A Grand Return

Having failed to update Educated Soldier in months, I have full intention to return today with a huge splash. That being said, this edition will be divided into three parts.

The initial section will be of most interest to readers that just casually stumble across this blog. I will be tackling what should be a pertinent issue throughout the rest of the summer; my interaction with an impressive, but insufferably liberal professor.

The second section will be brief. I simply want to comment on two websites that I feel require compliment. These are the sites that motivate me to write. These are the sites that I read daily and influence the ideas that eventually find their way to Educated Soldier (although, apparently, at sometimes sporadic intervals).

And, finally, I would like to conclude with a personal interlude. I have had an eventful summer – and, yet, the season is still just blooming. I would like to share my experiences and, more important to me personally, allow myself to utilize this medium for my favorite purpose: the expression of some inner feelings and concerns.

All three of these topics are open to your comment and criticism. Feel free to contact the Educated Soldier via email or by the comment form at the conclusion of the blog. As we begin, I want to take a momentary second to THANK YOU for reading.

MY LIBERAL PROFESSOR

Two afternoons ago, I sat in class consumed by the anticipation of writing this blog. My pattern of daydreaming, admittedly, wondered between anger (as my personal convictions were being trampled upon) and natural boyish tendencies (as I glanced at the cute girl sitting in front of me). The former issue is of more importance currently.

While considering what I was going to write pertaining to this issue, I seriously considered renaming Educated Soldier to exactly the heading of this section, “My Liberal Professor”. I foresee writing on this issue, about this professor, probably twice a week because each class period we share promises to add to what I see as his list of offenses.

Before I begin opining, however, I would like to make certain things clear so as to not lose interest amongst those that may perceive me as some youthful Right-Wing nut. While I certainly have my political tendencies, I pride myself on at least considering opposing arguments. As with many people whom have had significant experiences (i.e.: combat) forge their political ideologies, after considering such arguments, I tend to fall back to my original beliefs. But I am hardly a heathen. I really am a stellar student and pride myself on my academic success. I enjoy political dialogue and I honestly try my very best to maintain an open mind.

However, on occasion, one must call a spade, a spade.

This happens to be one of these occasions. The professor with whom I am now having weekly encounters will, for the time being, remain nameless. Those associated with the International Studies program at the University of South Florida may be able to deduce the subject of my discourse. So be it. My reason for maintaining ambiguity on his behalf is multi-purpose. First of all, I am under the impression that he is a swell guy. Seriously. Every indication that I have seen in class has caused me to draw the conclusion that, political radicalism aside, I could really look up to this professor. He is obviously extremely knowledgeable, witty, lectures with the intent to teach (as opposed to having the intent to only read from slides and earn pay), extensively experienced, worldly, and approachable. Professors I have admired in the past have shared these exact traits.

My intent is not to smear this professor. My intent is disagree with him in a forum where I feel safe doing so. One must understand that the stakes are high for me. I am approaching my Senior year. I am a Dean’s List student, in the Honors program, and maintain a 3.85 GPA. From here on out, the difference between Georgetown Law and George Mason Law is a “B” grade. For that reason, I choose not to make my stand in class or on tests. I currently value my future career options and income prospects more than my drive to civically influence a class of forty and a professor whose views I could hardly alter anyway. And, moreover, I have no right to wage a smear campaign. This professor had his Ph.D. conferred upon him by Yale and is a Fulbright scholar. I have little right, in respect to his accomplishments, to do little more than considerately disagree.

But disagree, I do.

The class in question concerns modern international conflict. The idea is that we will study post-cold war conflict, on a case by case method, in order to find patterns relative to all modern conflict. That’s the idea, at least. Yet, for some reason, each class meeting – while focusing on different conflicts – will have time dedicated to the study of the Iraq War. And, this will not be an open-minded look at the Iraq War. Instead, this will be a study from the perspective that this war was wrongly waged. Worse, the professor has made it clear that we will pay no mind to current successes but only focus on the mistakes the U.S. made entering the conflict so as to “learn from those mistakes.” It hardly matters if those “mistakes” may be, perhaps, paying dividends currently.

But, please, do not take my word for it. Consider this. There is but one required text for this class: Charles H. Ferguson’s “No End in Sight: Iraq’s Descent into Chaos”. I am doubtful that the class will be listening to any of General Petraeus’ congressional testimony to balance perspective.

Speaking of which: other things that will go unmentioned in this class: that the Iraqi government has made satisfactory progress on 15 of 18 mandated benchmarks or that Operation Lion’s Roar has effectively ridded Iraq of Al Qaeda. In fact, despite those two stories being FACT, they are hardly easy to research. Consider this: a Google search for “Operation Lion’s Roar” (which, should be the story of the day, week, month, and – perhaps – Iraq War) only returns these meager results: LINK.

I am open to my professor personally believing entering the Iraq War to be a mistake. However, to profess to students that this is fact, which he claims, is simply wrong. Perhaps the peers in which I associate (many being military related or at least Right-Wing affiliated) have led me astray, but I was under the assumption that, at the very least, the debate was still on-going. While that may be the case across mainstream America, the discourse is closed in the halls of academia. Most professors, including this one, will tell you in an empirical sort of way that the Iraq War was a mistake.

And I do have a problem with that.

The offenses grow larger. I imagine that each class period will bring additional points of contention to the surface. During the last class, I particularly questioned my professor’s stance on the Sami Al Arian situation. In a nutshell, Dr. Al Arian was a professor here at the University of South Florida whom also did extensive work on behalf of Palestinian movements. He was an influential member of an organization called WISE, which promoted Islamic ideals. None of these details were, in and of themselves, bad. However, when Al Arian became allegedly associated with Palestinian Islamic Jihad, he fell under suspicion of the United States Government. Dr. Al Arian currently remains in custody because of this entire situation.

Now, I am not one to judge Dr. Al Arian. I know far too little about the case to take a stance. And, in all honesty, my heart leads me to believe that perhaps Dr. Al Arian was and is the victim of simply having ties with the wrong people at the wrong time. Ultimately, his most devastating crime may have been his unfortunate ignorance. I simply cannot make a judgment; I do not have the requisite knowledge.

What bothers me is that my professor, on Thursday, made his judgment. And he did so clearly and in a very matter-of-fact sort of manner. He explained that Dr. Al Arian was wrongly incarcerated and blamed the United States government for his predicament. This was just before he went on to claim that many executive government members may be faced with war crimes trials should they travel to countries after their retirement from office, where foreign jurisdiction would allow such unilateral indictment. My professor may, in fact, be right about Dr. Al Arian. But, again, a quick Google search shows that the debate continues in mainstream America. And the fact remains that Dr. Al Arian is still in custody. That debate, however, has ceased in the autocratic classroom. To simply pass opinion to your pupils as fact reeks of a total lack of professionalism and an agenda that simply should not be espoused by university faculty.

