Paradise: Baghdad...

I am not sure if I should be excited about this but; recently, I have found myself waking each morning most anticipating two daily events: time spent in the gym or running and the authoring of this Blog.


In anticipation of writing tonight’s post, I had developed two separate topic pieces. The first was to be a post concerning the appropriate steps that need to be taken, in my estimation, for Fred Thompson to successfully secure the Republican Party nomination for President. This would have been written with a focus on what Senator Thompson needs to do to garner the votes of military and veterans in particular.


The second idea was to run with last night’s theme and incorporate experiences from Ramadi into a response to the recent news of The New Republic / Private Beauchamp fiasco. I wrestled throughout the day with which story I would present tonight.


And then, while walking to my residency in the fraternity house, an issue totally separate came to mind. And it is that issue that I am going to discuss tonight.





The Baghdad Anomaly





There was a particular period of time during my days in Iraq that saw the country undergo a dramatic change of direction. For many reasons, this period should be studied in depth. One of the notable reasons is to detect what went wrong and prevent it from happening again should we ever face a similar situation. There’s also another, and maybe more currently pertinent, reason to study this transitional period. Better understanding of it may give us a clearer picture of the enemy we are facing today.


So, tonight, I want to relate some events that I partook around the summer of 2003 in and around the area of Baghdad, Iraq.






As it is vital to the comprehensible understanding of tonight’s accounts, one must be aware of my own role during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. I was in the Third Infantry Division and just a young private. Upon completing my Advanced Individualized Training in 2002, I was assigned to Fort Stewart where it was quickly made clear that my unit would be deploying to Kuwait in a short time. This was well before any of the winds of war in Iraq were present.



That September, on my Mother’s birthday no less, my unit shipped to Kuwait. I was a member of the Second Brigade’s Reconnaissance Team, a unit composed of cavalry scouts and forward observers, of which I was the latter. Our mission in Kuwait was not out of the ordinary. The Third Infantry Division had been rotating brigades through Kuwait for some time now as part of what was then deemed “intrinsic actions.” Our purpose was to train with other international forces in the country, including the Kuwaitis themselves, to better prepare all sides should Saddam Hussein again become aggressive towards his neighbors to the south. Our presence in Kuwait was also a great deterrent against such aggression. This had been such a long standing mission for Fort Stewart units that we were the only division in the army, at the time, that maintained desert-tan painted equipment as opposed to the Army’s accepted O.D. Green camouflage. This was scheduled to be a six month deployment.



Because of our availability in the region, along with our continued training for just such a mission, we were utilized heavily during the invasion of Iraq. The story of the invasion and the Third Infantry Division’s actions during it are well documented. Less accurately depicted is what occurred after we occupied Baghdad.



Upon the successful toppling of the Hussein-led government in Baghdad, my unit was assigned with the authority to maintain security at the capital city’s main train station. I recall nights spent at that train station absolutely vividly. In many ways, time spent at the train station was the most surreal and interesting period in my life. Our security was always augmented by three older Iraqi gentlemen. They were very highly educated engineers and had vested financial interests in seeing the train station maintain safety. I was involved in countless memorable conversations with these gentlemen. Their knowledge was their most remarkable quality; one of them, in fact, had completed extensive advanced academic work in Europe. Had they been Americans, they would no doubt have held positions as Chief Officers in some capacity and would have been deep in financial luxuries. But, here they were in Baghdad, content to sit in folding chairs day-in and day-out and support the Americans in assisting them.



Many of the events that occurred during those nights in the train station will remain personally held tales. Unfortunately, the revelation of those events might incriminate some of my buddies still on active duty. Not because we performed any outlandish acts, but because we were often guilty of breaking General Order #1 while in the presence of these gentlemen. Let it be said that our Iraqi engineer friends were very welcoming home-makers who often treated us to extended-course meals at their homes and always ensured that we had plenty along the ways of entertainment during long nights positioned at their rail hub.



The level of calm that immediately followed the downfall of the Baathist regime in Baghdad was remarkable. It now seems asinine to suggest that the following events occurred, but they did. My unit used to travel to city center Baghdad, abandon our Humvees but to a couple rotating guards, drop all of our protective gear, enter restaurants and eat full-service meals. Imagine this: I used to travel to this same area of the city and receive a haircut from an Iraqi barber who would wield a straight-edged blade without so much of a raised eyebrow from my compatriots. There was even an instance that our Humvee, by its lonesome, left the Baghdad International Airport after escorting an official and traversed the streets of Baghdad in search of pirated DVDs. Occasionally, I will tell stories of complacency, of soldiers asleep while behind the gun atop a Humvee, that occurred during this period and then wonder how I ever let one partake in such lazy and dangerous activity. And then it occurs to me that this sort of activity was a product of the environment that we then knew.



Of course, this fun wouldn’t last. After being promised a return home during a celebration on July 4th, we were quickly informed that such guidance was misinformed and that we would be, instead, augmenting units in a then unknown city called “Fallujah.” Upon settling in our camp outside of the city proper, we began to travel back to Baghdad during our “off” days to return to the luxuries that were once common fare for us. About once a week, we could look forward to one of these trips to city center Baghdad. And then, one week, peculiarly, these much anticipated journeys ceased.



We were informed that the unit that had replaced us in Baghdad, the First Armored Division, had let the city fall into chaos. I remember all the fun ending with the report of the death of a soldier in the same city center that I had once loved. He had apparently been waiting in line for some sort of comfort object, perhaps ice cream at a stand or a coke- objects that I, too, had once waited in line for- when he was approached from behind and murdered. I believe that the instrument of death was a gun, but it could have been a knife. The story, in its full accuracy, escapes me now. The accuracy of the story is less important than the nuances that surround it. It was at this point that Baghdad began its quick fall into violence.



At the time, the violence in Baghdad seemed quite isolated apart from the limited fighting we were doing during our patrols on the outskirts of Fallujah. We attributed the conflict in Baghdad to the lesser abilities of our Armored Division counterparts. Of course, in retrospect, that was not the case. The First Armored Division is certainly as capable as any in the world and the up-rise in insurgent activity, ultimately, manifested itself in areas far outside of their jurisdiction.



So this raises many questions that I have yet to hear quality answers. The answers lack, in part, because this is now a forgotten part of Iraq history. But this soldier, nonetheless, wonders, “What happened?” There was a notable period of time in Iraq between the fall of the government in Baghdad and the beginning of the greater insurgency conflict as we now understand it, which was void of violence. Why was this? Did the “bag guys” really need a month to two to regroup and retaliate? Or was it the case that, during this two month gap, combatants from outside the country were being filtered in?



