Squiggler

Christmas, military style

If you can read this without tears, you might need to have your humanity gene checked.

Merry Christmas, My Friend

Twas the night before Christmas, he lived all alone,
In a one bedroom house made of plaster & stone.
I had come down the chimney, with presents to give
and to see just who in this home did live

As I looked all about, a strange sight I did see,
no tinsel, no presents, not even a tree.
No stocking by the fire, just boots filled with sand.
On the wall hung pictures of a far distant land.

With medals and badges, awards of all kind,
a sobering thought soon came to my mind.
For this house was different, unlike any I’d seen.
This was the home of a U.S. Marine.

I’d heard stories about them, I had to see more,
so I walked down the hall and pushed open the door.
And there he lay sleeping, silent, alone,
Curled up on the floor in his one-bedroom home.

He seemed so gentle, his face so serene,
Not how I pictured a U.S. Marine.
Was this the hero, of whom I’d just read?
Curled up in his poncho, a floor for his bed?

His head was clean-shaven, his weathered face tan.
I soon understood, this was more than a man.
For I realized the families that I saw that night,
owed their lives to these men, who were willing to fight.

Soon around the Nation, the children would play,
And grown-ups would celebrate on a bright Christmas day.
They all enjoyed freedom, each month and all year,
because of Marines like this one lying here.

I couldn’t help wonder how many lay alone,
on a cold Christmas Eve, in a land far from home.
Just the very thought brought a tear to my eye.
I dropped to my knees and I started to cry.

He must have awoken, for I heard a rough voice,
“Santa, don’t cry, this life is my choice
I fight for freedom, I don’t ask for more.
My life is my God, my country, my Corps.”

With that he rolled over, drifted off into sleep,
I couldn’t control it, I continued to weep.

I watched him for hours, so silent and still.
I noticed he shivered from the cold night’s chill.
So I took off my jacket, the one made of red,
and covered this Marine from his toes to his head.

Then I put on his T-shirt of scarlet and gold,
with an eagle, globe and anchor emblazoned so bold.
And although it barely fit me, I began to swell with pride,
and for one shining moment, I was Marine Corps deep inside.

I didn’t want to leave him so quiet in the night,
this guardian of honor so willing to fight.
But half asleep he rolled over, and in a voice clean and pure,
said “Carry on, Santa, it’s Christmas Day, all secure.”
One look at my watch and I knew he was right,
Merry Christmas my friend, Semper Fi and goodnight.

 

While a Lance Corporal serving as Battalion Counter Sniper at the Marine

Barracks 8th & I

, Washington, DC, under Commandant

P.X. Kelly

and Battalion Commander

D.J. Myers

[in 1986], James M. Schmidt wrote this poem to hang on the door of the Gym in the BEQ. When Colonel Myers came upon it, he read it and immediately had copies sent to each department at the Barracks and promptly dismissed the entire Battalion early for Christmas leave. The poem was placed that day in the Marine Corps Gazette, distributed worldwide and later submitted to Leatherneck Magazine.

Rumsfield: Who is he and why did Feith wait so long to tell everyone?

Douglas J. Feith, a professor at Georgetown University, served as undersecretary of defense for policy from 2001 to 2005. His e-mail address is [email protected]. He wrote this piece for The Washington Post.

The Donald Rumsfeld I know isn't the one you know

WASHINGTON

Much of what you know about Donald Rumsfeld is wrong.

I know, because I worked intimately with him for four years, from the summer of 2001 until I left the Pentagon in August 2005. Through countless meetings and private conversations, I came to learn his traits, frame of mind and principles — characteristics wholly at odds with the standard public depiction of Rumsfeld, particularly now that he has stepped down after a long, turbulent tenure as defense secretary, a casualty of our toxic political climate.

I want to set the record straight: Don Rumsfeld is not an ideologue. He did not refuse to have his views challenged. He did not ignore the advice of his military advisers. And he did not push single-mindedly for war in Iraq. He was motivated to serve the national interest by transforming the military, though it irritated people throughout the Pentagon. Rumsfeld's drive to modernize created a revealing contrast between his Pentagon and the State Department — where Colin Powell was highly popular among the staff. After four years of Powell's tenure at State, the organization chart there would hardly tip anyone off that 9/11 had occurred — or even that the Cold War was over.

Rumsfeld is a bundle of paradoxes, like a fascinating character in a work of epic literature. And as my high school teachers drummed into my head, the best literature reveals that humans are complex. They are not the all-good or all-bad, all-brilliant or all-dumb figures that inhabit trashy novels and news stories. Fine literature teaches us the difference between appearance and reality.

