Defeating moral equivalence
While I served to protect the principle of free speech, I detest when people choose to follow perceptions rather than reality and attempt to rewrite history. Especially when those people equate the honor and sacrifice displayed by the members of the U.S. military with the evil perpetrated by the Taliban.
To those who cast aside reason in this manner, I ask: What do you stand to gain by taking the position that the U.S. is no worse than the Taliban? And to those who claim that the Taliban are "freedom fighters," what liberty does the Taliban offer?
The United States stands for liberty. And those who have joined the military must have felt sufficiently motivated by the principles and traditions of this country to do so (I can speak only for myself) - knowing that they are risking their lives. And they do so not only for our interests, but for the entire world - including our enemies. Our humanitarian efforts makes the U.N. look like Uncle Scrooge. Since we are human, that means we aren't perfect. Every culture has it's skeletons, and ours is no exception. Over the course of human history, the world has been dominated by one civilization or colonial power after another. But things changed in 1776. The United States stands for liberty, not tyranny. In our wars, we have taken only enough land to bury our dead. The Taliban on the other hand stand for tyranny. And an incredibly barbaric tyranny at that.
The U.S. military doesn't use human shields, but the Taliban does. And how do you suppose they get children - who are typically scared of the dark, let alone the sights and sounds of battle - to stay or even participate?
The Taliban aren't the ones building roads, dams, schools, and other infrastructure - our military is. The U.S. military doesn't threaten, disfigure, and massacre little school girls and threaten their teachers simply for trying to go to school.
The U.S. military doesn't use land mines (IEDs) - which far more often maim and kill the Taliban's fellow Afghans than Westerners. George Soros' phony human rights groups are nowhere to be found when it comes to this issue, and the media could care less (perhaps for the same reason they won't wear U.S. flags on their lapel). The U.S. military doesn't prefer to operate amongst civilians, with the express purpose of creating death and destruction, as is the choice of the Taliban. In fact our military limits our rules of engagement to the point that many of our men have died because of the decision. The U.S. military's prisoners in Gitmo have better medical care than any citizen I have ever met, and their chief concern is weight gain - not beheading and a subsequently-mutilated corpse.
The U.S. military doesn't produce opium that destroys millions of lives worldwide. The U.S. military treats women with respect, not as a sub-species only useful for sexual purposes. And the U.S. military has never lured in hundreds of women with promises of free health care, only to be raped on video as the Haqqanis did. And when the videos were discovered, the rape victims were tracked down and murdered in order to cover up the atrocity.
The U.S. military coexists with all ideologies - including thousands of non-jihadist Muslims who serve without prejudice (so much so that they promoted an openly-jihadist officer to Major) - while the Taliban seek a global caliphate.
When the U.S. military come across children in need of medical care, they stop at nothing to give them that care, including flying them to hospitals on the other side of the world, at incredible expense. The U.S. military even give medical treatment to captured enemy combatants, side-by-side in the helicopters with the soldiers who they tried to kill just moments ago. The U.S. military follow the laws of warfare, which were there to protect civilians from exactly what the Taliban, al Qaeda, and co. are doing to their own people.
To come to my conclusions, I cite fact. The truth is what it is, and I stand nothing to gain from misrepresenting it. If anyone doubts what I have posted, see for yourself if what I cited is true. It is preposterous to equate the U.S. military with the barbarians in the Taliban.
March 18, 2010 • Permalink
• Comments (23)
• TrackBack (0)
Categories and Tags:
Military
Rountdable - MG Hogg on Professional Military Education for the Afghan National Army
Major General David Hogg spoke on the subject of training the Afghan National Army in accord with the standards of Professional Military Education. Transcript is here.
I wasn't able to attend, but I sent in a question by email.
The next question I have was submitted online by Grim from BlackFive.net on the topic of professional military ethics education for the Afghan army. And I'll read this verbatim.
"Specifically, I'd like to know how they are adapting our own military ethics, which are rooted in just-war theory, which is itself rooted in Catholic teachings, to the Islamic culture of Afghanistan's military. Have we tapped any of our Muslim chaplains to try to find an Islamic root for these principles?"
GEN. HOGG: We actually, within the Afghan army, they have the ministry of cultural affairs -- religious and cultural affairs -- that are part of the army itself. And so we're not -- we're not inserting our values -- we're basically the golden rule values and the standards of what a professional military is all about. You know, it's having standards. It's attempting to eliminate the corruption. It's attempting to put in a merit-based system for promotions versus nepotism.