Bringing this to a conclusion for today, I want to make it clear again, that I am doing my best to tackle knowledge being presented to me with an open mind. My professor’s intention is to open student’s eyes to the mistakes made entering the Iraq War so as to prohibit those mistakes from being made in the future. I know all too well that mistakes were, indeed, made. However, I do not look back on the beginning of the Iraq War with the same gloomy perspective as he. My personal experiences make it clear that looking back retrospectively thorough a wide lens would show a large range of examples: from things done poorly to those executed perfectly. And I also fail to understand how precluding from study current progress in Iraq will aid in our historical perspective. In any case, as my frustration surely grows, I will continue to post here. I want to ensure that the American people understand the indoctrination that occurs at the university level here in the States, while also opening the field to discussion. I look forward to your comments and hope you anticipate future discourse on the topic.

GIVING THANKS

I would like to take a moment to reference a couple of websites that I find interesting. While reading these sites, I often find encouragement to write. I would hope you would take a second to check them out.

The first site is “Tampa Taxi Shots”. This blog’s maintainer is a local taxi cab driver here in Tampa and also an amateur photographer. While his conservative viewpoint initially drew me to his blog, I have found myself continuing to read because of his candid outtakes on life in Tampa Bay. He comes across as a blue collar individual, attempting to only make the most out of his life by working hard and enjoying his current lot. His entries are no nonsense and always entertaining.

The second blog is “Sticks of Fire”. I must be honest; I do not access this blog as often as I should. However, I stumbled across it this morning for probably the hundredth time in my life. The blog is so well-maintained that it led directly to me updating Educated Soldier today. By accessing Sticks of Fire, I was reminded that an effective blog is a virtual contributor to the community. Sticks of Fire offers an interesting perspective of Tampa. I would hope that, should Educated Soldier often nothing greater, it would offer an equally fresh look at Tampa Bay-related material.

As one may be able to tell, both of these sites are quite influential on the continued maintenance of Educated Soldier. They are valuable blogs and I encourage you to check them out.

PERSONAL RAMBLINGS

It should be understood that I enter this section of writing with some level of trepidation. As I jot the title, “Personal Ramblings,” I can hear, in my head, the sound of a groan emulating from New Jersey where my Mom follows my life choices with ongoing confusion. Not that I can blame her; it is not often that I maintain constant interests and life goals. And, unfortunately, it is often that I lock myself into commitments that I may or may not find interesting before being freed from them.

But I write anyway because it clears the constant banter in my head that wrestles daily with the prospects of what I desire to do in life.

Foremost, I want to make it clear that every day I begin to regret more and more that I did not take the opportunity to spend this summer interning in Washington, D.C. I was offered every viable position a young conservative such as myself could desire. South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford (perhaps the single Republican, outside of Senator Fred Thompson, whose ideologies I find most appealing) offered me the opportunity to interview for an internship in his office. I had offers from the G.O.P’s rules committee, to Party Headquarters, to the staff for the Presidential campaign in which I could intern. Top conservative lobbying firms offered opportunities. Ultimately, I chose to forego these internships to instead volunteer for the Special Forces within the Army National Guard.

I do not regret this decision in and of itself. I have drilled with the Special Forces guys for the past few months and have done fairly well. I am progressing down the path to future qualification as a Special Forces soldier about as well as anyone could. This is a source of great pride and is also an endeavor that I have so badly wanted to attempt for the past five years. In all honesty, I see myself, one day, in Afghanistan with an O.D.A., doing the duties of a Special Forces soldier. And as I train daily, it is just this objective that drives me forward.

A problem only surfaces when I grow closer to the day that Special Forces qualification interrupts school. This is inevitable. And it is beginning to look like that day of interruption will begin this Fall. The Special Forces cadre has given me notice to be prepared for the first term of duty (a three week school) that will require university absence in the coming months. It hardly seems that I can simply miss three weeks of school and maintain the high level of academic success that I have come to value so greatly. This has forced me into a position to prioritize what I want to do in life.

With my current G.P.A. and any luck on the LSAT, I believe that I may be building for myself the opportunity to go to a prestigious law school. I believe that I will have a competitive application for Georgetown, the institution of my choice. My “back-up” law schools would be distinguished themselves: George Washington, American University, George Mason, Catholic University. Given how hard I have worked on my undergraduate education, it seems such a waste to not complete really extensive, really rewarding post-graduate pursuits if given the opportunity.

On top of all of this, I have qualified for fee waivers based on my lack of income. This means that study preparation for the LSAT is free; as are two LSATs (which run over $150 each). The application fees to most of the Law Schools mentioned above are also waived. I mention this because it is just another detail that makes it clear to me that the stars are aligning in such a way that, to not consider Law School, would be a huge mistake.

Becoming Special Forces qualified delays my graduation by at least a semester and probably much longer. But it is something that means a lot to me. On the other hand, it would simply be intelligent to just clear my plate as best as possible and tackle Law School aspirations full-on. An important mitigating factor is this: ultimately, I want to end up in Washington, D.C. If I do nothing more in life than bus tables, I want to at least bus tables in Washington, D.C. My infatuation with the city harks back to my regret over passing up the internship opportunities.

So I stand confused. I am in the enviable position of hardly being obligated. I can do the Special Forces thing or not do it; it’s a voluntary process. I do have an obligation to the National Guard but that is neither here nor there.

Moreover, attending Law School isn’t a plan completely out of left field. My interests in politics are both obvious and longstanding. At least theoretically, politics and the law are related topics. While others stand fearful at the demands placed on the first year Law School student, I truly feel I would thrive. I would love to throw myself into books for a few years and simply tackle knowledge with unrestricted vigor.

Anyway, these are my personal ramblings. It does not help that each time I return from a D.C. vacation, as I just did, my mind runs wild. But to spend time in that city and see my peer group doing what I could have this summer is at least somewhat disappointing. The networking I could have completed could have been so amazingly beneficial.

Moreover, should the future hold Special Forces qualification in my future, I foresee myself as a great “Green Beret”. On the other hand, should I put myself in the right situation in Washington, D.C. I genuinely see myself as an individual that could be really influential within a Right-Wing youth movement; a young "up-and-comer" if you will.

Confidence doesn’t escape me; only proper direction. I look forward to your comment. Thank you.

The Inevitable Polarization of American Politics

During tonight’s edition of Educated Soldier, I want to address two issues. The first will be brief.

THE WIKIPEDIA DRINKING GAME

This first topic will be the light-hearted of the two. Among my many favorite pastimes is the act of socially consuming alcohol. I did just that during the past weekend. While doing so, my roommates and I developed the game that you now see listed in the above heading. I found the game so enjoyable that I hastily created a blog in its honor. That blog, surprisingly, garnered an equal amount of attention in a 24-hour period as Educated Soldier has generated in nearly a year of existence. That same blog even landed me a job opportunity as a prominent college-related website (which I will only name should I accept the offer) offered me a paying position as a contributing writer. My articles would be entertaining (so I would intend, at least) takes RE: on-goings in the University of South Florida social scene. Giving the promising nature of the original blog, I would be robbing Educated Soldier’s readers not share it with you. Click the following to access the WIKIPEDIA DRINKING GAME.

THE POLARIZATION OF AMERICAN POLITICS

The following was encouraged by a comment posted in response to the most recent edition of Educated Soldier. Within the comment was a detail made in passing that, upon rereading effectively caught my attention.