I have no good answers. I hope, however, that by continuing to spread the experiences that I remember, some may come to pass. And, hopefully, these answers can go a long way in helping us understand the enemy that we currently face.

Ramadi, Part One

It has been brought to my attention that one of the most vital contributions that can be made by Educated Soldier has been short in coming since its inception. Readers have suggested that this site has lacked proper expressions concerning the author’s experiences in Iraq.



This submission has not fallen on deaf ears. After all, any blog can offer opinion on the world of politics. Any site can analyze and criticize the latest news with its daily posts. And I intend to continue to do just that with future updates. However, tonight, I want to take a brief reprieve. I want to go back to why Educated Soldier started and why this blog should stand apart. Tonight, I want to take you back to Ar Ramadi, Iraq.




I don’t want tonight’s post to be a singular entity. Two years experience in Iraq can not be expressed in one blog post. If it could, reader interest would surely wane around the account of day three- especially given the surprising lack of action that would, no doubt, constitute a continuing theme. Instead, tonight is going to be the preamble to something much larger. Intermittently, I intend to post follow-ups to this introduction; a continuous series of war stories, if you will.




This Iraq story was referred to during last night’s post. I had intended to publish it then but it was bumped to allow space for more time-sensitive news concerning the Defense Funding Bill. Also, as expressed last night, the motivation for the authoring of this story was drummed up by the reaction that I have been witness to over at Michael Totten’s Middle East Journal, where readers are in a furor over Mr. Totten’s first Correspondence from Baghdad. His readers are afire because his report was surprisingly positive. Supporters of the war in Iraq are interpreting this message far differently then those who oppose the ongoing conflict. In Mr. Totten’s post from Iraq, I saw similarities to my own time in the country. Hence, I became quickly convinced that people needed to hear this soldier’s story…






Iraq...







Before entering the military, I had been an avid reader of war stories. Two books, by the same author, stick out as being particularly influential: Gary Linderer’s Eyes of the Eagle and Eyes Behind the Line. Both of these books told of the author’s harrowing experiences as a Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol unit member in Vietnam. I read these books with furious enthusiasm and decided that I wanted to be a “LRRP.” I eventually ended up in the Army as a Forward Observer, a job that I found satisfactorily close in its entry-level description to those that I read about in Linderer’s books.




Linderer did a thorough job in his books of describing conflict in detail. Yet, I found myself always wondering about Vietnam: if every mission ended in violence and the conflict was as vicious as portrayed in movies and television, how did anything get accomplished? And surely things got accomplished. Logistical bases were built, supplies traveled back and forth, and the daily life of soldiers somehow managed to continue. While my experiences surely can’t compare to those that were earned by the LRRPs of Vietnam, I feel that I have learned something about the general dynamic of war that can be applied to all associated situations.




Before participating in Iraq myself, from the reading that I had done, I had the same perception of war that I think most Americans do now. I had been under the impression that war was some crazy phenomenon that was absolutely unlike anything we recognize in our own little niche of the world. If I can make one thing clear tonight and during any of my Iraq-related posts, it is this: war, on a daily basis, lacks excitement for the fighting man and is, indeed, more like home than one might imagine. This is to say that people in Iraq, for the most part, do what you and I do in America. They go to work. They shop. They socialize with neighbors and their children play in the streets.



I was deployed to Iraq twice. The first tour was during the invasion with subsequent duty taking place in Baghdad. The second tour was in Ar Ramadi, when Ramadi was considered the hotspot for enemy activity. It is this second tour that will be the focus for all associated comments during tonight’s text. Even Ramadi, during this conflicted period in 2005, was- in retrospect- less violent than one might imagine. Let me be clear; every time I make such a declaration, I have to take a big swallow of pride. I take a certain amount of satisfaction in knowing that I served, on the ground, in an area that was considered the worst of the worst at the time I was there. And I don’t want my minimization of the violence in Iraq to be, in any way, misconstrued as some sort of softening of the respect that I have for those who made far greater sacrifices than myself. But, for one to understand Iraq from the outside, one must first understand this paramount detail: it is not the cacophony of constant explosions, bullets and bloodshed that you may have been led to believe.







A Fortunate Ride Home







This particular phenomenon became known to me late during this second tour. As most readers know, most American soldiers in Iraq are afforded two weeks leave during their deployment to return home, travel the world, or do whatever it is that they choose to do. Because of my position within my company, I was given a leave date that was late in the deployment and very close to the time that we were scheduled to redeploy home as a unit. To clarify this detail, it sort of worked like this: I was the second highest ranking enlisted man in the duty that I performed for the company. The highest ranking enlisted man had to be present during the last weeks of the deployment to ensure a smooth transition with the incoming unit. This caused the necessity for the highest ranking individual to take leave before the man that followed him in authority. Basically, I was going home last.



The interesting part is that, with such a late leave date, I was pretty well assured that I wasn’t going to be afforded the opportunity to take leave at all. The continuing rumor in Ramadi was that leave was being canceled; the last scheduled people weren’t going to get such a luxury, etc, etc, etc… This is a particular phenomenon in the Army caused by something that we like to refer to as the “Joe Network.” Because of my anticipated lack of leave, I decided never to inform my parents that such an event might occur. I figured that the disappointment of not coming home would be far greater then the anticipation that they could gain from knowing a tentative date.




Of course, this all resulted in me, indeed, receiving leave. So I flew out of Iraq and, after a few stops, eventually arrived in Tampa, Florida. Still in my fairly dirty combat-worn uniform, I traveled by cab to the distant suburb that my parents resided. This is when it became sickeningly apparent that the situation I understood in Iraq was being misrepresented in America. My cab driver maintained his respect for an individual in uniform while, nonetheless, detailing me on the dire state of affairs in Iraq. Not only was the war lost, but we weren’t making progress, the Iraqis didn’t want us there and the establishment of a stable democratic Iraq was completely unfeasible. It was at that point, listening to this cab driver, that I realized that there may be a major disconnect between the ground truths that I knew and what Americans thought they were aware of.




While it digresses from the point of this story, it wouldn’t be fair to move on without concluding this tale. My trip with the cab driver eventually ended, thankfully, at my chosen destination: the front door of my parents’ apartment. Still in uniform, bags in hand, and my parents totally unwitting, I rang the doorbell. My Dad answered. My Mom quickly followed and I remember her vividly being frozen in place by the shock of seeing her son temporarily home from Iraq. For one of the few times in my recollection, my Dad’s eyes welled with tears. That was a moment that I will never forget. For all the sadness that is associated with war, it has given me about three different days of my life where I was completely filled with absolute happiness and overwhelming emotion that can only be understood by those that have returned safely from combat.