Because of his complexity, Rumsfeld is often misread. His politics are deeply conservative, but he was radical in his drive to force change in every area he oversaw. He is strong-willed and hard-driving, but he built his defense strategies and Quadrennial Defense Reviews on calls for intellectual humility.

Those of us in his inner circle heard him say, over and over again: Our intelligence, in all senses of the term, is limited. We cannot predict the future. We must continually question our preconceptions and theories. If events contradict them, don't suppress the bad news; rather, change your preconceptions and theories.

If an ideologue is someone to whom the facts don't matter, then Rumsfeld is the opposite of an ideologue. He insists that briefings for him be full of facts, thoughtfully organized and rigorously sourced. He demands that facts at odds with his key policy assumptions be brought to his attention immediately. "Bad news never gets better with time," he says, and berates any subordinate who fails to rush forward to him with such news. He does not suppress bad news; he acts on it.

CONTINUE READING HERE ...

RELATED:

Rumsfeld: A Staggering Loss

By Pamela Geller Oshry on One of the Really Good Guys

The jihad loving media may have been instrumental in the Rumsfeld resignation but is the American people that will pay. Like I said here. A great man.

Generations of Valour

Blackfive has this photo posted today and calls it one of the most powerful he has ever seen. Powerful doesn't seem like a powerful enough word to describe this scene. It brought tears to my eyes and I had to share it here.

Patrick P. sends this photo - probably one of the most powerful images that I've ever seen - which he found at AirWarriors via the Marine Corps League (Baltimore):

Pearl Harbor survivor Houston James of Dallas embraces Marine Staff Sgt. Mark Graunke Jr. during a Veterans Day commemoration in Dallas. Graunke lost a hand, a leg and and eye when he defused a bomb in Iraq last year. (AP Photo)

To those who serve(d) -- thank you -- and to their spouses and their children and all who love and support them as they keep us safe, thank you too!

President Eisenhower signs HR7786, officially changing Armistice Day to Veterans Day.

Veterans Day is the American name for the international day called Armistice Day. It falls on November 11, the anniversary of the signing of the armistice that ended World War I. It is both a federal holiday and a state holiday in all states. The same day is observed elsewhere as Remembrance Day or Armistice Day. All major hostilities of World War I were formally ended at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918 with the German signing of the Armistice. Armistice Day was first commemorated in the United States by President Woodrow Wilson in 1919, and many states made it a legal holiday. Congress passed a resolution in 1926 inviting all Americans to observe the day and made it a legal holiday nationwide in 1938.

The holiday has been observed annually on November 11 since that date - first as Armistice Day, later as Veterans Day. When holidays in the United States, with the exception of New Year's Day, Christmas, Thanksgiving, and Independence Day were moved to Mondays to create long holiday weekends, the celebration was moved to the fourth Monday of October. However, after protests by veterans groups it was moved back to November 11th in an effort to make the holiday more important. Unfortunately for those groups, the result was the opposite. Even though it is a federal and state holiday, it is formally observed in most parts of the United States only by government offices and banks. Most schools and almost all businesses stay open on regular schedules. As a result, most public transit systems are on regular schedules. Most businesses cite the holiday's proximity to Thanksgiving (when many businesses close for a four-day weekend) as the main reason for staying open on Veterans Day; but most schools and businesses also stay open on Columbus Day, a full month earlier.

On November 11, 1953, the citizens of Emporia, Kansas staged a Veterans Day observance in lieu of an Armistice Day remembrance. Congressman Ed Rees of Emporia, Kansas subsequently introduced legislation in the United States House of Representatives to officially change the name of Armistice Day to Veterans Day [1]. Following a letter-writing campaign to secure the support of all state governors in the observance of this new holiday, the name of the holiday was changed to Veterans Day (enacted June 1, 1954), to honor those who served.

The day has since evolved as a time for honoring living veterans who have served in the military during wartime or peacetime, partially to complement Memorial Day, which primarily honors the dead. There has been some discussion of whether a person's veteran status depends upon his/her retirement or discharge from any of the armed forces. However, the term applies to any that have honorably served their country or that have served in a war zone as directed by their superior officers or as directed by lawful orders given by their country.
 

A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America 

Through the generations, America’s men and women in uniform have defeated tyrants, liberated continents, and set a standard of courage and idealism for the entire world. On Veterans Day, our Nation pays tribute to those who have proudly served in our Armed Forces.

To protect the Nation they love, our veterans stepped forward when America needed them most. In conflicts around the world, their sacrifice and resolve helped destroy the enemies of freedom and saved millions from oppression. In answering history’s call with honor, decency, and resolve, our veterans have shown the power of liberty and earned the respect and admiration of a grateful Nation.