The comment suggested that, perhaps, it would be useful to shed my current political biases. This is to suggest that one could choose to present and understand political discourse in a less segregated type of way. Perhaps, America would be best served to no longer exist along a deep Republican / Democrat divide. I respect this suggestion because it was framed around noble reasoning. As stated (and I am paraphrasing): the current situations facing the United States are too critical to become bogged down by political party divisions.

Abandon Right and Left wing biases. –---- This idea immediately struck me as surprisingly profound. The task seems so easy. But it is not. Indeed, to abandon such biases would constitute a paradigm shift in the way one perceives modern American politics.

Now I am not old enough to remember a country prior to the institution of mandatory red-state / blue-state categorizations. But these categorizations exist now, are very much real, and influence the common American citizen’s way of life in more ways than I believe we may first imagine. If my understanding of politics, especially as applies to the federal government, is correct, America is being led by two parties that are pushing their representatives to the extremes of their respective political platforms. The Democrats are becoming much more “leftist,” and the Republicans (save for John McCain, ironically) are striving further to the right. These tendencies promote authentic fears.

My personal fear is stoked by the possibility of an increasingly government subsidized way of living the American life. My fear is not provoked by clichés of modern political rhetoric. I do not fear, contrary to popular belief, that government-provided healthcare leads to socialism, which – in turn – leads to the death of America's treasured personal freedom. My fear is that most any unearned government subsidy leads to moral hazard. The ability to get something for nothing leads people to addiction. The addiction is a type of “What can my country do for me” dependency.

Despite having fought terrorism directly and attempting to rejoin the fight currently by becoming Special Forces – qualified, my gut fear isn’t of Al Qaeda and the like, but of an American generation any less self-motivated than the one I am currently growing in.

So long as the Left is pushing further to its political extreme, hinting toward a future where more public services are usurped by government entities, I will have trouble abandoning my polarized, biased perception of the American government and those whom actively participate in it.

One of two options can occur that could effectively aid in alleviating my politically biased language. The one moderate candidate running for President can win and, by doing so, encourage the legislative branch toward re-achieving the middle where, throughout American history, it has had the tendency to dwell. The other option is that one of the other two candidates can be victorious but be much more centrist during their time in the office of the President than their current campaigns suggest will be the case.

Any other option coming to fruition would aid only in stoking my darkest fear as stated above. Should that be the case, I can not see how I could observe and discuss American politics without being intensely biased.

Lions for Lambs

NOTICE: For unknown reasons, the format of Educated Soldier is looking different than I intended. The background graphic is missing, thus leaving only the mustard-colored layout. I will work to fix this problem at my next convenience. Sorry for the tougher-than-normal reading format.

Despite my objections and desire to only do otherwise, today I watched the film, Lions for Lambs. It featured Meryl Streep, Robert Redford, Tom Cruise and promised a politically charged polemic wrapped around a real-world scenario: i.e. the current and very real war in Afghanistan.

I only relented and watched because of two reasons. The less significant: Robert Redford starred in Spy Game, unmatched as my favorite movie of all time. The other and more important reason is because my Mom encouraged me to do so. I will use the sentiments that my Mom presented prior to my viewing of the film as the foundation to the format in which I evaluate.

With that being said, my Mom found my viewing of this film vital because, as she said, “She saw a lot of me in it.” Having seen the previews before watching Lions for Lambs in its entirety and, given my personal background, I was sure that my personality would show up in the scenes of the soldiers in Afghanistan. I was also fairly sure that the rest of the film would be liberally biased, condescending, less than thought-provoking and detestable in all the ways that these sorts of things typically are. While I will reserve my ultimate judgment, allow me to say this initially: having just finished the film, I find myself questioning which character my Mom found me represented.

With that introduction solidly in place, I present two important declarations: my assessment of Lions for Lambs is completely knee-jerk. I finished the film no more than two minutes ago and have read no outside reviews. What I provide is unequivocally my opinion without influence. Second, if you have not seen the film and plan on doing so, I suggest you stop reading now. While my intention is to discuss the important topics that this film presents and to not necessarily provide “spoilers,” I will not, however, be making any concessions to keep any secrets of the film hidden. In fact, I foresee mentioning at least one particular scene that is essential to the final outcome of the film. Should knowing the outcome ruin your taste for seeing the film, I advise strongly to simply cease reading now.

To best comprehend the aforementioned personalized manner in which I intend to dissect this film, it seems important to know at least a little about me. Thus, you would understand my own thought-processes while I attempt to pinpoint where my Mom saw me epitomized in the film. I truly believe this personalized method of tackling Lions for Lambs will not only allow me to better digest the film, but it will also be eye-opening for many of you that may come from a perspective completely different than my own. I would suspect that those viewing this film would, by the majority, not share my experiences nor views.

That being said, the pivotal experience so far in my short life has been, no doubt, my experience in Iraq. I spent two tours there as a forward observer, having seen both the positives that I truly believe are engrossed in a just cause and the negatives that come from the very reality of war. Since leaving the service, however, I have been a college student and have done rather well for myself academically. Meanwhile, I have wrestled with a desire to return to service; a desire that I am whetting by attempting to become Special Forces-qualified via the National Guard. All the while, I have remained very politically active. I did much via this site to endorse Senator Fred Thompson’s Presidential campaign and I have had the opportunities to both lobby the federal government and meet most of the leaders in the highest offices from the President, to the Secretary of State, to the Joint Chiefs, et. al. Had one seen Lions for Lambs, he or she would, no doubt, understand why I would find such a film particularly intriguing.

One digression: Lions for Lambs makes a factual error that nearly everyone not in the military continually makes. I only point out this error because observing it repeatedly tends to be a pet-peeve of mine. Special Forces (SF) and Special Operation Forces (SOF) are two different entities. Special Forces are a type of Special Operation Force. However, most SOF are not Special Forces. For example, in this film, the soldiers shown in Afghanistan are clearly Army Rangers, an element of SOF. The insignia on their uniforms makes that much clear. However, Tom Cruise’s character refers to these soldiers as Special Forces. They are not. This is hardly a critical portion of the film and, because of such; I will leave you to research the subject should you desire any more clarity on why Cruise’s character is mistaken.

As I said before, prior to viewing the film, I guessed that my Mom figured me out to be represented in the characters portrayed in Afghanistan. And, in many ways, I see a lot of myself in these characters. Ultimately, however, I may very well be that punk student in the office of Robert Redford’s. What’s most interesting is this: outside of Meryl Streep’s, I see very essential parts of my personality embodied in each of the main characters. This is a noteworthy conclusion considering the nature of the individual arriving at it. I am a staunch conservative, supporter of our efforts in Afghanistan AND Iraq, and have never been convinced to hide any of those leanings.

Let us start with Robert Redford’s character. His character is the “me” that prevents me from simply returning back to the active duty military and chasing the noble goal of becoming Special Forces-qualified as I have longed to do for over five years now. As much as I buy into patriotism, adventure, and the military lifestyle, the university (and, most notably, a select few professors whom I genuinely respect) has caused me to buy into this idea of “scholarship.” Each time my passion pushes me towards the military, this side of my essence reminds me that there is an innate and unexplainable beauty in remaining knee-deep in esoteric knowledge that, really, holds no material value. While it hardly makes a difference to this entire world that I am finally grasping the minute differences in the philosophies of Durkheim and Berger, it’s personally compelling enough that I remain interested. My interest in such matters burns so strongly that this very idea of scholarship is what keeps me in school. Those whom know me best know that I am definitely not continuing academically in pursuit of career goals- that’s for sure.