And then so, you know, the basic standards that we expect of a professional officer, that the international world kind of expects as an international standard, is what we're using in conjunction with the Afghans. And that's kind of the direction that we're going there. But we're not putting in -- we don't do the -- we do it based on standards -- standards and discipline and what an armed force is supposed to be able to do. And the rule of law is preached.
The rule of law is important. And it's an international standard. And most of the Afghans that we deal with in the leadership, they understand that. And so it's just a continuous training like we do with our own force.
It's obvious the question was uncomfortable, which is understandable. That wasn't the intent. BLACKFIVE loves ya'll. Still, in formulating your Professional Military Ethics Education (PMEE), you might want to look into these standards. They're pretty good standards, rooted in Islamic jurisprudence.* An ANA equipped with PMEE on these grounds will be hard to beat.
As we discussed yesterday, al Qaeda -- and indeed, the Taliban to a large degree -- violate these standards daily. It's a powerful force multiplier for your military ethics education if the ANA can show the people of Afghanistan that the enemy are bad actors by the standards of Islam. You can't expect, though, that your average ANA soldier will have the theological training or background to make that argument. Our chaplains, or local religious leaders you've found to be expert in the matter, would be of tremendous use to them.
There are strategic effects possible here well beyond the realm of Afghanistan.
* I realize some of our readers will want to comment on the doctrine of taqiya, which is a kind of deception practiced on your enemies. The standards here seem to have been enforced at times within Islam, though, not merely asserted to 'enemies of Islam.' There's nothing in taqiya that would endorse lying to fellow Muslims.
March 18, 2010 • Permalink
• Comments (4)
• TrackBack (0)
HALO Hound
This is quite possibly the coolest picture in the history of Earth. It's an exercise in Norway, but they are practicing for, well you can guess.
I don't even have anything else to say beyond, DAG!
March 17, 2010 • Permalink
• Comments (18)
• TrackBack (0)
Capturing Bin Laden
Closely related to McQ's question about what the ACLU is doing meddling with our drone strike policy is the statement by Attorney General Eric Holder about the impossibility of capturing bin Laden.
Osama bin Laden “will never appear in an American courtroom,” Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. told House members at a hearing Tuesday. “Let’s deal with the reality here,” Holder said in response to questions from Rep. John Culberson (R-Tex.). “The reality is, we will be reading Miranda rights to a corpse.”
Members of an Appropriations subcommittee pressed Holder about the Justice Department’s response to the failed Christmas Day bombing plot and the abortive decision to try in Lower Manhattan the alleged masterminds of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
He grew most heated, however, amid GOP attacks over the hypothetical capture of bin Laden. No law enforcement response would be necessary, he said, because “he will be killed by us or by his own people.”
As Desert Storm vet James Joyner says, though, "members of the special forces or intelligence team... [would] much rather have the intelligence and propaganda value of dragging the Big Cheese in." That's no doubt true.
There is probably a middle course, in which we'd take him alive if possible; but if the window of opportunity didn't permit it, he's a target of about the same level as Zarqawi or Saddam. Saddam ended up being taken alive after serious effort, but early in the war we were quite willing to drop 2,000 pound bombs on places where he was reliably reported to be. And as for Zarqawi, let's not forget what happened to him.
The problem is that we've got this very confused two-track approach. If we'd taken Zarqawi alive, he would have been turned over to the government of Iraq (as Saddam was). If we take bin Laden alive, he will be... what? Prosecuted as a criminal in civilian court? Prosecuted by military tribunal, like Nurmberg? Held until the end of the conflict, as would be the limit case for Prisoners of War?
Because we're kind-of treating the war as a law enforcement operation under Holder, the ACLU has a window to make these kinds of inquiries into what sorts of "due process" we are employing before depriving our enemies of "life, liberty or property." That would be fine, if this were a peacetime issue that was meant to be handled in a court of law.
It's just not, and the administration needs to get its head on straight about that. They are fighting a war, whether they like it or not: and that means they are engaged in the use of Article II powers, having been formally authorized under the Article I power of the Congress. The enemy here is to be handled, not as criminals, but as combatants. Combatants can be "privileged" or not, depending on whether they adhere to the Geneva Conventions.
It happens that these don't. Islamic law has its own ideas about what is just and righteous in war, and it happens that al Qaeda is in violation of those standards too. These are not criminals; they're the enemies of civilization. Not "the enemies of our civilization," but of all civilizations. We can apply the laws and justice of war to them without violating any standard to which they have a right to appeal.