All of America’s veterans have placed our Nation’s security before their own lives, creating a debt that we can never fully repay. Our veterans represent the best of America, and they deserve the best America can give them.

As we recall the service of our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen, we are reminded that the defense of freedom comes with great loss and sacrifice. This Veterans Day, we give thanks to those who have served freedom’s cause; we salute the members of our Armed Forces who are confronting our adversaries abroad; and we honor the men and women who left America’s shores but did not live to be thanked as veterans. They will always be remembered by our country.

With respect for and in recognition of the contributions our service men and women have made to the cause of peace and freedom around the world, the Congress has provided (5 U.S.C. 6103(a)) that November 11 of each year shall be set aside as a legal public holiday to honor veterans.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim November 11, 2006, as Veterans Day and urge all Americans to observe November 5 through November 11, 2006, as National Veterans Awareness Week. I encourage all Americans to recognize the valor and sacrifice of our veterans through ceremonies and prayers. I call upon Federal, State, and local officials to display the flag of the United States and to support and participate in patriotic activities in their communities. I invite civic and fraternal organizations, places of worship, schools, businesses, unions, and the media to support this national observance with commemorative expressions and programs.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirty-first day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand six, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first.

GEORGE W. BUSH

WREATH LAYING - U.S. Army Capt. Eric Stainbrook and Sgt. Ryan Hackett represent servicemembers wounded in Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom by laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington National Cemetery, Nov. 3, 2006.
U.S. Army photo by Spc. Brian K. Parker

Marine Posthumously Awarded the Medal of Honor for Heroism in Iraq

Cpl. Jason L. Dunham

QUANTICO, Va., Nov. 10, 2006 – A Marine corporal who died shielding men in his care from a bursting grenade will receive America’s highest military decoration, President Bush said here today.

Actions by Cpl. Jason L. Dunham, who would have turned 25 today, merit the Medal of Honor, Bush said at the National Museum of the Marine Corps dedication ceremony, which coincided with the 231st Marine Corps anniversary.

On April 14, 2004, in Iraq near the Syrian border, the corporal used his helmet and his body to smother an exploding Mills bomb let loose by a raging insurgent whom Dunham and two other Marines had tried to subdue.

The explosion dazed and wounded Lance Cpl. William Hampton and Pfc. Kelly Miller. The insurgent stood up after the blast and was immediately killed by Marine small-arms fire.

Dunham lay face down with a shard the size of a dress-shirt button lodged in his head. The hard, molded mesh that was his Kevlar helmet was now scattered yards around into clods and shredded fabric. Dunham never regained consciousness and died eight days later at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., with his mother and father at his bedside.

Dunham’s commanding officers from 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines, investigated his actions and nominated him for the Medal of Honor. After two years and seven months making its way to the White House, the nomination now has the necessary approval from the president. Next, the president will present the medal and citation to the corporal’s parents, Dan and Debra Dunham, who drove to Quantico from their home in Scio, N.Y. Dunham is buried in Scio.

“Corporal Dunham's mom and dad are with us today on what would have been this brave young man's 25th birthday,” Bush said. “We remember that the Marine who so freely gave his life was your beloved son. We ask a loving God to comfort you for a loss that can never be replaced. And on this special birthday, in the company of his fellow Marines, I'm proud to announce that our nation will recognize Corporal Jason Dunham's action with America's highest decoration for valor, the Medal of Honor.

“As long as we have Marines like Corporal Dunham,” the president continued. “America will never fear for her liberty. And as long as we have this fine museum, America will never forget their sacrifice.”

Before Dunham, the last Marine actions to earn the medal happened May 8, 1970, in Vietnam, according to Marine Corps History Division records. A Medal of Honor citation details Lance Cpl. Miguel Keith’s machine-gun charge that inspired a platoon facing nearly overwhelming odds: Wounded, Keith ran into “fire-swept terrain.” Wounded again by a grenade, he still attacked, taking out enemies in the forward rush. Keith fought until mortally wounded; his platoon came out on top despite being heavily outnumbered.

The last Marine to receive the Medal of Honor was Maj. Gen. James L. Day, who distinguished himself as a corporal in the Battle of Okinawa in 1945. On Jan. 20, 1998, more than half a century later, President Bill Clinton presented the medal to Day. He passed away that year.

Dunham’s Medal of Honor will be the second awarded for service in Operation Iraqi Freedom. On April 4, 2003, Army Sgt. 1st Class Paul R. Smith posthumously earned the medal for organizing a defense that held off a company-sized attack on more than 100 vulnerable coalition soldiers. In the defense, Smith manned a .50-caliber machine gun in an exposed position until he was mortally wounded.