So, while the character of Robert Redford’s possesses wholly different ideals concerning the War on Terrorism, the essence of the personality is one that I can totally relate. A better testament to the film: the part is written so well and performed in such a way that I can even see the merits of the side of the argument opposed to the War on Terror. Biases and passions typically prevent the opposition from presenting their case this well. And, while I still disagree, I must compliment the talent behind Lions for Lambs for presenting the argument in such a compelling, yet comprehendible sort of way.

Tom Cruise’s character is also interesting. It is the one character that I believe, ultimately, was used by the film’s production to drive the vehicle carrying any left-leaning bias. Throughout Lions for Lambs, Cruise’s character is portrayed as passionate and sensible. Each opinion that he expressed throughout the film were ones that I have, myself, made in the past. This hardly makes me special. Cruise’s character does little more than push the same rhetoric that most Right-leaning, hawkish individuals have presented for the past seven-ish years. The dialogue is written intelligently and realistically and, throughout the film, one is left with a very favorable perception of Cruise’s character. Towards the conclusion of Lions for Lambs, this positive sentiment is sort of torn down and shown to be, perhaps, only individual and selfish ambition embodied in fiery and patriotic language. No doubt, there was some desire by the talent behind the film to manipulate the viewer to see all Republican politicians backing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to be, like Cruise’s character, ultimately self-serving. Call it naivety, but I am convinced that there are those in offices in Washington that believe in the causes for the same genuine and noble reasons that I do. Side note: given President Bush’s very authentic passion during Petty Officer Monsoor’s Medal of Honor presentation, I feel that we can count the President as one of those driven by genuine convictions.

Since assessment of Cruise’s character is left somewhat ambiguous at the conclusion of the film I will excuse the production for any Leftist propaganda that may have been intended. Surely, it could have been directed much more explicitly. All that being said, given the very passions of the character, I could see how the Senator could very well be the individual whom my Mom saw my personality embodied.

As far as the two students-turned-soldiers are concerned, I have very good reason to detect that my Mom did not – however surprising this may be - have their characters in mind when she was reminded of me. They only resemble me in the fact that they attended college and were in the military. Their personalities, however, are much different than my own. Especially when I consider how much I am more comparable to other characters in this film. Those points being true, the two most emotion-provoking scenes in Lions for Lambs involved these two characters. I held back tears twice. During the early half of the film, the scene flashes back to the two characters as students presenting their case during a debate; they concluded their arguments by offering, in surprising fashion, two letters confirming their enlistments into the Army. For nearly inexplicable reasons, I found this scene tug at my gut. What’s unexplainable is why one would feel so intense reaction to a scene that was inevitable: the viewer had already known that both these characters ultimately ended up in the service. The other emotion-provoking scene was, not surprisingly, when both soldiers chose to trade their lives for their dignity by accepting their fatalities by standing rather than remaining face-down in the snow, prone to easy capture.

However, the student in the office of Robert Redford’s is one that I can empathize with completely. The commonalities are deeper than both of us being fraternity brothers. I would like to believe that, like the student in the office, I am a fairly gifted student. I would also argue that, given the right environment, I am prone to begin in-class dialogue amongst the students in a fashion similar to that demonstrated by the character in the film. Just as staunchly, however, I would present the case that I am a highly motivated individual, whom – like the character in the film – badly desires not only guidance but someone influential to emphatically drive those motivations.

For example, on my proverbial plate, I have the opportunity to accept a rather significant internship in Washington D.C. over the summer. Of course, because of a situation that I have burdened myself with concerning the military, that internship seems to be one that I can not, in reality, accept. On the other hand, I have a great opportunity to finally gain that Special Forces qualification and life-changing commitment that I have desired for so long. Yet, I find myself happily married to academic goals. Each of these opportunities, while all great individually, naturally draw together in such a way that accepting one inevitably cancels the others. The desires of youth – an ambitious, passionate youth at that – have left me yearning for my own “moment in the office.” While I feel that my personality is embodied by the student-character, my life has not yet afforded me the experience that the character is enjoying throughout the duration of the film.

So where does Lions for Lambs leave the viewer? In conclusion, my most encompassing reaction is one of surprise. The film was wrought by individuals openly opposed to the wars and unashamedly politically Left-leaning. Yet, they created a film that hardly crammed their agendas down the viewers’ throats. Ultimately, the film was thought-provoking. Had it not been, I would not be currently 2,000 words deep into writing an initial reaction. A film having such power should be complimented. Just as easily, however, one could make the point that there “is nothing new under the sun” in Lions for Lambs. This film, really, just allowed the viewer to see from the outside the same arguments that we have each been consumed by since September 11^th, 2001. In that sense, it was not ground-breaking. But for encouraging and reigniting dialogue that genuinely needs to be continued without being overly biased, Lions for Lambs should be recognized as one of the more important films (at least of those I have observed) in the past few years.

Finally, I want to conclude with a final digression. Much of the film hinges on the theory that enemy fighters are funneling from Iraq into Afghanistan via Iran. This is interesting because the Persian / Arab, Shite / Sunni conflicts that have existed in this region for a millennium now would make this occurrence seem unlikely. In fact, when Senator McCain recently made such allusions, it was seen as a mistake. Democrats even used McCain’s statements to demonstrate his lack of handle on foreign situations. Is it not intriguing that a film with left-leaning backing would use such a tactic, and thus demonstrate it as being at least possible, as an essential plot device?

I look forward to your comments. Feel free to respond here or via email. Thank you.

Stolen Valor

It is doubtful that tonight’s post will earn me any honors for investigatory journalism.

In fact, the subject matter that I would like to discuss has already headlined Drudge, has been discussed (and, here is a website that I never anticipated voluntarily linking to) on the Daily Kos, and has been the source of conversation for my favorite collection of Special Forces veterans.

Yet, for the small and focused audience that is maintained here at Educated Soldier, I had to ensure that this story becomes fully known.

Hillary Clinton recently, out of the blue, consciously and undeniably fabricated a story in order to falsely bolster her credibility. Whereas many of us truly put our lives on the line, and because of such, earn the right to tell stories of relative valor, Senator Clinton cowardly and inexplicably made her past up.

The outlook darkens for Clinton. It was not the Educated Soldier responsible for exposing Senator Clinton of her dastardly fib. Nay, her false retelling of a combat visit to the Balkans during his husband’s administration has been exposed by CBS! This is the same left-leaning CBS that provided safe-haven while Dan Rather developed an overtly biased hit piece on President Bush. Even CBS, happy for so long to propagate liberal rhetoric, could hardly stomach squashing this one.

The Facts:

I have been presented with plenty of evidence to convince me that I should fear the prospects of an Obama Presidency. I have even soured on John McCain in certain aspects. But nothing….

…NOTHING…

…is as angering as this episode. What do we now know about Senator Clinton?

• Not only is she confirmed as a liar, but she is confirmed as a woman unashamed to give herself credit in a manner that degrades the genuine sacrifices made by others. Stolen valor is the single worst type of theft.