"Chaotic" Ramadi







My year in Ramadi was difficult. We patrolled daily. Those patrols lasted for hours and it was typically hot and the soldier usually found himself in some position that lacked comfort. Our battalion owned a large section of the city and we were tasked with maintaining stability in various ways. We walked the streets every day in an attempt to do little more then mingle with the people, gain information and provide any service within our ability. To this day, if given a decent satellite image of the area I patrolled, I can tell you with a great deal of confidence who, in 2005, lived in most of the residencies pictured. I dealt daily, and with an intimate amount of detail, with the citizens of Ramadi throughout my tour. And here is the point that bears expressing repeatedly: I hardly ever felt in danger. In fact, more times than not, my complacency during missions put me more in danger of the First Sergeant’s reprimand than the enemy’s wrath.



Here is where my duty as an author tonight becomes difficult. I need to express to you a dynamic that can only be totally understood by those that spend months to years on the ground, meeting Iraqi citizens, learning the social dynamic, and genuinely experiencing the strange wonders of war. As an observer of war, if you have ever questioned what motivates soldiers to continue to “drive-on” mission after mission and day after day, then this is your opportunity to truly understand how war works. We drive on because, typically, we have no fear.




This lack of fear isn’t developed because we are superhuman. It is developed because, typically, there really is nothing to fear. Readers must understand that, while my unit lost many men to death and injury, most of these soldiers were lost in highly isolated events. Typically, it worked like this: we would patrol for a week or a week and a half throughout our entire sector. We would not see any sign of danger or misfortune. The Iraqi citizens that provided us with dependable information would be totally short of warnings for these periods of time. This occurred because there was nothing to report, and the lack of danger and misfortune was because these peculiarities were, indeed, absent. And then, one day, you would go on patrol, the entire environment would be different and, suddenly, you would have a fight on your hands. More often than not, the battle would be over before your senses came to the realization that you were actually fighting and then you would be left with another week or longer of prolonged peace.




And this was in Ramadi… in "chaotic" 2005. This was just after the stronghold in Fallujah was eradicated and the insurgent focus was steadily on this city in Al Anbar province. While it probably was the deadliest place for American troops at the time, it just seemed like another location many miles from America to those us that were there.




There seems to be some sort of necessity in America to express everything in extremes: you are either rich or poor; it’s cold or hot. Nobody ever “sort of” likes a movie; it either “sucks,” or was the “best movie seen in a long time.” Unfortunately, many times such explicit terms don’t adequately describe the condition of war. War can, very well, develop in mild forms. And this is the state of Iraq as I know it. It’s hardly peaceful. At the same time, if war is constituted by constant fighting and death, than I am still a virgin of war myself.








It's NOT About Left or Right









None of this is to suggest that “Big Media” is lying to you. I have considered the role of news providers and, after some inner-debate, I have mostly concluded that they are innocent in their intentions. I recently ran across a report that suggests that “Leftist” media surely were on the side of the Right circa 2001. The more I considered such as example, the more I concluded that it was reasonable to assume that media have honest intentions. Of course, for every Keith Olbermann, there is a Bill O’Reilly, but I am going to suggest that most media outlets are more moderate, if one were to assess, then either Republican or Democrat.




However, typical journalists of today do have a major shortcoming. They are, primarily, reactive types instead of proactive. When news occurs, they travel to the site and report in retrospect. This is what occurs in Iraq. Every car bomb attracts a small company of reporters. And, therefore, every car bomb becomes sufficiently accessible by the average American. There is much less for the reporters to gain by actually embedding with a unit and chancing a situation like that described in Ramadi. Journalists can not afford weeks on end with little to report. The money is made by staying stationary in Baghdad and delivering a synopsis of newsworthy material from there, occasionally traveling to the site of actual violence. This is how journalism works. Unfortunately, typical Americans fail to understand the process of journalism and somehow end up attributing one explosion in Mosul, Iraq to a fallacy of explosions throughout Iraq. I hope this much is clear; a single explosion in Mosul is just that; a single explosion. Meanwhile, it is very likely that Iraqis in Basra are simultaneously buying their groceries, interacting peacefully with Coalition troops and, more or less, continuing with their on-going lives.




When I arrived in Ramadi, it was a pretty ugly place. The safekeeping there had been neglected in favor of places like Fallujah. The main thoroughfare that dissected the entire city, east to west, was completely barren. Vehicles rarely traveled it. Most of the markets in the city’s center were empty. American neglect was so absolutely evident. Also evident was how badly the Iraqis yearned for our attention. This manifested itself by citizens' quick return to the streets and markets as soon as we made continuous presence known. I saw tangible difference in the condition of Ramadi, Iraq in six months time. By the time I left the city, Iraqi Army and Police bases were established and large portions of our former jurisdiction was in their hands. Imagine my surprise to return home and find out that we were “failing.”





I implore you to trust in what I am expressing to you. Read Michael Totten’s most recent report from Iraq with an open mind and consider that all might not be lost. I saw progress in 2005’s Ramadi. My old unit returned to the same bases in Ramadi and is still there today. I talk to old friends several times a week. The progress that was started during my tour has manifested itself in ways that are difficult for even a fervent believer such as me to conceive. My friends consider the city safe with no qualifiers; just safe. Along with these word-of-mouth reports come others from Al Anbar telling of Iraqi citizens fighting on their own behalf and, subsequently, terrorists exiting the area. Why the need to spin these stories into anything different than what they are? They are tales of success. I tried to express my belief in success in 2005 and found deaf ears. It’s unfortunate that these same positive tones are meeting their own troubling responses…




I appreciate your following with this first account of my experiences. I can’t hide the emotion or frustration that builds when I consider American assumptions of Iraq. These are my very real tales. For those of you who have only television, radio and the internet to make you aware of the situation there, please use these truths as a portion of your overall visualization of what is occurring. I have no reason to lie to you and no motivation to encourage you to buy into something that isn’t genuine. I am enthusiastic in my approach to telling these stories because I dearly want the world to be aware of a truth that I think is often, unfortunately, and many times unintentionally, hidden behind a fog of unreliable reporting and uninformed accounts of events.






Look for more reports of my time in Iraq in future Educated Soldier posts. Thank you.

Congress Suggests Standard Training for All Security Contractors

I had two intentions for tonight’s agenda. The first was to mention a bit of news that I had recently come across. The second goal was to relate some of my experiences in Ar Ramadi, Iraq. However, I have decided to delay the Iraq story until tomorrow. In its absence, I suggest you check out Michael Totten’s newest report from Baghdad HERE . His latest dispatch was my motivation to write the Iraq tale that will appear tomorrow. Until then, I hope you find the following useful…

The News

The House Appropriations Committee today authorized its latest Defense Budget legislation. This, in and of itself, is known news to all interested. Most media reports that I have seen have focused on what the bill lacks: a clearly defined mandatory withdrawal date for American forces in Iraq. This has been noted as especially surprising as the bill was largely drafted by Representative John Murtha. Nearly everyone knows where Representative Murtha stands on the issue of immediate troop redeployment.