Don Rumsfield not writing his goodbye speech just yet

Via Red State:

Listen up, countrymen--I come to praise Rumsfeld, not to bury him.

By [email protected] (Redstate Network) on War

Donald Rumsfeld resigned as Secretary of Defense on Wednesday, but he will remain in his post for some months while the transition to Robert Gates takes place. And yesterday he suggested that those months of transition (and beyond) may not be devoid of activity--indeed, if I'm reading the tea leaves correctly, Mr. Rumsfeld's most difficult but most important work for the Bush administration may well lie ahead of him.

While a lesser man might have sulked in his tent after resigning in response to a bad election cycle, Mr. Rumsfeld went about business as usual and delivered a noteworthy address at Kansas State University. In a way, Mr. Rumsfeld may feel liberated to start articulating some broader-reaching long-term goals for the DoD and the government. In the Q&A he declined to give specific advice to Mr. Gates, possibly because he had already done so in a speech that sketches out a broad plan for systemic government reform expanding on the transformation program Mr. Rumsfeld has so ably implemented at the Pentagon.

Secretary Rumsfeld was in Kansas to celebrate KSU alum and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers, who is having a new building named for him on campus. General Myers is one of the many among the top military brass who have been rumored in the press to secretly oppose Mr. Rumsfeld's leadership of the Pentagon. That has never seemed terribly likely to me, and General Myers reinforced my opinion yesterday in his introductory remarks:

...

It is in many ways unfortunate that one of the few people who truly understand the nature of this terrible foe is now leaving the Bush administration. But I understand the political reality that made Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation nigh on inevitable after Tuesday. Elections happen, and what sets us apart from our enemies is that their ramifications are peacefully implemented in this country. While I do not agree that Iraq was in and of itself the defining factor in this election (voters overwhelmingly named "corruption" as their most important issue), it is the most important issue among the newly-elected congressional majority, who have signalled their intentions:

House Democrats say they plan to set up a new committee next year focused on uncovering abuses in defense spending and policies, and possibly an independent commission to investigate waste and fraud associated with the billions of dollars spent to rebuild Iraq. Implementing unfulfilled recommendations by the 9/11 commission -- such as plugging holes in airport security -- is also on their agenda.

'It's going to be hearings, accountability, trying to restore trust so the people understand what the real facts are,' said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., the Marine veteran who last year called for an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and helped crystallize congressional opposition to the war.

It seems logical to conclude that Mr. Rumsfeld had wind of this plan in early October and that the "thoughtful discussions" in which he engaged with the President leading up to the election were largely centered on this topic. This perspective makes all the more meaningful Mr. Rumsfeld's decision to boost troop levels in Baghdad in October; he noted in a recent press conference that:

"I remember going up on the Hill and people saying to me, "Oh, what's the October surprise going to be? You're going to reduce a whole bunch of troops or produce Osama or something?" And well, the October surprise was, we increased troop levels. (Chuckles.) Why? Because it was the right thing to do."

It was the right thing to do so Mr. Rumsfeld did it rather than engineer a temporary reduction of forces that might have extended his tenure at the Pentagon, but which would have undermined the mission. And he chuckled, knowing full well how his good deed most likely would be rewarded.

What the re-empowered Mr. Murtha proposes are not policy hearings on Iraq along the lines of what will occur in the Senate Armed Services Committee next week, but rather a witch hunt that will be facilitated by the Byzantine budgeting process that funds the DoD. One can only imagine the mountains of paper that will be subpoenaed. Remember the infamous $436 hammer that inspired former Vice-President Al Gore to create "The Hammer Award?" That's going to be child's play compared to the dissection of the Afghanistan and Iraq books. I'm not suggesting that there is any deliberate or systemic impropriety in the accounting for the war, but there are sure to be such hammers to be found in a campaign of this scale, as well as funding processes that were developed to enable timely progress in both campaigns as conditions on the ground changed more rapidly than the current system could support. Secretary Rumsfeld signaled as much in his KSU speech:

The realities on the ground in the rest of the world do not correspond to the yearly federal budgetary process -- where it can take one year to craft a budget, another to get it approved by Congress, and then a third year to execute that then somewhat stale program.

READ IT ALL HERE ...  

Troops displeased about the departure of Rumsfield

This is both sad and frustrating. Of course, anyone who thinks democrats give a rat's ass about our troops or their mission lives in some fantasyland. The dems. goal is to humiliate America and especially military America. If you think not, you too live in lala land.