• She is insecure about her past record. Had Senator Clinton authentic international credibility gained from serving in truly hostile areas, surely this bold lie would be unwarranted.

And, the scariest observation:

• Senator Clinton is willing to sacrifice her very integrity to win. What more does an individual have than their own personal integrity? The willingness to so easily give it away suggests that Senator Clinton may have even have less trouble sacrificing what means little to her: namely all that is important to you and I.

I plead with each that read Educated Soldier. Please make sure you inform everyone you know about the true character of Hillary Clinton and, please, keep this in mind when you have the opportunity to vote.

Finally, I want, in closing, to express to you just how angry this issue makes me. I follow closely the trials of individuals that fake military achievements. In fact, the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 makes it illegal to sport military decorations not earned. I suggest that it should be just as illegal to falsify acts of bravery in your attempt to secure the highest office in all the land.

But, friends, this is personal. Hillary Clinton claims to have “landed under sniper fire” during her trip to the Balkans. She lied. Allow me to disclose with you something very true: During my year in Ramadi, Iraq I had the great misfortune with being at least somewhat responsible with putting a soldier in a position where he ultimately lost his life at the hands of very real sniper fire. I swear to you, before every mission for nearly a half year of that tour I went to bed thinking of that sniper.

I would like Senator Clinton’s political adviser such as the one in the video above attempt to explain to me (or to a fallen soldier’s family) how she “misspoke.” Hillary Clinton did not make a mistake. She lied.

Hillary Clinton does not deserve your respect. Hillary Clinton, quite frankly, does not deserve the twenty minutes I just wasted on her in writing this. And she surely does not deserve to be our President.

A Stoic Republican Fading on McCain

Today, I feel like a traitor to the Republican Party.

With all my heart, I want to unite with other G.O.P. members and support Senator John McCain. Even my preferred former Presidential candidate, Fred Thompson, has pledged his support for John McCain.

Nearly every motivation directs me to support McCain in the face of liberal candidates that I truly believe are fully out of control and very bad for the prospects of the United States.

But I can not. Yet.

And I encourage you to withhold your own support for McCain.

Please, I beg; wait until you know the full story.

Tonight, on the behest of peer military members that I know through a message board community, I ordered the book, An Enormous Crime (the link is the publisher’s, this ONE, with reviews, is from Amazon).

Since I have yet to read the book and look forward to doing so, I am going to reserve my ultimate judgment of John McCain. However, from the reviews I have read and the conversations I have partaken, this book nearly definitively places blame on a profound cover-up upon McCain and fellow Senator John Kerry. Apparently, McCain, Kerry, and a few others were influential in ceasing our government’s pursuit of American prisoners left in Vietnam.

This seems an unthinkable offense of John McCain’s, he being a former P.O.W. himself. However, those with better knowledge than I see McCain’s apparent offense as a very authentic occurrence. See: This heartfelt letter, this organization of Veterans opposed to McCain, among others.

Besides the illegal immigration / amnesty bill, I have little reason to buck McCain’s campaign – especially in the face of opposition that genuinely scares me. That being said, should this book prove truthful, Senator John McCain becomes a candidate that I can not, in good faith, vote for.

Evidenced by this vetted community of Special Forces soldiers, most of those knowledgeable of an Enormous Crime and its subject matter have already rebuked McCain.

God help us.

The task of defining the "Humanities" in understanding "Religion"

I have been working hard to update the site. The current design may not, ultimately, become the lasting one. I have been using this site as a “canvas” in which to practice my image editing and coding skills. So, consider the current design of Educated Soldier, a work in progress.

Moving on:

I have a professor whom I have a great amount of admiration. This semester, I am taking a class of his that deals with theory and method within the discipline of religious studies. I can not tell you how fascinated I am with this particular aspect of my religious studies major. As much I enjoy historically reflecting on religious text (and, I do), I find theory and method to be my more passionate calling.

This professor requires his students to write papers reflecting on the class’s assigned readings. Each paper is required to be one normally aligned page in length – no shorter or longer. The object of the paper is to produce an argument related to the reading and then defend that argument logically. The assignments are exercises in being concise (difficult for me), affirmations that we have completed the readings, and reflections upon our own rhetorical ability.

I produced something today that I am quite proud of and I want to share it. Before reading, I would like my audience to understand the following: This paper deals with “religion”; not religious traditions, but the mysterious concept that we recognize as common amongst all these traditions. One should also understand these terms in their religious studies context: reductionism and functionalism. And, for some simply interesting reading, one should also dive into the life of Emile Durkheim whose functionalist theories supposed on religion are ones that I find greatly profound.

Finally, you should also note that all accounts of page numbers and quotations in the following are made in reference to William E. Paden’s Religious Worlds (2005 edition, published by Beacon Press). Please enjoy. I look forward to your response:

Paden’s basic definition of religion (or, at least religious behavior) is those actions influenced by the sacred. This definition is different than those presented by other scholars. I have come to believe that the key to defining religion in a way that is universal can only be realized should scholars find a way of defining “humanities,” the genus under which “religion” is often grouped.

On page 48, Paden argues that religion, “like the arts,” is not reducible to sociology. I do not totally agree. The arts are only “the arts” to societies that recognize them as such. In an example, the painting of a woman with a deceptive smile could be simply understood as a portrait useful to the individuals whom produced it and whom it was produced for. To another society, this same painting is the Mona Lisa, an artistic masterpiece. However, this thought process and the environment in which it occurred ultimately led me to what I consider a more useful supposition.

I was listening to classical music while reading this chapter. It occurred to me that not much about classical music is common with the rock music that I at other times listen. Other than being at their core a system of sounds, there seems to be little reducible (common) traits to which one could break down music. This seems to be true of all sub-categories within the humanities. Again, consider art: the Mona Lisa has little in common with a Jackson Pollock exhibit, yet they are understood as intrinsically related. Likewise, we gather wholly different traditions under the penumbra of religion.

The key is to realize that none of these disciplines individually, including religion, are reducible. Perhaps if the religious scholar could distinguish the essence of the greater category, the humanities, of which religion seems to fall below, he or she may be able to better, and in a more universally accepted manner, define “religion,” itself.

Belated Update

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am so very sorry for not having updated Educated Soldier lately. However, my absence online is based on solid reasoning (unlike some presidential campaigns):

I recently ran a campaign for student government election. Because of my efforts, I was resoundingly chosen to become a student senator. I received more than five hundred votes and outpaced some student body presidents in my support. While to some this may seem somewhat juvenile, my position as a University of South Florida student senator will put me, upon inauguration, at the distributive reigns of a 10 million dollar budget which will be allocated as my senate colleagues and I see fit. As a fiscal conservative, you best bet I look forward to cutting fat wherever I can.

Moreover, I am sustaining a junior year in college in which I hope to maintain my streak of 4.0 semesters. My cumulative GPA is 3.85 but the last three semesters have been my best. This semester promises to be even better because I am studying only material of which I am deeply interested; namely historically accurate research into religious traditions.

On top of all that, I am training hard to become Special Forces qualified. As some of you know, I am currently in ROTC and formerly active duty Army. I plan on turning in my status as an ROTC cadet to obtain Special Forces status because I foresee my life’s work on an Operations Detachment Alpha (Special Forces Team) member before returning from military life to do further public work. I live and breathe to become Special Forces qualified.