However, while reading the summary of the bill, I came across a piece of information that was particularly interesting to me. Those who have followed Educated Soldier since its inception can attest that one of the earliest posts concerned the use of contracted security operators in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. That article can be accessed here.

The concerns of these operators are especially important to me. Many of my friends that left the service chose to follow the lucrative contracts and continue to serve in-theatre in this capacity. Because of these close relationships, I have followed the activities of the security contractors pretty closely. It seems that the United States Congress has also been watching keenly.

The bill includes the following provision:

“Requires the Secretary of Defense to develop minimum standards for all contractors performing security functions and to establish a clear set of rules of engagement for those operating in Iraq and Afghanistan, within 90 days of the bill’s enactment.”

There is a lot of information contained in that short passage. The mention of “rules of engagement” is a touchy one for those critical of the security contractors. To my knowledge, the contractors have not been restricted by the Rules of Engagement posed on authorized United States military nor have they been subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. However, because of the sensitivity of these issues, I am going to abstain from presenting any sort of opinion on these matters.

Instead, I want to discuss the proposed development of minimum standards for the security contractors. The highly funded entities that solicit these contracts have been the source of much conversation at many of the military discussion boards that I frequent. When I completed time in the military, the security companies that I was personally familiar with (Blackwater, Triple Canopy, DynaCorp, etc) were operating, on the ground level, with the services of some of the best-trained military Special Operations-types money could buy; literally.

Apparently, from my understanding, this level of competence has been lowered. The trend downward was encouraged by the hefty number of contracts offered to these companies, notably to Blackwater. There came a point in time when an unfortunate dynamic became apparent: more contracts were available then were highly trained individuals to accept them.

While I was in the service, it was assumed that one needed some Special Operations experience to be considered for employment by Blackwater. Special Operations experience that would qualify would be the completion of any of the following training, for examples: The Navy’s BUD/S Program, The Army’s Ranger course or the Special Forces qualification course. If one had experience in the Marines’ Force Recon units or the Air Forces Para-Rescue programs, again, one would have been deemed prepared to attempt gaining employment with Blackwater.

I witnessed the beginning of the quality recession myself. It began about the time I completed my service requirement. In 2005, my fellow brothers-in-arms were signing contracts with Blackwater having never completed any of the mentioned Special Operations courses. However, these soldiers were trained in the combat-arms fields of their respective branches and each of them had seen very real combat. While not having the credentials of the original Blackwater operators, they were capable performers regardless. The level of skill was declining, however it was not yet low enough to warrant concern.

Now my understanding is that, in a need to fill the high number of contracts, individuals are being hired with drastically less experience. It is the running joke among military-types that the current prerequisite for such employment is no more then past mall-security duties. While the joke is funny because of its assumed outlandishness, it is scary in its truthful depiction of the current situation. The security companies are offering employment to nearly anyone with a clean record and desire to do the work.

And this is why such provisions had to be included in the new budget.

Blackwater is an enormous company. Their original founder, Erik Prince, was the benefactor of a 1.3 billion dollar inheritance. Their training facility in North Carolina spans over 7,000 acres and is considered one of the nation’s premier facilities for such use. It has been reported that a large segment of America’s servicemen utilize its facilities. Blackwater has been said to have trained individuals from local police departments all the way to the highly specialized members of the United States’ Special Forces Operation Detachment – Delta, also known as “Delta Force” or “Combat Applications Group.”

This is to say that Blackwater has had the means to train its operators. Even a mall security guard could become somewhat proficient at such an equipped compound. The dilemma falls on the less-wealthy companies that lack such grounds for training. These companies also have contracts to fill. The fear is that they are sending operators to hostile areas lacking the proper training and skills.

And the only remedy seems to be government regulation. It will be interesting to see just how such a provision plays out. My assumption is that some of these smaller companies may falter under the demands of industry-standard training. Meanwhile, Blackwater will probably argue that they should be exempt as they have already been providing such education to their contractors. Only time will tell…

The official summary of the Appropriation Committee's Defense Funding Bill can be accessed here (in PDF format).

Democratic Party Debate: The Grades

I want to readdress the Democratic Party debate. Last night’s Educated Soldier did a thorough job of assessing the event. However, towards the end of the report, I felt that I really lost steam. A night of rest has reinvigorated me; encouraging refocused thoughts. Thus, I have decided to produce a critique of the debate a bit more basic in format and, ultimately, more enjoyable for the reader.

Taking a cue from Blogs for Fred Thompson, I want to rate the participants using a standard American scale: A through F. An “A”, of course, represents an exemplary performance; the most outstanding of all candidates. “F” stands for failure. To earn such a mark, I feel that you would have had to alienate your base or really greatly miss some genuine opportunities to shine. I may also implement a plus / minus (+ or -) system to grade with more refinement.

As always, there has to be at least a single detail that needs to be brought to attention before continuing. Here it is: I am judging the candidates on their performances. This is to say that I am more concerned with how intelligent, intellectual and “on top” of the topics each of the candidates seemed to be. Their platforms will hold less weight. This is for two reasons: First and, most obviously, is that as a conservative, there isn’t much that I agree with the platforms so it would be a futile effort for me to dredge in such criticism and, second, this debate didn’t go very far in introducing any real platforms anyway. Those details seem to always hide until after the Primaries and the introduction of the Presidential Debates.

Now, on with the festivities.

The Winner

If I would have created this post and assessed grades directly after the debate last night, this category would have been entitled “The Winners” (notice the use of the plural). However several factors worked to change my mind. The most notable is one probably unfair to the candidates but surfaced nonetheless:

I visited other sites. I read their own assessments of the debate and I found myself agreeing with them. The more I became influenced, the more I realized that there was really a single clear winner last night.

*Drum Roll please*

Senator Joe Biden: I really think he did everything right. More importantly, he did nothing wrong. This is important because he isn’t considered a top runner in this race and any little misstep at the debate could have been lethal (which is something I will address when discussing one of the night’s biggest losers).

If the Iraq War issue is the primary concern among Democratic voters and, really, the American populace as a whole, which recent Senate antics have seemed to have proven true, than Senator Biden easily portrayed himself as the Democratic candidate who most strongly had a grasp on the country’s most important issue.