American troops are afraid, now that the Democrats have won, they’ll be pulled out of Iraq before they have a chance to complete their mission:

Half of America and the upper echelons of the US military may be cheering Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation from the post of Defence Secretary, but there was no rejoicing yesterday among those most directly affected by his decisions: the frontline soldiers in Iraq.

Troops expressed little pleasure at the departure of the man responsible for their protracted deployment to a hostile country where 2,839 of their comrades have died.

Indeed, some members of the 101st Airborne Division and other troops approached by The Times as they prepared to fly home from Baghdad airport yesterday expressed concern that Robert Gates, Mr Rumsfeld’s successor, and the Democrat-controlled Congress, might seek to wind down their mission before it was finished.

Mr Rumsfeld “made decisions, he stuck with them and he did what he thought was right, whether people agreed with it, liked it, or not”, Staff Sergeant Frank Notaro said. He insisted that Iraq was better off now than before the war.

Staff Sergeant Michael Howard said: “It’s a blow to the military. He was a good Secretary of Defence. He kept us focused. He kept the leaders focused. It’s going to be hard to fill his shoes.”

This echoes sentiments expressed by other soldiers immediately before the election.

The Meaning of Victory: A Conversation with General Franks

How should victory be defined?

What constitutes victory? I think that is a fundamental question, and it is good for each of us in this country to ask ourselves that from time to time.

When we try to decide whether or not we’ve been victorious, we have to think, for just a second, what the term “victory” means. Victory means the accomplishment of objectives and goals that we had in mind when we initially became involved in a particular conflict. It’s also instructive if we ask how we understood victory—what the objectives had been—in the past when our country became involved in one fight or another. In some cases victory has been defined as the removal of a particular threat, either to ourselves or to our friends. But we also find that in almost every case we became involved in wars in order to gain security, either for ourselves or for friends; that at the end of the conflict, as a result of treaty, or pact, or alliance, this security was guaranteed. Security for friends—meaning both allied countries as well as for pro-American forces within a given country—has also inevitably become a part of the objective of victory. That is how we establish the metrics of defining victory.

There are always secondary objectives. The opening and securing of lines of communication are sometimes components in defining what constitutes victory. Sometimes there are economic benefits. Sometimes victory is said to have been achieved when a particular country has been introduced (or reintroduced) into the community of nations, as happened with Germany and Japan after World War II. This may entail the establishment of the rule of law and some form of representative government. And at least in one man’s opinion, mine, components of politics on the ground in a particular country—internationally and certainly here at home—will always factor into our definition of victory.

And these secondary objectives also help set the bar for what it means to attain victory, establishing what victory will mean at a particular time. And if there is disagreement with what secondary objectives should constitute the standard for victory, and we want to establish a different set of metrics, then we can look from time to time and ask ourselves how we are doing in terms of coming to victory.

In Iraq, has too much emphasis been placed on achievement of secondary objectives or preferences as the benchmark for victory? After all, the primary objective—the removal of a hostile regime—has been achieved.

I think a lot has to do with the public perception, which in any great period of consternation will be determined in a large part by the media. Now, one can just go about bashing the media, and I think the American people believe from time to time that the media is responsible for the difficulty. However, in my mind, this is not so, and we should not allow ourselves to believe it. But when we have run into a particularly difficult time, and Iraq at this point represents a particularly difficult time, then we as Americans sit back and watch to see, “Well, how are we doing?” And if, for whatever reason, the media happens to pick up on a secondary objective as the cause célèbre and as the overall objective, and begins to simply report and fill American households with a lack of progress in achieving that objective, then pretty soon that becomes the measurement of success.

READ IT ALL ...

Soldiers Say Democrat War Plans "An Extreme Betrayal"

I was going to write my own article on this, but Confederate Yankee has done such a good job, I will defer to him. Let me trumpet these words of our soldiers in Iraq who tell the Washington Post during a series of interviews they did that:

A PRECIPITOUS WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ WOULD HAVE "DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES."

Soldiers Say Democrat War Plans "An Extreme Betrayal"

In an article published in today's Washington Post, dozens of soldiers interviewed by Post reporter Josh White revealed that the precipitous withdrawal favored by many top Democratic leaders would have "disastrous consequences" for the nation of Iraq, potentially plunging the nation into a widespread civil war:

For the U.S. troops fighting in Iraq, the war is alternately violent and hopeful, sometimes very hot and sometimes very cold. It is dusty and muddy, calm and chaotic, deafeningly loud and eerily quiet.

The one thing the war is not, however, is finished, dozens of soldiers across the country said in interviews. And leaving Iraq now would have devastating consequences, they said.