Meanwhile, I have been following USF Bulls sports, so my time has been limited. However I have been re-mastering my skills on Paint Shop so look for more updates at Educated Soldier and a total website redesign with updated graphics and info!!

Thank you!!

We Deserve Better (H.R. 1955 Is Not It)

While there are several stories worthy of discussion tonight, I am going to focus upon something that has received less attention than deserved.


A piece of proposed legislation has passed the House and is currently shuffling through Senate committee scrutiny before coming to vote in that chamber. The bill is titled, “The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.” For those whom would like to be better informed concerning this bill, it can be tracked while it travels through Congress here and its summary on Wikipedia is located here.


I understand H.R. 1955, in a nutshell, thusly: The bill attempts to define three terms specifically. These terms are: “Violent Radicalization,” “Homegrown Terrorism,” and “Ideologically Based Violence.” It then orders the establishment of an institute to study the fields associated with these newly defined terms.


The stated general purpose is to prevent internally (American) borne terrorism. The implied purpose that I, and others more noteworthy (see next paragraph) recognize, is to allow the federal government regulatory ability in areas that need no such over-watch.


I am highly troubled by this proposed bill; as are others. While I have not been an outspoken fan of Representative Ron Paul’s, I share his criticism of this bill. While he was not present for the House’s vote on HR 1955, he did speak on the floor at a later date in opposition. While the full transcript can be found here and I encourage its reading in its entirety given its brevity, I will highlight the statements by Representative Paul of which I agree:


“There are many causes for concern in HR 1955.”

“(HR 1955) may well be the first step toward US government regulation of what we are allowed to access on the Internet.”

“It leaves the door wide open for the broadest definition of what constitutes “radicalization.””


Other statements in this speech by Representative Paul minimize the risk from internally (American) developed terrorism; this, however, I do not so easily dismiss. However, I do agree wholeheartedly with the points expressed above and raise major objections to this bill. While homegrown terrorism may be a risk, the vague terminology of this bill and the means in which it intends to attack such terrorism are far from the needed solutions.


What’s worse is the ease in which the proposed legislation passed the House. HR 1955 passed 404 to 6. The only noteworthy speech made on behalf of the legislation prior to voting was a request to suspend regular rules of order so as to expressly pass the bill. It’s not just the substance within the proposed legislation that is troubling. Also startling is the lack of scrutiny it was subjected to while in the House. Even in my novice perspective, I see several details that deserve attention; the details noted above by Representative Paul (and echoed here) are severe enough to perhaps cause major opposition to the bill.


I am voicing my own opposition here. I would hope that, as an informed constituent, my readers would also give the bill a glance and form their own opinions. If strong enough, please contact your local representatives and make them aware of how you feel. This bill is a step in the wrong direction and could, worse, present opportunities for government to enforce censorship in ways never intended by our country’s founding fathers.




In closing – and mostly unrelated, I want to encourage all readers to watch the President’s State of the Union speech tonight. I encourage my fellow residents in Florida to participate in tomorrow’s Presidential Primaries. Despite his withdrawal, I will be pledging my continued support for authentic conservative ideals by voting, as promised, for Senator Fred Thompson.

In Hindsight…

…Might this be the most ill-fated advertisement of 2007?

I was reminded of this disgusting overture when I came across this news: General David Petraeus, architect of the successful “surge” strategy in Iraq, is under consideration for nomination to the position of NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander.

In case the above graphic is not recognizable, it was first run in the September 10^th edition of the New York Times. It was financed by Moveon.org, a left-wing smear group. Of course, such a distasteful jab at a fine military officer wouldn’t have been deemed creditable if it weren’t for all the Democratic candidates that Moveon.org has successfully supported in the past.

What’s maybe most interesting (and I’ll let you practice your searching techniques as I rather NOT post a direct link to such a repugnant organization) is that Moveon.org continues, to this day, to defend their traitorous advertisement.

In conclusion, I can only wish the best for General Petraeus in whatever future position he takes on behalf of our country’s security. On the other hand, I can only remind the electorate during this crucial election year of the bedfellows that the Left continues to keep.

South Carolina and a Disheartening Mentality

Many details have prevented me from publishing an edition of Educated Soldier in the last week or so, but I will briefly discuss those issues at the conclusion of today’s post. At that point, I would also like to gloss over some other “administrative”-type housecleaning.

Today, however, is much too important of a day to delay tackling the major issues at hand.

Of course, the big news revolves around the Republican primary currently being conducted in South Carolina.

This is a big day for our candidate of choice, Senator Fred Thompson. He has made it thoroughly clear that South Carolina’s primary is one that will emphatically shape his following campaign. He needs a strong showing. However, he does not necessarily need a victory. The momentum that has been expressed towards his campaign since the Senator’s triumphant debate showing (evidence of which is found HERE – notice the up-tick in funds raised lately) has turned South Carolina from a “must win” to a “must capitalize.” If the numbers pan out as I would hope, a second or third place showing could leave Senator Thompson with a recipe for success: fund-raising momentum and tangible, growing ground support.

For, what its worth, I predict a second place finish for Senator Thompson today, grasping about 19% of the South Carolina vote.

I would recommend heading over to Blogs For Fred Thompson today. It is a very informative site for FredHeads. Moreover, during each of the major primaries, they open a thread where intelligent, informed, conversation transpires amongst interested followers. They also link to the best sites for real-time result tracking. Head over to the Blogs For Fred Thompson, wait for the discussion thread to open up and join me and others in tracking this momentous occasion.

Now to Something Sadly Disheartening...

Last weekend, I was driving home from my National Guard drill. When driving I prefer to listen to talk radio. Doing so seems to expedite the traveling. Driving north on I-275 in Tampa, I passed a vehicle with a bumper sticker advertising their talk radio station of choice. I am choosing not to advertise on their behalf so I will keep the station identity to myself. I decided to give the station an attempt; to see what it was all about. Alas, I turned it on and was quickly greeted with a call-in show flooded with liberal rhetoric. I followed the show nonetheless. For the most part, everything I heard was typical critical banter that one would expect from a show overtly dedicated to ideals of the Left. Then, one caller said something that really made me think:

“Barack Obama is my choice for President. He would bring pride in nation back to Americans.”

This ideology has been spinning in my head since I heard it that day. I hate to throw around the derogatory “Blame America First” designation, but I can hardly think of a better way to describe such a perspective. That the host of the show only agreed and encouraged such discourse is simply salt in a savage wound. Here is the question that I pose in response:

“Why do you need a Presidential candidate to cement your pride in America?”

Maybe it is because I have fairly substantial first-hand knowledge of the events, but I find it difficult to have anything but pride for a country that is willing to take a lead in defeating the most ferocious threats of our time. We are a country that is doing everything in our power to liberate and empower a foreign people. We are surely making mistakes in a tough period of time, but no mistakes are significant enough to dampen my pride in the United States.

Moreover, we are doing all of this while leaving the average American alone. I can nearly guarantee that the caller has little connection to the “inconveniences” of the world around her. No military draft has been instituted. The Patriot Act may have cramped civil liberties to a certain degree but the effects felt by the average American are minimal at best. Security is tighter at airports but most rational people would substitute taking aboard a plane their Venti Latte for the satisfaction on knowing that their flight is as secure as possible.