March 17, 2010 • Permalink
• Comments (13)
• TrackBack (0)
Categories and Tags:
Current Affairs,
Military
St. Patrick's Day Technology - The Science Experiment
Greetings from Timmy O'Toole's in Chicago! (Gracie O'Malley's ain't open yet)
*Glug, glug, glug. Ahhhh.*
Uncle Ben from the Filipino side of the family, an engineer and beer scientist, sends this Reuter's article on scientific analysis:
LONDON - People celebrating St. Patrick’s Day Wednesday can cross one topic of conversation off their lists.
Guinness bubbles really do sink.
Scientists said Monday they had finally proved that the dark stout’s creamy bubbles defy expectations and flow down instead of upwards.
I dispute this claim and will conduct many, I mean MANY, experiments today to disprove this theory! It is my responsibility as an Irishman and graduate of the University of Chicago Physical Sciences Division to put this theory to a rigorous, accurate, and complete test.
I will even use MATH!
Oops. Looks like they thought of that already. *Hey, Phil, pass me another one will you? Thanks, pal.*
“Our group carried out preliminary experiments at a local pub a few years ago, but the results proved inconclusive,” said Dr. Andrew Alexander, from the University of Edinburgh’s School of Chemistry.
They first thought the dark liquid flowing down as a pint was poured gave the illusion the bubbles were going down as well.
Now close examination has revealed that, as a pint settles, bubbles touching the walls of the glass experience drag, similar to that a person feels sliding a finger along glass, and that prevents them floating up.
The bubbles in the middle however, are free to rise, creating a circular flow within the glass that causes bubbles at the edge to be pushed downwards on the inside surface of the glass.
The Edinburgh team, working with researchers at Stanford University in California have produced high-speed video footage of the sinking bubbles — to put at rest the minds of any drinkers who might have felt they were seeing things.
BRILLIANT!!!
Well, I still want to test this theory. You can't trust anyone who goes to or graduates from a school without grades (*cough* Stanford *cough*).
*Next pint, please. Science will not be denied!*
March 17, 2010 • Permalink
• Comments (13)
• TrackBack (3)
Categories and Tags:
Humor
A stroll through the foothills
Yeah right. SPC Maurer of C Co. 1/503 ABN sends these pics of a patrol. I love his comments.
The pictures I attached are from an overwatch mission my squad(weapons) pulled. It seems as if the "valley" part of Tangi Valley does not apply to my squad, as we rarely make an appearance in the low ground. At least our girlfriends back home won't complain about the shape we'll be in.
Heh.
March 17, 2010 • Permalink
• Comments (3)
• TrackBack (0)
Lawfare - ACLU sues over drones
And frankly I'm puzzled as to why:
The American Civil Liberties Union sued the federal government Tuesday to learn the use of unmanned drones for targeted killings by the military and CIA.
“In particular, the lawsuit asks for information on when, where and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, the number and rate of civilian casualties and other basic information essential for assessing the wisdom and legality of using armed drones to conduct targeted killings,” the ACLU said in a statement, announcing its action.
The nonprofit civil liberties group filed initial Freedom of Information Act requests with the Defense, Justice and State departments and with the Central Intelligence Agency on Jan. 13. Only the CIA responded, and the ACLU is pursuing that request with an appeal to the agency.
What am I missing here? How would striking them with an piloted aircraft be significantly different than a drone strike? The drone is remotely piloted. Would they be asking the same questions about air strikes against the Taliban?
And since when was it the job of the ACLU to determine the "wisdom" of using drones, much less the "legality"? Does it also claim the right to determine the "wisdom" and "legality" of artillery strikes? Air strikes?
These aren't mindless uncontolled robotic killer bees out there popping anything that moves. In effect they're utilized no differently than any other means of killing our enemy - their strike is developed based on intel that we'd feel comfortable using with any other weapons delivery means on if it was available or could reach the target. That being the case, why not use one that risks no lives on our side?
“The government's use of drones to conduct targeted killings raises complicated questions – not only legal questions, but policy and moral questions as well,” said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU National Security Project. “These kinds of questions ought to be discussed and debated publicly, not resolved secretly behind closed doors. While the Obama administration may legitimately withhold intelligence information as well as sensitive information about military strategy, it should disclose basic information about the scope of the drone program, the legal basis for the program and the civilian casualties that have resulted from the program.”
Again we're talking about a weapons delivery means. The only difference is the means - not the intent. The intent is chrystal clear - kill the enemy where he lives. The "how" produces no "legal, policy or moral" questions for me. And the "why" is quite simple - we're at war. This isn't a legal exercise. The legal basis for the war has been in place for years.
