’t win, so why try?

6. We have no business being in the middle of a civil war.

7. Al Qaeda attacked us, not Iraq.

Now, allow me to examine the apparent logic behind each rationale, only from the so-called far left’s point of view as seen through MY prism:

1. American Casualties. From what I can see, the leadership of the far left cares very little about “the troops.” Mind you, I’m talking about their leadership and not necessarily their minions. I’m positive that the president feels more sorrow for the fallen than almost anyone from both the left and the right. The personal responsibility he feels for our casualties is crushing, but that comes with the territory. Those of us who volunteered to go in harm’s way understand this implicitly.

The left learned from mistakes made during the Vietnam War how counterproductive it is to blame openly our people for their war service, even though I’m sure the “Move On Dot Org” folks secretly consider our warriors to be little more than storm troopers and baby killers. At best, they look at our service personnel, all of them volunteers by the way, as misguided morons worthy only of contempt.

Rosie O’Donnell, a liberal mouthpiece, recently explained away our troops’ continued willingness and determination to fight on in Iraq by declaring that they are the uneducated desperate poor with few options.

George Soros (Rosie’s de facto boss) and his crew of “lefties” realize that few servicemen and women support the far left’s various visions, and most also don’t appreciate being used as pawns in the left’s arguments to bug out. Soros and his progressives understand this and so could care less what happens to the troops. Progressives know too that most service personnel are not likely to support the left’s schema, so why should they care about them? In fact, the hard core left doesn’t. Read on…

2. Iraqi casualties. If you are even slightly aware of what’s happening in Iraq you’ll know that Americans aren’t killing Iraqis; Iraqis are killing Iraqis. For the most part we are there trying to get them to stop. The far left knows this, and chooses to propagandize anyway that it is OUR presence causing them to kill each other. They claim that if we leave then the killing will stop. That’s another crock.

Or, uninformed folks like O’Donnell actually come out and say that WE are indeed the killers of innocents. Based on the enthusiastic applause she used to get on “The View” for her inane comments, equally uninformed people choose to believe her, mostly because they WANT to believe her, despite the facts.

By the left’s reasoning we are evil to be over there, even as we do our best to train Iraqi soldiers and police to bring order to their country—to stop the bombings and killings. Mind you, this is the same liberal crowd claiming that we SHOULD be in Darfur to stop the Arab-on-African killings going on down there. I ask them, WHY is it more righteous for us to stop the killings in the Sudan and not in Iraq?

As I said, I think I know the answer…

3. Our presence foments Islamic hatred. Here’s another fallacy used by progressives calling for us to immediately egress from Iraq. The fact is that we don’t need to be in Iraq for Islamic radicals to hate us, although I will admit that it makes it easier for them to get access to Americans. Thing is, the really nasty killers will simply come after us no matter where we are—just as they did on 9/11.

It’s ironic that what the Islamists hate the most about us is our liberalism. If anything in the world drives them to want to exterminate us it’s those aspects of our society most embraced by the left—things like free speech, open sexuality, self-indulgence, homosexuality, women’s rights, and secularism.

No, progressives don’t really care how much Muslims hate us, otherwise they would do as the radicals want, which is to end their “evil” ways, and convert to Islam. We all know that isn’t going to happen.

4. Bush lied; people died. Whether WMDs ever existed in Iraq, four years after the invasion THAT is now irrelevant. I won’t even use the argument that virtually EVERYONE was sure they existed (including Edwards and both Clintons); because—I repeat—it doesn’t matter. The point is that we ARE there.

Why would we simply leave the region and let it fall into complete turmoil and chaos just because we didn’t find nerve gas and nukes? I can already hear someone murmur that chaos already exists there—that it can’t get any worse. Well, it certainly CAN get worse, and if we leave precipitously, it WILL.

Aha! We are getting closer to the REAL reason Soros and his followers want the troops out, and IMMEDIATELY. Have patience; I’m almost there…

5. We can’t win, so why try? This kind of defeatist talk does nothing but fortify our enemies. The far far left doesn’t believe that ANYTHING is worth fighting for, appeasement being their watchword.