So why this lack of pride?

The Democratic Party depends upon a growing discourse of hate towards America by Americans to ensure political success.

When I fight with U.S. Army on my chest, I am happy of whom I represent. Apparently, patriotism is a value that has gone absent from the modern Left.

Administrative Notes

I just wanted to make readers aware of a few sites.

First, a couple of university friends and I conduct a radio show on the University of South Florida’s WBUL network. The topics center on sports. We entertain callers and attempt to provide informed analysis of sports both local and national. You can listen live or download the podcasts here: The Power Hour. Shows air Thursday nights, six to seven p.m. (Eastern).

Also, one of those above-mentioned roommates has begun a blog of his own. It also deals with sports and is located here : The State of the Sports Nation.

Delays between posts here at Educated Soldier may increase for the time being as I am tackling a new exciting term of school. I will attempt, however, to be diligent about posting. Until then, enjoy the primaries in South Carolina and Nevada.

The Growing Significance of the Youth Voting Bloc...

...and the Republican Party's disregard for it.

A memo has been circulating amongst Republican National Committee officials. Its subject is the voting trends of young people. Unfortunately, the data indicates that my generation is moving in alarming numbers towards candidates from the Democratic Party.

• A total number of 65,230 individuals between the ages of 17 (rules in Iowa state that you only have to be 18 by the date of the national presidential election to vote) and 29 participated in the Iowa caucuses. From that number, over 52,000 caucused on behalf of Democratic Party candidates!

• 37% of the voters in the New Hampshire primary were under the age of 29. This is a significant percentage. Unfortunately, 61% of those individuals voted for a Democratic candidate.

(All numbers via Tech Republican)


Young people undoubtedly decided the winners in both New Hampshire and Iowa!


Discourse could be held endlessly concerning why these noteworthy trends continue to express themselves. My knee-jerk reaction, as a member of the demographic in focus, would be this: my generation responds well and actively to passion, rhetoric, and well-tuned speeches. Like youth movements of the past, suggested “change” (as manifested historically in “counter culture,” “revolution,” etc) motivates mass support. On the other hand, tough policy discussion with less entertainment value finds deaf ears among my peers.


However, these are all insignificant details in comparison to the single largest deterrent prohibiting young people from endorsing Republicans. The G.O.P. doesn’t attempt to engage the youth movement!!


Something can be done to counter these trends. I do all I can. I have interested my friends in politics. They watch the debates. They are informed participants. By showing them how to become informed, I have noticed that they cease their support for the candidates of empty rhetoric.


My observations have proved that the key to swaying young people from the Democratic Party to Republicans is to get these young people truly informed on the stances of the candidates.


Coverage of the campaigns of the individuals from the two parties depicts mirror opposites. Republicans visit coffee shops and town diners. The Democrats are exciting university campuses and other hang-outs of young adults.


If our demographic is going to be taken seriously as a voting bloc (and the data suggest that it should), the candidates have to physically attempt to engage us.


Let’s bring the Republican candidates to university campuses! I encourage each Republican candidate to address student bodies, engage the youth movement personally, inform and, thus, gain the support of this hitherto inaccessible voting community.


In this effort, I am forwarding this message to every individual that I feel can be accommodating to this effort. I encourage you to do the same. A fraternity brother of mine sits on my university’s lecture committee. Most of us receive mailings from our preferred candidates’ national and local campaign committees. Contact the leaders of these forums and encourage them to bring their candidates to the young people.


Let’s engage all of these individuals and bring the candidates to the campuses. I will do my best to coordinate a speech by Senator Thompson prior to the January 29th Florida Republican primary. The coordination should not be difficult. The candidate desires to be heard and requires the support of the under-29 crowd to be successful. Campuses like the University of South Florida (with an enrollment greater than 40,000) are likely to be home to individuals prepared to listen.


What we can do is make this happen. What we can not do is continue to allow Republican candidates to bypass significant support that has been empirically shown to strongly influence the outcome of the early primaries!

To Catch Bin Laden

While I can fully understand if the average reader has grown tired of the typical opining that one can find here at Educated Soldier of a young man in favor of his chosen Presidential candidate, I encourage you to stay with me one more time. I only have a single brief observation to make on behalf of Senator Fred Thompson and then I want to move on to a wholly original topic.


About Fred Thompson: When I watch debates, I attempt to take the perspective of a neutral viewer. In my own skin and through my own eyes, it is quite difficult to be impartial. That being the case, I attempt to perceive the candidates’ performances as if I were viewing through my mother’s eyes. While my mother is virtuous and knowledgeable enough, I would suggest that my convictions are much more engraved than her own.


And, thus, she tends to be more “naive,” or “impartial.”


Acknowledging her sentiment, I can see why people have not caught on to Fred Thompson’s message. The same reasons that cause me to adore Fred Thompson as a candidate are the reasons that the less politically attentive fail to get excited by him. I trust Fred Thompson because he shoots straight and speaks honestly. The average voter, however, doesn’t seem to value straight-shooting as much as they value passion. It doesn’t seem to matter what a candidate says as much as it matters how he / she says it.


The media has developed this connotation that Fred Thompson is lazy. As long as that connotation exists, the average viewer will interpret Thompson’s calm debate performances as lacking passion. The denotation (that you and I as Thompson supporters understand) is that Thompson is calm because he is running his campaign on substance rather than emotion.


I am disappointed to be a member of a generation that rallies around hollow words delivered emotionally (in the case of, say, Senator Obama and Governor Huckabee) than around an individual that has actual plans to improve America’s condition (see Thompson’s detailed plans for social security and tax reform, et. al).


I admit it: I see why the “average Joe” isn’t fired up by Fred Thompson. Being just as honest, I must confess that I am saddened - as a sacrificing American soldier - that “average Joes” would declare their support for mere rhetoric when much more genuine substance exists.




Moving on…




Call me “crazy,” but I want to be the Secretary of Defense for these United States of America. During the Fox News Republican Forum, I heard Senator McCain suggest that he has a plan for catching Osama Bin Laden. I can not hold the distinguished Senator to that claim. However, I can argue that I have a successful plan that I would implement should I, hypothetically, assume the role of Secretary of Defense.


I know it sound crazy but please follow with me.


Alright, foremost, as Secretary of Defense, I would focus most of my attention on the most important individuals that we have fighting on America’s behalf in the Global War on Terrorism. These are America’s Special Operations Forces.


As the new Secretary of Defense, I would double the size of the Combat Applications Group (“CAG,” Special Forces Operational Detachment – Delta, “Delta Force,” what have you). I would leave half the squadron under the command of SOCOM. The other half I would put under the direct control of the Pentagon. And, when I say “under the control of the Pentagon,” I mean it in the sense that half the squadron would answer only to the Secretary of Defense (me) and his (my) most trusted advisors – very, very few levels of management.


Both halves of the C.A.G. squadron would have equal training. I only want individuals who are ready for today’s fight. And today’s fight occurs in remote regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan. C.A.G. would be knee-deep in men that train and desire nothing more than to live in arduous conditions, sleep in caves (or less), and terminate the enemy.