With a potentially historic U.S. midterm election on Tuesday and the war in Iraq a major issue at the polls, many soldiers said the United States should not abandon its effort here. Such a move, enlisted soldiers and officers said, would set Iraq on a path to civil war, give new life to the insurgency and create the possibility of a failed state after nearly four years of fighting to implant democracy.

"Take us out of that vacuum -- and it's on the edge now -- and boom, it would become a free-for-all," said Lt. Col. Mark Suich, who commands the 1st Squadron, 89th Cavalry Regiment just south of Baghdad. "It would be a raw contention for power. That would be the bloodiest piece of this war."

The soldiers declined to discuss the political jousting back home, but they expressed support for the Bush administration's approach to the war, which they described as sticking with a tumultuous situation to give Iraq a chance to stand on its own.

As I stated previously, a civil war is one possible outcome of the calamitous withdrawal apparently favored by Charles Rangel, Lynn Woolsey and other Democrats that favor forcing the military to retreat by de-funding the war, while other approaches favor by Democrats such as John Murtha's plan to "redeploy" the soldiers to Pacific island bases thousands of miles away would lead to the same bloody disaster, and possible genocide.

Blackfive has been collecting from soldiers stationed in Iraq--the ones that John Kerry still thinks aren't intelligent according to his own web site--and their opinions, while varied, support the war effort even though it is their lives on the line.

A sample from a Marine Sergeant on his second tour in Iraq:

People in the US who want to support the troops, who believe we are engaged in a war, and who recognize the long term consequences of failure need to look past all other issues and vote Republican. Democrats have no policy and can not be trusted. But, even worse, they display no apparent understanding of the dangers to our western civilization presented by the enemy. Their actions since 2001 indicate they are willing to sacrifice the safety and integrity of the USA in the future for short term political gains today.

It is painfully clear that those soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines that put their lives on the line every day in Iraq overwhelmingly support staying in Iraq to finish the mission. This is borne out from the dozens of interviews collected by White in his Post article, by the more than 100 emails Blackfive has received from those serving in Iraq right now, and in conversation I've personally had with airmen and soldiers I've recently met who've just returned stateside from multiple tours in Iraq.

READ IT ALL HERE ...

RELATED:

Captain Ed's comments:

We have heard a lot from the Democrats in this election season about supporting the troops by withdrawing them from Iraq. Terms like "phased redeployment" and "event horizon" have been thrown around by critics of the war. However, the people that will have to execute those maneuvers do not have much enthusiasm for them.

(H/T Wizbang)  Leader of the terrorist organization Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, tells Muslims in the Middle East that the US will abandon them the same way it left Vietnam:

Here's a partial transcript:

When I talk about an [American] failure, I'm not saying that the Americans' plan for the region has collapsed, and that they are packing up their things and leaving, like what happened in the final days in Vietnam. But I would like to tell you clearly... I am one of those people who see a very clear picture. In our childhood... When we were young boys... I cannot forget the sight of the American forces leaving Vietnam in helicopters, which carried their officers and soldiers. Some Vietnamese, who had fought alongside the Americans, tried to climb into these helicopters, but the [Americans] threw them to the ground, abandoned them, and left. This is the sight I anticipate in our region, but I am not saying it will happen in months. It will take years. The Americans will gather their belongings and leave this region - the entire region. They have no future whatsoever in our region. They will leave the Middle East, and the Arab and Islamic worlds, like they left Vietnam. I advise all those who place their trust in the Americans to learn the lesson of Vietnam, and to learn the lesson of the South Lebanese Army with the Israelis, and to know that when the Americans lose this war and lose it they will, Allah willing - they will abandon them to their fate, just like they did to all those who placed their trust in them throughout history.

RELATED:

Believe the troops who are there or the pols who are not?

By TheAnchoress on Election 2006

Ignoring the fact that much good news in Iraq goes unreported by a press that even the Iraqi’s call “biased”, the Democrats keep talking about “redeploying” the troops, which is a nicer way of saying “pull out of Iraq…”

Because the Iraqi people haven’t been let down enough…we only told them once before that if they’d rise up, we’d be there for them, and then we skeedaddled. That certainly worked out well for everyone, didn’t it? Was honorable, too, right? Embellished the reputation of the United States, indeed! Just like pulling out of Vietnam did.

The Democrats keep telling us this is the only course of action, the sensible thing to do, pulling out. Oh, excuse me, “redeploying.” (There is nothing a Dem loves more than a euphemism. Change the word and suddenly everything’s alright, then!)