He used this topic to utterly deflate Governor Richardson by exposing the Governor’s proposal of a six-month withdrawal as implausible. He also presented a well considered political plan for a troop withdrawal himself and scored points for declaring that any unilateral troop removal (without considering the need for altered political strategy in the country) would ultimately result in the deaths of those Americans left in the Green Zone. Senator Biden impressed by being able to suggest withdrawal in a manner that seemed sensible to even one of the War’s most persistent supporters: me.

Senator Biden then completed the mission that Senators Obama and Edwards failed: he rhetorically slayed Senator Clinton. Both Senators were asked how they would end the conflict in Darfur. Senator Biden was adamant in his response. He stated that American troops need to make a presence there and that a no-fly zone needs to be implemented. Senator Clinton tried to echo Biden’s passion but was tripped up when host Anderson Cooper asked her, point blank, if she supported the use of American troops in the region. While Senator Biden stood true to his convictions when posed this same question, Senator Clinton faltered and, ultimately, took her answer into topics more comfortable to her.

Grade: A+

"Second Tier" Winners

Barack Obama: If one candidate of the night was most successful in entering the debate with a mission and then following through with that mission, it was Senator Obama. He wanted to talk about education and the influence of special interests. And the junior Senator didn’t let any question get in the way of his talking points.

While that may sound deceptive to some, I give Senator Obama credit for sticking to his comfort zone with poise. As I stated last night, this guy has strong stage presence and is an outstanding speaker. Something else I had already mentioned is that my critique is an assessment of performances. With the exception of Senator Biden, Obama was the most exemplary performer.

He only nearly got tripped up once. Senator Gravel countered Obama’s claim that he does not accept special interest contributions by pointing out that Senator Obama did accept such funds, but was allowed to rule them out by categorizing them as “bundlers.” This may well have been true. It may have also been damaging. But no worries for a candidate on his feet like Senator Obama, who quickly retorted that one only has access to such financial dealings of candidates because of legislation that he, in fact, introduced. In retrospect, this comment has been called in to question as the legislation referenced by Senator Obama is, apparently, still awaiting approval. Let me remind you, however, that this is a debate and facts have never been a requisite at such an event.

So, on basis of solid theatrical talent alone, Senator Obama’s performance warrants:

Grade: B

Another candidate who was successful in so much as he didn’t hurt himself was Representative Kucinich. He only had one memorable moment during the debate; when he referenced biblical material in response to the question of reparations to African Americans for slavery. This moment was also notable for Kucinich because he was the only panel member willing to take a stand and state enthusiastically that he was ready to deliver those reparations. All other candidates predictably used the question to spin towards other topics.

Representative Kucinich loses some points because, as an individual with low support in the polls, he really needs to shine in these debates and present himself as a candidate different from the Obamas, the Clintons and the Edwards of the field. He gets a “B” for trying but, ultimately, this is the final assessment:

Grade B-

The Losers

Senator Mike Gravel: Remember when I said, above, that any misstep for a trailing candidate could prove lethal to their campaign???...

In trying to be professional in my assessment of this debate, I find myself at a current obstacle. Personally, I found the Senator to be incoherent in his answers and, in all honesty, quite eccentric (and if you are one of those that feels that eccentrics can be seen positively or negatively, let me assure you that in Senator Gravel’s case, it wasn’t good). Many times during the debate, he simply forgot to answer the questions. And this wasn’t necessarily intentional. Sure, Senator Obama rarely answered the questions directly either, but he at least transitioned smoothly and usually referenced the original question at some point during his answer. Senator Gravel just went on unrelated tangents. To me, this is the Ron Paul of the Democrats. The guy’s a wildcard and the people that support him probably d0 quite enthusiastically, but – after last night – I find myself not understanding how anyone could.

In the same manner that people remember Howard Dean's bellowing of "BEYAHHHHH!" during the downfall of his campaign, people will always be able to look back similarly at Senator Gravel exuberantly grumbling last night that the soldiers in Vietnam and Iraq "Died In Vain..."

Grade: F

Governor Bill Richardson: Blogs for Fred Thompson makes a great point. This guy is fighting for a Vice President spot and is slowly ruining his chances in that race as well. Senator Biden exposed Richardson’s plan for troop withdrawal in Iraq as hyperbolic rhetoric. Worse, Richardson’s performance was the antithesis to both Biden’s and Senator Obama’s. While they were graceful on stage, Governor Richardson seemed overwhelmingly uncomfortable. As much as I can feel sympathy for a politician living a life surely plump with luxuries, I feel it for him. Buried behind that unconfident tone and weak articulating ability are surely ideals that Governor Richardson genuinely holds dear and wants to express. He just hasn’t figured out how to do it.

Grade: F

Senator Edwards: While Edward’s performance wasn’t nearly the train wreck of the others in this category, it wasn’t stellar either. John Edwards needs to learn fast that he has to distinguish himself from Obama and Clinton. In my assessment, if Edwards looks equal to Clinton, Democrats are going to choose Clinton. It’s even worse for Edwards if he is seen as no different then Obama because the Senator from Illinois is ostensibly more likeable which goes a long way in a field like this. Furthermore, Senator Edwards’ admission that he is internally tormented by the debate over gay marriage is weak. Pick a side and fight for it. Or let your campaign fade. This is the man that suggested that the field needs to be whittled to allow for only those with an authentic opportunity of victory to continue. With sustained “non” performances like last night’s, the field will, indeed, be reduced and he will be one of those eliminated.

Senator Edwards’ grade gets raised from a flat “D” for his successful stage presence. While he was unconvincing in his individuality, he at least spoke articulately and seemed understanding of current issues. Nonetheless, the final assessment is still only:

Grade: D+

The Rest

Senator Chris Dodd: Maybe it was because of the format of the debate, but Senator Dodd had the distinction of being the most forgettable of the night. I can’t think of a single moment where the Senator did anything to interest me. However, on the same note, if he too is only fighting to ultimately become the Vice President, then he did what any such individual should do: polarize yourself as little as possible. In the end, it will be one of the night’s competition that will ultimately have to choose you as a running mate. It was a smart move for Senator Dodd to say nothing to make him stand out as being notably against any of the other candidates’ principles.

If this was the debate for potential Vice President candidates, Senator Dodd would receive an “A.” Unfortunately, this was a debate among hopefuls vying to become President. So, instead, Senator Dodd receives:

Grade: C

Senator Hillary Clinton: I have read the reports and apparently, Senator Clinton had strong body language last night and her stage presence was impeccable. That may be true, but her competition right now is Barack Obama and his own presence, in my assessment, was better.