I want individuals who speak the language and understand the culture. They would live the culture. They would be able to develop actionable intelligence. And by quickly dialing SOCOM or the Pentagon, they would have instant authorization to act on the knowledge that they gained. The key to catching high value targets is the elimination of delay between gaining intelligence and acting decisively on it! With less micro-management, my Combat Applications Group would have Osama and the top heads of Al Qaeda dead or in custody in just a few months.


The above-described plan would be key to my success as Secretary of Defense. My next step would be to continue to the current re-modularization of the military into a force that can operation autonomously at the brigade level and below.


I would increase our Special Operations Forces. I would ENSURE that the Army’s Special Forces Groups are language and culture proficient. I would disregard all Special Operations Generals and Admirals who are only proficient in direct action missions. If I was Secretary of Defense, no one would command SOCOM (or any SOF element) unless they could command troops in the implementation of foreign internal defense, unconventional warfare, and other SOF-particular missions; proficiency solely in counter-terrorism or direct action does not equate a SOF – qualified leader.


The infantry battalions in the 82nd Airborne Division, the 101st, the Marines, etc… their direct action capabilities would be sharpened to their utmost. I want these infantryman conducting the reactionary missions; not my SOF personnel. SOF gathers and reacts instantaneously.


The misuse of Special Operations Forces is the single most devastating mistake being made in the War on Terror.


I would work hand-in-hand with diplomatic and intelligence agents. I would rebuild the military intelligence networks of days gone by. For every ambassador, there would be a Special Forces team with language or cultural knowledge to work cooperatively. I would encourage the CIA, DIA, et. al, peers to work as a team to develop any and all data in every area, whether friendly or foe…


And that’s about it.


I am 24 years old. I study religious and international studies at the University of South Florida. I have ambition to be a National Guard Special Forces soldier after attending law school. I would like to be a congressman. These are all goals and I am but determined and young. Yet, I believe that all I posed tonight in this alcohol-inspired rant could truly be implemented to better secure the world’s greatest nation.

Condolences

It’s past two in the morning…

I am tired…

I was ready to go to bed when I found the following link:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/01/andy-olmsted.html

I have no connection to the author of the blog nor the soldier in reference. I knew nothing of the situation until I clicked the same link above that I plead to you to now access…

This is a heart-wrenching story… Tiredness seems less nagging; politics less important…

I see a lot of myself in the Major…

Please read; my condolences to those left behind

Knee-Jerk Reaction to the Iowa Results

Ladies and gentlemen,


It is getting late and I am still awaiting the final precincts to come in with the results of their Republican caucus votes in Iowa. Moreover, I just completed a tiring week that culminated an arduous (albeit thoroughly enjoyable) month. However, before resting tonight, I feel that I absolutely have to address what occurred tonight in Iowa and in the world of American politics as we finally begin to tangibly select our next President.


I genuinely hope that the passion that I have for these events, the Iowa caucuses and the choosing of our next Commander in Chief, is as evident in this blog as it is in my heart right now.


There is hardly anything that gives me such thrill and anxiety as sports. Yet, tonight as I watched rather impatiently for the political results from Iowa to trickle in, I found my heart pounding and my excitement level on par with what I felt in El Paso on Monday after traveling 2000 miles to watch my university’s football team play in the Sun Bowl. I take pride in cheering on USF’s Bulls in college sports; I am a passionate fan of the NFL’s Eagles. These teams give me such pride and, when they lose, I take their defeat personally. I found myself facing similar feelings tonight. My interest for the caucuses in Iowa was not in passing. It was genuine passion; the same inner fire that I long thought only sport could provoke.


I am relating this passion for a reason. Much is often said of the importance of the “next” generation. Rallies seem to always develop around the concept that there always exists a group of young people that symbolize the future of our country. I genuinely feel that I am a member of this group that represents America’s next leaders. Whether that leadership will be on a battlefield, a corporate setting, a court room, political space, or merely among the neighborhood watch, I feel that I will be there to help take charge and lead the way.


From that perspective of America’s “next” generation of leadership, with the intense desire to contribute to a process so important that it decides the next leader of the Free World, I plead to all readers to please be at least sympathetic to the charge in which I stand so passionately.


There is no hiding that I unequivocally back a single candidate in the running to become the next President of the United States. The endorsement for Fred Thompson is obviously apparent through the images and continued rhetoric on this site. And tonight, I am going to make an impassioned plea on his behalf. However, I would hate for a reader to judge me as partisan or closed to the ideas presented by the others running. In fact, I would love to be the first to congratulate Barack Obama tonight.


In the delivery of his victory speech tonight, I heard one of the more moving political speeches of my young life. The grand ideology that Senator Obama represents is truly moving. I think his elevation to genuine viability as a Presidential candidate is great for America. I am nearly saddened that I disagree so fully with the political platform on which he stands because he is a great and passionate campaigner. I think there is a place in a Republican-led executive for him and the country would be better for it.


However, with that being said, I stand staunchly behind my belief that Senator Fred Thompson is the best qualified candidate to become America’s next President. And, leaving Iowa’s caucuses, I feel that he is in a good position to win the Republican nomination yet.


Here is my theory.


Governor Huckabee did not win the endorsement of Iowa’s Republicans tonight. He received the endorsement of Iowa’s evangelical types. Withdraw the votes of these individuals (whose presence is not nearly as evident in most other states), and the Republican caucus was little more than a wash between Huckabee and Romney with Thompson and Senator McCain close behind. Looking at the results that way, and Huckabee’s victory becomes much less significant.


Now we face an important upcoming debate and then the voting in New Hampshire. While Senator Thompson has no opportunity to place in New Hampshire where he has not campaigned, the debates and the dialogue surely to surface should do little more than tear Huckabee down. ALL of the Republican candidates will now be gunning for Governor Huckabee and his weak conservative record should become obvious. Despite that, either he or Senator McCain should still topple Romney in New Hampshire. This should indicate the beginning of the end for Romney’s campaign.


This all leads to South Carolina’s primary where Senator Thompson is in a position to do very well. He polls well in the southern state and voters there appreciate his long-proven conservative values. However it pans out, the G.O.P. field is wide open and as a candidate that appeals to the party’s base, Thompson looks to undoubtedly move up in the future primaries. But he is going to need help.


And this plea for help is why I write tonight with so much passion.


Senator Thompson’s political ability is strong enough to allow him to seize the Republican Party’s nomination. This is in the best interest of the party, in the best interest of America’s “next” leaders, and in the best interest of the country. What Senator Thompson lacks is monetary assets. I can only do so much. I contribute financially small amounts whenever my college student budget allows. Senator Thompson needs the financial support of those with greater ability to contribute than I. I beg passionately that those that are able to do so contribute to this campaign.


The battle of principles will not prevent Senator Fred Thompson from capturing the White House. He is only limited by the depths of his treasury. It would be such a shame to see such a viable candidate with a potential for victory to have to impede his campaign because of the limitations of money.


Let’s continue to support our candidate. Tonight was a good night for Fred Thompson, the Republican Party and, ultimately, the United States of America. From a passionate, youthful supporter, I encourage you to help make tomorrow just as successful!!