Honestly, our people running our efforts in Iraq know that we can’t kill every radical or even change many of the hearts-and-minds of the extremists fighting us. What our people DO realize is that we must continue to try to help the new Iraqi government’s efforts to bring their people together as a viable nation. Obviously, no one realized how difficult this was going to be. But that begs the question: Do we ONLY do those things that are easy? By that reasoning, once things get too tough in other places, such as Afghanistan or Korea or even right at home in the USA, do we just say it’s too hard and quit? Of course not!

Like it or not, Iraq is an extraordinarily strategic spot. We CANNOT just quit—we MUST stay until we figure it out. The world as we know it will change in ways extremely awful unless we stay and achieve a workable non-radical Iraq.

The truth is that the ONLY way we CAN’T win is if we quit. But, quitting is what the far left wants us to do, and as I keep saying, I believe I know why….

6. We have no business being in the middle of a civil war. This is another ridiculous argument. If you study history then you know that much of all warring could be classified as “civil.” Bill Clinton, the left’s darling, has admitted that he should have intervened in Rwanda, which was a civil war.

Genocide, which if declared to be happening by the UN must be stopped by “the world,” usually happens by way of civil wars. We intervened in Kosovo, Somalia, and Bosnia because of it. The current Darfur turmoil is in effect a civil war, yet there is a massive hue-and-cry by the left for us to intervene there.

Obviously, the far left is not serious when they use this argument. There MUST be another reason they want us out of Iraq… Stay with me…

7. Al Qaeda attacked us, not Iraq. This is another red herring, much like the “Bush lied…” argument. In truth, Hussein never complied with any of the UN’s demands after he “surrendered” to us in 1991. In truth, the war never ended; he continued to shoot at us and to subjugate and kill his own people. While he did this, most of the rest of the world helped him to regain his military capabilities by illegally paying him billions through the “oil for food” nonsense.

But, just as I stated above under reason 4, at this point, it just doesn’t matter. Al Qaeda in significant numbers IS in Iraq NOW, and they have great plans for it once the naysayers force us to up and leave. The far left knows this and they DON’T care! As I keep saying, I have a pretty good idea why…

And now, the REAL Reason…

By now, you may have deduced that I’m convinced that the extreme left doesn’t actually care about any of the above rationale—it’s all pretext. What occurred to me the other day while listening to “Bitter Al” prattle on about his “inconvenient truth” is that the people running the progressive show under the very liberal Mr. Soros are ONLY truly concerned about ONE subject—global warming. It hit me then that global warming is the only actual reason the far left wants us out of Iraq and NOW.

You ask, what does leaving Iraq have to do with rising temperatures? And how would the eviction of tens of thousands of U.S. troops be looked at as a good thing by those on the left fringe obsessing over global warming?

Well consider this; 40% of the world’s oil passes through the Straits of Hormuz. Obviously, therefore, it’s a critical chokepoint for the world’s petroleum-based economy. I can think of several scenarios that would cause the Gulf region to flare up into something ugly that would close off that chokepoint, especially if we leave Iraq in an unstable state.

Believe it or not, our presence in Iraq at this time is actually keeping things relatively calm in the region. As bad as the violence seems, most of it is centered in Baghdad and in a few other Iraqi-only hot spots. But, if we leave, all bets are off.

At this time there is a tenuous balance between the Saudis, the Iranians, the Syrians, and all the Islamic militant and extremist factions in a very shaky Iraq. Two events will probably send this fragile framework spiraling into bedlam: 1) U.S. troops leave before a viable Iraq is set up, and 2) the Iranians achieve their nuclear weapon ambitions.

If we leave Iraq in its current mess we basically hand it over to Al Qaeda and Iran. I predict that once that happens, within a very short time we will find ourselves having to go back into the region with even more troops with even bigger guns. Only this time, chances are we will probably have to attack Iran. The Iranians will sink a few ships and lay hundreds of mines, which will quickly close Hormuz. At that point, life as we know it ends, and that’s when the extremely far left GETS their wish—unaffordable oil.

The big brains behind these cunningly sly progressives fully understand that the only way we earthlings, especially us car-crazy Americans, will stop driving gas and diesel fueled vehicles is if we are FORCED to. Even though the technology already exists to replace petroleum-powered transport, as long as relatively cheap oil is available it’s never going to be fielded.

So you see, George Soros and his lieutenants want us out of Iraq all right; but NOT for any of the humane or bogus reasons many claim. No, the goal is simple—to get all of us onto mass transit and into cars powered by batteries and fuel cells.

It’s brilliant in a cynical underhanded way.