Ultimately, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are running on the same general platforms. They don’t differentiate much on most issues. So one of these candidates has to bring something to the table that exists outside the field of simple politics. Senator Clinton didn’t exhibit any extra qualities last night to cause me to find her any more appealing then Senator Obama. He, at least, displayed a clear sense of humor.

Senator Obama appeared genuinely interested in driving American forward through political discourse. I got the impression last night that Senator Clinton was genuinely interested in driving Senator Clinton’s legacy forward. Clinton may, in fact, be more qualified then Senator Obama for the position of the President of the United States. But ultimately, one is a junior Senator and the other is a candidate whose biggest contributions came as First Lady. Voters are going to look for intangibles. I detected the presence of none from Senator Clinton last night.

Thus:

Grade: C

To access my earlier assessment of the debate, complete with more Candidate quotes and commentary, please click HERE

Democratic Party Debate

A brief few minutes ago, I watched the CNN / YouTube Democratic Party debate in its entirety. The event proved to be entertaining enough to sustain an audience in an environment that is typically a tough sell for political programs: the fraternity house.

While watching the debate, I was joined by two friends who I consider very strongly politically active. One I would describe as having “quite” liberal ideology (or “progressive” as Senator Clinton decided during the debate it should now be termed) the other; moderately liberal ideology, although he is quite the deceptive gentleman and he could be much more strongly to the left then I suspect but is disguising such a viewpoint behind a charismatic and witty mask. However, these are the type of individuals whom I expected to find interest in the debate. More pleasing a fact was that those that passed by the open door to my room also joined and participated in watching the debate.

All concerned seemed to agree on this assessment of the debate: it was overly “gimmicky.” Before tending to this blog, I caught a bit of the post-debate commentary on CNN hosted by Wolf Blitzer. Both he and his studio guests were applauding the format of the debate in self-congratulatory manner. The observers from room 105 of the U.S.F. Sigma Phi Epsilon House were less impressed.

My biggest complaint wasn’t that the candidates so easily dodged a majority of the questions. This is a phenomenon that occurs during all of these made-for-television debates. In fact, “debate” seems to be a faux pas; most of the individuals on the stage tonight referenced the posed questions just long enough to transition into whatever topic they had decided in premeditated style to address, regardless of relation to the question at hand. My complaint lies in this: “debate” seems to conjure thoughts of argument and competitive discourse. This rarely occurred tonight. In my opinion, this was much more a fault of the format of the debate then the intentions of the candidates themselves. In a rush to present as many user-submitted videos as possible, the “debaters” were given limited time to answer and, more often then not, only one opposing candidate was given an opportunity to retort. Without exchanges between candidates, tonight’s event hardly entered conversation-territory, let alone being worthy of the title of debate.

All that being said, some of the Democratic Party representatives did a good job of showcasing their oratorical talents. Barack Obama, for example, was the most successful in his performance. Others failed in their limited chance to shine. Senator Mike Gravel, for example, elicited laughs tonight from the spectators in my room. This wasn’t because of his wit but because of his apparent lack of coherence.

I took notes on the debate as points were presented as best I could, given the situation in my room at the time. I am using those notes, memory, and this quickly published TRANSCRIPT to report what occurred and my subsequent reactions. I hope you find this an informative endeavor.

Assessing the Debate

The first question challenged the candidates to explain how they would be different from current administration officials should they become elected President. Barack Obama used this as an opportunity to present what would be one of his two recurring themes of the night (the other theme dealing with education reform):

“Now, part of that is bringing people together, as Chris said. But part of it is also overcoming special interests and lobbyists who are writing legislation that's critical to the American people.”

Throughout the night, Senator Obama pressed on his working talking-point of defeating the special interest groups that are, in his assessment, corrupting government. This seems like a noble cause. Furthermore, I think that officials from either party would argue that the special interest lobbyists in Washington have far too much influence. The only question that I ask is this: What do you, as a candidate, suggest we do about it?

While lobbyists are given far too much authority with their big-money backing, I feel it is still fair to suggest that they represent some segment of the American population. If lobbyists aren’t suggesting ideology to government, then who is? As a whole, this issue seems far too simple. Government officials should rely solely on the needs and desires of their constituents. Examine more closely, however, and the situation becomes much more baffling. I genuinely would like to hear a solution that would eliminate special interests while still providing some format for the people to be heard. Single voices have trouble being discerned in a public body as large as America’s. Inevitably, they have to form groups with like-minded individuals. How do we prevent these groups from then being corrupted by their need to generate monetary resources to conduct certain logistical efforts? While it is easy to suggest that special interests need to be purged, I predict that it will be a much more difficult act to put into practice. This takes fundamental change in the operation of the democratic system as we know it.

An interesting question occurred a bit later in the debate. A video asked if any of the candidates are prepared to disburse reparations to African-Americans. The reparations are due, in the view of the questioner, because of the debt born from slavery. Only Representative Kucinich seemed ready to make such repayment:

“The Bible says we shall be and must be repairers of the breach. And a breach has occurred.”

While that was an interesting answer, I want to again address the direction Senator Obama took in his answer. He used this question to emphasize his second focus of the night: the need for education reform:

“I did a town hall meeting in Florence, South Carolina, in an area called the corridor of shame. They've got buildings that students are trying to learn in that were built right after the Civil War. And we've got teachers who are not trained to teach the subjects they're teaching and high dropout rates.

We've got to understand that there are corridors of shame all across the country. And if we make the investments and understand that those are our children, that's the kind of reparations that are really going to make a difference in America right now.”

While I may disagree with the core values of Senator Obama’s campaign, I must also cede to his rhetorical ability. Throughout the night, he found methods of turning nearly every issue into a topic of dilemma that could be quelled through either the elimination of special interests in Washington or the reform of public education throughout America. For the record, on the question at hand, Senator Obama was against direct reparations.

A later question promoted the sharpest answers of the night. A query was presented directly to Senators Clinton and Obama. The video referenced claims that Clinton didn’t represent female ideals strongly enough and that Obama wasn’t “Black enough” to satisfy the gender and race that they represented respectively. The question asked of their response to such claims. This video was commented on by several members of the panel and in intriguing fashion no less. Senator John Edwards used this opportunity to score big points:

“…anybody who's considering not voting for Senator Obama because he's black or for Senator Clinton because she's a woman, I don't want their vote. I don't want them voting for me.”

This answer elicited applause from the South Carolina crowd. Moments before Senator Obama had the wittiest response of the night in reference to his “Blackness:”

“You know, when I'm catching a cab in Manhattan -- in the past, I think I've given my credentials.”