And here's a further thought - even with strict guidelines in place, and every attempt to ensure that innocent civilians aren't mistakenly targeted, what would disclosure of civilian casualties (which I assume would mostly be a guesstimate) accomplish?
It would accomplish nothing but more caterwalling about the program and demands for its elimination.
Look, we all believe in an open and free society, but I just don't see where this sort of nonsense contributes to that, especially in a time of war. That's my opinion. Yours may differ. If so, I'd love to hear the reasoning behind the difference.
March 17, 2010 • Permalink
• Comments (15)
• TrackBack (0)
Categories and Tags:
Bust Their Chops
McChrystal takes operational control of Spec Ops forces
This is an interesting but in the end understandable step, although the long term implications may be troubling.
KABUL, Afghanistan — Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top American commander in Afghanistan, has brought most American Special Operations forces under his direct control for the first time, out of concern over continued civilian casualties and disorganization among units in the field.
“What happens is, sometimes at cross-purposes, you got one hand doing one thing and one hand doing the other, both trying to do the right thing but working without a good outcome,” General McChrystal said in an interview.
As former commander of JSOC, McChrystal has deep experience with the intricacies of running these types of operations. This multiple chains of command was a source of friction between he and current Ambassador Eikenberry when McChrystal sought then Gen. Eikenberry's approval for operations to be conducted there. It also seems that some units are exempted from this.
Only detainee operations and “very small numbers of U.S. S.O.F.,” or Special Operations forces, are exempted from the directive, Admiral Smith said. That is believed to include elite groups like the Army’s Delta Force and the Navy’s Seals.
There is a lot of commentary that this was in response to particular incidents where there were civilian casualties. While politics and host nation concerns always play a role, Gen. McChrystal stood up for our forces.
He depicted General McChrystal’s new policy as a natural outgrowth of the general’s plans all along to unify his command; when he first took charge, he brought together under his control what had been separate NATO and American command structures in Afghanistan.....
General McChrystal addressed that concern in the interview. “There are no operators in this country that I am not absolutely comfortable do exactly what I want them to do,” he said. “So I don’t have any complaints about that, particularly after the latest change.”
There are many other reasons to want operational control and coordination. I have heard of multiple instances where a conventional unit was operating and building rapport with civilians in their area and a raid would be conducted by a Special Ops unit. Sometimes this would remove a tribal member the conventional unit believed they had turned to our side, or it could simply damage relations with the locals. The changes being made will help avoid those situations.
The concern I have is that my comfort level with this rests largely on the fact that it is Gen. McChrystal exercising this control. Due to his background I feel he understands and will allow the leeway the SOF troops need to do their missions. But what happens when he moves on and a conventional officer takes over. There is always tension between these groups and as happened with McChrystal and Eikenberry differences of opinion as to how much freedom of maneuver and how active a role they should play. Once this precedent is established, it could be an issue down the road.
March 17, 2010 • Permalink
• Comments (5)
• TrackBack (0)
Blackfive - Out of the Office
"Finally caught up with Matt. It was like trying to find Santa on Christmas Eve." - Uncle Ben, good friend (and reader) of Blackfive, on St. Patrick's Day in Chicago 2004
Not-safe-for-work. Blackfive-approved, best-last-call-song-of-all-time, after the Jump:
Continue reading "Blackfive - Out of the Office"
March 17, 2010 • Permalink
• Comments (33)
• TrackBack (0)
the Irish Palm Pilot on St. Patrick's Day
You can't remote blog with my Irish Palm Pilot.
Now, I'm off to Govnor's, O'Toole's, Dublin's, O'Neil's, Durkin's, etc.....
Have a great day, everyone!
March 17, 2010 • Permalink
• Comments (6)
• TrackBack (3)
Ian Malone - Irish Guard in Life, Uniter in Death
of that sour place,
and terror-men opened wide a mouth
etched in a hate-filled face.
The rifle-spit struck down Malone
and he in a moment gave
a life well-lived, alone,
to set men free of the grave.
In later days men drew down
statues from on high;
they struck Iraqi ground
so dust and cheer could fly.
What, one Irish fighting man
to free millions from cold chains?
Not noble words, not gracious plan
could make real such gains.
Or--Is our time so coy,
so wild and free a thing?
Not Harvey nor Kelly, boy
of Killarn, not the Brian King
Freedom bought at such a cost,
where glory's priced so steep:
Where the name of each good man lost
Can memory's Herald keep.