Our troops who, excuse me, Mrs. Pelosi, are there doing the work say differently. While your party wrings its hands and says “oh, no, this is getting hard and there is global warming to think about, let’s pull out,” this is what the troops are saying:

Defense Department response to Army Times editorial

The following is the full Defense Department Response to the editorial scheduled to appear on Monday in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force Times. It should be kept in mind that these publications are published by Gannet, the same company that publishes USA Today. The editorial is not written by anyone in the military, but instead by their liberal Managing Editor whose bias is well known.

Response to Army Times Editorial

Nov. 4, 2006                                                  On Saturday, Nov. 4, the Army Times published an editorial titled, “Time for Rumsfeld to go.” The editorial included a number of inaccurate and misleading statements. SUMMARY: THE ADMINISTRATION HAS PROVIDED A BALANCED PICTURE: The Department has always attempted to clearly and accurately describe the challenges our forces face in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Secretary above all has always been very measured in describing the progress U.S forces are making in what will undoubtedly be a long struggle in the War on Terror. CHALLENGE THOSE WHO CLAIM ADMINISTRATION OFFERED A ROSY SCENARIO: We challenge those who say the Secretary has ever painted a “rosy picture” to provide his quotes as well as the full context of those remarks. THIS IS OLD NEWS MASKED AS NEW NEWS: The new “chorus of criticism” noted by the editorials is actually old news and does not include commanders in the field, who remain committed to the mission.  INSULTING MILITARY COMMANDERS: The assertion, without evidence, that senior military officers are “toeing the line” is an insult to their judgment and integrity. IRAQIS ARE RISKING THEIR LIVES FOR THEIR COUNTRY: Iraqi security forces are making slow but measurable progress. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have made themselves and their families targets and put their lives at risk for their new country. They are increasingly taking the lead in operations. The disparagement of these forces is completely unfounded. CHALLENGE POSED BY ENEMY IS TOUGH: As long as the enemy is determined to thwart a free and democratic Iraq the stability throughout the country will fluctuate. However, the security situation is not monolithic across the country. Many parts of Iraq are relatively peaceful. WE WILL GIVE TROOPS WHAT THEY NEED TO WIN: This country and the leadership of the Defense Department are going to ensure that our military forces have the resources to successfully carry out their mission. To suggest otherwise is simply wrong.