At this point, I have found myself wanting to submit to Senator’s Obama’s White House bid. He seems engaging; certainly charismatic, charming and intelligent. He is young and handsome. If he would only alter his stances on socialized health care, gun control, abortion, tax growth and a wealth of other issues, I may be thoroughly sympathetic to his cause. Alas, he is a junior Senator; he has plenty of time in his political career to come to grips with the downfalls of his platform.

Senator Clinton didn’t waste this opportunity either. She feels that the concerns of government should outweigh any based on gender or race:

“And I trust the American people to make a decision that is not about me or my gender, or about Barack or his race or about Bill and his ethnicity, but about what is best for you and your family.”

However, at other points, she seemed all too eager to use her gender to promote her status as a champion of feminist causes. On the issue recently raised by Senator Edwards’s wife that he, not Senator Clinton, was a better advocate for issues specifically directed towards women, Clinton ended with this little barb:

“But I think it is terrific. We're up here arguing about who's going to be better for women, because isn't that a nice change for everybody to hear.”

Moving on, we eventually came to what was probably the night’s single most problematic question for the candidates. Filmed in a refugee camp in Africa, the video asked the political contenders what they would do to end the oppression currently occurring in Darfur, Sudan. Senator Biden seemed to answer with the most support for using American troops to pacify the situation:

“Twenty-five hundred American troops -- if we do not get the 21,000 U.N. troops in there -- can stop the genocide now. I have called for a no-fly zone. Everybody agreed, but you need troops on the ground.”

The other candidates were less adamant in their convictions. Senator Clinton seemed to find trouble directly answering the question. She agreed with Senator Biden that action was warranted and that American personnel in that action was needed. However, when pressed by host Anderson Cooper, she wouldn’t submit to suggesting the direct use of American troops:

“American ground troops I don't think belong in Darfur at this time. I think we need to focus on the United Nations peacekeeping troops and the African Union troops.”

Failing to muster an adequate response that was as passionate as Biden’s without alienating an anti-war base, Senator Clinton predictably took her response to an alternate discussion… by insulting the current situations in Afghanistan and Iraq:

“We've got to figure out what we're doing in Iraq, where our troops are stretched thin, and Afghanistan, where we're losing the fight to Al Qaida and bin Laden.”

The most contentious portions of the debate developed when the candidates were pressed on the issue of troop withdrawal in Iraq. When this subject came up, Senator Biden referenced past legislation that he has an introduced that requires the implementation of a decentralized government in Iraq with separate Sunni, Shia and Kurdish states. Governor Bill Richardson repeatedly invoked his suggestion that all troops should be withdrawn in the next six months. Senator Biden responded harshly:

“Number one, there is not a single military man in this audience who will tell this senator he can get those troops out in six months if the order goes today.”

Other somewhat stimulating topics were introduced but, in general, one should be able to ascertain where any of the mentioned candidates stand at this point. So with that in mind, I am going to bring this is to a close. However, I am going to attempt to do so more eloquently then did the debate. The final question asked each candidate to name one thing they liked and one thing they disliked about the opponents directly to their left and right. This was a predictably awkward and fruitless exercise. It did, however, promote one of the genuinely humorous tongue-in-cheek lines of the night: Senator Biden on his thoughts concerning Representative Kucinich (and this is paraphrased because the end of the debate is not yet available in transcript form):

“There’s not a damn thing I like about him.”

Meet the Press with the Director of National Intelligence

Tonight I would like to review the more important aspects of today’s Meet the Press interview conducted by Tim Russert. Mr. Russert’s guest was Admiral John Michael McConnell, the current United States Director of National Intelligence. The interview focused primarily on the present threat that is posed by terrorists on the American homeland. The recently issued National Intelligence Estimate, dealing with just such an issue, was used as an informative backdrop and was cited frequently during Mr. Russert’s questioning.

Foremost, I want to declare that I am an avid follower of Meet the Press. I don’t particularly care how the host leans politically. I don’t know a whole lot about Mr. Russert’s involvement in the Scooter Libby investigation and I don’t know much about who he supports politically. I do, however, know that he typically presents interviews that ask the questions that I want to see answered. I haven’t been privy to him pulling punches for members of either side of the political aisle and I trust that watching Meet the Press will satisfactorily employ my time in a valuable method.

The full transcript of the Russert / McConnell discussion can be accessed HERE.

Tim Russert Interviews Admiral McConnell

In the early stage of the interview, Russert asked the Director to explain what is currently targeted by terrorists bent on antagonizing Americans. While indicating the usual and predictable government and largely populated sites as potential danger spots, McConnell also pointed out that terrorists have a strong desire to cause havoc on “economic targets that would have long-lasting impact.” Russert then continuously attempted to move the conversation towards the more popular issue of weapons composed of nuclear, biological and/or chemical agents. It is these economical targets that I want to briefly address.

This is an avenue that scares me. I can’t live my life in fear of facing mortality because a person opposing my nation’s beliefs might cause my airplane to fall out of the sky. I don’t suggest that you do either; in this case, I hold steadily to the premise that if “it is your time to go, than it is, indeed, your time to go.” I do, however, worry that an attack on economical or computer-based infrastructure might cause serious harm to every American’s typical way of life.

What’s worse is that I do not know if we could stop such an attack if one has the knowledge and means to conduct one. With all the technological security available on our side, I still have an uneasy feeling that no such implantation could totally block a massive attack on this sort of equipment. The collateral damage that would be sustained if, say, the networking infrastructure behind the stock market were to go offline, even momentarily, would be, in my view, tremendous. It is this kind of attack that invokes apprehension. Moreover, it is this type of attack that I believe will soon become the preferred weapon of choice among terrorists. They will soon come to realize that on a battleground composed of weapons and blood, America and our allies will eventually win. With this in mind, other tactics will have to be utilized. An attack on economic or technological infrastructure is just one of those tactics that I see coming into play.

Mr. Russert then questioned if America really is any safer today then it was six years ago when we sustained the attacks in New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington D.C. Director McConnell went a long way in satisfying these concerns. He cited, for example, that today “the National Counterterrorism Center, which conducts, three times a day, a teleconference with all the players—federal level, state level, international [in an effort to identify terrorist activity]” is a new tool in preventing such dangers.

It is important to note that there has been progress made in these efforts. As a Republican, I am generally against the development of larger bureaucratic entities. Democrats, on the hand, are quick to point out the continued shortcomings of Bush administration-developed agencies in the War on Terror. Wherever your bias may lie, it is still shortsighted to suggest that some of these new developments haven’t been successful. The Intelligence Director seemed genuinely convinced that we are safer a country today then we were prior to September 11^th, 2001. I would have to think we are. Efforts have been made and, as unfortunate as it was that such devastation had to occur to spur these developments, they have been implemented nonetheless and we should be thankful for it.