-Poem by Grim, April 10th, 2003, in honor of Ian Malone
This is an annual Someone You Should Know (St. Patrick's Day Edition) post to celebrate an Irish soldier's sacrifice. Below is the story of Ian Malone - a young Irishman who bridged the divide between Ireland and England in life and death.
Ian died during the invasion of Iraq in April of 2003 doing what he wanted to do - Soldiering for his country. Below is his story, told expertly by Philip Watson of the Telegraph:
Ian's death brought people together
By Philip WatsonLance Corporal Ian Malone died in an ambush on the streets of Basra in April last year. Throughout a long, hot Sunday, he and his armoured brigade had been pushing through the southern suburbs of Iraq's second city, flushing out enemy soldiers. While most of the regular Iraqi Army had fled, the streets and houses contained pockets of determined Fedayeen fighters, paramilitaries who remained loyal to Saddam Hussein.
Having reached the edge of the old city and achieved their objective of securing a university campus, Ian Malone and his colleagues had left their Warrior armoured personnel carrier, and were regrouping. They had scoured the area and, in the dusty shade of dusk, all seemed safe.
In an instant, however, two Fedayeen in civilian clothes broke cover and sprayed the crew with automatic fire. Four soldiers were hit. Ian Malone took two bullets - one through the neck, the other in the head - and died instantly, becoming one of 55 British soldiers killed in Iraq in the past year.
What made the 28-year-old Lance Corporal remarkable, though, apart from the peerless qualities that all who knew him instantly recognised - he was a thinker and philosopher; courteous and religious; a talented chess player and musician; an exceptional soldier; and, as his school chaplain said at his funeral, not macho but manly - was that Ian Malone was an Irishman fighting for the British Army.
Many have found in Ian Malone's life and death something profoundly symbolic: the notion that he represents the continuing spirit of progress and reconciliation between Britain and Ireland...
Continue reading "Ian Malone - Irish Guard in Life, Uniter in Death"
March 17, 2010 • Permalink
• Comments (9)
• TrackBack (0)
Categories and Tags:
Fallen But Never Forgotten
Now You're Talking!
British officer awarded the Military Cross for bayonet fighting.
Lieutenant James Adamson was awarded the Military Cross after killing two insurgents during close quarter combat in Helmand's notorious "Green Zone".
The 24-year-old officer, a member of the 5th battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland, revealed that he shouted "have some of this" before shooting dead a gunman who had just emerged from a maize field.
Seconds later and out of ammunition, the lieutenant leapt over a river bank and killed a second insurgent machine-gunner with a single thrust of his bayonet in the man's chest.
TRADOC is certain that we'll no longer need to prepare our soldiers for situations like this one. Fortunately, we still have the Scots on our side!
And of course our Marines, who have doubled-down on the concept, and have a snazzy bayonet to boot.
(Hat tip to Eric at Grim's Hall.)
March 16, 2010 • Permalink
• Comments (21)
• TrackBack (0)
Today in Medal of Honor History: Rascon and Bucha
Alfred Rascon, 1966: Despite critical injuries from using his body to cover his teammates from grenade blasts multiple times, Specialist Rascon continued to provide medical care for his fellow soldiers. He was so badly off that his last rights were read.
Paul Bucha, 1968: Singlehandedly destroyed an enemy bunker with grenades, directed medevac helicopters into the LZ at night using flashlights in full view of enemy snipers, and much more over a four-day period.
March 16, 2010 • Permalink
• Comments (1)
• TrackBack (0)
Categories and Tags:
Someone You Should Know
Guest hosting Frank Gaffney's radio show
Just finished taping Secure Freedom Radio as a guest host. We had Ralph Peters on to talk about his new book Endless War, Bill Roggio of the Long War Journal to try and untangle the web that is Afghanistan & Pakistan, and then Warrior Legacy Foundation's own John Wagner to offer his insights about the Green Zone in reality v. The Green Zone w/ Matt Damon. The show will stream starting at 5 pm eastern at WND. I will post the segment podcasts once they are up as well.
March 16, 2010 • Permalink
• Comments (0)
• TrackBack (0)
St. Patrick's Day should be treated like any major Holiday
Matty O' here to remind everyone that St. Patrick's Day is coming tomorrow. To get you moving towards the spirit of St. Patrick's Day in Chicago, here is my favorite video about my favorite sustenance...
Here is a link to sign the petition to make St Patrick's Day a holiday.
[Annual repost]
March 16, 2010 • Permalink
• Comments (12)
• TrackBack (0)
Categories and Tags:
Humor