SPECIFIC CLAIMS  REBUTTED: “Rosy Scenarios”                                                                                             CLAIM: “The ‘hard bruising’ truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington. One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.” FACTS: The President, Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, and others have from the outset of Operation Iraqi Freedom warned the American people that the fight in Iraq could be long and difficult, but ultimately worth the costs. To cite one of a multitude of examples, President Bush said on March 19, 2003 in his address to the nation at the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom: “A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment.” Abizaid taken out  of context CLAIM: “Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war’s planning, execution and dimming prospects for success. Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: ‘I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war.’” FACTS: Military commanders involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom have continually expressed their belief in the importance of the mission in Iraq. The selective use of General Abizaid’s quote from September ignores other things that General Abizaid said at that hearing. For example, he also said: “This is a hard thing. And it’s going to take a long time. And it’s going to take a lot of courage and a lot of perseverance and unfortunately more blood, and it’s going to take more treasure. But there are more people in Iraq that are working with us to try to make their country a better place than are trying to tear it apart. . . .The people that are trying to tear it apart are ruthless. They are pulling out everything that they can to make it fail. . . .And it’s hard. That’s why we kept extra forces there. And it’s hard and it’s tough and it’s difficult, but we will prevail. . . But I can tell you, people have a right to express their opinion. There’s political activity. There’s freedom of the press. There are things that are happening in Iraq that don’t happen anywhere else in the Middle East. And we ought to be proud of it.” Selected Leaking  to the New York Times FACT: It is foolish to try to draw conclusions from one piece of classified information leaked to the New York Times. What that page referred to was a snapshot in time. CLAIM: “Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on ‘critical’ and has been sliding toward "chaos" for most of the past year.” Military and civilian leaders have repeatedly said Iraq is facing difficult challenges, and that as long as the enemy is determined to thwart a free and democratic Iraq the stability throughout the country will fluctuate. The security situation, however, is not monolithic across the country. Many parts of Iraq are relatively peaceful.  The challenge remains to help the Iraqi government develop a relatively stable country with security forces available to take on the fight against the enemy. This is what commanders are working to do, making adjustments and changes along the way. Iraqi Security  Forces CLAIM: “For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don’t show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.” FACTS: Some 300,000 Iraqi Security Forces are risking their lives for their new country.  Polls of Iraqis show consistent support among the populations for members of the Iraqi Security Forces.  Iraqi forces are increasingly taking the lead in operations against the enemy. On August 31, 2006, General George Casey, Commander, MultiNational Force- Iraq, said the following: “I can see the Iraqi security forces progressing to a point where they can take on the security responsibilities for the country with very little coalition support. “We have been on a three-step process to help build the Iraqi security forces. The first step was the training and equipping; to organize them, put them through a training program -- army and police -- and to give them the appropriate weapons and equipment they need. The second step was to put them into the lead still with our support, and when they’re in the lead, they’re responsible for the area, and we still help them. That process is almost 75 percent complete. The last step, as you suggest, is to get them to the stage where they can independently provide security in Iraq. That step becomes primarily building institutional capacity, building ministerial capacity and building the key enabling systems -- logistics, intelligence, medial support; those kinds of things -- that can support and sustain the armed forces in place for a longer period of time. And so we’re making good progress along those steps right now.” Troop Levels                                               CLAIM: “Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more  troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.”   FACTS: Commanders in the field have repeatedly been assured by the President and the Secretary of Defense that they will be given whatever resources they need to complete the mission in Iraq. On July 9, 2003, Gen. Franks testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said: “There has been [the] suggestion that perhaps there should be more troops. And in fact, I can tell you, in the presence of [Secretary Rumsfeld], that if more troops are necessary, this secretary’s going to say ‘yes.’ I mean, we have talked about this on a number of occasions. And when the tactical commanders on the ground determine that they need to raise force levels, then those forces in fact will be provided.” On September 20, 2006, General Abizaid, the current Commander of U.S. Central Command, explained: “[T]he tension in this mission has always been between how much we do and how much we ask the Iraqis to do. The longer we stay, the more we must ask the Iraqis to do. Putting another 100,000 American troops in Iraq is something that I don’t think would be good for the mission overall, because it would certainly cause Americans to go to the front, [cause] Americans to take responsibility. And we’re at the point in the mission where it’s got to fall upon the Iraqis. They know that; they want responsibility. The key question is having the right balance, and I believe we’re maintaining the right balance.” On Oct. 11, 2006, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., commander of Multi-National Force-Iraq, was asked whether he needed more troops in Iraq. He responded: “I don’t – right now, my answer is no. … [I]f I think I need more, I’ll ask for more and bring more in.” Attack on  Secretary Rumsfeld CLAIM: “Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.” FACTS: Defense Secretaries in times of war are always subject to sometimes harsh criticism. The Secretary has helped oversee two conflicts while also transforming a mammoth bureaucracy, overseeing sweeping humanitarian missions across the globe, and helping to protect the American people at home.

Now click yourself over to Gateway Pundit for all the charts and graphs like the one shown below and lots more information.

Looking at Iraq:

The recorded Iraqi civilian fatalities (including insurgents, military, morgue counts, police, etc.) were down 16% (16% maximum) this year... 38% (48% maximum) less than 2003. If you take out the numbers from that horrible day in August when nearly one thousand panicked Iraqis were trampled or drowned near a Muslim shrine, the year shows striking progress compared to 2003 and 2004 with fatalities one third less than in 2004.

Ya' gotta love it!

Hat tip: Say Anything via Blackfive :

The crowd went wild at the football game between the services, according to reports.

John Kerry: A case of arrested development? Sounds like it.

John Kerry has apologized, yeah right. First of all, his apology was just more of the same blame others crap that we are used to hearing coming out of this arrogant elitist's mouth. If we hadn't "misinterpreted" his remarks, we wouldn't be so stupid to think he'd denigrate the military.

Well here is what John Kerry really thinks about an all volunteer military:

Kerry apologized Wednesday for the 2006 campaign trail gaffe that some took as suggesting U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq were undereducated. He contended the remark was aimed at Bush, not the soldiers.

In 1972, as he ran for the House, he was less apologetic in his comments about the merits of a volunteer army. He declared in the questionnaire that he opposed the draft but considered a volunteer army "a greater anathema."

"I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown," Kerry wrote. "We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply 'doing its job.'

"Equally as important, a volunteer army with our present constitutional crisis takes accountability away from the president and put the people further from control over military activities," he wrote.

And even if he did mean his initial remarks to be directed at President Bush, how does that make them any better? Denigrating the Commander-in-Chief while those 140,000 service men and women are in harm's way is just as disgusting as denigrating the troops at his command. Not to mention, that based on grades and accomplishments, George Bush is a heck of a lot smarter than John F'n Kerry.

On April 23, 1971, John Kerry tossed his military medals at the Whitehouse after a week long protest organized by Kerry and the VVAW called: Operation Dewey Canyon III. (Swiftvets)