Maybe the most interesting portion of the interview occurred next. Mr. Russert pinned the Director into a position of having to explain how and why the most recent National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Al Qaeda has grown in influence despite our continued war against their efforts. I found Admiral McConnell’s response quite interesting:

“What changed? In Pakistan, where they’re enjoying a safe haven, the government of Pakistan chose to try a political solution. The political solution meant a peace treaty with a region that’s never been governed—not governed from the outside, not governed by Pakistan. The opposite occurred. Instead of pushing al-Qaeda out, the people who live in the—these federally- administered tribal areas, rather than pushing al-Qaeda out, they made a safe haven for training and recruiting.”

I am in no position to question the intentions of Pakistan President Musharraf. McConnell would later state repeatedly that Musharraf is one of America’s most reliable allies in the region. However, this answer is a simple explanation to a phenomenon that seems to be high priority for everyone involved to spin. How has Al Qaeda grown? It has grown because the tribal areas of Pakistan have persisted as a breeding ground for such growth.

This isn’t entirely Musharraf’s fault. In fact, the peace that the Pakistani President attempted was probably the most viable solution. This area is one that has been historically out of the control of the federally presiding Pakistani body. And, frankly, Pakistan doesn’t have the ability to quell it through the use of force. American intervention might help, but American intervention in Pakistan (at least on a large, overt scale) is not something currently feasible.

So the dynamic here is one nearly undeniable. Any solution is a tough one. However, in my view, one solution is currently being played out: Allow Al Qaeda to grow in these tribal areas of Pakistan. We can’t prevent it, but we can provide battlegrounds outside of America to destroy these newly formed participants. Those battlegrounds exist in Afghanistan and Iraq. And I think it true to suggest that we are killing them as they develop. If you disagree, endeavor to ask Abu Musab al Zarqawi or Sheik Abd Al Rahman. Both were high ranking Al Qaeda in Iraq officials and both are now dead.

However, on the same note, Mr. Russert was successful in coercing the Intelligence Director into admitting that the Iraq war has been a thriving recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. However, concerning that subject Admiral McConnell described it as “mutually beneficial.” He then went on to demonstrate that Islamic extremism exists throughout a large segment of the world and, because of the Iraq situation, Al Qaeda has been able to unite these extremists in ways not available before.

However, the use of the term “mutually beneficial” by the Director reflects my point above. Islamic extremism has existed for quite a while now. As we all know, the collapse of the World Trade Center wasn’t the first attack on American soil. That being said, the situation in Iraq has allowed those who wish to do so to unite in their terrorist cause. Should this necessarily be seen as a bad thing? I believe there is a direct correlation between the development of unity between Islamic radicals and Coalition Forces’ ability to systematically destroy them. It is much easier to follow the network of terrorists when they are connected by less isolated degrees. As long as they stay inter-weaved with each other and continue to send agents of this web to battlegrounds such as Iraq and Afghanistan, the more likely that American and ally forces will be able to travel from one terrorist to the next, effectively killing or capturing them. In this sense, the development of Al Qaeda as a unified body is, in fact, “mutually beneficial.”

Mr. Russert moved on to the subject of American-justified torture. This has been in the news recently as the President has signed a new order specifying what actions can and can not be performed when attempting to coerce information from suspected terrorist individuals. For obvious reasons, Director McConnell couldn’t be completely forthcoming on what tactics are now permitted. However, he did say something that I have never considered before. It is worth noting:

“Because, because they [suspected terrorists] believe these techniques might involve torture and they don’t understand them, they tend to speak to us, talk to us in very—a very candid way.”

Without context, this statement may seem a bit grim. One would almost infer that the Director is suggesting that America does conduct methods of torture. That is not what he is suggesting. The point he makes is much more interesting.

America has the luxury of not having to conduct torture. However, the enemy that we face has proven to be far from adverse to such acts themselves. So when they are captured by Americans, the only method of interrogation they understand is the method that they employ themselves; the use of torture. Simply by assuming that they will be tortured, the suspected terrorists tend to divulge information without our forces needing to conduct any sort of harsh measures.

The problem, as I stated in a previous blog, is that Americans have such in-depth access to the strategies that we implement and that journalists dig so deep that we are losing the advantage. It is paramount to our successful continued employment of interrogation for the terrorists to not know what to expect. If torture is being conducted then those involved must be held accountable. On the same note, however, there is value in keeping our means secret. This secrecy, in and of itself, allows us not to have to utilize rough provisions. As soon as the enemy is 100 % sure that America will only treat them with kid gloves, we lose the edge. I often wish that media, while staying true to their duty to inform the public, would also hold themselves accountable to the greater consequences of their reports.

And, finally, on the issue of Iraq, Mr. Russert instigated Admiral McConnell into explaining the relationship between Al Qaeda and sectarian violence. Mr. Russert asked:

“In terms of the violence in Iraq, which is—which creates more of the violence—which is the greater cause for violence, sectarian conflict or al-Qaeda?”

The Director did an excellent job of clarifying that the differing aspects of violence in Iraq are mutual in their existence. Pundits are quick to describe the situation in-country as a “civil war.” Opponents of this description tend to depict the conflict as being a battle between terrorists and their enemies. Admiral McConnell explained that one ultimately led to the other:

“And al-Qaeda is the, the one that takes—is the organization that attempts purposefully to serve as an accelerant, attacking things like the, the mosque, the grand mosque that was destroyed over a year ago, and then revisiting with attacking the two minarets that were still up. The whole purpose is something massive against the Shia or against something the Shia holds sacred to act as an accelerant to stimulate, stimulate the violence.”

The choice of the word “accelerant” is apt. Based on my experience in the country, I can attest that there is no civil war on-going in Iraq. In fact, I believe that the typical Iraqi, whether Shia, Sunni, or other, is prepared to embrace stability. It is extremists who, by overstepping the boundaries of their own belief systems, are instigating the in-fighting. As soon as calm settles in, a terrorist conducts an operation to upset this condition. Sectarian violence ensues in response. The key to slowing this trend is to establish multi-sectarian government within the country and destroying those on the edge bent on destabilizing the process. I feel that is exactly what is occurring. It is taking time and it is an effort that is quickly wearing on American patience. However, I hope that candid discussion such as that presented by Admiral McConnell will develop in Americans the ability to visualize the objectives sought through our continued presence in the region.

I would absolutely love to hear your own reaction to the Director’s discourse. Feel free to respond via the comment form below or by email. Also, if you found my assessment of Admiral McConnell’s words at all stimulating, you may also find some interest in my dissection of the current “surge” strategy in Baghdad accessible in the second part of THIS edition of Educated Soldier.

Thank you!